Red Tie Review

Let The Right One In: It's What Twilight Wasn't

2009-03-30T00:17:00.002-07:00

I feel obligated to write this review (not I haven't written one in awhile) for two reasons. 1.) There's Twilight currently making the vampires as romance object, and 2.) they are remaking this movie. While I would like a better dubbed and/or subtitled version (I watched it with both as some lines made more sense in one form or the other), the remake is unnecessary.

Let The Right One In is set is snowy Sweden. Oskar doesn't have any friends, is isolated and misunderstood. Off the bat we know there is something violent in him, but he's not using it. Moving into the apartment nearby Oskar's is Eli, a young girl who lives with a middle-aged man. The two talk at night and develope a young romance. The movie is part coming-of-age in multiple ways. Eli is Oskar's friend, but also his exposure to violence and the opposite sex. But nothing is sugar-coated here.

Why is the film effective? It makes simple stuff work. When Eli moves in, her helper duct-tapes sheets over the windows. Her powers as a vampire remain subtle, but still in a creepy fashion. You have to be a kind soul to carry a kid out of the snow, which also makes you a good victim. No ability to read minds needed here.

Now I haven't gotten into the bullies yet, but while their threats might sound unbelievable, there a cold feeling they'll actually carry them out. I haven't mentioned the subtle hints at sex in the awkward ways kids interpret it (not like the sex we think of when we hear the word) and how it carries through to promise they only hurt the ones they love. I also haven't mentioned the open interpretations in Eli's helper, Oskar's divorced parents, or Eli's secrets.

But I don't want to. I don't want these things clarified or sugar-coated. It has been too long since a movie made me fear for the children and a remake will demand answers from these mysteries within the movie. If we have the answer, then doesn't it take us away from how horrific the question is? This is a vampire love story that isn't afraid to show the fear in loving what vampires truly are. The word "heroic" or "kind" doesn't come to mind.

Is it entertaining? Yes. If it isn't the vampire storyline, it's the bullies or the villages. All are compelling and one will certainly grab you.

Is it for everyone? Not kids, but yes. Be weary of violence towards young ones.

Is it memorable? Absolutely. Nothing cliche about it, and until the remake comes out, the open-ended questions will be a big topic.

The Wrestler: The Sacrifical Ram

2009-02-01T22:45:00.002-07:00

The Wrestler is a movie about life's let-downs, the high of attention in the entertainment business, and personal sacrifice. It's language is physical pain, carried out by Mickey Rourke in a physical role. Like LaMotta's (Raging Bull) boxing ring being the arena for him to work out his issues with women and trust, delivering self-punishment, Randy "The Ram" Robinson recieves cheers and applause, reliving the glory days by spilling blood.

The movie begins with "20 years later." We only see newspaper clips of the glory days, but they are absent from Randy when he's not in the ring. Afterwards, he's hunched over like he's been defeated while the match's script has him win. Yes, wrestling is fake. Before each round, the wrestlers determine what is and is not allowed, who should be winning which portion of the rounds, and how it all ends. They're each other's fans. The fighting might be fake, but the falling is real. Randy cuts himself on the forehead so he can bleed real blood for the effect in the match. Years of falls and cuts have taken affect on him.

He's forced to retire by doctor's orders. And to quit the variety of painkillers he's become an expert on. He tries to get his life back on track by visiting his estranged daughter and developing a relationship with his only friend, Cassidy, a stripper he's a fan of. She's equally a fan of him, but they're both only seeing the show. She loves the wrestler, the modern gladiator, and he loves the sexy image she puts on. She is aware entertainers' personalities and real lives are two different things even if Randy has never separated them.

How do things turn out? Randy is living in the past. He's only had to jump, take hits and fall and has been worshiped for it. It isn't about how things turn out, but watching him go through the world trying his best where he doesn't always fit in is highly entertaining. He's lovable and loving, but his only job has been a show of violence, he sometimes misses the proper way to express himself. Everyone else is afraid, but the audience will be heartbroken for him.

The roles are very physical and it is hard to imagine someone other than Mickey Rourke to play Randy. It is not acting in the traditional sense, but taking the pain. Digital effects could have done this for him, but it would not have the same effect. Before one round, Randy is told to avoid twisting his opponent, but the opponent asks him "Do you have any problems with a staplegun? It's kind of scary when up against you, but it doesn't hurt much, just afterwards, you have two holes in you and bleed alot." They go overboard with staples.

Marissa Tomei, who won an Oscar for My Cousin Vinny is worth a nomination here. She is definitely older, but she's not trying to play someone young. She is still just as sexy now as she was before. Age has only helped her out. Something rare when trying to portray a stripper.

Is it entertaining? Yes. Not in where the story leads, but how it gets there. Each second with the performances is convincing and compelling. Never thought wrestlers would be so heartbreaking.

Is it for everyone? Yes. The violence might limit the audience, but the variety of emotions can relate to most.

Is it memorable? Yes. Mickey Rourke deserves an Oscar for this performance.

Gran Torino: Positive Racism?

2009-01-15T14:01:00.002-07:00

One thing I can't stand is actors playing roles they can't because they want to be treated like a "serious actor" or to get an Academy Award. Sylvester Stallone sometimes did this. Arnold Schwarzenegger went to the family films and stood worth his own weight (which is alot). Clint Eastwood may be playing the same character he's been playing for years between Dirty Harry, Sergeant Highway, and Bill Munny, but he's been making him better. If his previous roles aren't Academy Award worthy, he makes them so.

This brings us to Gran Torino. Clint Eastwood is Walt Kowalski, a Korean War veteran and retired autoline workman. He put the steeringwheel on the mint-condition '69 Gran Torino he keeps in his garage. After the death of his wife, he lives alone, spending his days drinking Pabst on the porch and spitting chew while giving dirty looks at the Hmong neighbors. After Tao, the Hmong teen next door, attempts to steal his Gran Torino as part of an initiation into a gang, Walt takes up against the gangs, mostly for the defense of his own lawn. He doesn't care if it's gangs or kids, he jsut wants to keep his lawn private.

The Hmong slowly like him, leaving gifts at his doorstep. They don't understand he hates him, only that the gangs avoid him. He throws away the gifts, except for the turkey.

He's a racist even if he doesn't know it. He goes through every name in the book. The audience laughs at the extent of his vocabulary. He calls them gooks the same way everyone else calls them Asian. He speaks like a soldier still at war: tough. He knows when to bluff and when to pull the guns out.

This character might sound cliche, but he's not. He goes alittle farther with the racial slurs than most rough guys, but has a familiar sound to him when he can't help but stuff himself with the Asian chicken. He drinks Pabst and carries guns as though he's a simpleton, but has tricks up his sleeve and uses them like you'd never think. In a lesser movie, he would go soft and cry with emotion at some point. He doesn't sell himself out. There's more emotion in him telling someone to drink a beer with him than in some movies' most tearful scenes.

I won't give away anything else in the story. It is more about characters than the fights. I wondered what his wife must have been like to put up with such a guy, then I realized she was there all along. The Hmong teenage girl that convinces Walt to join them for dinner is stubborn, persistant, and able to stand toe-to-toe with him. As rough as he is, she knows he's a gentleman and - more than once - tells him "it would be a great disrespect if you didn't." No way would Walt be tough and ungentlemanly.

Is it entertaining? It is not an action film. It is a character study that surprises. You have to watch it from beginning to end, but Eastwood delivers in his performance as one of a kind.

Is it for everyone? Yes. While strong, it is not offensive. Walt hates the Hmong just as much as he loves others. Where it's not an action movie, it still delivers with tension.

Is it memorable? While meriting an Oscar nomination or two, the character is more memorable than the movie. Either way, it is still one to stick with you.

Doubt: I Think You Did, Therefore You Have Done

2009-01-04T02:06:00.002-07:00

Doubt is a drama. At first I thought it was an unorthodox mystery driven by characters determined in different directions, but the further it plunged into the plot and clues, the less I cared about the truth and the more interested I became in the characters digging for the truth. More accurately, should I say, the characters digging. The "truth" is something to argue about.

Meryl Streep shows us why she's the best in the business as Sister Aloysius, a stern nun at St. Nichols. As the principal, the students fear her. Other nuns look up to her. She takes care of the other nuns, gives them tips and advice, and dictates the topic of discussion at the dinner table. She hates ball-point pens for ruining penmanship. I can't blame her however. If you're teaching them penmanship, then certainly the proper tool is essential.

Insert Father Flynn (equally matched by Philip Seymore Hoffman), the next generation of priest. He is friendly, teaches sports, and has a skill for delivering surmons. The boys relate to him.

The mystery arises when Sister James (Amy Adams) sees the only African-American student sent up to Father Flynn's rectory for one-on-one talk. She believes this is very inappropriate and immediately tells Sister Aloysius. Sister Aloysius assumes the worst and makes plans to confront Father Flynn and make him confess his crimes. For Sister Aloysius, suspcion is enough. She represents the infallibacy of the Church. If Sister James is telling her, then it must be because God knows Sister Aloysius will suspect the worst and seek it out. Or so goes Sister Aloysius' mind.

Whichever way, a God-guided or God-foresaken quest, she is relentless and smart. She refuses to give up the topic, like simple madwoman, but at every stage of her life, she seems to have thought out every step. Is a woman scholared in theology, running a prestigious private school, so stupid? Cruel? Or is all of this truly with good intentions of protecting the children?

When the movie reaches a climax between Sister Aloysius and Father Flynn, a curveball is thrown. The boy's mother arrives for a conference with the Sister Aloysius. She is worried about her son removed from the Altar Servers (not Altar Boys as said in the film). Sister Aloysius tries to gain information that might incriminate Father Flynn, only to find there might be things worse than Father Flynn's sins. The mother is played by Viola Davis. Roger Ebert says her performance merits a nomination from the Academy. While I am not as bold as Ebert to say when "injustice" is done for a lack of nomination, I will say no other actress has came to mind for Best Supporting Actress yet. Maybe Marissa Tomei from The Wrestler, but there is still enough nominations to go around.

What do Sister Aloysius and Father Flynn represent? The old and new Church? Certainty and doubt? A strict protectorate approach against a friendly one? Faith-based Catholicism and reason-based logic? Everyone will take a different interpretation and I can only speak for myself. I find the movie filled with God, espically when various windstorms rise before climatic arguments. God is testing Sister Aloysius' faith and devotion to protect the kids, while Father Flynn is tested for his ability to defend his approach to the most devote Catholics. Or is he on a second trial for his sins? Sister James is the doubt. It is easier for her to smile and believe Father Flynn than to gather the strength to ask herself the danger if he's lying. At the same time, she admires the strength of Sister Aloysius to stand up against such a lack of evidence, basing everything on faith itself.

There is another layer to this movie. There are minor details everywhere that reveal much about the characters. Most of these are humorous, although some go undetected by most. When Father Flynn is waiting to meet with Sister James and Sister Aloysius, he is sitting next to a student in trouble. He relates to the troubled student, although he himself is also awaiting Sister Aloysius' trials. Is she treating him any different than a student? Sister Aloysius also tells a lie (GASP!) to cover up a nun's loss of sight. She does it with sacrifice to her own dignity, stating, "Nuns fall. It happens. I fell yesterday." She listens to the radio confiscated from a student and admits she can't stop listening to the news. There is one more major revelation about her character, but I won't reveal it. Every time I think I understand Sister Aloysius, there is another layer. I simply have to keep a close enough eye to notice them.

Is it entertaining? Yes. Don't come in expecting a drama on abuse of Altar Servers. Expect a test of faith from different angles, given through powerful performances. When these two argue, even the loudest of theaters will go silent.

Is it for everyone? Yes. The victim is a child, the soldiers of the battle are respected religious figures. It is gripping. The eye for detail may not be had for all, but the story moves just as strongly for everyone, with small humor to fill a slow start.

Is it memorable? Yes. Every one of the major actors gives an unforgettable performance. It is open to interpretation, but the themes and movement is so strong, you won't have to look far for your interpretation.

Twilight: Can't have your Bloodcake and Eat it too

2008-12-18T21:26:00.002-07:00

This is a review of a movie that if I said I like it, one group will love me, the other will hate me. It has holes, but if you watch the movie and hate those holes, chances are you're not the one that picked the movie and the one who did, loves those holes.

Twilight is a small-town, teen romance with vampires and potential werewolves. It features Bella (Kristen Stewart), a teenage girl who moves from the Arizona desert to the small mountain town up nort, Forks, Nebraska. Although being the quiet girl, it seems like every guy wants here. She falls for the most quiet and mysterious guy, Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson). He's pale, seems emo, and doesn't come to school on days when it is sunny. Also, he sits alone with his family at the cafeteris not eating a thing. It seems like uninteresting high school drama until Bella is nearly killed by a car speeding through the parking lot. She's saved by Edward, who appears from across the parking lot and literally pushes the car away.

For those who missed the obvious, Edward and the Cullens are vampires. Bella and Edward's romance is based entirely on the vampire/human concept, that he can save her when she's in danger, like when she walks down a dark sidewalk into trouble, but at the same time, he's a threat to her. It's like she's a cheesecake, -bloodcake in this case- which looks so pretty you just want to keep it to stare at and maybe lick the icing, but that is nowhere near as filling. Edward compares this thirst to heroin addictions and being the vegetarian in a world where steaks walk around you. The love is mystical but flat. Their first date consists of kissing on top of the tallest trees on mountaintops and a family get-together is watching a baseball game where everyone can hit homeruns and outrun the ball. This is visually amusing, but they're sitting in silence because, aside from being a vampire and bloodcake, there's nothing for them to really base their relationship on.

What is good about this? The movie has painted an issue that is about sex and hardly ever mentions the sex. Like Nicole DeBruler once explained to me how girls love the Phantom of the Opera because he is a tortured soul, Edward is the same way of torture and conflict. Even though she explained it to me and it made sense, I still don't understand it and can't explain it myself, so it flies over my head, but I do know it will sink and sit in girls' hearts. Just like how The Notebook hit with unbelievable accuracy to make everyone cry, Twilight will make girls mushy with laser accuracy and just pass over the guys.

Stupid romance aside, I found the family drama more interesting and how the town exemplifies that. She's moved from a mom in the desert to a father in the mountains. The father is protective (he is the police chief) but gets to be wiser than most parents. He knows when the conversation is dead and doesn't make it worse by trying harder to socialize. He offers her pepperspray and rather than argue about the dangers, just asks she does it for him.

Bella's alienation is also presented well. Guys harrass her, with both good and bad intentions, but most of this is left with subtle hints and looks, brief moments to say it's there, but to not distract us from Edward. If you look closely, Edward is positioned in front of a stuffed owl, whichmakes Edward appear to have small angel wings. The town is weird, but doesn't make humor of it. It's simply there, which keeps our attention on Bella's awkwardness. I felt more for her moving than I did about her romance.

The vampire side is more interesting when it isn't just her and Edward. The Cullens' house has an unused kitchen, a montage of graduation caps (because they never escape high school), and doors that open out to the air on the second floor. They welcome her as a chance to use the kitchen, but there's an odd silence when someone mentions them breaking up. If Bella reveals the secret, it would as bad for the Cullens as Edward biting Bella would be bad for her. And you thought meeting the girl's family was tough.

Is it entertaining? No. It moves slowly and mostly sets the mood rather than an actual story. There's a narration that stops halfway through the movie, then comes back because the pace changes back and forth.

Is it for everyone? Yes. It is neutral and gives something for girls and vampire fans, even if one might be bored at certain points.

is it memorable? Some will call it the best romance ever. The others are not the type for arguing over romance movies.

Nothing Like the Holidays: The Family Gathering Around a Different Tree

2008-12-16T02:36:00.002-07:00

If there was an Academy Award for Ensemble Acting, a nomination would go to the cast of the family in Nothing Like the Holidays. There is such a strong chemistry in the scenes I started to wonder if there was really a script or if the actors were just improvising natural reactions. This is probably why I liked the movie so much. How often do you get a family drama where the everyone in the family acts so naturally with each other you don't question the family part.

Nothing Like the Holidays follows a Puerto Rican family gathering in Chicago. Most of the family seems like they're in cliche roles, but they claim being the best of those roles together. The oldest son (John Leguizamo) is a successful lawyer married to a Jewish stockbroker (Debra Messing). The other son (Freddy Rodriguez) is a wounded soldier from Iraq. The daughter is a struggling actress who's small work on TV is idolized by her family. At the head of the family is Anna, the mother with a long list of secret recipes she's waiting to share and who speaks Spanish more than the others. To the side is Alfred Molinas as the father, distracted by the local bodega he runs.

The issues are more than one layer. Yes, the movie could have made each character have a different issue, which they all do, but they also have each others problems. When Anna announces at dinner that she is divorcing her husband, the kids react different, even towards each other. Molinas masters the husband as a figure of silent acknowledgement, as though he may or may not be able to argue his wife into staying with him, but would rather just enjoy the time with his family by avoiding the issue. This brings out troubles with married son and his wife, as well as the soldier accepting how life gives the unexpected. They truly do deal with issues as a family.

The acting is superb not only on the dramatic scale, but also on the comedic level, as though we're laughing with the family. The men gather around an old tree in front of the lawn, promising to cut it down to give Ana the view her husband always promised (can a view save their marriage?). As they play with their chainsaws, the men each have something to prove about their masculinity to their women, who are placing bets on who will hurt themselves. You'll laugh at which wife bets on whom. The family does drink, both individually and together. It is a strong blend of drama and comedy when the son arranges for the Priest to try to convince the parents to salvage their marriage, only to begin with the mom coming home drunk and the Priest filling himself on her secret recipes.

Not since Juno have I cared so much for what happens to the characters. Here, I was choked up before anything happened. I wanted to hug them, to be invited to the dinner table and laugh. Even though some of the lines are in Spanish, I didn't need to know what they were saying (except when subtitles were rare provided for a good laugh), because the way they said it gave all the emotion for the words. While what I have said here may seem like I've given the movie away, I have not. There are many layers to everything the family goes through, and their way of going through it is not as simple as I would have originally thought.

Some would call this a solely Puerto Rican movie, or a movie that pokes a nationally, like The Family Stone or This Christmas. While Roger Ebert in his review (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081210/REVIEWS/812109989) won't name names of those on IMDb who dislike these movies as cliche and only changing races, I hold no such reservations. Toucansam3 of IMDb is asking if an Asian or Hindi movie will be following this one so that white, black, hispanic, and everyone else can claim the same story. I say, if they're as well-done as this movie, let them. Let it also note this movie was made in Chicago, set in a very multi-cultural suburb. The Jewish wife and black neighbors also get to claim ethnicity in this movie. For posting on Toucansam3's ill-comments, go to http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1151915/board/nest/124637146.

Is it entertaining? Very. If the laughs don't get you, the drama will.

Is it for everyone? Yes. Everyone can see this movie relate to their families, even if there is some cultural language to it. The father wants what's best for his son, just as all fathers do. The sons take different paths and have difficulty relating to each other because of it. These are all things everyone can relate to.

Is it memorable? While it will probably not get Oscar nominations or be a blockbuster, this is a movie worth sharing, which will make a memorable experience.

Punisher War Zone: Kidneys with a Side of Cherry Pie Faces

2008-12-09T20:15:00.004-07:00

Punisher War Zone is a movie obsessed with violence and my largest complaint was there was not enough. This is a character from comic books that has plenty of graphic literature with the potential to be put on the screen and done well, yet it seems they kept him solely as a one-note character. Imagine if Romeo and Juliette were just in it for the sex and you get the idea.

Punisher follows Frank Castle, a marine-turned vigilante who, after the death of his family at mafia hands, dedicates his life to a one-man war on crime. He starts with the Italian mob families and finally at the last New York family the film begins with him sneaking in and executing the entire family at the dinner table with decapitations and headshots. This includes a wrenching scene where Castle spins, dangling from a chandler shooting off rounds. Amazing how he can hit everyone while spinning, but they can't even hit the chandler.

He goes to finish the job at a bottle recycling plant, hunting down the last family members. This leads him to throwing a man into a pit of broken glass, then turning on the crusher so he gets washed in it. Maybe Lionsgate was hoping to top it's pit of needles from Saw 2. Either way, the result is Jigsaw, a man with a puzzle for a face. He looks like someone who was too ugly to be cast in Dick Tracy.

This leads to a war of guns between the Punisher and Jigsaw. In the middle is the wife and daughter of the undercover agent the Punisher mistakenly killed. This is where the movie loses it's edge, if it didn't fall out from the chandler. Punisher, from the comics, is an interesting character because he never second-guesses his decisions, never quits his persuit of punishment, and whines. He gets his mind off of his family's death by continuing his crusade. Here, in the film, he falls into the action-hero cliche. He uses the over-used "this is my last mission" line and looks like he's going to cry when he's around the girl. That's not matching character with the guy firing rockets into jumping bad guys. There's hints of smiles, which doesn't match either. If the Punisher was looking for redemption and salvation from little girls and their moms, he should have watched the remake of Man on Fire. Now he's just like every other action hero in the book.

Since I read the books, I'll say the books are more interesting in the character. The movie limits the weaponry to simply guns, gernades, and a single shot from a rocket launcher, all of which are familiar to movies. The books gave us a man the bad guys didn't stand a chance agaisnt. He won half the battle before walking up by using carefully placed trip-mines, misleading information to set a trap, and poisoning the food. Not as exciting, but he isn't action man, he's Punisher. Fair fighting isn't part of the programing. Read back and think which would be more interesting.

In all fairness, there are a few good Punisher moments, such as the broken glass pit. He shoots a man in the face without warning, to which the audience will most likely laugh. He has a broken nose and resets it without a word. He walks up behind someone and pushes their face into a doorframe, crushing it like cherry pie. Looking back at some of the violence, was everyone's face made out of cherry pie? Jigsaw recruits his men while marching around, an American flag behind him, giving the advice, "We'll do this the Army way. Give them money for a college fund they'll never see, give them a gun, and promise them they won't go to Iraq." His sidekick is his brother, Looney Bin Jim, who, upon his escape, celebrates by eating kidneys of the hospital staff. I guess cherry pie in the face wasn't enough.

Is it entertaining? No. The pace is slow and the character is one-note.

Is it for everyone? It is for those who like kidneys and cherry pie.

Is it memorable? I will admit, yes. There are moments of violent humor which will be hard to top. This humor is well-delivered against the face of Ray Winstone.

Transporter 3: Action Without Leaving Your Car

2008-12-04T20:08:00.002-07:00

Watching Transporter 3, I realized the film had everything Quantom of Solace was missing. It has a much better scene featuring cars and trains than Quantom had trying to get boats suspenseful. Then the car fell in the water and totally kicked Quantom's action. Not only did it have better action, but also better romance. The girl beside Martin, Frank Martin is more stylish and sexy than Camille of Quantom.

Transporter 3 is the third installment featuring Jason Statham as Frank Martin, an ex-special ops agent who works as a driver, no questions asked, no names given. This time, instead of hired, he's knocked on the back of the head and tied to the car. Himself and the package, the sexy Natalya Rudakova, are given bracelets that explode if they walk too far away from the car. Usually a gimmick to keep Frank from running away, it is instead part of the plot and action as Frank has to drive halfway across Europe. Someone steals the car and drives off, what is Frank to do? If you think outrunning a stolen car is impressive, you should see what he does after driving it off of a bridge.

You'll notice I barely touched the plot. All I've given you is the title character, a location, and a pretty girl. It sounds alot like what you could have figured out from the title and a quick IMDb.com search. In truth, there is nothing else to know except that Transporter 3 exceeded all expections in all areas. Very easily they could have put Frank in a room full of goons and grunted out the same rules while pulling Statham's fighting action, but instead they make a joke out of the rules, already broken in the first two movies and known by everyone the rules won't be kept for long in the third. Instead, they have fun. The rules become intentional punchlines.

The sexy girl in the passenger seat is more than eye candy for the male audience. At first, she's depressed, knowing when they reach their destination, the bad guys will try to kill them. She's sure they will, so she pouts. She's entertained when Frank fights. Yes, he takes off his clothes like he has done in previous movies, all so he can strangle guys with his shirt sleeves, but this time he has the female audience in the car, grinning at the show. On the road, she lightens up, takes drugs, and drinks. Talk about a different approach to death. Frank is worried about dying, focused on getting out of it, she wants to party like it's her last day alive.

Remember when I mentioned it was better than Bond? Her name is Valentina, she parties, and (in my opinion as a guy) she made freckles sexy again. How many movies bring a sexy girl WITH an original look?

Back to the action... He can't leave the car, so what will he do when drives off of a bridge, landing on the water below? The answer is impressive, almost believable. After getting his car back on dry land and running again, I didn't care about the impossibilities of driving the car onto a train, espically parking it on top of the train so he is close enough to fight the bad guys below. Nor did I care the bad guy probably would have had some kind of detonation device for the bracelet just in case. The bad guy seemed cocky enough to think such a safety measure wasn't necessary.

Is it entertaining? Although a slow start, it picks up, espically as it gets closer to the end.

Is it for everyone? Yes, although the young male audience will be its loyal fanbase.

Is it memorable? Yes. Statham in the car is like Schwarzenegger with a machine gun in the 80's. It sells and sells well. Statham is with driving what Jet Li is for high-flying martial arts and Van Damme for high-flying kicks. Although it might get old, he is more than a few movies fad.

Quantum of Solace: I Could Really Use a High-Tech Gadget to Save my Life Right Now

2008-11-28T01:16:00.004-07:00

Quantum of Solace is a James Bond movie that can stand on its own two feet, continue where the previous one left off, and provide a decent amount of quality action and one-liners, so long as forget the first 20 James Bond movies. It is missing gadgets, funny names, womanizing, Moneypenny, Q, and a diabolical plan to be ruined. It nails chases, Bond's dark killing rage and hidden emotions, and a wonderful M played by Judi Dench. The drama is between M and Bond when it is suppose to be about making love when he's not distracted by saving the world.

Daniel Craig plays James Bond. I believe he plays out better than everyone else minus Sean Connery (of course) and the earlier works of Pierce Bronson. Quantum picks up where Casino Royale left off. Bad guys are in hot pursuit of Bond, driving around cliffs in Italy with the villianious Mr. White stashed in the trunk. Bad guys are shooting bullets at him, but you'd think that at some point they would pull out rockets or grenades, as obviously the bullets aren't working. After this is an interrigation scene, which is probably the best dialogue to be found in the movie. From here it is a chase which looks similiar to Jason Bourne's. There's leaping from balconies, running on rooftops, and the occasional shooting.

Where is all this heading? Everyone slowly figures out as Bond grasps at stray hairs for hints that an evil CEO of a company is trying to... wait for it... sabatoge the water supply of Bolivia. This villian is obviously not up to grand heist of Goldfinger or foresight of stealing a Goldeneye satellite. His name is Dominic Green. The love interest's name is Camille. Perhaps Green's name is referencing his environmental position, but then what is up with the simplicity of Camille? Bond has fallen a long way from bedding women like Pussy Galore, Xenia Onatopp, Vesper Lynn and Dr. Christmas. He exploited his way into Solitaire's bed, which established him as womanizing instead of romantic. Here, they seem to be about revenge rather one-liners wrapped in bedsheets. I don't even believe Bond slept with Camille. He did sleep with Strawberry Fields, although you have to read the credits to see the point in the name.

I remember back when the movie ended with a zippy one-liner, a kiss, and they rolled in the bedsheets just before the credits rolled. Here, Bond will pull the car over, tell the girl it has been nice, and they part ways. Hardly as much fun as the first 20 Bond films or dramatic as Vesper's death.

While I don't mind the action since it was done well, it feels like all other action. Bond's action is suppose to have gadgets and toys. When the SWAT team storms in, I couldn't help but think of how in any other movie, Bond would throw down a pin that was actually a smoke bomb or flash-bang and disappear. The action is brutal and we understand Bond's doggish pursuits are a sign of a violent obsession with revenge, but that doesn't mean he has to do everything the hard way. The watch could include a laser, radio disruptor, or something. What does his watch do? Wait for it... it glows in the dark!

Is it entertaining? As the movie gives you more chases, they get shorter, as though they know the audience is getting tired of it, so they were smart. It's entertaining.

Is it for everyone? No. Those fans of the classics will have a tough time adjusting.

Is it memorable? No. Casino Royale was. This one isn't.

House: More of a Nightmare Bed and Breakfast

2008-11-19T02:13:00.002-07:00

I walked into this movie knowing nothing about it. No previews, only knowing the genre is horror and the ticket is $4.25 (bargain theater). It is part of my commentment to avoid spoilers before seeing the movie. Imagine if you didn't know a body was going to fall on the taxi in Collateral or everyone dies at the end of a tragedy. Many fake deaths had been revealed earlier due to knowing they'd have future scenes that I had seen in the previews. This made me even more confused as the movie got to the plot. Maybe the movie needed a preview so you can tell it isn't what it pretends to be at first.

The pace is fast and the plot slow and hardly there. A couple gets stranded when taking a short-cut off of the highway. Horror critic advice: never take the short-cut. If wrong turns are bad enough, short-cuts are suicide. They walk in the rain down the road to a - you guessed it - a house! It's actually a bed and breakfast, where they met a second couple, only this one isn't having relationship troubles. The house makes noises, which they quickly forget about. They see things that aren't there, but the characters know they're not there while the audience is still in the dark. The lights go out, the hotel staff appear out of no where, the table is already set for the four guests. The phone doesn't work.

What's wrong with this formula for haunted house? The characters point everything out. A table for four already set speaks for itself when the four walk into the room and stare at the plates, but that doesn't stop the characters from talking about it as though we couldn't notice. No one replies to this being pointed out, only moves on to whatever's next. They're observant, but don't notice the steel caging next to the door with a really big lock.

Right when you thought the plot was established... there's a killer outside. Inside and trapped isn't the worry, it's keeping the masked killer outside kept out! Give the movie five minutes and they reverse, it's the keepy people inside that we're suppose to worry about.

Now comes the good news and the bad news. Bad news: the plot changes again. Good news: this plot is better. Each of the guests have a dark secret of one kind or another. They relive it in a haze, as though they may be imagining it, or the house puts them right there. This is starting to feel like Stephen King in a good way. I get the same creepy feelings I had when I first watched The Shining (the best hotel horror) and 1408 (good psychological/past horror). Oh, and what does the killer want? For one of them to be killed. One dead body provided, the rest get to live. It's like Saw only the game is presented and then forgotten about by the turns in the plot.

I liked the psychological aspect. That much absorbed me. I couldn't turn away when wondering what dark secrets the others would have, or if one would be executed when they reunited after various attempts to flee while leaving the others. Flashbacks are chilling. There is a printed paper scene echoing Shining which is almost as effective.

However, while the movie will, eventually, keep you in your seat, the bad outweighs the good. In the moment in the middle, it at the peak, but both ends of the mountain are steep. Like the multiple starts, there are multiple ends, which leave me half-satisfied (half are good), but still lack the chill in the spine at the end. The troubles in the relationships are established with two-line arguments that never give the movie depth. Right when you think one of them will explain what's bugging them, he ends the argument with, "YOU KNOW WHAT!?!?... I'm tired and hungry." Big revelation.

Is it entertaining? In the middle. That's one fourth boring, half entertaining, another fourth boring, in that order.

Is it for everyone? No. Horror fans will appreciate what it is going for, and can pick up on it, but the lousy script ruins most of it. Fire the dialogue writer.

Is it memorable? Only to Michael Madsen fans, who will note him as the villain.

You can see it and be entertained, but they make it too much of a mystery to enjoy. I kept feeling I was left in the dark, and rightfully so. These guys need to see 1408 again.

Quarantine: Breakout in Tight Spaces

2008-10-21T14:32:00.003-07:00

This is the movie I've been waiting for. It explains why Cloverfield fell short in places. This is a movie with the shakey cam, the shakey cam is part of the story, and when the violence and horror become the most intense, it is the flashlight and nighvision. The movie's flaws in logic are outside the camera use.

Quarantine is the recording of a cameraman and reporter as they shadow a crew of firefighters (not fireMEN like the movie continually misuses the name). They answer a call to an old apartment complex about a lady screaming in the next room over, is met with two police officers, break in the door, and find a lady foaming at the mouth. Violence insues, and as soon as they are rushing to the door to get out, the Center for Disease Control has sealed off the building, refusing to let anyone at by means of pointing guns and reinforcing the doors shut.

Anyone who has seen zombie movies knows what is happening. The government is being the bad guy and the individual interests of people prevents the group from adapting survivialist tactics necessary to survive. We've seen it down the road a dozen times. What makes it more effective here is it is more believable. The cam is used for a realistic tone (not the fantasy tone in Cloverfield, where it is a monster from no where), and the speed of the CDC in sealing off the building was not quick work, but rather something that was realized earlier and traced to the apartment. How it spreads and what the disease that turns them into rampaging killers is something that can be easily figured out, but it still slipped by me. I feel embarrassed I didn't see it earlier, but the degree of mystery, being half-believable, and the realistic tone of camera has been one of the best combinations since the black-and-white tone of Night of the Living Dead in a racist farmhouse.

The movie also carries a degree of humor. They are using the camera and are very aware of it. The police officer doesn't like the camera being around, but changes his position as soon as he feels the CDC has screwed him over. The reporter insists the camera stays on, not for marketing, but as an attempt to persuade the CDC to let them out by exposing them if they stay trapped in. When this doesn't work, she falls apart. I'm surprised the cameraman doesn't drop the camera more often, but the camera's presence is very noticable to both the audience and story, instead of merely a means of providing a point of view (again, Cloverfield). This adds to the quality of the work.

I recall this movie being described as a roller-coaster. That is most accurate in how it ends, running around with limited light, unsure of where it will go next. There are many jumps it will provide, and while these are nothing special to those use to the horror films, they are much better than the jumps in the recent Dark House films (The Grudge, The Messangers, The Return) where something jumps out, taking up half the screen and moving from dead silence to load music. Quarantine builds and builds and doesn't disappoint as it climaxes. It is as much fun watching the brutal violence as it is running from the infected, as it is to learn more and more about what happened to lead up to these events. It is not a detective story, but more shocks along the way.

I will admit, among all my praise, the ending leaves something to be desired, like all films with a camera like this. The other flaw is the characters are only given so much depth. The police officer acts like a police officer. We see him lose it only so much. The reporter is young and inexperienced, and spends much of her on-camera time playing around the firehouse and flirting with the firefighters like a schoolgirl. It adds to why the firefighters would defend her, but there's not much else to any characters. The residents are colorful variety, including a drunk, a mother and daughter, and people who don't speak English. I pretty much summarized their full depth in that alone.

Is it entertaining? Very much.

Is it for everyone? Yes. Some will grow tired of the shakey cam, but the better quality and more aspects of the story .

Is it memorable? Somewhat. It will stand up better than Cloverfield, and probably land on some "100 Scariest Movies" lists, but not a definite for all.

Body of Lies: We Couldn't Tell, Honest or Not

2008-10-10T23:42:00.002-07:00

Body of Lies starts out with an quote the movie should have focused more on. I didn't memorize all of it, but I did memorize (in paraphrasing): like the schoolchildren, those who have had evil done to them, do evil in return." That said, the movie focuses on conflicts between different sides of the forces at work against terrorism. They're on the same side, but different methods and different intelligence lead to different results. When they don't work together, the enemy realizes there's alot of secret agent men around and they go into hiding.

Leonardo DiCaprio is convincing (I'll explain later) as Roger Ferris, a C.I.A. operative who speaks and understands many of the languages and cultures in the Middle East. He grows out a beard and even blends in as a pale Iraqi. Russell Crowe is his boss, Hoffman, who stays in touch consistently via phone. The two never seem to be out of signal range, and there is always a C.I.A. spy satellite following Ferris. Mark Strong is Hani, the head of the Jordan Secret Service (read Jordan C.I.A.), whom Ferris immediately puts full trust in.

The careful readers will notice I explaiend the characters and not the plot. That's because, in all honesty, there are three plots. Maybe a more appropriate title for this movie is Three C.I.A. Operations and a Love Story. The movie moves from one plot to another like the previous didn't exist. Right when I believe Ferris truly cares about the loss of his partner who was beside him when an RPG blew up their car, the story puts Ferris in a different country. Apparently his friendship was left at the border, but a line about his friend needing justice would be nice. Why do I give such attention to the loss of his friend? Because the best line of the movie happens there. Ferris wakes up in a hospital, a doctor removing sharpnel from his arm. The doctor says, "Bone fragments... not yours."

Ferris is the type of agent that believes you have to understand the Middle East in order to fight in it. While Hoffman understands the technology and methods, he misses the importance of the culture. Hani is more capable using creative, non-torture methods to get an insider in the terrorist organization than any number of Hoffman's satellites, but Hoffman just won't leave it to the Jordans. This is why Ferris instantly wins Hani's trust and Hoffman almost immediately shoots himself in the foot, and their operations ultimately screw each other, screwing up their own in the process.

I know many of the men are asking why is DiCaprio a good actor in my mind suddenly? I realized here how well he speaks the language, looks the part, and is believable as a C.I.A. operative. No, I may not understand Ferris as a character because DiCaprio is playing him, nor Danny Archer (Blood Diamond), nor Billy Costigan (The Departed), but I do see him in terms of his profession. I realize now Billy Costigan walked around because, as a paniced undercover cop, he felt like running around, the same way Ferris is probably the only person that fully knows what happens next. He is convincing in his tone to Hoffman when he says, "In case you didn't see it, yes, it was me that assassinated him." He fully knows as his profession who he is saying it to and why in those words.

The movie is entertaining to see how the C.I.A. operates and the Jordanis operate, both very different. It seems annoying that at the end of each of the C.I.A. operations, Hoffman manages to screw it up or fall short. He ends it all with "Sorry, buddy," in the end, which I think is better than any monologue with Ferris. Hani is creative in his methods. Hani tells the mother of a member of the terrorist organization that he is now a successful businessman, sends her gifts in her son's name, hands him a cell phone, and tells him how he now has to tell his mother these lies of success. He has the terrorist in the palm of his hand, only spending money on gifts to the mother instead of satellites. Wow.

This is eye-opening, but it stretches everything too far and I feel tried of the story by the end. It is three plots, which Hoffman screws up every time. I'm not surprised by the third, except in the way the terrorists fool Hoffman. But by the lack of surprise by Hoffman, I feel this trick is only new to the audience. Hani is more interesting, and more time and plot should have been given to him instead of Hoffman. There's an entire side-plot about how Ferris and Hoffman create a fictional terrorist organization to bring their true target out by jealously, but then... guess what... Hoffman is only halfway committed to it and it backfires.

I could go on about exactly how Hani is a step ahead, but after you see the movie, just think for a minute how Hani might already be a step ahead of everybody and you'll get the idea.

The love story is only interesting because it is between a white and an Iranni, and it reveals how hard a relationship can be to form in traditional Middle East. When Ferris goes to have lunch with his love's sister's family, there are no men at the table. Use the war to fill this in, and suddenly you realize director Ridley Scott's attention to detail.

The love story doesn't need to be there. It feels forced into the plot, just like a shootout at the start and perfect-timing in the end. I would have believed either one, just not both in the same movie. Ferris was moved into being Jason Bourne for a moment there, dodging RPGs, being all-too-good at shoot-outs, and just too passive with it all.

I appreciate Ridley Scott, but his more believable or historically precise work is better. This is in line with Kingdom of Heaven and Black Hawk Down, but it is not his best. It is surprisingly up to date with technology, just not believable in how much Ferris can take without showing us some time-off or more time in the infirmary developing his underdeveloped romance with the Irani nurse.

Is it entertaining? It is for the first two plots, but I'm tired by the third and wanting my conclusion. The tech and methods satisfied me until then, so yes.

Is it for everyone? Yes. This is not gore or action based, nor political. This is tech/method-based, which is more about the different agencies being different than anything, which is a new terroritory that can appeal to everyone.

Is it memorable? No. It is not Black Hawk Down or anything of the nature. Ultimately, it will be overshadowed by the simple games played by Jason Bourne.

Lakeview Terrace: Law and Racial Disorder

2008-10-10T02:38:00.002-07:00

This is a great movie to touch on interracial relationships and racism in general. Where most go for dramatic or philosophical, an overarching comment on society, Lakeview Terrace is instead humanizing. It is not evil, but people who have been damaged damaging in turn.

Chris and Lisa (Patrick Wilson and Kerry Washington) play a young interracial couple who have just moved into their first home: prime-valued L.A. property. Their next-door neighbor, Abel Turner (wonderfully played by Samuel L. Jackson), doesn't approve of their relationship. He makes life difficult while still appearing to have good-intentions. Both bad intentions and the appearance of good intentions are complicated by the fact he's a police officer. He's a watchdog for the neighborhood.

Think for a moment. He is a black man approaching an interracial couple with a white male. How would this be different if the races were switched with the men? If it was a white man that had the problem, or if the two men were the same race? Well?

It's thoughts of why the situation is complicated that propel half the story. Many people people can bite their tongues and not mention races when they see the couple, but when Chris and Lisa go to her wealthy attorney-father, he asks Chris up front "how do you plan to protect my daughter?" There is no right answer to this, and it already implies Chris is not fit to. He also asks if they plan on having kids, but doesn't sound eager. Chris isn't eager either, but Lisa is.

Every aspect of their relationship is complicated by race, an issue they can't hide because Abel Turner will find a way to hurt them, either physically or emotionally. How many ways can you harm a couple? I am surprised with the number of angles the script allows him to go at them from. But he's not an element of society or a random black officer: he is Abel Turner, a strict father and widower. He loves his job and works hard to get along with his fellow officers. I feel he intends for the best in his watchdog duties, no matter how forceful he is.

The film includes two uses of the F-word, an attempted rape (not by Chris or Abel), and very tense including one with a neighbor yeilding a chainsaw. I honestly don't know how to categorize this movie. At times, it was horror, in manipulation if nothing else. Other times, it was a drama between an interracial couple, or a thriller about an ill-intending neighbor-cop. It isn't about any one of these, but the three together. The subjects can't be separated, as the script does a great job blending them.

I do have a question for the readers. In the end, was Chris justified? I do mean the very end. Or did he just press Abel's buttons the same way his buttons were pressed? Knowing Abel's reaction, is he justified?

Is it entertaining? Very, but it needs a careful eye to understand every aspect of the horror.

Is it marketable? Yes. And not offensive.

Is it memorable? Yes. The human approach separates, and while the characters or acting might not be top-line, the way the issues are set is.

Dark Knight: Struggle between Law and Chaos, a Surreal "Heat"?

2008-07-18T20:17:00.002-07:00

Like Ebert once said, "A good movie is always too short." Clocking in short of three hours, the only hard part about the length of The Dark Knight is the strain on the bladder. The movie is a tragedy played out between superheros, idealists, and white knights on side and mobsters, thugs, and a new chaotic demon on the other. This is beyond the comicbook movie, although those seem to be evolving with Frank Miller's The Spirit and nerd-crazed Watchmen. Here, they have a new level, bringing the crime drama to both a conflict of the gods and human emotion at the same time. I thought Iron Man was the movie to bring the comicbook to the form that would give it massive audience, but Dark Knight will probably be cast a shadow over it and rightfully so. (Note: This does not lower the value I see in Iron Man. The Exorcist did the same thing to horror film, casting a shaodw in the previous year's Rosemary's Baby, one of my all-time favorites.)

The film picks up where Batman Begins left off, but the past speaks for itself and lets the characters move the sequel for itself. The Joker (the late Heath Ledger) is psychoatic and violent. The only insight to his past is his explanation of his scarred smile, revealing a violent childhood against his father. To say he wants to destroy is an understatement. He wants to see other men lose their morals and burn the world around them for him. Mobsters take money, he just wants to see everyone fight and plots how to get the most people to do so. Adding this element into the corrupt Gotham City has Batman (Christian Bale), Lt. Gordon (Gary Oldman), and fearless District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) pushing the limits on their morals and methods in attempts to bring the violence to an end.

Probably the greatest insight of this movie is how it plays on all levels of the field. Gordon, Dent, and Batman all face loss and question how far they will go. Some early violence close to their characters shows the movie isn't afraid to throw close punches and let some of them land. While we watch the three good men fall from grace and come to their limits, just as entertaining is seeing new depths of the Joker's plans, setting people against each other and themselves.

Clocking in at 152 minutes, the movie is a testiment to good writing. It doesn't feel like two hours at all because the script keeps a constant move without any old formula to fall into. There are unexpected turns throughout to keep it apart from other films, but ultimately the movie stands on its own.

There's a number of unspoken references to the first film that add to depth of the characters if you think about them. Both Batman and Joker are results of violent childhoods, one struggling for good to overcome it, the other enjoying it. Both of them cast out their previous lives for the new ones dueling against each other. The Joker questions what it would take for Batman to break his "one rule," echoing how Batman was cast out from the League of Shadows in the first movie. No doubt, Batman remembers the death of his parents and is haunted by it thoroughout other deaths.

A big question for those looking deep is why is this so good as a superhero movie instead of a cop drama? Why does this plot outline work so well in this genre? I believe the film is part surrealism. Batman is the embodiment of criminals' fears while the Joker is the living nightmares of his violent childhood. Gordon is law and order, police following his every move carrying out his orders. Dent is something you'll have to watch to understand.

Alfred (Michael Caine) provides insightful conversation with Batman, where we get an idea of the surrealism with the line, "Batman has no limits." When he asks him how did Alfred, when he was in the service in the jungles of Burma, how'd he catch the man that simply wanted to watch the world burn, Alfred replies a chilling, "We burned the jungle down." Words very close to what men of the law are resorting to.

Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) puts his objection to how far Batman has gone when he sees Batman has tapped every phone in Gotham. Although Batman puts the man who objected to the machine in charge of it, it doesn't come off as a political issue, no matter how many times they say "terrorist." It is a philosophical fight, and the characters have been given enough depth, it is no longer our issue, but their's.

I believe the movie deserves an oscar for Heath Ledger's performance, which speaks for itself better than I ever could. The script is one of the best I've ever seen for plot alone. I once saw a webcomic saying Director Christopher Nolan sold his sold for the cast of Batman Begins. If he did for Dark Knight, it was worth the price.

Is it entertaining? Yes. Every minute.

Is it for everyone? Yes. Although it is not for young kids, most of the violent is off-screen or rather bloodless. He's shot but doesn't spray blood. Joker cuts mouths open, but the camera moves away carefully, still sending chills. The blend of action, iconic characters, and serious drama blends well for every to enjoy this movie immensely in one aspect or the other.

Is it memorable? Yes. If we could forget Ledger's death, we would still not forget the importance.

Suggestion: See it on the big screen.

Get Smart: Name's Smart, Maxwell Smart

2008-06-25T12:19:00.003-07:00

There's irreverent humor and then there's classic humor. While it seems classic humor has been kept to Pixar and Kung Fu Panda while irreverent humor has taken mass quantities with Zohan, Love Guru, and Knocked Up, this movie stands outas excelling classic humor still works. (Please note I did enjoy Zohan and Knocked Up). It is a spy movie where everything is taken with a tone of seriousness, where no one winks at the camera, fully of people playing the straightman, we can't help but laugh at the obscureness of it all.

Get Smart follows Maxwell Smart, an analyst for CONTROL. He translates eavesdropped conversations tries to decode their meaning. CONTROL is secret brother agency to CIA and opposition to the terrorist counterpart in Russia, KAOS. Smart desperately wants to become an agent, and has repetatively taken the exam. In the end, he's a bookworm, not a on-the-feild guy. After CONTROL is broken into and agents assassinated around the world, the Chief (Alan Arkin) promotes Smart, partners him with the attractive, experienced Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway) to stop the nuclear weapons from being passed around.

With performances on cue, a star-picked cast, and the writing of Mel Brooks to back it all up, what really filled in the gabs was a faint sense of realism. What are secret agents like? They're not tough guys, all patriotism and pro-government, they're like all other government officials and bureaucrats. They have a rivalry against the CIA, hate meetings and reports (except for Smart), are always eager for promotion, have work-complicated relationships, frustrations when women and men work together, and are jealous ex-boyfriends.

Of course there are side-jokes, such as the confusion of whether "hot" means "radioactive" or "attractive." There is chemistry between Carrell and Hathaway, but not in the romantic sense. There is chemistry between them in the competitive relationship. Hathaway may save Smart, but he's the one who finds a humorous way to the next clue, and neither forget to remind the other how they've one-upped them.

Included is a great chase involving cars, planes, and a train, that if not for the one-liners and crashing through a gulf course, would be just as suspenseful as Bond. Nuclear weapons used to blow up a building? Nothing like this has been used since 9/11. Humor may be our way of breaking away from it. Not a judgement, but something worth noticing.

The series of misadventures blend slapstick, real-life references ("Nuke-u-lar." "It's nuclear!"), spoofing other movies (mostly Bond), and some fresh material. It is a careful blend where, if you find one part funny, you will find all of them parts funny.

Is it entertaining? Highly, espically if you are use to spy movies, then you will find extra enjoyment as the humor relies on the seriousness of everyone else.

Is it for everyone? Yes. While it would offend no one, the humor is classic kind, not relying on current events or aiming for a particular audience. It entertains adults, young adults, and old children alike.

Is it memorable? Yes. The lead and supporting roles were idealy cast. "The Rock" is now Dwayne Johnson, acting in his own respect, Carrell's performance is one of his finest without relying on 40-Year-Old Virgin script, and I have a new respect for Anne Hathaway fitting into a role, both physically demanding and to implying depth to an otherwise small-character.

My advice: Now or on DVD later, this is a comedy that hits harder for the audience slightly older than the Kung Fu Panda crowd.

Love Guru: You CAN Mess With the Guru!

2008-06-25T11:34:00.003-07:00

Sorry about the continuing use of "You Don't Mess With..." This will be my last one.

The Love Guru is a movie I could have lived the rest of my life without seeing. In fact, I'd probably be a more humorous person if I had not seen this movie. That's right, this is an anti-funny comedy.

Mike Meyers of Austin Powers icon shamefully shifts gears as Pitka, a Hindi Guru in America who is miserable because he's the number 2 guru, behind Deepak Chopra. His agent says it's because he's not on the Oprah show, so he takes the job of helping the star Darren of the Toronto Maple Leafs (Romany Malco of TV's "Weeds" and Baby Mama) get his wife back from the L.A. King's star goalie, Jacques "de Coq" Grande (Justin Timberlake). His agent says this will book him on Oprah so he can beat Deepak Chopra. (Noticed how no one laughed when reading that last line about Oprah and Chopra? That's how the movie plays out.) Pitka flirts with the Toronto hockey team's owner, Jessica Alba.

The movie is a long-running series of penis jokes that haven't been funny since elementary school. The audience that laughed were the same people every time, and it said something about their maturity. I'm a Catholic, and I felt offended for the Hindus in this movie than I was offended for myself in The Da Vinci Code.

Most of the humor was recycled from Austin Powers. There were midgets jokes at the coach of the Maple Leafs, things unnecessarily shaped like penises, references to penises, references to sex, and sports announcers on drugs. Wait, sports announcers on drugs was actually Dodgeball and it was funny. Here, it is unoriginal and the punchlines can be seen a mile away.

I am saddened to say the plot seemed half-usable. A spiritual guide helps a sports star get his wife back from the star of the other team. It could blend spirituality with sports with romance. I realized this could be done Malco gives a convincing performance that there are no punchlines as he explains to his wife he left her because he was afraid she would leave him if he didn't win the Stanley Cup. This is the only scene taken seriously, and it is in Malco's performance we can tell there is no joke here.

Is it entertaining? No.

Is it for everyone? No one actually. Espically not Hindus.

Is it memorable? Yes. It is already up for the Razie's "Worst Movie of 2008" as well as the Red Tie's "Insult to the Industry."

My suggestion: Go see Get Smart.

DVD Releases for June 24th, 2008

2008-06-24T11:20:00.002-07:00

Haven't done these in forever, so bare with me. Two weeks ago, out on DVD, is Jumper, which can be reviewed here: http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2008/02/jumper-with-great-power-comes-no-plot.html.
This week we have a line-up of good movies on DVD. First is Spiderwick Chronicles, an imaginative piece with goblins and fairies in the backyard that I believe is great for kids and adults alike, even if it is alittle scary for the young ones. You can read the review here: http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2008/02/spiderwick-chronicles-great-family.html. Second is Definitely, Maybe, a romantic-comedy for those that seem to bounce around between different people in relationships. You can read the review here: http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2008/03/definitely-maybe-may-be-good-movie.html.
Next week, look for the release of Vantage Point. On second thought, don't look. You can read why here: http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2008/02/vantage-point-8-eight-points-of-view.html.

The Happening: You Don't Mess With the Plants!

2008-06-17T15:09:00.002-07:00

It takes a moment to realize it, but watching The Happening, I there was next to no special effects, and the special effects used were only because it was easier than make-up. (I make exception for one scene, which I will forever critize.) Writer-director M. Night Shyamalan (The Sixth Sense) shines with presenting a large-scale threat to humanity and making it fearful by keeping it almost entirely confined to what the couple we're following knows. The idea is simple, everything else is not.

There is something happening. "Event" is accurate, but only because it could be an "attack," "disaster," or really anything. People start killing themselves one-by-one in Central Park, NYC. It spreads over New York, starting at parks in the large cities and moving to smaller ones. People suddenly stop walking and start killing themselves. Traffic cops shoot themselves, construction works jump from their buildings, and drivers crash their cars.

Philadelphia is the start, where a science teacher, Elliott Moore (Mark Wahlberg) talks to uninterested students about possible reasons why honeybees are disappearing with the words on chalkboard, "If the bee disappeared from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live. --Albert Einstein" staring from behind him. (No, Albert Einstein never said that, but it's background effect is still the same.) After New York is "hit," Moore grabs his wife, Alma (Zooey Deschanel) and they head away from the Northwest with a friend, Julian (John Leguizamo) and his daughter who has gone silent. The train stops in a small town, the conductors saying they've lost all communication outside. At a cafe, they say it's spreading all over the Northeast and a panic fills. They drive off, and when the roads aren't safe, they start walking.

This sounds uneventful, but brings up the big question of what do we do when mankind might be at its end? Since 9/11 we've worried about biological weapons, nuclear war, global warming either flooding or storming, and terrorist attacks of all kinds. The Happening centers on the helplessness and invisibility of the attack. It does become more freightening. Like my foreign politics professor once pointed out, "If terrorists really wanted us to be afraid, they'd throw a dart at the map and pick a small town school to blow up." As the small towns start getting hit, everyone is afraid. As it occurs in smaller and smaller cities and populations, the question slowly comes up, where do you run next? Do you abandon what few people are with you? How paranoid do you become? When is it crazy to suggest the obsurd to avoid an unknown attacker? End the end, they're running from the wind, unsure if the wind is even bringing anything.

One person suggests it is plants, suddenly tired of humans cutting down their forests and walking on their grass that they've developed a chemical to release to shut down the part of our minds that prevents us from harming ourselves. This sounds as crazy as any idea, but also as reasonable. What does man do against such a sudden attack? It is like watching the opposite of War of the Worlds, where bacteria kills us rather than saves us.

The horror is effective. The "attacks" are so unheard and without warning, so close, we find walking through a door freightening. The personal drama between Elliott and Alma is rather flat and never fully developes. They can be easily narrowed to "husband" and "wife" characters, like Honeybunny and Pumpkin. They do have moments where they confess, joke, reveal their worries, and overall act with a good script for scenes, but unlike the psychiatrist in Sixth Sense or the family in Signs, I felt there was a level of depth, a history that molded them that remained missing. Elliott is a science teacher to the fullest extent. He believes in science, and like Julian's math teacher traits calm his nerves by doing advanced math problems, Elliott refers back to science to calm himself and to figure out what to do, but we never learned what happened to him to make him love science so much, and therefore he nevers is truly as close to us as he could be.

Is it entertaining? Yes. The idea is original and the characters carry us more than necessary, even if it is never fully about them.

Is it for everyone? Not everyone will find it interesting. Some would prefer to know more or have less walking. I feel it brings it home to make it as simple as it is.

Is it memorable? Mostly. While it is effective in its own brand of horror, a Rosemary's Baby kind of paranoia (are they just crazy?) I doubt it will be looked back upon as though to define our post millenium fears like Night of the Living Dead summarized our red-scare fears and racism during the Nixon administration.

Incredible Hulk: You Don't Mess With the Green Man!

2008-06-15T19:09:00.002-07:00

Watching the Incredible Hulk, I noticed it had the exact opposite problem of the Hulk (2003). The current one had potential to be a great piece about characters, but was confined to a comicbook movie. Its predecessor did the opposite, leaving us desiring for more action. Hulk had a big green guy in the corner of the room looking for action. Looking back, I realize Incredible Hulk is paced and can keep both audiences attention, leaving me doublely-entertained with what is ultimately the superhero who will be overshadowed by Iron Man.

Incredible Hulk (no longer simply Hulk since the movie provides two big guys) follows Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) as he flees from the US military to hide in a cliff-side village in Brazil. After exposed to Gamma rays, he becomes an enlarged, massive, upset green hulk whenever he becomes too angry or his heart rate goes too high. The military, led by General "Thunderbolt" Ross (William Hurt) relentlessly chases Banner. The ground teams are led by Blonsky, who is the kind of guy that joins the arm so he can shoot stuff and feel macho. He's the equivalent of a well-trained bully who doesn't know not to pick on the green guy. The only other character worth mentioning is the General's daughter, Betty Ross (Liv Tyler). Her relations with her father haven't improved since he turned her boyfriend in a fugitive.

The movie shines beyond the special effects, or maybe only before it. I admire the storyline in its simplicity, avoiding overacrching lines to talk about the gravity of the situation, but instead leaving it simple lines or the look in Banner's eyes to see the level of danger he fears. As entertaining as the big green fights - but more intriguing - is watching Banner live with the monster inside of him. He flees to a city in Brazil built along a mountain, every building and apartment stretching up, reaching for air. At first it seems it was choosen only for its beauty and to reveal how many possible places Banner could run in the cover of the mountains and trees. Looking at it again, I realize we see it to realize he's hiding among the dense masses, harder to find than Waldo (except he's the only white man). On the flip side, we see how many people could be killed if the Hulk came out.

Banner is careful and thorough. He takes lessons from a breathing master to control his anger and practices Judo to calmly avoid accelerating fights. The dangers of turning into the hulk are everywhere. White guy is pushed around, an electrical spark or prick of the finger could start on his way to getting too upset, and his friends are bullied too. What director Louis Leterrier and screenwriter Zak Penn don't do is capitalize on this. They start off showing how cautious and dangerous the life of Banner is, but then they drop it for action. What was stressed in Hulk (2003) was Banner enjoyed being the hulk. How much more difficult would Banner's life be if he wanted to turn into the hulk every time he's picked on, but has to convince himself not to.

The action is also good, but nothing new. We never expect the military to be that much of a fight against the hulk, and their story is more of Betty and the General than anything with Banner. They steal time for the super-soldier serum to be given to Blonsky, which is a setup for two things: the Captain America movie, the Avengers movie, and the big fight between Blonsky and Hulk at the end. In the general direction of the family drama and Blonsky mutating, there is nothing original.

There is one new thing out of Incredible Hulk: Marvel-comics mega-action. We got a peak at that in Iron Man's armored-suit fights, Superman 2's Kreptonian fights, and various scenes in the Spider-Man series. Here, it comes full-circle, taken seriously, and done well. Special effects add a touch to it, espically when the hulk tears a cop car in two and uses it for boxing gloves while the car horn honks and siren flips on and off. Harlem gets ripped apart in comicbook boxing match. Speaking of which, if Marvel studios will be adding in cameos and matching up movies for to team-ups, why didn't Daredevil come down from Hell's Kitchen or Spider-Man from Downtown NYC? Where's the Punisher with a rocket launcher and C-4 when you need him?

Is it entertaining? Back and forth. It's entertaining half the time, a slow, calm the rest.

Is it marketable? The movie can be enjoyed by all, and so long as no kids have a problem with needles or action, there's only a minor foreplay to cover their eyes about. We all root for the big guy once there's an even bigger, meaner guy for him to pick on.

Is it memorable? It is a replacement for Hulk (2003) and it succeeds in changing the direction Marvel wants for the Avengers and Captain America. It will be remembered for following Iron Man in Marvel tying its universe together, but ultimately it will be in Iron Man's shadow.

Kung Fu Panda: You don't Mess With the Panda!

2008-06-06T13:10:00.003-07:00

I was impressed with Kung Fu Panda, espically in its slapstick comedy and the use of computer generated colors to paint the mood. The story is as simple as the title: a Panda - big, round, and out of shape - must go against all odds to master Kung Fu. There's a villian, a mentor, and a wise-old man, and the movie fills in to the usual kung fu formula between its real entertainment, the awkwardness of a Panda learning kung fu behind the voice of Jack Black.

Storyline is simple. Po is a panda who dreams of being a Kung Fu warrior, but is tied to his father (a duck) who dreams of him carrying on the noodle business. When Po is choosen by accident to have the title of "Dragon Warrior" to save the land from the rage of Tai Lung who has escaped from prison. His teacher disapproves of him for his previous students who dispise him, but Tai Lung comes closer with no progress in the panda's training.

The story exceeds expectations as a slapstick comedy. Not since The Emperor's New Groove have I hit my leg so hard with laughter from a cartoon. Although you may see some of the hits coming, there are a few that go beyond. They have a new, creative touch to the Kung Fu movie and a colorful way to express it.

The voices are a who's who. Dustin Hoffman does the voice of Po's teacher, although I didn't realize it until the credits. I would never have thought of Seth Rogen (Knocked Up) or David Cross (Alvin and the Chipmonks) as choices for Kung Fu characters, but they work on the same level as Angelina Jolie, Jackie Chan, and Lucy Liu. Additionally, Michael Clarke Duncan does the opposite of his Green Mile role and plays a prison guard.

The only faults I can find in the movie are cliche and aren't willing to make fun of the cliches enough. There's a scene where the wise old man gives the advice, "there is no bad or good news, there is only news," only to backpedal when he hears the news, "that is bad news..." This is a play on movie cliches and the wise old one-liners (to see a movie that abused one-liners like these, see The Peaceful Warrior and listen to Nick Nolte). The teacher racoon is as small as Yoda and has the mustache of every Kung Fu mentor before (see The Karate Kid, Kill Bill, and just about all Japanesse Kung Fu movies), but they aren't willing to make fun of it. Kill Bill made fun of all the Kung Fu movies styles before it when it named a style "Eagle's Claw" only for it to be a single-handed attack with Kung Fu grip. Kung Fu Panda pulls too many punches when it could make fun of so many movies before it like Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz did, which led them to success. Panda's original material carries it through, but it's potential is more.

The artists did a good job with the color and landscaping, and the action scenes speak for themselves visually, where there isn't one that doesn't impress the audience. The fight goes to a new level as the characters take it there, and the visuals follow it all. It isn't Pixar-level, where they're showing us something new, usually a blend of two worlds. There is a question if this could have been better drawn instead of computer-animated, but I believe the answer is no. With Pixar, however, there is no question.

Is it entertaining? Yes. It is laugh-out-loud funny.

Is it for everyone? Yes. Both kids and adults will enjoy the humor of it.

Is it memorable? To an extent. It is better than most family comedies and likely to be one of the best this summer, potentially next to Get Smart and Wall-E.

Strangers: The Director is his Own Worst Enemy

2008-05-30T01:28:00.003-07:00

I didn't have to read the IMDb.com profile page for director Bryan Bertino to realize it was his first time directing. The movie told me that. He has a great first act, and it is easy to see how he convinced the studios to give him the greenlight. But after the initial set-up, some decent chills, and great potential, the movie lost its climax and I started counting how Bertino was using the same methods to try to get me to jump out of my seat. Some people behind me jumped time and again. I laughed after the first time.

The Strangers follows twenty-something couple James and Kristen (Scott Speedman and Liv Tyler) as they stay at a friends summer house in the woods after a wedding reception. They go there alone for a romantic night, even if the plans didn't work out, for romance or safety. It starts with a knock on the door with a creepy girl asking who's home. Then Kristen sees someone out the window. Then there's more of them. Like so many movies before, they have no way to communicate and no way to run. (Movies before being The Shining, Evil Dead, and The Ruins to name a few.)

The advantage to Strangers is Bertino (who also wrote) knows he has only two victims and giving them hope is a cliche thing to do. There's no cops to pass by or neighbors to reach. The struggle is kept between them and those they've never met. The game is kept to cat and mouse for the most part, with minimal violence except for the end. The strangers tease their prey, let them crawl around and hide, move about and attempt to find a way to escape. And for this part, when Bertino is keeping away from the cliche stab-then-luck-gets-you-away, the movie is effective and creepy.

But regrettably it loses itself in the second act. I started counting the times a white mask slowly appeared behind the shadows, telling us something the character is later going to find out or jump at. The first problem with this is it would be more effective if the story followed the characters instead of the camera. Don't show us the masked man sneaking around while Kristen's back is turned, him stealing her phone. Instead, let us see the shock on her face when she sees the phone burning. If someone is on the other side of the window, ready to jump out at her, don't show us them before they jump at her, wait until he jumps for us to see them. In short, why Bertino let us be the third party in the house when the scariness is being Kristen and James. Let us have the ride from their eyes, like it was delivered in Cloverfeild, a slightly more scary movie that did win my approval.

The second problem is he repeats this. The ironic scare of us seeing whats coming before the victims do gets tired quickly. Even more, it loses its effect when there isn't a follow-through. Why show us someone behind them if they're going to back away? That just teases the audience with they already know could be off-screen. That's what the camera is for, so we can wonder if the camera is actually the POV of a killer (The Shining's steady-cam), unknown off-screen noises to freak us out (they do that well in this movie), or sudden realization when the characters see what their predators have already done (like disabling the radio in The Shining or the phone ringing in the recent The Ruins).

The first act, the first 40 minutes of the movie, are still great. Dialogue and lines are kept to a minimum, trusting the audience to understand Kristen's guilty look at the decorative rose pedals and James eating a bucket ice cream by himself straight from the bucket as clear signs about their relationship, not needing extra dialogue. The isolation, Kristen's utter helplessness alone, and the presence of knives and guns that the initial prologue scene let's us glimpse, covered in blood warning of what is to come.

This is a brilliant start to a movie which doesn't end, but merely stops. We're left without a message, a meaning behind the killings. No Country for Old Men established a death figure or reaper, such that Anton kills because he is Anton, and watching Anton act and think is intriguing. There is nothing intriguing here, as almost anyone could stalk like the predators do in The Strangers. In the end, the killers unmask themselves, but we never see their expression. Did they enjoy doing this? Would they look like they were obligated to kill them? Is there a satisfaction from them in how everything ends?

These questions don't get answered. The movie doesn't answer, nor does it necessarily develope or become itself. It merely inspires us wonder about killers, or to go to the movies from an atttractive trailer where the killers respond to "Why are you doing this?" with a cold "because you were home."

I have faith Bertino, who could think up such a great idea could find a way to make his delivery as great as his initial imagination.

Is it entertaining? No. Its lack of climax prevents it from getting direction in its second-half and the repeated methods to make us jump in our seats stop working.

Is it for everyone? No. The movie is boarding torture-porn with emphasis on the cat-and-mouse aspect, which is way better than gory torture-porn.

Is it memorable? No.

Man on Fire: Both Halves of Revenge Given on Full

2008-05-14T20:12:00.004-07:00

This is a DVD Review of the two-disc Man on Fire: Extended Edition. Specifically, the 2004 remake. If there are two brother-directors I will see any movie of, it is Ridley and Tony Scott, who also own Scott Free Productions, a studio set for historical movies and experimental editing. It was this production that brought us Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven. The brothers are vastly different and incredible in their distinctive, artful movies. Man on Fire is a great exercise on editing and how simplified, but creative action can define characters more than the biggest shoot-outs.

Man on Fire follows former U.S. Special Forces Operative, John Creasy (Tony favorite Danzel Washington). Hunted by a past we never know the specifics of, he is now a suicidial drunk, finding comfort in his war buddy living in Mexico City, Rayburn (Chirstopher Walken). Creasy finds a job as a body-guard for a wealthy Mexican businessman, protecting his daughter Pita (Dakota Fanning). At first they are reclusive. Creasy does the job to pay bills and afford the alcohol. When he has drunken memories, he is suicidial and calls Rayburn. Development of a friendship with Pita is not a priority, but slowly the two bond. He becomes a father figure to her and applies his combat training to teach her and motivate her in swimming competitions.

Of course, as with anyone with too much skill in military tactics, the movie drops us hints as to what will be the second half, the second hour of the movie, from when Pita is kidnapped. The money drop-off goes bad and Pita is not heard from again. Creasy builds himself back up and delivers justice in a calm manner. His victims try to plead, saying they were only being professionals, only doing their job. Creasy calmly replies he is a professional. He is calm, a step above everyone in his way, and uses creative methods to insure he gets the accurate answers.

What makes Man on Fire unique is its depth, sometimes too much focus on pathos, to develop the characters. Creasy is not generic. He is written not for the macho action movie, but as a convincing opponent in the business of taking down kidnappers. A great example of this is he does not engage in the machoism of hand-to-hand combat most action movies feel obligated to include. His weapon is the gun, and he sticks to it. Crowded areas he carries a shotgun, public he uses a pistol. When he's suicidial, it is shown by him pointing the gun at his own head.

Another aspect is Dakota Fanning's performance. She is natural on-screen, seeming like a kid instead of a child-actress reading lines. Paired with well-experienced Washington, the two blend and gives off a natural feel, as though we're watching documentary instead of a movie. It isn't until music kicks in and the innovative subtitles pop up that we remember what we're watching.

This is the kick in the second half. Scott flips back and forth between Spanish and English. When Spanish is used, subtitles appear as people speak. Surprise words pop up, important words are large, and when it's conversation, the translation rolls out as the actors speak them, making a particular punchline effective in two languages. Flashy camera work and transitions keep the editing on its toes. This could be called abusing the camera, making the camera focus on something to make the audience think it's importance (the story and actors should lead the camera, not vice versa). But transitions come quick to calm snapshots when the scenes not full of action and more emotional. Street corners are introduced flashy with music preceeding action, so we know the action is around the corner.

Is it entertaining? Yes. Although it tests our patience at moments with unnecessary pathos in the second half - scenes that seem as repeats of previous scenes - it carries us through with memorable moments.

Is it marketable? Yes. Scott, Washington, and Fanning appeal to multiple audiences, be it with emotion, style, pathos, memorable lines, or a job well done.

Is it memorable? Yes. If not for the reasons above, the movie is worth a spot on your shelf for a single scene with an explosive and Creasy interrigating a kidnapper will give you your money's worth. The scene bring laughs and just desserts, which, as the tagline states, "Revenge is a dish best served cold."

Teeth: Don't Go Down There!!!

2008-05-12T23:36:00.005-07:00

WARNING: I did not pull back or censor myself in this review. It is about sexuality and horror. Also, the opinions in this movie reflect my interpretation of the movie, not my personal beliefs.
Let's talk about a controversal movie. Rosemary's Baby was a horror movie designed to scare women. It was a woman betrayed by a social group, her husband, and her doctors. Who is a better victim than a pregnant woman? Obviously girls could relate to her more. Teeth, recently released on DVD, is the scariest movie for men, aimed at the sexuality. Rosemay would have delivered vengeance she had these teeth.

Teeth follows young Dawn (convincingly played by unknown Jess Weixler), a girl both eager for sex, but also brainwashed by absence groups. The slightest sexual urge guilts her and she can't even masturbate. The real danger, however, is the vagini dentata, which is latin for the mythological teeth in the vagina. When she's tense, we fear it will bite her fingers off if she masturbates, when she's near-raped, there's a sudden crunch to disarm him.

The movie is horror-comedy, being they are hand-in-hand. The absence group is indeed brainwashed, avoiding even PG movies because they have making out. Too much pressure turns them to give in, but when guys don't accept "no," as an answer, they quickly learn it wasn't a rejection, it was a warning.

The joy of the movie is seeing Dawn slowly come into her comfort zone. She is at first exploring herself, a danger we know is there. Sex is uncomfortable and her body fights back. She eases up and enjoys it, but at the first sign the guy is betraying her, using her for sex, she assures he won't be able to again. In the end, her body is a weapon, just like all women able to use the lure of sex to get men as they want, she is able to disarm violently.

We may cheer for Dawn, but it is a horror on both sides. The look on the first disarmed man is that of rejection. Does this make him less of a man? Was his penis a weapon he used, to which Dawn is the first one with a defense designed specificly against it? The scenes are strong. Dawn is the victim in one way or the other and we sympathize for her, then she is aggressor, and we're left to debate if he truly deserved it.

Then the humor kicks in. What does a guy try to do when he is disarmed? Put it back? What does he say to the hospital doctors? Do you lash out at Dawn, being the bastard we know some to be, or do you stand in pity, the new victim?

The comedy kicks in full gear when a gynocologist is less than gentle with treating Dawn. His hand is stuck, and when he tries to pull away, he drags her. She kicks away from him, his hand and arm are pulled in an unexpected laugh at the movies tenses moments. Teeth is a good movie if for no other reason than its ability to shift gears from the tense to the aggressive to the hilarious.

Is it entertaining? Mostly. There are too many parts I felt the movie could at, that Dawn had completed her journey or that we knew the process and know what's going to happen to the next guy.

Is it for everyone? Yes. It can easily appeal to both sexes, but it limits itself with gruesome and graphic. Ironically, we never see a penis attached.

Is it memorable? Yes. For those that see it, it will stick in your mind like Carrie or May.

Speed Racer: Slower Down, Speed

2008-05-11T14:18:00.005-07:00

There is a simple problem with Speed Racer. It tries to do too much with every little part, in its attempts, it keeps you from enjoying the good parts. Good kung-fo is ruined by wiggling camera-work trying to add to the excitement, real-life action doesn't seem important when just seconds ago the characters were moving like cartoons with digital animation.

Speed Racer, taken in icon and name from the early Anime of scrolling frame to create the look of moving scenery, features the Racer family. They are Mom and Pops Racer (Susan Sarandon and John Goodman), Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch), his kid brother Sprottle and pet monkey Chim-Chim run Racer Motors all by themselves and their friend Sprocket. In addition, there's Speed's girlfriend, Trixie (Christini Ricci).

Speed is an A.D.D. kid who grows up to his dreams of doing one thing: racing to fulfill his lost brother's shoes. After initial success, he is offered a lucrative deal from Royalton Industries. After Speed turns down the offer, Royalton's founder (Roger Allam) reveals all the races are fixed for the sake of obtaining the greatest profit between companies and assures Speed he will never even finish a race if he goes against Royalton's wishes. In order to save racing and his family, he wll have to team up with the mysterious Racer X (Vantage Point's Matthew Fox) to help expose Royalton and his plans by winning the fixed races.

The storyline is nothing wrong, it's the whe way it is presented. The races go faster and have too much spinning for you to know when the cars are in control or not. The races are too faster where the colors blur. Every aspect of the scene isn't colored, its highlighted beyond belief. The light shines. There can't be a sky in background without it being the brightest shade of blue and the clouds (all shaped the same, like in the cartoon) being as bright as the sun. There would be some symbolism in the masked Racer X, the purple around everything around evil Royalton, the glorified rainbows of the tracks Speed wins and the harsh ice and sand on those he is in peril, except all of it is overdone in later scenes. There isn't a scene where the directors don't make light, color, and shadows prominent and distracting from what's worth seeing... oh, wait, there's probably nothing worth seeing!

The idea is trapped in video game atmosphere, pulling off car-jumping and weapons that would be fun for those playing but as a watcher, it's dull. Transformers was easier to understand and keep up with the action, and it used an everyman teen of Shia LaBeouf to keep the movie relatable, but I don't know what Speed is doing until after it is done.

The biggest proflem is the movie switches gears too much. There is suppose to real-life, three stooge humor, but then we're expected to laugh when the next gag is real-life charactrers blending cartoon movements. The kid crashes without a scratch, but then punches thrown are bruising. Ninja's sneaking into a room are creepy, then a punchline, they are fended off with decent kung-fu (which I can't get a good look at due to shifted camera-work), then Hanna-Barbera-style Flintstone wrestling. The inconsistency takes away from the good parts.

There are a few admirable parts. Goodman is able to add emotions. Shouting out "That's my boy!" comes off as a proud statement instead of a punchline. There's embarrassment and understanding anger in each scene. It is dampened by the lousy script preventing anyone from playing off of him. Ricci can make looking with the eyes and simple moves of the eyebrows as the only real-life action capable of blending with the cartoon and greenscreen. Fox gives off an effective voice of Racer X, which makes me interested in the mystery. Fox's masked character doesn't let him play with his eyes or expression, so he makes the most out of his voice, be it need to be chilling, cold, or mysterious.

Is it entertaining? No. It would make a better video-game. Cool moves, great graphics, and a sense of adventures, but it is only fun if you are playing it. Speed isn't relatable to enough for us to know what he's doing so we're lost at the cool parts.

Is it for everyone? Most. Anyone, even the kids can go to it, and espically the little ones would have fun. But it's too shallow, and those looking for some depth to the adventure will be greatly disappointed.

Is it memorable? No. Going way to far with greenscreen is nothing new. It was done wrong with the Star Wars prequels and done right with 300. This will not be anything noted in the progress of visual FX.

My suggestion: For adventure, watch Prince Caspian next week. For action, I strongly suggest Iron Man which was released last week. For a good combination, look out for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull to come out May 22th.

You can find the Iron Man review here: http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2008/05/iron-man-superhero-with-heart-of.html.

Iron Man: Superhero with a Heart of Electromagnets

2008-05-10T17:56:00.008-07:00

In a time of multiple superhero movies being done with too much haste and ill-fated ideas, Iron Man came off as a breath of fresh air. It was not Spider-Man (nor Spider-Man 2 for that matter), but it had a quality most superhero movies miss (both Fantastic Four, Catwoman, Superman Returns). Iron Man rests its quality not in action or the necessary - and therefore unimpressive - romance, but in a degree of depth and steady change in its main character, wonderfully played by Robert Downey, Jr.

Iron Man starts off with alcoholic, notorious playboy Tony Stark, a genius who inherited his father's weapon-making company and it the Howard Hughes of weapons. He rides back from a weapons demonstration in a humvee, flirting with the female driver as they drive through an Afghan desert. They are attacked, severely under-armored, and easily taken as Stark is blown away by a missile with his name on it.

In captivity, he is given a small electro-magnet generator to keep his heart from breaking apart (don't ask me how) and is demanded to build a weapon for terrorists. Instead, he puts his time towards a suit of iron armor, complete with rocket launchers and flamethrowers and escapes, determined to turn his company around and help the people hurt by the terrorists obtaining his weapons. This leads him to building a more advanced suit.

The movie rests on rounded performances. Downey, himself a rehabilitated drug-addict, pulls off the reforming alcoholic effectively. Stark is driven by guilt and the movie reminds us of this by making his construction of a suit an obsession instead of a hobby. Peter Parker (Spider-Man) might have needed his girlfriend in the crowd or a flashback of his uncle to give him motivation to save the day, Downey only needs to put on a ****ed-off look and focus more on saving lives to see his reasons.

The rest of the cast is well-rounded too. Terence Howard is the military friend who is there largely to show the promise of a sidekick for the sequel, but proves his amusement when he calls Stark while Iron Man is pursued by F-16s. Gywneth Paltrow is the love interested and personal assistant to the bazillionaire, which is more to reflect Stark's isolation and loneliness and playboy status. The romance is there out of necessity (who else would the villain kidnap?), but it does its part without making the characters go cliche.

For the iron hero himself, three parts made him a step above. The first is Downey's eyes. We spend as much time in the suit, Downey giving the look of those big brown eyes highlighted with the electrical-blue glow. He's accompanied by the voice of his computer-butler, Jarvis (perfectly voiced by Paul Bettany) to say the suit's statistics, power-left, etc. Between Jarvis' voice and Downey's eyes, the action is clear and complimented to make humor, tension, and danger. The second is the slow development. Instead of

The third is scene set. The comic-books focus on frames, single images giving a strong look. Iron Man uses strong colors and sets. The other armored villain has a blue, alien glow to him, particularly from the shadows. Stark's glow comes from his electro-magnet heart. The weapons' industry has a sci-fi feel, billionaire house is cartoon-colorful, the night flights over the city has stars and city lights with a space-like white light. The caves of Afghanistan are rough, a contrast to the smooth image the later designs of the Man of Iron.

My only complaint is the villains are dated and too simple. Spider-Man's villains have split personalities, which gave them depth (this is excluding Spider-Man 3). Batman has the crazed Joker and the romancing Catwoman. Iron Man's villain is evil enough to rip the heart out of your chest, but there's nothing to make him special. He's there to mostly have a battle between armored heroes rather than to make a statement or add to the hero or movie as a whole.

Is it entertaining? Very much so. There's character development, action, and humor, a well-rounded moive.

Is it for everyone? YES! CGI gives the fan-boys what they want, character development and Downey's performance will keep critics like me, the action will be there for the kids, and the humor of watching learning how to fly with anything-but-graceful jet-thrusters on his feet. Learning how to fly was worth the cost of admission.

Is it memorable? Mostly. I don't want to give it a full yes because it is over-shadowed by Spider-Man 2 and Batman Begins. Iron Man isn't likely to be the first name to be thought of when the word "superhero movie" comes into conversation, but it is definitely a standard for the movies that follow.

Harold and Kumar 2: The Wrong Way Down the Political Road

2008-04-30T13:09:00.005-07:00

Harold and Kumar go to White Castle set a standard for the modern stoner flick and the journey movie. The point is not where you're going, but the adventures on the way, be them drunken, stoned, illegal, or perverted. There is a fine line, though, about the movie being about the things along the journey and the journey being an excuse for what's along the way. Harold and Kkumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay crosses that line, being the lesser of the two movies.

Harold Lee and Kumar Patel (John Cho and Kal Penn) pick up where White Castle left off. The two grab plane tickets to go to Amsterdam so they can catch up with Harold's beloved Maria and enjoy the weed capital of the world. Along the way they bump into Kumar's ex, Vanessa (Danneel Harris), who is marrying a generic, rich, white, asshole boyfriend in a few days. The boys load the plane, and eventually Kumar reveals his bong, not able to wait to get a hit. It is mistaken for a bomb and the two are detained by an overzealous Homeland Security Agent (Rob Corddy) commanding a sensible NSA agent (Roger Bart is perfectly humble to counter Corddy's performance).

Long story short, they escape Guantanamo Bay, go to the US with some Cuban immigrants, and then make a roadtrip to Texas, in hopes of having Vanessa's politically strong fiance help them get cleared. Kumar, of course, intends to screw up the wedding and run from the law later.

The problem with the journey this time is the scenes are more focused on stereotypes turned on their head than exaggerations of real people. We watch Harold and Kumar's reactions instead of their involvement, the scenes are more of skits and punchlines like SNL. In the first one, they go to a business college to see about getting more weed, using Harold's invitation to a nerdy business club to get in. The nerds are all Asian and incredibly dorky, idolizing Harold's accounting job, and they invite him to a party after the meeting which he declines, only to find it is a wild party with weed. Harold is part of this dialogue and conversation, Kumar part of the persuasion to force him to the meeting, and Harold is himself in rejecting the invitation to the party and the regret of it. They are involved and pull themselves along.

In Guantanamo Bay, they are simply passing through and observing, sometimes running. The most involvement they have is with Neil Patrick Harris, reprising his drugged-out role of himself. Although it doesn't live up to its predecessor due to its uninvolvement of its main characters for most of the movie, the pair and their writers are still good at what they do. Turning stereotypes on its head is more fun in the unexpected way, and the movie is still worth a barrel of laughs.

Despite the title, the movie is minimally political message and more mocking such messages. In one scene, Rob Corddy's character wipes his rear end with the Bill of Rights, leaving a smear. The humor isn't in the outrageous, over-the-top action, but in the remark, "Why is your ass so dirty? Don't you wipe?!"

Is it entertaining? Yes, beat only by the first one.

Is it marketable? The political doesn't limit it, but being about stoners still does. Ebert liked the first one, but that was for the roadtrip.

Is it memorable? No. The first one was for its great execution and characters, but here the unexpected is just too far off.

My suggestion: See it for Spring laughs, or just wait for the DVD.

The Ruins: Evil Plants Attack Generic American College Students

2008-04-19T10:56:00.005-07:00

Movies tend to forget there needs to be more than "four college students" to their characters. The Ruins is one of those who forget, but manages to compensate for it for the most part, with gore, decent plot, and one moment that sent chills down spines where I - kid you not - smiled, and applauded the best twist I've seen in horror since the end of The 6th Sense.

Four American college students (two couples, of course) decide to avoid a tourist trap by following a German to an abandoned site of ruins his brother is excavating. Of course, this site is off of the map, down a long hike in the middle of the jungle, and where people will not look for them, but it still seems like a good idea. (Note: Red Tie Review does not endorse this kind of action. In fact, we endorse not going to such ruins or, as horror has show, vacationing at all). As they arrive at the ruins steps, Mayan villagers (not Mexicans, Mayans) show up and surround them. They try to warn them away from the ruins, then just point guns and shoot at them if the vacationers try to leave. Deep down inside the ruins, accessable only by an old rope down a deep dark drop, there's the sound of a cellphone ringing. Seeing as how the German's brother isn't around, they assume it's his and now they have a motivation to do something even more stupid than going to the ruins.

The propelling of the story is in the plot, not the characters. There's barely any depth or difference in them, but the suffering they go through, the psychological, physical, and mental deterioration make this worthy as a horror film. The vines do not give a reason, but they have too much movement to be only a force of nature. It is merciless, sneaking up on them in their sleep and eating at their skin in ways poison ivy and Venus Fly Trap couldn't even begin to compete. I can't tell you the full extent of what it can due without ruining the story, but it is right up there with the batteries falling out of Chuckie's box and realizing Hannibal Lector isn't in the elevator.

It would mean more if one person had more depth than the other. The fact one is a semi-recognizable name (Jena Malone) is the only clue to depth or character. One is made a future medical student for the sake of having someone with half a clue what improptu medical procedure needs to be done and to be half-smart, half-dumb enough to do it. I had to turn my head away for this, as some others will do. It's not focused on showing us the blood like Hostel and Saw, but leaves the imagination to fill up half the picture and the screams and expressions to fill the other half. It works, but these shots weren't taken seriously enough to have as much intensity as it could have had.

Is it entertaining? The pyschological element wasn't expected and a nice surprise. They make the most of it, and there is questions if it is the plants or just the survivors losing their minds. Largely entertaining, just short of 1408.

Is it marketable? Not everyone will be up for seeing vines crawl around under the skin, but it's non-showing aspects make it a cut above those relaying on piling the blood. For a limited-appealing horror, it goes for a broad audience.

Is it memorable? The ending is a cop-out, and simply isolating and torturing shallow characters isn't new. Killer plants aren't new either, but the way they crawl in, the subtle surprise of finding them under the skin isn't either. It's the characters trying to get and keep them out that is horrorifying. The single moment of realization I mentioned earlier, is the one scene that is memorable past anything else in the movie.

My suggestions: see it or rent it. I don't care where.

DVD Releases for April 15th, 2008

2008-04-15T17:06:00.002-07:00

As always, please support this site by making purchases using the links provided.

April 1st, two weeks ago (website was down then) the Red Tie Award Winner for Best Musical, Sweeney Todd came to DVD and with 2-Disc Edition. Read the review here http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2008/01/sweeney-todd-horror-musicial-on-razors.html.

April 8th, one week ago, the much over-rated and Academy Award Winner of Best Actor (I agree) and Best Cinematography, There Will Be Blood comes to DVD and Special Edition. Read the review here http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2008/02/there-will-be-blood-oilman-is-no.html. A movie overdone is also Lions for Lambs. Read the review here http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2007/11/lions-for-lambs-too-little-about-too.html.

This week, April 15th, the Red Tie Award Winner for Most Lovable and Most Human Character, as well as on the Red Tie Ten for 2007, the movie Juno. Read the review here http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2007/12/juno-comedy-thats-been-due-for-9-months.html. On an opposite note, the fan-crazed Alien Vs. Predator: Requiem (AVPR) is released with an unrated version. Read the review here http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2008/01/avpr-better-creatures-lousy-movie.html.

Next week comes the Red Tie Ten for 2007 and winner for Academy Award's Best Visual Effects, The Golden Compass. Read the review here http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2007/12/golden-compass-fantasy-at-its-finest.html.

For more on the Red Tie Ten of 2007, click on http://redtieawards.blogspot.com/2008/01/red-tie-ten-2007.html, and for the Red Tie Awards, click on http://redtieawards.blogspot.com/2008/01/red-tie-awards-2007.html.

As always, please support this site by making purchases using the links provided.

Delayed Review and Releases....

2008-04-07T10:27:00.000-07:00

My apologies. There are currently internet issues in the area I do my publishing. While I'm able to do reviews still, I am unable to access Amazon Associates where I provide the purchase links. I will do a release review as soon as the internet is back to its full capabilities. In the mean time, look for an upcoming review of Leatherheads, which I do approve.

Stop-Loss: Getting the War Right

2008-03-30T16:09:00.005-07:00

2007 was swamped with movies on Iraq and Afghanistan that became tied up in opinions and messages about the war. All of these seemed preachy and condescending, speaking from a soapbox more than entertaining and trying to move the audience. Stop-Loss is the first movie to touch on the Iraq war without getting too caught up in telling us what is right and wrong. Instead, it gives us characters, keeps them simple without the operatic lectures on what should be done (Lions for Lambs).

The story follows three Army soldiers returning to their hometown after serving in Iraq. Two of them are leaving the service. They drink, make mistakes, and are haunted by memories of the war. Moral dilemmas arise when one of the soldiers getting out, Brandon King (Cruel Intentions, and Breach's Ryan Phillipe), is ordered to do yet another tour in Iraq past his final discharge date in a fine print clause known as "stop-loss." This goes badly as King flees, intent on having his stop-loss removed by having his Senator do him a favor. He's on the run, contemplating going AWOL as he visits family of soldiers who have died under his command and a wounded comrade.

Aside from the moral dilemma, the three soldiers (more like brothers) deal with post-truamatic stress and troubles adjusting to home. King seems to be the only one not drinking too much, while Burgess (The Lookout's Joseph Gordon-Levitt) tries to drown out regret and Shriver (Tatum Channing) tries to pull King back to the base while Shriver himself re-enlists against the wishes of his fiance.

On the delivery of the movie, it has the right angle, approach, and intention, but could have used a better director and writer. While acceptable, small areas could use improvement. The street shootout in Iraq was confusing, shooting in every angle without the audience knowing what was shooting which way, a problem that Ridley Scott worked around in Black Hawk Down. The texas accents are too heavy at times, and often noticably fake (the exception is Gordon-Levitt's performance, as he keeps the accent small, that way it doesn't seem forced or switches from heavy to fake). The characters are not fully developed at first. When Shriver tells his fiance he is re-enlisting, it seems he is only doing this because the script says so. Later on, once we're more familiar with his character, we understand why. Had his character, the thoughts he had, been clearer earlier, then this would not seem so forced and therefore more believable.

The movie avoids overarching (some critics call it "afraid to touch the heavy issues" but I say that is the mistake of movies before this one). We have only one lecture on keeping promises, and that is in a dispute between King and his commanding officer (Timothy Olyphant, who should never be cast as a tough guy). The rest is left for us to determine from their actions or spoke towards the end, when the characters are at their breaking points. As Shrivers' fiance says at one point, "I can't take another year without him touching my face." King equally loses it, saying it's not his fear but "that box we keep all that stuff locked away in the back of my mind? It's full, it's overflowing."

What director/writer Kimberly Pierce did do right was dodge the monologues. When the soldiers throw a gernade at an enemy, then see afterwards the family was in the same room he was shooting from, no words are needed. Instead, we realize any feelings and regrets when friends eagerly ask the soldiers how the war should increased to just carpet bombing the country, the soldiers remorsefully respond they should kill everyone that shot at their fallen comrades.

The feelings of brotherhood and closeness can be seen, and the story keeps it to the soldiers and price that is paid at home. In the end, I didn't feel lectured, although the message of reality of a war lasting longer than expected without a draft is clear. Other critics are less enthusiatic about the movie, but after the waste of time that has been previous movies about Iraq, I am happy to have something that doesn't make their mistakes and is still a good movie.

For more on Joseph Gordon-Levitt, read the Rant article on http://redtierant.blogspot.com/2007/11/quiet-guy-and-wild-guy.html.

Doomsday: Mad Max Meets 28 Days Later

2008-03-23T17:11:00.003-07:00

I sometimes wondered what it would be like to cross movies. Usually this only results in wild fantasies that are "cool" in the way a kid would yell after an explosion. But given the right budget and taken seriously, writer/director Neil Marshall (The Descent) shows us in Doomsday it is possible to mix Mad Max with 28 Days Later and Escape from New York/L.A.

Doomsday is set in the UK, where the deadly Reaper virus in Scotland has caused the rest of the UK to seperate and isolate it's Northern region by means of a very big wall with lots of guns. They leave Scotland without attention for 30 years, letting the virus kill off as it wants. But when London shows the first signs of Reaper infecting its people, the government sends in a team to track down Glasgow survivors (seen from satellite images) and find out the cure. Leading the team is Eden Sinclair (Mitra Rhona), who evacuated Glasgow when the Reaper first hit. Once they hit Glasgow, they've surrounded by mobs of survivors, people who are immune but are reduced to living like savages because of the abandonment, death, and blood from the last 30 years.

The movie is largely entertaining because of it's unique blend of imagination, action, and the general exploitation of issues. Yes, the politicians are bad, some of the savages are funny, and alot of the movie is left to the action. However, there's a couple of plot twists that give it more depth than it originally appears. The quality of action is great, relying on more than just gunfire and explosions to keep us entertained.

Marshall doesn't get too wrapped up in his own imagination. We're not here to explore every type of crazy people can go through, but instead leaves us with glances at this or that. If they're cannibals, then Marshall shows us the feast and not the distractions. Cannibalism is the point, the horror, and the humor, and keeps it to only that. The action, although most of it the usual stupid good guy kicking butt, it stays intense for a large part.

Is it entertaining? Although the action is mostly over-used, it does have decent moments that are hard to come by. The half-serious storyline keeps a pace and movement, so there's more than just killing.

Is it marketable? Although not for everyone, everyone who liked Escape from L.A., Escape from New York, 28 Days Later, and Mad Max, then it is for you. If you didn't, then no.

Is it memorable? Like the four I mentioned above, it will be remembered as a worthy tribute.

DVD Releases for March 11th, 2008

2008-03-11T16:09:00.003-07:00

As always, please support this site by making purchases using the links provided.

This week, released was the positive, humorous romantic comedy with heart and manners, Dan in Real Life, starring a calmer Steve Carrell. Read the review here... http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2007/11/dan-in-real-life-dans-gotta-do-what.html. More importantly, the theatrical release of the best movie of the year, No Country for Old Men. Various articles (with spoilers) are available at the Red Tie Rant. The review for No Country is available here... http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2007/11/no-country-for-old-men-his-name-is.html. For those interested in the shallow, Hitman brings a miscasted Timothy Olyphant as the barcoded killer. Review is available here... http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2007/11/hitman-hitman-in-red-tie.html.

Next week comes the Will Smith blockbuster, I Am Legend. Read the review here... http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2007/12/i-am-legend-will-smith-proves-his-inch.html.

Expect a second, full review of No Country coming up. As always, don't forget to support this site by making purchases using the links provided.

Definitely, Maybe: May Be a Good Movie

2008-03-10T20:53:00.006-07:00

Romantic comedies tend to be all-too predictable. Roger Ebert has a long list of romantic comedy moments, from the "meet cute" to the "required break-up." They took a simple idea of making three women, three storylines with three "meet cute"s and three "required break-up" with a degree of success in each. The result is- if you're comfortable being taken away from the usual formula promising a happy ending- a great romantic comedy.

The movie opens us with Ryan Reynolds as Will Hayes, a successful advertising agent with his divorce papers on his desk. He happy walks to the elementary school to pick up his daughter (played by the young, great Abigail Breslin) and discovers the school in a sate of chaos after a sex-ed lecture came a few grades too early. (The innocent sex talk and kids screaming "Do you have sex with mommy? Do you? You do, DON'T YOU! I HATE YOU!" was worth the price of admission alone.) This leads (illogically) to the daughter asking her father to tell her the story of how him and her mom met. Instead, he tells her the story of three women that have came back and forth in his life, changing the names and leaving her to guess which is her mother.

(<--- Emily) Why this game? I don't know, I don't think anyone knows, but it does give the movie a decent twist. Anyhoo, enter three women with fake names. Emily, who is the college sweetheart and girl from back home. She's the one to take back to meet the folks. Summer Hartley (played by the energetic Rachel Weisz), who is the wild New York liberal intellectual who has had not so innocent relations with Emily. Third is April (played by the gorgoeus Isla Fischer), as the friend that beomces too close and starts to love Will.

(<--- April) The movie's gem is the degree of personality each character is given. Every time Will's heart turns towards another woman, it is easy to see how each of them appeal to a different side of him. Summer appeals to his elite side as he moves up the ranks with the democrats while on various campaigns. April appeals to his friendly, 20-something side. Emily is the dreams of a house and kid, the kind of life most would reasonably want. The movie portrays love for what it really is: random, ill-timed, and hard to go without. Will faces the women feeling for him or not at the wrong times, as well as other obsticales.

(<--- Summer) The moments out of the bedtime story gives us personal reflection, time to analyze whether or not he is happy. It gives Will a third deminsion, time to realize he is lonely. Instead of falling in love seeming like a requirement because he's in a movie, it is something his character needs to fill the gap made from the disappointment politics gave him in a career choice or heal from other lover's wounds.

The rest of the movie is rounded out by a great performance by Kevin Kline as the older professor Summer has an affair with. Historical moments in political campaigns and scandals add a setting foretell the disappointment Will will feel later on in life.

Three separate storylines allow us to keep guessing. There is probably a moment where you will root for one girl and be disappointed she's not the one he pursues in the end (one-in-three chance of getting it right, and even then the love isn't found the first time around).

Is it entertaining? Yes. Moments like Kevin Kline, the sex-ed kids, and the fun of falling in love make this a nice, humorous turn towards lovers lane.

Is it marketable? Not as much. The three directions make some uncomfortable as it doesn't go like most love stories, and one girl or another in the end will make some viewers very upset. Some tweaking and this would be a great movie, but as a romantic-comedy, it is uncomfortable outside of the cliche.

Is it memorable? Yes. The well-rounded cast (I can't think of an actor/actress not fit for their role), historical moments, and new approach make it unique and fun.

My suggestion: If you're single and wanting to see a movie about eventually finding good love, then watch it. If you have a date, see something else.

Spiderwick Chronicles: Great Family Adventure with Short Goblins

2008-02-24T15:51:00.006-07:00

"You don't see us,

now you do,

but only if

we want you to."

This rhyme, spoken by the rhyming Thimbletack, explains the creatures beneath us in The Spiderwick Chronicles. This film is a prime example of how to tie a family drama with fantasy adventure without creating completely seperate worlds (such as the overdrawn special effects in Bridge to Terabithia). It has adventure, great moments of horror, a close story of family, and great acting, casting, and special effects.

Spiderwick Chronicles follows the Grace family as they move into their great-grandfather's abandoned house while the mother and father go through a divorce. Mary-Louise Parker plays Helen Grace, the mother with too much to handle with her three children. The children are rebelious Jared Grace, his twin brother, the smart pacifist Simon (both are played by August Rush's Freddie Highmore), and the confident sister Mallory Grace (Sarah Bolger), who always carries her fencing swords.

The house is in the middle of the woods. Jared finds a book written by his great-grandfather, Authur Spiderwick (Bourne Ultimatum's David Strathairn) as a field guide to the mystical world of fairies, goblins, griffins, and other creatures hidden from us. Of course no one believes young Jared when he opens the book and mystical creatures come to steal the book and its secrets from him. Nick Nolte makes a worthy appearance as the human form of the shape-shifting orge Mulgarath, who seeks the book so he may destroy the fairy world. To aid Jared and his family is Thimbletack, the miniture guardian of the book with a soft-spot for honey, wonderfully voiced by Martin Short. Seth Rogen (Knocked Up) plays the disgusting, cheerful Hogsqueal who helps the Grace's see the otherwise invisible creatures by spiting in their faces.

The movies mysticism is part of the fun. Goblins are small creatures that stay low to the ground, looking like walking frogs with sharp teeth. They make for cruel creatures, but invisible, they look like leaves blown by the wind. Thimbletack is funny when appeased with honey, but green and small when upset, making for a humorous guardian. Hogsqueal is fun in personality, as he has a taste for birds and dreams of eating the griffin Jared Grace summons. Their humor works in ways only Short and Rogen can deliver. Nolte's monster is cruel and has more than one moment to send chills in a nightmare way, which as a horror fan, I like to see moments like these in family movies. NOTE: THIS IS A FAMILY MOVIE, NOT A KID'S MOVIE. Anyone under 9 should probably have someone there to cover their eyes as there are moments children won't want to see.

The beauty of the script is it focuses on no one aspect of any genre. The horror is spread out, the fantasy world is part of the thrills of being surrounded by goblins, and it carefully alternates and ties in with the family drama so it doesn't seem like it is merely one kind of a movie wishing it was another, but a careful blend. The characters, from family members to creatures, all of personality. Aside from the animated voices, minor characters such as Strathiam as Spiderwick and Joan Plowright as the children's Grandaunt Lucina (Spiderwick's daughter) take the role seriously, are important to the plot, and never seem go too far.

Is it entertaining? I didn't like Lord of the Rings for most of its movies or Bridge to Terabithia, but this movie is fun in its fantasy and imagination.

Is it for everyone? Yes. Adults and little ones will like it, although some will need to have their eyes covered at times.

Is it memorable? Yes. Doing well in various areas makes this more than a notch above the rest and an all around well-developed movie. The imagination of the story will not let you walk through the woods the same again.

My suggestion: Grab a date or family member as this is the best movie available for February and early March.

Vantage Point: 8 Eight Points of View See Very Little

2008-02-24T13:26:00.005-07:00

Vantage Point reminded me of Lions for Lambs, plenty of build-up, big names, and great marketing, finished with little to nothing to show for all it's build.

Vantage Point follows, from start to finish, maybe 30 minutes in time, continually cut back to noon to start fresh from someone else's point of view. The president (or so it seems) gets shot. We see the event and the plot of terrorists from eight people: the media, a small-time accomplist, an on-looker, the President, a former black-ops, the terrorist mastermind, and two secret service agents. It starts with the outside point of view and slowly brings more and more into the picture, both into the secret service's preparation and reaction, and the terrorists' excessive knowledge. In development, it starts by playing off of our fears of terrorist attacks, follows it up with a chessgame of deceit and misdirection, and ends like a cliche-action movie where important characters rapidly kill each other one-by-one and the hero saves the day.

The cliche is almost expected, although it is a good concept to have us start by only knowing so much and to slowly learn more, not just on one side, but to flip back and forth, revealing both good and bad sides instead of just one angle of attack. The development, unfolding of events is this movies gem. However, the end does not give the rest of the movie justice. The high-speed chases and eventual end seem more obligations put together than any piece of script that truly fit into place.

Ultimately, it turns into chessgame movie of revealing, which keeps our attention and does not betray the audience with an O'Henry turn (good job there), but lost it in the end (bad job) by doing the usual. Character development is flat, with little to nothing between the characters. The script gives the a small amount of depth, which the actors do do their best with. It's a great idea that someone else down the road is going to do much better.

Is it entertaining? Yes, although some predictability made the movie ungodly dull in the end.

Is it marketable? As tired and used as it is, the stars in the movie do their best with the half-heart dialogue and the thriller aspect rides most cliches. It is great for a broad audience and can be enjoyed (although not too much) by just about anyone.

Is it memorable? Softly. The idea is original and its potential is half-filled, meaning I'm waiting for someone who tops Vantage Point, which I'm sure will happen.

My suggestion: 10,000 B.C. is coming out soon. That is likely to get those hard on action their fill, while releases of No Country For Old Men is out in a month for great thriller and character development.

Jumper: With Great Power Comes No Plot

2008-02-18T13:09:00.004-07:00

Leaving Jumper with friends, we came to the same conclusion: it had all the right parts to make a great sequel, but didn't any of these parts in the original.

The movie follows David Rice (Hayden Christenson), who has the most childish of powers: he can teleport, or "jump." He uses this like a kid: disappear when his dad is angry, steal stuff, sneak into places, quietly leave after one-night stands, and the list goes on. Since he doesn't use his powers for any good, no donating stolen money or teleporting to rescue people from floods, they had to create a bad guy to hunt him. Enter Paladins, religious fanatics with high-tech weapons to capture jumpers, led by Roland, played by Samuel L. Jackson. Wait a second, did they just make Anakin on the side of light and Mace Windu on the dark side and entered teleporting instead of "the force?"

Back on subject, after living the anywhere/everywhere fantasy some, Rice goes home to Millie, played by "The O.C."s Rachel Bilson (Natalie Portman must not have been available for the reunion), his high school sweetheart and books a flight to Rome with her after not speaking to her for eight years. Paladins come and rescuing the girl is the first plot the movie has had and we start to understand how overused the plot is. Along for the ride is the wild Jamie Bell as the other jumper, Griffin, who actively participates in the war, hunting down Paladins and dropping them in shark pits off of the coast of Cuba.

Aside from the lack of plot is a lack of good screenwriting that gives our characters any depth, which prevents us from noticing the lack of good acting. Jackson and Bell give it their best, but the script doesn't allow them to shine like Jackson did when he did in Snake on a Plane and Bell does in the trailer for the upcoming Defiance (link provided at bottom). All the movie has is some decent action making the most of the jumping and the high-tech weapons used against the jumpers.

There is one good thing about the movie and that is it knows other movies. Rice hangs from Big Ben with an umbrella as though he's Mary Poppins, falls off the Empire State Building as though he were in Hudsucker Proxy, running along the beach chasing after each other from Pirates of the Carribean 2, and there's probably a few others I just didn't catch.

Is it entertaining? Barely. The action has its moments, but the time away from that it tries to be dramatic and fails with flat characters and no development.

Is it marketable? The only thing selling this movie is special effects and actors/actresses that make great myspace backgrounds.

Is it memorable? No.

My suggestion: Great teleporting is available in X-Men 2, and better superheroes can be found... well, anywhere.

DVD Releases for Febuary 5th, 2008

2008-02-04T09:36:00.000-07:00

As always, support this site by making purchases through the links provided.

Released this Tuesday on DVD is Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Although long winded and more tied up in itself than it should be, it is well portrayed and has a good ending (once it comes around). Read about it here. http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2007/11/assassination-of-jesse-james-by-coward.html. Second up is The Brave One, Red Tie Award winner for 2007 for "Best Use of an Old Idea," where Jodie Foster brings a human, vitcim level to the revenge story. Elizabeth: The Golden Age comes out, the strongest competitor for the Oscar for Best Costume and Set Design. Review available here... http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2007/10/two-elizabeths.html.

Next week is the release of We Own the Night. Review is available here... http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2007/10/we-own-night-disappointing-departed.html

For more on the Red Tie Award winners for 2007, go to http://redtieawards.blogspot.com/2008/01/red-tie-awards-2007.html. And as always, please support this site by making purchases through the Amazon links provided.

Over Her Dead Body: Lively Comedy, Dead Romance

2008-02-02T22:49:00.000-07:00

Watching Over Her Dead Body alone made me happy I didn't bring a date. The movie is funny, but is stuck in flirt-mode without a character I would see appealing to date. The movie is of friends who do unfriendly things to each other to fall in love, while all they ever did was flirt.

Paul Rudd (Knocked Up) plays Henry, a man on the rebound a year after his fiance Kate (Eva Longaria Parker) was killed on their wedding day by an ice scuplture of an angel landing on her. His sister sends him to a Ashley, a psychic (Lake Bell) who tries her best despite Henry's skepticism. The sister then hands the psychic Kate's diary and asks her to read it in hopes the psychic will fake making a connection to the late Kate. Ashley fakes is and starts dating Henry, telling him Kate wants them to be together. Of course, who does Kate come back to haunt? The new girl.

The first of a long list of issues with this movie is it isn't serious towards itself. The jokes off to the side are funnier than the predictable plot. How is it Henry doesn't know his dead fiance didn't have a diary, and why did the sister keep it from him this long? In addition, what psychic fakes her own abilities. Kate is a ***** who I don't see as wife potential. Once she dies, she screams at an angel over whether or not they're suppose to have wings. Ashley is a lying *****. The sister is unsympathic in forcing Henry to get over the woman he almost married. In addition is Jason Biggs' character as the roommate, who appears to be the only good person, but then he's also just another layer of characters hurting each other. Without joking, there's a series of scenes near the end where each of the characters alternate who is apologizing to whom.

Back to the movie itself, it isn't serious. For people claiming to fall in love, they only appear to fall in "like," where they date but no deep connection is felt other than connecting with the dead. The ghost idea provides great jokes, but takes away from the romance aspect of the movie, as Kate is more of a running gag than a true mover in the plot. At one point, Ashley calls in a Priest to do an exorcist on the ghost, in exchange for Ashley to attend mass more often. At the point the priest is a joke, his willingness to perform an exorcist for a parishner is all too easy and only makes the movie less realistic, and therefore less appealing as a love story.

The gags go the whole nine yards with a personal touch. Revenge is served cold, taken harshly, and delivered humorously. The sidesteps to the other friends of the characters provide a change to keep the single "ghost jokes" from growing old. For as much as we don't care what happens to the characters (they are rather hateful), we love seeing them hurt each other so humorously. One such scene is when Henry and Ashley are in the bedroom, Ashley trying to block out Kate ruining the moment. Sex with the ex watching? That's funny.

Entertaining? Very. Surprisingly so.

For everyone? Not so much. It's comedy, but it misses the romantic part by making it more about women fighting over a guy than about actually about finding someone and moving on.

Memorable? No. The ghost idea, the exorcism, the lying to get to know someone, the best friend having feelings for the girl, and general break-up until everyone apologizes is very overused. It is that they've made as much as they did out of the old ideas that impressed me.

My suggestion? If you're looking for a cute comedy, this is it. A date movie? Go rent something you know is a good love story.

There Will Be Blood: Oilman is No Citizen Kane

2008-02-02T21:20:00.000-07:00

In Citizen Kane, there is a final scene where he whispers "rosebud," and the world is to ponder what the "rosebud" no money could by was. Its importance I never fully realized until I saw There Will Be Blood, whose man character is a monster of greed, and his lack of "rosebud" prevents us from seeing any human side. His wealth, friends, and family change, but he never does change, leaving a complete lack of development within the movie.

There Will Be Blood is adapted from the book "Oil!" Daniel Day-Lewis gives an Oscar-worthy performance as the greedy Daniel Plainview (a trusting name for someone who hides much). He walks around with his adopted son, H.W. Plainview, who is a puppet for Daniel to claim he runs a family business. He eventually admits, "I needed an honest face for people to sell their land to." The movie leads us to watch Plainview as he cheats a poor farmer into selling his land for much less than its worth. When the farmer's son, Eli, an Evangelical preacher who puts on a show of casting out demons, demands money for his church, things go bad quickly. Accidents occur and Eli claims it is because Plainview didn't allow him to bless the oil well, although none of them seem supernatural.

Another turn arrives in the form of a man claiming to be Plainview's long-lost brother. However, I find this part unbelievable. Plainview becomes extremely wealthy immediately prior to the brother's introduction. Plainview sees through Eli's act, but isn't quick to suspect his brother. He confides in his brother his hatred towards man, that he has a "competition in him" where he must see others suffer as it is the only way he becomes happy.

The movie is two and half hours of a disaster of greed, where there are only two types of people, the greedy and their victims. The storm is wonderful to watch, only we see the betraying disaster is three acts. The same disaster of betraying someone, done by the same man, in the name of greed. Isn't one single act enough? Couldn't they have removed the other hour from the movie by not giving us just scenes of deja vu and predictable second betrayals?

Don't get me wrong. The cinematography is great, with each scene set up to present itself with circus-like music and operatic tragedy. One such shoot is when Plainview strikes oil, losing a man in the process. There is blood and oil smeared over his face as he grins at a burning rig. Men scared of the fire look in fear, as Plainview shouts, "What are you so serious about? There's an ocean of oil below us!" The man asks him how's H.W., he replies, still smiling, "Not well." H.W. is deaf, then abandoned, as Plainview needed him for a puppet, not sympathy.

It's a beautiful storm, cast by a man that doesn't appear human (good or bad) in any believable capacity. The first act is captivating, followed by unbelievable and repetative.

Entertaining? No. Too many times I felt I could leave, and in the end, I realized the ending was as good of a time as any to leave.

For everyone? No. It tests the patience and is a movie about disgusting people. Rather extra depressing without a moral or explanation to tell us why we should feel such little faith in humanity.

Memorable? Yes. The images and set-up of the movie, even with such an over-written script, stay with you and feels like you're watching art with the clarity and drama, with close competition to the directing in No Country for Old Men (my pick for Best Directing).

My suggestion? Pass on it unless you are the type that usually enjoys the mort artistic, Oscar-crowd films. Daniel Day-Lewis' performance is something for the acting crowd to study. (Note: The trailer is particularly dark with the speech of Plainview's "competition." Great trailer.)

Cloverfield: Godzilla at Ground-Zero

2008-01-20T22:04:00.000-07:00

Watching Cloverfield, I couldn't help but wonder why no one had thought of this idea earlier. How often had we seen movies like Godzilla and Transformers, were the giagantic battle in the metropolis without paying any attention to those down below? Cloverfield provides that experience through a character's hand-held camcorder, while something that took alittle extra effort to be like Godzilla while avoiding copyright infrigment.

Long story short, we follow Rob and his friends as they record his going away party, which gets interrupted twice. The party is first interrupted by a lovers' argument between Rob and the beautiful Beth, ending with her leaving the party. The second interruption is a Godzilla-sized monster decapitating the Statue of Liberty and throwing the head onto Rob's front-doorstep. The rest of the movie follows Rob's attempt to rescue Beth from the remains of her apartment.

You'll notice something about how I just described the movie. It follows Rob and his friends, not the monster. The monster is just the element of horror for us to watch the characters interact and change around. The movie itself is an attempt to, mostly successful, personalize the immediate moments in the characters lives. A scene emphasizing this is when Rob recieves a call from a recently-desceased friend's mother and has to tell her what happened. Although the scene doesn't recieve much depth, it has much more emotion than is usually presented in a horror movie.

The movie also excells in not throwing the same punch twice. It does this by giving us the monster part by part. We see it Lady Liberty's head land, then a tentacle here, and finally the size of it. The size is topped off by seeing how it can stand up to the US military, or more appropriately, how it can take anything thrown at it. If you're not watching how the monster become more horrificly intimating, you're watching its victims face another challenge to their physical and emotional limits. In a motion of creativity, they wrote in smaller monsters falling off of the larger monster, allowing them to bite people hiding in the hard-to-reach places.

It is unique because of the hand-held manner it is filmed. At first, it seems to be going out of its way to appear natural, then it is part roller-coast (in a semi-nausiating way) and part artistic. The movie is natural in how it is a video of an attack recording over and on top of a video of Rob and Beht's last date (how practical a way to add in flashbacks). Ultimately the hand-held is abused. No movie should have to rely on being nausia to get its point across. They did make it plausible that someone would carry the camera so long by assigning the camera duties to the goof-ball of the group, who seems to have nothing better to do than to document everything. The goof-ball has a very memorable line of being human when he states, honestly, "we have the choice of dying in here, dying in the tunnel, or dying in the streets."

Entertaining? Definitely. Despite the flaws in logic of the monster and characters, the movie works as both horror and roller coaster. I advise you sit up front in a theater with high-definition, somewhere near the front. This is one time the view and sudden bursts are worth it because it is not just something jumping at you, but often the building shaking, something blowing up, or a number of the monsters. There is a scene where the monster creeps up on both you and the characters. I've only seen such a subtle jump work so well in Alien, The Descent, and here.

Marketable? Currently number one at the box office office speaks for some of itself. The rest is spoken for when with the rarity of getting good horror of this level. The thrill-ride anyone can appreciate, but the variety of tactics to make us jump and the personal level of the characters will make even more appreciate it.

Memorable? Camera was used in Blair Witch. Monster is the lesser-known cousin of Kong and Godzilla. I'm left to ask what is different in this movie other than its delivery? Nothing really.

My suggestions: Sit near the front. Enjoy the jumps. Don't watch if you get motion-sickness.

DVD Updates: January 11th, 2008

2008-01-11T16:51:00.000-07:00

As always, support this site, make purchases through the links provided...

January 15th, released on DVD will be Mr. Woodcock.

Last week was one of last year's best films, 3:10 to Yuma, (http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2007/09/310-to-yuma-westerns-arrive-late.html) which gets the Red Tie Award for Best Remake of 2007. Also released was personal favorite for horror, Joshua, (http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2007/07/joshua-long-road-to-classic-horror.html) a very well made, and very overlooked movie that will leave you entertaing if The Omen (remake) or other creepy kid movies left you not satisfied.
Two weeks ago, on January 1st, the Red Tie Award winner for Best Movie Making Fun of Movies came to DVD, Shoot 'Em Up, (http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2007/09/shoot-em-up-is-bullseye.html) which breaks all barriers for knowing a gun-in-cheek action movie. For the zombie fans, Resident Evil: Extinction (http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2007/09/resident-evil-3-yeah-its-extinct.html) was released. As always, support this site, make purchases through the links provided.
All Red Tie Award winners can be read about at http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2008/01/red-tie-awards-2007.html

Red Tie Awards 2007

2008-01-03T21:55:00.000-07:00

Of all the movies I've seen and scraped up during 2007, here are the ones that deserve an award not presented at the Oscars, SAG, or Golden Globes. Just as the awards are a type of self-recognition (more on that on my review of the Academy Awards), I feel these films deserve an award that describes each of them, as well as how critics and the general public treated these films. That's not to say the general public is wrong or insignificant, but like the first award, sometimes one slips under their radar that deserves second recognition.

Most Over-Looked Film this Year: The Lookout
Early in 2007, well before any Oscar contenders, Joseph Gordon-Levitt proved his acting worth as a teen responsible for a car crash killing two of his friends and handicapping himself with short-term memory loss. He lives with guilt, is misunderstood by his family, and can't cook dinner or flirt. He is exploited by "friends" to help them rob the bank he works as a janitor at. Jeff Daniels avoids cliches (thank God!) as the wise blind roommate. Daniels cliche-dodging is as great an achievement as the unique film itself. Gordon-Levitt manages to never slip in a challenging role, often making the most of not doing anything, a true acting feat. The movie is unique. A robbery and shoot-out take place, but the personal drama of the handicaped is what really takes the center stage, and every actor excells, even those with little-to-no lines. The movie came too early, and aside from Jeff Daniels, stars only very promising new-comers and unknowns. Regrettably, this gave it few connections. While I was a fan of the writer/director, he is a first-time director whose writing is overshadowed by the directors he wrote for and the release date was too early to be competition for the well-knowns at the Oscars. If there is one movie you didn't hear about that you should see, it is The Lookout. Easily, almost automaticly, it makes the top 10 list for my year.

Most Over-Rated Movie of the Year: Eastern Promises
Please don't get me wrong. This is a good movie, only it isn't the movie critics said it would be. It is surprisingly uneventful and can't decide whether it is to be a movie about a woman wanting to protect a child from Russian mobsters or a movie about a mob boss and his two sons, neither of which is fit to follow in the family business. Most critics were quick to claim it was a Russian Godfather, only it turned out to be anything but. Godfather was about relating to evil because of family loyalty, succession, and one man's trip down that path. Messages about business and treatment to women and loyalty fall into place. Here, I only see the business side. The plot is there, but I'm left asking for more, a better ending, and greater change in the characters. This is a good movie, but far, far, far from the Godfather.

Best Character and Best Villian: Javier Bardem as Anton Chirugh in No Country for Old Men
The movie opens, after a narrative from Tommy Lee Jones about facing true evil, with Chirugh in cuffs, sliding his hands from behind him to in front, and then strangling an officer without a saying a word. He kills people over coin-flips and the whole movie follows those that stand in his sights and Chirugh's efficiency and cold-blooded, steady pace in going at them. Easily, the movie could have just been him going about his business.

Best Hero: Gerald Butler as King Leonidas in 300
Rarely do we get such characters, that without patronizing or forced speeches, can relay being a hero. The follows a sacrifice mission to give Sparta and Greece time to rally against the Persians. The focus on personal sacrifice, fearless to death and combat, and a sense of great leadership makes Butler immortalized in this character.

Most Lovable: Juno
Roger Ebert may have described this movie best when he said "you will just want to hug the characters." Ellen Page comes off as a young, new generation Audrey Hepburn as the pregnant teen Juno, who matures with things beyond her maturity. Looking at her, we see a child smarter than she looks, learning from mistakes with good intentions. In a movie that has the star attend an abortion clinic when she first finds out, it stays very light and loveable.

Best Cliche Dodge: Jeff Daniels as Lewis in The Lookout

A blind roommate is one of the most over-used themes in movies. Some blind wise guy can see what others don't. Lewis (played to a T by Jeff Daniels) didn't fall into that. It wasn't symbolism, but instead part of a story. He tells the story of how he became blinded, and mentions the moral of how he would still have his sight if he just asked "what am I doing here?" He tells this the only person exploiting Chris (Lewis' roommate) who has any signs of a conscience. While we don't fully know what happens to her character afterwards, it implies she left because of the conscience and story of Lewis. Lewis does this not with sage-like wisdom, but honest story that actually relates to his blindness, instead of being blind for the sake of being blind.

Most Disappointing Line: "Yeepie-Kay-Yay, Mother--" from Live Free or Die Hard

Where's the F word! The line because famous for being roudy, modern cowboy without the manners, matching the divorced husband instead of the typical guy riding off in the distance, creating a new kind of hero. They took out the most characterizing word of the line.

Most Satisfying Line: "Tonight, We Dine In Hell!" from 300

The single line delivered the trailer and all the marketability of the movie.

Compliment to the Industry Award: Transformers

This award I select for the movie that is going to be most entertaining, keeps a broad audience, and will be remembered. Michael Bay did this with Transformers, and kept the flaws to a minimum by knowing what kind of movie he was making and therefore set up a movie that could laugh at itself. Sitting though it, I didn't feel like I was watching a nerd flick or sci-fi epic, but just a fun movie with groundbreaking special effects. Too many movies get the effects, but don't have the attention and writers for the fun jokes and ability to make fun of itself, or loses a director that can make us feel for Optimus Prime's speeches and capture us to root for the soldiers. I was critical because this could be a great movie, but for the price theaters charge and the general direction towards IMAX, surround-stereo sound, and special effects, more movies need the balance that compliments the industry at that time.

Insult to the Industry: Worst Movie of the Year is Captivity

The movie sucks. How badly? I saw this movie with 9 total strangers in the theater. The other 9 got their money back while I stayed so I'd be qualified to give this movie this award. 9 out of 10 people left this movie, and the 10th is giving it this award. I, myself, didn't apply the term "torture porn" to any movie in the Saw or Hostel series, but I do apply it here. It's predictable, no character development, narrow audience with narrower appeal, and memorable in all the ways a movie shouldn't be. The only thing amazing about this movie is that its director once won an Academy Award. It will be referanced in the Red Tie Law under "what not to do!"

Best Action: Live Free or Die Hard

Best Comedy: Superbad

Best Horror: 1408

Best Remake: 3:10 to Yuma

Best Sequel/Prequel Improving Originals: Live Free or Die Hard

Best Sequel/Prequel Ruining Originals: Spider-Man 3

Best Movie Mocking Movies: Shoot 'Em Up

Best Laydown: Queen Elizabeth telling the Spanish in Elizabeth: the Golden Age

Best Speech Before a Battle: "Come and get them!" in 300

Best Impression: Julia Roberts as Joanne Herring in Charlie Wilson's War

Worst Impression: Timothy Olyphant in Hitman.

Most Human Character: Juno in Juno

Least Human Character: Plainview in There Will Be Blood

Article still under construction... Check again later...

AVPR: Better Creatures, Lousy Movie

2008-01-02T21:16:00.000-07:00

Alien Versus Predator: Requiem is the second movie of the match-up, the sixth movie of the Alien series, the fourth movie of the Predator series, and the only since Aliens and the first Predator to be original. Although it has originality and improves, it looks like no one wanted this to expand from the original Alien/Predator fanbase, and hence it was made cheaply.

AVPR picks up where the first match-up, AVP, left off. The Predator's spaceship is flying off, carrying one of its fallen. Unknown to them, a face-hugger grabbed ahold of the dead predator and infected him with an a seed, creating a baby alien with predator features (Fangoria calls this the "Predalien"). The Predalien crashes the ship into a backwoods town, where plenty of shallow, one-deminsonial characters are infected by the facehuggers and aliens swarm. A distress signal is sent to the predators' homeworld, where an experienced hunter seeks to claim the Predalien as a trophy. Naturally, the predator kills only those that pose a threat, although saving any humans isn't even on his list of things to do while hunting.

The downside to this movie is it is afraid to be rated R, making it hold back on the gore and blood that made the individual series popular. There is something startling about aliens jumping out of chests that would still open itself for one good surprise or another, while the predators head-exploding is more cruel and merciless when we actually see the explosion (although the graphicness isn't needed, no style is approached to compensate).

The second problem the movie faces is its victims. The Predator and Predalien storyline is more interesting, if for no other reason than we want to see what each side does next in trying to takedown the other. Predator sets traps, introduces new weapons, while the Predalien sends numberous aliens and facehuggers out. Seeing new things come how shifts the movie from the usual horror to sci-fi action. For the first time since Predator, it appears one side or the other could actually give Schwarzenegger a run for his money. (Keep in mind, after Predator, Schwarzenegger went on to kick ass against Satan, Terminators, Terrorists, and still outlived competing governor Jesse Ventura of Minnesota in Predator).

Back to the victims... There is a full cliche and no surprises. The bullies die shortly after the ones with no names die, splitting up is a bad idea (you can guess for which half), and military is useless against aliens unless they just give up and blow up everything.

Is it entertaining? For fans, they'll like some of the new gadgets/moves, but outside of that, it isn't.

Is it for everyone? Just the fans.

Is it memorable? Memorable is Ridley Scott directing Alien and action star Schwarzenegger at his best against Predator. This is far from it.

My suggestion: Alien is classic, good horror. Predator is great macho action. AVPR is neither.

Sweeney Todd: Horror-Musicial on the Razor's Edge

2008-01-02T18:03:00.000-07:00

When Tim Burton and Johnny Depp tried to sell the idea of a horror/musical to production studios, people laughed, believing the only thing it could sell would be the names Burton and Depp on the poster. A two thumbs up from Ebert and Roeper, 4-star review from Roger Ebert, and sudden talk of being close to winning "Best Musical/Comedy" against Hairspray and Beatles-crazy Across the Universe. Only one statement can describe the success of Sweeney Todd: The studios were wrong.

Sweeney follows a happy-barber with a nice life with wife and child. The movie opens with the barber returning after being framed by a jealous judge who raped the wife and kidnapped the child. Sweeney (Depp) returns to find his wife poisoned herself, and moves back upstairs over Mrs. Lovett's bakery (Helena Bonhem Carter) and returns to the shaving business, cutting too close to the throat and sending patrons to be ingredients in Lovett's meat pies. Business turns well for both, with the fullest of meatpies, while Sweeney gets closer to having revenge upon the infamous judge (Alan Rickman).

Two aspects make this operatic story of scarred souls seeking revenge worth the bloody good-time. The first is Burton's trademark scenery, making the impoverished London as dark and greedy as Batman and hauntingly ghostly as Nightmare Before Christmas. Second is the music, and not in a soundtrack way like Hairspray or Across the Universe, but in a way where it ties the plot and character development, such one duet between Sweeney and Lovett, where Sweeney confesses his love to his only friend, the long-lost razor, while Lovett suggests he has others. The operatic music delivers clearly, to both music lovers and the average movie-goers, the positions of the love triangle and makes them understood.

Special notice should go to Depp, who has perfected his character-actions in a way no other actor can for visual and audio signifigance. His movement and facial ticks carry the movie from start to finish. While his singing is not as strong, it is not the vocals, but the lyrics and scenery that make this my favorite for musicals this year. Helena Bonhem Carter doesn't bring as much to the scene or sound, making the other half of the musical aspect fall short. At these times, such as when she's going on about meat pies instead of Depp's plot for revenge on those that step on the poor (who the poor are fed and the rich cannibalized). Indeed, if Carter wasn't singing, the picture would be too one-sided, but balancing does come at a cost.

Another aspect, which would not work outside of a musical, is the Shakespearian tone. The plot turns and characters lie. Like MacBeth that betrays or Romeo and Juliet where love is murder and suicide, I can't help but enjoy how simple of a storyline ties us into it by the end, with small twists and turns, all functioning and well.

One such scene is ironic. Sweeney, giving the judge an honest, clean shave, sings about beautiful women and how they can make a man feel. The judge sings along. Sweeney is talking about the happiness and redemption it can restore him, while the judge is singing about lust. Only Sweeney is aware of the difference, although the irony and clever positioning to present good and evil (good here is a dark character at best) side-by-side.

Is it entertaining? Yes. Although Carter has her slow moments, overall, the lyrics make the music, which ties to the movie, which catches you with the characters. By the end, it is delightfully bloody.

Is it for everyone? No. Blood spraying everyone and music that isn't for music lovers will probably hurt some of the potential audience. However...

Is it memorable? Very much so. Horror/musical/drama has never been blended before, and I doubt it will be again any time soon.

My suggestions: If you can stomach blood and meatpies, watch Sweeney Todd in a surround sound theater.

National Treasure 2: It has lost it's Gold

2008-01-02T15:19:00.000-07:00

National Treasure: Book of Secrets stars Nicolas Cage, Jon Voight, and Helena Mirren, making it one of the most disappointing movies to ever star three Academy Award winners. Historical facts aside, all is has going for it is what each actor brings individually to each movie. Together, there is nothing special. The movie seems at times a sequel to The Rock, which I would rather watch.

Cage returns as Benjamin Gates, now popular after the success of his first treasure hunt, finds his great-great grandfather framed as a conspirator to the Lincoln assassination. Who framed him? Ed Harris in his 30-somethingth time as a bad guy. Along for the ride is the original cast of National Treasure, Justin Bartha, Diane Kruger (Troy), Jon Voight (Transformers), and Harvey Keitel (Pulp Fiction). In addition is Helen Mirren (The Queen) playing the mother of Benjamin Gates, a historian for Aztec/Mayan culture. They are looking for El Dorado, the lost city of gold buried under a mountain.

Somehow the lost city of gold, a plot of foreign powers to resurrect the Confederacy after the Lincoln assignation, and Gates relative is all related and tied together. This leads them to break into Buckingham Palace, kidnap the President to gain access to a secret book looked at by Presidents only on everything from Area 51 to Watergate tapes, and dodge bullets on their way to Mt. Rushmore. I found the treasure map on the back of the Declaration of Independence more believable. Here, each clue leads to another clue, which relates to a namedropping Buckingham Palace. They seem to do each act for the sake of going somewhere we recognize the name. In the first National Treasure, the Declaration of Independence involved the plot, such as where historical documents go, stealing them from document restoration labs, and a well-delivered switchoff with a soveigner shop copy of the Declaration. Instead, I see nothing recognizable about Buckingham Palace except the British accents and the steering wheels on the wrong side.

In addition, the action is unnecessary and Harris' character doesn't follow logic with his reasoning. The plot is directed away for the sake of including Harvey Keitel in the film as an FBI friend of Gates and to kidnap the President in the most embarrassing moment in Secret Service history. The kidnapping was anti-climatic and lecturing, hardly believable.

Ed Harris and Nicolas Cage previously stared in The Rock, as good guy and bad guy, where Sean Connery held all the nation's secrets. Here, the President has the secrets, and again Cage takes them while Harris points a gun. Just another level this movie is unoriginal.

Is it entertaining? Hardly. When breaking into places for namesake and bad guys shooting for the sake of shooting, the action loses its suspense and meaning. Plus, we've already seen all of this in National Treasure 1, which actually had better action.

Is it marketable? I have no doubt this movie will sell well. The faces and individual actors doing what they've done in every movie is the only thing going for this movie.

Is it memorable? The first one was. This is a sequel ripping off its original.

My suggestion: Watch the first. Don't bother with this one. If you're looking for great Cage and Harris action in good and bad guy roles, watch the Rock for best action performances and ensemble humor between Cage and Connery. (See picture below.)

Juno: A Comedy that's been Due for 9 Months

2007-12-24T11:55:00.000-07:00

The only simple way I can find to describe Juno is you will have a hard time finding more genuine characters that stay this entertaining and lovable. It has a good script, natural actors, and well-timed jokes. Combining these you get a story of lovable teens acting beyond their maturity, so well executed, it does not come of as though any of it was scripted. The cast is so natural, I left wondering if Ellen Page (and the rest of the cast) had ever truly lived as her character.

Ellen Page (Hard Candy, X-Men 3) gives a performance worth the description as a young Audrey Hepburn. She plays 16-year-old Juno, who decides it is time for her to experiment with sex. She chooses her best friend, shy, quiet Paulie Bleeker (Superbad's Michael Cera) for the experience. Three pregnancy tests later, she tells him, "Guess what." After a chilling visit to the abortion clinic, she breaks the news to her parents (J.K. Simmons and Alison Janney) and plans to give the child up for adoption to a young married couple (Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman).

First and foremost, the plot and development are characters. The surprise turn of events (spoilers are not included here) seems to be on the sideline compared to how much we love the characters. Page and Cera appear too natural, and like Cera's dialogue in Superbad, it comes off as ultra-natural, but not the typical or average. These are not teens, but specifically Juno and Bleeker, so specifically there is no chance of confusing them with the next pregnant teen couple.

The movie sets an example in timing and being natural. It doesn't come off as pulling gags, stereotypes, and delivering punchlines, but rather has natural characters without cliches and with flaws be themselves. It is still hilarlious. We are not laughing with or at, but instead enjoying the general wit and awkwardness of the situation. One particular moment defining this is when Juno tells her dad and stepmom. After the general anger her father feels, she tells him, "it wasn't his idea." In any other movie, this would be unusual. Here, it is a strong turn from the usual father rage.

While I can't say too much about the movie without giving away the plot, I can say Juno finds a nice middle-ground. It starts off appearing as though it will be a lighter version of an Indie film on teen pregnancy and appears to fall into the mainstream sellouts with Jennifer Garner as a box of cliches and predictability. It mellows out inbetween, being non-judgemental and by the end, I realize any overreacting by Garner's character was to contrast Bateman's character's lack of interest.

Juno avoids the debates and issues. When Juno heads to the abortion clinic, she sees a classmate as the sole protester against abortion. Forget souls and life, Juno's decision is because of fingernails, resulting in a bloodless scene that is discomforting and humorous.

Two other parts keep the movie standing out from others. The first is the music, involved in guitars (Juno and Paulie are musicians) and meaningful lyrics. The other is camerawork. Breaking the third wall (when the camera cuts to a 180 turn, making it discomforting to look one way and then instantly reverse the direction in a cut) is rarely done, and done well is even rarer. First time director Jason Reitman pulls this off subtley to reveal a change in characters after a disagreement. It works well, as the dialogue only made the point in the plot, but the camerawork made the turn literal and visually uncomfortable to put the feeling to the audience.

Another scene is when Juno stops her car, looking in the sidemirror as a train passes by. It is symbolic of the train being life or people, continuously going on while she has stopped. Looking back, there is a smaller round mirror in the side mirror to notice her blind spot. Is it symbolic of the blind spot in her life, or the smaller mirror the child she's never fully thought about? Either way, the visuals don't require thought, and just the image (such as the track team running past slow-moving Juno) sets many tones about the characters that is rarely expressed in movies.

Is it entertaining? YES! Quick, one-of-a-kind humor.

Is it marketable? Pulling off the PG-13 rating may have been a feat to keep the movie before a broad audience. Either way, it never goes to cussing or sexual content to sell. The only sex scene either shows Juno in control (character contrast) or close-ups on lips (uncomfortingly close).

Is it memorable? You will love these characters and Juno is no copy of anyone, just as it will be hard for any movie to make a cast as full as this one genuine all the way around.

My suggestion: See it in theaters with the audience laughing behind you and fall in love with the characters.

I Am Legend: Will Smith Proves His Inch is Worth a Mile

2007-12-17T18:43:00.000-07:00

Will Smith a single trait in acting I can recall from every one of his movies: He can act alone. That's delivering jokes (Independence Day), dramatic dialogue , and narrative (Pursuit of Happiness). In I Am Legend, he is asked to perform them all solo, without a dog and computer-generated zombies to fight him. He delivers, and the movie, for the most part, delivers as well.

Smith plays soldier/scientist Robert Neville, who stands alone in isolated Manhattan with his dog, Sam, three years after a cure for cancer has turned everyone on Earth into vampire-zombies. He goes through a routine of working-out, entertaining himself through the entire Blockbuster store, eating, hunting deer in a race car, and performing a lockdown of his Greenwitch house each night, complete with steel shutters. As we're informed later, only 10 percent of the world was immune to the airborne part of the viruse, which got infected when the other 90 percent of the world bit them. Neville is the only survivor immune to both airborne and bite-given infections.

The monsters are zombies in the sense they're mostly mindless and disease-ridden. They're endless hordes we hear surround Neville's house give an idea of the typical zombie movie where it's a few against the world, only now it's only one against the world. The monsters are vampires in the sense light burns their eyes and sunlight burns their skin, as well as they can climb on anything and jump really far.

The movie has a great start and loses it after a certain point about an hour and ten minutes into it. The monsters are not seen, but heard. Then they're glanced at before its darkness. Then we hear them and the running begins. A fear of the dark is conveyed very well in these scenes. It shows where horror and disgusting pain can go without showing explicit gore and blood.

Equally impressive is Smith's acting alone. He handles the isolation well, but se can see where he makes efforts to keep his character's sanity as he hangs by a thread. There is a scene where he loses his nerve for a second, which is blown out of the water when he does breakdown completely and decides to go out at night with UV lights on car and mow down as many of the infected as he can.

Regrettably, you can't top the unseen horrors with half-decent CGI of hairless humans and Smith can only breakdown so far. So if he is alive afterwards, what is left in a movie that has built itself up on one man's loneliness and desperate struggle to survive alone? The answer is either a disappointing climax or a turn-around that changes the movie we already thought was worth sitting in for an hour.

Before I end this review, I would like to say, Yes, there is a scene where the monsters strike Smith's house. It is well prepared and entertaining to see the layers of defense he has ready, only I don't think we saw enough. If you had three years and went so far to defend the place you sleep every night, wouldn't you spend even more time on your security system until you stopped having trouble sleeping?

Entertaining? Yes, but loses itself after the first hour and ten minutes to be watered down from it's initial greatness.

For everyone? Yes. Bloodless and almost no gore allows everyone to appreciate the same horror and action. Whether you be simple or deep analyst, everyone understands what Smith's Neville is going through.

Memorable? Not quite. The idea isn't original as it is a modern, realist remake of The Omega Man and The Last Man on Earth. The scenes of a deserted, three-year decayed New York City will probably outlive the loneliness Smith's performance betrayed by a cliche ending.

My suggestion? Horror and action fans will love the concept and enjoy the movie, but it's nothing to make a long drive for. Better action scenes are in No Country for Old Men's two shoot-outs and a similiar concept used better in Children of Men. If the plot didn't hook you, you'll probably appreciate the upcoming National Treasure: Book of Secrets as better entertainment.

The Golden Compass: Fantasy at Its Finest

2007-12-10T15:50:00.000-07:00

If we lined up the first installment of the Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and the recent Chronicles of Narnia, I would say Golden Compass' starting is, in my opinion, the best. This child's fantasy over adult quasi-philosophical issues of religion and authority spark symbolism and adventure in a visually surprising picture.

Newcomer Dakota Blue Richards proves herself as lesser known Dakota Fanning in her role as Lyra. Entrusted with a golden compass which reveals secrets (called "the truth"), she travels with the mysterious Miss Coulter (Nicole Kidman of Eyes Wide Shut) to the cities. Soon enough, she realizes Miss Coulter has something to do with the Gobblers that kidnap children and flees to keep Coulter from having the compass. She heads North to meet up with Lord Azrial (Daniel Craig from Casino Royale) a scholar from the college she formerly resided at, in hopes of freeing children from the Gobblers and saving Azrial from equally dark villians.

Along for the adventure, in separate stories that intertwine and but don't interrupt Lyra's adventure, are a talking armored bear, sailing Egyptians, Sam Elliott as an airship pilot, and witches (led by the beautiful Eva Green, also from Casino Royale)to help save the day.

I should also note each character has a spiritual entity in the form of an animal, called deamons, which is audible and follows them. This makes for good symbolism. Lyra's daemon shapeshifts from various small, weak animals that act brave. Coulter has a monkey with impulse control problems. Gobblers have wolves, bad guys bugs, and Sam Elliott, to match his general cowboy/outback look, has a jackrabbit.

The movie propells itself on three things, each of which are well done and continues through the film from start to finish.

First, it is dark. The PG-13 should be the first sign this is not the kind-hearted start like Harry Potter or daylight-filled Narnia, but instead a darker film where adults and kids alike will feel chills wondering what dark deeds are being done by the Gobblers with the kidnapped children. A fight between armored bears and violence between witches and humans leave a more realistic, harsher violence than Narnia. This adds to the effect of horror in the thought of harming children and makes us more concerned for them, which made me care even more about what happened next.

Second, it is not simple. Unlike the straight-up black-and-white (minus one gray Draco Malfoy/Smegal/Edward), this poses some questions about authority. Simply put, they are fighting for the ability to be children at heart and have free will from authority. In a deeper argument, they are fighting to protect religion (the magical "dust") and their souls (the daemons) from a man-made God (the ultimate authority and truth created by the Magistirium). Unlike the simplified versions of the ring corrupting Frodo, Lyra must determine what she wants to do on her own, and be brave without encouragement behind her. It is she, not others, that decide to go into the dark night. It stands out more in that it can't be described in simple terms. And while what the movie is about is up for debate, the bottom line is clear.

Third, the adventure is actually an adventure! Unlike the long walks of Ring, we do notice the travel and the travel does not take the center of the story, but instead the characters along the way. I couldn't help but feel when the story turns to follow the life of the armored bear that is Lyra's companion, Lyra is as much of his story and he is her's. They are not added in as side events to a greater epic, but kept as part of the epic itself. Neither destracts from the other and each new character is as interesting as the last. My only regret is there is not enough time put in to give all characters as much depth and backstory as Lyra's and the bear's.

The visual look is worth special note. Although the plot and dialogue doesn't give away much about the good and bad guys at first, we know off the bat which are which by their daemons in clever use of symbolism. The CGI is nothing to be amazed at, but from the dark cold to the look of hydrogen balloons and weird engines on carriages, it is modern and underworldly. There is no familiarity of another animal-like world or medieval period. Instead, it has created something semi-modern and still its own. Although we've all see epic battles play out from Legolas and wizards, there's something about the fierceness of a gaint, armored bear and witches flying overhead like angels. There's a scene where an armored bear deflects a spear and a witch knocks a gun up as it's fired. The thing about both of these are they are last split second and cover the whole screen, to where we almost believe the object will hit the girl before the near-startling creature/witch saves her. It is entertaining and reflects great craft in film.

Is it entertaining? Yes. The story does not bore, and anyone willing to watch adventure or fantasy will enjoy it.

Is it for everyone? Yes. It surprisingly covers the child/adult gap in a way I believe will appeal to both sides of the age spectrum. It has horror, adventure, action, and the philosophical.

Is it memorable? Yes. Be it the armored bear, nice girl, or dark undertones, there is something that will make this movie a token for them. There are more things to choose what will make it a favorite and is therefore more appealing.

My suggestion? If you liked the other fantasy/adventures, this will be different, but will in its own way more than carry its own weight. Go ahead and see it. If it isn't for you, there's plenty out this Christmas.

Also, wait and look here for the link to rant, where I will soon add my two cents on the religion debate over this movie.

New Releases: Dec 4th, 2007

2007-12-03T15:54:00.000-07:00

Coming out tomorrow are the following with links included...

1. Superbad. I approve this movie. Read the review: http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2007/12/superbad-is-supergood.html

Next week (Decmeber 11th) is the release of The Bourne Ultimatum and the release of the complete Bourne Series. A review is being written.

Two weeks ago released was

3. Live Free or Die Hard. Read the Review: http://redtiereview.blogspot.com/2007/06/die-hard-4-same-action-different.html In addition, the four-disc collection has also been released.

Support our site, make purchases using the Amazon links provided.

Superbad is Supergood

2007-12-01T22:35:00.000-07:00

You'll notice there's something wrong in the picture above. Go ahead and guess. We never see a guy like McLovin (Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Fogell, left) actually dance with Nicola (Aviva Farber, right). As we grow up, however, we learn that the should doesn't really matter and we move past it. This is the heart of Superbad, a night of misadventure where best friends deal with seperating and desperate attempts to win over their girls.

Weeks before graduation, Superbad follows the attempts of pudgy Seth (Jonah Hill) and skinny, nervous Evan (Michael Cera) as they intend to impress the girls of their dreams by getting alcohol, even though they are underage. (Note: Underage drinking and driving under the influence is illegal and should not be attempted.) This is not just for themselves, but for a party that's not BYOB (bring your own beer), but instead BEOBAYO (Bring EveryOne Beer And Your Own). This leads them to team up with their sidekick, Fogell, who is so unpopular, even they don't want to hang out with him.

The movie is a semi-biography of its writers, Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg (note the first names match the characters) as they went through high school, who only think about one thing. But it is anything but magical, happy-dream endings of American Pie. They settle for the honest: guys are disgustingly perverted and girls don't always want/make bad decisions when drunk. Then again, the guys don't necessarily want that either.

The heart comes out as, on every level, the movie reflects real life: weeks before graduation, everyone does NOT get laid. They may round a base or two, but that's it. The perversions were probably real conversations with the real Seth and Evan back in the day, and everyone watching will understand the confusion and feelings of everyone in the movie. This hits home where other teen flicks lose touch with reality.

The only part not believable on some level are two cops, played by Seth Rogen and Bill Hader (both of Knocked Up, right), who have so much fun breaking the law, they make you want to become a cop for all the wrong reasons. They team bumb into Fogell with a fack ID with the name "McLovin." No last name, just McLovin. Like "Madonna."

Along the way, there are party fights, fleeing from the cops (as well as fleeing with them), committing various crimes that teenagers do in roudiness, and admitting personal feelings and worries, as well as rooting for Fogell and friends of the reject groupings.

This is not a movie for the easily offended. There are 184 uses for the F word, almost half of which come from a single character. This is one for the MPAA listings that had a "bone" to pick with whether or not to end up NC-17. I quote, " pervasive crude and sexual content, strong language, drinking, some drug use and a fantasy/comic violent image - all involving teens." It forgot illustrated nudity in the sexual content. Guys won't realize it until afterwards, but no boobs were revealed, yet it doesn't seem like they were necessarily missing from the movie because of it. Finally, a dirty, roudy comedy with taste. Gross, hilarious fun that is both mature and immature.

Is it entertaining? Yes, yes, and yes. That's a yes for each of the main characters. It's all-around funny.

Is it marketable? Yes. There is a time where some will object because of content, but this stands out as, unlike many of the movies about teens being roudy, this one will come off as timeless as it is about what teens have always tried to do: get alcohol and be awkward trying to get in bed.

Is it memorable? Yes. Everyone can relate to these guys, root for them in their attempts to escape to popularity and de-virginization as they discover being happy with themselves in a non-patronizing way.

My suggestion? It is a movie that keeps with the line of Knocked Up by beating the usual girl-gets-pregnant storyline on both the roudy and setimental ends, as well as the extreme humor of 40-Year-Old Virgin. If these are movies for you, definitely get the editions on DVD on Tuesday, December 4th. As always, if you're ordering online, please support this site by making any purchases using the links below or the Amazon search located between the news and the "about me."

New Feature: DVD Release Updates

2007-11-30T14:30:00.000-07:00

I am aware that some of my readers (there's more of you now) don't go to the movies that often. Therefore, DVD's are more appealing than what's just released. In order to help both sides, I will be attempting something new.

First, I will be adding links to previous reviews when movies come out on DVD. When DVDs are released on Tuesdays, I will provide a list of links for the review and anything else I have on it. For example, I reviewed 3:10 to Yuma when it was released in theaters, but I am also working on adding it to the Red Tie Greats and mentioned it in the Red Tie Law. When it comes out on DVD, I will provide the link for the Red Tie Review, Red Tie Greats, and Red Tie Law, as well as the Red Tie Rant post that featured my opinion of 3:10 star Ben Foster.

Second, you will notice little Amazon.com links. I will add these to movies I have reviewed so that you may order them easily. If you order online, please support this site by using the link provided. It is encouraging and rewarding on multiple levels to see my reviews used for purchases. The post for DVD releases will include these links, as well as links to the reviews and any posts relating to the released DVD.

I appreciate the attention and will keep working on providing an effective site.

Dan In Real Life: A Dan's Gotta Do What A Dan's Gotta Do

2007-11-28T11:36:00.000-07:00

Anyone who’s been in a relationship they didn’t reveal to the public knows the awkwardness that can surround them. Small actions can make it awkward, as well as others’ actions. While it is almost never funny for the people surrounded by awkwardness, it sure is funny for anyone who knows and is watching.

Dan In Real Life makes the most of that awkwardness. It follows Dan (40-Year-Old Virgin's Steve Carell, above left), a widower, single-father of three girls, and an advice columnist. He picks up his daughters, takes them to his parents’ house for Thanksgiving, and along the way he meets the lovely Marie and flirts for what he can. They exchange numbers and he says he’ll call. When he gets to the parents’ house, his brother (Mr. Brooks' Dane Cook, above right) introduces his girlfriend, who is none other than Marie (Juliette Binoche, above center).

The two have back and forth feelings for each other, hint at things across the dinner table, try to resist the other, and move on through the awkwardness. This is thrown on-top of Dan’s difficulties trying to connect with his three daughters and his family giving him dating advice and hooking him up with blind dates.

The movie is humorous with heart. Among the usual family humor that is only funny when it isn’t your family, the irony between Dan and Marie and everyone else is endlessly funny. It isn’t one gimmick used over and over again, but used in every angle it could be used in. The two try to hide their emotions from everyone else, from each other, and against each other. Each action says much about the character’s intention at the time. Had you walked halfway into the movie, you would be completely lost because you couldn’t see the other two or three meanings behind every little thing. The way every line and action means more than the usual, single punchline makes the jokes and drama more unique.

Furthermore, the drama never goes so far as to make it seem ludicrous. The film is a mannered comedy without discontent for any characters. The family’s love is obvious, Dan truly cares for his brother’s feelings, Marie is not being selfish, and the relationship with the girls has character where everything said comes back around to make each character complete in their relationship with Dan.

One advantage of the film is it doesn’t make its end obvious. There are moments where I wasn’t sure which way the movie would end: with or without Marie? There were a few other twists involving the daughters, but you will have to see it to find out those.

The gems of this movie are Carrell’s acting, the script to make the most out of the one joke they have, and a cameo by Emily Blunt (Devil Wears Prada) in a minor role. Carrell embodies the everyman, and while I thought Ben Stiller in The Heartbreak Kid got the audience to root for love’s betrayer, you will never doubt Dan’s good intentions in Dan In Real Life.

Is it entertaining? Yes. While it may appear as just another comedy about family’s getting together for the holidays, it makes the most of its center relationship in every direction it can. When I thought it was going to make the same joke again, it switched directions.

Is it marketable? Very much so. Unlike The Heartbreak Kid where Ben Stiller and the Farrelly brothers disgust some, Dan will disgust none. It is wholly good-hearted with jokes for everyone.

Is it memorable? Yes. Although not as outrageous and original holiday about being home for the holidays (The Family Stone took that one).

My advice: Good date movie.

Thanks,

Robert in the Red Tie

Hitman: Hitman in the Red Tie

2007-11-26T14:17:00.000-07:00

I was skeptical to even consider viewing Hitman. Timothy Olyphant (Live Free or Die Hard) seemed like a wuss and not much for an action movie where he's the tough guy. Let me change that... where he's the unstoppable killer. He is trained to be one of the best killers. He has no childhood, only extensive training to learn how to kill and disappear.

Hitman follows the actions of no-name Agent 47 after being double-crossed in a hit. Along for the ride is the target of the hit (Olga Kurylenko), originally used as bait for an attempt to kill 47. From there, you can figure out the rest. 47 has to fight soldiers, S.W.A.T. teams, avoid Interpol tracking him, and other hitmen from "the Agency."

First off, don't watch this movie if you can't handle the stupid stuff.
47 walks around with a barcode tattooed into the back of his skull. Did no one think, when sweating over whether they've seen his face, that the barcode might be easier to spot? Why doesn't he ever put on a wig or large hat to cover up the dead giveaway he's a killer? The bad guys are obvious, but their plot isn't completely clear, only 47's trail, although some areas are left up to some confusion on where exactly how it leads to killing whoever is in charge.

The advantage of the movie is the unflinching character. He acts like a man without a childhood. He's not leaning towards violence as the only way to communicate as he isn't abusive to the usual girl next to the killer, but seems to not consider letting people live as much of an alternative. Sex doesn't intrigue him, nor does killing really. He's merely a perfectionist in killing people and vengance is the only thing that gets him excited. It's humorous to see a hero who not only doesn't sleep with the girl, but doesn't even care. A great scene of this is where 47 takes the girl out to dinner without telling her he'll be performing the hit there. He memorizes everything. She asks him if he remembers the color of the lady's dress behind him for him to say, "That's not a lady."

Regrettably, the character is still not completely filled. While 47 skips out on chances to figure out his past cause he would rather just kill the guy than wait and hear the answers. We never do figure out a single clue about "the Agency" or insight into the training of 47, which would have been a plus.

Entertaining? Yes, but you will tire of the action when there isn't any plot to back up what he is doing. Although he has some creative techniques, they would be better suited had the plot explained why he did them in particular manners.

Marketable? Not really. Shallow plot will turn away many. Although it was better than most video game movies with an actual character, it has a short lifespan.

Memorable? No. It's a small cut above. 47 is not the everyman of action, so I like it's someone other than just the hero and a change from the usual, but it's potential was far, far from what it could have been.

My suggestion? Go see No Country for Old Men or rent Live Free or Die Hard.

No Country for Old Men: His Name is Anton Chirugh, and Hell Follows With Him

2007-11-22T10:50:00.000-07:00

The title of this article, taken from a Bible verse (Revelations "And the name that sat on him was Death, and Hell follows with him) seemed appropriate for what was the centerpiece for the Coen brother most recent movie on life and death in West Texas. The camera sets us up with a view of road and nothingness in the desert plains. Tommy Lee Jones (The Fugitive) plays a sheriff that knows evil. He opens us to recalling someone he lead down death row in Huntsville: "I once lead a boy down death row. He killed his 14-year-old girlfriend. Papers called it a crime of passion. He said, "there wasn't any passion to it. I'd been thinking about killing someone for as long as I can remember. I'd do it again if I was out of here. I'm sure I'm going to hell." And I said he'd be there in about 15 minutes."

Give me a minute to explain as there's alot of characters to go around, all significant. Josh Brolin (American Gangster) plays a naive but goodhearted hunter, Llewellynn Moss who stumbles upon the remains of a drug deal gone bad. Everyone is dead or dying. They even shot the dog. He figures there had to be a last man standing, and so he follows a trail to a shade tree. Under the shade is a dead man and a bag full of cash that will serve has half of everyone's motivation in the movie.

Next comes Anton Chirugh (Javier Bardem of Collateral), a psychotic killer half-tracking the money, half-tracking the kill of Moss. He's armed with a cattle stun gun, which shoots a rod inches deep into the cattle's brain and then retracks. Used on a person, it leaves the question, "where's the bullet?" Many people are killed in his path, and anyone who would recognize or pose a threat to him is quickly dispatched is a subtle, brutal, merciless manner. He doesn't smile, winch or hesitate. If he is unsure of killing someone, he flips a coin. He is the boy Jones' character sent to the chair matured and perfected into an elusive killer. He silence of his weapons and the efficiency of the stun gun on both markless killing and popping locks open show his skill. The fact Moss can avoid being snuck up on by him is impressive in itself.

The other player in the game is Carson Welles (Natural Born Killers star Woody Harrelson), a bounty hunter hired to retrieve the money and tries to do so by offering to keep Moss alive.

At a first glance, this looks like a promising thriller with plenty of twists and turns. It is promising with twists and turns, but don't expect this to be a great shootout between the two with great one-liners along the way. I wasn't surprised it wasn't, I was surprised it was so far seperated. The movie focuses on the amoral killer, who wouldn't be interesting if it wasn't for the fact he is so well portrayed, he looks like the coldheart that inspired coldhearts before him. I couldn't help but think of the character Bone from the little known caper The Lookout where an old man with a shotgun and dark shdes (giving him black pits for eyes) looks like death in a trenchcoat. I can see Chirugh teaching Bone the proper way to being coldhearted.

There are suspenseful moments and a degree of predictability. However, the well-crafted plot and violence should not mislead you. This is about Chirugh's astonishing craft, Moss' desperate, but smart and very aware attempts at avoiding and out-manuvering him, and Jones' sheriff coming to terms with with such an evil character in his county. It is a mix of characters that stays interesting by the plot movement, memorable by characters, and entertaining by dialogue. One note I must mention is the Coen brothers' great sense of sound editing and film editing. The camera work and cuts allow us to always know what the character is sensing when the other characters are nearby. The sound of a light unscrewing, the careful view of a trail of blood before a cut to a shocked expression before a second quick cut to leaping out of the way puts us in the shoes of the characters without making it explicitly so. This clarity is very important to action movies, but most action movies miss it. Coen brothers make a character study and nail it.

Don't expect a big showdown in the end. The killings tend to be more execution by Chirugh than anything. Jones' sheriff is more dialogue than action. But then again, walking away, I don't think the movie needed the shootout and intense dialogue to end with. The Coen brothers aren't about topics or messages, but they are clear on characters. Jones is disturbed, just like any of us would, at seeing the trail of such evil, just as Moss tries desperately and intelligently to getting away. Welles is humorous because he is the only character not shocked by the existance of Chirugh, but never sounds like he is giving him too much credit. Welles answers when asked how dangerous Chirugh is, "compared to what? The blubonic plague?"

The movie is excellent in craft, does not lecture with a message, and keeps you going. Walking out, I wanted to watch it again, this time looking at characters instead of trying to predict them big shootout.

Beowulf: The Austin Powers of Monster Slayers

2007-11-20T18:27:00.000-07:00

Walking into the theater, I expected Beowulf to be a great disappointment. I figured director Robert Zemeckis (Forest Gump, Monster House) had finally gone to far with special effects, the parts true to the song too stupid, and the action as nothing new. About halfway through the movie, I found myself with no desire to leave and eager for more.

Beowulf, based on the Anglo-Saxon poem, follows its title character (voiced by Sexy Beast star Ray Winstone) as he comes from across the stormy seas to kill the mighty monster Grendel (Michael Crispin) from terrorizing King Hrothgar’s (Anthony Hopkins, Silence of the Lambs) great drinking hall. Hrothgar offers his treasure and wife as a prize for killing Grendel, which makes Beowulf all the more eager to kill the beast. It isn’t long before the two men realize Grendel was not the worst of their worries as Grendel’s mother (voiced by Angelina Jolie, from Tomb Raider and Mr. and Mrs. Smith) returns to wreck havoc.

The version I watched was the 3D movie, because the one-dimensional plot needed all the help it could get. The movie is completely computer-generated with the characters looking similar to their real live counter-parts, which raises the question of why? Admittingly, Winstone is far from the six-pack abs, Viking Fabio he is drawn as (sorry ladies, no google search worth while). Jolie’s demon is as attractive, just like Jolie, and gets around the rating issues as it’s rated PG-13 for computer-generated nudity. Parts of the movie look like Shrek characters, but for the most part, they are convincing, espically in the faces. I didn’t realize it was completely CGI until the movie started, and felt fooled in the convincing previews.

The writing of the plot is half satirical. Beowulf enters, yelling “ROW!” while his Viking ship bounces in the high waves. When someone brings up he is a coward because he didn’t finish a swimming match one time, he replies he wasn’t able to because, near the end, he was attacked by “sea monsters.” We get the full imagination of the most outrageous killing of sea monsters, humorous in the extent of carnage he throws in. Upon hearing Grendel fights in the nude, with no armor and skin no blade can cut, Beowulf strips down nude and leaves his sword, saying he will fight the beast as equals, creating an Austin Powers of fight scenes, where every elbow, cup, wood, and piece of debris is well placed.

Beowulf's title character reminds me of the hero in Feast (inside reference not explained to avoid spoilers), where he most obviously proclaims, half mocking himself, half mocking the movie, "I'm the guy that's going to save y'all's ass!" In the same way, Beowulf confidently (or cockily) introduces himself, "I'm Beowulf. I'm here to kill your monster."

Another scene describes the Monty Python-like humor as wench warns a woeing soldier, “I cannot hear the beast coming,” to which the soldier replies, “you’ll hear me.”

There are only two action scenes, but they are a blend of humor and great fights. The only part missing is for the egotistical hero to say “oh, &#$%” whenever the fight brings humorous obstacles, such as nude wrestling with ugly beasts or dragon-fishing. Although it may be slow in between, with predictable drama regarding Beowulf and Hrothgar, the two actions scenes make the movie worth while with the convincing graphics, unexpected humor of drunk Vikings acting brave, and the surprising well-developed action.

The movie knows it doesn’t have much as a drama or soap opera of Viking heroes and more than makes up for it. The 3D element makes up the digital gimmick, as the extra depth it implies makes the movie look more real-life down to the dragon.

In the end, I found it a movie everyone could enjoy. Action fans can love the action, while people that usually laugh at action movies will see the humor others don’t and laugh with (not at) this movie. It has broad appeal, great action, humor, and some of the finest achievements in CGI.

Lions for Lambs: Too Little About Too Much

2007-11-20T17:21:00.000-07:00

Robert Redford's Lions for Lambs is a political drama that will bore the political science student and lecture the apathic. The movie follows the events that unfold between the hours of 10 AM and 11 AM Eastern time, as a Congressman (Tom Cruise) has an exclusive interview with a liberal reporter (Meryl Streep) on what the next step is in Afghanistan and Iraq as the plan is being implemented. The Congressman talks about how it will be a success while a helicopter is shot down and two soldiers are stranded in the mountains of Afghanistan. The two soldier are former students of a political science professor (Robert Redford) who, in the same time frame, lectures a promising, but apathic student to becoming more active. This is amid flashbacks of the two former students now fighting for their lives.

I will say three things about Iraq and three things about the movie's politics before going on. On Iraq... 1.) we went in there on false pretenses, 2.) we cannot pull out without collapsing the country into anarchy, and 3.) Saddam Huessin was an evil dictator, whether he needed to be removed or not. On the movie... 1.) it is accurate on events leading up to this point in Iraq, 2.) it is fair until the final word or moral, where the liberals find themselves by developing backbones, and 3.) it nails the issue of personal responsibility.

There are plenty of logical errors that are too easily ignored. For starters, Cruise is a Congressman with a key say in determining military action. He has a exclusive interview with a television reporter who doesn't bring any television equipment, only pen and paper. The entire announcement of a strategy plan is done through a single reporter, sold by a single congressman without any PR representatives present. If you can put that aside, their third of the story represents a debate amongst the Republican neo-cons who will not admit defeat, period, and the liberals who stayed quite during the events that lead to the ill-prepared war. No one blames the troups, maybe it was the intelligence's fault, but in the end, the public will blame the politicians for leading them here and the politicians will blame the public for letting them. While the debate is lively and very well performed, it takes too long to get to the point. Those familiar will grow tired and those that didn't pay attention to the news won't find Tom Cruise more compelling than the news.

The more interesting story is between Redford and the apathic, as Redford it is better written and reveals more character and the message of responsibility than the ideologies represented by Cruise and Streep. The problem is the same here. The action of the soldiers seems to overshadow the uneventful dialogue at the professor's office. If the intellectual arguments get your interest, the moral lecture or predictable action will make you disappointed you invested such interest.

In the end, I understood what they were going for and really rooted for a good ening, only non-presented itself. I tried to figure out a proper way to go about it, as though there is a right way to end it. Instead, I realized the movie was hopeless. It went nowhere at a full speed, and it wasn't until we stepped out we realized we didn't get anywhere.

--Red Tie Guy

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford: Don't Tell Me What Happens!

2007-11-05T20:33:00.001-07:00

I looked around at the star-filled cast of Assassination and realized everyone has been in a better movie. Sam Rockwell was in Joshua and Matchstick Men. Brad Pitt had been in Mr. and Mrs. Smith and Se7en. Casey Affleck just came out with Gone Baby Gone and Ocean's 11. I kept watching, and as the movie became longer and longer, the list of better movies continued. Rockwell: Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Heist, and A Midsummer's Night Dream. Pitt: Spy Game, The Mexican, Twelve Monkeys. Affleck: Good Will Hunting, Soul Survivors, the Ocean's 13. In the end, I added Rockwell's Charlie's Angels, Pitt's Troy, and Affleck's Ocean's 12. That's pretty bad.

The movie follows Robert Ford (Affleck) and his brother Charley (Rockwell) from where they are involved in Jesse James' (Pitt) last train robbery until Ford's eventual betrayal. The movie is ultimately an hour's worth of material stretched and dramatized for two hours and forty minutes. The bank robbery is good, and after the assassination is good. The two hours between is not.

At first, it looks like it will be a movie about Ford and James, their friendship and companionship. Ford is James' biggest fan. He is obsessed. James likes the attention, keeps Ford around the house to help out him and his wife, but James eventually becomes wary of Ford, as he says, "Do you want to be like me, or do you want to BE me?"

Farther into the film, we see into the drama of the henchmen away from the infamous outlaw. Wood, James' not-too-bright cousin, developes a rivalry with the other henchman Nick Liddel, the quick-witted ladiesman. (Guess who he sleeps with.) This leads to one of the better shoot-outs I've seen, but that seems to be the end of that.

In the end, it seems to focus on the popularity of it all. Jesse James is both loved and notorious. He is a celebrity, yet when he walks down the street no one recognizes him and he hides the stumb where his finger was shot off. He goes to church, plays with his kids, and lives a quiet life with his guns around his waist. Ford looks for the fame he wishes he had, living in James' celebrity fame from the other end of the law and doing it from stage. He expects the act of killing James will make him what James was, applauded for being the next act in the soap opera.

There is scenes were we fear for Ford falling victim to James' paranoia (only his paranoia is real). In addition, the guilty look on Charley Ford's face is enough to say what Robert Ford is feeling in sorrow for killing James. The celebrity aspect of it all is explained after the assassination, and it would be more appealing if it didn't take two hours to get to.

In short, it is what could have been three movies, only not much to it because it takes its time to let us look at beautiful scenery and accurate sets. It needed to be short and concise, focusing on its good points and elaborating on those. Instead, it gives us too much about too many characters. We know Nick Liddel is going to sleep with the woman, so we don't need to see it played out as much as it is. We know how it is going to end, so not every level and stage of Robert Ford planning the assassination needs to be kept. Not all of James' henchmen are interesting, nor do we necessarily care their are others besides Liddel, Wood, and the Fords. Too much unnecessary screentime takes away from the truly memorable parts of the movie that are at the beginning, end, and a single shoot-out in the middle.

Is it entertaining? Schedule a nap for two hours after the first ten minutes.

Is it marketable? No. Eight movies came out on the same weekend it did. It wasn't even intimating.

Is it memorable? Yes, for those moments you are awake.

My suggestion? See if 3:10 to Yuma is still playing. If not, wait for 3:10 to Yuma to come out on DVD. The only thing this movie did for me was make me want to watch Yuma again.

Saw IV: You've already seen it.

2007-10-28T07:28:00.000-07:00

After the disappointments of Hostel 2 and Captivity, I'll admit I was glad to see Saw IV have something other than just torture going for it. It sets us up to wonder and wait for the twist. Regrettably, it sets it up with confusion and unnecessary scenes.

Saw IV carries three sawed-off storylines. First is SWAT Commander Rigg (Lyriq Bent from Saw II) going through a game where he must watch and set the triggers for Jigsaw's traps in order to find his lost partner Eric Matthews (Donnie Walhberg from Saw II) before (or after) his time is up. Second is the two FBI profilers trying to find Rigg and the games he's playing, leading them to question Jigsaw's ex-wife more than they should. Third is the flashbacks profided by Jigsaw's ex, through which we see his reasoning for his first victim and what else drove him to build his games.

The good of this movie is the games. Not since Saw (the first one) have I been interested who lives or who dies, whether they learn their lesson, and how the complicated machines work. It still lacks the character development that Saw I at least tried for. Ultimately, Lionsgate has made four cheap movies in four years that have dominated October movie sales. The Saw series, regardless of whether it is a good movie, have always made in the low 30's for millions of dollars in opening weekend. It is an episode-like movie series that has survived its first killer-transition. The fact their fourth installment is better than its third shows it has no intention of slowing down its.

The downside of the movie is it has two settings: suspenseful games and the dramatized unnecessary. It opens with a full autopsy of Jigsaw, where a tape player is found in his stomach. What is the point of this? Just something to gross you out. It serves no purpose as later on the detectives figure out on their own there's a third killer, and by the end of the movie, it has confused as to the setting and time of everything we've seen. They take their usual twist, over-do for a duty they never had to fulfill, and spin. What's next? Saw V is set up as a sequel, but the twist is its a prequel?

Although I did like they were able to move past Jigsaw eventually and we saw Jigsaw's backstory, we didn't need it. We already knew enough from Saw II. Did it decide to rewrite half of his backstory for the sake of giving Tobin Bell some screen time?

In the end, I realized I could have watched Saw I for the games and Saw II for the backstory. Saw IV just took my money for what I already have on my DVD shelf.

Thanks,
--Jack.

30 Days of Night: Vampires with Bite

2007-10-19T21:04:00.000-07:00

Vampire films are hard to do well. Usually, they're done like a different movie, such as Blade being action or Bram Stoker's Dracula being half operatic in its drama. 30 Days of Night doesn't need to bend its genre; it compliments it.

Based on the graphic novel, 30 Days of Night focuses on the town of Barrow, Alaska, where the sun doesn't rise between November 18th and December 17th. It is a small, sleepy town with nothing in 300 miles each direction. The movie opens with the entire sheriffs' department (all two of them) staring at a pile of burnt cellphones. Next, the town's helicopter is gone. Then the sled dogs. Finally, a bloodthrusty gang of vampires move into the town to enjoy taking their time feasting on the townsfolk. A isolated town without sunshine is the vampires' Miami beach; an ideal vacation spot. A band of survivors gather to hide, raid the store for supplies, and weather out the blizzards and bloodsuckers.

The movie is great horror and emphasizes the point the remake of Dawn of the Dead missed: trying to outlast the seiging horror. This is the underlying theme, but there is much more to it. Under the supervision of the original graphic novel writer Steve Niles, Hard Candy director David Slade, and The Grudge producer Sam Raimi (also directed Evil Dead), they make every horror and suspense possible with style to emphasize the isolation and graphic violence invoked by sadistic vamps. The vampires are the unstoppable kind, where it requires a shotgun blast to the head to stop them. Their undying hunger makes them maniacs for taking bullets for blood. This leads to some painful moments of seeing people killed easily and a beautiful fight of an expert trapper against plenty of vampires. I won't ruin how the fight goes, only it doesn't disappoint.

Characters do not go unnoticed. Danny Huston plays a convincing Marlow, the head vampire, who makes the most of a small role speaking gibberish (vampire language is subtitled). Josh Hartnett (Black Hawk Down)plays Eben, the sheriff. He holds onto a human side, as he beats the crap out of the only person he can blame for the first murder and barely holds onto himself. His estranged wife (Dark City star Melissa George) and brother are alongside him, and he takes most of the burden upon himself simply because he is the most able. Mark Boone, Jr. is the real treat as Beau Brower, the expert trapper who is brave enough (or just crazy) to fight off some of the bloodsuckers.

A few things hurt this movie. It pretty much defies logic that the vampires don't look for the survivors very long. It is a small town, yet if they know there are still people and don't look for them, what does a vampire do all day... er, night. Other times, the survivors run around town sneaking supplies too easily. The bites tend to look cheap, and I'd suggest a new makeup department. Better gore comes from the vampires deaths than the bites.

Is it entertaining? Very. It kept my attention from start to finish. Although there's not much climax, only one character is truly wasted. All of the others are noteworthy and interesting, rather than yawning by the fifth death.

Is it marketable? Very. The trapped feeling reminds me of zombie movies where the survivors take up a strict manner of keeping alive. The creatures have plenty of horror to them and survivors don't rely on the usual luck. Even the critics against vampire movies admit this one has more to it. Action and all horror fans will enjoy this.

Is it memorable? Not too much, athough I believe it would be a very good start to a series, espically as the comics already have a series lined up.

My suggestions? Go out and see it.

The Two Elizabeth's

2007-10-13T21:11:00.001-07:00

In Elizabeth, we saw a young girl become queen, find a sense of duty, and give up her life for her country by leaving her love and making her unwed status a piece in a chess game of monarchs. Its strengths were its historical accuracy, magnificent costumes, and an list of great actors (even Daniel Craig, the newest James Bond, had a small role as a spy and assassin). Elizabeth: The Golden Age shares the costumes and actors, but misses in historical accuracy. To its advantage, it is more entertaining, if you can ignore the history.
Golden Age is not necessarily a sequel, as it ignores most of what happened in the first movie, while the same actors fill the same roles for a different decade. The first film ended with Elizabeth before her court, accepting her role, announcing she has made herself "virgin" for her country. Protestant Queen Elizabeth is patient with England, divided between Catholics and Protestants. She refuses to imprison the Catholics at the risk of possible assassinations (something she has experience with in the first movie). Devout Catholic Spain, lead by a menancing King Philip intends to invade England with an armada, and put equally menancing Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots on the thrown of England after Elizabeth's assassination.
That's the political story. The personal story is Elizabeth desires the pirate Sir Walter Raleigh, who founded a colony for the Virgin Queen (hence Raleigh, Virginia). She envies his exploration and free spirit. Naturally, this doesn't fit with the diplomatic, respectable, royal role she must stay to, so she has one of her ladies-in-waiting, also named Elizabeth, socialize with him so the Queen may live becariously through her.
Elizabeth would have been 50 and Raleigh 32, making any pyshical romance -such as when the queen asks the pirate for a kiss- highly unlikely. Raleigh was ashore during the battle, yet in the film he is lighting fires, swinging from ropes and leaping to waters' safety as ships explode. Casting Clive Owen was enough to make him have swashbuckler appearance, they didn't have to over-do it, although I respect him for going from Shoot 'Em Up to Golden Age in just two months. That's a talented actor.
The film will, no doubt, win the Academy Award for best costume, just as the first Elizabeth did. The costumes are essential here. The movie is part soap opera, part chick flick. It has a very Shakespearian feel to it. Of course, Shakespeare never wrote of Queen Elizabeth because she lived during his time and would have been in the audience.
The costumes add to the atmosphere and drama. The various costumes, wigs, and dresses of the Queen symbolizes her various layers and the different lives of queen and woman she embodies. Her face is red and full of passion commanding in a smaller dress, while a large white gown and powdered face give her the "virgin queen" look of symbolic purity. Without the wig in a bath, we see a great change as she talks of her envy of the common woman.
Blanchett proves herself as an actress. She shows a variety of emotions in every scene. As the plot to overthrow her is revealed, she kicks the Spanish ambassador out of her country, so which he says a wind will blow her kingdom away. Blanchett hesitates her lines (who speaks to a queen like this!?!?), then screams "I too can command the wind. I have a hurricane in me that will strip Spain bare if you dare to try me!" She sounds so convincing we almost believe her, then she turns her back and her lips quiver at the threat Spain poses.
All moments in the film play out like this, highly dramatized to the point we feel tired by the seriousness of it all rather than a progression. Geoffrey Rush, who plays the Queen's most trusted advisor, carries his own weight around in the drama of it all as he cooly handles various potential assassins. I wanted to see more of him and what he thinks of a Queen he established power to in the first Elizabeth and guides to prosper a nation in Golden Age, but too much attention goes to the Queen.
Is it entertaining? Yes. The movie is, for the most part, uneventful, but by comparison, very eventful from the first Elizabeth. The events that unfold expose the plot to overthrow England step-by-step, which gives us a greater development and essential climax for the movie.
Is it for everyone? No. Far from it. Historians and those liking the soap operas would find it entertaining. Others should find another movie. It narrows its audience with its stunning work that we only care so much about.
Is it memorable? Yes. But I would suggest a glass of fine wine to calm me down so i don't get restless in my seat and put me in the mood for the elegant. Few moods fit its two hours.
My suggestions? Think carefully what it's about before you invest in it.

We Own the Night: A disappointing 'Departed' follow

2007-10-13T20:37:00.000-07:00

We Own the Night shot itself in the foot when it came up with such a great trailer. It set a high standard I didn't expect it to reach, and then it doesn't even come close.
We Own the Night, taken from the motto of the New York Police Department during the drug wars in the 1980s as they struggled to take back the street, follows a family of three men. Joaquin Pheonix (Walk the Line) is a New York night club manager who turns a blind eye to the drug dealing going on in his club. Mark Walberg (The Departed) is his brother and the head of a new drug task force. Robert Duvall is the police chief, their father. As Walberg busts the drug dealers in Pheonix's club, the dealers trust Pheonix enough to let him in on the action. Naturally, Pheonix has some reservations about putting prices on his family's lives. Undercover police playing both sides? Might as well have called it The Departed 2: The Brothers.
The tagline for this movie is "Two Brothers on opposite sides of the law." The tagline doesn't fit. Pheonix's character has almost no trouble making up his mind to get a wire, while the entire time, each side is merely fighting for the sake of killing the others and getting their opponents to fear them (which never happens).
One scene sticks out in displaying this problem in the film. Eva Mendes, who is seriously under-used in this film, yells at her boyfriend, Pheonix, telling him his cops die for nothing. Pheonix yells back at her to never say that, but doesn't say why. Could it be the writer's didn't have any reasons? No where do they mention the damages done by the drug trade or how it helps the community, only that the cops have something to prove and their own lives to protect.
The movie also carries logical flaws. Pheonix's character simply has his name changed, and all of a sudden his entire hometown doesn't know who his father and brother are? Too easy. I'm sure if I changed my name, it wouldn't lose my reputation that quickly.
Also, when the bad guys are going after certain cops, and the cops know it, you would think they would carry more protection. Too easily are they shot or killed, when the drama of the situation calls for a bigger fight.
The movie is not without its better moments. Although it seriously disappoints compared to The Departed, it does offer some (however small) character development more than the Departed. The movie focuses on the risks involved in being undercover, where Pheonix doesn't have nerves of steel and we are all too aware the dangers around him. No one manages to merely get away, but always barely get out or is carried off with plenty of scars. They exchanged the quick shots to the head in The Departed for cold brutality, and it works in building the suspense and moments, keeping it more realistic.
Is it entertaining? Yes, but I am left with the question if cop shows aren't? Would I get more drama and cops with better reasons for their actions if I rented a season of "NYPD Blue?"
Is it for everyone? Yes. The drama aspect, however shallow, opens it up for plenty, making the action more gripping for action and drama fans.
Is it memorable? No. The Departed overshadows this movie too much, and the idea is far from original. It suffers here tremedously as I think seeing it again would be very boring.
My suggestions? Go buy the Departed or wait for American Gangster (aka The Departed 3: The Race Factor).

The Heartbreak Kid: The flip side of Wedding Crashers

2007-10-05T17:50:00.000-07:00

The Heartbreak Kid is good movie with a bad trailer, resulting in a delightful surprise in squirmy humor.

Ben Stiller is Eddie, a sporting goods store owner who is unhappy with his single life, but scared of commitment. His father (played by real-life father Jerry Stiller) is pushs him to enjoy being single while his best friend gives him lousy advice on why he should marry. After being single too long, he has to defend his sexuality at his ex-fiance's wedding, then finds someone and gets rushed into tying the knot. The "special someone" is Lila (Malin Akerman who played another weird wife in Harold & Kumar). "Special" is the key word there. She plays a continuingly more and more annoying monster. No surprise, Eddie falls in love with the next girl fit for a romantic comedy, Miranda (Michelle Monaghan from Mission Impossible 3).

The humor can flow easily as every character is outrageous and convincing. Akerman makes being psycho look natural, playing off everything as though it is what everyone does everyday. She makes guys want to avoid commitment. Jerry Stiller's extreme use of bachelorhood, such as asking Eddie to go with him to Vegas to double-bang Klaya Kleevage, would make many guys want to avoid the bachelorhood. Guess why her last name is Kleevage.

Equally helping is Ben Stiller's performance. He doesn't come off as selfish, but as a guy with heart. Stiller's on-screen chemistry with Monaghan and Akerman's psycho tendencies make all the decisions seem natural, and the audience can root for Eddie while he lies through his teeth in between various attempts to go straight.

This is far from the typical romantic comedy. The Farrelly brothers directing brings it a touch of There's Something about Mary, where nothing is sacred. There are infamous sex scenes where Lila is overly aggressive. When Eddie suggests missionary position, she asks, "what's that?" If sex humor is funny, Dane Cook has nothing on the laughing out loud humor of Stiller trying to injoy sex. If the Farrelly brothers were looking for a message pro-premartial sex, they got one.

To change the pace some, Carlos Mencia plays Uncle Tito, an immoral hotel owner offering a change from the usual wiseman advice on love. Whenever something cliche pops up, he turns it around. One aspect I will always appreciate this film for is it never sells itself out for the predictable romance comedy.

Is it entertaining? Yes. There's part There's Something About Mary, part Meet the Parents, and part no-moral Wedding Crashers. If all three of these are your kind of movies, then its the movie for you.

Is it for everyone? No. It's rated R for good reason, specifically strong sexual content, crude humor and language. When the Farrelly brothers make nothing sacred, that means they'll show frontal nudity no one wants to see, mule sex organs, the C-word, plenty of the F-word, and again, while most will find the sex scenes funny, EVERYONE will find them nauseating. They hurt themselves here.

Is it memorable? Almost. Heartbreak took many people to make it work. Farrelly brothers will always be remembered for There's Something About Mary, Stiller will be better remembered for giving awkward looks in Meet the Parents, and cheating and lying was still funnier in Wedding Crashers, where the sex scenes were just as funny and no where near as naseating.

My suggestion? If you like Wedding Crashers, Meet the Parents, and There's Something About Mary then it's worth the drive and admission price. Two out of those three, wait for it to come on DVD. Only one out of those three, watch the censored version when it comes on cable. Next week is a full set of drama and oscar contenders. This may be the only good comedy for awhile.

Resident Evil 3: Yeah, It's Extinct

2007-09-23T09:05:00.000-07:00

For a moment, I thought Resident Evil: Extinction (or Resident Evil 3, abbreviated as RE3) was a good movie. Then I got up from my seat and realized I didn't get my money's worth, and it was a discount theater.

This is a mild thumbs down. I know the movie is a popcorn flick to provide zombie and monster eyecandy while Milla Jovovich looks good shooting and swinging knives, and they do a good job providing the eyecandy.

RE3 raises the stakes of RE2, only it has less fun doing so. The infamous T-virus spread across the world, killing all wildlife, humans, and animals. Everything is infected. Since the whole planet is a desert, my question is why did they go to Vegas? We've already seen Vegas as a desert, let's see Miami or San Fransciso as a desert. Alice is riding alone, searching place to place and learning her newest talent, telekinisis, which isn't that surprising if you've kept up with her abilities. She meets up with a convoy of survivors, some of whom she knew in RE2, but didn't bother to ask, "Where's Jill?" The answer is: "The actress didn't feel like making another bad movie."

The pesty Umbrella corporation, with their bunkers spread out around the world, realize Alice's blood may be a potential cure to infection, which makes me wonder how often the villians bang their heads against their desks, asking themselves why they ever let her get away in the first place. Naturally, this leads to a fight between Alice and some new mutation, but at least this mutation doesn't have a nine-foot tongue and can speak. Let's talk about the good parts before the bad overshadow them.

They bring back the laser beam from the first Resident Evil. For those that don't know, let me ruin it for you. There was a long corridor with lights. In Resident Evil, the laser shoots across the room and cuts through anything in its way. Then it shoot again, but this time it moves. Finally, after moving and cutting, it spreads out in a grid, cutting people into small squares. Why didn't it spread out to start with? Either A.) it needed time to charge up, or B.) the computer system has a sad sense of humor. In RE3, we have the same hallway, same laser, less humor. The laser cuts straight to the point, literally. I almost want to root for the laser.

Instead of the usual, "You're bitten, but I don't want to kill you, so let's wait until your a zombie," line is removed. When someone is bitten, he hides it because they've learned, if your friend is bitten, kill him then or send him on a suicide mission.... and yeah, don't bother cooking dinner for him.

One thing they did get right was how to do the neo-zombie. Classic zombies are designed for horror. They will surround you, slowly bang on the walls, and eventually walk towards you, get a decent grip, and try to take a bite out of you. They're designed for horror in mass numbers. Neo-zombies, most commonly seen in the remake of Dawn of the Dead, run at you, tackle you, and take bites, unless they are going to get shot, in which they scream at you before running at you, which gives you just enough time to make their head explode.

Here, neo-zombies are done right. They charge, go for the neck, and don't get distracted. They pull at your legs, can climb to a decent extent (they've learned they have arms), but only use their hands to get closer to your neck. They never get distracted from their food. When trapped in a vechile, they slowly but surely tear the vechile apart. It keeps the horror element while still getting their action.

What goes wrong? The start of the movie gives away its flaws. Alice goes into an abandoned building looking for survivors, but finds non-zombie cannibals who feed her to their infested dogs. I'm tired of the dogs. We've seen them in the past two movies. We don't need them anymore. But just for the sake of punching them, shooting them, and tying them up, she fights them anyway.

The movie doesn't develop characters at all. We're left to imagine what they are like by the way they dress and talk. Sure enough, the guy with the cowboy hat is from Texas and eats pork and beans, the guy with really long hair is a stoner and does drugs, and the strong-willed female lead (not Jovovich, they added another) screams whenever someone dies, like she wishes she was Sigourney Weaver, and had taken action earlier to make sure to say, "Get away from her, you bitch!" Not every heroine can live up to the Aliens standard.

The plot is predictable. Of course if you walk into a dark room, the zombie is waiting for you. Of course if you sit down, there's another one waiting for you. And of course, if it was a close call and no one thinks you were bit, you sure as hell was bit. The play with a herd of crows becomes complete defiance towards logic. And later on, when there is a lack of zombies, it's because the birds have picked the city clean. So no bones? Hmm... I think it's because the director didn't want to bother with a big zombie fight and just get the film over with.

Is it entertaining? Yes, but we've seen everything before. It's as entertaining as the next knife-fight and zombie show-down. They've learned some, but need to learn at others.

Is it for everyone? No. If you liked the first two Resident Evil movies, you'll like this one. If you haven't seen the first two, or didn't like either of them, don't bother with any.

Is it memorable? Under a close eye, I like how they used the neo-zombies, and the laser provides a lesson in movie logic. Other than that, no. Wait, Jovovich did show off her clothing line. Ask the fashion critic if that's memorable.

My suggestions? If you saw the first two and thought that was worth it, then go for it. If not, don't bother.

Death Proof is Tarantino's Joy Ride

2007-09-19T10:34:00.000-07:00

Quentin Tarantino has trademarks in all of his movies. Watching Death Proof is like watching a toned-down version of Pulp Fiction, only it’s horror and suspense instead of crime drama, and there’s women instead of hitmen. Some of it plays like an inside joke, but when you know the inside jokes, it makes it worth it. Without understanding the jokes, you’re going to be bored for awhile before the fun for everyone comes around.

Death Proof follows Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell of Backdraft and Tombstone), a retired stuntman of long-forgotten TV shows now living out a fetish for killing women by means of his “death-proof” 1970 Chevy Nova and 1969 Dodge Charger. The potential victims include a radio personality and her friends, a girl just looking for a safe ride from the bar, and stuntwoman Zoe Bell (stunt double for Uma Thurman in Kill Bill) as herself pulling a wild and crazy stunt. Any further attempts to explain the plot would ruin the movie, as most of it relies on the unexpected for desired results.

I can say the movie is unconventional as Quentin Tarantino is fearless in his imagination and directing. He’s not afraid to turn the movie around 180 halfway through to shake up the audience and send chills. Right when we believe the movie is heading one way, Quentin pulls the rug out and the rest of the movie is watched from the floor. His style shines from the usual Tarantino dialogue, making all the characters more human. Other strong parts are movie references to cars, as well as some of the best stunt-work I’ve seen in a long time. No CGI or special effects here. Even the crashes are as real as they could be made. Just a few minutes of the special features will give you a new appreciation for stuntwork.

The movie faces two problems. First, it is slow-moving. Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and Kill Bill all start off with killers. Death Proof saves anything on the killing subject for after the movie has found its way. Up until that point, we see why we loved the killers in previous Tarantino films: because they’re what kept it entertaining!

Second, if you aren’t familiar with Tarantino’s movies, you will seriously miss out on parts of the movie. Kill Bill characters and wardrobe, Uma Thurman’s stunt-double, the big kahuna burger, and yet another discussion on how foot massages are not in the same ballpark as sex all find their way into another Tarantino film.

Eventually, Tarantino makes up for these. The second half will have everyone’s undivided attention, and the uneventful beginning was needed to make the later part entertaining. He turns a very simple plot, puts great dialogue and car chases behind it, and makes a film having its viewers gasp, cringe, and laugh louder than they have in any other Tarantino movie. Few directors could put such quality behind their ideas, but Tarantino’s ideas are very little until he puts a camera behind it. If you have watched the previous Tarantino films, the references are worth their time, humorous at some moments, other moments they give you the confidence Tarantino is doing everything for a reason.

The DVD is the extended and unrated version. The extras aren’t important, as I miss the spoof previews provided in theaters with the Grindhouse Double-Feature. A small segment on the stunts reminds us of the level of work required and how the cast and crew went about it, making the chase scene mean more when watched again. A few extra angles of the car chases may spark your interest.

The movie itself, an approximate 23 minutes longer, is the real pleasure of the DVD. Included are segments to develop Rosario Dawson’s character and to make Russell more creepy, showing more perversion in his actions. A real guilty pleasure for the guys is the infamous lap dance scene, not shown in theaters. A smoother transition is provided, making it easier to watch it as one movie instead of what could almost be two short movies.

Is it entertaining? The beginning is slow, but once Kurt Russell gives us an evil grin, the slow parts are worth the wait and you will buckle up for a ride.

Is it for everyone? The Grindhouse and Tarantino references will go over some people’s heads, while giving others the confidence the film will be worth it. A decent stomach and a laid-back sense of humor will help. Unconventional movies don’t always help, and the low theatrical sales showed this. But…

Is it memorable? Death Proof will be brought up in car chase conversations for years to come. The classic Tarantino dialogue of the women, their sex lives (or lack thereof) is as good as conversations about ballparks and royales with cheese. The movie will be remembered like other Tarantino films, and not in a bad light.

My suggestion? If you like the previous Tarantino films, or Grindhouse, Death Proof is
worth its money. Even if you already own the theatrical version of Death Proof, or intend to own the theatrical Grindhouse Double-Feature, the extended and unrated Death Proof is worth renting for its complete form.

3:10 to Yuma: Westerns Arrive Late

2007-09-11T11:40:00.001-07:00

My favorite line in a western belongs to Clint Eastwood: "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." He says it at the end of Unforgiven. However, up until that point, deserve didn't have anything to do with it. But Eastwood's Mundy was old, given one last moment of youth to kill off those who had been too cruel, and deserve had everything to do with it.

3:10 to Yuma plays off of the morality and deserve of its characters, but a well rounded cast and an updated script makes this more than just another remake. Batman Begins star Christian Bale is Dan Evans, a rancher who is tired of suffering from the dought and refuses to sell his land off to the railroad coming to put an end to his ranch. Gladiator star Russell Crowe is Ben Wade, a man who's made the most off of a lawless land by robbing the banks and carriages. But when Ben Wade is unexpectedly captured by the authorities, Evans, desperate for cash and annoyed by the dissapproving look in his son's eyes, agrees to help transport Wade to the trainstation. To make things more interesting, Wade's old crew is looking for him, lead by his second in command, the double-shooter Charlie Prince (Ben Foster, Angel from X-Men 3), as well as Evans' oldest son follows, either to protect his dad or to admire the infamous Wade.

Bale, an actor who will go to any stretch to fulfill a role, makes no exception for this one. Evans is a character filled with conflict, hard pressed for bravery and worried about the kids back home if he doesn't make it. Selflessness is not his character. Why he agrees to transport Wade is something we're left to wonder for most of the movie, which Wade asks him about again and again.

Crowe's Wade is just as interesting and entertaining. He is efficient if not ruthless, not hesitating to kill his own men when necessary. However, he has a soft side, respecting most women and drawing pictures of what he admires in between bloody moments. At the start, when he seduces a barmaid with his charm, we see part of Eastwood's Bill Mundy in him, a gunslinger who's lost his taste for blood and is starting to feel old. After one attempt to bribe his way to freedom, when asked if he doubts his crew is going to come, he replies, "I just like to do things the easy way." This has a great impact on his transporters, as even a half dozen of Wade's crew chases them, it's Wade they truly fear in his sudden brutality and effectiveness.

The surrounding characters round out the movie. Peter Fonda is Baron, the bounty hunter with his fair share of dark deeds, who if he doesn't have the respect of Wade, they at least have each other's reputations behind them. Alan Turdk (Serenity, Dodgeball) is Doc Potter, the good-hearted doctor to watch over Baron's wounds and wake up at every twig snapping. Baron's own dark past, Doc's heart, Prince's bloodlust, and the greed of all men add a complex background behind Wade and Evans' ongoing conversations of right and wrong.

Is it entertaining? Very much so. From start to finish, the movie doesn't drown itself in action, but delivers well-executed scenes where we have an understanding of the action and find out rarely do you rely on a quick draw and steady hand, but mostly strategy and a clear head. The action is paced out between dialogue scenes between the main characters and the side characters. This is not a divded movie, half action and half dialogue, but a mixture where the action means more because of the reputations, characters, and risk it explains before going into each scene. The final stretch to the train is more than merely a shootout of who lives and who dies, but the most revealing scene for the main characters.

Is it marketable? Hollywood knows the West is not very marketable (The Departed has made cop films the big thing this year), so it is very selective about which ones do come out. Those would be Clint Eastwood's, Tombstone, Kevin Costner's, and now 3:10 to Yuma. Although many critics believe this may bring forth an uncoming revival of the western, I don't belive so. Western's are tired, and we still love those old one's with Eastwood and Tombstone doesn't feel that long ago. It is for everyone, as character-focused films tend to attract most.

Is it memorable? Yes. I say this partially because I believe there won't be a revival of the western. Any lame attempts will only make Yuma look better. Westerns have been tried, and any other movies or remakes would appear already tried from too early ago. Just remember how many pirate films have came out since the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy. But just as I started this review with a quote from Unforgiven and we all remember Tombstone from not too far ago, 3:10 to Yuma will be the bar the next western is compared to. Yes, westerns are the great American genre, but now it's not because of popularity, but their rarity and consistant quality within that rarity.

I approve this movie.

Shoot 'Em Up is a Bullseye

2007-09-11T11:40:00.000-07:00

Writer/director Michael Davis takes Shoot ‘Em Up so far over the line, halfway through the movie I’m picturing one of the actors asking Davis, “do you think we’ve gone too far?” only to be answered, “No, I think we haven’t gone far enough.”
Shoot ‘Em Up is Michael Davis’ no-holds-barred, trigger-happy, wise-cracking action funfest. He’s made fun of horror with Monster Man and the teen love story with Eight Days a Week. Now he turns the tables on the action genre.
The plot is simple. Mr. Smith (played by Children of Men star Clive Owen) is sitting on a bench, munching on a carrot when a pregnant woman runs by, chased by a thug intent on killing her. Mr. Smith rolls his eyes, says “bloody hell,” chases after them, shoves the carrot down the thug’s throat and through the back of his skull, before telling him “eat your vegetables.” What follows is a birthing scene, where Smith plays midwife during a shootout, which goes along the lines of push-push, bang-bang, wah-wah. Mr. Smith and the baby run out with family-man professional killer Mr. Hertz (Sideways’ Paul Giamatti) chasing after them. Monica Bellucci plays DQ, the lactating hooker Smith brings along to feed the baby. DQ is short for Donna Quintano, but is probably more of a reference to Dairy Queen. Mr. Smith and a lactating hooker lead to a sex-scene shootout, which goes bang-bang… well, bang-bang-bang-bang.
There’s enough plot for Mr. Smith to have a decent reason to run everywhere from street chases to jumping out of airplanes, half the time carrying around the baby. The plot has something to do with the 2nd Amendment, a presidential candidate, and a gun company. The 2nd Amendment morals being brought up is either a lesson or a joke, but as the plot is just an excuse to have quiet, funny moments between shoot-outs, it provides more than we ask for in an action movie as it’s the shoot-outs that keep us watching.
Mr. Smith, who we never fully know the history behind, kills waves after waves of bad guys, taking the usual movie rule of bad-guys-miss-and-good-guys-don’t to another level, to the point of being downright humorous. He flies through windshields (wise-cracking about seatbelts), slides across floors, swings from ropes, and jumps out of a plane without a parachute, using everything as a weapon from carrots (bugs bunny jokes), bathroom hand dryers, guns (even though Smith doesn’t own one), bullets (without guns), diapers, his own blood, and the most interesting method of taking a knife away from someone. Maybe Clive Owen was trying to prove something if someone told him he didn’t have enough action to be the next Bond, but there’s no such thing as over-compensating in this movie.
Paul Giamatti’s role is simple, and his bloodthirsty smile in between being annoyed by Mr. Smith’s survival is enough to make him creepy and cold-hearted of a villain. He has one line which best describes his character's style: "Guns don't kill people, but they certainly do help."
Is the movie entertaining? If you laughed when Smith tells thugs to eat their carrots, you’ll laugh your way through every shoot-out and line of dialogue. Most popcorn flicks are cheesy and cheap, not giving a care if you really find their wise-cracks funny or not. If Shoot ‘Em Up’s jokes are cheesy, it’s gold cheese. I have not found genre-bending humor this funny since Bruce Campbell lost his hand in Evil Dead 2. It’s noticeable they avoided doing the same trick twice, keeping every joke fresh and keeping them coming.
Is it for everyone? Carrot kills will probably send more than a few people back to the box office, asking if they can exchange their tickets to something else. I’m sure the line “I’m a British nanny, and I’m dangerous” will get repeated like some of Quentin Tarantino’s lines that’s always found funny by fans everywhere. DVD sales will be good as news of the humor hits the young and wild crowd. This has a place in cult hit status, as one of the love-it-or-hate-it movies.
Is it memorable? Popcorn films come and go, but Shoot may change the name of the genre from gun-flicks to Shoot ‘Em Up flicks as movies in the future will try to surpass the action and humor. This movie aims to raise the bar by lowering standards and
My suggestions? If you and the guys want to have fun watching people shoot each other, it’s worth the drive and ticket price. It is cheesy, popcorn flick fun at its finest. I intend to buy it on DVD, as it will be one of those to share with friends between beers.
I approve this movie.

Discount Shelf Ratings: One-Minute Reviews

2007-08-02T18:59:00.000-07:00

I am a victim of being seduced by the potentials of the discount sell shelfs at Hollywood Video and Blockbuster. A few recent buys, and a couple of reviews I never got around to that came out too far back to be mentioned as anything new make it here in my quick-reviews.

In no particular order...

1.) The Descent - Alien meets cave divers in this british horror film. After Sarah loses her family in a car crash, her friends try to get her back into the adventurous side of life by going cave exploring. Not far into the cave, both Sarah and the audience starts to see things in the distance. Then the cave collapses, causing them to look for a way out when they are suddenly attacked by cave-dwellers, a small clan of deformed, de-evolved crawlers out for blood. The great use of setting has the audience thinking they're seeing things in the shadows, develop castrophobia, and slowly watch the climbers degrade mentally and physically to the attacks and peril. What seperates this movie from the previous deep-cave movies is the psychological, where as we go deeper into the cave, we go deeper into Sarah's mind, where the simplest dialogue says alot when it is hinted Juno, the most adventurious of the women, had an affair with Sarah's husband before his death. I approve this movie, without a doubt the best horror film of 2006. The alternate endings are worth the DVD, as the theatrical release confused most audiences, the British ending is just as good.

2.) Black Christmas - While we're on horror, I went into this movie with low expectations, was pleasantly surprised, but the final half hour of the movie sent it too far into the traditional dead teenager movie. Black Christmas is a remake of the movie that followed Halloween and other holiday based movies of the 1970s. It stars a cast of many horror beauties, such as Mean Girls' Lacey Chabert, Final Destination 3's Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and Final Destination's Kristen Cloke. The movie's strong points are its beauties, any of which could be the star of their own horror flick, and leaves us guessing some about who will live. The flashbacks of the killer's childhood in what is now the beauties sorority house is the real horror, as we see family disfunction taken to an extreme, including incest and cannibalism to the point it is grossly funny in a good way. However, when the flashbacks end, we're left with a horror flick that falls to the cliche, having to kill people one by one rather quickly to meet its kill quota within allowed time. The movie even pulls the "dead... oh, wait!... not dead" trick with it's killer. In fact, it does this twice at the same time, after doing a milder version of the trick a few minutes earlier. The cast defies logic more than most stupid teenagers in a horror movie, then the writer's defy logic with not allowing their killer to die, time and again. Then, alas, he is killed too easily by a Christmas decoration. I hate it when that happens to the tree. Not approved.

3.) Smokin' Aces - Good news: This film lived up what its trailer advertised. Bad News: That's all it lived up to. When various teams of hitmen, FBI agents, assassins, mercaneries, and bailbondsmen go at an Mafia copa turned informant for the Witness Protection Program for the $1 million on his "heart," everyone makes their way up to the Penthouse Suite of a single hotel locked, loaded, and on fire. Add three speed-freaked skinheads and you get the idea of how out of control it is. Every fighter has a distinct style, which works for making them a diverse group to go at each other, and the set-up worth the time it takes to introduce each of them, so how some sneak, others sleether, and a few just shoot their way in. But when the bullets fly, not very many people die. Too often one person or the other is saved by a near miss, or left at just the right time. A few just happen to bump into each other, but it seems like it always takes the second bumping into someone to get them killed. When a dozen of these killers and agents go into a gunfight and half of them walk out, limping at worse, the movie loses its edge. Instead of killing off some of its characters, the movie goes on to a small twist on who the informant and mafia truly are in an attempt to provide closure. Maybe the director felt he was making a movie about how bad violence is, only he felt this way AFTER it was set up for an action and revenge movie. Credit for the style, but it loses it's edge after the last shot when we're still wanting more shooting. Not approved.

4.) Breach - If the words "worse security breach in the history of the United States," doesn't get your attention, this isn't the movie for you. If you're looking for a thiller, you might want to watch something else first. The movie succeeds in its quick documentary style, where the close attention to detail keeping the story true makes it entertaining. Ryan Philipe plays Eric, a quiet, yet ambitious clerk at the FBI looking to make agent. He is assigned to look for signs of sexual diviation while working under veteran agent Robert Hannsen, wonderfully played by Chris Cooper. Eric grows to be annoyed by, yet admire and learn from Hannsen and his strict Catholic lifestyle. 40 minutes into the film, Eric learns what active footage told us in the first minute: Hannsen is a spy for the Russians, whose damage is in the billions and cost the US various lives over the course of many years. Laura Linney plays the investigating agent who assigned Eric, and describes Hannsen best, "He spent years outsmarting the Russians. He's smarter than all of us." The movie has flaws as a thriller. If it was made to thrill us, as it is advertised, the first 40 minutes are terribly uneventful. Then it shows its cards too early. We're led to believe Hannsen is onto Eric's assignment early on, which defies logic later on when Eric does what would have caused suspicion. It's as though Hannsen convinced himself between scenes to forget Eric might be watching him. The acting is what makes this movie. Philipe shows he can act, despite what Cruel Intentions might say otherwise. Cooper's performance as Hannsen is Oscar-worthy, what makes me approve this movie. Whatever it lacks as a thriller, it makes up for as a character study into Hannsen as a guilt-ridden, overlooked traitor who was screwed by the politics of the Bureau. Philipe presents a man torn between his job, his wife, and the dangers surrounding him as he must time and again try to fool the fool-proof. Watching this a second time, I payed closer attention to the characters and the presentation of the true events, which is how the film is set up. Ignore the misleading trailers and watch this for great performances on the anatomy of the greatest betrayal in US history, right next to Benedict Arnold. I approve this movie.

5.) Stranger Than Fiction - Best Comedy of 2006. Will Farrell departs himself from the clown roles in Talledga Night and Blades of Glory for a serious role (we get to laugh at him) as an uptight IRS auditor who has a difficult time with his affection towards his auditee, a rebelious baker played by Maggie Gyllenhaal. To make matters worse, he's being narrated by a chain-smoking writer, who unknownly tells him his life, only with a better vocabulary. Emma Thompson is the narrator, a chain-mosking desperate for a way to kill character Crick. Her comedy is formed in contrast to the more conventional assistant, played by Queen Latifah. Crick is haunted by the voice, frustrated to the point of seeking out a literary expert, played with wonderful coy by Dustin Hoffman. Little does Crick know, as he finds she intends to kill him off in the story (therefore naturally in real life), he must find out whether he is in a comedy (gets hitched) or a tragedy (gets killed), try to win over his beloved baker, and figure out the meaning of his so-far mundane existance of counting brush-strokes and calculating time. The movie is a successful blend of romantic-comedy, supernatural-comedy, literary jokes, and reflecting on the meaning of life. Also, it has various Beatles references, which I don't know what the significance is. The movie's reflection is insightful and simple, not distracting from the story. In the end, you will leave laughing and wanting to make more of your life having seen a film entertaining, memorable, and worth sharing. I fully approve this movie.

6.) Crank - Out of The Transporter (one and two), I find Crank to be the better suited of Jason Statham roles. Statham plays Chev Chelios, a top-level hitman who gets major recoil from a hit on a triad when he wakes up to feeling of being injected with a deadly drug. The drug shuts off the perceptors that tell the heart when it needs to speed up, so Chelios' only hope is to find every way to get his adrenaline going. That means energy drinks, stunts, sex, and drugs to keep him going, literally keeping in mind the doctor's warning: "You stop, you die." He sorts out his enemies in between entertaining ways to stay alive and kicking, also stopping to confess his profession and dire situation to his girlfriend, and working his way up for revenge for his upcoming death by heart failure. Usually this movie would be cliche and no different than the previous Transporter films, but here Statham can let go and be the bad guy at times. The language and violence goes for humorous, with everything to severed hand-jokes to having a character with a deathwish willing to defy logic. Desperate attempts to keep the heart beating are humorous and adventurous, keeping the simple plot entertaining. Statham is well casted, as any other actor would probably be less believable in quick-and-over-with-action scenes. The camera-work really seperates the film, as the editing, special-effects and sound are all used, either exagerrated or slowed to reflect Chelios' heartrate and state of mind, so they're passible if not humorous or adding to the film. A family-friendly language setting is available on the DVD in case you don't like so many F words, but the violence, language, and words referring to gays and ethnic groups may not be for everyone, so keep in mind the reasons why I say it's a good movie before you think it would be good for a date. More appealing for the action, guy film to watch with the buds. I approve this movie.

7.) Lucky # Slevin - Slevin is what happens when a movie gets too caught up in its own plot. Josh Hartnett is Slevin, who has the unfortunate luck of being mistaken for Eddie by the two rival mob bosses (Morgan Freeman and Ben Kingsley) that Eddie owes a very large sum of money to. Helping Slevin figure all this out is Lucy Liu, the attractive girl down the hall. Behind it all is something to do with Bruce Willis as Mr. Goodcat, who is talking to both mob bosses. The problem with this movie? It introduces itself for a twist, with Bruce Willis talking about a Kansas City Shuffle, when everyone dances one way and you dance the other. You look one way while the whole movie goes the other. The thin line between twist (acceptable)
and spin (gone too far) is whether or not the movie pulls out what you liked about it. We like Slevin in his not-stressed, orphan self, getting the girl and everything, and we like the mob bosses when they're playing the stereotypes, espically Kingsley as "the Rabbi," to which Slevin asks, "how can you be a Rabbi and a gangster?" The answer: "Whenever you're on both sides of the fence, the grass is always green." Not in this movie. It tries to have it both ways, but when the mob bosses go too vengeful and Slevin isn't such a nice guy, we stop caring who wins, who loses, and in this case, who dies. There's an alternate ending, who's a killer and who's being killed is changed. However, after watching the alternate ending, I realized I didn't care if they lived or died, or who killed them, because I no longer enjoyed watching any of them after the basis of their characters were completely removed. I don't approve this movie.

Thanks,
--Jack

Red Tie Revisited

2007-07-30T10:10:00.000-07:00

There are a few things I would like to clarify for the sake of my faithful readers (there are a good five of you "faithful readers"). Consider this a one-year update on the management of the blog. Early on, my greatest difficulty was finding time to see a movie AND blog about it. Due to this, my work on reviews was few and far between, averaging one movie a month. That's very low considering movies come out every Friday and DVDs every Tuesday. The summer has reunited me with my old cinema, well-placed and well-priced, allowing me to see some movies twice. Yes, I neglected DVD reviews and focused on the summer flicks, but without a long drive, I returned to the good, the bad, and the cliche I so dearly love. The problem? When I do a review while another movie is coming out next week, that next week isn't likely to be spent editing and revising to keep this blog entertaining, detailed, and (more importantly) focused.

I am aware my reviews this summer are repetative and long-winded, as my problem tends to be overwriting, not writer's block (the fear 0f criticism towards the critic!). The purpose of this article is to present the new leaf I'm turning. A few things...

1.) I am on the staff of the local university newspaper for movie and DVD reviews, now providing me with the deadlines necessary to develope the practice and skill of timely reviews in limited space. The blog will still be kept, maintained as more than just a secondary posting of the newspaper's reviews. The paper's articles will be written for the college students, the deadline, and the editors' wishes. My blog is mine, without the space limitations and accessible to any movie I so desire. The blog is freedom, where I can go into greater detail, determine if the movie is for you or not, and give rantings and reflections which are not always appropriate for the printed press. My articles on defending Spider-man 3 and Pirates 3, the review of Joshua on limited release, and responses to other critics would probably not be able to make it to other sources.

2.) I will be keeping to the three factors formula and the approve/disapprove system. I have decided not take up a star-system or ranking system. I still find the three factors system as an effective way to describe movies and provide the information necessary to inform readers if a movie is necessarily for them without ruining it. The star-system is usually abused in other areas. IMDb.com's 10-star system usually results in people admiring cult favorites or being disgusted by a movie choosing an extreme to counter other people's opinions, giving 10 stars to weigh off a disapproving 4. Five stars seems too specific when the most widely heard critics use a thumbs up/thumbs down, and they use only one thumb each. I was tempted to use a 4-star system, only when reading Roger Ebert's columns over the past week, I noticed he recieves questions about rankings cross-genre. I don't want to argue or have readers wonder why Miami Vice and Underdog both have two stars. One's a realistic, high-stylized crime drama, the other is a child's comedy about a talking dog, and there's no way to compare the two. While I give star-ranking for my opinions posted on RottenTomatoes.com or IMDb.com for the sake of fitting their format, I do not see a use outside of their systems. I have debated developing a scale for the three factors, but for now my time is better spent revising and editing. In the mean time, if you insist of looking at a ranking system, RottenTomatoes' freshness scale is the most reliable, as it goes off of an approve/disapprove survey with quick, critic's one-liners for summary.

3.) I will still explain in my opinion (aka: humble ranting) about how I believe movies can be improved and, reasonably, what should be done in future movies. I will try to keep this limited, as there's a fine line between being a smart-aleck fanboy and a legitimate opinion about how a movie isn't as good as some people say. Expectations where too high for Spider-man 3, and Transformers' action wasn't THAT good. I believe this is an effect way for critic's to help convince some readers when he is in the unpopular stance. Remember: Siskel and Ebert were the leading critics, and they disagreed 30% of the time.

4.) No ranking lists will be posted on this site. I will still state "this is the best ____ movie since..." but I will not list the top 10 movies mustaches (ropeofsilicon.com) or deserted island movies, or anything else. I will only make such opinions of order in that, MY OPINION, or will quote another critic. A legitimate list that is informative and presents an actual ordering, where it can defend itself for each rank is very time-consuming and this time will be better spent revising and editing and ranting.

I look forward to writing this blog for another year.

Thanks,
--Jack

The Simpsons: No "D'Oh" About it

2007-07-27T09:18:00.000-07:00

Just the other day I had an conversation with a friend about whether or not a movie disloyal to a book should have any affect on whether it is a good movie. As luck would have it, I was put in that situation with The Simpsons. The TV show has expanded all my growth, and I am only a year or two apart.

Most critics were disappointed the movie didn't take risks so to make it larger than any episode dreamed of (what did they want it to do, invade Canada?). I, on the other hand, saw the shining point of it a TV-show movie that is very aware it's a TV-show movie. It states so in the first five minutes when Homer stands up in a theater, turns around, and asks "why would anyone spend money to go see what they could watch on TV for free?" The movie starts by insulting its audience and the audience laughs and cheers for it. Bart writes on the chalkboard, "I will not illegaly download this movie," and language and nudity is taken where TV stations would never allow it to go on primetime. I list it as a successful movie-going experience.

What is the plot? Lisa tries to save Springfield's enviroment while Homer dooms the whole town. Anyone familiar with the Simpsons' episodes knows this can go anywhere and then does. Political messages are abundant, as wellas movie spoofs, such as Austin Powers and any family drama cliche. If on TV the series made fun of TV, here it makes fun of watching movies, like Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz makes fun of horror and action movies while becoming such a movie, the Simpsons makes fun of being given the chance to overdramatize and stretch reality to save the day in the end, and adds humor where other movies would have characters professing untold love through cheesy lines.

Entertaining? Fans of the show will be happy to see its finest work in years, making it a shot up, not down, in an institution of American entertainment. I can even promise, if you're not laughing by the time the family sits on the couch, you can go get your money back. This is not a movie for you. For everyone else, wise investment.

Marketable? This is probably the best time to pull the movie out. It wins its fans, and you don't need to be a fan to enjoy it. As the preview has everyone laughing, then no one should feel this movie doesn't appeal to them. Harry Potter can move over from the top of the charts spot for this week.

Memorable? Personal favorite, and not just becuase I'm a fan, but because it points out when its being cliche and completely turns itself around. It is a long awaited escape from having to choose between popular movies that are predictable and seen from a mile away, and those that no one is interested in. It finds a middle-ground where no one complains about the other. If everyone else will find it as enjoyable is a different story.

I approve this movie, encourage you to see it on a big-screen while the theaters are full for the best results.

Joshua: The Long Road to Classic Horror

2007-07-19T19:04:00.000-07:00

In the first 30 minutes of Joshua, I had the weird feeling that I loved the movie, despite the fact I was probably going to give it a negative review. The opening was all to familiar and taken from movies I could have gotten for $7.99 at Walmart, including the remake of The Omen. However, the movie more than compensated in the later half and now falls in my personal favorites, even if it doesn't live up to it at the box office.

Joshua follows the downfall of a Cairn family during the four months after the birth of their second child. The Departed's Vera Farmiga plays Abby Cairn, the mother kept up from the newborn Lily's consistant crying. Sam Rockwell plays Brad Cairn, the father trying to provide attention to wife, son, newborn, and mother while trouble develops at work. And Jacob Kogan plays the nine-year-old watching from the distance. He plays Joshua, the brother that looks like he belongs with him prep-schoolmates more than his parents are comfortable with. He plays the piano, has weird coincidences occur, and acts strange enough to make you yell "can't you see what the kid is doing? Get him counselling!" First-time behind a narrative film, George Ratliff fills Joshua with Beethoven's ominous piano music and powerful supporting characters, such as the controling, evanglist Grandmother (Celia Weston) and the eccentric, musical uncle (Dallas Roberts).

The turns and my approval begin when we start to see how much Abby's lack of sleep takes her in post-partum depression and Brad can only be in so many places at once. Joshua, with a nack for appearing suddenly more effectively than Damien in The Omen (2006), appears cliche until he stops appearing as our attention turns to afraid of him to afraid for Abby in her mental state. The Grandmother helps and hurts the situation, making you laugh and fear for the tense family horror. Moments taking our attention away from Joshua are the stronger points halfway through, until we begin to see exactly what it was Joshua was thinking in the background. (Hint: It wasn't thinking about action figures.)

To begin, the first half hour is lacking. It plays like the remake of The Omen in all the ways that didn't help that movie, only without the supernatural, there's alittle more room to think the parents are just paranoid. This time is used to set up to pay off later (like after the movie), but only to those that look carefully and think about the movie more than the average horror-fan's attention span will notice. Aside from that, the cheap jumps don't provide more chills than the first 15 seconds of the trailer (a great 15 seconds).

The turning point is what gets your attention, only it comes alittle late and afterwards the movie goes all too fast when it should have kept us in suspense later on, not earlier. Twists and red herrings are worth their set-up, but the set-up threw off the pacing, demanding the audience set patiently for the movie to become the edge-of-your-seat thriller it ends as.

The camera work is effective and Ratliff should keep his editor (Jacob Craycroft) for the cuts that do hold your suspense when the suspense finally comes around. The sound gets annoying. Piano music is the only noticable background music, and at times it gets in the way. I found myself wondering as the piano music builds, did the kid stop crying, or can I just not hear it over the banging of keys? Cutting the kid's crying for the sake of an overused sound effect doesn't help.

Entertaining? For the slow start, the movie appears predictable and simple. Dry humor and chills get mixed, creating a lost feeling. Those that liked Rosemary's Baby and The Omen (remake) will love this and will stay attentive, but others will grow bored and miss the extra layers.

Marketable? The limited release says something in itself. 2006's Omen was ill-recieved by most, getting a "rotten" 26% on the tomatometer (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/omen/), and the trailers remind us too much of the mistake we made on June 6th, 2006 (6-6-06, the release date of The Omen). Theaters decided instead to give us sequels and rip-offs this summer in the form of Hostel 2 and Captivity. When a movie relies on word-of-mouth, it's never likely to come up too often in conversation.

Memorable? I truly believe this is one that horror fans and those that love character depth and honestly surprising plot twists will love. There is no twists for the sake of a twist, only good surprises to keep you thinking. The Hollywood Reporter is accurate to say it has "Hitchcockian flare," only it could have benefited from it more had a more seasoned hand in screenwriting helped them out with the pacing so it gets to its stronger points faster.

Overall? I approve. The great ending is worth the extra effort to stay awake, but it's still hard to find someone that's willing to forget Omen and go see it. It's a hit-or-miss that's going to be talked about more from its hits than its misses.

Thanks,
-Jack.

Action Geography: My Complaint Against Transformers

2007-07-18T06:45:00.000-07:00

When I stated the geography of Transformer's action scenes were confusing because we didn't know who was where when the fight moved within the city, I felt not enough attention goes into the geography of action sequences. When Devastator (the tank) is shooting, all of a sudden the Autobots that were standing together are charging at him from far away from completely different sides. Then Bumblebee comes in on a tow-truck at the right moment, but seems as though he drove away for blocks and blocks, only to stay a block from the fight.

Action geography is not always hard and can be benefitial. A few easy examples come to mind. The lobby scene in The Matrix is an good example. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=_ybFnRKUJvw) In this scene, it starts off with the camera pointing in all 360 degrees in order to get every aspect of Neo entering and looking at the gaurds. When the shootout begins, we clearly see Neo and Trinity separate to different sides. Their individual action is divided, but not intersecting so we know who is shooting who. The particular part of interest is when Neo is making progress on his side, we see him farther along than Trinity, providing a distraction for the shotgunner on Trinity's side, allowing her execute him without risk. All of this is part of a carefully cherographed shootout, where if you replay it, you can literally count the pillars each of them have passed and know how many more they have to go, preventing the hallway from seemingly going on forever until it reaches a very sudden stop.

Heat, starring Al Pacino as an obsessed cop tracking down a professional thief played by Robert DeNiro, includes a shootout that is well-shot so there is no question who is where compared to everyone else and which way they're heading. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=zssZQBDUj-A) Before the gunfire, Pacino is up the street (the car heads away from him), and other cops are across the street from the bankrobbers. So to prevent the viewer from getting confused, the camera never deviates from a set 180 degrees, so we see up and down and across the street, but only from one side. This keeps the audience from precieving the car has U-turned. (The only time the camera violates this 180 is when we see the car coming towards the camera, in which the clearer view is an arial shot from across the street.) Key parts that show this is well cherographed is the distance covered by the chase and how Tom Sizemore and Val Kilmer end up heading different directions, but it's clear which way they headed, when they're away from the street, and when they're near it.

The final example of great action geography is Black Hawk Down, when U.S. soldiers are trapped and surrounded in a building overnight during an operation against heavily-armed Somalia fighters. A Delta squad that previously separated to check on a downed-chopper sneaks up on Somalia fighters from behind to free up the building. The brief action in the first minute of this clip is an example of how good use of city-wide geography (listen here Transformers) is effective. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=gMgjA5ZvLNk)

Why is this important? Strategy builds the action. Imagine if Jazz (the Porsche) said to Ironhide (the Autobot chevy truck with really big guns) and Ratchet (the ambulance) for Ironhide to draw the fire while sneaks up and Ratchet then comes to the side, it would have shown greater teamwork, why Jazz is second in command, Ironhide's flips would have been part of the story instead of just a presentation of expensive CGI, and everyone jumping Devastator at once would have looked like teamwork instead of luck, and all it would require is a line of dialogue and showing the Autobots driving in their respective directions. Had Ironhide given Bumblebee a single sign, directing Megan Fox to drive him to the side so they could use teamwork again.

This isn't changing Michael Bay's intentions by adding teamwork. The producers of Transformers even stated they intentionally had the Deciepticons outnumber the Autobots 8 to 5 so the Autobots would show more teamwork. As I mentioned before, teamwork has worked against Somalis, SWAT teams, and Tom Sizemore, showing how they can be surrounded, double-teamed, or sneaked-up on.

This is part of why I'm so critical on Transformers: all the opportunities are there, and Michael Bay has shown he can do so in The Rock, but just doesn't live up on the action side of Transformers.

However, there is a sequel to Transformers, so hopefully we see more developed action then.

Captivity: The Blackhole

2007-07-14T00:39:00.000-07:00

To say this movie sucks like a blackhole, it a complement to how well Blackholes suck. Captivity is Roland Joffe's (an Academy Award Nominee for directing The Killing Fields) horror thiller about a super-star model Jennifer (House of Wax's Elisha Cuthbert) who is kidnapped, tortured, and miserably tries to find comfort in her partner in isolation, Gary (Daniel Gillies). Drapped in a black hood is their tormentor, who has set the basement-prison with cameras, many levels of control, and numberous ways to halfway escape, which are found at the most conveint moments. The only surprise larger than how they always manage to halfway escape, almost get killed, and conveintly still have energy to get around, is how Roland Joffe could have gone from The Killing Fields to this.

Where to begin on this movie? Captivity isn't a homage to the better horror films, or even to the recent "torture-porn" films. It's a rip off, as though it tried to save you rental fees by putting the Hostel and Saw series into a single movie, only to find yourself shredding your Blockbuster card in disappointment. While I have gone against most critics by not calling the Saw and Hostel series "torture porn," this movie goes off to make torture porn because it relies solely on the content and not the way it is presented. Hostel and Saw added a point-of-view to their torture scenes, so the audience would have feeling of fear and angst when the camera-work and sound would create a feeling of relation to the captured. There is a symbolism in the first torturor of Hostel using a drill, Saw using saws, etc. Captivity relies solely on content, and goes further than Saw and Hostel in a vain attempt to make up for their lack of relation to the characters and scenes. In fact, Captivity merely takes from the others, from the hood and games of Saw, all the way up to the twist ending that is seen from a mile away due to the minimal plot we feel is being tortured alongside Cuthbert.

Dialogue is non-existant until near the end. The most we hear Cuthbert say is when she is talking to herself on her cellphone. Not even 10 minutes later, she is kidnapped. No emotion is written in for her. She begs for her life like all the other girls before her, but we see no regret, no aggressiveness, no depression from her. Even after she is force-fed the unmentionable, there is no scene where she gags, throws up, or tries to wash her mouth out, only she wakes up, throws the occasional hissy-fit. This is the only "thing" we see her eat, yet she still has the will-power to fight time and again whenever they find another convient way to half-way escape before being punished in a Hostel-like fashion.

With no dialogue and minimal plot, there's no acting to be done. The only distinguishing achievement of this film is it's worse than Hostel and Saw (any movie in either series), in both plot and gore. Hostel set a stage for being in the mindframe of the tortured. Hostel 2 was a series of movie references, where Lady Bathory literally had her blood bath and the director of Cannibal Holocaust plays a cannibal in the film. Saw was mind-game, psychological torture (whether it is effective is another story, but the point is it tries). Captivity tries to repeat these, only it fails on every level. We don't relate to the characters as no time was given to get to know them, the situations are rip-offs if not copies, and the mind-game is predictable while no reflections from the characters allow no insight to the psychological aspects. The torture scenes (as opposed to the captivity scenes) are irrevelant to the plot.

The ending is too abrupt. Cuthbert eventually does escape, but without smile or chase. She walks out of the room like the people walking out of her movie, shocked and speechless in a bad way. As the credits rolled, I was left thinking of all the ways we could have had any reaction from her: cry, smile, run, hug the ground, slash her wrists, get hit by a bus! Anything would have been better than the flatland ending that is home to the equally flat character.

So, three things: Entertainment, marketability, and memorability.

Entertaining? No. Predictable? Yes. There's not much point in timing if you know the bad guy is going to appear well before he does. What comes next is always screaming at you.

Marketable? Just because people are willing to watch it doesn't mean it's good. The low sales say something, but when the movie comes to DVD, I'm sure Hostel and Saw will more than kick its ass.

Memorable? This is where we get into the big question: Why make this movie? I've come up with a total of two, and only two reasons. The first is to make a commentary on today's obsessive culture. Aside from being a lousy premise of a movie (you should make a movie that happens to be a commentary, not a commentary that happens to be a movie), no message comes across. What message are we suppose to have? Cuthbert walks away without an expression or detail to her walk, only that she goes. The villian's demise is quick, mildly grusome, and (again) stolen from Hostel 2. No lesson learned. Monster's Aileen Wornoese at least left a message of victimizing others creates the monster in the victims. Here, no backstory from any character eleminates any meaning to the survival, death, pain, or endurment of anyone.

The second reason is to merely challenge the MPAA's system for R ratings. Admittingly, he does out-do Hostel's violence. But the torture here (specifically the "blender" scene) is gratuitous- there just so they can say it was there. I'm not defending the MPAA, as I can tell they did some careful editing after that scene to make sure it would still be R instead of NC-17. However, there are better ways to combat the MPAA. Again, I direct us to Hostel 2. Eli Roth included a scene featuring a severed head used as a soccer ball in a reference to the great, late Stanley Kubrick, who couldn't have a similiar scene in Full Metal Jacket. Eli Roth's scene is a marker to show how far we've come in accepting violence in films. Joffe's is porn, no different than The Brown Bunny's fellatio scene, with proper editting, is actually revealing Vincent Gallo's character development more than Chloe Sevigny's lipwork, while late night Cinemax is lipwork with the storyline depth of Captivity.

As I said before, like a blackhole, it is a film that sucks nothing into nothingness.

Transformers: Pure Summer Fun at the Movies

2007-07-04T00:53:00.001-07:00

I once walked down a toy isle the summer the Star Wars prequels were coming out and noticed half of the action figures were dedicated to lightsabers, chess sets, board games, and action figures, promoting every aspect of the movie for a buck. The secret to advertising is by making it subtle, not over the top. Casino Royale with Daniel Craig playing Bond had the Sony (it was made by Sony Pictures) brand name on every 007 gadget, cellphone, and laptop, an effective use of subtle advertising. Star Wars wasn't going to the movies for the toys, but Hasbro producing Transformers is pretty close.

However, the reasons for making the movie is not what determines the movie's worth. Transformers begins with a diseaster scene of sorts. A rogue helicopter lands at an US Air Force base in Qatar, only to suddenly twist its shape into a walking metal monster of mass destruction and unstoppable power. As the politicans and fleeing soldiers try to make sense of this, a teen with a smart, alive car is somehow related when the other machines (good and bad) come to find him. Everything revolves around the AllSpark Cube, which is like the ring in Lord of the Rings, where it doesn't do much except have everyone fight for it while a random person keeps it. Insert one side will kill all humans and the others will die for humans and you get the Decepicons (evil) and the Autobots (good).

The story is as cheesy as it sounds. Not much strategy is involved, as the storyline doesn't build suspense or climax, only the fact both sides of the war get closer and closer and fight more and more until all of them meet up in a single city to duke it out. Nor is CGI particulary a plus (more later on that). For all that this sounds bad, the film actually delivers for what it is aimed for: fun for the kid and child at heart, espically boys.

The movie is aware of its cheesiness, as it points out at one part. Sam (Shia LaBeouf) with a transformer for his new car, has to repeatedly attempt to explain his actions because his car is alive. This includes chasing his car in the belief it was stolen, as well as being chased by the car afterwards. When asked what he is arrested for, Sam (Shia LaBouf) answers, " My dad bought a car that happened to be an alien robot." Other scenes poke fun at the Autobots learning English from the internet and mistaking pet dogs as "rodent infestations."

CGI is impressive here, and I won't understate the achievement. In Spider-man, the special effects where cheap, making it obvious when it was a dummy or CGI-made spidey. In Spider-man 2, they blended the live action with CGI so the transitions looked real. It made all the difference in why Doc Oct is a great bad-guy. The same is true for Transformers. The detail of effects lets us see the windshield wipers and arcs where sand is still on the windshielf even after they've transformed. Their talking faces are more than muppets with simple mouths, but moving parts that follow the pronouncation of each syllable. The computer characters appear just as real as the anything else.

Although the CGI is well-made, it is not well-used. Car chases are effective. The first action scenes were beautifully done, giving us clear pictures and geography of where massive robots are moving and where the fighting is occuring. For example, when the heroic leader Optimus Prime fights evil-on-skates (no joke, he rollerblades down the highway) Bonecrusher, the camera shoots from far away, letting you see them roll off the highway, hang from the railsides, and deliver kicks, swings, and uppercuts. However, when the fight goes into the city, you can't tell who is who, and are suddenly lost in which one is winning in a wrestling match of gears and wheels. When it expands to gangs of Autobots fighting against gangs of Decepticons, you don't know who is where in the city, and each one coming around the corner appears as random coincidence of convience.

The climax was the waiting for a clash of the titans, but we feel left out when we see only small parts of it.

For entertainment, it relies on the cheap jokes of how odd the situation is, but these are well-executed by LaBeouf, and the visuals keep you going for what would otherwise be pointless action. All of this compensates for any lack of traditionally "good" writing.

For marketability, it's more than the toy lines that are making a killing. After the disappointments of the much anticipated Spiderman 3 and Pirates 3, audiences may be looking for more. Where other movies took themselves too seriously in their epic standards, Transformers is laid back and gives just the right amount of seriousness with Optimus Prime's speeches on how he leads the Autobots and why. Fans will crowd the theater, as it blends teen romance comedy, sci-fi, and action all for the sake of fun over glory. It released itself a week prior to Harry Potter, but it chose the biggest week (July 4th) to come out.

For memorability, only the special effects and a milestone in Shia LaBeouf's performance will keep people coming back for more. It will recieve its cult following as it stays only so true to the original to make it equally appealing to fans of both sides. Shi LaBeouf presents he can effectively play the role of the shy teen in the awkward situation, a step towards diversity in rising actor of Disturbia who will be in the fourth Indiana Jones soon enough.

Although the biggest goal of action may have been missed towards the end, the movie delivers on many levels of simply being one-of-a-kind, entertaining joy that tries to be exactly what it is.

I approve of this movie

Die Hard 4: same action, different McClane

2007-06-28T22:48:00.000-07:00

Some decade and a half ago, I watched Die Hard and the moment McClane muttered back "yippie-ki-aye mother****er," I couldn't turn away. In one line, he becomes the non-cliche hero, the underpaid cop saving his ex-wife and sleeze of a friend, not even hiding his dirty mouth and complaints. There's no special training or superpowers, but just trying and dying hard.

Live Free or Die Hard (Die Hard 4.0) brings McClane into another against all odds situation. When cyber-terrorists take down just about every computer system in the country, chaos breaks out and John McClane (Bruce Willis) just so happens to be at the "wrong place at the wrong time," beside computer hacker Matthew (Accepted's Justin Long) who knows the steps to beating the bad guys. Things get personal when villian Thomas Gabriel (Timmy Olyphant) kidnaps McClane's daughter (Final Destination 3 and Grindhouse's Mary Elizabeth Winstead). McClane must fight through everything, including helicopters, power plant explosions, and fighter jets, while Matthew tries to keep up so he can provide the smart comments for McClane's smart remarks.

In this installment, given the PG-13 rating, McClane is watered-down. The trademarked "yippie-ki-aye" is said only once, and while delivered beautifully, the obscenity is muted by a gunshot. The fighting of one over-the-top obstictal after another isn't necessarily unbelievable for this series, but what is unbelievable in McClane's silence. Repetitively, I found myself waiting for McClane to yell about how he dispises being in this adventure yet again. Instead, he gives Matthew the traditional talk of "cause no one else can" reason for why he is a hero. McClane was less selfless in the previous films, getting a thrill out of yelling "welcome to the party pal" when he throws the bad guy out of the building in Die Hard. Willis tones it down for the PG-13 rating, where in any DH film, he would go into a series of cussing after each scene of wakes of destruction.

However, the movie is still great action in spite of its lesser McClane. It keeps to Die Hard where the action is more than just picking off bad guys one-by-one, but an actually interesting plot on how the bad guys took over, their motives, and what needs to be done to stop them. It starts with a shoot-out and builds from there. Next is the helicopter, then entire buildings explode, and McClane's daughter in a hostage situation. It has a climax and excells in all expectations as an action film.

The real joy of the film is not Willis, but instead Long and Winstead. Long's comments remind us how far McClane is going and provides a brave wimp for contrast. Winstead's character leaves no doubt she's McClane's daughter, where she gets the best lines, one-uping even Willis on one-liners. (Stopping there, her lines are surprises, so you'll have to see to find out.)

A minor downfall in the film is Tommy Olyphant fulfills his character, but his character isn't that much of a bad guy. Yes, he's the one that takes the hostages, but only towards the end does he point the gun. He was written to be obviously afraid of McClane, which hurts his evil factor. Of course, he's in the shadow of Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber and Jeremy Irons as Simon Gruber, the evil brothers of DH1 and DH3. But the writer's kept him to a tough computer nerd at best, who does have a sadistic side, he just doesn't show it.

Overall, the PG-13 makes sure this movie will have a larger opening than most action films, putting the old and new fans of Willis together. Market-wise, it will be successful.

Entertaining, it keeps your attention and is well-paced. The action isn't repetitive shooting, but mixes nicely done car chases and extreme practicality. McClane shows he's aware of his age when he uses cars instead fists, making smart remarks in place of machoism. Running over the bad guys is always easier than beating the crap out of them at the age of 50 (?).

Memorability is something less. This isn't a great addition to the series, but still beats out Die Hard 2, which was as cheesy as its title: Die Harder. It pokes fun at the previous films. If it didn't have these references, such as the advertised "yippie-ki-aye" and McClane stuck alone due to burueaucratic messes (another Agent Johnson), it would fall flat. It's not an action-hero's daughter, but McClane's, which gives Winstead's character all her color. This reliance on the previous films instead of complaints to them is downfall for the movie, which changes your opinion of it a few hours after the adrenaline dies off.

Great action film, but when Transformers comes out next week in its CGI action, not even Die Hard one-liners can revive this series to its previous success as THE action movie of the summer.

1408 - Best Horror Film of the Summer so far...

2007-06-22T00:41:00.000-07:00

Walking into 1408, I expected hotel horror would reach its end for a few years. Hostel and Vacancy are recent hotel horror films, while this seemed like a repeat of The Shining, one of Stephen King's horror classics.

Checking into 1408 is Michael Enslin (John Cusack), a writer who dedicates his books to visiting supposedly haunted places with a skeptic tone, believing "there are no ghosties and ghoulies." Behind his writing and nomadic life, he hides troubled feelings from being separated from his wife after the death of his daughter to disease. These feelings are drowned by alcohol at almost every turn. When Enslin arrives at the Dolphin Hotel to check out its notrious room, he is warned by its innkeeper (as only Samuel L. Jackson could warn him), "it's an evil ****ing room," where "no one lasts more than an hour."

Camped out with photos of previous tenants, a bottle of wine, and his trusty audiorecorder, Enslin faces scares and personal tramas as he discovers he's either losing his mind or trapped in an evil ****ing room. The combination of alcohol and coming to face with family issues, lead us to believe he's mad, while illusion (or delusions?) tell us it's an evil... well, an EVIL room.

Cusack's performance drives the movie for the first 30 minutes as a one-man show, where muttering to himself, we still completely understand his thoughts and fears. The movie grows in a steady climax as the clock ticks away at his hour, the room slowly goes from cousy to frozen hell. The Stephen King writing shines through with a new idea, as its not ghosts, but a nightmare designed specifically for Enslin, haunting him at every tragedy in his life and making him watch them over again. Samuel L. Jackson's warnings as the innkeeper are both true to the story and Jackson fans. (Yes, Jackson says "it's an evil ****ing room.")

Although the alcoholic writer in a hotel seemed too much like Stephen King repeating The Shining, I was pleasantly surprised to find this film is a much-needed revisit to what makes classic horror. It stays modern as well, with the occasional moments that aren't attempts to make you jump, but just keeps you on your toes with genuine creepiness. There are moments that remind you of The Shining, espically with mirrors and castrophopic camera angles. But the movie has a solid ending, answering the question of whether its sanity or evil playing with Enslin. Rated PG-13, it doesn't rely on blood to creep you out, but uses a very tense combination of helpless situations, well-respected personal drama, and the down-right spooky.

The rating keeps the movie marketable, and it will probably do very well at the box office. For memorability, Cusack's one-man performance carries much of the film, and unlike BUG, it's designed to be a movie, not a play. It's better understood (in the end) than The Shining, and King's name will make it one for the shelves. The steady combination used for a smart climax makes the moving entertaining every step of the way, and while I'm against twist and double-twist endings, here the ending has resolve that allows the viewers to feel they did follow it correctly in the end, making it far from a cop-out. 1408 is marketable, memorable, and entertaining, and it would serve as a lesson to other horror directors that 1.) gore is not always needed and 2.) jumps are not always needed.

Cusack proves himself in the horror genre and King does it again.

Best Movies You Didn't See

2007-06-18T22:19:00.000-07:00

Not much did well at the box officer between Pirates 3, Shrek 3, and Spiderman 3. But in the slack of doing less-than-projected, Knocked Up and Ocean's 13 did surprisingly well and all of these movies' quality more-or-less live up to their sales. A few movies didn't live up to their sales, but were very entertaining.

The first of these is Mr. Brooks, given a thumps-up by Richard Roeper as "the guilty pleasure of the summer." Kevin Costner is Mr. Brooks, a successful businessman and father who has an imaginary friend (played by William Hurt) who constantly pressures him to kill for fun. This has risen to the level of an addiction, where Brooks is patient and thorough. Life gets difficult when Brooks is caught in the act by Dane Cook, who threatens to turn Brooks in if he doesn't let Cook tag along for the next killing. On top of this, Brooks' daughter comes home to add to the family drama, tying the two sides of Brooks. Demi Moore plays the detective tracking Brooks, unaware of the identity. However, Demi Moore is not a good cast, and her character is orbital to the more interesting story following Brooks.

The guilty pleasure of the movie is Costner and Hurt's dialogue, not only on killings but on every aspect of Brooks' life. Hurt's character has a few surprising deminisions to him, making him more than just someone for Costner to talk to. The movie makes itself what it is with its twist endings, where you're unsure where everything is going, but it comes together in the end. Usually, I'm not fond of movies that appear to have more than one ending (Lord of the Rings) and consider over-the-top twists to be cop outs for lack of real endings (Saw), but in this case, each ending makes the next more meaningful and the ending is not out of the blue and is well used and well timed.

Well enjoyed, but overshadowed by Shrek 3 and Pirates 3. The studios planned the release for the summer, but late summer would have it compete with Ocean's 13, the target age group for a movie starring Costner, Hurt, and Moore. Hostel 2 and the impending Captivity take away the audiences attracted to Mr. Brooks' dark theme. It is currently numer 9 at the box office, certain to fall off the list next week.

Charity and Films: The Rise of Don Cheadle

2007-06-16T02:12:00.000-07:00

One thing I couldn't help but notice as Ocean's 13 came out... Don Cheadle's name came earlier on the credits and he had some more of the closing lines, a few more than the other people that aren't George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Matt Damon. This is a strong rise from before, when he was not even credited in the first Ocean's 11.

So why is he suddenly more popular than the others? Two Words: Hotel Rwanda. Although it might not be the award-winner or all-star cast movie, or even a real blockbuster, it has great reviews from critics and audiences alike. The movie focuses on the civil war in Rwanda in 1996, and one man's efforts to protect his family and refugee's from ongoing genocide by boarding them up in his hotel. The U.N. goes back and forth from protecting everyone or just the white people, while Nick Nolte plays the general ashamed of the U.N. It's the more current Schindler's List for our generation, set in the ignored regions of Africa.

Following this film, Cheadle became an activist against the genocide going on currently in the Darfur region of Sudan, right up there with people fighting against poverty, AIDS, and killing. Although it isn't noticed as strongly by the general audiences, actors with causes have a swing in the movie industry. Clooney joined Cheadle in Ocean's 13, which (SPOILER ALERT) ends with plenty of stolen money given to charity. Nicholas Cage's role in Lord of War made him a poster-boy for Amnesty International, which encouraged their gun-trade concious members to go see the movie. This is repeated with Blood Diamond, where Amnesty not only repeated this action, but Jennifer Connelly and Djimon Hounsou became spokepersons for the World Food Program. After The Constant Gardener came out with hot-shot actors Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz, they started the Constant Gardener Trust fund for the impoverished region of Kenya the movie was shot in. Just as Gardener was entertaining in its storyline, it was revealing in its on-location shots in Kenya, as well as awakening for its long lines of natives waiting for medications for TB and AIDS.

What affect does this have on the movie industry? It's two-fold. First, activists like their artists. Bono's work in Africa has given him a music base that love him for being an honest giver. Although it seems political and taking sides in dirty-shot election campaigns can hurt, the globally-aware actors boost their image. Cheadle's rise in the credits of the Ocean's series is just the tip of the iceberg. Djimon Hounsou's appearance in WFP commercials make him more of a face actor and more recognizable.

The second affect is now it's more acceptable and more appealing to be responsible one in movie productions. Advertisements featuring the animals of Evan Almighty end on the note that equipment will be donated to Habitat for Humanity and donations made to the Conservation Fund.

More recently, the Ocean's 13 cast has donated to the Not On Our Watch relief organization assisting survivors of the Darfur genocide currently going on in Sudan. (It's Rwanda the Sequel) Clooney, Brad Pitt (husband of Angelina Jolie, the Adoptor), Matt Damon, Don Cheadle, and producer Jerry Weintraub donated $9.2 million, which will increase as they go to film festivals in Paris, France and Venice, Italy.

Cheadle's name has gone from non-existant to one of the top 13, a testiment to how humanitarian roles on and off screen will broaden the audience of the charity stars.