Times Herald Movies

The Twilight Saga: New Moon

2009-11-19T11:47:00.000-08:00

Not being a fan of the Twilight books, New Moon was not a terribly exciting film for me to watch. Of course, I'm also not a 14-year-old girl, so I have yet to even pick up one of the Stephenie Meyer penned junior romance novels.
There are a lot of very slow points in the movie and an excessive amount of poorly written dialogue. All three lead actors were clearly chosen for their aesthetic appeal, and not for their acting abilities. Pretty vampire-boy Edward, broodingly pretty werewolf-boy Jacob and the lead actress Bella, whose name means pretty.
The special effects are patchy throughout the movie, with some scenes done well and other scenes feature the wolves. Not more than a handful of shots of the (were)wolves looked like the animation was from this decade.
Hearing cringe-worthy lines pepper the entire story made it almost unbearable at points. Robert Pattinson's Edward delivering lines like, "You're my only reason to stay... alive. If that's what I am," with all of the passion of cold white toast with margarine makes me wonder how these movies are even making money. But then I realize how unsophisticated teenage audiences are, and it starts to make sense.
With that in mind, the whole movie is not without merit.
The story, when it is actually moving, is enjoyable enough for an escape from reality. Action scenes are well done for the most part, with the exception of the poorly animated wolves. Even some of those fights are fast moving enough to ignore that problem.
My friends who did read the book tell me this movie adaptation sticks closer to the source material than the first Twilight film did, so that is bound to please the fans in their Team Edward or Team Jacob t-shirts. I was looking for my Team Victoria shirt, but probably only because Victoria is the villainous vampire that wants to kill Bella.
Or possibly because she is played by Rachelle Lefevre, the only actress in the movie old enough for me to find attractive without having to register with the county.
I'm going to give New Moon a C- for anyone over 17, but it'll probably be adored by all of the teenage fans.
--John Berry, Online Editor

Pirate Radio

2009-11-16T14:38:00.000-08:00

Though it's being eclipsed by the latest disaster flick, there is a great new movie that just hit the theaters this weekend.
Lacking the explosions and carnage might create less furor at the box office, Pirate Radio is bound to have much more value to viewers and will outlive the end of John Cusack's world.
Once upon a time when rock and roll was young and Britain was even more stuffy and oppressive than it is now, sex, drugs and rock were quarantined off shore as pirate stations who defied the government's restriction of the Stones, Beatles, Dead, etc., tunes and gave the kids what they want.
With a goofy premise, abstractly based on real stations that existed in the 60s, it was bound to be a fun movie, if done right.
Early promos had it called "The Boat That Rocked" which led me to believe they were not doing it right.
The story centers on a young kid named Carl (Tom Sturridge) who goes to live amongst the DJs and crazy folk of Radio Rock, anchored in the North Sea.
He arrives and finds an eccentric group of rock-and-rollers who border on cliche, but manage to stop short of going over-the-top.
The ensemble cast includes the ever-impressive Philip Seymour Hoffman and a veritable who's who of the U.K. actors who you know even if you can't always remember their names.
Writer-director Richard Curtis led the production with the same surprising grace that weaved the stories in his previous directorial effort, Love Actually.
One of the best parts of the whole film is the soundtrack, which takes on a larger role than average, which is apt since it is a film about a radio station.
Lots of classic rock binds together the story of the struggling radio station, the government suits trying to shut them down, and the general populace loving the music and the changing times in the world.

Pirate Radio gets an A-

Capitalism: A Love Story

2009-10-27T18:59:00.000-07:00

Michael Moore's latest offering is an indictment of the death of the American middle class thanks to an increasingly greedy upper class.
He continues to mostly preach to the choir, not entirely by fault of his own. His fans are fervent. His critics even more so.
Sadly, the points of this movie that are not speaking with a liberal bias are read as that by anyone who doesn't actually see the world from Moore's point of view.
Many of the people who trash Moore's politics haven't actually watched his movies, and they are certainly missing out.
Capitalism: A Love Story is following a long tradition of well made documentary films from a champion of the working class. Moore's own liberal slant comes through often in this film, but also questions the democrats who are now at the reins. The politics are secondary in this film though. The heart of his story is told showing the growing disparity between the rich and the poor.
His message is less about the right or the left causing or solving the problems and more about the problem itself. He even points out that politicians did less to cause the problem than they did to ignore the problem and just allow it to happen with the deregulation and looking the other way while the American public was robbed blind.
Drawing a direct line from the golden days of the 40s and 50s to the recession we see now, the main difference shown by Moore is a disastrous imbalance of power. The system worked with the principles of capitalism walking hand-in-hand with the principles of democracy. Once unfettered greed was allowed to run rampant on our financial systems, democracy took a back seat to the politics of the almighty dollar.
He goes as far as arguing that capitalism is a sin that is synonymous with that same unfettered greed. This point seems to be what is resonating with all of the usual Moore detractors.
Nowhere in the movie does Moore actually call for a socialist take over in America, but this is exactly what the anti-Moore folks seem to think he is saying.
He touts the ideals of democracy and illustrates how the people have no power in a country where the banks and CEOs have more influence in the government than the voters do.
Moore makes a lot of valid points and touches on some rather emotional territory to balance the goofy antics like putting up crime scene tape around the stock exchange and some humorous archival footage.
The overall movie is a good balance of humor and gloom. Moore clearly has a point to make, but that is typical for him and for most documentary filmmakers.
Capitalism: A Love Story gets a B+.

Where The Wild Things Are

2009-10-15T18:01:00.000-07:00

How do you make a children's book of a few hundred words and a couple dozen drawings into a feature length movie?
You add your own wild interpretation to the source material and turn a children's book into a movie no one should take their child to.
In spite of robbing the youth of another potential kids' classic, Spike Jonze has created a visually compelling film that is clearly aimed at the grown kids who read the book when they were young, and not at kids who have recently enjoyed the book.
Where The Wild Things Are is probably the best looking film of the year. Art direction, special effects, cinematography, costumes and every other visual aspect of the movie are nearly perfect. Jonze and company have created a look to the film that somehow both captures the aesthetic appeal of the book and expands it to a much larger and darker adventure.
This interpretation is much more grown-up and desolate than I was expecting going in to the theater, but that is apparently what Jonze was aiming for. He hit his mark.
Following Max (Max Records) through his family troubles and his inability to fit in, the story adds more background to why Max needs to create this world of his imagination. Max's world seems to become filled with joy as he enters and becomes the king of the land, but soon crumbles around him as the menagerie of dysfunction unfolds before him and the friends he has made are revealed to be neurotic and insecure, just like the people in Max's real world and Max himself.
The beauty on the screen can still not make up for the lack of interesting story. There are a lot of slow points and an inconsistent pace to the movie overall. There is little in the story that is even near as compelling as the visuals on the screen.
In spite of his age, Records delivers on the lead performance like a seasoned actor and shows the complexity of childhood through the surreal lens of a Spike Jonze film.
The supporting cast, mostly voice work, all complement this with solid ensemble performances that you would expect from names like James Gandolfini, Forrest Whitaker, Chris Cooper and Lauren Ambrose. The real stand out supporting role is Katherine Keener as Max's real-world mother. She balances a compassion for Max's eccentricities and quirks with a clear inability to truly know how to deal with the same.
Where The Wild Things Are is enjoyable to watch, even while it holds more melancholy than anyone could imagine in the original book, just getting lost in the dreams of a child that still lives in the back of Jonze's mind is well worth the price of admission.
I'm giving it a B+.

Zombieland!

2009-10-12T15:10:00.000-07:00

There are a certain type of movie that you don't expect a lot from except that you will have a good time.
Zombieland is certainly that type of movie, and it delivers just that.
From the opening credits, there are crazy images of zombie attacks and victims frightened and running. These are so over-the-top and outlandish that they work from the first one because of how completely goofy it is.
With a clear intent to spoof the horror genre, the film honestly fits the amusement park imagery used in most of the publicity materials. Especially the finale in an amusement park where the quartet of heroes try to lay waste to scores of the undead.
The story follows four unlikely survivors of some type of disease that turns them to the zombies you've seen in so many horror movies. I actually liked that they didn't spend much time trying to explain what caused the zombies because that takes so much time in other zombie movies.
There is a familiar feel to the more serious parts of this movie (yes they are there, even if they are few) if you've ever read The Walking Dead comic books. That is about as big a compliment that could be given to any zombie movie since that series is one of the best zombie tales ever woven.
The lead characters are known to each other only by the cities they each claim to be heading for and are all played well by an oddly eclectic group of Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin.
Let's be honest here, who doesn't love the idea of the little girl from Little Miss Sunshine demolishing undead monsters? It was lots of fun.
All of the lead actors made the film though because of the chemistry that developed through the movie. Stone and Breslin are sisters trying to make their way to a location rumored to be untouched by the infestation. They are using any type of chicanery that will work in order to get there.
Eisenberg and Harrelson are an unlikely pair of neurotic mess and crazy tough guy, respectively, that would make it in to any buddy-cop movie that you watched in the 80s.
These two duos meet up along the way and the good times roll. Eventually.
The story is pretty predictable, but that's what should be expected from a zombie comedy. It delivers on the brutality and clearly doesn't take itself to seriously, so it is a fun time for the entire duration.
I'll give Zombieland a B+.

Whip It

2009-10-02T15:45:00.000-07:00

Drew Barrymore's directorial debut is good.
I can honestly tell you that I didn't expect to be saying that at all before I saw Whip It.
A coming-of-age tale within a movie about an extreme sport set in Podunk, Texas, directed by an actor who hasn't ever directed before.
It doesn't seem like a winning proposition, but it makes it through with a defiant grace befitting its subject, women's roller derby.
Revolving around Ellen Page as a 17-year-old kid from a tiny town outside of Austin, this story takes a look at a roller derby league in Austin and does a nice job of explaining the sport and showing some of the allure it holds.
While it has the familiar trappings of a first-time director, Barrymore is clearly an adept storyteller. She hits some of the typical melodramatic tones that you would associate with a newcomer, but overall avoids letting the whole movie fall to cliche.
That seems to be hard for many directors to do with sports-themed movies in general, so it is impressive to see Whip It teeter on the brink and come back successfully.
Bliss Cavander (Ellen Page) is a high school student who becomes enamored with the roller derby vixens that she meets and decides to get involved when one of the women suggests that she come to try-outs.
Not surprisingly to the audience, but much to Bliss's own shock, she's pretty good at it. Fast and agile, but inexperienced, she earns herself a spot on the worst team in the league.
She also meets a cute boy who sings in a band at one of the derby after-parties.
There is the obvious spark between them and it barrels down that road toward cliche.
While there is a visually pleasant love scene underwater (which is one of the most well shot sequences in the film), the love story part of the movie makes Bliss seem weak and childish while the rest of the fiery independence and the roller derby make her seem tough and spunky, and a complete person.
Without divulging too much of the plot, I was happy to see Bliss come out strong in the end.
There is a lot of good acting throughout, and some mediocre acting mixed in, but Page and SNL's Kristen Wiig (yeah, I was shocked that she was a good actress, too) are definitely the best performances. Alia Shawkat and Daniel Stern needed some more screen time because both of them did well, but their characters seemed kind of flat.
I hope to see more from Barrymore as a director because she gave an impressive first effort that was enjoyable from beginning to end.
Whip It gets a B+

The Informant!

2009-10-01T17:02:00.000-07:00

Steven Soderbergh's latest is a true-story based film starring Matt Damon as a corporate big-shot who teams with the FBI to expose corruption in an agricultural giant, ADM.
It's an enjoyable ride as Mark Whitacre (Damon) starts to "accidentally" spill the secrets of some shady activity within the food production industry to FBI agents.
The story is set in the early 90s but looks like the 70s for some reason. Initially, I just thought that was because the Midwest is kind of behind the times, but it seems to be just a strange stylistic choice by Soderbergh.
Damon's performance is solid as a scientist who seems to lack common sense and gets in over his head with the FBI when they come to his work to investigate an extortion attempt that Whitacre reported to his bosses. I don't want to say too much more about the plot, so as not to spoil it for anyone.
Joel McHale's intense portrayal as 7 minutes of an FBI agent make it worth the admission price. Okay, maybe that's just my man-crush providing a bias.
The fatal flaw in The Informant! is that there is no real value in the tale that is told.
It is a tale told well with good actors and moderately pleasing visuals, but the story of Mark Whitacre isn't that interesting.
There is little drama inherent in white-collar criminals pushing up the cost of corn syrup by manipulating the market from behind the scenes. Argi-business is just not that interesting.
Many scenes of Whitacre's inept spying provide a bit of amusement and the story is good enough to hold the audience's interest for nearly two hours. But what is lacking is a reason to really give a crap about any of it.
The Informant! gets a C+.

The Invention of Lying

2009-10-01T14:40:00.000-07:00

Ricky Gervais heads up an all-star cameo-fest in The Invention of Lying.
He co-wrote and co-directed this one with Matthew Robinson and is the lead actor in a tale about a parallel world where no one has ever told a lie. Not even an exaggeration of the truth.
Gervais' Mark Bellison decides to just make something up that isn't true.
The concept is golden and offers many moments that are quite funny. The unfortunate part is that the idea of brutal honestly isn't as funny in this as it could be. They make it kind of cartoony and childish at points, so that it makes less raw humor and more just mild amusement. What could be hilarious ends up getting a few chuckles scattered around.
As with much or Gervais' work, there are points where it drags to an almost intolerable pace and picks back up again. This is annoying, but doesn't kill the whole movie.
Some of the jokes get beaten over and over again, which is also annoying, but again doesn't kill the movie. We get it, Gervais and Robinson think religion is a lie, so they make that the butt of all of the jokes for the second half of the movie. We get it, the girl thinks Mark is fat and ugly.
What kills the movie is that they take a good, original concept and stretch it out over cliched storyline where a boy likes a girl that is too good for him and ends up winning her over in the end. The ugly duckling story all over again, don't judge a book blahblahblah...
It feels like the audience gets robbed of what could have been a much funnier movie if it didn't take it self so seriously.
The curse of Ricky Gervais.
I'm giving The Invention of Lying a C.

Best bad movies

2009-09-15T09:35:00.000-07:00

In memory of Patrick Swayze and his role in the greatest bad movie of all time, I've got to talk about the greatest terrible movies of all time. This is the opposite of the well made movies that are just no fun to watch, thanks Benjamin Button, but you're terrible in spite of your high production values.

Coming in at number 5:

Bruce Willis could populate this list all by himself, what with all of the awful action movies and utter cheese on his resume, but his biggest ratio of poor quality to enjoyability has to be Hudson Hawk. Lame story, bad acting, outlandish premise, but somehow a really good time. Danny Aiello plays his sidekick in a buddy-criminal comedy that gets a mastermind burglar back into the game after he serves time in prison at the behest of the Vatican. Yeah.

4:

Face/Off is John Travolta's contribution to this world of fun movies that are just terrible. Sure, he's got some great movies like Pulp Fiction and Get Shorty, balanced with a lot of terrible movies like Look Who's Talking and Battlefield Earth. But Travolta and company manage that perfect balance of good and bad with a story of cops and robbers trading rolls through surgery.

3:

Star-studded often spells bad news since the budget goes to salaries and blowing stuff up and rarely to good writers. S.W.A.T. manages to take a bad script and turn it into the second most-enjoyable Colin Farrell movie. A crimelord offers a huge reward for anyone who can spring him from prison. A classic older cop (Samuel Jackson) has organized a SWAT team made up of officers who don't fit in to the normal cop mold and they are charged with guarding this particular inmate. You can see how this would be utter cheese, but is somehow a decent ride in spite of the terrible idea and some mediocre acting.

2:

Mr. Jackson is actually in many movies that are enjoyably bad, and in two of my favorite awful films. His other appearance on this list is a little shoot-em-up with Vin Diesel called xXx. It's the story of an extreme athlete who gets recruited by the government for a covert espionage mission in Eastern Europe. How could this possibly be any good? They manage to make the pacing work and the elaborately strange story a lot of fun.

1: The greatest bad movie ever has to be:

Patrick Swayze and Keanu Reeves team up with some inspired insanity from Gary Busey for Point Break. Maybe it is partly due to the fact that I was 14 when it came out, but I love watching this FBI caper of an undercover agent trying to infiltrate a surfer community to find bank robbers... and ends up finding himself along the way.
That has got to be one of the cheesiest premises that anyone could ever conceive, yet it works without hesitation from beginning to end. Fast paced, action packed and lacking any discernible reason to have ever been made, Point Break is one of the most enjoyable movies ever. Even with the surreal skydive from somewhere in outer space judging by the amount of time in freefall, it is great fun.

I know there are a lot of enjoyable bad movies out there, so hit the comments with your own favorites.

District 9

2009-08-18T17:26:00.000-07:00

There is a surprise as we near the end of a summer movie season filled with disappointing crap.
A whole lot of Hollywood outsiders team up with producer with clout to make a movie that is clearly the best action movie of the summer action season.
District 9 is directed by Neil Blomkamp, a special effects artist and filmmaker from South Africa who managed to get Peter Jackson involved in the process as a producer. Possibly because of Jackson's weighty name on board, but hopefully because the audiences spoke out for well made movies, they managed to unseat GI Joe on it's second weekend as the top box office spot.
Unknown actors, documentary style shooting and low budget looking sets (how much could it have cost to build shacks in Johannesburg?) are offset by amazing special effects and high-caliber story telling.
Blomkamp builds a world that is simultaneously surreal and believable. Surely part of that is his background in special effects and 3D animation. His previous, much less known endeavors seem to have similar traits of seamless integration of special effects on top of the live actors and scenes.
The story is a straightforward commentary on race relations and apartheid in Blomkamp's home country.
Even though the metaphor is so obvious, it still works extremely well. That is a strong testament to the quality of the script, acting and especially the directing.
There is already a lot of talk surrounding the idea of a sequel, which Blomkamp seems to be in favor of, so audiences will probably be seeing more of him, if this story is continued or not, the solid numbers in the box office mean Blomkamp has found his place in the Hollywood scene.
District 9 gets an A-.
--John Berry, Online Editor--

G. I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

2009-08-05T23:48:00.000-07:00

It's bad when a movie isn't being screened for critics prior to the public seeing it.
There has never been a case where it was just that good that they didn't want the movie ruined by critics spoiling the plot.
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is bad.
Not Transformers 2 bad, but still pretty bad.
The saving grace of G. I. Joe is that the story is actually fun and mildly engaging. Interesting for an action movie based on a cartoon from the 80's and a toy line that's even older.
The major flaws center around horrendous acting and even worse dialogue. Poor casting did not help matter much either.
Channing Tatum is supposed to be Duke, a super-soldier with a brilliant mind and the ability to lead. Instead, Duke seems like a punch drunk buffoon who at times seems like he's lucky to form full sentences without serious coaching. But we're supposed to believe he can operate sophisticated machinery and weapons as soon as he picks them up with no training?
There really isn't enough to be said about how Marlon Wayans single-handedly murdered my childhood with how bad his portrayal of Ripcord was. Maybe it was the script, maybe it was the delivery, maybe it was a perfect storm of lack of talent and hatred of quality filmmaking that rolled into Wayans' performance, but whatever the case, damn was he bad.
The only passable performances really came from Destro, played by Christopher Eccleston, and the underutilized Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Heavy Duty.
Even the high-end special effects were inconsistent enough to be laughable in some scenes. One moment, a high tech armor suit seems plausible, the next minute it's running through the streets of Paris so poorly integrated into the footage that it looked like it was a scene from Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
Possibly the worst crime in this debacle was the foisting of not one, but two half-assed love stories upon an audience that clearly needs none of that nonsense. The biggest part of this audience is men 35 and under who played with the toys as kids and watched the cartoons religiously as a boy (myself included). This is not an audience looking for depth and passion. This is an audience looking for a fun story with good action and some half decent acting. Lots of stuff blowing up and great special effects would be good too. There is not a need to uncomfortably force romance into every movie released in the world. Some movies can work without any hokey sentimentality jammed in for no clear purpose other than to show that women have no place in cinema unless they are victims, mothers, love interests or a bizarre combination of any or all of these. Why does the fact that an attractive, intelligent female character is on the screen mean that one of the male characters must possess her and make her his at some point in the movie? This movie would have worked just fine if Scarlet was just a strong soldier, but I guess the viewing public would be uncomfortable thinking that a woman could be happy on her own.
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra gets a D+.
--John Berry, Online Editor--

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

2009-07-14T13:07:00.000-07:00

The latest installment of the Harry Potter series of movies brings one of the fan favorite books to life.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the sixth installment with one more book that is currently being filmed to be released as two movies in 2010 and 2011.
Half-Blood Prince is directed by David Yates who also directed part five and is at the helm for the remaining two films as well.
The book version is epic in scope and would have to be split into two movies as well to have any chance of encompassing all of the content, which is why they decided to split the final book in two (also the obvious money to be made that way). Being only one film, it comes with the inherent shortfalls of missing critical points from the book.
For a fan of the films who hasn't read the books, there is a good chance they will enjoy this film without the nitpicking of details while pushing up your glasses and throwing your Hufflepuff scarf on the ground in disgust. We all know there should have been more of Greyback and Lupin, but tough cuts had to be made.
Visually, the whole movie is stylish and beautiful. They clearly spent a lot of time and money in post production creating a look to tie the whole film together. The special effects were a focal centerpiece in this one, just like the previous films.
The story is enjoyable and they did manage to keep the majority of the critical plot points in tact from the book.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince feels like it will have the same enjoyment of multiple viewings as the first five had, so that would seem like they accomplished what they set out to do in making a film that the fans will enjoy and buy tickets for.
Art direction is the strongest point in this film, but it is also the most solid overall film in the series. This bodes well with the grand finale coming in two parts in the near future.
I'm giving Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince an A-.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

2009-07-09T20:59:00.000-07:00

Yeah, I should have listened to all of the reviewers who said that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was bad. Especially this one from Pajiba.com.
I've always been the type of person that needs to learn lessons the hard way.
So who thought you could make a movie less compelling and less interesting than the 2007 Transformers movie? It would seem that Michael Bay heard everyone complain about the last one and listened to the complaints that there was too much Shia Lebeouf and that there wasn't enough of the robot aliens. He gave us more robots, but then still gave us too much Shia.
He still thinks we'd believe that a woman that looks like Megan Fox would even talk to a dorky kid called Sam Witwicky.
He also apparently thinks that if we see enough of Megan Fox's barely covered ass that we'll ignore the fact that the story is sloppy at it's best moments and barely ties together the explosions and special effects.
Does Bay think that the American public is stupid? He might be right since the movie has made nearly $300 million and counting.
Maybe Michael Bay is the reason the movie-going public has been ruined by bad movies. They expect less story and more spectacle with every big budget action movie and the progression of Bay's movies have followed that exact standard. Bad Boys and The Rock were a balance of spectacle and story and there has been less discernible plot in each of his movies since then.
Never have I seen a movie with so much action that left me so bored.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen gets a D.

Away We Go

2009-06-29T15:34:00.000-07:00

Hooray for the return of the good Sam Mendes.
His last two efforts were lackluster at best (yeah, I disliked Revolutionary Road and Jarhead what? ), before that were two masterpieces of modern cinema.
So with Away We Go, hopefully this means Mendes is back to form.
This little love story follows an odd, quirky couple (John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph) who have very little in the world and find that they are pregnant and about to have even less.
They search for a new place to live and a fresh start to life with the prospect of raising a child closing in on the horizon.
Rudolph's Verona and Krasinski's Burt are likeable and interesting, and it's interesting to see Rudolph try to do some serious acting and pull it off surprisingly well since her SNL years were unfunny and her other movie work has been minor roles with no real substance.
At times hilarious and at other times deeply sad and moving, the stars and supporting cast (especially a brief part by Chris Messina and Melanie Lynskey as the friends in Canada) create one of the best romantic comedies that has been produced in recent years.
Away We Go feels like an indie production, even with the big names attached and the fact that it really fits the modern formula for dramedy perfectly.
The real faults in Away We Go are when the characters blur the line between acting and caricature. Maggie Gyllenhaal's new-age hippie mom and Jim Gaffigan's drunken dope hover right around that line and feel a little contrived at times.
Overall though, the movie is fun to watch and well acted, even through some weak spots, and is well worth the time and ticket price.
Away We Go gets a B+.

Year One

2009-06-23T13:13:00.000-07:00

Why do they keep letting Jack Black star in movies?
Doesn't he have enough money yet? Can't he just go away?
Year One looked like it had potential to have some funny parts, there were even a few chuckles in the preview.
Somehow, the handful of funny parts in the preview were not funny in context of the overall film.
Even with Michael Cera playing the same character he's usually funny as (awkward kid with no way with women, you're all familiar) can't seem to save this debacle.
A seemingly endless parade of cameos from the likes of director Harold Ramis himself, Vinnie Jones, David Cross, Paul Rudd, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Hank Azaria and many others can't even make this funny.
Tired jokes and Jack Black doing the same unfunny physical humor that he's done a thousand times just drags the whole movie down to a non-stop bore.
Year One gets an F.

Coming attractions...

2009-06-11T08:27:00.000-07:00

Food Inc.: This is being heralded as the next documentary to hit the scale of Michael Moore as far as mass appeal and marketability.
http://www.foodincmovie.com/

Moon: Sci-fi from David Bowie's son an Sam Rockwell.
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi843186969/

Tetro: Francis Ford Coppola is back with a new original screenplay. First since The Conversation (one of my all time favorites).
http://www.tetro.com/

Dead Snow: nazi zombies? Cheesy horror movie that doesn't seem to take it self seriously? Decent special effects? Beautiful scenery?
Yes, please.
http://www.deadsnow.com/

Year One: Ah, stupid comedy. Cameos by David Cross and Paul Rudd had me laughing hard in the previews.
http://www.yearone-movie.com/

--jb--

The Hangover

2009-06-09T13:33:00.000-07:00

Not a bad idea teaming up Ed Helms, Zack Galafianakis and Bradley Cooper for an update to the bachelor party genre of comedy.
They lose the groom during the festivities and wake up in a complete state of disarray and confusion.
The story is passable and at some times even interesting, but the real strength of The Hangover is the odd humor of Galafianakis and Helms together playing off of the mostly straight-man role that Cooper is in.
Cooper delivers some funny stuff too, but Galafianakis and Helms are down right ludicrous. The characters are as mismatched as any Hollywood comedy would do these days, so it's pretty typical humor in many ways, but it works to deliver laughs.
As far as originality goes, it has a lot of the same type of story and humor as many of the million drunken exploit movies out there. This is nothing groundbreaking in any way.
The discomfort caused by Galafianakis' awkwardness is worth watching though. From his bare backside near the beginning to his NC-17 rated exploits during the end credits, and all of his insanity while clothed as well, he is probably the funniest part of the film.
The Hangover gets a B-.

Big weekend for Mr. Stiller

2009-05-26T13:43:00.000-07:00

The AP has reported that Terminator Salvation failed to beat out the latest installment of Night at the Museum.
Kind of a surprise since the first Night at the Museum barely broke 30 million in it's opening weekend. Ben Stiller and Jonah Hill have some amusing banter in the preview, but it looks like more of the same from the first one.
The long awaited Terminator sequel has failed to live up to the hype to many viewers, reviewers and now at the box office.
I'm wondering if that will have any effect on the now rumored T5 (whatever the title might end up) and if this less than hoped for opening weekend will make them rethink going with the same writers for T5 as they had on 3 and 4. We can only hope.

Terminator Salvation

2009-05-20T19:25:00.001-07:00

McG sure loves to blow stuff up.
That really could sum up the latest installment in the cultural phenomenon that is Terminator. But that makes for a pretty dull review, so I'll expand a bit.
The most important fact is that Terminator Salvation is way better than T3 was. The special effects are the best of the series. The action sequences in this were about equal with Terminator 2, which is probably my personal favorite.
Decent performances from everyone in the cast, especially Christian Bale, Anton Yelchin and the little silent girl, Star, played by Jadagrace Berry, an apparent newcomer to the Hollywood scene.
The dialogue and story are the weak points. An overabundance of foreshadowing and explanation makes it seem like the writers (who also penned T3) think their audience is stupid.
Really stupid.
Which we very well might be for buying into the idea that this kind of apocalyptic darkness is less than 9 years from now.
As far as characters go, John Connor (Bale) is passable, but not terribly well developed. The savior complex aside, it seems like he's not got a whole lot going on. There is ample opportunity to expand and see some more depth to him, with his pregnant wife (Bryce Dallas Howard in a performance that deserved more screen time) and his teenage dad (Yelchin) and his immediate affection for Star (although who could possibly not love an adorable little mute girl). McG and his writers seem more intent on blowing stuff up to bother with that kind of storytelling.
Terminator Salvation gets a C+.
--John Berry, Online Editor--

Star Trek

2009-05-07T08:22:00.000-07:00

It is appropriate that since a reboot is the cure-all for most modern technology, that the new Star Trek reboot is a perfect remake of the classic series that set the bar for much of sci-fi to come after it.
J.J. Abrams directed a script by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (the writing team behind Fringe, both Transformers movies 2007 and 2009, The Island and tons more). The new cast keeps what was good about the original series and gives it a modern update with fantastic special effects and modern storytelling.
Abrams and crew re-imagined the Trek universe with some time travel and actual scientific theory about black holes. The modern Trek tv shows have been known to integrate science into the storylines and embrace the smarter viewers without alienating viewers who were not up to snuff with the heavier theories behind it.
The new movie throws in the same intelligence and has enough action and a fast pace to draw the wide audience as well.
Right away, this movie grabs its audience and slams them hard with some pretty brutal action and raw emotional events that set the stage for a pretty complex story.
Fans of the classic series are up in arms about the retelling of the origins of these characters because they see the Roddenberry original as sacred and don't want it messed with. They are speculating about the new story and coming just short of crying blasphemy.
These people are crazy.
This reboot serves as an homage to the classic but manages to improve on all of the parts that were limited by the times and technology of the 1960s. The modern cast breath new life to dated characters and concepts that were so groundbreaking in their day that their fans are more loyal and dedicated now than they were in the original series run in 1966. Hopefully once these fans actually see the new Star Trek, they will realize the reverence that Abrams and crew hold for the original and embrace the new gang as much as the old gang.
The new Star Trek gets an A-.
--John Berry, Online Editor--

Comic book nerds watch out

2009-05-06T18:55:00.000-07:00

Swirling about the interwebs right now are whispers mixed with substantiated rumors about what effect the success of X-Men Origins: Wolverine is having on the future of the X-Men franchise.
The big news for nerds everywhere is the Deadpool solo flick. The official announcement is up on Marvel.com (HERE ). A high profile actor like Ryan Reynolds taking a small part like that in the Wolverine back-story film is more than likely just setting the stage for something more (like Samuel Jackson's Nick Fury in the easter egg scene following Iron Man which is foreshadowing a Nick Fury solo film and an Avengers movie). The story is that the success of Wolverine's opening has put the Deadpool movie on a front burner for Marvel.

Thor's Marvel movie is also the subject of a lot of speculation right now. Marvel is allegedly going to announce some casting decisions in the near future, with Kenneth Branagh signed on at the helm. EmpireOnline.com has that story.

A full slate of Avengers related stuff is also in the works, as listed on Imdb.com: Nick Fury, Iron Man 2 (and 3), Ant Man, Thor, Captain America and of course the complete Avengers movie.

None of these will probably live up to Batman's last two outings, but if Iron Man is any indication, Marvel will be working hard and delivering some good stuff.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

2009-05-04T12:30:00.001-07:00

Comic book movies are always a sure fire way to get an audience. That audience is bound to simultaneously love and hate whatever is put on the screen. Thus is the curse of playing to the fanboys, a built in fan base that will be hypercritical of the movie, but still flock to see it.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine is going to face the wrath of these fans this weekend.
The origin story of Logan, aka James Howlett, aka, Wolverine, aka Weapon X, is as convoluted at this point as it could possibly be. There are different tellings from different comic series that contradict certain points from one to the other, but this new retelling has the heart of it pretty straight. There are some missing characters and details, but director Gavin Hood took better care with the story and the characters than many directors would have.
Hood was at the helm for weightier pieces like Rendition and Tsotsi so a comicbook movie is an odd departure, and a wise choice for Marvel to start the Origins series with a character-centric telling rather than the action-centric one like the other X-Men movies.
Writing the Wolverine script was Skip Woods, who has a shorter resume including Hitman and Swordfish, and David Benioff, who penned the novel 25th Hour and screenplays for Troy and The Kite Runner. So right away, one can see where this movie was not destined to be a shoot-em-up explosion fest that people expect from many comic related movies.
This is actually where the movie's strengths lie, in the unexpected crew behind the wheel. It was a slightly different approach to the superhero genre with more attention paid to the characters than to the the special effects and battle scenes.
But that brings us to the weak points of the movie. There were some scenes that were seriously lacking in the special effects department to the point where obvious flaws were evident.
Other weak spots were the tertiary characters and their glossing over. Several of them were touched on and very quickly explained, but not well enough to warrant attention. This might have been for time constraints, or budget issues, but if they wanted to include more obscure characters like Deadpool, the Blob, Bolt or Emma Frost, there needs to be more explanation, or less explanation. Instead, they tell just enough about these characters to interest the audience, but not fully explain them.
Characters that would be looked at as secondary characters, like Gambit, Wraith and Col. Stryker were handled very well. Gambit played a big enough role in this to leave the possibility open for a larger examination in future X-Men movies, including the rumored Gambit movie that has been whispered about for years.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine gets a B-.
--John Berry, Online Editor--

The Soloist

2009-04-29T18:44:00.000-07:00

Jamie Foxx has come a long way from his days of playing Crazy George on Roc. The last several years for him have been nothing short of epic in scope.
The Soloist continues that stretch of top notch performances in prime roles (with the possible exception of Tubbs in Miami Vice from 2006, but everyone needs a big shallow paycheck once in a while) that have run the full gamut from hard-nosed staff sergeant to Motown legend.
Foxx is a musical genius named Nathaniel Anthony Ayers who has had "a few setbacks" and is living on the streets of L.A.
He is stumbled upon by Steve Lopez, staff writer for the Los Angeles Times. Lopez is played by Robert Downey Jr., who is on a similar hot streak to Foxx's, but with less serious, but equally outstanding performances.
There is a dynamic chemistry between Foxx and Downey that fuels the whole film from the moment that Mr. Lopez starts to question Mr. Ayers near a Beethoven statue where Ayers is playing a violin with two strings. This mildly bizarre beginning takes Lopez into a world he hadn't imagined before this chance encounter.
Apparently, the film is a loose retelling of the real-life Lopez's experience writing a series of columns about Ayers, homelessness and mental illness.
The ending is not exactly a typical Hollywood wrap-up and may leave some audiences feeling incomplete, but this lack of neat-and-tidy is exactly what makes the ending so strong.
The strength of The Soloist is really in the performances, but the story itself should not be overlooked: a writer's fascination with his subject and an interesting study in what makes each of them tick.
Supporting roles by Catherine Keener, Nelsan Ellis, Stephen Root and an assortment of actual homeless citizens of L.A. round out the experience to make a solid movie into an outstanding movie.
In spite of some slow patches and a strange string of coyote urine references, this film is living up to the hype, and hopefully will not be forgotten by awards season.
The Soloist gets an A-.
--John Berry, Online Editor--

Observe and Report

2009-04-09T13:00:00.000-07:00

Seth Rogen is back. For some that is not the best news ever, but I happen to have a soft spot in my heart for the lovable stoner. This time out he is a mall security guard in Observe and Report.
The first time seeing the preview, all that came to mind was the recent Kevin James debacle and I immediately cringed to see Rogen going down that road.
This one is definitely not a family friendly romp like Paul Blart was. Extremely not family friendly.
Eastbound and Down creator Jody Hill was at the helm of Observe and Report, which shows through in the awkward cockiness of the main character in each project.
Observe and Report serves to creep out the audience as much as it amuses. The bizarre lead character is surrounded by equally bizarre family and co-workers. Possibly it feels so creepy because it's disturbingly accurate how out of touch with reality Rogen's Ronnie Bernhardt is. Having worked in malls, I know how some (definitely not all, to be fair) security guards really have that over-inflated sense of self-importance. Many want to be cops but fell short for a variety of reasons and now see their "wet floor" cones and their walkie-talkies as substitutes for a badge and gun.
This movie is not as amusing as the usual Seth Rogen fare, but has it's own shining moments. The dynamic of Ronnie and his perpetually drunk mother is kind of charming and serves up more than a few laughs.
Overall, the creepy side of the movie outweighs the fun and leaves you feeling a little uncomfortable when leaving the theater.
Let's hope Rogen's upcoming Funny People will be better (and it really seems to have more going for it) and allow him to put Ronnie behind him.
Observe and Report gets a C.
--John Berry, Online Editor--

Training Rules

2009-04-04T20:47:00.000-07:00

The Philadelphia Cinefest is rolling to a conclusion, but this weekend is full of good stuff for movie lovers. A choice event was tonight's world premiere of a documentary about prejudice in the world of women's basketball.
Training Rules focuses on specific practices at Penn State but touches on the the broader topic in general as well. The core of this story is a young woman, Jen Harris, who was dismissed from the basketball team for being perceived to be a lesbian. From there, the filmmakers looked into other cases that showed a history of homophobia in the women's basketball program at Penn State revolving around coach Rene Portland's stated policies of not allowing lesbians on her team.
It's hard to take a story like this and not make a compelling film. Where many filmmakers would allow the intense story carry the documentary, Dee Mosbacher and Fawn Yacker decide not to take the lazy route. Weaving together the tails of several different student athletes that faced hardship in the PSU basketball program is done with finesse and compassion. Compelling subjects are complemented by adept storytelling by the director.
Harris's story is enough to keep an audience's interest. A stellar athlete who is also an outstanding student and seems to have all the promise and potential that any kid coming out of high school could have. Her dreams of playing in the WNBA seemed not just realistic, but certain. After being forced out of the team by Portland's policies, Harris and her family decided to stand up and, as is said in the movie, make sure this doesn't happen to another player.
That story alone is enough to draw an audience in and keep them in, but Mosbacher and Yacker found several other former players and coaches who faced similar treatment in the PSU basketball program.
Sadly, many of the former players did not live in a society that saw the injustice of these policies and were not afforded the opportunity to stand up for themselves at the time. Many of them, and probably countless others there and at other schools, were forced to just accept the injustice and walk away hurt and defeated.
The only real downside of Training Rules is the decidedly narrow scope of its potential audience and therefore its budget constraints, sadly the fate of far too many excellent documentaries.
Training Rules gets an A-
--John Berry, Online Editor--