Funny man Paul Rudd, and former Friend Jennifer Aniston star in the new off beat comedy, Wanderlust.
Meet George (Rudd) and Linda (Aniston), they live in New York City. He works at a job he hates in an office. She has never committed to any job in her life. They are married, and buy this small studio apartment they really can't afford. George then loses his job, and Linda's latest self employment scheme goes wrong, and they lose their new home.
The couple decides to move to Atlanta to live with George's moronic brother. After that goes wrong, they end up living at this old hippie commune in northern Georgia with a bunch of leftover, and young hippies for lack of better term. This commune practices free love, veganism, they drink hallucinogenics, and live off the land. Our couple has tried everything else, so they decide to try this life for two weeks.
So they move in with this group and try hard to adapt to this very foreign lifestyle. Can they adjust? Will they fit in? And is this off beat time warp of a place just the thing they need to get their life back on track? Well, of course it is, or you wouldn't have a movie to begin with. And that's a problem here. You know the end, at the beginning.
There are some pretty awkward, and funny laughs in this movie. But sadly, that's not enough. Wanderlust has some creative elements to it, but in the end it sells out to cheap laugh atttempts and overall grossness that really isn't necessary. Or maybe it is. This movie making troupe is simply committed to shock value in much of it's content. Full nudity of numerous people, young and old that simply know one of the planet wants to see naked. Tons of bathroom humor, and vile language that cheapens it horribly.
What we think is funny is always evolving, and that's nothing new. For rare exceptions, things that were funny, 20, 30, 40 or more years ago is not funny with us today. But, this is the style of movie making that seems to resonating mightily with many in this era. It is no longer acceptable to just be funny. It must be shocking, and gross to draw laughs out of it's core audience. But maybe not here. Wanderlust is a huge bomb at the box office. Not even sinking to the lowest common denominator can save this.
Rudd is a funny guy. He weaves between good movies and bad. I think he's generally funny, and easy to watch, but here he's really not much of anything. Pretty bland character. Aniston continues to limp along with flop after flop. Many are getting the sense that even though she is beautiful and well liked by those who are trying to still like her from her successful Friends days, this proves it can be a long way to the bottem. I can only assume that she doesn't mind, and continues to cash the checks. It's a shame she can't land a role has meaning, and that has a decent script.
Wanderlust. A laugh here and there, then there's the rest of this. Borderline pitiful.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
MOVIE REVIEW - Act Of Valor
The much talked about Act Of Valor is out in theaters this week. This is not so much a movie, as it is an experience.
You may have heard, that AOV is the picture that actually stars real, but unnamed United States Navy Seals. What this does is attempt to show you the kind of people in the world that are wanting more than anything to do America great harm. And the kind of people in the military that are trying to keep them from doing it. It shows you the lengths that both sides will go to for victory.
The first part of AOV shows you the Seal Team in the Philippines rescuing a captured female CIA agent, deep in the jungle. Then the second half is the same team defending an impending terrorist attack in this country. The events are connected. It is straight forward, it is violent, and it is not flowery stuff. There are no actors, no catch phrases, no comic relief sidekicks, and no silliness. After you go to this experience, you may have a different feeling about many other such "Hollywood" movies where diabolical characters are trying to take over the world with big name actors on each side of the ledger.
This movie could be a love/hate with the public. If you want to know who these people are on each side, and are willing to see what you have to see to experience it, than AOV can be a learning tool for you. Granted, you won't know all there is to know, and that's fine. But it can be an eye opening deal. If you nave no interest in the people fighting on either side of this conflict, than this is not for you. Mainly because you have to be willing to go into battle with them, and understandably that may not be for everyone for many reasons.
Since there are no real actors in the lead roles, there is some really bad acting at times. But luckily there is not much of it. What AOV does well, is keep the spotlight off them as actors, and keeps it on them as servicemen, doing what they do best. This movie is a ton of action, and to its credit, it is real stuff. There is nothing "over the top," or silly. In fact, it's as realistic as I think it can be. This is not a documentary, but its overall sense of real gives it much credibility, and it feels real as a result. This is highly compelling movie making, and doesn't feel much like a movie at all. It's like you're there in it. There are no big stars, or Hollywood gizmo's getting in the way.
Act Of Valor. A very interesting experience. Well done.
You may have heard, that AOV is the picture that actually stars real, but unnamed United States Navy Seals. What this does is attempt to show you the kind of people in the world that are wanting more than anything to do America great harm. And the kind of people in the military that are trying to keep them from doing it. It shows you the lengths that both sides will go to for victory.
The first part of AOV shows you the Seal Team in the Philippines rescuing a captured female CIA agent, deep in the jungle. Then the second half is the same team defending an impending terrorist attack in this country. The events are connected. It is straight forward, it is violent, and it is not flowery stuff. There are no actors, no catch phrases, no comic relief sidekicks, and no silliness. After you go to this experience, you may have a different feeling about many other such "Hollywood" movies where diabolical characters are trying to take over the world with big name actors on each side of the ledger.
This movie could be a love/hate with the public. If you want to know who these people are on each side, and are willing to see what you have to see to experience it, than AOV can be a learning tool for you. Granted, you won't know all there is to know, and that's fine. But it can be an eye opening deal. If you nave no interest in the people fighting on either side of this conflict, than this is not for you. Mainly because you have to be willing to go into battle with them, and understandably that may not be for everyone for many reasons.
Since there are no real actors in the lead roles, there is some really bad acting at times. But luckily there is not much of it. What AOV does well, is keep the spotlight off them as actors, and keeps it on them as servicemen, doing what they do best. This movie is a ton of action, and to its credit, it is real stuff. There is nothing "over the top," or silly. In fact, it's as realistic as I think it can be. This is not a documentary, but its overall sense of real gives it much credibility, and it feels real as a result. This is highly compelling movie making, and doesn't feel much like a movie at all. It's like you're there in it. There are no big stars, or Hollywood gizmo's getting in the way.
Act Of Valor. A very interesting experience. Well done.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
2012 Oscar Preview And Picks
The Oscars will be handed out this week, and this year could be one of the more interesting Academy Awards shows in quite a while.
First, Billy Crystal is back as the host, and he has always done well there. This is such a turn events after last years laughable, and disastrous choices of Anne Hathaway and James Franco. After they hacked up the stage for 3 hours last year, this year we needed someone with real ability to handle this lasrge undertaking. Many kudos.
And second, 2011 was an interesting year at the movies. There was no clear winner with the critics and the fans. There was no Titanic, or even last years The King's Speech that seemed a lock. So this year the field is wide open in virtually all categories.
After seeing 140 movies last year, I will give you three pics from each of the five major categories. I will give you the Academy's pic on who they will choose (prediction.) Then I will give you my personal favorite pick, and then who really should win the Oscar. So here goes!
Best Picture
The Academy - Hugo will win. Hollywood loves this movie endlessly, and I really don't know why. Yes, it's a nice movie and technically well done. But I feel this is entirely overrated. So many nominations. Martin Scorsese directed. Too big of a temptation for them to pass up.
My Favorite - Moneyball. This is a great movie that was so far beyond what it should have been. Great performances, and a surprisingly deep story line. Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill were terrific.
What Should Win - The Artist. The black and white silent movie that tells a fantastic story with no dialogue. Performances, amazing photography and music. Cutting edge stuff.
Best Actor
The Academy - George Clooney in The Descendants. This is a good movie, and he is really good here. The awards show circuit has eaten this up so far. This is a very good performance, but not Oscar worthy with the field he's up against.
My Favorite - Brad Pitt in Moneyball. Pitt has never looked more comfortable and been better than this. I think he is in every single scene of this movie. Stellar performance, career best. It's now or never for Pitt.
What Should Win - Jean Dujardin in The Artist is on par with Pitt , but in a very different role. Both are magnificent.
Best Actress
The Academy - Viola Davis in The Help. She is wonderful, and it's a role that she really made powerful. Big movie, well reviewed and Hollywood loves this picture.
My Favorite - Michelle Williams in My Week With Marilyn. She is brilliant in her depiction of Marilyn Monroe in every regard. Tough part is, you have to actually look like Monroe, and she does. Simply great!
What Should Win - Michelle Williams. With all due respect to the field, this is the runaway best performance from an actress this year. And it's not even close.
Best Supporting Actor
The Academy - Christopher Plummer for Beginners. He is 80 years old, and has been great for years in countless movies. He is great here too. Last chance probably, he will win.
My Favorite - Nick Nolte for Warrior. In a movie that had very little box office success, he was stellar as a broken down father to two MMA fighting sons. Really gritty stuff. Completely believable.
Who Should Win - Nolte. Overall, this is a relatively weak field this year, and it could be his moment.
Best Supporting Actress
The Academy - Melissa McCarthy for Bridesmaids. She is very funny in this comedy. And the academy I think is just dying to branch out and give credence to the new era of raunchy comedies that make them so much money. It would help legitimize the genre if she wins. Hollywood loves her too.
My Favorite - Berenice Bejo in The Artist. She is absolutely fantastic in this role as the up and coming movie star in the early 1930's. This role was very challenging and she makes it look easy. Plus, I'm not so sure it would be possible to more likable on camera.
Who Should Win - Octavia Spencer in The Help. She was brilliant in her supporting role, and really energized a good movie, and gave it another direction when it needed one.
Feel free to e-mail me your thoughts scott@wqmx.com
First, Billy Crystal is back as the host, and he has always done well there. This is such a turn events after last years laughable, and disastrous choices of Anne Hathaway and James Franco. After they hacked up the stage for 3 hours last year, this year we needed someone with real ability to handle this lasrge undertaking. Many kudos.
And second, 2011 was an interesting year at the movies. There was no clear winner with the critics and the fans. There was no Titanic, or even last years The King's Speech that seemed a lock. So this year the field is wide open in virtually all categories.
After seeing 140 movies last year, I will give you three pics from each of the five major categories. I will give you the Academy's pic on who they will choose (prediction.) Then I will give you my personal favorite pick, and then who really should win the Oscar. So here goes!
Best Picture
The Academy - Hugo will win. Hollywood loves this movie endlessly, and I really don't know why. Yes, it's a nice movie and technically well done. But I feel this is entirely overrated. So many nominations. Martin Scorsese directed. Too big of a temptation for them to pass up.
My Favorite - Moneyball. This is a great movie that was so far beyond what it should have been. Great performances, and a surprisingly deep story line. Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill were terrific.
What Should Win - The Artist. The black and white silent movie that tells a fantastic story with no dialogue. Performances, amazing photography and music. Cutting edge stuff.
Best Actor
The Academy - George Clooney in The Descendants. This is a good movie, and he is really good here. The awards show circuit has eaten this up so far. This is a very good performance, but not Oscar worthy with the field he's up against.
My Favorite - Brad Pitt in Moneyball. Pitt has never looked more comfortable and been better than this. I think he is in every single scene of this movie. Stellar performance, career best. It's now or never for Pitt.
What Should Win - Jean Dujardin in The Artist is on par with Pitt , but in a very different role. Both are magnificent.
Best Actress
The Academy - Viola Davis in The Help. She is wonderful, and it's a role that she really made powerful. Big movie, well reviewed and Hollywood loves this picture.
My Favorite - Michelle Williams in My Week With Marilyn. She is brilliant in her depiction of Marilyn Monroe in every regard. Tough part is, you have to actually look like Monroe, and she does. Simply great!
What Should Win - Michelle Williams. With all due respect to the field, this is the runaway best performance from an actress this year. And it's not even close.
Best Supporting Actor
The Academy - Christopher Plummer for Beginners. He is 80 years old, and has been great for years in countless movies. He is great here too. Last chance probably, he will win.
My Favorite - Nick Nolte for Warrior. In a movie that had very little box office success, he was stellar as a broken down father to two MMA fighting sons. Really gritty stuff. Completely believable.
Who Should Win - Nolte. Overall, this is a relatively weak field this year, and it could be his moment.
Best Supporting Actress
The Academy - Melissa McCarthy for Bridesmaids. She is very funny in this comedy. And the academy I think is just dying to branch out and give credence to the new era of raunchy comedies that make them so much money. It would help legitimize the genre if she wins. Hollywood loves her too.
My Favorite - Berenice Bejo in The Artist. She is absolutely fantastic in this role as the up and coming movie star in the early 1930's. This role was very challenging and she makes it look easy. Plus, I'm not so sure it would be possible to more likable on camera.
Who Should Win - Octavia Spencer in The Help. She was brilliant in her supporting role, and really energized a good movie, and gave it another direction when it needed one.
Feel free to e-mail me your thoughts scott@wqmx.com
Saturday, February 18, 2012
MOVIE REVIEW - Ghost Rider 2
Nicolas Cage is back for the second installment of the comic book, Ghost Rider come to life.
In an era where we have far too many hero movies being made, they all seem to run together. Huge special effect fests that can tire the mind, and fatigue the eyes. Ghost Rider 2 does offer some effects of course, but dares to offer something more. An actual story.
In case you are unfamiliar with the saga, in short here goes. Johnny Blaze (Cage) is a motorcycle stunt rider. When his father is dying, Johnny makes a deal with the Devil here on earth. His soul for his fathers life. Of course the Devil reneges, and Johnny's father dies anyway. Johnny is now cursed with this demon that unleashes within Johnny's body whenever he is drawn to someone whose soul needs to be taken. He becomes the supernatural Ghost Rider. And he steals their souls. But the actual demon is based in justice, truth and protection. So there is good that lies beneath. He is a good guy/bad guy hero of sorts. Johnny feels this somehow, and believes that this curse could maybe be used for good. The Devil does not know this.
But in this installment, Johnny is looking to shed himself of the curse and return to a normal life. And he is offered yet another deal by the forces of good here on earth. He must deliver a young boy to them, because the boy is the actual son of the Devil. And there are plenty of villains bent on not allowing that to happen. Including the Devil himself in human form on earth. Can the Ghost Rider make it all right, and keep the spiritual balance on earth steady?
Kudos to this franchise on one big thing. A real nice attempt at a meaningful story. There is actual dialogue that is well though out, well written, and researched. This movie picks it's places for it's effects to be effective, and they are. Not the over the top, hard to follow, tough on the eyes style from other movies. This movie has a heartbeat and a soul. And it's kept to about 85 minutes. Tidy and the most part interesting and fun.
Cage is who he is. Here's a guy who actually hasn't gotten any better as an actor as time has rolled on. In fact, he's not near as good as he once was. Here as the Ghost Rider, there is a ton of overacting, and him looking borderline silly as he transforms from Blaze to The Rider. But let's forgive him on that. Let's say this is better than a ton of other movies of this type and move on. For my money, Ghost Rider 2 proves that less is more. That hero movies don't need to be bigger to be fun.
Ghost Rider 2. I was surprised. Some way, somehow this worked.
In an era where we have far too many hero movies being made, they all seem to run together. Huge special effect fests that can tire the mind, and fatigue the eyes. Ghost Rider 2 does offer some effects of course, but dares to offer something more. An actual story.
In case you are unfamiliar with the saga, in short here goes. Johnny Blaze (Cage) is a motorcycle stunt rider. When his father is dying, Johnny makes a deal with the Devil here on earth. His soul for his fathers life. Of course the Devil reneges, and Johnny's father dies anyway. Johnny is now cursed with this demon that unleashes within Johnny's body whenever he is drawn to someone whose soul needs to be taken. He becomes the supernatural Ghost Rider. And he steals their souls. But the actual demon is based in justice, truth and protection. So there is good that lies beneath. He is a good guy/bad guy hero of sorts. Johnny feels this somehow, and believes that this curse could maybe be used for good. The Devil does not know this.
But in this installment, Johnny is looking to shed himself of the curse and return to a normal life. And he is offered yet another deal by the forces of good here on earth. He must deliver a young boy to them, because the boy is the actual son of the Devil. And there are plenty of villains bent on not allowing that to happen. Including the Devil himself in human form on earth. Can the Ghost Rider make it all right, and keep the spiritual balance on earth steady?
Kudos to this franchise on one big thing. A real nice attempt at a meaningful story. There is actual dialogue that is well though out, well written, and researched. This movie picks it's places for it's effects to be effective, and they are. Not the over the top, hard to follow, tough on the eyes style from other movies. This movie has a heartbeat and a soul. And it's kept to about 85 minutes. Tidy and the most part interesting and fun.
Cage is who he is. Here's a guy who actually hasn't gotten any better as an actor as time has rolled on. In fact, he's not near as good as he once was. Here as the Ghost Rider, there is a ton of overacting, and him looking borderline silly as he transforms from Blaze to The Rider. But let's forgive him on that. Let's say this is better than a ton of other movies of this type and move on. For my money, Ghost Rider 2 proves that less is more. That hero movies don't need to be bigger to be fun.
Ghost Rider 2. I was surprised. Some way, somehow this worked.
Friday, February 17, 2012
MOVIE REVIEW - This Means War
The new trend of action, romantic comedies continues this week, with This Means War.
Reece Witherspoon, Tom Hardy, and Chris Pine star in yet another movie we have all seen, by simply watching the countless commercials on TV. To be fair, there are a few real good laughs in this movie. But there is also a bunch to be desired.
It's the story of FDR (Pine) and Tuck (Hardy). They are young CIA agents working on high profile cases on an international scale. They are great friends and partners at work, and they are highly decorated. They each meet Lauren (Witherspoon) in separate circumstances. And not known to each other, they each start to date her. Then they find this fact out. And it's a fight to the finish to win Lauren. With Lauren being none the wiser that they know each other.
Both of our decorated agents then use the full disposal of the CIA to spy on Lauren and each others dates to see who can get the upper hand. They bug her office, her home, and her phone. As they spy on her in private and on each other, the drama builds. Who will win her heart, and can their friendship survive such an ordeal?
The good thing about TMW is that it's good to see Hardy, and even Pine give us some new faces to digest on the screen in a movie like this. But the story is so inane that it borders on insulting. And it's a shame. There are some real legit laughs here, and some funny situations. But the absurdity of it all is a bit much to overcome. And I'm sure that the makers would say that's part of the gag, and that's probably true. But it ends up being dumbed way down.
I am a big Witherspoon fan, but here she is miscast and used poorly. She has no chemistry at all with either Pine or Hardy. In fact, may have more love chemistry with Laurel And Hardy than these two. She looks more like their sister than love interest. Plus, she is costumed badly, in scene after scene in horribly high heeled shoes, sandals and tennis shoes. That goes along with the dresses she wears that look like they belong on a 16 year old. A lot of this just looks bad in every regard.
There is plenty of action that the guys will like who get drug along to see this with their wives or girlfriends. But after that clears, it's all just so formula. Two guys, a girl, the girls witty married best friend who lives vicariously through her. And then a predictable ending that is anything but creative.
This Means War. Yeah I laughed a few times but what this really means is a big box office take, and a forgettable flick that will on on TNT every weekend in a couple of years.
Reece Witherspoon, Tom Hardy, and Chris Pine star in yet another movie we have all seen, by simply watching the countless commercials on TV. To be fair, there are a few real good laughs in this movie. But there is also a bunch to be desired.
It's the story of FDR (Pine) and Tuck (Hardy). They are young CIA agents working on high profile cases on an international scale. They are great friends and partners at work, and they are highly decorated. They each meet Lauren (Witherspoon) in separate circumstances. And not known to each other, they each start to date her. Then they find this fact out. And it's a fight to the finish to win Lauren. With Lauren being none the wiser that they know each other.
Both of our decorated agents then use the full disposal of the CIA to spy on Lauren and each others dates to see who can get the upper hand. They bug her office, her home, and her phone. As they spy on her in private and on each other, the drama builds. Who will win her heart, and can their friendship survive such an ordeal?
The good thing about TMW is that it's good to see Hardy, and even Pine give us some new faces to digest on the screen in a movie like this. But the story is so inane that it borders on insulting. And it's a shame. There are some real legit laughs here, and some funny situations. But the absurdity of it all is a bit much to overcome. And I'm sure that the makers would say that's part of the gag, and that's probably true. But it ends up being dumbed way down.
I am a big Witherspoon fan, but here she is miscast and used poorly. She has no chemistry at all with either Pine or Hardy. In fact, may have more love chemistry with Laurel And Hardy than these two. She looks more like their sister than love interest. Plus, she is costumed badly, in scene after scene in horribly high heeled shoes, sandals and tennis shoes. That goes along with the dresses she wears that look like they belong on a 16 year old. A lot of this just looks bad in every regard.
There is plenty of action that the guys will like who get drug along to see this with their wives or girlfriends. But after that clears, it's all just so formula. Two guys, a girl, the girls witty married best friend who lives vicariously through her. And then a predictable ending that is anything but creative.
This Means War. Yeah I laughed a few times but what this really means is a big box office take, and a forgettable flick that will on on TNT every weekend in a couple of years.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
MOVIE REVIEW - The Woman In Black
Daniel Radcliffe takes off those perfectly round Harry Potter glasses and stars in the new "scary" movie, The Woman In Black. Up front, false advertising. We're not going to spend a great deal of time on this.
Truth is, if you are looking for a good snooze, in fact one of the best snoozes you've probably had in weeks go to this movie. Many people would be thrilled to throw down eighth bucks for a couple hours of shut-eye. This is without question one of the more boring movies I have ever seen. If you want to watch Radcliffe walk around in the dark a lot, chasing after strange noises he hears in this haunted old house. Then you will be in heaven.
This is the story of a young lawyer (Radcliffe) in the early 2oth century in England. His wife has recently died, and his job is on he line. He is sent out of town to settle the estate of a strange old woman who lived in some kind of spooky house. Once there, children in the small town start getting killed off, and this "woman in black" seems to be at the center of it all. There is a feeble attempt to tell you why, and a few other things, but it doesn't make any difference. You may be deepm in REM sleep by then.
This movie has no real story, or meaningful plot. Borderline horrible effects, underused music, and performances so underwhelming it teeters on a high school production. Plus, it's not suspenseful, or scary. And the ending may actually make you mad. This is a complete disaster all the way around.
The Woman In Black. Loser!
Truth is, if you are looking for a good snooze, in fact one of the best snoozes you've probably had in weeks go to this movie. Many people would be thrilled to throw down eighth bucks for a couple hours of shut-eye. This is without question one of the more boring movies I have ever seen. If you want to watch Radcliffe walk around in the dark a lot, chasing after strange noises he hears in this haunted old house. Then you will be in heaven.
This is the story of a young lawyer (Radcliffe) in the early 2oth century in England. His wife has recently died, and his job is on he line. He is sent out of town to settle the estate of a strange old woman who lived in some kind of spooky house. Once there, children in the small town start getting killed off, and this "woman in black" seems to be at the center of it all. There is a feeble attempt to tell you why, and a few other things, but it doesn't make any difference. You may be deepm in REM sleep by then.
This movie has no real story, or meaningful plot. Borderline horrible effects, underused music, and performances so underwhelming it teeters on a high school production. Plus, it's not suspenseful, or scary. And the ending may actually make you mad. This is a complete disaster all the way around.
The Woman In Black. Loser!
Saturday, February 11, 2012
MOVIE REVIEW - Safe House
Denzel Washington is back again this winter, and this year it's Safe House.
Washington like Liam Neeson, has sort of reinvented himself as this cold weather action hero. I loved Washington in The Book Of Eli, and in last years Unstoppable. Both were surprise hits, good stories and well done. Oh, let's not forget Training Day! - Oscar winner for him.
But Safe House is another matter. None of this is really Washington's fault. Although he did have a hand in producing this, the writing is none of his affair. If you are looking strictly for a non stop action movie, than this is your flick. Safe House is almost all action.
It's the story of Tobin Frost (Washington). Frost is a rogue CIA agent that has been on the loose for about a decade. He supposedly betrayed the CIA and almost all other Western Intelligence agencies, and now he is in the secret selling business. Frost is this super agent with an amazing smarts and manipulation skills, and terrific physical skills too. Too bad we seldom if ever get to see any of them. We have to take the movies word for it, and that's the gigantic hole right down middle of this movie.
Ryan Reynolds plays a young CIA agent bent on making name for himself. So after Frost turns himself in to the American Consulate in South Africa, our young agent finds himself with the dubious task of bringing Frost in. But there are huge mountains to climb. Seems everyone on earth is after them, and trying to kill them. Can they make it? Who can they trust, anyone?
This next sentence is not a spoiler. Because you will be light years ahead of this movie. You will know right away what and who the trouble is. But the movie doesn't think you're that smart. And that's another big hole. They think they are being subtle, but they are not. In the end this ends up begin another CIA gone wrong movie where they think they are weaving a complicated web, but all they are really doing is tangling up two hours to bring you to a finish you knew an hour and a half ago.
Going one step further, without Washington's amazing screen presence, this is total wash out. He does give some credibility to this over done, and tired script and plot line.
Safe House. Big action. Big Star. Bigger disappointment.
Washington like Liam Neeson, has sort of reinvented himself as this cold weather action hero. I loved Washington in The Book Of Eli, and in last years Unstoppable. Both were surprise hits, good stories and well done. Oh, let's not forget Training Day! - Oscar winner for him.
But Safe House is another matter. None of this is really Washington's fault. Although he did have a hand in producing this, the writing is none of his affair. If you are looking strictly for a non stop action movie, than this is your flick. Safe House is almost all action.
It's the story of Tobin Frost (Washington). Frost is a rogue CIA agent that has been on the loose for about a decade. He supposedly betrayed the CIA and almost all other Western Intelligence agencies, and now he is in the secret selling business. Frost is this super agent with an amazing smarts and manipulation skills, and terrific physical skills too. Too bad we seldom if ever get to see any of them. We have to take the movies word for it, and that's the gigantic hole right down middle of this movie.
Ryan Reynolds plays a young CIA agent bent on making name for himself. So after Frost turns himself in to the American Consulate in South Africa, our young agent finds himself with the dubious task of bringing Frost in. But there are huge mountains to climb. Seems everyone on earth is after them, and trying to kill them. Can they make it? Who can they trust, anyone?
This next sentence is not a spoiler. Because you will be light years ahead of this movie. You will know right away what and who the trouble is. But the movie doesn't think you're that smart. And that's another big hole. They think they are being subtle, but they are not. In the end this ends up begin another CIA gone wrong movie where they think they are weaving a complicated web, but all they are really doing is tangling up two hours to bring you to a finish you knew an hour and a half ago.
Going one step further, without Washington's amazing screen presence, this is total wash out. He does give some credibility to this over done, and tired script and plot line.
Safe House. Big action. Big Star. Bigger disappointment.
MOVIE REVIEW - The Vow
The Vow. Just in time for Valentines Day. Right up front, there will be a sector of the movie going public that will think this is the greatest movie ever!
But of course, it's not. But The Vow, which is based on a true story is, in it's most raw form - a really interesting story. In fact, you even get to see the actual couple at the end and they give you resolution. Which to me, was pretty compelling stuff. But as a movie, this is a whole lot of syrup on a small stack of pancakes.
The Vow is about this young, and crazy in love young couple that get married and live in Chicago. He owns a recording studio and she is a freelance artist. One night while out, they are involved in a terrible car accident with a snow plow. She, Paige (Rachel McAdams) is terribly injured and wakes up in the hospital only to have no recollection of her husband, Leo (Channing Tatum.)
So Leo goes on a personal crusade to help her remember the last years of her life. Paige seems to remember being engaged to another man years before she met Leo. This is the story of their struggle. Will they be able to reconnect? And will they be able to fall in love again? That is The Vow.
The Vow seems to go way out of it's way to be really sugary sweet. There's a whole lot of fluff, especially at the outset. But if you can fight through all of the "awww" intended moments you start to get down to a pretty good story. Trouble is, this real interesting plot is watered down with some bad acting from Tatum, and a real effort to make McAdams cute and lovely in every shot. The story begins to be minimized, and that's a shame.
I have always liked McAdams and she pulls off here exactly what they asked her to. She is lovely. But maybe a bit too lovely. I don't know, after being in the hospital for an extended period, in a medically induced coma it's tough for me to think any woman would emerge looking like a supermodel on the way home. But she does here. And there are a bunch of other silly ends like that here. And that's bad movie making. If you're going to make a true story, then let's get it right. Let's not water it down so much that every single scene is for 17 year old girls to go, "awwww."
Tatum who is getting a ton of work these days, is average at best in this role. To me this deserved someone with a little more heart. Tatum comes off at times a bit too "dudey." His character in this movie at times shows flashes of really being deep, and moving, and that's just not him. I really liked him in Dear John a couple years ago, and thought he was cast well. Here, not so much. But don't panic, there are plenty of shots of him with no shirt on here, and tight fitting clothes too. And of course the mandatory "naked behind" scene.
It's a shame that they didn't take this story at bit more seriously and make a movie that showcased the strange series of events first, and the cutesy factor second. But, that's Hollywood. It's a money making enterprise, and this kind of stuff sells big. And they will be ringing the cha-ching bell hard this run.
The Vow. Better actual story than this movie.
But of course, it's not. But The Vow, which is based on a true story is, in it's most raw form - a really interesting story. In fact, you even get to see the actual couple at the end and they give you resolution. Which to me, was pretty compelling stuff. But as a movie, this is a whole lot of syrup on a small stack of pancakes.
The Vow is about this young, and crazy in love young couple that get married and live in Chicago. He owns a recording studio and she is a freelance artist. One night while out, they are involved in a terrible car accident with a snow plow. She, Paige (Rachel McAdams) is terribly injured and wakes up in the hospital only to have no recollection of her husband, Leo (Channing Tatum.)
So Leo goes on a personal crusade to help her remember the last years of her life. Paige seems to remember being engaged to another man years before she met Leo. This is the story of their struggle. Will they be able to reconnect? And will they be able to fall in love again? That is The Vow.
The Vow seems to go way out of it's way to be really sugary sweet. There's a whole lot of fluff, especially at the outset. But if you can fight through all of the "awww" intended moments you start to get down to a pretty good story. Trouble is, this real interesting plot is watered down with some bad acting from Tatum, and a real effort to make McAdams cute and lovely in every shot. The story begins to be minimized, and that's a shame.
I have always liked McAdams and she pulls off here exactly what they asked her to. She is lovely. But maybe a bit too lovely. I don't know, after being in the hospital for an extended period, in a medically induced coma it's tough for me to think any woman would emerge looking like a supermodel on the way home. But she does here. And there are a bunch of other silly ends like that here. And that's bad movie making. If you're going to make a true story, then let's get it right. Let's not water it down so much that every single scene is for 17 year old girls to go, "awwww."
Tatum who is getting a ton of work these days, is average at best in this role. To me this deserved someone with a little more heart. Tatum comes off at times a bit too "dudey." His character in this movie at times shows flashes of really being deep, and moving, and that's just not him. I really liked him in Dear John a couple years ago, and thought he was cast well. Here, not so much. But don't panic, there are plenty of shots of him with no shirt on here, and tight fitting clothes too. And of course the mandatory "naked behind" scene.
It's a shame that they didn't take this story at bit more seriously and make a movie that showcased the strange series of events first, and the cutesy factor second. But, that's Hollywood. It's a money making enterprise, and this kind of stuff sells big. And they will be ringing the cha-ching bell hard this run.
The Vow. Better actual story than this movie.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
MOVIE REVIEW - Big Miracle
It's always good when Hollywood makes a movie that the whole family can see together without being a cartoon. I know, they prefer to call it "animation," but it's a cartoon. And Big Miracle is a movie all can see, and enjoy.
Big Miracle is based on a true story from 1988 in Barrow, Alaska. Three whales become trapped in the Arctic Ice, and their survival is dependant on humans somehow banding together from different paths to make it happen. Somehow they must create a way for these whales to reach open water so they can begin their annual journey to the California Baja to mate.
It's a story that brings together the media, Eskimos, Greenpeace, big oil, the U.S. Government, and even the old Soviet Union. All trying to put aside their differences, to make a difference. This movie is also sprinkled with old news footage from the three major networks as they covered the story as it happened. It is over all well told, but embellished at times. That embellishment doesn't make it better, but doesn't kill the good buzz it has going.
Big Miracle does a nice job of developing characters, and the drama between them. The really good decision here was putting the emphasis on the conflict of the characters, and special effects, and movie trickery second. This movie is well told, and steadily paced, with a big cast. Drew Barrymore, John Krasinsky, Ted Danson, Kristen Bell, Dermot Mulroney, and real nice supporting cast as well. Although Barrymore is the absolute weak link in the lead role. Her attempt at playing a huge Greenpeace activist is more whine than spine. But the story is compelling enough, you can look past her completely off target performance.
I always think that the challenge of a movie like this is to keep you glued, when you know the eventual outcome. Even if you are not familiar with the story from 24 years ago, the title tells you the outcome will be positive. And this holds your attention. Told in an emotive style that will make all feel good during the drive home. Plus, the decision to film this in Barrow was paramount. You can feel the cold. Well done.
Big Miracle does go a bit too far in some regards. It basically takes credit for the 1988 Presidential Election where George Bush (number one) wins. They also lead us to believe that Barrymore's character threatens President Reagan's legacy in the waning days of his second term. There are also a few more moments of silliness that can be forgiven, and we can get over this and move on. It's simply a movie, and it's for our enjoyment. There are some very interesting after stories to tell, and that's fun to see. Stay and watch the closing credits.
Big Miracle. Big for the family.
Big Miracle is based on a true story from 1988 in Barrow, Alaska. Three whales become trapped in the Arctic Ice, and their survival is dependant on humans somehow banding together from different paths to make it happen. Somehow they must create a way for these whales to reach open water so they can begin their annual journey to the California Baja to mate.
It's a story that brings together the media, Eskimos, Greenpeace, big oil, the U.S. Government, and even the old Soviet Union. All trying to put aside their differences, to make a difference. This movie is also sprinkled with old news footage from the three major networks as they covered the story as it happened. It is over all well told, but embellished at times. That embellishment doesn't make it better, but doesn't kill the good buzz it has going.
Big Miracle does a nice job of developing characters, and the drama between them. The really good decision here was putting the emphasis on the conflict of the characters, and special effects, and movie trickery second. This movie is well told, and steadily paced, with a big cast. Drew Barrymore, John Krasinsky, Ted Danson, Kristen Bell, Dermot Mulroney, and real nice supporting cast as well. Although Barrymore is the absolute weak link in the lead role. Her attempt at playing a huge Greenpeace activist is more whine than spine. But the story is compelling enough, you can look past her completely off target performance.
I always think that the challenge of a movie like this is to keep you glued, when you know the eventual outcome. Even if you are not familiar with the story from 24 years ago, the title tells you the outcome will be positive. And this holds your attention. Told in an emotive style that will make all feel good during the drive home. Plus, the decision to film this in Barrow was paramount. You can feel the cold. Well done.
Big Miracle does go a bit too far in some regards. It basically takes credit for the 1988 Presidential Election where George Bush (number one) wins. They also lead us to believe that Barrymore's character threatens President Reagan's legacy in the waning days of his second term. There are also a few more moments of silliness that can be forgiven, and we can get over this and move on. It's simply a movie, and it's for our enjoyment. There are some very interesting after stories to tell, and that's fun to see. Stay and watch the closing credits.
Big Miracle. Big for the family.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
MOVIE REVIEW - Chronicle
A couple of movie trends continue with the new Chronicle this week. The trend of movies made for a young audience, namely young guys. Also, the trend of hand held herky-jerky filming, point of reference like Paranormal Activity. And the trend of supposedly scary movies.
Chronicle is the fictional story of three high school friends who at a party somehow make contact with something extra-terrestrial. The three boys are then given the "gift" of telekinesis. The remarkable ability to move things with the power of the mind. At first, it's all fun and games, as the boys use the powers to pull pranks, and do amazing things that are considered cool by their friends.
The three can even develop the ability to fly. And as time goes on, the powers become more powerful and using them has greater ramifications. Then it all starts to go wrong. One of the boys decides to use his powers to cause harm, and go to the dark side if you will. He is the strongest one, and in the end can cause the most damage to himself, and the greater Seattle area where the boys live.
OK, you guessed it. This is movie laden with special effects, and loud noises. It also caters to a young audience that I'm sure think that having these powers would be "epic". And to be fair, it might be epic to have this gift. But, Chronicle gets fatiguing very quickly, even in its tidy 85 minutes, both in story and in technique. I'm not going to rip this in half, but to be honest I was glad when this was over.
This is a great example of a movie that overused this herky-jerky style. This would have been better if it would have been filmed in the more traditional style. The movie was limited by the hand held camera, and didn't make it better, just more trendy. The story was better than this. There is too much action for the hand held technique to be effective.
But maybe the biggest offense of this is, it's not scary. Not at all. There were a few jolting moments that really didn't work. And the climactic scenes at the movies end are too busy, and too blurry to feel fear. In short, many things it was supposed to be... it is not.
Chronicle. Average at best. Even for the core audience.
Chronicle is the fictional story of three high school friends who at a party somehow make contact with something extra-terrestrial. The three boys are then given the "gift" of telekinesis. The remarkable ability to move things with the power of the mind. At first, it's all fun and games, as the boys use the powers to pull pranks, and do amazing things that are considered cool by their friends.
The three can even develop the ability to fly. And as time goes on, the powers become more powerful and using them has greater ramifications. Then it all starts to go wrong. One of the boys decides to use his powers to cause harm, and go to the dark side if you will. He is the strongest one, and in the end can cause the most damage to himself, and the greater Seattle area where the boys live.
OK, you guessed it. This is movie laden with special effects, and loud noises. It also caters to a young audience that I'm sure think that having these powers would be "epic". And to be fair, it might be epic to have this gift. But, Chronicle gets fatiguing very quickly, even in its tidy 85 minutes, both in story and in technique. I'm not going to rip this in half, but to be honest I was glad when this was over.
This is a great example of a movie that overused this herky-jerky style. This would have been better if it would have been filmed in the more traditional style. The movie was limited by the hand held camera, and didn't make it better, just more trendy. The story was better than this. There is too much action for the hand held technique to be effective.
But maybe the biggest offense of this is, it's not scary. Not at all. There were a few jolting moments that really didn't work. And the climactic scenes at the movies end are too busy, and too blurry to feel fear. In short, many things it was supposed to be... it is not.
Chronicle. Average at best. Even for the core audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
