This one is a tough call. I could have gone 3 stars, but we'll just stick with 2 1/2.
Amanda Seyfried and Gael Garcia Bernal are engaged. She is a fact checker for New York Magazine and he is a chef who is about to open his own restaurant. They go on a pre-honeymoon to Italy where he manages to keep finding ways to do things she doesn't want to do, like visit food distributors and wine tasting. For him, the trip is basically a business trip.
She discovers the home of Juliet, from Romeo and Juliet. Since she was a fictional character, I'm not exactly sure how there is a home of Juliet, but nevermind. Lovesick girls go to the wall outside Juliet's home and leave letters for Juliet. These letters are all about their relationships, and I guess these women would rather write to a fictional character than, I don't know, an advice columnist. I can understand kids writing letters to Santa, but adult women writing to a fictional character? Whatever.
A group of women known as the secretaries of Juliet go to the wall and collect these letters. I guess the women leave their return addresses on the letters, because the secretaries write back. I don't know who pays these women, or why they do it for free, but Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) ends up befriending the women. Since she has so much free time while her fiance is busy doing his thing, she starts working with the women. That's just what I like to do when I'm on vacation - work.
One day she finds a 50 year old letter hidden in the wall. It was written by a woman named Claire, and in the letter she says she is going to leave the Italian she is in love with and return to London, since her parents wouldn't approve of him. Well, Sophie decides this is just too good to pass up, and she writes back. Of course the letter finds Claire - it's only been 50 years. Either she lives in her parents' house, or she was always very diligent about forwarding her mail.
In the letter, Sophie says Claire should return to Italy and find the guy. She doesn't stop to consider that maybe Claire is happily married or dead, or about the Italian guy's status. But Claire does follow the instructions, and she brings her grandson along. When the grandson Charlie first meets Sophie, they fight. This means that according to the rules of romantic comedy, they will fall in love before the movie is over. This is one place the movie lost me. I was hoping that Sophie would remain with her finace, and the movie would be about Claire, but no. Typical chick flick stuff.
Also, the setup takes a good 20 minutes or so, and it is rather boring. But when Claire enters the picture, it gets much better. Claire is played by the great Vanessa Redgrave, and as soon as she comes on screen, the movie just becomes alive. Her scenes are funny and she makes you fall in love with her right away. As I look through her filmography, I realize that I haven't seen many of her movies, and most of those have been supporting performances. I just might have to rent some of her old movies now.
The rest of the movie is of the three of them traveling around Italy, looking for her lost love. His name is Lorenzo Bartolini, which is a problem, since that is Italy's version of John Anderson. There are tons of them. Obviously Sophie could use her fact checking skills, jump on the internet, and determine the most likely candidate(s), based on what Claire can tell her. But then we wouldn't have a movie. They look up the name, plot them on a map, and go door to door meeting many Lorenzos along the way.
I'm not going to spoil it and tell you whether she finds her Lorenzo, whether he is single, or even alive. I already spoiled what happens with Sophie, but that was obvious as soon as Charlie entered the movie. But the movie is worth seeing for Vanessa Redgrave's performance alone. She has a way of making her lines funny and heartwarming at the same time.
I can't recommend it to everyone, but if the idea of an old woman trying to reconnect with a love from 50 years ago tugs on your heartstrings, you will probably enjoy it.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Iron Man 2 - 2 stars (spoilers)
Iron Man 2 is boring, which is the worst thing a superhero movie can be.
Tony Stark was a fun character the first time around. We saw how cocky he was, but when he was in that cave fighting for his life, we believed it. When his friend (the one who saved his life in the cave) was dying, we really felt his pain and anguish. It made the character very human.
In Iron Man 2, there is none of that pathos. Everything he says and does is done with a wink and a smile. Even when he is at his lowest point, I didn't feel anything for the character the way I did in the first movie. That makes him like Roger Moore's James Bond - a cartoon character.
The first 20 minutes are particularly boring. We are introduced to Mickey Rourke's character. He watches TV with his dad, his dad dies, and he spends 5 minutes making a chest reactor like Tony Stark Has. Next, we see Iron Man jump out of a plane. He flies down and lands on stage at the Stark Expo while the Iron Man Rockettes dance to Shoot to Thrill by AC/DC. This also takes a good 5 minutes.
So nothing happens for the first 10 minutes, and they could have accomplished all this in about 2 minutes.
Next is the congressional hearing scene. This is somewhat interesting. Senator Larry Sanders* wants Tony Stark to turn over the Iron Man weapon to the government. He says no, it's not really a weapon. We meet Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) who is trying to develop his own Iron Man suits. The movie gets interesting for a minute as Stark shows congress video of Hammer working with other nations, including Iran and North Korea, trying to help them get working suits. This is not mentioned again in the movie. Later in the movie the senators will have no problem working with Hammer again. Apparently it's not a big deal that he was working with our enemies.
About 25 minutes in the movie finally gives us a good action scene. You've seen it in the trailers. Mickey Rourke shows up on a raceway in Monaco and cuts Tony's race car in half with his whips. This scene is great, and it has the thing I want most in a superhero movie: a transformation scene. Ever since Superman (1978) I have enjoyed scenes where the superhero changes into his superhero outfit. In this movie, he carries his Iron Man suit around in the form of a briefcase.
Unfortunately this scene is the highlight of the movie. It goes back downhill from there.
How lame is the birthday party scene? It starts out ok. Tony Stark is bummed that he is dying, so he decides to get drunk and have some fun. He's dancing around in the suit and chicks are throwing objects into the air for him to blast with his hand blaster thingy. His buddy Rhodes is looking in disapproval. What Rhodes should do is either leave in disgust, or try to talk some sense into Stark. What does he do instead? Goes downstairs, puts on another Iron Man suit (the War Machine suit), and starts to fight Tony Stark. Is he really so mad that he wants to kill him? Or does he just plan on beating the crap out of him with the suit?
So we get a couple of minutes of the two fighting in the suits. Which is boring for several reasons. One, we know neither of them is going to be seriously hurt or killed, so there is no tension. Also, we aren't rooting for either of them to win. We know Stark is being a jackass, but he's the hero of the movie. And isn't it ridiculous that Rhodes can step into the suit for the first time and hold his own against Stark? Remember the first movie, where it took Stark a long time to learn to fly and stuff?
We find out early on that Stark is dying. The energy core that keeps him alive is also slowly poisoning him. So part of the movie is about him trying to figure out how to stay alive. The way it is resolved is really stupid. At first, we think the SHIELD organization is going to help him, but all they do is confine him to his house and tell him to keep working on it. He solves the problem with the help of his late father, through the outtakes of a video his dad did, and using a model of a town or something. It doesn't really make much sense. How did his father know he would ever need it, and why did he hide it? His dad should have just left him a note: "Tony, if we ever invent a way to synthesize new elements, make THIS ONE. Love, Dad".
There were some good story ideas here. Mickey Rourke's villain (Ivan Drago, or whatever) could have been fun, but he was not in the movie enough. And when he was in the movie, he spent all his time typing on a computer. The idea that Tony is dying could have been good, and introducing Hammer as a rival could have also been interesting. But everything was handled so badly in the movie. Maybe the script was good but they had too long of a movie so they cut the hell out of it. Blame the editing. Or maybe the script was bad to begin with. The first movie was written by Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby (best name ever!), and Part 2 was written by Justin Theroux. Why not keep with the same writers? They did a great job with the first movie.
* That's not really his name in the movie, but wouldn't it have been cool if it was? Hey now!
Tony Stark was a fun character the first time around. We saw how cocky he was, but when he was in that cave fighting for his life, we believed it. When his friend (the one who saved his life in the cave) was dying, we really felt his pain and anguish. It made the character very human.
In Iron Man 2, there is none of that pathos. Everything he says and does is done with a wink and a smile. Even when he is at his lowest point, I didn't feel anything for the character the way I did in the first movie. That makes him like Roger Moore's James Bond - a cartoon character.
The first 20 minutes are particularly boring. We are introduced to Mickey Rourke's character. He watches TV with his dad, his dad dies, and he spends 5 minutes making a chest reactor like Tony Stark Has. Next, we see Iron Man jump out of a plane. He flies down and lands on stage at the Stark Expo while the Iron Man Rockettes dance to Shoot to Thrill by AC/DC. This also takes a good 5 minutes.
So nothing happens for the first 10 minutes, and they could have accomplished all this in about 2 minutes.
Next is the congressional hearing scene. This is somewhat interesting. Senator Larry Sanders* wants Tony Stark to turn over the Iron Man weapon to the government. He says no, it's not really a weapon. We meet Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) who is trying to develop his own Iron Man suits. The movie gets interesting for a minute as Stark shows congress video of Hammer working with other nations, including Iran and North Korea, trying to help them get working suits. This is not mentioned again in the movie. Later in the movie the senators will have no problem working with Hammer again. Apparently it's not a big deal that he was working with our enemies.
About 25 minutes in the movie finally gives us a good action scene. You've seen it in the trailers. Mickey Rourke shows up on a raceway in Monaco and cuts Tony's race car in half with his whips. This scene is great, and it has the thing I want most in a superhero movie: a transformation scene. Ever since Superman (1978) I have enjoyed scenes where the superhero changes into his superhero outfit. In this movie, he carries his Iron Man suit around in the form of a briefcase.
Unfortunately this scene is the highlight of the movie. It goes back downhill from there.
How lame is the birthday party scene? It starts out ok. Tony Stark is bummed that he is dying, so he decides to get drunk and have some fun. He's dancing around in the suit and chicks are throwing objects into the air for him to blast with his hand blaster thingy. His buddy Rhodes is looking in disapproval. What Rhodes should do is either leave in disgust, or try to talk some sense into Stark. What does he do instead? Goes downstairs, puts on another Iron Man suit (the War Machine suit), and starts to fight Tony Stark. Is he really so mad that he wants to kill him? Or does he just plan on beating the crap out of him with the suit?
So we get a couple of minutes of the two fighting in the suits. Which is boring for several reasons. One, we know neither of them is going to be seriously hurt or killed, so there is no tension. Also, we aren't rooting for either of them to win. We know Stark is being a jackass, but he's the hero of the movie. And isn't it ridiculous that Rhodes can step into the suit for the first time and hold his own against Stark? Remember the first movie, where it took Stark a long time to learn to fly and stuff?
We find out early on that Stark is dying. The energy core that keeps him alive is also slowly poisoning him. So part of the movie is about him trying to figure out how to stay alive. The way it is resolved is really stupid. At first, we think the SHIELD organization is going to help him, but all they do is confine him to his house and tell him to keep working on it. He solves the problem with the help of his late father, through the outtakes of a video his dad did, and using a model of a town or something. It doesn't really make much sense. How did his father know he would ever need it, and why did he hide it? His dad should have just left him a note: "Tony, if we ever invent a way to synthesize new elements, make THIS ONE. Love, Dad".
There were some good story ideas here. Mickey Rourke's villain (Ivan Drago, or whatever) could have been fun, but he was not in the movie enough. And when he was in the movie, he spent all his time typing on a computer. The idea that Tony is dying could have been good, and introducing Hammer as a rival could have also been interesting. But everything was handled so badly in the movie. Maybe the script was good but they had too long of a movie so they cut the hell out of it. Blame the editing. Or maybe the script was bad to begin with. The first movie was written by Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby (best name ever!), and Part 2 was written by Justin Theroux. Why not keep with the same writers? They did a great job with the first movie.
* That's not really his name in the movie, but wouldn't it have been cool if it was? Hey now!
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) - 1 star
I'm getting really tired of bad remakes of good movies. The only reason to remake a movie is if you can improve upon it. Take a bad movie, fix what didn't work about it, and make a good movie. But the 1984 A Nightmare on Elm Street was a great movie and it holds up just fine, so there was no reason for this.
Jackie Earl Haley did a good job as a psycho killer, but he is no Freddy. Only Robert England can play Freddy. The rest of the cast kind of sucked. It's like Freddy meets the cast of The Hills or something. A bunch of pretty actors who can barely act. Of course, the screenwriters gave them nothing to do in the first place.
In the original Nightmare, Heather Langenkamp looked like the girl next door. She didn't look like a supermodel. And Wes Craven gave her, her parents, and her boyfriend enough screen time to create really good characters. Think about how much screen time Freddy actually had in the original. I bet it isn't more than 15 minutes total. The rest of the movie was spent with the other characters, you know, the ones that we don't want to die. The problem with the new Nightmare, as well as most horror movies nowadays, is that we don't get to know any of the characters enough to like them, or root for them. We are basically only rooting for them to die.
The new Nightmare gives a lot of screen time to Freddy. We also see his back story. In the original, we were told about it (through good dialogue and good acting), and it was very effective. But seeing how Freddy became what he is takes some of the mystique away from him. Just like learning how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader, or seeing Boba Fett as a kid, too much back story can ruin a character.
This movie was worse than Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare.
Jackie Earl Haley did a good job as a psycho killer, but he is no Freddy. Only Robert England can play Freddy. The rest of the cast kind of sucked. It's like Freddy meets the cast of The Hills or something. A bunch of pretty actors who can barely act. Of course, the screenwriters gave them nothing to do in the first place.
In the original Nightmare, Heather Langenkamp looked like the girl next door. She didn't look like a supermodel. And Wes Craven gave her, her parents, and her boyfriend enough screen time to create really good characters. Think about how much screen time Freddy actually had in the original. I bet it isn't more than 15 minutes total. The rest of the movie was spent with the other characters, you know, the ones that we don't want to die. The problem with the new Nightmare, as well as most horror movies nowadays, is that we don't get to know any of the characters enough to like them, or root for them. We are basically only rooting for them to die.
The new Nightmare gives a lot of screen time to Freddy. We also see his back story. In the original, we were told about it (through good dialogue and good acting), and it was very effective. But seeing how Freddy became what he is takes some of the mystique away from him. Just like learning how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader, or seeing Boba Fett as a kid, too much back story can ruin a character.
This movie was worse than Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Iron Man 2 clips
We are only a week and a half away from Iron Man 2. Can't wait? Here are a few clips to tide you over.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
April 9 and April 16
Kick-Ass - 3 1/2 stars
I loved it. It does have this wierd tonal shift half way through. For a while, it is simply funny. A little dark, but mostly funny. Then, people start getting killed, and the movie gets serious. And dark. Very dark.
The finale was awesome. Exactly what you would hope for from this kind of movie. Some people are going to have trouble with Hit Girl, though. If the idea of a 12-year-old girl killing people, saying the worst curse words, and getting the crap kicked out of her makes you queasy, maybe this isn't your movie.
Death at a Funeral - 3 stars
I can't remember the last time a movie was remade within 3 years, when both movies are in the same language. The British version was directed by Frank Oz and starred a bunch of British actors (plus Alan Tudyk and Peter Dinklage). This version stars Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence, Tracy Morgan, Danny Glover, James Marsden, and Peter Dinklage.
I liked the British version, but I don't remember it specifically enough to compare these two. But this one was really funny. The rhythm isn't quite as good as I remember the other version to be. Farce is really difficult to pull off, and at times that's what this is. But the jokes keep coming and I laughed enough to recommend it.
The best laughs come from not Martin or Rock, but James Marsden. Over the last several years he has been the best thing about almost every movie he is in. Remember when he was the most boring part of X-Men?
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo - 3 1/2 stars
A great thriller from Sweden. A reporter who is about to serve a prison sentence is asked to solve a 40-year-old murder (apparently in Sweden, you get sentenced to prison, but you don't have to report to prison for 6 months). He is aided by a girl with tattoos, piercings, and a very dark past. She is a little psycho.
The movie is 2 and a half hours, and it does take a while to get going. But before the plot kicks in, we get a little sub plot dealing with the girl and her parole officer (called a guardian in the movie). What happens with them is very creepy and disturbing, but it establishes how smart she is and how well she can take care of herself.
The Eclipse - 3 stars
Ciaran Hinds is one of my favorite actors, and I'm glad to see him in a starring role playing a sympathetic character. Set in Ireland, Hinds plays widower who is trying to raise his two kids. He volunteers at a literary festival to play chauffeur to visiting authors, and he strikes up a friendship with a lady author from London. The two kind of start an awkward romance, but because he is still grieving about his wife, he takes things slowly with her.
Oh, did I mention that this is also a ghost story? Every now and then, he sees a ghost. This isn't the typical ghost story. The ghost isn't trying to get him to solve a murder. It isn't coming to hurt him, although it does scare the crap out of him (and the audience) a few times. The funny thing is this movie puts you off your guard. You don't expect to see the ghosts, so when something scary does happen, it makes you jump and scream because it is so unexpected. At least, it did that for me.
The Joneses - 3 stars
Very interesting idea. A family moves into a rich neighborhood. Right away they start making friends with everyone, showing off their latest toys. Everybody is jealous, and wants to keep up with these Joneses. But they are not a real family. They are stealth marketers. Their job is to set up networks and get all these people to buy certain products.
David Duchovney and Demi Moore play the pretend couple. Moore is very career oriented, and claims she has no problem with this lifestyle. But Duchovney starts feeling conflicted, and starts developing feelings for his fake wife.
The movie makes some nice comments about our consumer culture, and shows how always trying to get the latest and greatest toy can ruin your life, if you are living above your means.
Date Night - 3 stars
Very predictable. We have seen this type of movie many times before. What makes it better than it should be is Steve Carrell and Tina Fey. They improved a lot of lines that elevate the material. It reminded me of Ghost Town, another by-the-numbers movie that was made a lot better by having a really funny leading actor.
The Runaways - 3 stars
I liked the first half. Michael Shannon steals the movie as Kim Fowley, the guy who put the band together and served as its manager. Dakota Fanning and Kristen Stewart are pretty good as Cherie Currie and Joan Jett. In the first half, the band gets together and they have their successes.
One problem with the movie is that it focuses on Cherie Currie. I was more interested in Joan Jett and Lita Ford. I didn't care about Currie's sister or father or their home life. The movie feels like it is missing a good 20 minutes from the end. One of the rare cases where I say the movie was too short, but when it ended, I was like "that's it?"
Vincere - 2 stars
Really the only reason to see this is if you are a student of Italian history circa World War II. I knew a bit about Mussolini, but I had never heard of his alleged first wife who bore him a child. He tried to keep her hidden, because he was married to another, and didn't want the scandal. I guess being allied with Hitler was ok, scandal wise, but having another wife was not ok. Well, he did need The Vatican on his side in the beginning.
I loved it. It does have this wierd tonal shift half way through. For a while, it is simply funny. A little dark, but mostly funny. Then, people start getting killed, and the movie gets serious. And dark. Very dark.
The finale was awesome. Exactly what you would hope for from this kind of movie. Some people are going to have trouble with Hit Girl, though. If the idea of a 12-year-old girl killing people, saying the worst curse words, and getting the crap kicked out of her makes you queasy, maybe this isn't your movie.
Death at a Funeral - 3 stars
I can't remember the last time a movie was remade within 3 years, when both movies are in the same language. The British version was directed by Frank Oz and starred a bunch of British actors (plus Alan Tudyk and Peter Dinklage). This version stars Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence, Tracy Morgan, Danny Glover, James Marsden, and Peter Dinklage.
I liked the British version, but I don't remember it specifically enough to compare these two. But this one was really funny. The rhythm isn't quite as good as I remember the other version to be. Farce is really difficult to pull off, and at times that's what this is. But the jokes keep coming and I laughed enough to recommend it.
The best laughs come from not Martin or Rock, but James Marsden. Over the last several years he has been the best thing about almost every movie he is in. Remember when he was the most boring part of X-Men?
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo - 3 1/2 stars
A great thriller from Sweden. A reporter who is about to serve a prison sentence is asked to solve a 40-year-old murder (apparently in Sweden, you get sentenced to prison, but you don't have to report to prison for 6 months). He is aided by a girl with tattoos, piercings, and a very dark past. She is a little psycho.
The movie is 2 and a half hours, and it does take a while to get going. But before the plot kicks in, we get a little sub plot dealing with the girl and her parole officer (called a guardian in the movie). What happens with them is very creepy and disturbing, but it establishes how smart she is and how well she can take care of herself.
The Eclipse - 3 stars
Ciaran Hinds is one of my favorite actors, and I'm glad to see him in a starring role playing a sympathetic character. Set in Ireland, Hinds plays widower who is trying to raise his two kids. He volunteers at a literary festival to play chauffeur to visiting authors, and he strikes up a friendship with a lady author from London. The two kind of start an awkward romance, but because he is still grieving about his wife, he takes things slowly with her.
Oh, did I mention that this is also a ghost story? Every now and then, he sees a ghost. This isn't the typical ghost story. The ghost isn't trying to get him to solve a murder. It isn't coming to hurt him, although it does scare the crap out of him (and the audience) a few times. The funny thing is this movie puts you off your guard. You don't expect to see the ghosts, so when something scary does happen, it makes you jump and scream because it is so unexpected. At least, it did that for me.
The Joneses - 3 stars
Very interesting idea. A family moves into a rich neighborhood. Right away they start making friends with everyone, showing off their latest toys. Everybody is jealous, and wants to keep up with these Joneses. But they are not a real family. They are stealth marketers. Their job is to set up networks and get all these people to buy certain products.
David Duchovney and Demi Moore play the pretend couple. Moore is very career oriented, and claims she has no problem with this lifestyle. But Duchovney starts feeling conflicted, and starts developing feelings for his fake wife.
The movie makes some nice comments about our consumer culture, and shows how always trying to get the latest and greatest toy can ruin your life, if you are living above your means.
Date Night - 3 stars
Very predictable. We have seen this type of movie many times before. What makes it better than it should be is Steve Carrell and Tina Fey. They improved a lot of lines that elevate the material. It reminded me of Ghost Town, another by-the-numbers movie that was made a lot better by having a really funny leading actor.
The Runaways - 3 stars
I liked the first half. Michael Shannon steals the movie as Kim Fowley, the guy who put the band together and served as its manager. Dakota Fanning and Kristen Stewart are pretty good as Cherie Currie and Joan Jett. In the first half, the band gets together and they have their successes.
One problem with the movie is that it focuses on Cherie Currie. I was more interested in Joan Jett and Lita Ford. I didn't care about Currie's sister or father or their home life. The movie feels like it is missing a good 20 minutes from the end. One of the rare cases where I say the movie was too short, but when it ended, I was like "that's it?"
Vincere - 2 stars
Really the only reason to see this is if you are a student of Italian history circa World War II. I knew a bit about Mussolini, but I had never heard of his alleged first wife who bore him a child. He tried to keep her hidden, because he was married to another, and didn't want the scandal. I guess being allied with Hitler was ok, scandal wise, but having another wife was not ok. Well, he did need The Vatican on his side in the beginning.
Monday, April 5, 2010
A few more reviews
I don't always manage to see every movie that comes out each week. Over the weekend I caught up on a few movies that have come out over the last month or so:
She's Out Of My League - 3 stars
I've seen this kind of movie before, but usually the roles are reversed. Guys are usually portrayed as confident and it's the girl who is unsure of herself and thinks she is unattractive (usually these girls are played by smoking hot actresses like Amy Adams). This time, it's the guy who has no self esteem. The guy is played by Jay Baruchel. When he starts going out with Molly (Alice Eve, the hot, naked Australian chick from Crossing Over), his friends can't believe it. "Why is she with you? She's a 10 and you're a 5." Every unattractive guy likes to think he can hook up with a really hot chick like that, but it rarely happens.
I had the same problem with this movie as I do with all those chick flicks, where we are supposed to believe a girl that looks like Katherine Heigl can't get a guy. Baruchel isn't really a 5. He keeps saying he is 'out of shape'. If he looked like Jonah Hill, I would have believed him. He is tall and skinny. Maybe skinny isn't as good as muscular, but it's a lot better than fat.
Oh, and it's also funny how every girl in the movie is as good looking as Alice Eve is, but since the script says she is the hottest girl around, she is the one that turns heads, while nobody notices her sister or business partner.
I still liked the movie a lot. There were some really funny things that happened. My favorite scene is where his friend helps him, well, shave his balls. Yeah, that happens. Another great scene is when he meets her parents for the first time. Hilarious.
I have to point out another thing I didn't like. In every romantic comedy, there seems to be a big secret or plot device that is on the poster, and it's the tag line of the movie. And all those movies follow the same formula, so that means at about the 90 minute mark, one character has to find out the other character has been keeping something from him/her, get mad and never want to see the other person again. Then the next 15 minutes or so is the person being depressed, and by the end they are happy and together again (usually this finale involves a character proclaiming their love in front of a lot of people, or chasing someone down in an airport).
Well, in this movie's case, the tag line is "how can a 10 fall for a 5?" This is a recurring theme in the movie, and it comes to a head when Baruchel's character can't help but blow up at Molly - "how can you like me? I'm a 5, you're a 10, and there can't be more than a 2 point differential in a relationship?" When this fight happened, I didn't believe it at all. By this point, they were happy together and this shouldn't have been such an issue. He may have joked about it with her, but he wouldn't have actually been mad at her. Especially when they were in their underwear and about to have sex for the first time. I didn't believe this scene at all, and this is the point where I got mad at the movie. Why does every romantic comedy have to follow this formula? The movie was going along great up until this point.
Anyway, I recommend the movie.
North Face - 3 stars
Set in 1936, this is about 4 mountain climbers (2 German, 2 Austrian) who attempt to climb the most dangerous rock face in the Alps - the Eiger. This is one of the few movies where some characters are Nazis, but that isn't really central to the plot. We identify with the protagonists and forget their nationality. Most of these characters have no love for Hitler, they just happen to be German citizens in the 1930s.
The mountain climbing stuff is really intense. I have no idea how they can do it. Not only are they climbing a vertical cliff where they have to hammer pitons into the rock and use rope to survive, but they have to spend the night part way up the mountain. No room to pitch a tent. They just get in their sleeping bags, and tie ropes around themselves to keep from rolling off the mountain. Just imagine if you woke up and forgot where you were at first, only to come to and realize you were inches away from a 1,000 foot drop.
I have a big question about this movie though. There is a train that runs thru the mountain. Every so many meters, there is a tunnel branching off the main tunnel the train runs thru, and these tunnels open to the Eiger's face. At one point, the climbers get stuck and the people on the ground take the train into the tunnel, go to the end of one of these branching tunnels, and they are close enough to talk to the climbers.
Didn't the climbers know about this? It seems their girlfriend is the only one who figures out that they may be able to rescue them thru this tunnel. You would think the climbers would know about these tunnels. They know how dangerous the climb will be. You would think they would have backup plans in case they ran into trouble ("If we get stuck in this area, we just make our way over to this opening here, and we can get into the tunnel and take the train back.").
Oh well. The movie was pretty exciting. They deal with harsh weather and as they get frostbite, they look really bad. They did a great job with the makeup. Their faces got so bad that I couldn't tell which character was which.
The movie also makes me really want to take a vacation to Germany. Specifically, I want to visit the village that is right at the base of the Eiger mountain.
A Prophet - 2 1/2 stars
This movie has a 90 on Metacritic and a 97% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It swept the Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar. But I didn't like it that much. I'm very much in the minority.
It's 2 and a half hours long, and it feels like it. It's about a guy named Malik El Djebena who goes to prison for 6 years. While inside, he is ordered by Cesar (Niels Arestrup) to kill a guy. This guy is going to testify against somebody, and Cesar is like the Godfather in prison. You do what he says, or you die.
So Malik does what Cesar orders him to do. He becomes a member of the gang and eventually becomes Cesar's most trusted adviser/servant. He also manages to get his own drug running business going inside and outside the prison.
There's some good stuff in this movie. I really liked Arestrup's performance as Cesar. But there is also a lot going on that is kind of confusing. It's one of those movies that makes you go to imdb.com to read about what happened in this scene or that scene. It is definitely an exciting and original movie, but I can't really recommend it to most people. There is not a lot of humor and I found it difficult to relate to the characters. It kind of bored me. Sorry. Just like Waltz With Bashir, I don't see what the big deal is.
Hubble 3D - 4 stars
This doesn't really count, since it wasn't screened for critics and it's only playing at the Clark Planetarium. It's a great 40 minute documentary about the last mission to repair the Hubble space telescope. The shuttle launches in it are great and the movie does a good job of putting you inside the mindset of the astronauts. You feel their excitement at what they are doing, and as you learn how difficult their mission is, you feel their stress. At one point an astronaut compares his job to doing brain surgery while wearing oven mitts.
There is a great sequence towards the end where we see some great shots of distant galaxies. The camera moves closer and it gives you the feeling like you are flying thru space. It's really incredible. Highly recommended.
She's Out Of My League - 3 stars
I've seen this kind of movie before, but usually the roles are reversed. Guys are usually portrayed as confident and it's the girl who is unsure of herself and thinks she is unattractive (usually these girls are played by smoking hot actresses like Amy Adams). This time, it's the guy who has no self esteem. The guy is played by Jay Baruchel. When he starts going out with Molly (Alice Eve, the hot, naked Australian chick from Crossing Over), his friends can't believe it. "Why is she with you? She's a 10 and you're a 5." Every unattractive guy likes to think he can hook up with a really hot chick like that, but it rarely happens.
I had the same problem with this movie as I do with all those chick flicks, where we are supposed to believe a girl that looks like Katherine Heigl can't get a guy. Baruchel isn't really a 5. He keeps saying he is 'out of shape'. If he looked like Jonah Hill, I would have believed him. He is tall and skinny. Maybe skinny isn't as good as muscular, but it's a lot better than fat.
Oh, and it's also funny how every girl in the movie is as good looking as Alice Eve is, but since the script says she is the hottest girl around, she is the one that turns heads, while nobody notices her sister or business partner.
I still liked the movie a lot. There were some really funny things that happened. My favorite scene is where his friend helps him, well, shave his balls. Yeah, that happens. Another great scene is when he meets her parents for the first time. Hilarious.
I have to point out another thing I didn't like. In every romantic comedy, there seems to be a big secret or plot device that is on the poster, and it's the tag line of the movie. And all those movies follow the same formula, so that means at about the 90 minute mark, one character has to find out the other character has been keeping something from him/her, get mad and never want to see the other person again. Then the next 15 minutes or so is the person being depressed, and by the end they are happy and together again (usually this finale involves a character proclaiming their love in front of a lot of people, or chasing someone down in an airport).
Well, in this movie's case, the tag line is "how can a 10 fall for a 5?" This is a recurring theme in the movie, and it comes to a head when Baruchel's character can't help but blow up at Molly - "how can you like me? I'm a 5, you're a 10, and there can't be more than a 2 point differential in a relationship?" When this fight happened, I didn't believe it at all. By this point, they were happy together and this shouldn't have been such an issue. He may have joked about it with her, but he wouldn't have actually been mad at her. Especially when they were in their underwear and about to have sex for the first time. I didn't believe this scene at all, and this is the point where I got mad at the movie. Why does every romantic comedy have to follow this formula? The movie was going along great up until this point.
Anyway, I recommend the movie.
North Face - 3 stars
Set in 1936, this is about 4 mountain climbers (2 German, 2 Austrian) who attempt to climb the most dangerous rock face in the Alps - the Eiger. This is one of the few movies where some characters are Nazis, but that isn't really central to the plot. We identify with the protagonists and forget their nationality. Most of these characters have no love for Hitler, they just happen to be German citizens in the 1930s.
The mountain climbing stuff is really intense. I have no idea how they can do it. Not only are they climbing a vertical cliff where they have to hammer pitons into the rock and use rope to survive, but they have to spend the night part way up the mountain. No room to pitch a tent. They just get in their sleeping bags, and tie ropes around themselves to keep from rolling off the mountain. Just imagine if you woke up and forgot where you were at first, only to come to and realize you were inches away from a 1,000 foot drop.
I have a big question about this movie though. There is a train that runs thru the mountain. Every so many meters, there is a tunnel branching off the main tunnel the train runs thru, and these tunnels open to the Eiger's face. At one point, the climbers get stuck and the people on the ground take the train into the tunnel, go to the end of one of these branching tunnels, and they are close enough to talk to the climbers.
Didn't the climbers know about this? It seems their girlfriend is the only one who figures out that they may be able to rescue them thru this tunnel. You would think the climbers would know about these tunnels. They know how dangerous the climb will be. You would think they would have backup plans in case they ran into trouble ("If we get stuck in this area, we just make our way over to this opening here, and we can get into the tunnel and take the train back.").
Oh well. The movie was pretty exciting. They deal with harsh weather and as they get frostbite, they look really bad. They did a great job with the makeup. Their faces got so bad that I couldn't tell which character was which.
The movie also makes me really want to take a vacation to Germany. Specifically, I want to visit the village that is right at the base of the Eiger mountain.
A Prophet - 2 1/2 stars
This movie has a 90 on Metacritic and a 97% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It swept the Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar. But I didn't like it that much. I'm very much in the minority.
It's 2 and a half hours long, and it feels like it. It's about a guy named Malik El Djebena who goes to prison for 6 years. While inside, he is ordered by Cesar (Niels Arestrup) to kill a guy. This guy is going to testify against somebody, and Cesar is like the Godfather in prison. You do what he says, or you die.
So Malik does what Cesar orders him to do. He becomes a member of the gang and eventually becomes Cesar's most trusted adviser/servant. He also manages to get his own drug running business going inside and outside the prison.
There's some good stuff in this movie. I really liked Arestrup's performance as Cesar. But there is also a lot going on that is kind of confusing. It's one of those movies that makes you go to imdb.com to read about what happened in this scene or that scene. It is definitely an exciting and original movie, but I can't really recommend it to most people. There is not a lot of humor and I found it difficult to relate to the characters. It kind of bored me. Sorry. Just like Waltz With Bashir, I don't see what the big deal is.
Hubble 3D - 4 stars
This doesn't really count, since it wasn't screened for critics and it's only playing at the Clark Planetarium. It's a great 40 minute documentary about the last mission to repair the Hubble space telescope. The shuttle launches in it are great and the movie does a good job of putting you inside the mindset of the astronauts. You feel their excitement at what they are doing, and as you learn how difficult their mission is, you feel their stress. At one point an astronaut compares his job to doing brain surgery while wearing oven mitts.
There is a great sequence towards the end where we see some great shots of distant galaxies. The camera moves closer and it gives you the feeling like you are flying thru space. It's really incredible. Highly recommended.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Friday, 4/2/10
Clash of the Titans - 2 1/2 stars
First off, don't go see this in 3-D. Don't pay the extra money. See it in 2-D. The only reason it's in 3-D is the figured they could make more money, and people would be more excited to see it, if it was in 3-D. The problem is it was not filmed for 3-D. So the 3-D looks kind of lame, and it's not worth the extra bucks.
The movie wasn't horrible, but Sam Worthington is not charismatic enough to carry a movie. This is the 3rd movie I've seen him in, and he disappoints every time. He bores me. He isn't as bad as Paul Walker, but he's close. I never really cared about the characters. I got sick of Perseus complaining all the time. He gets these really cool gifts from the gods, but he angrily says "I'm not using them. I'm going to do this as a man, not as a god." Meanwhile guys around him are being killed. Dude, stop your bitching and use the nifty magic sword that Zeus gave you.
The action is pretty cool. The giant scorpion battle was fun. But I wasn't afraid of the Kraken. They didn't do a good job of making it seem like a real threat. Watching it destroy the city, all I could think about was the special effects that went into creating it.
And here is something that bugged me: Medusa's lair is in the underworld? That doesn't make sense. Usually the only people in the underworld are dead people. It's unusual for living people to pay the boatman to ferry them across the river Styx. So all the people Medusa turned to statues ... are they all dead people? It would make more sense if Medusa's lair was in the world of the living. I don't know if it's this way in Greek mythology or if it's the way the wrote the script, but that bugged me.
The Last Song - 1 1/2 stars
Miley Cyrus can't act. Every time she is on screen, she is posing. I imagine as the director is preparing to call action, she gets her Zoolander face ready.
I don't mind Nicholas Sparks movies. The Notebook was a good story, and so was Dear John, which just came out a few months ago. But this one was really lame. Miley's character was so obnoxious. As she is dating this guy, every 15 minutes she finds another excuse to be mad at him. She pushes him away and says "you should be with somebody who is more like this or that", then a minute later she caves in and they are kissing again.
By the halfway point, I did start to care about the characters. And when the inevitable Nicholas Sparks death scene comes, it was sad. So bring your hankies.
Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married Too - they never screen Tyler Perry movies in Salt Lake. So I have never seen one. Isn't he that admiral from Star Trek?
Movies at the Tower and Broadway
A Prophet - didn't see, but I hear it's great. Anne Thompson from Indiwire told me at Sundance that it was her favorite movie of the festival (at that point). It was nominated for best foreign language film at the Oscars.
The Host - 2 1/2 stars
The latest thriller from the Korean director who gave us The Host. A mentally challenged guy is accused of murdering a girl, put in prison, and his crazy mom investigates. It started out interesting but got boring as it went along. But it does have the best pre-title credit sequence ever!
Neil Young Trunk Show - didn't see, don't know anything about it.
First off, don't go see this in 3-D. Don't pay the extra money. See it in 2-D. The only reason it's in 3-D is the figured they could make more money, and people would be more excited to see it, if it was in 3-D. The problem is it was not filmed for 3-D. So the 3-D looks kind of lame, and it's not worth the extra bucks.
The movie wasn't horrible, but Sam Worthington is not charismatic enough to carry a movie. This is the 3rd movie I've seen him in, and he disappoints every time. He bores me. He isn't as bad as Paul Walker, but he's close. I never really cared about the characters. I got sick of Perseus complaining all the time. He gets these really cool gifts from the gods, but he angrily says "I'm not using them. I'm going to do this as a man, not as a god." Meanwhile guys around him are being killed. Dude, stop your bitching and use the nifty magic sword that Zeus gave you.
The action is pretty cool. The giant scorpion battle was fun. But I wasn't afraid of the Kraken. They didn't do a good job of making it seem like a real threat. Watching it destroy the city, all I could think about was the special effects that went into creating it.
And here is something that bugged me: Medusa's lair is in the underworld? That doesn't make sense. Usually the only people in the underworld are dead people. It's unusual for living people to pay the boatman to ferry them across the river Styx. So all the people Medusa turned to statues ... are they all dead people? It would make more sense if Medusa's lair was in the world of the living. I don't know if it's this way in Greek mythology or if it's the way the wrote the script, but that bugged me.
The Last Song - 1 1/2 stars
Miley Cyrus can't act. Every time she is on screen, she is posing. I imagine as the director is preparing to call action, she gets her Zoolander face ready.
I don't mind Nicholas Sparks movies. The Notebook was a good story, and so was Dear John, which just came out a few months ago. But this one was really lame. Miley's character was so obnoxious. As she is dating this guy, every 15 minutes she finds another excuse to be mad at him. She pushes him away and says "you should be with somebody who is more like this or that", then a minute later she caves in and they are kissing again.
By the halfway point, I did start to care about the characters. And when the inevitable Nicholas Sparks death scene comes, it was sad. So bring your hankies.
Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married Too - they never screen Tyler Perry movies in Salt Lake. So I have never seen one. Isn't he that admiral from Star Trek?
Movies at the Tower and Broadway
A Prophet - didn't see, but I hear it's great. Anne Thompson from Indiwire told me at Sundance that it was her favorite movie of the festival (at that point). It was nominated for best foreign language film at the Oscars.
The Host - 2 1/2 stars
The latest thriller from the Korean director who gave us The Host. A mentally challenged guy is accused of murdering a girl, put in prison, and his crazy mom investigates. It started out interesting but got boring as it went along. But it does have the best pre-title credit sequence ever!
Neil Young Trunk Show - didn't see, don't know anything about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
