Clearly, Hollywood is now officially out of new ideas. Here comes Texas Chainsaw 3-D.
The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre debuted in the theaters in October 1974. At the time, it was a mortifying movie where this nut from deep in Texas, chainsaws a group of college aged kids on his property. Including one in a wheelchair. If you see it on video today, you have to go back in your mind to 1974 and realize this really had not been shown in movies until then. It is tame by today's standards. But it ushered in a new era, for good or worse in movie making. There has always been a bit of urban legend that it was based on some form of truth. But it is not true, that was a marketing ploy for the original movie.
There have been a ton of knock-offs since then, and now we have Texas Chainsaw 3-D. This movie picks up exactly where the 1974 movie leaves off. I mean in the next hour in the story. This is after a 5 minute recap of the original, with the original footage, and a montage of that actual story. Then it flashes forward to modern day, and our story moves on. And there lies the beginning of the trouble. The characters with connections to the original story are bout 22 years old. And the story was 39 years ago. OK, we'll give them a pass on that. Then it gets really stupid.
This group of young adults, led by two really hot women (a shocker) again end up on this families ranch in Texas, and guess what? The same guy, thought dead from 1974, starts to carve up this group of young people. Plus, he pulls out a hammer, and an hatchet and other implements to add a bit of flair I guess. Only this time it's not 1974, it's 2012, and it's a lot more gruesome. And, it's in 3-D. And there lies another problem, the 3-D here is really not very good. It rarely really comes into play. Oh, there's a few times the blades seem near you, but it adds nothing. For most of this movie, the 3-D is not even a factor. In fast, it makes this movie look a bit more silly then it is.
So let's add this up so far. Silly remake with huge story holes, and a touted 3-D that is really a dud. And a price per ticket that is about 30 percent more than regular movies. In the end there was no real reason to make yet another Texas Chainsaw movie. But here we are.
Texas Chainsaw 3-D. Silly.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Friday, January 4, 2013
MOVIE REVIEW - The Promised Land
Occasionally a movie comes out with tons of TV hype, and supposed critical acclaim that almost seems forced. And that is the new Matt Damon movie, The Promised Land.
It's not often we get a good old fashioned anti-fracking movie for our entertainment but that is exactly what this is. It's anti-fracking, and overall anti-big business and energy. I know this can be an emotional issue for many, as passions potentially fire high on each side. Too bad they made such a boring movie about such an impassioned issue.
Damon stars as Steve, who works for a fictional natural gas energy company. His job along with Sue, (Francis MacDormand) is to go to small, dying farm towns and sell gas drilling leases to those who need the money. There they meet some friendly greetings, and some resistance. Some of the push-back is from the educated locals, and of course a supposed small environmental group gets involved to try to discourage people from signing these leases. Sound exciting? Well, it's about as exciting as it sounds.
To it's credit. TPL does not get overly preachy about statistics on fracking, and how bad it can be in certain cases for the land. It does not go deeply into how much money this company will make, and how bad it can be potentially in some cases for those who do sign. It also does not make statistical cases for the other side either about how safe it is, and the like. And although it does in the end demonize big energy, it doesn't go as far as they could have.
Here's the trouble. This is the most boring movie of the year. Do not get sucked in to the TV ads about how The Oscars should take notice. What Oscar should take is No-Doze. This is a total snoozer. Nothing about this movie really works. The story is short on any real substance. The musical soundtrack sound like an unending sleepy Enja ballad, and the performances are completely uninspired.
This stars not only Damon,. but John Krasinsky and a completely forgettable supporting cast. I am a fan of much of Damon's work. He wrote this along with Krasinsky, and they are billing this as the same people who brought you Good Will Hunting. Be advised. This is NO Good Will Hunting. Regardless on where you fall on the whole fracking issue, this whole thing is just tired. There's a reason this has been released now and not over the holidays in wide release. They've got a dog on their hands, and they know it. It's borderline brutal.
The Promised Land. The Nyquil of movies. You may be asleep before your head hits the back of your theater chair.
It's not often we get a good old fashioned anti-fracking movie for our entertainment but that is exactly what this is. It's anti-fracking, and overall anti-big business and energy. I know this can be an emotional issue for many, as passions potentially fire high on each side. Too bad they made such a boring movie about such an impassioned issue.
Damon stars as Steve, who works for a fictional natural gas energy company. His job along with Sue, (Francis MacDormand) is to go to small, dying farm towns and sell gas drilling leases to those who need the money. There they meet some friendly greetings, and some resistance. Some of the push-back is from the educated locals, and of course a supposed small environmental group gets involved to try to discourage people from signing these leases. Sound exciting? Well, it's about as exciting as it sounds.
To it's credit. TPL does not get overly preachy about statistics on fracking, and how bad it can be in certain cases for the land. It does not go deeply into how much money this company will make, and how bad it can be potentially in some cases for those who do sign. It also does not make statistical cases for the other side either about how safe it is, and the like. And although it does in the end demonize big energy, it doesn't go as far as they could have.
Here's the trouble. This is the most boring movie of the year. Do not get sucked in to the TV ads about how The Oscars should take notice. What Oscar should take is No-Doze. This is a total snoozer. Nothing about this movie really works. The story is short on any real substance. The musical soundtrack sound like an unending sleepy Enja ballad, and the performances are completely uninspired.
This stars not only Damon,. but John Krasinsky and a completely forgettable supporting cast. I am a fan of much of Damon's work. He wrote this along with Krasinsky, and they are billing this as the same people who brought you Good Will Hunting. Be advised. This is NO Good Will Hunting. Regardless on where you fall on the whole fracking issue, this whole thing is just tired. There's a reason this has been released now and not over the holidays in wide release. They've got a dog on their hands, and they know it. It's borderline brutal.
The Promised Land. The Nyquil of movies. You may be asleep before your head hits the back of your theater chair.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
MOVIE REVIEW - Les Miserables
After 25 years of huge stage play success, Les Miserables has come to the big screen in this 2 hour and 40 minute 100 percent musical for 2012.
This of course has been decorated in about every fashion possible as a play, but now it's the movies turn. So far, this has been a huge success financially, and has picked up numerous award show nominations. But I think it's time to slow down and catch our breath a bit, and recognize this is the kind of movie that Hollywood loves to pat itself on the back over. It's art, becoming a new kind of art. And they just can't help but honor themselves for this.
First off, if you really want to see Les Mis, go see it on the stage. It is are more powerful and works far better in about every regard. I seldom think that it's a great idea to adapt these kind of monster shows into movies. In an attempt to gain much, much more is lost. It is simply more moving to see live players on stage sing this powerful music, than a list of Hollywood A and B-listers. The story is told better in that forum.
This stars Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, and Amanda Seyfried. Simply put, this is a complicated, and heavy story told over about a 20 year period during the French Revolution in the early 1500's, dealing with class warfare and those wanting freedom and equality. It's told exclusively with singing dialogue. But this version is getting far more attention for the groundbreaking way the movie was constructed. The actors (all of them) did their own singing, and did it live as the movie was being filmed, virtually unheard of in Hollywood. Usually all of the singing is done months in advance and later dubbed in.
It is a very revolutionary way to do it, and it has been met with good industry chatter. The singing is not always polished, and that's OK. It adds to the realism of the whole thing, and overall is effective. The sets are fantastic and the costuming is amazing. This film is edited very skillfully, and the beauty of the orchestral arrangements at times are breathtaking. This film will win a bunch awards somewhere, and these are the areas that are worthy. To the public, the "who cares" categories.
But the trouble with Le Mis is this. No matter what kind of bells and whistles they toss at you, you still see Russell Crowe, and Hugh Jackman singing show tunes..be it good ones. They do a ton of singing, and it's not their fault they are not polished vocalists. Their star power, especially Crowe's gets in the way. You spend as much time wondering how they are getting through the songs, as opposed to seeing them totally in character. There is an awful lot of these two singing in this movie and they are not hacks by any means. But seasoned stage actors can bring more power and emotion to these large roles and in the end make them far more believable.
Hathaway is very good and steals the show with her amazing performance of I Dreamed A Dream. Trouble is, that climax is about at the 30 minute mark. Seyfreid, who is the best vocalist here, along with Samantha Barks are both stunningly good, sadly in roles that are crucial just smaller. Should be mentioned too that there have been new songs added to this rendition in addition to the original score.
Also keep in mind this will feel very long at times. No intermission here, which could actually pick up the pace of your experience. This for many, will get fatiguing with this format and length. Les Mis, is a far, and I mean far better show on stage than can be caught in the movies. This is a different experience to be sure, but this is an not mainstream.
Les Miserables. Sometimes a fantastic stage play should stay exactly that. This for me, in the grand total of all works is not very effective. And now sadly, and possibly the biggest shame of all, this will be the only way the majority of the public will every know this show.
This of course has been decorated in about every fashion possible as a play, but now it's the movies turn. So far, this has been a huge success financially, and has picked up numerous award show nominations. But I think it's time to slow down and catch our breath a bit, and recognize this is the kind of movie that Hollywood loves to pat itself on the back over. It's art, becoming a new kind of art. And they just can't help but honor themselves for this.
First off, if you really want to see Les Mis, go see it on the stage. It is are more powerful and works far better in about every regard. I seldom think that it's a great idea to adapt these kind of monster shows into movies. In an attempt to gain much, much more is lost. It is simply more moving to see live players on stage sing this powerful music, than a list of Hollywood A and B-listers. The story is told better in that forum.
This stars Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, and Amanda Seyfried. Simply put, this is a complicated, and heavy story told over about a 20 year period during the French Revolution in the early 1500's, dealing with class warfare and those wanting freedom and equality. It's told exclusively with singing dialogue. But this version is getting far more attention for the groundbreaking way the movie was constructed. The actors (all of them) did their own singing, and did it live as the movie was being filmed, virtually unheard of in Hollywood. Usually all of the singing is done months in advance and later dubbed in.
It is a very revolutionary way to do it, and it has been met with good industry chatter. The singing is not always polished, and that's OK. It adds to the realism of the whole thing, and overall is effective. The sets are fantastic and the costuming is amazing. This film is edited very skillfully, and the beauty of the orchestral arrangements at times are breathtaking. This film will win a bunch awards somewhere, and these are the areas that are worthy. To the public, the "who cares" categories.
But the trouble with Le Mis is this. No matter what kind of bells and whistles they toss at you, you still see Russell Crowe, and Hugh Jackman singing show tunes..be it good ones. They do a ton of singing, and it's not their fault they are not polished vocalists. Their star power, especially Crowe's gets in the way. You spend as much time wondering how they are getting through the songs, as opposed to seeing them totally in character. There is an awful lot of these two singing in this movie and they are not hacks by any means. But seasoned stage actors can bring more power and emotion to these large roles and in the end make them far more believable.
Hathaway is very good and steals the show with her amazing performance of I Dreamed A Dream. Trouble is, that climax is about at the 30 minute mark. Seyfreid, who is the best vocalist here, along with Samantha Barks are both stunningly good, sadly in roles that are crucial just smaller. Should be mentioned too that there have been new songs added to this rendition in addition to the original score.
Also keep in mind this will feel very long at times. No intermission here, which could actually pick up the pace of your experience. This for many, will get fatiguing with this format and length. Les Mis, is a far, and I mean far better show on stage than can be caught in the movies. This is a different experience to be sure, but this is an not mainstream.
Les Miserables. Sometimes a fantastic stage play should stay exactly that. This for me, in the grand total of all works is not very effective. And now sadly, and possibly the biggest shame of all, this will be the only way the majority of the public will every know this show.
Friday, December 28, 2012
MOVIE REVIEW - Django Unchained
Quentin Tarantino is back with his latest big budget flock, Django Unchained.
This has a huge cast, with Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel L. Jackson, and a nice array of fun cameos, and a strong supporting cast. With this being a major Tarantino release, you can be assured this is way adult, highly violent, and to many will be very offensive. So the word is, if you are offended by harsh language, and almost three hours of unrefined racial slurs that were of the era, this is not your movie and see something else.
This story is shot in old the Spaghetti Western style of the Clint Eastwood era. It is set in the mid 1800's at the height of slavery in the deep south. Basically, this is the story of a character named Django (Foxx), who is a slave purchased by a German-born, turned American bounty hunter named Dr. King Schultz (Waltz). He needs Django to locate some of the criminals he is looking for because of the plantations that Django has worked on. What Schultz finds out, is that Django is a remarkable man, who becomes the "fastest gun in the south."
The two pair up and spend a year or so going throughout Texas collecting wanted criminals for the money. Although the Dr., is not very fond of the "alive" part of dead or alive in bounty hunting. Their agreement is, is Django helps Schultz find many of this bounties, and he will help Django rescue Django's wife who is still a slave at a plantation run by Calvin Candie (DiCaprio) and his assistant Stephen, (Jackson.) This being a Tarantino flick, this is far more complicated than simply this, but it is far too deep to be explained in detail here. But those are the basics. As most of his flicks, there are many surprises and turns.
First off, this is a very intense movie, that has an almost genius hint of comedy and irony mixed in. Tarantino is a master of this. This also has an eclectic musical soundtrack that is very well used. There is the typical over the top violence that is tough to watch sometimes, with tons of gun play, and graphic numerous bloody scenes that are typical Tarantino fashion. Many could find this offensive with the dialogue and stereotypes of the era. So this is clearly not for everyone. This pulls no punches. At times this can make you wince.
But there is a ton to like in this movie. This movie makes you feel many emotions and that is a Tarantino signature. Whether you like what you're feeling or not is for you to decide, but you can't deny the depth of the work and writing. This also has the "slow burn" approach to many scenes as he lets you simmer a while as you wait for the inevitable. Skilled movie making to be sure. Tarantino movie are seldom short because of his style, but he keeps you locked in. This is two hours and forty minutes.
Waltz is simply sensational as the ruthless, cunning, yet very gentlemanly Schultz, who goes through all emotions humans can on his strange journey. He is an Oscar winner from another Tarantino movie Inglorious Basterds, and I think he wins another here. Foxx is terrific again as the torn Django, and looks great as a southern gunfighter. They lead the entire cast all who are really great. Interesting, both Waltz and Foxx have Oscars, Dicaprio is a three-time Oscar nominee, and so is Jackson - a nominee with one. So the pedigree here is strong.
Django Unchained. Although a bit controversial, and not everyone's cup of tea, this is simply one of the best movies of the year.
This has a huge cast, with Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel L. Jackson, and a nice array of fun cameos, and a strong supporting cast. With this being a major Tarantino release, you can be assured this is way adult, highly violent, and to many will be very offensive. So the word is, if you are offended by harsh language, and almost three hours of unrefined racial slurs that were of the era, this is not your movie and see something else.
This story is shot in old the Spaghetti Western style of the Clint Eastwood era. It is set in the mid 1800's at the height of slavery in the deep south. Basically, this is the story of a character named Django (Foxx), who is a slave purchased by a German-born, turned American bounty hunter named Dr. King Schultz (Waltz). He needs Django to locate some of the criminals he is looking for because of the plantations that Django has worked on. What Schultz finds out, is that Django is a remarkable man, who becomes the "fastest gun in the south."
The two pair up and spend a year or so going throughout Texas collecting wanted criminals for the money. Although the Dr., is not very fond of the "alive" part of dead or alive in bounty hunting. Their agreement is, is Django helps Schultz find many of this bounties, and he will help Django rescue Django's wife who is still a slave at a plantation run by Calvin Candie (DiCaprio) and his assistant Stephen, (Jackson.) This being a Tarantino flick, this is far more complicated than simply this, but it is far too deep to be explained in detail here. But those are the basics. As most of his flicks, there are many surprises and turns.
First off, this is a very intense movie, that has an almost genius hint of comedy and irony mixed in. Tarantino is a master of this. This also has an eclectic musical soundtrack that is very well used. There is the typical over the top violence that is tough to watch sometimes, with tons of gun play, and graphic numerous bloody scenes that are typical Tarantino fashion. Many could find this offensive with the dialogue and stereotypes of the era. So this is clearly not for everyone. This pulls no punches. At times this can make you wince.
But there is a ton to like in this movie. This movie makes you feel many emotions and that is a Tarantino signature. Whether you like what you're feeling or not is for you to decide, but you can't deny the depth of the work and writing. This also has the "slow burn" approach to many scenes as he lets you simmer a while as you wait for the inevitable. Skilled movie making to be sure. Tarantino movie are seldom short because of his style, but he keeps you locked in. This is two hours and forty minutes.
Waltz is simply sensational as the ruthless, cunning, yet very gentlemanly Schultz, who goes through all emotions humans can on his strange journey. He is an Oscar winner from another Tarantino movie Inglorious Basterds, and I think he wins another here. Foxx is terrific again as the torn Django, and looks great as a southern gunfighter. They lead the entire cast all who are really great. Interesting, both Waltz and Foxx have Oscars, Dicaprio is a three-time Oscar nominee, and so is Jackson - a nominee with one. So the pedigree here is strong.
Django Unchained. Although a bit controversial, and not everyone's cup of tea, this is simply one of the best movies of the year.
MOVIE REVIEWS - Parental Guidance
Well the Christmas comedies keep on coming out, and this time it's Parental Guidance with Billy Crystal, and Bette Midler.
PG is an old school versus new school comedy where the older generation meets Gen X. With all of the other comedies this holiday tanking with both critics, and movie goers, Hollywood needs a comedic hit. Well this may not be a huge box office smash, or the funniest movie in years, PG has its moments. But don't believe the one quote I heard, that this is one of the best movies of the year. Immensely overstated.
Crystal stars as Artie. He is married to Diane (Midler). He is a sportscaster for a minor league baseball team in Fresno. He gets fired from his long time job, and has to deal with that heartbreak at 59 years old. Diane is a retired TV weather girl, and they both are looking for the next big challenge in their lives. Well, bring in the 3 grand kids they have in Atlanta that are the children of their only daughter, Alice (Marissa Tomei). Artie and Diane travel across country to baby sit for a week for their daughter and you can see quickly this is not going to go well.
The children Harper, Turner, and Barker are being raised by Gen-Xers that are really out there. Of course this is all very much parody of the modern parent with just as much being completely over the top. But as in all good comedy, a certain amount of this is based on truth, and that makes it funny. Artie and Diane can not understand any of the weirdness. From the way the kids are talked to, fed, and the games they play and lives they lead. Artie is old school, and this world that his grand kids live in is new school. And the battle is on. Can they develop a good relationship with the three kids, and start over again?
This is an interesting movie. Some of this is extremely well done. There are real heartfelt moments, and a bit of this will bring a small tear to the eyes. Some of this is really targeted at the heart, and speaks equally well to both generations. That's why it's really hard to believe that some of this is so bad, and sophomoric. And that's a shame. There's a bunch of sellout moments in this picture that could have been reworked to make this really solid.
Crystal is who he is. Over the years, he kind of does one kind of East Coast shtick in most of his movies. Midler is fun to watch, and is pretty funny at times. I really liked the character they wrote for her, and she ran well with it. They are clearly the stars of this movie and at times show nice chemistry, when the writing allows it.
But there's just too much temptation to show grown men getting hit in the groin, singing toilet songs, and of course people peeing. Oh, and don't forget the numerous scenes where these kids are shown in a really horrible light. But the movie does bring the blame back from them, to the overprotective parents. But the ratio of really good, funny, and nice moments is about square with the tasteless ones. That equates to a slightly tolerable movie
Parental Guidance. 50/50.
PG is an old school versus new school comedy where the older generation meets Gen X. With all of the other comedies this holiday tanking with both critics, and movie goers, Hollywood needs a comedic hit. Well this may not be a huge box office smash, or the funniest movie in years, PG has its moments. But don't believe the one quote I heard, that this is one of the best movies of the year. Immensely overstated.
Crystal stars as Artie. He is married to Diane (Midler). He is a sportscaster for a minor league baseball team in Fresno. He gets fired from his long time job, and has to deal with that heartbreak at 59 years old. Diane is a retired TV weather girl, and they both are looking for the next big challenge in their lives. Well, bring in the 3 grand kids they have in Atlanta that are the children of their only daughter, Alice (Marissa Tomei). Artie and Diane travel across country to baby sit for a week for their daughter and you can see quickly this is not going to go well.
The children Harper, Turner, and Barker are being raised by Gen-Xers that are really out there. Of course this is all very much parody of the modern parent with just as much being completely over the top. But as in all good comedy, a certain amount of this is based on truth, and that makes it funny. Artie and Diane can not understand any of the weirdness. From the way the kids are talked to, fed, and the games they play and lives they lead. Artie is old school, and this world that his grand kids live in is new school. And the battle is on. Can they develop a good relationship with the three kids, and start over again?
This is an interesting movie. Some of this is extremely well done. There are real heartfelt moments, and a bit of this will bring a small tear to the eyes. Some of this is really targeted at the heart, and speaks equally well to both generations. That's why it's really hard to believe that some of this is so bad, and sophomoric. And that's a shame. There's a bunch of sellout moments in this picture that could have been reworked to make this really solid.
Crystal is who he is. Over the years, he kind of does one kind of East Coast shtick in most of his movies. Midler is fun to watch, and is pretty funny at times. I really liked the character they wrote for her, and she ran well with it. They are clearly the stars of this movie and at times show nice chemistry, when the writing allows it.
But there's just too much temptation to show grown men getting hit in the groin, singing toilet songs, and of course people peeing. Oh, and don't forget the numerous scenes where these kids are shown in a really horrible light. But the movie does bring the blame back from them, to the overprotective parents. But the ratio of really good, funny, and nice moments is about square with the tasteless ones. That equates to a slightly tolerable movie
Parental Guidance. 50/50.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
MOVIE REVIEW - This Is 40
Movie maker Judd Apatow has been making edgy comedies for a long time now with great success. This Is 40 is his latest project, a sort of sequel to his Knocked Up years ago.
This brings back some of the characters from Knocked Up, and introduces us to some new ones too. This is a look at the challenges and facts to a degree, about turning 40 in today's world. Some of this is laugh out loud funny. But I emphasize some. But above all, what this really is, is 2 hours and 15 minutes of really not funny. Also tasteless, or nothing resembling original. This is supposed to be Apatow's most heartfelt comedy yet. There is not one moment here that is anywhere near engaging or heartfelt. Just distant, self-indulgent, and "I'm making the movie, so I'll do what I want."
Paul Rudd is Pete, and Leslie Mann is Debbie. They are both having birthdays in the same week and turning 40. She is panicked by it, and he is sort of disconnected. They have two teen girls, and have their hands full with that. Pete owns a struggling record company, and Debbie owns a small clothing store. They have enormous financial problems, they lie to each other, and live sort of separate lives - married. Their kids are obnoxious, so are their friends. Plus their extended families are amazingly dysfunctional.
To be fair, a lot of this really speaks to the target audience. Much of this is a mirror image of what young couples have gone through and are going through. And there are a few moments that are poignant and funny. But far too few. This is simply not very funny. I was in a full theater today, and many of the moments designed for big laughs, got none.
Trouble here is this. It's the same formula that Apatow has been using for years. Lot's of terrible language, an obsession with body parts and sounds, drug use, and a 7th grade level of humor all the way around. Only this time we get to see such lovely things as a mammogram, a colonoscopy, a prostate exam, and a visit to the gynecologist. That's on top watching Pete sit on the john for minutes on end while he has a fight with Debbie, not once but twice. The formula is old, tired and been done. He invented a formula that for himself and now he has worn out his own welcome. Although this time he does toss in, a parent bullying and threatening a buck-tooth little kid, and a different mother ripping into a school principal about her husband who recently died.
I do like Rudd. Only if he could decide if he's really an original funny man, or if he's just another guy on screen. I wish he would choose more wisely. There are times though he really makes me laugh. Leslie Mann (Apatow's real-life wife) is a pretty funny lady. She always seems to have that glazed, dazed look on her face, and is sort of a not plugged in self that is charming at times, and completely original and hers alone. The supporting cast is big with names, Jason Segel, John Lithgow, Megan Fox, Melissa McCarthy, Albert Brooks and others. All small roles, all over casted, and most are unnecessary.
This goes in way too many directions, with a total loss of focus for the most part. Almost all the characters you don't really like, or worse care about. Biggest trouble here? This is way too long. How no one involved with this doesn't know that is beyond me. This is 2 hours and 15 minutes. More than likely movie makers ego run amok.
This Is 40. This is mostly 40 minutes too long, and nearly all of it is just a mess.
This brings back some of the characters from Knocked Up, and introduces us to some new ones too. This is a look at the challenges and facts to a degree, about turning 40 in today's world. Some of this is laugh out loud funny. But I emphasize some. But above all, what this really is, is 2 hours and 15 minutes of really not funny. Also tasteless, or nothing resembling original. This is supposed to be Apatow's most heartfelt comedy yet. There is not one moment here that is anywhere near engaging or heartfelt. Just distant, self-indulgent, and "I'm making the movie, so I'll do what I want."
Paul Rudd is Pete, and Leslie Mann is Debbie. They are both having birthdays in the same week and turning 40. She is panicked by it, and he is sort of disconnected. They have two teen girls, and have their hands full with that. Pete owns a struggling record company, and Debbie owns a small clothing store. They have enormous financial problems, they lie to each other, and live sort of separate lives - married. Their kids are obnoxious, so are their friends. Plus their extended families are amazingly dysfunctional.
To be fair, a lot of this really speaks to the target audience. Much of this is a mirror image of what young couples have gone through and are going through. And there are a few moments that are poignant and funny. But far too few. This is simply not very funny. I was in a full theater today, and many of the moments designed for big laughs, got none.
Trouble here is this. It's the same formula that Apatow has been using for years. Lot's of terrible language, an obsession with body parts and sounds, drug use, and a 7th grade level of humor all the way around. Only this time we get to see such lovely things as a mammogram, a colonoscopy, a prostate exam, and a visit to the gynecologist. That's on top watching Pete sit on the john for minutes on end while he has a fight with Debbie, not once but twice. The formula is old, tired and been done. He invented a formula that for himself and now he has worn out his own welcome. Although this time he does toss in, a parent bullying and threatening a buck-tooth little kid, and a different mother ripping into a school principal about her husband who recently died.
I do like Rudd. Only if he could decide if he's really an original funny man, or if he's just another guy on screen. I wish he would choose more wisely. There are times though he really makes me laugh. Leslie Mann (Apatow's real-life wife) is a pretty funny lady. She always seems to have that glazed, dazed look on her face, and is sort of a not plugged in self that is charming at times, and completely original and hers alone. The supporting cast is big with names, Jason Segel, John Lithgow, Megan Fox, Melissa McCarthy, Albert Brooks and others. All small roles, all over casted, and most are unnecessary.
This goes in way too many directions, with a total loss of focus for the most part. Almost all the characters you don't really like, or worse care about. Biggest trouble here? This is way too long. How no one involved with this doesn't know that is beyond me. This is 2 hours and 15 minutes. More than likely movie makers ego run amok.
This Is 40. This is mostly 40 minutes too long, and nearly all of it is just a mess.
Friday, December 21, 2012
MOVIE REVIEW - Jack Reacher
One of the more eyebrow raising movies of the Christmas season is out this week, as Tom Cruise stars in Jack Reacher.
Jack Reacher is a series of books that many have read, and now have come to the big screen. There has been a ton of "are you kidding me's", with the casting of Cruise as the lead character. Purists will be quick to point out that Reacher in the books, is a hulking 6'4" ex-military cop. Cruise of course is about a foot shorter than that. But when you produce this movie as Cruise did here, you can cast yourself. And he did. That's been said.
Reacher is a very interesting character in his development. Reacher is ex-army. He has been decorated with about every single award you can think of. He did about everything in the army that one could, include being a military cop. Now, Reacher is a ghost of a man, who has left the army, and dropped off the radar socially in about every way possible. Reacher does not care about the law, or pretty much anything else, except what is right.
He is an interesting mix vigilante, genius detective, but is still military tough. He is James Bond-ish of sorts as he is good at about everything, but does not wear a tux while doing it. In this movie, he whisks in from out of nowhere, to help a beautiful young attorney Helen (Rosamund Pike) solve a crime. Seems an army veteran sniper shot a bunch of people in broad daylight in Pittsburgh, and Reacher starts to dig deep to see what really happened and who really did it. And why. The police investigation has been far too tidy, and easy. Reacher hears of the story, and moves in to find out the real truth.
This movie is proof positive that Hollywood can make a very good action flick, that deals with some tough subject matter and not make it go over the top. There is violence here, but it's tempered and all of it is central to the story. There is humor, and there is some real nice irony, and a few really solid plot twists that make this entertaining. Toss in a dynamite chase scene and Jack Reacher is pretty darn good. This movie also turns into sort of a "damsel in distress" movie, that turns Reacher into a hero, and that's hard not to like. But you've got to be able to get past Cruise in this role. If you can't, you may be dismissing this out-of-hand, and not going anyway.
Despite how you may feel about Cruise in this kind of role, where he beats up 5 guys at at time in one scene, 3 in another, and is not the Reacher that the fans know, he does hold his own. I am not a huge Cruise fan, but I will give him props when it's deserved. After a couple of decades of overacting and being a parody of himself on and off the set, Cruise has become far more tolerable on screen lately.
But as big of a role as this is for him, the real story here is Rosamund Pike. She is terrific as the buxom beauty, Helen who is an aggressive attorney and at times owns the screen. She is so very different than many other leading women, she was brilliantly cast. They did not need a household name as Helen, but someone of this ilk. And she is great. She is a star on the rise with countless projects in the works well into 2014. She could be the next big deal. Her style is very different than most, she really cuts through. I first saw here in the ill-conceived, Wrath Of the Titans, but everyone's got to get noticed. Better things are head for her.
Jack Reacher. Overall, this is a holiday hit. And there will be more of them.
Jack Reacher is a series of books that many have read, and now have come to the big screen. There has been a ton of "are you kidding me's", with the casting of Cruise as the lead character. Purists will be quick to point out that Reacher in the books, is a hulking 6'4" ex-military cop. Cruise of course is about a foot shorter than that. But when you produce this movie as Cruise did here, you can cast yourself. And he did. That's been said.
Reacher is a very interesting character in his development. Reacher is ex-army. He has been decorated with about every single award you can think of. He did about everything in the army that one could, include being a military cop. Now, Reacher is a ghost of a man, who has left the army, and dropped off the radar socially in about every way possible. Reacher does not care about the law, or pretty much anything else, except what is right.
He is an interesting mix vigilante, genius detective, but is still military tough. He is James Bond-ish of sorts as he is good at about everything, but does not wear a tux while doing it. In this movie, he whisks in from out of nowhere, to help a beautiful young attorney Helen (Rosamund Pike) solve a crime. Seems an army veteran sniper shot a bunch of people in broad daylight in Pittsburgh, and Reacher starts to dig deep to see what really happened and who really did it. And why. The police investigation has been far too tidy, and easy. Reacher hears of the story, and moves in to find out the real truth.
This movie is proof positive that Hollywood can make a very good action flick, that deals with some tough subject matter and not make it go over the top. There is violence here, but it's tempered and all of it is central to the story. There is humor, and there is some real nice irony, and a few really solid plot twists that make this entertaining. Toss in a dynamite chase scene and Jack Reacher is pretty darn good. This movie also turns into sort of a "damsel in distress" movie, that turns Reacher into a hero, and that's hard not to like. But you've got to be able to get past Cruise in this role. If you can't, you may be dismissing this out-of-hand, and not going anyway.
Despite how you may feel about Cruise in this kind of role, where he beats up 5 guys at at time in one scene, 3 in another, and is not the Reacher that the fans know, he does hold his own. I am not a huge Cruise fan, but I will give him props when it's deserved. After a couple of decades of overacting and being a parody of himself on and off the set, Cruise has become far more tolerable on screen lately.
But as big of a role as this is for him, the real story here is Rosamund Pike. She is terrific as the buxom beauty, Helen who is an aggressive attorney and at times owns the screen. She is so very different than many other leading women, she was brilliantly cast. They did not need a household name as Helen, but someone of this ilk. And she is great. She is a star on the rise with countless projects in the works well into 2014. She could be the next big deal. Her style is very different than most, she really cuts through. I first saw here in the ill-conceived, Wrath Of the Titans, but everyone's got to get noticed. Better things are head for her.
Jack Reacher. Overall, this is a holiday hit. And there will be more of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
