Quantcast Movie Reviews | Vagary.TV - Part 2

Movie Reviews Archive

2

Film Review: “Super”

By
Jeff Derrickson
– August 21, 2011Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

Anything is possible, but it would be a quite a feat for a film to be successfully funny, dramatic, and idiotic.  Sure, you can do dramedy or goofball humor, but even that is quite a challenge in itself.  Combining all three seems like a recipe that invites disaster.  “Super” tries, and it fails.  It’s just stupid.

Written and directed by James Gunn (“Slither”), “Super” tells the story of Frank D’Arbo (Rainn Wilson), a short order cook who decides to become a superhero after his wife (Liv Tyler) leaves him for a drug dealer (Kevin Bacon).  Whereas most people would get over losing a junkie whore wife and conclude she was a waste of time to begin with, Frank is so lonely, pathetic, and delusional that he believes she has been kidnapped and must be saved.  He also prays regularly and has visions he believes are God speaking to him, so he becomes convinced he must fight evil.  So he makes a red superhero costume, names his alter ego The Crimson Bolt, and goes around looking for crime with a pipe wrench as his weapon.  Unfortunately, Frank is an idiot who can’t differentiate between evil and minor annoyances, so at one point he bashes a guy’s head in for cutting in line at a theater.  Funny stuff, right?     

 

Not only does it ask you to find something funny about a dangerously idiotic religious nut, but it also wants you to find him sympathetic and heroic.  It’s a fundamental flaw at the core of the film.  It wants you to laugh at its main character and then in the next breath feel sorry for him and cheer him on.  Sometimes, it happens in the same exact moment.  Frank gives a speech near the end about crime that the film knows is stupid, but it simultaneously wants you to find it poignant and moving.  And ultimately, Frank D’Arbo isn’t funny or sympathetic, just dangerous and disturbing.  The religious overtones are impossible to miss, and I found them extremely off-putting.  Worse, I sometimes feared the film believes in them.

For a supposed comedy, the violence is shockingly gory and over the top.  Heads get shot off and bashed in, and people get blown up as well as in any action or horror film.  The violence is actually entertaining and well done; sadly, it’s the best part, and it feels like it belongs in a different film. 

Nobody in the talented cast gives a great performance.  Rainn Wilson comes close in a role perfectly suited for him, but he overacts in his dramatic moments, and does the best he can with the lame humor.  Ellen Page is wasted as a comic book store clerk who catches on to Frank and wants to be his sidekick.  Kevin Bacon hams it up, having a good time as a scumbag drug dealer.  Liv Tyler gives a convincing performance because all she is asked to do is look stoned and nod out.  Overall, the performances are serviceable to disappointing, but in their defense, the actors aren’t given much to work with.

 

Parts of “Super” occasionally (rarely) work individually, but they never even approach coming together.  The film is tonally all over the place, and not in a way that feels clever and irreverent, but in a way that feels flailing and tossing everything against the wall to see what sticks.  The film’s biggest sin is it just isn’t funny, and the serious moments don’t work because they appear randomly out of nowhere, without being earned.  I suppose there are worse films out there; “Super” isn’t entirely unwatchable, but that’s hardly an endorsement.  It’s anything but super.

1 ½ out of 5 stars

0

Film Review: “Trust”

By
Jeff Derrickson
– August 5, 2011Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

If “Hard Candy” is the peak of the online sexual predator thriller subgenre, “Trust” is its dramatic equivalent.  It imagines how sexual assault might affect a minor (and her family) in the real world, with a real teenage girl who isn’t a vigilante.  By doing so, director David Schwimmer has not only delivered one of the best films of the year, but also one of the most challenging.  It’s honest almost to a fault.

 

Annie (Liana Liberato) is a bright girl who feels ostracized from the exclusive cliques of cool kids in school.  Like many teens (and now adults), an unhealthy portion of her social life is conducted online.  She could be waiting to get picked up from school, and instead of interacting with her peers, she fills moments of loneliness by chatting with virtual strangers on her iPhone.  She meets a boy named Charlie who shares her interest in volleyball, and she fills the voids in her day by talking with him during every idle moment, even at the dinner table.  Despite hints of dishonesty from his end, their bond grows stronger, and when they eventually meet he is not who he says he is.  He is a middle-aged sexual predator who has been grooming her for abuse.  She succumbs to his trap, but the fallout is almost worse than the act itself.  It’s almost a cliché at this point that people are dishonest online in films, but sadly, I believe it also happens frequently in real life.

 

The film is honest, daring, and challenging in the manner it approaches its subject matter.  It will make some viewers extremely uncomfortable, and some would say it almost makes light of the situation to the point where it almost sympathizes with the predator, but I believe it empathizes with the victim.  Annie is obviously emotionally and psychologically damaged from the experience, but she deals with it by wondering what the big deal is, and she insists that he loves and understands her, even though he is twice her age and disappears after the encounter.  After the F.B.I. and her parents find out about the incident, she blames it on them.  She still wants to see him again, and she believes he wants to see her but can’t because of the law.

 

Her parents are played by veteran actors Clive Owen and Catherine Keener, and they are affected by their daughter’s rape almost more so than her.  Keener is devastated and wants to support her daughter in any way possible.  Owen is devastated and wants to find the predator and kill him.  Jason Clarke (“The Chicago Code”) plays the F.B.I. agent trying to crack the case.  Much of the latter half of the film is dedicated to Owen’s response to his daughter’s rape and how it affects his personal and professional life, without losing focus of Annie’s plight.  Owen is particularly suited for the role, because he can play an everyman afflicted with fits of rage as well as anybody.  Keener naturally emanates authenticity, as usual.  Liberato more than holds her ground as Annie.  All around, the acting is incredible.  The film verges on melodrama at points, but it’s a melodramatic situation, and the actors deliver without going over the top, as does the film in general.

 

Besides the performances and handling of subject matter, the film’s other greatest strength is how well it understands the Internet.  Text conversations play out on screen while Annie is doing other things, such as eating dinner, complete with shorthand Internet speak.  Schwimmer took great care in presenting how people communicate online, and as result, the film comes off as an accurate snapshot of this generation.  Like “Catfish,” it has more to say about the Internet than “The Social Network,” but unlike many films that understand the Internet, it isn’t about the Internet.  It acts as if every film should understand, and it doesn’t show off.  It’s just a part of the story, which is about characters, not technology.

 

Owen’s career also plays an interesting role in the film, as he works for an advertising agency whose biggest client sexualizes teenagers similarly to Abercrombie and Fitch, and it takes a clever toll on his character.  How can he continue to sell clothes using teenagers and sex when he can’t stop thinking about his daughter being raped?

 

“Trust” isn’t for everybody.  It doesn’t explode into violence but instead ends on a heartbreaking monologue.  It deals with uncomfortable subject matter, and instead of simplifying, it challenges the audience, and it casually, expertly features social commentary on a new social medium.  The performances and subject matter will keep you engaged throughout.  Stick around for the beginning of the credits to find out where the film (and its antagonist) really stands.

 

5 out of 5 stars

0

Film Review: “Horrible Bosses”

By
Jeff Derrickson
– July 17, 2011Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

 

I’m tempted to call “Horrible Bosses” a dark comedy, but it’s just too silly to be anything but a goofball comedy.  It has a sharp, dark edge, but its main characters are likable idiots, and except for one scene of violence, it tries to make you laugh in nearly every shot.  Even when it reaches the somewhat shocking violence, I think it wants you to laugh at the situation and how the characters arrived there.

 

Directed by Seth Gordon (“The King of Kong”), the film has been called a bit of a mess, but the plot follows a simple premise that serves as catalyst for populist catharsis and a series of gags featuring comedic talents having a blast.  Three friends try to kill their horrible bosses, because they fear quitting and looking for another job during the recession, apparently, more than they fear getting charged with murder.  It’s not believable, but who hasn’t wished a horrible boss would just go away?  Nick Hendricks (Jason Bateman) works a miserable office job, and his boss is a sadistic jerk played by Kevin Spacey.  Kurt Buckman (Jason Sudeikis) has to deal with a cokehead maniac, played by Colin Ferrell, who inherits a chemical plant after his father (Donald Sutherland) dies of a heart attack.  Dale Arbus (Charlie Day) is a dental assistant who has to constantly dodge sexual assaults from his boss, played by Jennifer Aniston, who looks better than ever here.  Needless to say, Arbus gets the least amount of sympathy from his friends, but together they clumsily hatch a plan to kill each other’s bosses, aided by an assumed veteran criminal named Mr. Jones (Jamie Foxx). 

 

While the film mostly feels like an aimless excuse for a series of gags, the plot sort of comes together in a sort of clever way near the end, in the aforementioned violent scene.  The reason to see the film, though, is the comedic chemistry between Day, Bateman, and Sudeikis.  They are all consistently funny in their own individual ways, and their personalities are so mismatched that they make for an awkward, satisfying blend.  Charlie Day (“It’s Always Sunny inPhiladelphia”), in particular, not only goes toe-to-toe with his more experienced co-stars, but he often upstages them.  The supporting cast is just as strong.  It doesn’t hurt that Spacey, Aniston, and Ferrell can all be very funny when they want to, and they get to go wild here.  They all seem to have fun and relish their roles, and that fun is infectious.

 Probably my biggest complaint is out of the three main characters, none of them work a retail job, and that is a missed opportunity.  If you think an office job can be bad, you have no idea.  It’s a sector that could have provided even more laughs, and one with which a majority of the audience could have identified. 

Making a comedy about murder is nearly as tricky as murder itself, but “Horrible Bosses” hits the sweet spot and understands how to approach the material.  If you want to see a great comedy with heart, coherence, and length, see “Bridesmaids,” which is probably still playing in theaters, months after its release.  “Horrible Bosses,” on the other hand, is a breezy 100 minutes in comparison, and it just wants to make you laugh.  It probably has more laughs and cable replay value than “Bridesmaids,” too.  The title cards describing the bosses alone are funnier than the biggest laughs in many comedies, and the subject matter and sloppy nature of the film can’t negate that.  The cast elevates everything and makes the film worth the price of admission.  A great cast can’t save a bad script or director, but it can do magic with the average.

 

4 out of 5

 

“Horrible Bosses” was reviewed on the latest episode of Movie Dudes.

3

Film Review: “I Saw the Devil”

By
Jeff Derrickson
– July 11, 2011Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

Suspend your disbelief, and you might love “I Saw the Devil” as much as I did.  A healthy appreciation for violence will also help immensely.  “I Saw the Devil” is a revenge fantasy that lets its dark, gory imagination run wild.  It’s divorced from reality, but it’s raw, powerful, and sickly beautiful.  It’s not prose, it’s poetry.  Written in blood.

 

In movie pitch terms, you could call it “Silence of the Lambs” meets “No Country For Old Men” meets “Oldboy” meets “Hostel,” with some martial arts thrown in.  Secret agent Kim Soo-hyeon (Byung-hun Lee) is busy at work when his wife gets a flat tire and is murdered by serial killer Kyung-chul (Min-sik Choi).  The police have four potential suspects.  Soo-hyeon decides to take a vacation from work and get revenge, punishing all of the suspects until he hones in on Kyung-chul, his wife’s killer. 

 

The hunt could end roughly an hour into the film, but Soo-hyeon has other plans, mainly an illogical, extended mix of physical and psychological torture.  Have you ever gotten upset with a film for the main character not killing the bad guy when he had a chance?  Me too, and “I Saw the Devil” might drive you nuts for this very reason, because Soo-hyeon catches his wife’s killer and intentionally lets him go.  You see, he wants to relish the revenge and prolong the killer’s suffering for as long as possible.  So he hurts Kyung-chul, and when the killer is knocked out, he forces him to ingest a tracking device capsule.  Kyung-chul awakes badly hurt, confused, but ultimately relieved.  When he goes to prey on his next victim, Soo-hyeon shows up and hurts him some more.  Every time he goes to get his kicks, this stranger appears to save the victim and further injure Kyung-chul.  It’s a bizarre, insane method of revenge, and it leads to grave problems for our protagonist, but it’s also entertaining as hell.  Director Jee-woon Kim is essentially a kid playing with toys, pushing his revenge fantasy beyond the limits, and his film is raw, powerful, and absolutely amazing because of it.  If you can accept central ridiculousness of the premise, that is.

 

Your enjoyment of the film will depend on your tolerance for violence.  If you love violent films, you’re in for an orgy.  “I Saw the Devil” combines violence typical of torture porn with our protagonist’s efficiency in martial arts.  Imagine something like a horror flick mixed with the Bourne movies.  It makes for a really cool, unique flavor that I’ve yet to enjoy in any other film.  “Kill Bill” brings lots of blood and gore to martial arts.  That’s probably the closest example, but it does nothing to describe the violence on display here.  “Kill Bill” is cartoon violence and homage; “I Saw the Devil” has a heart that bleeds with its material.  Be warned: you will see naked women being tortured, heads being cut off, multiple stabbings, and plenty of blunt objects bashing skulls.  And for the most part, the film is unflinching in these depictions.  Rarely does the camera cut away, except for in a few instances where it lets you imagine the moment of death.

 

There is actually a certain beauty to the violence, but the film is beautiful in general.  I loved the cinematography, music, the final shot—there is a lot of artistry on display here.  I also loved the acting, which says a lot considering I don’t speak Korean, but I don’t need to.  The anguish, suffering, and determination is written on Lee’s face.  Despite the language barrier, Choi delivers one of the great screen villains of all time, right up there with Javier Bardem in “No Country For Old Men,” or Heath Ledger in “The Dark Knight.”  Like those characters, he is a force to be reckoned with, and his performance matches those actors’ dedicated intensity. 

 

At 142 minutes, the film is a bit long, but it’s worth it, and there is enough action and violence in general to maintain a healthy pace.  If you’re a fan of revenge flicks but shy away from foreign films, you’re doing yourself a disservice.  In fact, I would go as far as to say this film could convert you from avoiding subtitles.  Of course, you could always wait for the not-yet-planned, but surely-in-the-pipeline Hollywood remake.  Because that’s what Hollywood does now.  It remakes stuff. Hollywood studios have opted to play it safe these days and let foreign films take risk and achieve greatness.

 

5 out of 5 stars

 

“I Saw the Devil” is currently available on Netflix instant play.

0

Film Review: Transformers: Dark of the Moon

By
Chris Scott
– July 8, 2011Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

As a director, Michael Bay is constantly criticized for his lacking ability to actually direct actors but he is also a cinematic maestro when it comes to crafting action sequences. His run on the Transformers series has not done anything to change this perception of him and after Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen even Bay himself acknowledged that his storytelling was sub-par and vowed to do better. Transformers: Dark of the Moon is the result of that effort and it is kind of a mixed bag.

Dark of the Moon delivers a surprisingly effective setup for the events that unfold, starting 50 plus years ago with an alien spacecraft crashing on the moon being the trigger point for the historic space race. In a fascinating opening sequence that cuts together historic footage and computer generated scenes the race to the moon unfolds in rapid fashion before our very eyes, culminating with the Apollo 11 moon landing, which secretly had a primary objective of exploring the spacecraft. All of this of course ties back to the Transformers inhabiting Earth, specifically to the Autobots led by Optimus Prime (voiced by Peter Cullen).

Sadly the story does not focus solely on the mysterious ship from the Transformer home world of Cybertron and after the opening sequence viewers are forced to endure the Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) show. Everyone’s least favorite human interloper is having a tough time dealing with the fact that well… no one cares that he was involved in two massive alien conflicts. He does have a beautiful new girlfriend though. Victoria Secret model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley quickly makes everyone forget that Megan Fox once held a major role in the series. Unfortunately she can not make us forget that Sam is the primary focus of these films.

The inclusion of Sam and the primary focus on him is understandable, after all a human character in the primary role is an easily relatable anchor for the series. The problem with Sam is that he is a terrible character and most scenes involving him are cringe inducing. His whiny nature worked in the first film when he was perceived as a socially awkward kid but two films later he is all grown up and his whiny behavior is unbecoming and annoying. The amount of time Dark of the Moon spends on Sam trying to prove that he is important nearly kills the film.

Fortunately for viewers whenever the focus is off Sam, it is firmly on robot action. Bay is in top form when he turns on the action nozzle with Dark of the Moon featuring some of the most exhilarating sequences ever put to film. The film runs a staggering 154 minutes and the final 60 are non-stop,edge of your seat action sequences. And just when you think that things can’t get any more crazy, Bay rips a skyscraper in half and you know it is only just beginning.

The last hour of the film does a great job of masking the fact that while Dark of the Moon is better than Revenge of the Fallen from a storytelling capacity it is all really just a shell to let Michael Bay blow things up in spectacular fashion. The thing is, Bay is arguably the best at doing what he does and people, including myself, want to see him do it. However I also want Bay to deliver a complete package and Dark of the Moon is not that film. It is what it is and it is an exhilarating ride but one can not help but look at the inspired opening sequence and think that this film could have been so much more.

3 out of 5.

0

Film Review: Cars 2

By
Chris Scott
– July 7, 2011Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

There is little denying that Pixar is the undisputed king of animated feature films and over the last few years the studio hasn’t just been releasing the best animated films in the industry but some of the best films period. While Pixar films have always had a sense of quality about them their films over the last few years have been on another level and it had to be expected that eventually the studio that could do no wrong would release a film that did not get it done. Cars 2 is that film.

The original Cars was a moderate financial success for Pixar but was considered by many critics (although not this one) to be their weakest film to date. The company line from Pixar has always been that they would never do a sequel unless they could come up with at least a story as strong as the original and on paper Cars 2 probably sounded fantastic. After all what is not to like about international locations, spies and alternative fuel?

Cars 2 picks up a few years after the original. Lightning McQueen (voiced by Owen Wilson) has won multiple Piston Cups and is content with his life. After each race season he retires to Radiator Springs where his best friend Mater the tow truck (voiced by Larry the Cable Guy) and his beautiful Porsche girlfriend patiently wait for him. Mater takes great pride in being friends with Lightning and defends his friend at every turn, this of course is how Lightning gets roped into doing an international Grand Prix to determine the fastest car in the world. Of course there is more to the Grand Prix than meets the eye with an international terrorist organization pulling the strings from behind. Mater of course gets mixed up with everything by sheer dumb luck, gets mistaken for an American spy and tasked with cracking the mysterious case. As such the focus shifts off Lightning and onto Mater as the star of the film and therein lies the crux of the problem.

Simply put, Mater is not a good character. He has no depth and his dumb hillbilly persona is primarily played for laughs. The story that Cars 2 tries to present is James Bond-lite and Mater just doesn’t fit into that type of story. To Pixar’s credit they understand this and play up the fish-out-of-water element that should work for some quality laughs but sadly it falls flat, with the humor relying more on school yard humor than anything actually funny. Considering Pixar’s track record, it is quite surprising to see how poorly they handle the actual material.

Whereas previous Pixar films had material that appealed to both children and their parents, Cars 2 plays only to its target audience, children. It is big and loud, filled with action but with nary any substance. The saving grace of the film is its animation, which as with all Pixar films is downright beautiful. But when the talking point of the film is how good it looks, instead of how good it is there is a problem.

Cars 2 easily ranks as Pixar’s worst film. Not only is it not up to the usual quality standards set by the animation giant but it is not up to the standards of other contemporary films in its medium.

2 out of 5.

1

Film Review: Green Lantern

By
Chris Scott
– July 6, 2011Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

When it comes to superhero films, Warner Bros. and DC Comics have lagged far behind their primary competitor Marvel. Whereas Marvel has had several successful film franchises for their comic characters over the last decade, Warner Bros. has had Batman. So, DC has brought us Green Lantern.

On the surface Green Lantern has everything that a summer blockbuster should have. It is big and bombastic, has copious amounts of computer generated imagery and stars a snarky, yet charming actor in the lead role. Unfortunately while Warner Bros. was crossing off the aforementioned prerequisites they forgot that the film needs an easily relatable hook for viewers to get behind.

Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) is a careless, yet highly talented fighter pilot. He is haunted by the tragic death of his father and lives life on the edge in an effort to live up to his legacy. Jordan has a strong will but is handicapped by his fear and therein lies the core tenants of the film and the Green Lantern’s powers. Like most good superhero stories it is a simple concept that is easy to grasp. Jordan is am easy character to relate to, it is his Green Lantern persona that is hard to get behind.

Jordan’s super powers come from a special ring, that is powered by a special lantern, that all come from outer space. Additionally Jordan is not the only Green Lantern instead he is just one of thousands of other lantern carriers that are entrusted with protecting the universe from evil. These thousands of lantern carriers make up the Green Lantern Core and act as a sort of interstellar police force.

As mentioned the power of a Green Lantern stems from the ring each of them possesses and the power itself is the ability to create anything they can think of, so long as they have the willpower and strength to control it. Obviously this allows for some pretty outlandish visuals and for the most part Green Lantern doesn’t disappoint. During one fantastical action sequence Jordan constructs a wheel base for a damaged helicopter and transports it around a Hot Wheels inspired race track. Despite being utterly ridiculous the scene is a blast to watch, unfortunately there are far too few of these exhilarating sequences in the movie.

Instead of focusing on crazy action sequences or building Jordan as a character the film seemingly rushes thorough everything. It gives glimpses of what could have been a deep seeded intergalactic political power struggle but instead of following up those angles we get paper-thin characters with simplistic motivations including one of the worst antagonists in a superhero film since the giant death cloud in Fantastic Four 2.

Fans of the comic book may complain about inaccuracies to the source material, specifically about Ryan Reynolds portrayal but it works for what this film is. Reynolds is perfectly fine in the film, he gives his standard performance of snarky charm. Green Lantern is enjoyable from a pure entertainment perspective and it works as a summer popcorn film. If one can give the film a little leeway in regards to convoluted storytelling and enjoy it for the spectacle it is then there is certain to be some fun to be had.

3 out of 5.

1

Film Review: “Super 8″

By
Jeff Derrickson
– June 13, 2011Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

Besides establishing mystery surrounding what emerges from a train crash in a small Ohio town, the trailers for “Super 8” promised a throwback to the sense of magic and wonder in early Speilberg films, such as “E.T.” and “Close Encounters of the Third Kind.”  J.J. Abrams’ film delivers on that promise, although the homage comes with its pros and cons, and the mystery is only interesting because we care about the characters and the mood it’s trying to evoke.

“Super 8” is intentionally classic Speilberg right down to the themes: a group of kids, dealing with neglect and other familial issues, find strength in each other and together embark on adventure against a sci-fi backdrop.  The film truly does feel like a cross between “E.T.” and “Close Encounters,” with a healthy dose of “The Goonies” and a dash of Abrams’ own “Cloverfield” thrown in.  The recipe is a satisfying mix, sure to stir nostalgia in anyone who grew up on early Speilberg.  For the most part, the film is successful at recapturing that magic; the territory comes with unavoidable pitfalls, but more on that in a bit.

The story centers on a group of adolescents who are making a zombie flick shot on Super 8 for submission to a film festival.  Late one night, they sneak out to shoot some scenes at a train station and witness a horrifying train crash.  Immediately, the military arrives and weird things begin to happen.  Of course, the kids are drawn to solving the mystery behind what’s happening.  The main character is Joe Lamb (Joel Mc Courtney), a boy whose mother recently died in an accident, and whose father (Kyle Chandler) is busy being the town deputy and doesn’t seem to understand his son.  His likable group of friends includes Alice Dainard (Elle Fanning), the pretty girl they persuade to play “the wife” in the zombie flick, and Charles (Riley Griffiths), the chubby, aspiring filmmaker.  They are rounded out by Cary (Ryan Lee), who is characterized by his love for fireworks, and Martin (Gabriel Russo), who is characterized by his propensity for vomiting.  The film uses broad strokes for some of the supporting characters, but it works.

In fact, the kids are the best part.  The young actors are talented, and they lack the cynicism of the Internet age; they look like Speilberg kids, wide-eyed and full of wonder.  Joel McCourtney has no problem carrying the film without ever hitting a false note.  Elle Fanning and Riley Griffiths are equally as good; these kids are naturals.  The drama between them (and their parents) that forms the heart of the film is engaging and emotionally powerful.  The magic isn’t in the special effects.  It’s in the characters.  It’s in the scene where Joe and Alice watch an old home movie together.  It’s in the humorous and heartbreaking scene where Charles says his doctor insists that he’ll “lean out” and perhaps one day become attractive to girls.    

The sci-fi backdrop against which the drama plays out isn’t quite as interesting.  Weird events happen around town, such as dogs running away, and there is almost certainly a monster on the loose, but none of it is developed enough, and it’s not always as exciting as you want it to be.  I’m okay with some things being left unexplained and the events retaining some of their mystery, but some it feels random, and the action occasionally lacks thrills.  And the revelations don’t feel particularly creative.  Ultimately, these things are secondary to the characters; they gain strength due to the characters, and that fact is even noted in the zombie film within the film.  (By the way, stick around for during the credits for a special treat.)

The other major drawback is inherently tied to the film’s greatest strength.  Because “Super 8” so effectively emulates early Speilberg, there is a level of comfort and familiarity to the point where it becomes predictable.  I’m the last person to fault a film merely for being predictable, but when you anticipate every beat, some of the suspense gets drained from the proceedings.  The film is (and wants to be) the equivalent of a cozy blanket and grilled cheese, but it’s hard to be drawn into the peril when you feel so safe.

At the same time, it’s hard to complain.  “Super 8” made me long for a time when films had heart and magic.  There was still a moment where I nearly teared up in the final scene.  I’ll take sincerity over irony any day.  Even if it’s homage.

4 out 5 stars

 

“Super 8″ will be reviewed on the next episode of Movie Dudes.

1

Film Review: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

By
Chris Scott
– June 3, 2011Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

If you had told anyone ten years ago that Disney was going to make movie franchise out of a dilapidated ride in the Magic Kingdom, they probably would have called you crazy. That is exactly what Disney did with Pirates of the Caribbean. Not only did Disney make the ride into a movie franchise but they made it into one of the most successful ones ever, grossing over two billion dollars worldwide from the receipts on the theatrical runs of the films. However, despite the impressive monetary net the critical response to the films has been steadily declining. Most critics, myself included, felt that the sequels to the original film, Curse of the Black Pearl, got away from what made that film so good. Namely, too much focus on characters not named Jack Sparrow.

Disney, determined to not let such a strong franchise slip away, took the criticism to heart and four years after the third film in the series, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides hits theaters with a fresh focus. Gone are Will (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth (Kiera Knightly) and in is a healthy dose of pirates. Johnny Depp once again takes center stage and is back to stumbling around doing his best Keith Richards impersonation as Captain Jack Sparrow. On Stranger Tides kicks off with its fun nozzle turned directly to ten. Jack infiltrates a London courtroom disguised as a judge to help free his old friend Gibbs (Kevin McNally) and comedic high jinks ensue. Jack of course is caught and finds out that his old nemesis, Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), and the legendary pirate Blackbeard (Ian McShane) are setting out to find the Fountain of Youth.

Finding the Fountain of Youth is the easy part of the quest as accessing it requires a ritual with highly specific ingredients including the tears of a mermaid. If the words Disney and mermaids bring to mind pictures of beautiful red heads that play with talking fish and lobsters scrub that from your mind. Yes, the mermaids in On Stranger Tides are beautiful but they are not the helpless fish people The Little Mermaid makes them out to be. These mermaids are horrific sirens of the deep and are sure to give more than a few children nightmares. The Pirates films have always dabbled in dark themes but the mermaid storyline is the darkest thread in the series to date, it is also the most thought out thread since the original.

The film of course would not be complete without a beautiful foil to counteract Jack, enter Penelope Cruz playing the daughter of Blackbeard, Angelica. Much like Kiera Knightly did in the first three Pirates films, Cruz acts the tough, not so in distress, damsel. Cruz and Depp have excellent chemistry and she expertly plays off his leads. Often times it seems like they are trying to outdo one another and both seem to be having a ton of fun. Their energy for the film was infectious and I found myself having a ton of fun watching their over-the-top adventure.

As much fun as I had watching the film though, it does falter a bit holding it back from being a great Pirates film. Early on, the film settles into a pattern of comedy, exposition, action and it very rarely breaks from it. This makes the film entirely predictable right down to the closing scenes and it makes the film devoid of any tension. Without any tension, the film just plays as a fun romp from set piece to set piece instead of the action packed thrill ride it is meant to be. Compounding things, the film runs an extremely long two hours and 16 minutes. The film could have easily cut out 15 to 20 minutes, tightening up the narrative and making the pacing a tad bit faster.

The biggest complaint that can be levied against On Stranger Tides though is that it is just more Pirates of the Caribbean. However, I for one am perplexed as to why this is a bad thing. When I go to see a Pirates movie, I go to be entertained and On Stranger Tides accomplished this. The Pirates series may not be as fresh as it once seemed but On Stranger Tides gets the series back to its roots of delivering fun swashbuckling adventure. I had a blast with On Stranger Tides which is more than I can say for some of the other 2011 blockbuster films that have released. Simply put, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is a popcorn movie done right.

3/5

0

Film Review: Priest

By
Chris Scott
– May 26, 2011Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

Over the last decade or so, the month of May has become the opening of the summer movie season. Big tent-pole releases battling each other for box office domination have become the norm and any film not predestined to be a blockbuster generally steers clear. So why Priest, a modestly budgeted sci-fi actioner with no real box office draw was released the week after Thor and the week before Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is a head scratcher.

Maybe the thought was that every summer movie season seems to have one breakout hit that comes out of nowhere. Unfortunately for Priest it is not going to be that film.

Priest is loosely based on the Korean comic of the same name and is the story about a world where humans and vampires have decimated the land after hundreds of years trying to exterminate each other. The vampires were defeated by a line of warrior priests and the church placed the surviving vampires in reservations while sealing off society in tightly packed cities. With the vampires defeated though, the church had no more need for their army of specially trained priests and had the order disbanded. The vampires of course escape their confinement and it is up to a rogue priest (played by Paul Bettany) and his priestess friend (Maggie Q) to stop the vampires and save humanity once again.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the story Priest tries to tell but the way it attempts to tell it is where it falls apart. To put it simply, Priest feels rushed. At a scant 87 minutes there is very little time to tell the “epic” story that is attempted in the film. Sure, at its core the film is just a simple chase/rescue story but with so much of the early narrative focusing on establishing the world, there is little time for the viewer to care about the characters and it doesn’t help that Paul Bettany is devoid of any personality in the film.

Bettany, who has a weird filmography filled with odd religious characters, can be a fantastic actor. His work in A Knight’s Tale and A Beautiful Mind shows that the guy can drive a film even when in the passenger seat but his role as the Priest here lacks any energy. He just comes off as a boring version of Obi-Wan Kenobi, ultimately being as forgettable as the film itself.

Priest lacks the flair and energy to be an effective film let alone a summer release. Do not be mistaken, Priest is entirely watchable but you most likely won’t remember it the next day.

2 out of 5.

Older Entries
Newer Entries