TAKE TWO: Captain America: The First Avenger

Captain America: The First Avenger

Rated: PG-13

Starring: Chris Evans, Tommy Lee Jones, Hayley Atwell, Hugo Weaving

Director: Joe Johnston

Chris’ Take: The big concern for me going into this film was that it would merely be a stepping stone to The Avengers. Marvel Studios knew that it had a large fanbase that would show up to this film and they probably knew that regardless of its quality they would still make bank off the aforementioned super-project that is going to be released next year. While there was a fair amount of effort to tie in this film to the other Marvel projects, Captain America  was at least decent enough entertainment to leave the viewers salivating for more.

Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is a scrawny and asthmatic young man who is desperate to join the U.S. Army and defend freedom and justice, but his conditions leave him marked as 4F despite several attempts to falsify his records. His determination attracts the attention of a scientist (Stanley Tucci) in an experimental branch of the U.S. Government, who is developing a serum to build super soldiers. Rogers jumps at the chance and is transformed into Captain America. His excitement is short-lived as he is instead used as a mascot for war bonds instead of fighting in the actual war. His powers are soon called upon when the looming threat of an underground group of Nazis, lead by the mysterious Red Skull (Hugo Weaving), harness the power of the gods and pose a greater threat than Hitler himself.

When trying to harness the power of the gods, you might want to up your SPF.

The Captain America  comics were a very blatant attempt at propaganda during war time. Looking back the comics seem hokey, and the outfit is certainly ludicrous by today’s standards. I was expecting them to almost completely update it and try to provide a grittier film. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of cheesiness, it fit well within the context of the film and brought a certain nostalgia for the old comics, while simultaneously updating it for this generation.

Chris Evans is a charismatic guy and is a perfect fit for Rogers. The script really developed his character and made him relatable and sympathetic before he even became Captain America. I think what bothered me about Marvel’s last endeavour, Thor, was that it was hard to relate to someone that was a god and had always been a god. Rogers’ earnestness and appreciation of his powers makes the audience want to root for him, and Evans never made his ambition seem anything less than genuine.

A lot of the other superhero films focus heavily on how much the main character kicks ass, and how the fate of the world rests completely on their shoulders. In the final battle, Captain America was certainly the only one that could defeat Red Skull personally, but  the film as a whole made it clear that he heavily relied on friends and his “team” to get him where he needed to be. I liked that aspect of the film, and in some ways it makes him seem that much more likeable as a character. It made him seem less egocentric than a lot of other superheroes. A lot of other Marvel films have some of those elements, but the characters only rely on friends when they actually need it, or it is almost too late for them to succeed on their own. Captain America plans on needing them, and works in conjunction with them, rather than seeming cocky by running in guns blazing on his own.

No, no....you're the man!

The action in the film was exciting, and while it was over-the-top at times, it felt more subdued than a lot of other recent action films. There was a scene involving a jailbreak that was particularly thrilling. Joe Johnston had shown glimpses of his ability to direct an action film, but he certainly was allowed a bigger budget for this one and you could tell he was just having fun with it.

While the film could’ve been better, and did feel a little rushed at the end, it certainly didn’t let me down. All the other heroes (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor), I’ve seen about as much of their course as I think I care to see outside of The Avengers. Captain America is the one character that I hope gets his own sequel once the major assembly is done. With as much money as that movie is probably going to make, I’m sure Marvel Studios will have some left over “change” to make it if they so desire. If they do, I’ll be there.

OVERALL: B+

Pac’s Take:  I was expecting to see a different film than the one Captain America: The First Avenger turned out to be.  Knowing the film was going to be set during World War II and given the footage I saw from trailers, I was expecting more of a gritty war movie than I was a comic book movie.  While at first I was disappointed by this curve ball and seeing this film play out in a completely different tone than what I anticipated, it quickly grew on me and I started to enjoy the ride.  The hokiness of some of the film certainly fit in with the agenda of the Captain America comics (the early ones at least), as well as the character’s purpose in the beginning of the film.  However, as Hydra emerged as a threat and Captain America’s role became more pivotal to the success of the war, the film did a great job of changing tone (which aided in keeping the pace) and keeping me invested in the story.

There were times where I noticed Chris Evan’s acting and delivery waiver, but I really have to hand it to him, Joe Johnston, and the screenwriters (Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely) for fully developing the Steve Rogers character and his relationships.  Chris touched on this, but the humanization of Steve Rogers really made the Captain America character more likeable.  Every sacrifice and effort Steve Rogers made for his friends and his country felt genuine because of this development and really made the film where it could have easily been broken.  The chemistry was most evident between Rogers and Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci), and it was a joy to watch these two on-screen together. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, we will now commence stealing this scene.

 The fight scenes in this movie were captivating, and while we ultimately knew the fate of Captain America, his close relationships with the supporting cast created a great amount of suspense whenever they were in danger.  There was one particular death that I really didn’t see coming, ultimately making it one of the best scenes of the movie.  As for the fate of Rogers, though we all know he ends up frozen (this is no spoiler due to The Avengers and the foreshadowing in the first 5 minutes of the film) his self-sacrifice carried an emotional weight with the audience and felt like more than a stepping stone to The Avengers.  With as much time as they invested in the emotional humanization of Steve Rogers, I really hope they spend some time at the beginning of The Avengers focusing on Rogers’s adjustment to the 21st century and coming to grips with the mortality of now aged or deceased friends.  It would be a great waste to unravel all the work that was put into this film and ultimately diminish its quality.

I wonder if she still wants that dance...

 Many have dubbed Captain America: The First Avenger the best superhero movie of 2011, I’m a little reluctant to give it that title considering how much I enjoyed X-Men: First Class.  Still, it is a very good installment, certainly one of the best amongst The Avengers pre-films (it’s between Captain America and Iron Man for that crown).  Marvel did a great job closing out the “prequels” for The Avengers, and I’m really excited to see them all come together next year.

Overall: B+

 

TAKE TWO: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Rated: PG-13

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Ralph Fiennes

Director: David Yates

Chris’ Take: Well, it’s been a long 10 years and if it hadn’t been for my brother I probably wouldn’t ever have watched more than the first film. We had a family tradition of seeing a movie on Thanksgiving Day and it was usually a family oriented movie, so in 2001 my parents dragged my brother and I, who were both about college age, to see the very kiddie Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. My younger sisters loved it and my brother and I were groaning, knowing that there were more mature films that we could’ve gone to. The next year, my brother being more benevolent than I was, took my sisters to the second film, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. I scoffed and went and watched one of the worst movies I have ever paid money to see in the theaters, Star Trek: Nemesis. My brother came and told me that the second film was “awesome” and definitely worth seeing. Against my instincts that told me my brother was playing a prank, I went and saw it later and was thoroughly impressed. I was not expecting the level of excitement or wonder that the film brought. I was hooked, and on Saturday, when I finally saw the last film I felt like I really was saying goodbye to people I had gotten to know really well over 10 years. Even if at times I thought they were hokey, cheesy, or just plain dumb, I had watched these characters grow and the final installment of the franchise was nothing short of impressive.

We find  Harry, Hermione and Ron right where we left them at the end of Part I. They are getting ready to stage an attempt to steal a Hocrux out of Bellatrix Lestrange’s vault in Gringott’s. Severus Snape has turned Hogwart’s into what looks like a program for the wizarding Hitler youth, and Voldemort is flaunting the power of his new found elder wand. Harry comes to grips with the fact that he must confront the dark wizard face-to-face in order for the wizarding war to end.

As some of you might remember from my review of the first part, I thought the pacing was rather slow. However, in retrospect it was the perfect set up for the fast-paced action of Part 2. Almost all the exposition and necessary character development occurred in Part I and built a rock solid foundation for two and a half hours of non-stop excitement. The viewer was able to just sit back and become completely engulfed in the wizardry and epic that ended the series.

Unless, of course, the viewer had never seen any of the previous films or read any of the books. In which case, they probably were completely engulfed in sleep...or confusion.

The care for the characters is really what made the action seem that much more intense. That was my gripe with Transformers: Dark of the Moon. I cared about none of the characters Michael Bay presented. It didn’t matter how eye-popping (or eye gouging) the action scenes were. The suspense really gets created through characters that you love being placed in danger. If not, it just becomes a mildly sick hope that they die. 

David Yates’ talents were under question for closing out the series, since many people claimed that the fifth and sixth Harry Potter films were arguably the weakest. I think after he proved that he could direct on an epic scale in this conclusion, he put any and all criticism to rest. Sure, he had a screenplay that was based on a fantastic book and he had an endless list of talented actors lined up at this beck and call, but taking all those elements and reigning them into a cohesive directorial piece that captures the wizarding fantasy world and doesn’t disappoint fans and critics is quite a challenge. He received high accolades from me for being able to pull it off.

The cinematography in the first part was stellar, there really was a tremendous depth to each shot, and this film was very similar in that regard. A fantasy world should not be shot close unless there is a specifically claustrophobic scene and Yates seemed aware of that. In each shot you weren’t just get a close up on the actors participating in the action or a simple line of dialogue, you could clearly see the world around them, and made it almost a character of its own.

It seems redundant for me to keep bringing up the fact that the lead actors in the series are really what made it what the series have the clout that it did. Say that someone who had the acting talents akin to Jake Lloyd, the cute but talent deprived Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, had gotten the role of Harry. The credibility of the series would’ve tanked, no matter how well the story was developed around him. Radcliffe, Watson and Grint were incredibly talented child (now adult) actors. Plus, they were surrounded by some seriously gifted people in supporting roles. While Ralph Fiennes would not have been at the top of my list of actors to play Voldemort back when his character first started playing prominently in the series, I can’t see anyone pulling it off like he did and really making his character three-dimensional.

And I don't just mean in the technical IMAX 3D sense.

The series will always be something that is easily watched again and again. Some might start making the argument that this should be nominated for Best Picture, but I am still not convinced that these films contain the caliber and depth that I think warrant that. These films more deserve to be filed under a “favorite films” list as opposed to “best films” list. They were certainly all quality films, except for the first one, and I could easily make an argument that this was the best in the series.

OVERALL: A

Pac’s Take:  My journey through the Harry Potter  series also came to fruition through reluctance.  My younger brother was really into the books and encouraged me to start watching the movies as he collected them on DVD.  While the films entertained me during some of the more boring nights of my summers home from college, I was never that invested in the series.  Then, when I finally got around to seeing movies three through five I became a fan.  It is no coincidence that this was the same time in the series that one of my favorite actors, Gary Oldman, played a pivotal role as Sirius Black.  Once Oldman’s involvement ended my interest wavered again, but by this time I was too invested in the series not to see it through.

Though Gary Oldman's star power does have it limits

 Like Chris, I was not satisfied with the pacing of part one of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, but I do have to agree that it was necessary for the success of this film.  Part two picks up right where part one left off, as if they were one movie seamlessly making a scene change.  However, as a single movie they cannot work because the pace and tone of the second movie severely contrasts the first.  This was the Harry Potter movie I came to see, two and a half hours of action. 

Since Chris compared this film to Transformers: Dark of the Moon, I’ll play devil’s advocate for a moment.  I think David Yates could have learned something from the last hour of Michael Bay’s film.

Product placement?

 SPOILER ALERT:  While I certainly was much more invested in the wizards of the Harry Potter universe much more than I was Sam Witwicky and the Target car of the Autobots, at least during Transformers I felt like they were challenged.  For what was supposed to be an epic battle to end all battles, all the fights were too brief and lacking of suspense.  There’s nothing David Yates (director) and Steve Cloves (screenwriter) can do about J.K. Rowling’s inability to kill major players (though she didn’t seem to have a problem doing this before), but they could have at least made it seem like they were threatened.  While the final battle between Harry and Voldemort is evident of this, the prime example would be the death of Bellatrix Lestrange.  Considering how prominent and menacing she was throughout the final chapters of this series, she met her demise far to easily. (END SPOILER ALERT)

Regardless of this films flaws it still was a major success both financially and as a piece of entertainment/art.  I do find it possible that the Academy will reward the creators’ and players’ work for this series (just as they did with Lord of the Rings), though I don’t think it is necessarily justified.  It’s hard to rank Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part Two amongst the other films, but I do consider it to be top-tier. 

It may have ranked as the best if they would have not wasted five minutes of my life with the pointless epilogue.

Overall: A-

TAKE TWO: Horrible Bosses

Horrible Bosses

Rated: R

Starring: Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis, Charlie Day, Kevin Spacey

Director: Seth Gordon

Chris’ Take: Summer comedies are hit or miss most of the time. This summer has been primarily composed of some serious misses. We’ve gotten The Hangover 2, which while decent was far below expectations, Bad Teacher which had a lot of potential but floundered it in the final 10 minutes, and The Zookeeper…which at 15% on RT requires no explanation. I felt like I was wandering in a desert of poor comedy until I stumbled across the oasis that is Horrible Bosses.

Most people, at one point or another, have dealt with a horrible boss and made off-handed comments about “killing” them. The film Horrible Bosses takes this premise and runs with it. Nick, Kurt and Dale (Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day) are close friends and each are dealing with a uniquely terrible boss. Nick’s boss, Dave (Kevin Spacey), is a twisted man who leads Nick on by promising promotions that he never intends to give and tricking him into drinking at work. Kurt’s boss, Bobby (Colin Farrell), is a crazy cocaine addict who fires people he doesn’t like or who creep him out. Dale’s boss, Dr. Julia Harris (Jennifer Aniston), sexually harasses him while he is trying to remain faithful to his fiance. When all three bosses cross the line, the friends plot to kill each others’ boss and move on with their lives.

A great buddy comedy, even if it is a dark one, relies heavily on the chemistry between its leads, and Horrible Bosses came out in spades. Bateman, Sudeikis and Day provided great complements to each other, which is nice to see  because each of them have been floundering around in low caliber comedies recently, trying to make a stand without any support. Bateman never plays an out and out funny character, he is at his best when he can play the deadpan straight man to someone else’s zaniness.

Of course, there is one exception...Pepper Brooks.

Sudeikis’ comedy usually gets lost in a poor script, which he was able to overcome this time, and Charlie Day…

He was pretty much right at home.

Right below the stellar lead cast was a strong foundation of supporting characters. Kevin Spacey played the smart and cruel boss perfectly, giving the audience plenty of reason to make him the out-and-out bad guy in the story. Jennifer Aniston definitely let her more vulgar side show, and came out being funnier in this than anything she’s been in…ever. Colin Farrell was my personal favorite out of the three, because he plays the eccentric superbly. Outside of these three, there was another pleasant supporting actor, Jamie Foxx, who plays the man they hire to give them advice. I don’t normally like Jamie Foxx, but he was hilarious in this cameo and had several scene stealing lines.

The premise for the film is obviously preposterous, but I like how Seth Gordon and the writers made sure to not go completely dark with it. They ensured that each lead explored other options for coping with their bosses and reasons why they couldn’t just quit. While reaching the decision to kill their bosses is still outlandish, it was  at least nice to have a little nod towards intelligence.

There are few films where I think that should’ve had more time. Most of the films that are coming out these days could leave a good half hour of their films on the cutting room floor. Horrible Bosses comes in at 98 minutes, which is decent for a comedy, but it seemed to go by so quick and there were so many great characters that I felt each of them could’ve been fleshed out a little bit more. While Spacey plays a great role, he kind of hogged screen time from Farrell and Aniston, who were playing equally humorous parts in the story.

So, if you’ve been waiting for a comedy to catch your fancy this summer, and you enjoy yours a little on the dark side, this is the film you’ve been waiting for. The laughs come from start to finish and you will get wrapped up in the great chemistry and misadventures of these eccentric, yet relatable characters.

OVERALL: A-

Pac’s Take:  Horrible bosses excels because of a good script and a great cast.  If you look at some of the great comedies of recent times you’ll probably notice there is a trend, it takes more than one star taking the spotlight to make good comedy, or any good film for that matter, but I think Hollywood is just now starting to realize this.  Ensembles like Old School, Anchorman, andThe Hangover perpetuate this belief; and Horrible Bosses is the next great comedy in a growing list of shared star power.  As Chris stated, the three leads worked well with one another and the chemistry and reality of their friendship connected the audience with their plight.  The supporting cast: Spacey, Farrell, Aniston, and Foxx were excellent as well, though they probably all could have benefited from more screen time.

As evidenced from Farrell's end credit outtakes

 Chris also touched on how well the script covered its bases by forcing its characters into this situation.  Though it’s a comedy, it would have been a distraction to think that these characters resorted to murder when they simply could have quit.  It was a joy to watch their plans spiral out of control and it never felt unnatural as the three leads bumbled through their situation.  I was pessimistic that Charlie Day was going to skate into this film on the success of his role in It’s Alway Sunny in Philadelphia and disappoint his fans (which admittedly, I am not one).  However, I owe credit where it is due because he really shined in this film; and though it was scripted to be this way, he delivered most of the trio’s laughs. 

Finally, it was a joy to see Jennifer Aniston in this role.  There is no doubt that Jennifer Aniston is a talented actress but she’s made her career starring in mindless, boring romantic comedies.  To see her shed that skin (and some clothing) to play the sexually harassing boss of Charlie Day was a refreshing change of pace from her typical fare.  Odds are she’ll return to the same cookie cutter roles she previously occupied, but here’s to hoping this is the start of something new.

According to tabloids, playing crazy isn't much of a stretch for Aniston

The competition this season is not great by any means, leaving Horrible Bosses as a stand out comedy in a weak summer line up. 

OVERALL: A-

TAKE TWO: Green Lantern

Green Lantern

Rated: PG-13

Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, Peter Sarsgaard, Mark Strong

Director: Martin Campbell

Chris’ Take: Green Lantern is the latest film to delve into the superhero genre, whose returns seem to be diminishing with every reboot and reimagining, especially when it comes to some of the lesser known heroes. While Green Lantern is one of the most intricate of comic book series, and is popular among comic book fans, it never really gained appeal outside of that, and Warner Bros. did their best to bring it to that wider audience.

Ryan Reynolds stars as Hal Jordan, a hot shot pilot whose father died flying test planes when he was younger. When an alien life form crash lands on earth and hands him a mysterious green ring and lantern, his life is turned upside down. He is whisked away to the planet Oa and is inducted into the Green Lantern Corps, a group of intergalactic peace keepers, who inform him that the ring allows the wearer anything that they can imagine and that the ring chooses someone without fear to carry it. Hal is placed as protector of Earth and soon has to deal with the rising threat of Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard), a professor who was infected by yellow energy found in the crashed aliens’ body, and also the greatest threat the entire galaxy has ever faced, Parallax, a mysterious lifeform that preys on fear.

Kind of like Fox News.

The writers certainly tried to cram as much as they could in the two hours or so that the movie ran. They tried to squeeze as much mythology and background about the Green Lantern Corps and the rest of the galaxy as possible in before actually being able to tell the story of Hal Jordan. Then, with what time they had left, they tried to build an extra villain into the story to occupy some time before Hal had to fight off Parallax and save the world. The structure felt very uneven and it seemed like there were gaps of time that were unaccounted for which made for a flimsy story when it could have been enriched.

Going into the film, I thought that the previews made the CGI look distracting, and while there times when it seemed overbearing, once  you enter the world of Green Lantern, it is much more acceptable. While the graphics for the film were stunning,  I thought that the extent of the ring’s power wasn’t portrayed to its full potential. Martin Campbell (Goldeneye, Mask of Zorro, Casino Royale) is an accomplished action director, and while he shot the scenes with visual flair, he failed to live up to the expectations that I had for him. With Goldeneye he had a knack for using over-the-top action sequences to entertain an audience, and Green Lantern seemed like a great opportunity for him to return to that and get away with it a bit more, but he seemed to rush each action scene as opposed to taking his time and putting his excessive budget to good use.

Ryan Reynolds did a formidable job as Hal Jordan, bringing a little bit of humor to the role as well. Peter Sarsgaard really let his freak flag fly as Hector Hammond, and it was enjoyable to watch him finally completely let loose, but he was in the movie less than I anticipated. They didn’t introduce him until 30 minutes into the film, and then when it came time for him to realize his superhuman powers he hardly got to use them before he had to make way for the even bigger villain, making his role seem unnecessary. Blake Lively, while I praised her work in The Town  last fall, I have to say  that they probably put a cardboard cutout of an attractive woman in there and there would’ve been the same amount of sincerity to the love story between her and Hal.

"Oh Hal, I like love you and stuff." "Get off me, woman."

 All in all it wasn’t as bad as I was led to believe going into it, and maybe that’s why I was able to sit back and enjoy it a little bit more. It certainly is not among any of the greatest superhero films, it is distinctly average in just about every aspect, but I wouldn’t call it “bad” either. If anything, it left me hoping to see more of this series to see if they can move on from back story to make a richer story, which they set up extremely well by already making Sinestro (Mark Strong) a developed character, and handing him a yellow ring. I think since I was more interested in seeing the conflict between Sinestro and Hal develop, I will be more interested in Green Lantern 2 (already greenlighted) than I was in watching this film.

OVERALL: C+/B-

Pac’s Take:  D.C. comics doesn’t bring their comics to the big screen nearly as much as Marvel does, and as a fan of their work more so than Marvel, I’m always excited to see a new film.  This is the first time in the history of cinema where we’ve had the technological capability to bring the Green Lantern to live-action movies and as a first effort, it wasn’t terrible.  The biggest concern that I had coming into the film was that the focus on the visual effects would hinder the development of the story of Hal Jordan becoming the Green Lantern.  I don’t think that I was wrong about that this assumption either, while there were times that the film impressed me with its story development, I often felt cheated by its lack of depth.  Hal Jordan didnt’ seem to be any different from many other superheros we’ve seen hit theaters recently, but his comic book character is one of the more complex.

As Chris mentioned above, I took issue with some of the time gaps, suggesting there may have been some very important scenes left on the cutting room floor.  For instance, there was one scene where Hal, as the Green Lantern, showed up at Oa coincidentally at the perfect time to talk Sinestro down (I won’t go into further detail).  More importantly, the movie suggested a friendship between Hammond and Hal Jordan, as well as a love triangle between them and Carol Ferris (Lively), but the relationships were never explained beyond a passing hello between the characters.  For the general public who is not a fan of the comic, these relationships are foreign and needed to be developed better, I actually thought the film could have benefited from 15 more minutes and this was most likely a case of the studio trying to keep the run time under 2 hours.

In the first scene of the film I was a little put off by the graphics, but once actual human actors were introduced the film began to feel more grounded and my concerns were put to rest.

Like gingers, animated lifeforms have no soul.

Ryan Reynolds did a fine job as Hal Jordan, however his face and character may be oversaturating the superhero market because at times I had a hard time seeing the character and not the actor.  Peter Sarsgaard was definitely the most entertaining to watch on-screen and it is a shame that Hector Hammond didn’t get more screen time.  While Chris’s least favorite casting decision may have been Blake Lively, I was extremely distracted by the casting of Tim Robbins as Senator Hammond.  There’s not enough movie magic in the world to make me believe that Tim Robbins (52) could be the father of Peter Sarsgard (40).  While this disparity in age may work in an episode of Teen Mom, the disgruntled father-son relationship between the two did not work.

This seems like as good a time as any for a paternity test

On a final note, the fanboy in me was geeking out to see Angela Bassett as Amanda Waller.  For those of you unfamiliar with the character (potential future spoiler alert), Amanda Waller is a major villain in the D.C. universe and becomes the leader of both the Suicide Squad and Checkmate  (as the White Queen).  Hopefully we’ll see her in future installments of the Green Lantern and possibly in other D.C. franchises.

OVERALL: C-

TAKE TWO: The Art of Getting By

The Art of Getting By

Rated: PG-13

Starring: Freddie Highmore, Emma Roberts, Rita Wilson, Blair Underwood

Director: Gavin Wiesin

Chris’ Take: Maybe I would’ve enjoyed this film more in high school, or if I had just gotten to college, because to anyone outside of that age range, the film will probably seem like drivel.

George (Freddie Highmore) is a high school slacker. He does the minimum to get by in school because he feels like it is insignificant in the broader scope of the world, since everyone is going to die anyway. When Sally (Emma Roberts) , a popular girl, befriends him, he begins to fall in love and it starts to challenge everything he thinks he knows about the world.

I’m going to start off by pointing out the major flaw in the film, the protagonist. I found him incredibly off-putting, especially in the first five minutes of the film. While he wasn’t supposed to be someone that you thought had it all together, he should at least be sympathetic. George thinks he knows everything, much like a lot of high school seniors do, but what bothered me about it is that they played him like he was the only one who dealt with those kind of issues.

People die...and that's like deep and stuff.

His close mindedness to the idea that anyone could possibly be as insightful, or as deep as he is, made it really difficult to sympathize with him. So, when he digs himself into a deep hole, I found it hard to feel bad for him, because he deserved to be there, and I found myself thinking, “Man, it’s about time it caught up with this arrogant little prick.”

Anyway, that is not to say there weren’t some moments in the film of genuine emotional honesty that were touching, but they were very brief and couldn’t add up to much of anything as a whole. Also, when those moments did come, they were more like nostalgic moments of high school love, rather than having anything poignant to say about love itself. The script really felt like it was written by a high school senior, who thought that they had things figured out, when really there was so much more to learn that will come in time.

The cinematography was the best part of the film. There was one scene in a club, where I thought the camera work was nearly perfect, conveying George’s sense of being lost in the crowd while the effect of alcohol sets in. The claustrophobic feeling portrayed with the close in camera really came across. Other scenes were well framed and beautiful, but the sad part is that they were almost always partially obstructed by the protagonist that I was hoping to forget about.

Gavin Wiesen, the writer and director, definitely had ambition with this project, but it fell far short of what he was trying to accomplish because his characters were too young for the film to have any sort of significance, or to not seem like anything but overconfident high school seniors who think that they are the smartest people in the world. An Education, did a much better job developing characters and making them believable and sympathetic with a very similar story.

I’m glad that we got to see this movie for free, because I think I would’ve come away even more upset than I was if I had paid for an evening ticket. The only thing more perplexing than the obnoxious protagonist, was trying to figure out what the heck Alicia Silverstone was doing in this movie.

Rumor has it, they picked her up off the side of the road.

OVERALL: C-

Pac’s Take: We’ve seen this type of protagonist many times throughout film history, especially over the past 30 years or so.  A high school student, typically male, who has a sense of entitlement and arrogance that makes him sort of, well, a prick.  Ferris Bueller, Donnie Darko, Joel Goodsen (Risky Business), Max Fischer (Rushmore), Zack Siler (She’s All That), Charlie Bartlett, they’re just a few among many who have fit this mold.  The fundamental difference between these characters and George Zinavoy, the protagonist of The Art of Getting By, is that despite this behavior they are charismatic and likeable making the viewer sympathize with their plight.  This is the fundamental flaw of this film, you truly do not care what happens to George.  It is disappointing to say because there were glimpses and moments where I felt sorry for him.  The events that he encounters in his relationship with Sally (Emma Roberts) and his home are tragic for a boy his age, and having experienced some of those moments in my own life, I wanted to feel bad for him.  Then he opens up his mouth and I just wanted to punch him instead.  The writer’s attempt to try and make this kid cool because of his high intellect, his devil may care attitude, his meta-cognitive reflection, and his over-sized coat ultimately make him unlikable.

He's preparing for his homeless years after high school

At first I just wanted to believe that I was simply too old for this movie, and that I am not the intended demographic for a film like this.  However, this is also unacceptable to me because we should not promote this type of behavior to the current generation of high school students.

The second biggest issue I had with The Art of Getting By was that it took place in New York.  I love New York, I’m from New York (though I’ve lived in Virginia Beach the majority of my life), but it infuriates me to see these 16-18 year old children frolicking around the city like they are invincible; it further feeds into this entitlement that makes them so unlikeable.  There was a scene in the film (after the scene that Chris referenced above that he liked so much) where George goes out into the street after having one too many drinks, pukes, and passes out on the curb.  What ends up being hours later, Sally finally leaves the club and wakes George up, unscathed.  This would absolutely not happen in New York.  George would be beaten up, robbed of his stupid coat, pissed on, and arrested.  Not to mention one of George’s new friends is emancipated and lives in New York by herself in an uptown loft, and every time Sally is on-screen in a restaurant or bar she’s holding an alcoholic beverage.  Throw in the film’s wardrobe, the soundtrack, and the aspiring artist subplot and I’m left with one conclusion – this movie was trying way too hard to be hip.

Yes, the final touches of his masterpiece include burning it with a cigarette butt.

I agree that there are some things The Art of Getting By accomplished well.  As Chris mentioned the cinematography had its moments, and I think thematically the film had a story to tell, unfortunately it just told it in an obnoxious way.  I thought a lot there were some quality actors in this film whose performances were wasted, especially by the adult cast.  If you’re at all interested in seeing this film, save your money and rent Charlie Bartlett instead, it is a much better version of the same film; even if it does star Kat Dennings.

Overall: D-

TAKE TWO: X-Men: First Class

X-Men: First Class

Rated: PG-13

Starring: James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Kevin Bacon

Director: Matthew Vaughn

Chris’ Take: Well, I finally got one right this year. After most of my most anticipated films that have come and passed were abysmal disappointments, X-Men: First Class paid off in droves and revived a dying and increasingly soul-less franchise.

The plot is fairly simple, chronicling the start of the X-Men and establishing the tragic friendship between Charles Xavier  (James McAvoy) and Erik Lensher (Michael Fassbender) during the heart of the Cold War. The fact that the writers brought in some historical context to the start of the heroes, and while it may have off put some die hard fans of the comics, made for an intriguing story. I have read the first several X-Men comics, and found this version to be far more interesting than the humble beginnings of the actual comics (even though I did enjoy them growing up).

While I was hoping for something comparable to the first two films in the series, I was also hoping for something fresh, and director Matthew Vaughn brought that while working in conjunction with producer Bryan Singer. There is a lot of action in the film, but it is far more subdued than the recent outlandish antics of the latest two X-Men films, and as several other critics have pointed out, contained a strong dose of 60’s James Bond coursing through its veins.

One drop of Sean Connery's blood immediately makes you 10 times cooler and more attractive to the opposite sex.

One of the difficulties of comic book movies is that unless you have strong acting talent, it will end up looking more like a cartoon than a film to be taken seriously. X-Men: First Class picked a super cast, especially Fassbender and McAvoy. Kevin Bacon started out great as supervillain Sebastian Shaw in the beginning, but seemed to fade into being a static character by the end. I thought the rest of the young cast did a decent enough job portraying their characters with a wide eyed outlook on life that slowly devolves as the horrors of the world are revealed to them in ways they probably never expected. There was never a point in the film where I was bored, except for the few scenes where Mystique and Hank McCoy (Beast) were caught up in an awkward and unnecessary romance.

It also didn't help that Beast looked more like the monkey boy from Jumanji than the Beast from the comics.

Matthew Vaughn did a great job balancing out the action and humor while remaining true to the characters, creating the perfect mix for a summer blockbuster. The tone and lighting for the film were much brighter than all of the previous films, which was a welcome change to the idea of the “gritty and dark reboot” that is popular around Hollywood. Not that I haven’t enjoyed the darker superhero films, but this one was a refreshing breather from that before launching back into The Amazing Spider-man, Man of Steel, and The Dark Knight Rises.

All in all, the film did not disappoint from the lofty expectations I had for it, and I may even be convinced to attend a repeat viewing. Knowing that the X-Men  franchise still has some juice, it will make it even more disappointing if the next Wolverine film resumes the tone that the last one did. I hope that Vaughn and Singer decide to keep up with this storyline because I am thoroughly enjoying the ride so far.

OVERALL: A-

Pac’s Take:  The discussion Chris and I had coming out of the theater after seeing X-Men: First Class was whether or not this was the best X-Men film to date.  Though Chris argued that this was comparable to X2, it may have fallen just short of that mark, I had a hard time remembering anything from X2 beyond the opening scene with Nightcrawler in the White House.  Though X-Men: First Class is still fresh in my memory, I believe it will have a much more lasting appeal than any other X-Men film, making it the best of the franchise.  Chris mentioned a few points that support my opinion, with the contrast in tone to many other superhero franchise currently circulating, coupled with the cold war period, this film is unique to not only the other X-Men films, but also the current trend.

Though the casting decisions may have contributed to the modest (comparatively) tracking the film garnered over the opening weekend, it allowed for a deeper immersion in the story, and stronger character development.  This doesn’t really buck the trend, cast a relatively unknown as the hero while having a familiar face with strong billing as the villain.  Not to say certain performances didn’t stand out, while McAvoy was exceptional, and no one performance really fell through the cracks, Michael Fassbender stole the show.  One of the reason’s I was so looking forward to this film was because I wasn’t really familiar with Fassbender and wanted to see his talents in anticipation for next year’s Prometheus. 

There are just too many puns to choose from.

 Kevin Bacon’s turn as Sebastian Shaw was beyond what I expected from a villain as well.  While Heath Ledger may have set the bar for villains as The Joker, if you look past him to almost any other supervillain, Bacon excels.  Take for example, another highly acclaimed Marvel film – Spiderman 2.  Alfred Molina’s Doc Ock become fused with the mechanical tentacles and is for the most part “programmed” to be evil; what Bacon, Matthew Vaughn, and the writing team did here with Sebastian Shaw was develop a strong character and motive in the first act of the film, then allowing him to wreak havoc for the rest.  As for the humans, Oliver Platt served his purpose but his talents may have been wasted in his role, and Rose Byrne stole my attention every time she was on-screen, she was stunning and embraced the look of the era perfectly.  (Byrne is having a hell of a year – Insidious, Bridesmaids, and X-Men – we’ll probably be seeing a lot more of her in the future).

X-Men: First Class should ultimately fall in the ranks and conversation of best superhero movie alongside The Dark Knight, Superman: The Movie and Superman II, X2, Iron Man and Spiderman 2.  Time will tell its ultimate rank but this and Thor have set the bar high for Green Lantern and Captain America as far as 2011 is concerned.  X-Men: First Class is a must see for both longtime fans of the franchise and new viewers alike.

OVERALL: A

TAKE TWO: The Hangover Part II

The Hangover Part II

Rated: R

Starring: Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms, Ken Cheong

Director: Todd Phillips

Chris’ Take:  I have to say that my expectations for this film were low even before I started reading the early reviews, and honestly, I think that helped. Plus, Pac and I went to a new movie theater near us that served alcohol…that probably helped more.

Beer! Making dumb comedies funnier since 1932.

The Wolfpack reunites in this sequel to the R-Rated comedy smash of 2009,  this time for Stu’s (Ed Helms) wedding in Thailand. Trying not to repeat the mistakes of the past, the gang simply has a one beer bachelor party down on the beach with Stu’s fiance’s younger brother, Teddy, but then wake up in a deserted hotel room in downtown Bangkok and Teddy is nowhere to be found. They now have to put all the pieces from the night before back together, so they can find him and make it back in time for Stu’s wedding.

A lot of critics came out and said that the film is beat for beat like the first one, and while the “formula” (even Todd Phillips calls it that) is very similar, I thought there was just enough disparity to make it at least an entertaining, albeit almost completely forgettable (no pun intended), experience.

As a whole, this really felt like Todd Phillips buying some time before making a completely different film for a third installment; kind of anticipating the demand for them. The jokes were mainly situational in nature, as opposed to the wittier dialogue in the first one. Phillips seemed to rely heavily on sight gags and somebody making a silly face while simply describing the ludicrous scene unfolding before them.

The highlight of the film is Galifianakis, who returns to his usual comedic form as Alan, and his character is what really keeps people entertained. Whether it is staring awkwardly, or his insecurity about his idiocy, he steals the scene. Unfortunately, after about the first forty-five minutes of the movie, he kind of fades into the background and only pops his head up in befuddlement occasionally, like he was expecting to be in a different movie.

While the plot is ridiculous in and of itself, and felt incredibly contrived just to get back to the same storyline, for this kind of film it isn’t really important. We all know where it is going to end up and that it will eventually have a happy ending. However, these people never really seem to grasp the depth of the consequences for their debauchery, which seems even more implausible than the actual plot. They just roll from one problem to the next, laugh and forget about all the traumatic events that just occurred, and keep moving like they never happened.

The film really isn’t that bad, or at least it wasn’t after my lowered expectations (and higher beer intake). Will it be a film that people remember? Probably not. If they saw it, I’m sure there are images that are forever engrained in their head, but the context and dialogue around them will be hazy; kind of like an actual hangover.

If that was Todd Phillips' intention, maybe this is just a misunderstood work of art.

OVERALL: B-

Pac’s Take:   Just because The Hangover part II was on my ten most anticipated films of the summer as well as my most anticipated films of 2011 doesn’t mean that I thought this was going to be a great movie.  Like Chris, my expectations for the movie were modest, though probably slightly higher, but I thoroughly enjoyed the first film and knew come its release I’d be in the mood for a follow up.

After a few pitchers I was set to watch the debauchery unfold as Alan, Stu, and Phil headed to Thailand to repeat the antics of the first film, hopefully in more grandiose fashion.  I was not disappointed.  Despite the film following the same formula as the first film, as Chris, Todd Phillips, Cracked.com and virtually every other opinionated voice pointed out, the formula worked the first time around as well as for the sequel.  While following the formula may have made some antics in the film more predictable and thus less funny due to a decreased shock value, it was apparent that Phillips was aware of this and threw in a few (albeit disgusting) shocks to fill those voids (no pun intended).  At times this did feel a little cheap, but I think for the most part it was handled well considering the circumstances.

I’m on record on this site stating that I supported the dismissal of Mel Gibson from this film and I was excited when I heard he was to be replaced by Liam Neeson.  Unfortunately, Neeson did not appear in the film either, and the lack of cameos actually hindered the film.  After viewing the scene which was supposed to feature Gibson, then Neeson, I would like to retract my previous stance and am disappointed Mel Gibson did not appear as Stu’s tattoo artist.  Normally, the featuring of celebrity cameos comes off as a cheap stunt that inhibit’s a movie’s progress in quality, pacing, and plot, but the presence of Mike Tyson and Heather Graham among others provided the original with memorable moments that the follow-up is sorely lacking.

 

Wiley Whiplash also dropped out due to scheduling conflicts

 

I mostly agree with Chris’s assessment of the film, and in the interest of our readers, do not feel the need to be redundant.  However, there is one aspect of the film that Chris briefly touched on that still has me irritated.  It is absurd that these characters can get themselves into these tumultuous situations without any real consequence.  It is difficult to go into specific detail without providing any spoilers so I will simply leave it as this (those of you who have seen the film will most likely understand).

Overall I give The Hangover part II a B- as well.

TAKE TWO: Scream 4 (2011)

Scream 4

Rated: R

Starring: Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, David Arquette, Hayden Panetierre

Director: Wes Craven

Pac’s Take:  The day finally came, after all the anticipation and build-up leading to the Scream 4, I can’t say I was disappointed.  Scream 4 picks up 10 years after the events of Scream 3 with Sidney Prescott returning to Woodsboro on a book tour for her new self help book “Out of Darkness”.  Expectedly, upon her arriving in Woodsboro, the Ghostface Killer returns and the bodies start to pile up.  Among them is a new crop of teens who revel in the infamy of their town and celebrate the anniversary of the Woodsboro massacre with a “Stabathon”, a movie marathon of the “Stab” films based on the events of the actual Scream films (a film within a film).  Now it is up to throwbacks Gale (Courtney Cox), Dewey (David Arquette), and Sidney (Neve Campbell) as well as Woodsboro’s new teens to survive and track down the identity of Ghostface.

I can’t say that someone who hasn’t seen the first three Scream films won’t enjoy this movie, but as a die hard fan of the franchise I can say that I felt this film was written for me, and others like me.  Most of its brilliance is in the film’s ability to recapture moments and emotions from the first film and reboot them into this film.  While Scream 4 is a sequel and not a reboot, it’s self-awareness and satire of the horror genre, particularly the reboot craze, allowed it to blend the two forms of franchise installments almost effortlessly.  This film was a lot like Wes Craven’s New Nightmare, where Craven’s intention was to return the franchise to its original state by being self-satire. 

Thank God Scream didn't get to this point first

Not unlike any other Scream film, Scream 4 had its flaws.  A lot of the critical reviews I read before the film indicated that the film was overlong, and at 108 minutes I completely disagree.  The pacing of the film was great but I felt like there were 15, or so, minutes missing from the film.  While the characters were developed to the point the audience was able to connect and care (some more than others), some of the relationships between the characters seemed to be lacking.  Since a certain character’s death in Scream 2, the franchise has suffered from this, never being able to recapture the charisma he/she brought to the screen (though Hayden Panetierre’s character Kirby comes close).  Some of that missing fifteen minutes was lost in the kill scenes as well. One thing most sequels always forget is the concept of quality over quantity.  Sure the absence of drawn out chases and killings made the film a bit more realistic, but a lot of the suspense is lost by removing the dramatic irony of the audience seeing the killer stalk its victims.  

If I'm the killer I'm definitely stalking these two

What Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson created with Scream 4 was a love letter to themselves and the throwback slashers, as well as a big middle finger to the modern horror genre (particularly the Saw franchise).  Also, Scream 4 seems to acknowledge the below-average to mediocrity of Scream 3, something I particularly enjoyed in hindsight.  Scream 4 seems more like the concluding chapter of the original trilogy much more than Scream 3 ever did, and in a way (being Kevin Williamson’s third effort in the franchise) it is.  In time, I think Scream 4 will stand out as the best sequel in the franchise, second only to the original.  If you’re a fan of the Scream films be sure to see Scream 4 in theaters.

• Characters: B
• Cinematography: B+
• Directing: B+
• Plot: A-
• Performances: B
• Script: A-
• OVERALL: B+

Chris’ Take: There are a lot of people recently who have decided that the theater experience is not worth it anymore. With all the new advancements in Video On Demand and Home Theater Entertainment, combined with the rise in ticket prices, people seem to be more inclined to wait for Netflix, or just pay the $5 a couple of weeks after the movie comes out to enjoy film without the ever present distractions and talkative jerks in the theater. I for one, still enjoy going to the theater, mainly because I am impatient to see new films, but also, if the crowd is right for the type of film, they can add something to the experience as well, and there is a sense of community. That’s how I felt last night as I sat in the packed theater for the newest installment in the Scream franchise. Slasher films don’t require the type of thought or attention span that a “good” horror film requires, and I think that’s why all the buzz going on in the theater didn’t bother me.  It really felt more like a communal gathering that brought back the nostalgia of the experience of watching the first film. It was just plain fun.

I think critics’ reactions to this film will be based on their expectations. Scream is a horror movie, that isn’t a horror movie. That’s what was so fresh about the first one, it was parody and serious slasher film combined into one;  in the same vein (but not quite on the same level) as Shaun of the Dead. Scream 4 returns that freshness to the slasher genre, even if it does it in a self-referential and predictable way.

Hmmm...it's a movie within a movie.

Kevin Williamson’s script was really the backbone of the film. While it wasn’t anything deep or super intelligent, it seemed like he took care in making sure that it didn’t feel like a lackadaisical sequel that was forced into production. Wes Craven only seemed to build on that, using his skill behind the camera to make the scares come to life. Craven’s last written effort, My Soul to Take, made him sound disconnected from the younger audience, and I’m glad that he wasn’t the one to pen the Scream sequel. Williamson kept the playfully gory tone consistent with that of the first two films, and fortunately polished up the tarnish left by the third one.

While the acting was only mediocre, it fit the film. I don’t think anyone has come to expect Oscar Winning performances from horror films, just that the actors at least try, and they did that. I thought that the younger talent in the film, the new faces in Scream, were more interesting and charismatic than the returning cast of Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox and David Arquette, who just seemed to deliver their lines to get their paycheck.

I thought the pacing of the film was perfect. The slasher scenes came fast and frequent, but they never felt like overkill, and they managed to keep the tension consistent. I actually thought they improved some of the slasher scenes as well. In some of the other films, the chase scenes seemed to drag on and became more and more ridiculous. This time, they were shortened and that made them a little bit more realistic, even if the characters still have the combined intelligence of a 1st grader.

Actually, I think even 1st Graders would be smart enough to follow the buddy system if a killer is on the loose.

I cannot say that this film was spectacular, but it was certainly entertaining and very enjoyable. Like I said earlier, I think the vibe in the audience really said a lot about it as well. A midnight showing is usually comprised of die hard fans, and there was no one that seemed disappointed. However, I think for anyone else who isn’t in on the self-referential humor, it would probably seem mediocre at best. Since I am in the former crowd, I thought it felt like Kevin Williamson had taken a look at what slasher films had become in the last ten years, shook his head saying, “Come on guys, really?” then knocked out a killer script in an awesome fit of spite.

• Characters: B
• Cinematography: B
• Directing: B
• Plot: B+
• Performances: B
• Script: A-
• OVERALL: B

TAKE TWO: Battle: Los Angeles (2011)

Battle: Los Angeles

Rated: PG-13

Starring: Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez, Michael Pena, Ne-Yo

Director: Jonathan Liebesman

Chris’ Take: Watching this film reminded me of a scene from the sitcom Arrested Development where one of the characters opens a refrigerator to see a paper bag marked “Dead Dove: Don’t Eat”. Despite the warning, his curiosity is piqued and he opens the bag to see a bludgeoned bird and says, “Well, I don’t know what I was expecting….”. Perhaps when I saw the trailer for Battle: Los Angeles, I was drawn to the hope that it would return me to the teenage wonderment of when I watched films like Independence Day. Whatever it was, I probably should’ve heeded the looks of the previews to determine that this would be a clunker.

Battle: Los Angeles starts off quickly, launching right into the alien attack with very little build up. SSGT Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) is on his way out of the Marines after being haunted by some tough decisions he had to make earlier in his career, but before the paperwork is officially filed he is brought in to assist with evacuating civilians from a mysterious meteor shower. As his platoon approaches the area they find out that this is no ordinary meteor shower and that it has brought alien invaders bent on colonizing Earth.

As you can probably tell from the description, this film throws almost every cliché in the book at you. You have the crusty old Staff Sargeant who is about to retire and is called in for that fateful last mission. Then there is the badass strong-willed chick (Michelle Rodriguez).

According to her contract, this is the only type of character she will play.

Throw in the rookie whose inexperience endears him to his squadmates and the man who has a personal vendetta against the leader which will no doubt cause issues at the worst possible time, and boom….action film gold. Unfortunately, it doesn’t even try to do anything different with these characters. Instead it only feels comfortable on ground that has already been tread and fails to make anyone care about the soldiers in the attack.

What I did like is the Black Hawk Down style approach to the combat. While there are plenty of special effects to go around, it doesn’t use lasers and aerial battles and it doesn’t focus on the President or civilians, but instead hones in on the urban warfare aspect of the invasion that hasn’t been done before in an alien invasion film. The bad part of this was mentioned before, the characters weren’t interesting enough to put any sort of emotional attachment to them, which is what makes the best warfare films so intense.

I feel bad for Aaron Eckhart. He did his best with a horrible script, overacting to compensate for the lack of ability that surrounded him. What I found funny about his role is that he was constantly trying to separate himself from the group, which may have been a call on the actors’ part instead of actually in the script. The film would have actually been a lot better if Aaron Eckhart had just gone off on his own to take on the aliens, even though I never really pictured him as an action star.

Still more believable than this guy.

The only other actor that I was remotely interested in seeing, Michael Pena, was on-screen for a short while and his talents were completely wasted on a stock character.

Again, I don’t know what I expected from this film. I may have been duped by that haunting song in the original preview that made it appear more thoughtful than a movie written by the guy who wrote the horror film atrocity Darkness Falls. The film had its merits in its visuals, creating a gritty environment for anti-alien warfare, but it was lacking in almost every other area. I really shouldn’t have expected a whole lot, but I did kind of expect a little bit more than this. 2011 continues to disappoint.

• Characters: D+
• Cinematography: B
• Directing: C
• Plot: C
• Performances: Aaron Eckhart (B-) Everyone Else (D+)
• OVERALL: C-

Pac’s Take: The satisfaction you’ll get from seeing Battle: Los Angeles, like with almost any other movie, is determined by the expectations you set for it.  The director, Jonathan Liebesman, has The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning and Darkness Falls as his only notable credits, while the writer Christopher Bertolini has a resume that reads a lot like mine.  I can just imagine the first few meetings with this brilliant duo before production.

I’m not opposed to small bill casting, especially when a film has other means to draw box office revenue, but typecasting actors into stock characters only accentuates the lack of effort put into the character development.  Michelle Rodriguez played her best Michelle Rodriguez and Ne-Yo was nothing more than a poor man’s Will Smith from ID4 (right down to the pending nuptials).

Ne-Yo's glasses were uncredited

Aaron Eckhart and Michael Pena did their best with the lack of depth their characters were given and tried to carry the rest of the cast and the script through to the credits, but not without some unfortunate missteps.  Give the actors credit though because despite the aforementioned criticisms they did manage to make a terrible script at least watchable.  Cheesy dialogue, plot clichés, and little to no character depth made this film all flash and no substance.

However, much like a lens flash, the cinematography and direction of this movie left the user at least temporarily blind to the rest of the films flaws.  Normally I’m not a fan of shaky handheld cameras and extremely tight shots, but Liebesman seemed to make it work.  In doing so, and by focusing on a small contingent of Marines as opposed to the large-scale destruction and mayhem (one plus to the script), Battle: Los Angeles felt more like a war film than an invasion flick.  The inspiring elements of Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan were obvious in the cinematography and were welcomed.  I applaud Liebesman for salvaging what had the potential to be a disastrous film and making it watchable by blending the invasion and war genres nicely and using innovative concepts from inspiring films to put together what was actually a visually appealing work.  Part of the fun I got from watching this film was trying to identify the various elements of every film he listed as inspiration.  I’m more encouraged with the decision to allow Liebesman to direct Wrath of the Titans and hope that he can continue to improve as his directorial resume lengthens.

Battle: Los Angeles feels more like a video game than it does a motion picture.  Action sequences and shootouts interjected with brief cut-scenes for plot development (not character development), the death of a few ancillary characters to alert the user/viewer that they’re in a dangerous environment (not to elicit emotion), and a patriotic but anticlimactic ending leaving the series open for a sequel.  The film is a seamless blend between COD: Modern Warfare 2 and Halo, in fact the overpass scene looks a lot like the end of the campaign from the first Modern Warfare.

Most players don't know COD has a campaign mode

Here are my grades:

• Characters: D
• Cinematography: B
• Directing: B
• Plot: C-
• Performances: C
• OVERALL: C

TAKE TWO: The Rite (2011)

The Rite

Rated: PG-13

Starring: Colin O’Donoghue, Anthony Hopkins, Alice Braga, Rutger Hauer

Director: Mikael Hafstrom

Chris’ Take: My most anticipated films of the year have taken huge hits and we are not even two months into 2011. The Rite was #9 on my most anticipated films, and while I wasn’t expecting a whole lot from it, I certainly expected more than the lopsided effort from Mikael Hafstrom.

To escape the oppression of his father’s funeral home, Michael Kovak (Colin O’Donoghue) decides to go to Catholic seminary. After his 4 years, he still struggles from lack of faith, so he is sent to an exorcism school in the Vatican. While he is there, the instructor (Ciaran Hinds) places him under the unorthodox tutelage of Father Trevant (Anthony Hopkins). As Michael views the exorcism process up close, his doubts begin to dwindle and his faith is ultimately challenged when he comes face to face with true evil.

The film clocks in at about two hours, but really takes an hour and a half to get around to anything interesting. A lot of the film’s problems stem from this tragedy of pacing. Mikael Hafstrom showed his skill at maintaining a feverish psychological atmosphere in 1408, and while there are glimpses of that in this film, particularly during one scene at a hostel, they aren’t maintained enough to truly disturb the viewer.

Maybe Hafstrom would've felt more at home if the whole film took place in a hotel room.

Instead Hafstrom, fills his time going for cheap and jolting thrills instead of bringing anything smart or innovative to the screen.  

Anthony Hopkins, as usual, is brilliant. The man just knows how to create interesting characters out of a mediocre script. His perfection at inflecting at all the right points in a sentence really shines through in his performance, and this really was his most disturbing role since playing Hannibal Lecter. The problem for Hopkins is that he is surrounded by weak actors in every scene; his genius gets lost in those around him. O’Donaghue did well in the climax of the film, but unfortunately spent the rest of the film making me not give two hoots about his character, making even his best moments seem hollow. The only other people who could match acting ability with Hopkins, Hauer and Hinds, were kept far away from him. I do have to say that Marta Gastini, an Italian actress, who played the part of a possessed pregnant girl, gave an incredible performance. But, like a lot of other good parts of the film, her scenes were too few and far between.

Do you see that man behind me? Could you give him acting lessons?

There was nothing incredibly spectacular in the artistry of the film. I expected a little bit more than the exorcism films of late, and while it was slightly better, it wasn’t anything too noticeable. The cinematography was predictable and the sounds were primarily centered around a persistent rumbling, similar to that of the demon in Paranormal Activity, but was unable to convey the sense of dread that they were going for.

While it was better than most exorcism efforts of the last ten years, it still fell far short of the precedent of other demonic possession films such as The Omen and The Exorcist. I do enjoy a good religious horror film, but they are grasping at straws to be disturbing and maybe it is time to go back to the drawing board to bring life back to this dying genre.

• Performances: Hopkins and Gastini (A-) Everyone Else (C)
• Cinematography: B-
• Directing: C+
• Plot: C+
• Characters: C
• OVERALL: C+

Pac’s Take:  The Rite is a complete rollercoaster ride.  Wait around for an hour and a half, a few moments of ramp up, a quick moment of excitement, and all of a sudden the ride is over.  Even an Anthony Hopkins ride-a-long couldn’t save the pacing of this movie.  I understand that characterization is essential to a film, but there’s only so much time you need to spend on developing a pessimistic priest with daddy issues before you begin to beat a dead mule.

The most interesting part of the entire film was Hopkin’s character, which was not on-screen for all that much of the film.  Even before his possession, his interactions with the possessed girl (Gastani) were gripping even despite the fact that Michael Kovak (O’Donoghue) was also taking up space in the scene.  Kovak was once rumored to be up for the part of Superman in the upcoming Man of Steel and it may have been his lifeless performance in this film that led to Cavill’s casting.  There were scenes when his performance (or lack there of) was not as noticeable, but that can probably be attributed to increased cinematic suspense, or the other actors on-screen (namely Hopkins) carrying him through. 

By the grace of God Colin O’Donoghue, I absolve you of this performance

It is unfortunate that the first of my most anticipated films of 2010 fell short of the bar I set for it, but hopefully as the months go on the quality of work will only get better.  It is February after all, a notoriously slow month for movie releases, and apparently plot progression.

 

• Performances: B-
• Cinematography: B-
• Directing: C-
• Plot: C
• Characters: C-
• OVERALL: C

 

TAKE TWO: The Roommate (2011)

The Roommate

Rated: PG-13

Starring: Leighton Meester, Minka Kelly, Cam Gigandet, Billy Zane

Director: Christian E. Christiansen

Chris’ Take: The Take Two for this week came down to two options: Sanctum or The Roommate. You might be wondering why we would choose this one over Sanctum, even though Sanctum didn’t look that spectacular either. This was our attempt to rebel at the system that charges more for IMAX 3D even when it isn’t used (*cough cough* Green Hornet!!), but we paid for it in a different way.

Sara Matthews (Minka Kelly) is just like everyone else starting college. She is excited and nervous at the same time and wants to make quick friends. When her new roommate, Rebecca (Leighton Meester), shows up and is friendly and welcoming, she is happy to have found such a strong companion so quickly. But, when Rebecca starts becoming more and more possessive of her time and obsessed with her, Sara begins to realize that Rebecca is unstable, and that if she doesn’t cut ties with her, there could be deadly consequences.

I don’t know where to start with this. While this was supposed to be a horror film, it definitely wasn’t scary in the least. It took elements from several better horror films, watered them down, drank them up and spewed them back onto the screen in a jumbled mess. There was a coherent plot, which was actually more than I expected, but everything about it was so unoriginal that it could be predicted far in advance.

Leighton Meester staring: The scariest part of the film.

The film could have been slightly more disturbing had it not been for the fact that the scares were projected long before they occurred. Part of what makes a horror film scary is that something unexpected happens and surprises the viewer, even if it is just something subtle. But, The Roommate was kind of like that insurance commercial where someone in another car says to another driver, “I am doing my makeup and am going to cut you off. Just giving you a heads up.” It was like they felt bad about surprising the viewer, so they wanted to give you an advance notice. I guess that’s what you get with a PG-13 rated horror film.

Anyway, there were some good elements to it. The acting, while sub par to make it a decent film, was better than most teenage horror films and that helped its plight more than other flops in recent memory.

Billy Zane! That's where you've been.

Like I said earlier, it also helped that it had a coherent plot, even if it was pretty lame. A lot of times, films of this level (a low level) will just try to throw in as many jumpy moments as possible so you forget that there is actually no story to follow. However, I was hoping they were going to try to do something even just a little more original, possibly throwing in a minor twist, even a stupid one, just to say, “Hey…we tried.”

All that being said, I went into this with low expectations and they were met, which means I probably walked out of there happier than if I had spent twice as much on an IMAX 3D film that was only slightly better (Sanctum only had like 30% on RottenTomatoes anyway). Our rebellion was paid for in suffering through this unoriginal disaster of teenage horror, but I think we came out happier than caving to the system. At least we got a good laugh out of it.

• Characters: C
• Directing: C-
• Cinematography: C
• Plot: C-
• Performances: C+
• Overall: C

Pac’s Take:

It is easy to look at The Roommate superficially and disregard it as another PG-13 teen slasher from the studio that brought you masterpiece adaptations like When A Stranger Calls (2006), Prom Night (2008), Obsessed (2009), and The Stepfather (2009).  However, something about this film possessed me to take a closer look and think strongly about the product Screen Gems distributed on-screen in order to comprehensively and coherently tell you exactly why this film sucked  (while still making fun of it of course).

- How do we get away with such crap? - We're hot?

More of an adaptation than a direct remake, The Roommate closely resembles the 1992 thriller Single White Female; so much so that they directly steal even minor plot points of the film and adapt it right into their story.  This can be expected in the current age of cinema and isn’t what makes the film fail.  The ultimate failure of this film stems from its PG-13 rating.  The film didn’t fall short because of the lack of language or sexual content that would warrant it an R-rating, but rather because it settled to satisfy a target audience of 13-year-old girls and it accomplished nothing more.

Buy the movie on Blu-Ray and expect a visit from this man

Somewhere along the line filmmakers seemed to lose track of certain elements of horror that made movies like Halloween so memorable.  The scariest and most enthralling part of a horror movie can’t be seen on-screen, it’s the images and events left up to the imagination of the audience that haunts them long after they’ve left the theater.  Now, instead of wondering how our monsters stalk and kill their prey, where they might be hiding, and how gruesome the demise of his/her victims might be everything is shown on-screen; expecting the gruesomeness and gore to make us cringe.  The Roommate follows suit with the current trend, absent of the shock and gore due to its PG-13 rating.   Nothing about Rebecca (Leighton Meester) scares the audience because we see exactly how loose her screws are.  This hurts the film tremendously because instead of sympathizing with Sarah (Minka Kelly) we become frustrated with her as she comes of as naive and cowardice.  In a horror film (and pretty much any film for that matter) if you can’t sympathize with the protagonist your film fails.

Possibly a correlation of the previously stated flaw, the pacing of the film was incredibly unbalanced.  The first act of the film introduces both main characters with some compassion and depth, developing their relationship and assimilating them to their new environments.  In act 2 Rebecca transitioned from overprotective and lonely to psychotic so abruptly that it ruined the suspense, and consequently the next hour of the film.  No longer horror and no longer suspense, The Roommate just becomes another teen drama.

Why did that psycho delete gossip girl from my DVR, we're no longer BFFs

It is really a shame because this film could have been so much more if it wasn’t so sloppily put together.   The performances by the two leads weren’t bad, and they had a coherent and previously successful plot to work with.  However, the lack of depth with the Rebecca character (and every character except for Sarah really), poor pacing, blatant foreshadowing, and either unnecessary or unexplored plot elements damaged this film beyond repair. 

• Characters: D+
• Directing: D
• Cinematography: C-
• Plot: D+
• Performances: C+
• Overall: C-

TAKE TWO: The Fighter (2010)

The Fighter

Rated: R

Starring: Christian Bale, Mark Wahlberg, Amy Adams, Melissa Leo

Director: David O. Russell

Chris’ Take: We are a little bit behind the power curve on this one. Both Pac and I had been trying to see this film for a while, but it never worked out until now. Since Sarah was covering No Strings Attached, we were freed up to see The Fighter and it is certainly worthy of all the accolades it received so far.

Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) was a down on his luck professional boxer, riddled by bad breaks in the business, a troublesome brother who was also his trainer, Dicky Eklund (Christian Bale), and his over-protective mother (Melissa Leo).  His woes pile up, in and out of the ring, until he strikes up a romance with a local bartender, Charlene (Amy Adams). From there, the film documents his meteoric rise to becoming a serious contender for the welterweight title.

The film is more about the relationships outside of the ring than the fights in the ring, but to me, that is what makes a boxing film great; fully fleshed out characters that in turn create more drama in the ring. The complexity of the familial relationships in Micky’s life is punctuated by worthy performances from all its leads, especially Christian Bale, who captured the mannerisms of the real-life Dicky Eklund perfectly, as seen in the end credits. His character would be humorous if it wasn’t so sad to watch, and Bale does a great job skirting the balance of Uncle Rico-like delusions of grandeur, while creating the necessary growth to realize his shortcomings and let go of his past.

If they had put me in the ring against Sugar Ray Leonard, I'd have given him a TKO.

Amy Adams, normally playing a walked-over character who grows strong over the course of the film, shifts gears a bit and comes out swinging, sometimes literally. She is the perfect foil for Melissa Leo, and the scenes between the two stubborn women are wrought with tension. Both are worthy of their Oscar nominations and round out the cast extremely well.

The script is solid and full of insight into the characters while managing to slip some humor into the mix. David O. Russell did a great job using the it to its full effect, letting the actors breath life into what could have easily been a run-of-the-mill boxing film, and pacing it just right, making the ending that much more powerful.

While the cinematography was subdued for the most part, it captured the contrast of Micky’s surroundings to those of the rest of the professional boxing community extremely well and made him appear that much more of an underdog. HBO filming the fight scenes added a nice effect of authenticity to the film with its grainier camera, and through that, Russell made the film seem more real as a whole.

The film had a few shortcomings, mainly the stereotypical montages, explained so well in Team America: World Police.

I felt like it could have done without them and do more to set itself apart from the rest of the boxing genre. But, there were so few of them that it didn’t ruin what Russell was trying to create. I don’t think The Fighter will win Best Picture, but Bale should definitely win as Best Supporting Actor, and you could make legitimate arguments that either female lead could win in the Best Supporting Actress category.

• Characters: A-
• Directing: A-
• Cinematography: B+
• Plot: B+
• Performances: A+
• OVERALL: A-

Pac’s Take: 

As an avid boxing fan, boxing films always catch my attention as they come to theaters, and it seems they do so on an annual basis.  However, often times the realism of the fight scenes are compromised for entertainment value and the underdog’s rise to glory can become trite.  I had heard about this film for quite some time because of the prolonged struggle Mark Wahlberg went through to get it made, and while the buzz leading up to its release was that this was an Oscar worthy film, I still worried this could be another run of the mill boxing story.  It was clear though within the first five minutes of the film where Micky and his brother were walking through the streets of Lowell that the passion brought to this film elevated it above all other contenders (most notably Million Dollar Baby and Cinderella Man) making it possibly the best boxing movie in 30 years.

I have always thought that Amy Adams was a talented actress who too often compromised her talent for unworthy roles.  While she has been in some highly acclaimed films (Catch Me If You Can, Enchanted, Julie & Julia), this is the type of empowering role that will command respect and elevate her career to the next level.

And help us all forget about this

Not to belittle Melissa Leo’s performance, as it is worthy of her Oscar nomination, the film’s focus is on the two brothers and it is the performances of Mark Wahlberg and Christian Bale that make or break this film.  The chemistry of these two actors is great, and each played their role brilliantly.  You can tell the passion Wahlberg has for this character and this story in his portrayal and the only reason he was snubbed by the academy was because Bale’s eccentric performance simply overshadowed him.  Christian Bale’s portrayal of Dicky Eklund was phenomenal and he stole every scene.  Any explanation of the performance would be understated so I won’t even try.  While this may be Wahlberg’s passion project, make no mistake, this is Christian Bale’s movie.

Still, great actors have made good boxing movies all the time.  What sets The Fighter apart from every other boxing film I’ve seen in the past was the fight scenes.  As Chris stated, HBO films was brought on to shoot the matches and it brought a level of authenticity to the film that I’ve never seen in a boxing movie (except for the one montage, straight out of the Sylvester Stallone playbook of directing).  Most boxing films portray the sport as a physical brawl where the boxer who can withstand the most punches to the head wins, but The Fighter did everything right.  The boxers looked professional in the way they fought and the way they were built.  I forgot I was watching a movie at times and was on the edge of my seat rooting for Ward, cringing when he got hit and wanting to cheer when he knocked someone down.  Top it all off with a cameo from ringside announcer Sugar Ray Leonard who miraculously hasn’t aged in almost 20 years.

Finally, has anyone else noticed the way the women of Boston are being portrayed in movies recently?  While I’ve never been to Boston or the surrounding cities/towns, I’m sure they are full of beautiful people, none of which are being portrayed on-screen.  Amy Ryan, Blake Lively, and now Amy Adams have all had to undergo physical transformations to look less attractive for their respective roles (though Adams is still by no means hideous in this movie).  The biggest Oscar snub this year: The Fighter not getting nominated for Best Makeup.

Is there a category for best use of no makeup?

Here’s my tale of the tape:

• Characters: A
• Directing: B+
• Cinematography: A
• Plot: B
• Performances: A+
• OVERALL: A-

REVIEW: No Strings Attached (2011)

No Strings Attached

Rated: R

Starring: Natalie Portman, Ashton Kutcher, Kevin Kline

Director: Ivan Reitman

Review by: Sarah Higgins (Guest Author)

I’ve enjoyed reading Chris and Pac’s blog for three months, but it seemed the site could benefit from a female perspective, so I offered to contribute periodically. It is oh-so-fitting that the first review they asked for is a romantic comedy.

No Strings Attached is your typical rom-com, with a twist: give the male lead traditionally female characteristics, and vice versa. It’s not a new idea, but it was a nice change to a largely formulaic genre.

Not only is Emma (Natalie Portman) the doctor with no time for romantic relationships, she’s the commitment-phobe. Adam (Ashton Kutcher) is the monogamist with a heart of gold, despite (or maybe because of) being raised by a laissez-faire, multiple-divorcee father (Kevin Kline) who is now dating his son’s ex-girlfriend.

Man, that's cold.

Both Portman and Kutcher make the most of their roles, playing up their opposite-gender traits, but not over-doing it. The highlight of the film is the chemistry between the two main characters. Their relationship – defined or not – is believable and fun to watch.

The supporting cast of characters is great – quirky and providing fun distraction from the main plot – and the soundtrack is a character all its own. Color Me Badd’s I Wanna Sex You Up hilariously sets the tone in the early minutes of the film.

Color Me Badd also set a hilarious tone for the early 90's.

Unfortunately, while the lyrics are good, some of the lines are bad. Really bad. Early on, No Strings Attached tries much too hard in the way of crass humor. I imagine the filmmakers were reaching out to a possible male audience, but the effort is hollow. Their abandonment of the effort halfway through the film was genius.

Another big negative is the film’s ending. Everyone in the audience knows where this story is heading, and that is okay. That is a romantic comedy. But that doesn’t mean the ending should be abbreviated. As ‘The End’ appeared on the screen, the audience literally groaned out loud.

But wait for it… there are more scenes during the credit roll! Instead of being snappy, comedic additions to the plot, we watched what felt to be the real ending of the film. Thank goodness.

No Strings Attached wasn’t the best movie ever, but I enjoyed watching it. Any film that heavily features Ashton Kutcher’s abs, really does have a lot to offer.

Hello Lover....

• Characters: B+
• Cinematography: B
• Directing: B
• Plot: B+
• Performances: A
• OVERALL: B+

REVIEW: TRUE GRIT (2010)

Guest Review Written by: Jeremy “Jerome” Petersen

True Grit

Rated: PG-13

Starring: Jeff Bridges, Haitee Steinfeld, Matt Damon, and Josh Brolin

Director: Joel and Ethan Coen

Like most parents of small children, my wife and I take whatever opportunity we get to leave our child in the care of their grandparents and enjoy some time without the cloying sounds of Veggie Tales Christmas in the background. Two nights ago, to take a break from both our child and the bedlam of a house with ten people in it, we went to go see True Grit in the comfort of one of the most luxurious theater experiences around: VIP (21 and over) seating at the Muvico Village 12 in Fredericksburg, VA. (Quick side note: The only reason I was seeing this movie at all was because it was one of only two movies–the other being the unappealing Little Fockers–that had VIP seating available. My wife and I were planning on seeing Black Swan (see Chris and Pac’s “Take Two” review here), but since Muvico moved it from the VIP screens in favor of newer–if not necessarily better–material, my wife insisted that we go see the Coen Brothers’ remake of the John Wayne classic despite the fact that she is an avowed Western hater.) Overall, while the movie itself–though solid–felt somewhat unfulfilling, the combination of True Grit’s sharp dialogue, memorable characters,  understated score, and lack of talkative small children made for an enjoyable evening.

To get this out of the way at the outset, I have not seen the 1969 original (dir. Henry Hathaway) that won John Wayne his only Oscar as Best Actor. Despite that, my view of this remake is influenced heavily by my impressions of John Wayne from other classics like Stagecoach and The Searchers (which I have yet to get Chris to watch).

True Grit tells the story of the sharp-tongued girl Mattie Ross (Haitee Steinfeld) who hires the alcoholic U.S. Marshal Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to track down her father’s killer, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), and bring him to justice. As the title suggests, the movie is more about the two main characters than about the plot itself. In fact, the plot by the end is rather subsidiary to Rooster’s redemption and the bond formed between Mattie and Rooster. The main strength of the film–as one would hope in a character-driven film–is the characters. Despite the presence of Oscar-winner Bridges, who seems to play an 1880s version of Dude Lebowski at points, Haitee Steinfeld dominates the screen from the outset until just before the end with her portrayal of Mattie. Rarely at a loss for words, Mattie virtually always has the verbal upper hand, engaging in stinging repartee with every character who stands in the way of her goal of settling her father’s affairs and avenging his death. That Steinfeld–who does not look a day over her character’s fourteen years–is able to so convincingly play a rather unrealistic character is deserving of the Best Supporting Actress nomination buzz she has been receiving. Mattie and Cogburn are assisted in their search for Chaney by the rather foppish Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Matt Damon). Given that most Westerns venerate LaBoeuf’s outfit and Texans in general, that the Ranger is the butt of most of the film’s jokes for his Texas origins is one of the more comical elements of the film. Bridges is adequate in filling Wayne’s impossibly large shoes as Rooster Cogburn. While I don’t think anyone else around could have played the part any better (unless maybe Sean Connery could come out of retirement and learn a passable Western accent), Cogburn, until the very end of the film, comes across as somewhat cartoonish, amusing dialogue notwithstanding. Bridges may be able to deliver quips well, but he cannot bring the same presence and gravity to the film that Wayne provides.

In terms of the construction of the film, the cinematography seems rather understated, and the camera–with the exception of a shootout in the Indian territory and Cogburn’s redemptive sequence–does not insist on itself to the viewer. While landscapes are often a character of sorts in Westerns, the Coens employ very few of the long and very long establishing shots used to show off the unforgiving landscape in most Westerns and even in their recent Western No Country for Old Men. The score, composed by Carter Burwell, is the only element of the film from which I felt a distinct, though gentle, artistic insistence. Consisting of simple piano and string variations on the venerable hymn “Leaning on the Everlasting Arms,” the music imbues the film with an undeniable sense of nostalgia, comparable to the effect of “Take Me Out to the Ballgame” on Ken Burns’s Baseball documentary. The moving nostalgic tilt both softens and complicates some of the film’s more violent scenes.

While there is much to like about the parts of the film, the sum of the movie is somewhat lacking. Oddly, despite the 110-minute running time, the film felt like it could have used another 10-15 minutes before the climax to make the transition between Cogburn’s lowest point and his redemption feel less abrupt. Perhaps this sense comes from the large amount of time that the Coens took to establish Mattie and, to a lesser extent, Rooster’s character before the primary action of the film.

Rooster Cogburn before redemption.

 

With the exception of the opening sequences with Mattie and Rooster, many of the following scenes–while enjoyable–feel somewhat underdeveloped as a whole. While the Coen Brothers are famous for films with the sort of (often literally) messy endings that make the viewers, like J.K. Simmons’ CIA character in the Coens’ Burn After Reading, ask, “What’d we learn, Palmer?” (to which the only appropriate reply can be “I don’t know, sir”),  the underdevelopment of the plot and the film’s ambivalent ending feels somewhat less organic than in some of the Coens’ other films (O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Fargo, and No Country for Old Men to name a few).

Much of the early reaction to news of True Grit’s production (including this blog in this August post), before anyone really saw it, was that the film, attempting to remake a classic and an iconic actor’s part in it, was unnecessary. However, the Coens clearly feel otherwise, and the reason for it may be in the nostalgia they feel for what Wayne represents. Joan Didion refers to Wayne in her essay “John Wayne: A Love Song” as a “mold” into which was poured “the inarticulate longings of a nation wondering at just what pass the trail had been lost.” The insistent score, evoking the hymn’s praise for everlastingly strong arms, yearns for this sort of classic American anti-hero–thoroughly flawed but ultimately dependable and ruthless in his defense of those he holds dear–that Wayne played in much of his later career. If the Coens see the inescapably violent world of No Country for Old Men as an accurate depiction of modern America, perhaps they see men like Rooster Cogburn as the only way in these times to achieve justice and security for those not strong enough to get if for themselves. After all, Mattie, for all of her pluck and wit, would not be able to survive her mission without Rooster’s intervention.

Ultimately, while this movie is not among the top five films of the year or the Coens’ career, it is well worth watching, if for nothing more than the memorable characters and faint, poignant echoes of John Wayne’s greatness.

• Characters: A-
• Cinematography: B
• Directing: B+
• Plot: B
• Performances: A-
• OVERALL: B+

TAKE TWO: Black Swan (2010)

Black Swan

Rated: R

Starring: Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel, Barbara Hershey

Director: Dareen Aronofsky

Chris’ Take: There are very few films that can categorize themselves as a pyscho-horror-ballet-thriller, but this one falls solidly into it. This is one of the films I really wished I had brought something to take notes with, because while it was punctuated with grand moments of dizzying genius, there were so many small screen captures I wish I had to look at and mull over. This film was just downright brilliant.

Black Swan starts with a young ballet star, Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman), being picked to replace a veteran ballerina (Winona Ryder) as the lead in a new season of Swan Lake. Her director, Thomas Leroy( Vincent Cassel), is wary about Nina’s ability to encompass the role of both the purity of the White Swan and lustful passion of the Black Swan on stage, and sets her out on a rigorous and unconventional training. As the pressure to pull off the role mounts, her sanity begins to slip, especially when she feels threatened by a new dancer (Mila Kunis).

I am really glad I saw this in the theater for one reason: the music. For the last twenty minutes of the film I was completely entranced in both Portman’s performance and engulfed in the depth of the music around me. I think some of that would have been lost if I was watching it on a small screen with my modest sound system. The way the camera worked in conjunction with the soundtrack was perfect and made the finale that much more incredible.

The cinematography bothered me a little bit at first. The film was shot very tight, honing in on Natalie Portman’s head for most of the film. I knew what Aronofsky was going for, trying to portray Nina’s short-sighted, tight view of the world, which was opened up more throughout the film, and it also added a claustrophobic effect of the world closing in around her. However, I had to sit in the second row and it made it difficult to watch for the first half hour or so. That’s not to say that the cinematography wasn’t good, just bothersome at points. Aronofsky also did a lot with color, or lack thereof in the film, adding some interesting subtlety.

Natalie Portman definitely stole the show with her performance, making her metamorphosis very believable and the payoff that much more spectacular. Kudos to Mila Kunis as well, playing a little bit out of her normal range and managing to pull it off very well. I am kind of biased against Barbara Hershey.

Mainly because she stood in the way of this great sports film.

But, she definitely had a great role as an overprotective maternal figure, living vicariously through Nina. I think Portman should be at least nominated, if not win Best Actress at the Oscars this year.

Darren Aronofsky proved yet again that he can be visceral, gritty,and at the same time, beautiful. His style and editing make it really hard to figure out what was real and what wasn’t in the film, and demands a second a viewing.  There are some talented directors out there right now, and they have definitely stepped up this year. It is hard to say which film will come home with the highest honors this year, but Black Swan is definitely a top runner, and rightfully so.

• Characters: A
• Cinematography: B+
• Directing: A+
• Plot: A-
• Performances: A+
• OVERALL: A

Pac’s Take

Often time when I come out of the theater after watching a movie I have to reflect on what I just saw and take a breath.  Friends who joined me in the theater will often ask me what I thought of the film in the lobby and I respond to them with a blank stare and a shrug; in my mind the movie isn’t really over for me yet.  Black Swan was no exception to that rule, in fact it could probably be the poster child.  Deep down I do not want to like this movie as much as I did because honestly I don’t think I enjoyed the experience of watching it, but when I finally left the theater (physically and mentally) I was in awe of the story I was just told.

More like shock and awe really

It is very difficult to discuss the plot of the film because I think a lot of the unknown drives the brilliance behind the film, I can only go as far as to say that it is an adaptation of the Ballet they’re performing on-screen, adapted in a very visceral way.  Aside from the story, the two most notable characteristics of the film are the cinematography and the performances.  Much like Chris, the cinematography of this film was a complete distraction for me during the first act of the film.  The resolution, filters, and close shots (coupled by sitting so close to the screen) nauseated me at times and kept me from really getting into the first 30 minutes of the movie.  I hadn’t really considered why Aronofsky had shot the film like that until it was brought to my attention, but even after hearing a justification I thought it was unneccessary.  The close shots reminded me a lot of the way Let Me In was shot, and I had no qualm with denouncing it then too.  As the film progressed, the camera drew out and the momentum of the story picked up making the cinematography less noticeable (as it should be).

The performances in Black Swan were fantastic and I cannot see how Natalie Portman does not get both an Oscar nomination for her performance, and a win.  Portman is a very talented actress and it seems like this role was a long time coming for her; something to showcase her ability in a way that will get the recognition of the Academy and audiences alike and take her to the next level.  Not since The Professional (1994) has Portman had a role with this depth and raw emotion.  While no other performance stood up to Portman’s, the others did not slouch either.  Cassel stood out to me next as the ballet director, and I think this may mark his transition into Hollywood A-List (although he already has had a very successful career in foreign markets).  The tension between Barbara Hershey and Natalie Portman as mother and daughter really allowed Portman to shine and Hershey should be recognized for her great performance here, I think she deserved the best supporting actress nomination over Mila Kunis.  Even though she ventured outside her typical role and did a serviceable job playing Lily/The Black Swan, nothing about her performance stood out to me as exceptional.

Sorry Mila

Chris mentioned the score of the film, and an interesting bit of trivia is that the entire score of the film is a variation of the Swan Lake ballet played backwards and distorted.  If you’re looking for a fun movie to see with the family, friends, or loved ones sometime this holiday, Black Swan probably shouldn’t be your first choice; but this masterful film is definitely a must see.  Here are my grades:

• Characters: A
• Cinematography: B-
• Directing: A
• Plot: A
• Performances: A+
• OVERALL: A

REVIEW: FROZEN (2010)

Frozen (2010)

Starring: Shawn Ashmore, Emma Bell, Kevin Zegers

Director: Adam Green

I am in the final push to finish up as many 2010 films before Pac and I release our list of awardees for this year. On my list to watch was a little known film released in the beginning of the year called Frozen. Released under the category of horror, it was far from it, and fell solidly under suspense….or comedy.

Frozen stars a trio of people that you make you go, “I know that guy from somewhere!” Most notable were Shawn Ashmore (X-Men, X-Men: United, X-Men: The Last Stand) and Emma Bell (The Walking Dead). Don’t know them by name? I didn’t either until I just looked them up. Three friends decide to take a day trip to a ski resort before it closes for the week and during a final run, the lift gets shut down with them stuck on it, sitting helplessly above the ground, left alone on the mountain. The friends must make difficult choices to survive the cold and other menacing forces before they slowly die on the mountain.

As in most horror movies, the main characters are just plain dumb. But, on top of that, the filmmakers made  decisions to make them appear dumber than necessary. Even though they are freezing to death, they are unconvincingly cold. Only one of them puts the hood up on their jacket and some even leave their hands out in the cold and that was a difficult point to avoid. I could suspend disbelief of them not trying to cover their mouths for the sake of being able to hear what they are saying, but not putting their hoods up just made no sense.

Man, I am so cold...I wish there was something more I could do to keep warm.

I did like the fact that even though the characters weren’t the brightest, the writers did take time to develop them a bit, which is rare in most horror films. I was actually pleasantly surprised with the script. With the modest budget that they worked with, they also managed to do a pretty effective job of portraying the cold (even if the actors couldn’t really portray it) and harsh environment that they were in.

That being said, I bring up another plot point that they used to advance the story that makes no sense….ravenous wolves. If they were in the wilderness, not at a ski resort, this would have been acceptable, but these things are all over the place in a highly populated environment. At first I thought that the wolves would only come out at night, but they are there during the day too. What was to stop them from attacking helpless skiers when the resort was actually open and operational? Why was it only when it closed that these wolves bothered people and felt compelled to tear the  sinews from their bones?

People...it's what's for dinner.

The acting was sub par, even for this caliber of film, and I think that it would have made a huge difference in building suspense if the leads could actually bring the depth to the characters that was present in the script. I did manage to stay engaged in the film, it was never particularly boring, but like in The Walking Dead, the stupidity was really hard to ignore, and the primary tension in the film, how cold they were, was ruined by the poor performances.

• Characters: B
• Cinematography: B
• Directing: B-
• Plot: C+
• Performances: C-
• OVERALL: C+

Movie Reviews by Author

MOVIE TITLE:                        CHRIS                 PAC

 

• The Green Hornet                       B-
• The King’s Speech                     A                                A
• True Grit                                       B+                              N/A
• The Black Swan                          A                                A                        
• Harry Potter and the Deathly    B+                              B+
• Megamind                                    A-                              A/A+
• Due Date                                       B                                B+
• Paranormal Activity 2                 B                                B+

 

All Films (Alphabetically)

•  A-Team, The                          B-                               B+
• American, The                         B+                            N/A
• Buried                                       A                              N/A
• Crazies, The                             B                                B+
• Despicable Me                        B+                            N/A
• Dinner for Schmucks             C+                            N/A
• Easy A                                    A-                              B+
• Get Him to the Greek              C                                C+
• Inception                                 A                               A
• Invictus                                   B+                            N/A
• Last Exorcism, The                C-                             N/A
• Let Me In                                A                               C-
• My Soul to Take                    D                               D
• The Other Guys                     B+                              B
• Piranha 3D                              B                                B-
• Predators                                C-                               C
• She’s Out of My League      C                                B-
• Social Network, The              A                               A
• The Town                               A-                              A-
• Toy Story 3                            A-                            N/A
• Youth in Revolt                      B                                B

TAKE TWO: Megamind (2010)

Megamind 3D (2010)

Rated: PG

Starring: Will Ferrell, Tina Fey, Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill

Director: Tom McGrath, Cameron Hood

There are very few films that tout “3D” that I can walk out of and say, “Man, that was worth it to see in 3D,” and this is one of them. Plus, the rest of the film wasn’t too bad to boot either.

Megamind opens with a similar premise as this year’s Despicable Me, the villain is the protagonist and he is always second best. Megamind (Will Ferrell) is constantly attempting to defeat Metro City’s renowned hero, Metro Man (Brad Pitt), and take over the city. When he finally does, he realizes that without his antagonist his life is pointless and comes up with a plan to scientifically create a new hero, Titan (Jonah Hill), to do battle with. When his plan backfires, the tables are turned and Megamind must find the hero within him before Titan destroys the whole city.

With a lot of animated competition from such films as Toy Story 3 and Despicable Me, I expected to be disappointed with this film, even though the trailers did look pretty humorous. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that not only was it one of the most visually stunning films this year, it delivered a hefty amount of laughs as well.

Will Ferrell has a tendency of over-acting for a laugh, which works in some cases (i.e. Anchorman, Old School), but brings down everyone else around him in others (i.e. Semi-Pro). The role of Megamind allowed Ferrell to allow his more cartoonish nature to flourish and his off-the-wall antics fit perfectly into that world. David Cross also played a great “Minion” and together they made a great comedic duo and carried most of the script on their capable shoulders.

In fact, I think Will Ferrell should be replaced in all his movies with Megamind.

I will talk briefly about the 3D and leave most of it to my esteemed colleague, Pac, who has been chomping at the bit to unleash his torrent of praise. However, I will just say that even with Despicable Me and Toy Story 3 bringing decent 3D to the table this year, Megamind brought the most depth to the screen. There wasn’t a whole lot of stuff breaking the fourth wall, but from the opening shot, it welcomed you into its world with breathtaking visuals. It is definitely worth dropping the extra $3 to see this one.

I also think we should all contribute $3 to Hollywood to ensure 3D crap like this never gets made again.

Even with all it had going for it, it did stumble a bit at times, mainly when Megamind or Minion weren’t talking, which was thankfully fairly little. I think that the script was only mediocre and that there was probably a lot of ad-libbing from Ferrell and Cross that made it as funny as it was. I can definitely recommend this, but it definitely has a very shaky storyline. However, if you are an adult with kids, this one won’t be a painful one to take them to, but will provide a very pleasant diversion. Even if you are an adult without kids, you shouldn’t be embarassed to say you want to see this.

• Characters: A-
• Cinematography (3D): A+
• Directing: B
• Plot: B-
• Performances: A-
• Humor: A-
• Overall: A-

Pac’s Take:

There has been some recent debate in the media between supporters of IMAX and 3D.  I still have the ticket stub for the first IMAX movie I saw, The Dark Knight and I’ve thrown away every stub from every 3D movie I’ve paid to view (Piranha and My Soul to Take to name two).  Naturally, in the IMAX v. 3D debate I’ve sided with IMAX, until I saw Megamind.

Every 3D movie should use Megamind as a guide on how to correctly use the technology.  Beautifully shot with depth and tremendous detail, I couldn’t help but constantly turn to my viewing companions and say, WOW!  TDK was able to utilize IMAX to completely envelope me into the film, and until now no 3D movie was able to capture that feeling.  Metro City felt huge, the crowds seemed endless, and whenever there was flight I had vertigo; the 3D delivered for 95 minutes.

Look, I want to make sure I drive the point home, this is worth the ticket for admission in 3D; SEE THIS MOVIE BEFORE IT LEAVES THEATERS.  Megamind should win at least two Oscars this season, best animated feature and best cinematography.

Unfortunately, I have yet to see Despicable Me but I thought the story of Megamind was fun and refreshing.  The banter between Megamind and Minion was humorous throughout and the plot was fairly original; what would a super-villain do if he defeated the hero?  I did think Tina Fey was poorly used in this film, her dialogue felt stale and at times cliche.  Otherwise I thought Megamind was the perfect animated film.

Why aren't you funny?

Megamind was not the best movie I’ve seen this year, but it was my most enjoyable film experience of 2010.  Here are my grades:

• Characters: A-
• Cinematography (3D): A+
• Directing: A
• Plot: A-
• Performances: A-
• Humor: A
• Overall: A/A+

 

TAKE TWO: Due Date (2010)

Due Date

Rated: R

Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Zach Galifianakis, Michelle Monaghan, Jamie Foxx

Director: Todd Phillips

Chris’ Take: Due Date has a lot going for it. It has Todd Phillips, one of the best current comedy writer/directors, and Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis, currently two of the funniest people in Hollywood. The question going into the film was whether Phillips could follow up the great success of his last film The Hangover.  I thought that while the film was very entertaining, it will go down as one of Phillips’ more forgettable comedies, right along with School for Scoundrels and Starsky and Hutch.

The premise, is one of the oldest in the comedy genre, the odd-couple road trip. Peter Highman (Robert Downey Jr.) is flying cross country to get to his pregnant wife in time for the arrival of their child, when his plan is completely uprooted by an unruly wannabe-actor nutjob named Ethan Tremblay (Zach Galifianakis). After being placed on the no-fly list, Peter accepts a ride from Ethan, and the two embark on an ill-fated road trip across the United States.

The success of the odd-couple road trip comedy (or OCRTC) relies heavily on the chemistry between the two main characters and this one was pretty successful in that regard. Rumor has it that Galifianakis and Downey Jr. did not get along that well in real life, which you could kind of tell on screen, which actually made it that much better. My problem wasn’t so much with the chemistry, but that the two actually became friends. There was a lot of hatred in the first half of the film that was established and then just seemed to dissipate, actually it was while they were smoking a joint, so logic didn’t really have to apply.

Weed: Therefore your argument is invalid.

 But, still, I didn’t think there were enough reasons for the two to actually become friends after that trip. Maybe enough to strike up a five minute conversation if they ran into each on the street afterwards, but not exactly the friends that Phillips tries to convince you they became.

There were a decent amount of laughs in the film, but outside of what was in the previews, I am kind of forgetting what they were, outside of one particular scene with Downey Jr and some unruly children. Both lead actors have great comedic chops, but I think the script wasn’t quite strong enough for them to make it really memorable.

While, again, this film was pretty entertaining, in my opinion, it failed to reach the levels of some of Phillips better work like Old School and The Hangover. I know Pac probably has a different take , but I  think I can’t give this any higher than a solid B.

• Characters: A-
• Cinematography: B-
• Plot: B-
• Directing: B-
• Performances: A-
• Humor: B
• OVERALL: B

Pac’s Take:

I find this take two particularly interesting because of the difference in opinion Chris and I have with this film.  While it is not unheard of for us to disagree on a film (see Let Me In), it is peculiar that some of the concepts Chris thought hindered this film enhanced it for me.  I think the lack of memorable moments or shock-value in the comedy gave me a strong belief that this film will have some lasting value for me upon subsequent viewings.  That may sound strange but bear with me for a moment.  Consider my favorite genre to talk about, horror; while the Saw movie franchise leave a lot of shock value and memorable kills for the viewer to talk about after the movie, there’s not much staying power for the sequels of this franchise over time.  Back to comedy, a similar example would be American Wedding, leaving the theater you remember Stiffler eating the poop and how shockingly funny that was, but after seeing the film 2 or 3 times it loses its laugh. 

Career foreshadowing...

What Due Date did for me is left me with a feeling of pure enjoyment without really having a stand out moment, it was a steady laugh throughout.  Additionally, the development of the relationship between the two main characters gave this film an endearing quality that is lacking in some of Phillip’s other films.  The internal struggle of Downey Jr’s not only provided laughs but gave his character a depth that allowed this movie to convincingly have some heart.  I did not think that Ethan Tremblay (Zach Galifianakis) had much depth past him coping with his father’s death, but he was more a catalyst for the evolution of Highman (Downey Jr).

I don’t think this film will shine as bright over time as Old School or The Hangover, but I think it was a more mature comedy than these films and will not only have replay value, but will get better with additional viewings.  This film doesn’t come without some concern, however.  You see often with actors such as Adam Sandler and Ice Cube that when they start making more mature comedies a lot of what you loved about the actor’s work and style becomes compromised.  I hope that this film is not the film that leads Todd Phillips down that path as a director, it will be interesting to see what original work he produces after The Hangover 2 and if they escalate from “Raunchy with some heart” to “I want to be able to enjoy my movies with my kids”.

• Characters: A-
• Cinematography: B
• Plot: B+
• Directing: B
• Performances: A
• Humor: A-
• OVERALL: High B+

10 Days of Halloween: Halloween (2007)

While I have enjoyed this 10 day trek through the psyche of Michael Myers, despite slogging through the miserable third and fifth installments, but I am glad it is finally coming to an end. My final review is Rob Zombie’s Halloween reboot, which fell far short of the greatness of the original. Zombie wrote and directed the film, and while it was a noble attempt to explain the inner workings of the brain of Michael Myers, he tried way too hard to make it gritty.

Halloween starts out looking at Michael’s childhood, but instead of being six, like in the original, he is a middle school child living with a Mom who is a loving stripper, his abusive father, and deadbeat sister. His fascination with killing animals eventually shifts to people, when he kills a bully, and while high off the power that he feels he kills his father and sister so that his mother can be free. He is locked up in a sanitarium and Dr. Loomis (Malcom McDowell) attempts to unlock the mysteries of his psychopathy. After 15 years of failed attempts, Dr. Loomis gives up and that night Michael breaks out of the sanitarium and returns to his hometown of Haddonfield to stalk his sister, Laurie (Scout Taylor-Compton), and kill anyone who gets in his way. It is up to Dr. Loomis and Sheriff Brackett (Brad Dourif) to track down Michael and end his murderous rampage.

Rob Zombie took on an incredible task of making a more sophisticated and disturbing Myers and while it was gripping at points, especially when McDowell and Dourif were on the screen, he failed to realize that the simplicity and mystery of the psyche is what made Michael disturbing in the first film. Plus, he started off at the very beginning trying to establish that this was a “gritty” film. There was more profanity in the first five minutes than the rest of the series combined and he made very clear that he wasn’t going to pull any punches. But, he didn’t mask it (no pun intended) very well, and it seemed very forced.

The acting was pretty good, except Taylor-Compton, who fell far short of the iconic performance by Jamie Lee Curtis. She didn’t make the audience care about her and wasn’t very convincing as being scared. All the screams seemed very timed instead of spontaneous. Malcom McDowell, and I tread on egg shells when I say this, played a better Dr. Loomis than Donald Pleasance, in my humble opinion. He was less cartoonish, even if he didn’t have the classic lines that Pleasance was given in the original.

 

Man, I really miss working with Stanley Kubrick.

 

 

Halloween also suffered from pacing problems. While it moved fairly well up until he left the sanitarium, once Michael got out, the killing dragged on way too long to the point where I lost interest….twice. This was actually the second time I watched it. The first time, I turned it off halfway through to do something more interesting, and returned later and this time, I started watching last night, grew bored with it and decided to drag myself through the rest of it this morning.

While, overall I thought it was a decent attempt at making a gritty reboot, it had too many flaws and felt too forced to make me say that it was “good”. Pac has Halloween II to review tomorrow and I hear that it is far worse than this one, so I wince to think about what his viewing experience will be. I will probably watch it one day, right before Zombie releases Halloween III next year. I hope you enjoyed reading them and if I had to recommend films from this series to view, I would say to watch: Halloween, Halloween II (1981), and Halloween H20. Happy Halloween!!