Chronicle - I Was a Teenage Super-Hero

Chronicle - (3½ Stars)
With the ever increasing amount of super hero movies out there, it's getting harder and harder to make an imprint on the genre. Chronicle tries its hand at making a mark by implementing a new, albeit getting a little stale, angle: found footage. I don't necessarily have an issue with found footage films if they are done right, but the found footage has to serve a purpose. For the most part, the found footage approach works. There are only a few times where it seems a bit forced (usually preceded by a character even asking, "why are you filming?").

Chronicle focuses on three High School students who inexplicably stumble upon a cave that bestows them with various abilities related to telekinesis. Andrew is a loner who's home life is far from ideal. His only connection at school is his cousin Matt, his ride. Andrew is then introduced to Steve, the popular guy at school that everyone likes, through Matt on the fateful day that they discover the cave. The movie follows them as they discover what they can do and what happens as a result of them using their new-found powers.

To borrow a tagline from another prominent super hero movie: "with great power comes great responsibility" and the trio in Chronicle definitely struggle with this as the powers lead to some divisiveness among the friends. Overall, Chronicle is an interesting and fresh take on the super hero genre with a slightly tired approach effectively portraying a more realistic approach to what might happen if teenagers were granted special powers.
(84 minutes - Rated PG-13 for intense action and violence, thematic material, some language, sexual content and teen drinking - 2012) (Netflix)

Red - Retired Extremely Dangerous

Red - (4 Stars)*

What happens when you get Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich and Helen Mirren together and give them guns? A funny, over-the-top action comedy with bullets, explosions and laughs a plenty. "Red," based on the comic book by the same name, follows Frank Moses (Willis), a retired CIA agent who discovers that somebody wants him dead and decides to figure out who. Along the way he picks up several of his old friends and contacts to assist him, as well as the customer service girl he's interested in.

"Red" is equal parts comedy and action. When the shooting begins, a lot of bullets fly, but in a not entirely realistic sort of way. But the movies doesn't try to pretend it's something that it's not. There are several scenes that if the viewer didn't realize the movie wasn't serious, they'd have a headache from rolling their eyes. But, the movie isn't serious, so everything that happens is great fun. The cast is top notch and really seem to enjoy goofing around and hamming it up as well, which further adds to the enjoyment.

(111 minutes - Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action violence and brief strong language - 2010) (Netflix) 
http://www.examiner.com/dvd-in-greensboro/red-retired-extremely-dangerous-review

Get Unstoppable!

The theme for this post seems to be "based on a true story." Both of the movies are in one way or another based on a true person or event. In each case the movies are a good blend of truth and Hollywood embellishment, albeit completely different genres.

Unstoppable - (3 1/2 Stars)*
Some action movies are so predictable and formulaic, that they end up being quite enjoyable. This is "Unstoppable." Denzel Washington is the veteran railman worried about his job's future, Chris Pine is the rookie fresh out of training paired with him. But, the movie doesn't start with them. First the story has to be set up, the problem established. This comes in the form of a lazy, overconfident conductor. In fact, the movie really could have been over after 5 minutes if this guy had done his job. Alas, there's no fun in that and the train gets a rollin'.

From the beginning of the movie onward, I more or less predicted everything that was happening. But it was because of this predictability that it was so fun. Denzel reteams with Tony Scott, who's last movie also involved Denzel on rails in the Subway thriller "Taking of Pelham 123." This time around, the suspense and action are a lot more enjoyable. The story is based on an actual event that happened in (wait for it Ohio friends...) Walbridge, Ohio. Of course the movie transports the story to Pennsylvania and drums up the suspense and action.

As I've already hammered home, everything about this movie is predictable from Denzel's acting/character to Tony Scott's directing (the classic "flash flash slow-mo dramatic" shot) to basic tenets of any action movie you'll ever see. But, that's exactly why it works. It's a fun, sometimes tense, and always action-packed movie that won't disappoint. Unless, of course, you're expecting to be surprised.
(98 minutes - Rated PG-13 for sequences of action and peril, and some language - 2010) (Netflix)

Get Low - (3 1/2 Stars)
Robert Duvall is Felix Bush, a hermit of local repute who decides to throw a funeral party for himself that he'd like to attend while alive. He turns to the local (and struggling) funeral home run by the slightly dubious Frank Quinn (Bill Murray) and his young partner Buddy (Lucas Black). Bush, however, has quite the reputation around town, the specifics of which change depending on who is telling the story. These stories are exactly what Felix is hoping people will share at his funeral party, but it's his own story he knows he must tell at some point.

Robert Duvall and Bill Murray shine in their respective roles. Both roles are familiar for each actor with Duvall often being cast as the cranky old codger and Murray as a sardonic swindler, but that doesn't diminish their performances in any way. The story is light and whimsical at parts, like a folk tale, but with a darker edge to the story just below the surface that comes to a head by the end. "Get Low" is a great story that is equal parts humorous and touching that delves into the idea of atonement and forgiveness.

Felix Bush did actually exist (as Felix Breazeale) and did hold a funeral party in 1938, but the real reasons for doing so were unknown. As is usual with Hollywood adaptations, character connections and motivations are also tweaked for the sake of the story, but the heart of everything remains true.
(103 minutes - Rated PG-13 for some thematic material and brief violent content - 2009/2010) (Netflix)

Battle: Los Angeles - Alien Invasion By The Numbers

Battle: Los Angeles - (2 Stars)
Going into "Battle: Los Angeles," I made sure to keep my expectations low. First of all, there hasn't been a whole lot of hype for the movie. Secondly, apart from Aaron Eckhart, there aren't too many well known people in it. Lastly, there are a lot of pretty decent alien invasion movies out there already, so, what could "Battle: Los Angeles" possibly add? Not much. In fact, the movie takes it cues from many other movies without adding anything to the genre itself.

Aaron Eckhart plays Staff Sergeant Micheal Nance, who after 20 years of military service is finally ready for his retirement. However, when a series of unexplained meteors begin to fall outside major coastal cities around the world, he's called back in to service to help lead a platoon of young marines, albeit as second-in-command to a Lieutenant fresh out of the academy. Nance has some baggage and the movie does its best to try to give each marine some back story so we have an emotional connection when/if they don't survive the invasion. The only problem is that since they are all wearing uniforms, and everything was filmed with the "shaky cam," it's hard to keep track of who's alive and who's dying.

"Battle:LA" is definitely one of the louder movies I've been to in awhile. The movie is rife with gunshots, explosions and other loud noises. It didn't hurt my ears or anything like that, but it was noticeably noisy. The movie itself is a pretty basic invasion story mixed with a pretty basic military movie. Our group of marines are tasked with going to an arbitrary location. Once there, they are forced to hole up for a bit and then make their way back to safety before bombs drop. Along the way, some live and some die. But overall, nothing done in the movie is really original or stands out as being different from any number of other movies.

If you tend to enjoy action or military thrillers no matter how unoriginal the story is or how bad the dialog can be, you'll probably find "Battle: Los Angeles" at least enjoyable enough to watch once. If you are looking for a deeper, more original movie you're better off looking elsewhere. To me it seems that part of this movie was simply made for us to root for our home-grown marine heroes against an unnamed, unprovoked alien encroachment. In fact, many marines were present at the showing I attended. So, in some ways, I guess that's a positive. But overall, I just wasn't too thrilled with "Battle:Los Angeles."
(116 minutes - Rated PG-13 for sustained and intense sequences of war violence and destruction, and for language - 2011) (In theatres starting 3/11/11) (Netflix)

Me And The Distance Conviction

Have a lot of movies coming up, so I'm going to try to churn out a couple of posts this week and next. Here we have an overlooked drama, an overlooked coming-of-age story and a "should be" overlooked romantic comedy.

Conviction - (4 Stars)*

A well acted, emotional true story of how far one person was willing to go to free her brother. Hillary Swank and Sam Rockwell give award-worthy performances as the  Waters siblings torn apart by a false conviction for murder. The story does a good job of drawing the viewer into the lives of the Waters. The movie is also paced well and is suspenseful enough (despite being a true story) to keep you wondering about the case. Melissa Leo (this year's Academy Award winning Supporting Actress) has a small, but integral role as well.

(107 minutes - Rated R for language and some violent images - 2010) (Netflix)

Going The Distance - (1 1/2 Stars)

Garrett and Erin (Justin Long and Drew Barrymore) meet in New York and quickly begin dating. However, Erin is only an intern and soon has to move back to California forcing the two to start a long distance relationship. "Going The Distance" takes this premise and creates an unfunny, crude "romantic comedy." I put both words in quotation marks because there wasn't much romantic or funny about the movie. Most jokes are  along the lines of awkward situational humor or some crude remark or joke from one of the couple's friends. If I wanted to end this review with a one-liner that sums it up, I'd say to keep your distance from this one.
(102 minutes - Rated R for sexual content including dialogue, language throughout, some drug use and brief nudity - 2010) (Netflix)

Me And Orson Welles - (3 Stars)^
Orson Welles was one of a kind. Equal parts brilliant and egocentric, Welles is responsible for Citizen Kane, a movie that makes many "Top Movie" lists. But, "Me And Orson Welles" focuses on (and fictionalizes) an earlier time in Welles' life. It also doesn't follow Welles, but rather 17-year-old Richard Samuels (Zac Efron). The movie uses Orson Welles' landmark production of Julius Caesar as a backdrop for a coming-of-age story.

The movie has its moments, but is overall a bit slow. Being a fictionalized account of a true event also makes it hard to determine what really happened and what was invented just for the story. The real star is Christian McKay as Orson Welles. His performance is superb and his presence is felt even when he isn't on screen. Overall, an interesting watch, but one that doesn't leave a lasting impression apart from McKay's Welles.
(114 minutes - Rated PG-13 for sexual references and smoking - 2009) (Netflix)

^Netflix Watch Instantly

The Other Despicable FreakoGruber

Alright, I've been sitting on a couple of the reviews here for awhile so I thought it was time to get them out there. I've been also slowly working on my Oscar picks and Favorite Movies of 2010 list, so those should be out here, soon. But for now, here are three movies and one failed attempt at stretching one joke into a feature length film:

Despicable Me - (3 1/2 Stars)

There have been a lot of animated movies released in 2010, of which a surprising amount have actually been pretty good. Despicable Me is just another example of what a great year 2010 was for animation.

Gru (Steve Carell) is a super-villain. In fact, he's the best (worst) super-villain of them all and he's saved his best heist for last: to steal the moon. But, when another clever villain steals the Great Pyramid, the villain community begins to lose faith in Gru, which leads him to finally put his big plan into action. Along the way, Gru encounters a young group of orphans who vie for his attention. In fact Agnes, the youngest, steals most of the movie.

The movie is funny, well cast and endearing at parts. But at other times it felt like a mash-up of Incredibles and Monster's Inc. Mostly due to the atmosphere and feel of the movie, not from borrowed plot devices or characters.

(95 minutes - Rated PG for rude humor and mild action - 2010) (Netflix)

The Other Guys - (3 1/2 Stars)

There are certain movies out there that are so dumb, they're funny. The Other Guys fits right into this category. Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg are partners Gamble and Hoitz at the NYPD. They don't really get along and are always being overshadowed by two other larger-than-life cops. But, when a change at the department leaves a void, Gamble and Hoitz attempt to fill it.

"The Other Guys" is a lot of what you'd expect from Will Ferrell and his director buddy Adam McKay (Anchorman, Talladega Nights). There are plenty of laughs and one-liners. Ferrell does his usual bit, and it works. Wahlberg works well against Ferrell as well. Michael Keaton as the Captain is particularly funny, stealing a couple scenes from Ferrell and Wahlberg. Keaton seems to have found his niche in funny, supporting parts (he was also great in Toy Story 3 as Ken).

As with most other movies of this type, the laughs do slow down a bit towards the end when they have to wrap up the storyline, but there are enough other laughs throughout to make it worth watching. 

(107 minutes - Rated PG-13 for crude and sexual content, language, violence and some drug material - 2010) (Netflix)

Freakonomics: The Movie^ - (3 Stars)

Having had the books recommended to me, I went to my local library last year and quickly read both Freakonomics and its "sequel" SuperFreakonomics. I was excited, or at least had my interest piqued, when I heard they were attempting to make a documentary out of the books utilizing various filmmakers, such as Morgan Spurlock (Super Size Me), who's work I also enjoy, among others. While the end result is not bad, it's doesn't particularly add anything to the books.

The movie includes both of the authors, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, as narrators of sorts for the whole movie. They also fill in the gaps between the various segments. Each segment takes its inspiration from chapters from both books and are written and directed by a different documentary filmmaker. The problem becomes that out of two books that were already packed to the brim with information, we end up with four full "chapters" and various short segments that just don't do enough justice to the books. Basically, just go read the books.

(93 minutes - Rated PG-13 for Elements of violence, sexuality/nudity, drugs, and brief strong language - 2010) (Netflix)

MacGruber - (1 1/2 Stars)

I mentioned before movies that are dumb, but funny. MacGruber is just dumb. I did laugh at some parts, but overall the rest of it was the big equivalent of a fart joke. Not much else to say for this SNL spin-off.

(90 minutes - Rated R for strong crude and sexual content, violence, language and some nudity - 2010) (Netflix)

^Available on Netflix Watch Instant

Just Go With It - It's an Adam Sandler comedy...

Just Go With It - (3 Stars)
In Adam Sandler's latest comedy he plays his usual likable, slightly schmucky version of himself, this time named Danny Maccabee. Danny is a plastic surgeon who, after a failed wedding, finds himself carrying around a wedding ring as a way to get women to sleep with him. The plan works great until he meets the attractive Palmer, played by model Brooklyn Decker, (I never figured out if this was supposed to be her first or last name) who is instantly attracted to him, but instantly disgusted when she finds the wedding band and believes him to be married. Enter Jennifer Aniston as Danny's assistant, who he tasks to be his fake ex-wife asking her to "just go with it."

Out of the gate, "Just Go With It" is definitely funnier than Sandler's last movie "Grown Ups," which felt more like a filmed chance to hang out with his buddies than a movie. This is due in part to two things. First of all, Sandler didn't write this one. It's actually based off of an old movie called "Cactus Flower" which is actually based on a stage play. Sandler's influence is definitely still there in the script as everything still has the same feel as his other movies. Secondly, Aniston is there to play off of instead of a group of comedians. She does a decent job of being a foil to Sandler's antics and even holds her own in terms of comedy.

The story itself is pretty predictable, as is the norm for this type of movie (Not really a spoiler alert: I guessed the ending the first time I saw the trailer). The comedy is mostly a combination of sight gags (mostly not funny) and one-liners, all of which got a good reaction out of the audience I was watching the movie with. It also has elements of romance to it, but in the same vein as Sandler's other similar works ("The Wedding Singer," "Click"). Once the movie got into "ending mode" (this is what I like to dub the point in a comedy where they realize they have to wrap up their story and not just do endless gags) things got less funny, and felt a bit rushed. It all ends rather abruptly with most of the resolution appearing off-screen.

The bottom line is that those that liked "Grown Ups" will like this even better. Those that like Adam Sandler in general will enjoy it and anyone that hates Adam Sandler and still saw "Grown Ups" and didn't like it, well, they probably won't enjoy this one either (although, I'm not sure why anyone who doesn't like Adam Sandler would still be seeing his movies). Much like the character's in the story, the audience's best chance at enjoying the movie is to "just go with it" and try not to think too much about it.
Soundtrack Note: It felt as if almost every song in the soundtrack was either solely by Sting and/or the Police or was a remix/mash-up of their work. Nothing to this observation, I just found it interesting.
(116 minutes - Rated PG-13 for frequent crude and sexual content, partial nudity, brief drug references and language- 2011) (Netflix)

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World - What's the website for Amazon.ca?

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World - (4 Stars)*

After spending most of his directorial career working with his friends Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, Edgar Wright comes out with his first movie without either one of his go-to stars in the graphic novel adapted "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World." While it's not as sharp as his previous two movies (Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead), it's still a geektastic, comedic thrill ride through the world of indie/nerd culture.

Scott Pilgrim is dating a high school girl. He's in between jobs and lives with (and effectively contributes nothing to) his friend Wallace. So, to Scott, things seem to be going pretty good until he meets the girl of his dreams (literally) in Ramona Flowers. But, in order to date Ramona he's going to have to defeat her seven evil exes.

"Scott Pilgrim..." is one of the most visually appealing movies of the year chock full of visualized sound effects, dream sequences and crazy video game style fights. This movie is for anyone who has either enjoyed Wright's previous works or is an avid video game player, comic book reader or just straight pop culture aficionado. Or, if you read between the lines: nerd. But, I that's not to say everyone else will dislike it. At it's surface, the movie is a funny, highly exaggerated and over-the-top take on the romantic comedy with a lot more focus on the comedy.

(112 minutes - Rated PG-13 for stylized violence, sexual content, language and drug references - 2010) (Netflix)

Easy Schmucks

Well, the movies are starting to come in quickly so I'm doing my best to watch and review them and get it posted. The latest batch is a pretty decent group that offer some good laughs and stories that, while not entirely original, are still enjoyable. I actually have about 3-4 other movies already rated, but the reviews aren't quite ready so I'll get you started with these two reviews that are:

Dinner For Schmucks - (3 Stars)*
The idea, taken from another foreign movie, is that Tim (Paul Rudd) wants to move up in his company. In order to do so, he must find and bring an idiot to a dinner in order to impress his boss. However, his girlfriend is not to keen on this idea. So, Tim is stuck until he runs into Barry (Steve Carell). What follows is one awkward moment after the other as Barry slides his way into every aspect of Tim's life.

The movie is decently funny, with many lines that are definitely quotable. But, it's not going to go down as the funniest movie of 2010. With that being said, I found myself more enjoying Tim and Barry's journey. It's a pretty typical "by numbers" type of character growth, but it's still enjoyable because of the outcomes. Carell plays well off of Rudd's Tim with his sometimes endearing oft-times annoying Barry.

Overall, "Dinner for Schmucks" is just a fun movie that has you rooting for the poor unwitting idiots brought to dinner by the real schmucks: the business executives.
(114 minutes - Rated PG-13 for sequences of crude and sexual content, some partial nudity and language - 2010) (Netflix)

Easy A - (3 Stars)
Emma Stone stars as the smart, witty Olive Penderghast who has problems being noticed at school until a rumor about her losing her virginity is circulated around the school. Realizing the benefits, she begins to perpetuate the rumors in order to help herself and others succeed. However, she quickly learns that there are consequences to her choices.

The movie starts out rather quickly and with a good amount of laughs. Stone is a natural as the verbose, well-read teen. It makes it very easy to root for her as she goes about the school. Perhaps the funniest parts involve her parents, played wonderfully by Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson. However, things get a bit tired after awhile when the film doesn't really seem to know where to go with itself. I found myself enjoying most of the movie up until the ending, which seemed a bit anti-climactic.
(92 minutes - Rated PG-13 for mature thematic elements involving teen sexuality, language and some drug material - 2010) (Netflix)

True Grit - bold talk with a one-eyed fat man

True Grit - (4 1/2 Stars)
Remakes, sequels and reboots. It seems that about 90% of everything Hollywood puts out is one of these, or maybe even a "re-imagining." With that in mind, the Coen brothers (directors of movies such as Fargo or No Country For Old Men) try their hand, but don't call it a remake or a reboot  with any venom in your tone. The Coen's "True Grit" goes back to the source material for its inspiration: the novel.

Having not read the novel myself, I can't say whether or not this version is closer than the John Wayne version. It's also been awhile since I've seen the older version of the movie. So, I'm mostly going to speak about how the movie stands on its own. It is important to always do this when it comes to any "re-movie," so that you aren't viewing the movie from a biased standpoint or expecting too much (or too little). How does the movie stand up? Very well. The Coen brothers have crafted an excellent western that the fits among the best of the genre and includes fantastic performances from many of its stars.

When her father is murdered, stubborn young Maddie Ross seeks vengeance by hiring a grizzled, old U.S. Marshal by the name of "Rooster" Cogburn to lead her after the murderer. Jeff Bridges brings his own surly take on Rooster, without trying to do a John Wayne impersonation and Matt Damon continues to demonstrate his versatility as an actor as LaBoeuf, a dandy of a Texas Ranger. Even Josh Brolin delivers in his relatively short screen time. But the real standout is Hailee Steinfield as the young avenger, Maddie Ross. She exudes a confidence and ease that would be expected of someone more than twice her age. This is spectacularly displayed early on when she negotiates (as she does so well throughout the movie) over some animals her deceased father had previously purchased. Steinfield was unfortunately snubbed (as was the entire movie) by the Golden Globes. It would be a crime against movies everywhere if she isn't at least given a nod at the Oscars. That being said, I fully believe she deserves to win.

Besides the phenomenal casting, almost every other aspect of the movie is executed perfectly. The scenery and cinematography are perfectly bleak and fitting of any of the best westerns. The dialogue is also funnier than most comedies I watched all of last year, without detracting from the overall seriousness of the movie. All in all, "True Grit" is the complete package and one of the best movies of 2010.
(110 minutes - Rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of western violence including disturbing images - 2010) (Netflix)

The Social Town

The Town - (3 Stars)
Ben Affleck stars and directs this predictable but enjoyable crime movie where, once again, we are tasked with following and tend to find ourselves rooting for the bad guys instead of the good guys. . Of course, this isn't really the kind of movie where good and bad are black and white anyway. "The Town" felt like shades of "The Departed" meets "The Outsiders" meets any movie about robbing banks. It didn't blow me away, but I enjoyed it. This was mainly due to the fact that despite it doing nothing new, everything, from the acting to the writing to the directing, is executed really well. The movie gets bonus points for featuring some scenes at Fenway Park (and tons of wicked awesome Boston accents).
(125 minutes - Rated R for strong violence, pervasive language, some sexuality and drug use - 2010) (Netflix)

The Social Network - (4 Stars)*
Everyone and their mom seems to be using Facebook these days. I'm not trying to exaggerate (well, I'm slightly exaggerating). But what's the story behind "The Facebook?" Well, David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin have the strange, sordid (well, slightly sordid), and partially fictitious answer in their movie, "The Social Network."

The movie is an engrossing, character driven tale that follows Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) from a messy break-up, through Harvard and on to the eventual founding and expansion of the most popular social networking site currently online. The movie doesn't have a lot of action, since it revolves around the founding of a website, so some won't find much appeal. However, Fincher really has a gift for pacing his movies and keeping things moving.

In all honesty, I was reminded a lot of the little seen "Shattered Glass," with its focus on an interesting, but not well liked main character and the people in his life that he interacts with. Most of these interactions are not very positive. In fact, most will sympathize with his best friend and co-founder Eduardo (Andrew Garfield, who everyone will get to know soon as the new Spider-man) who slowly finds himself less and less a part of Facebook.

The biggest theme to me that resonated throughout the movie was a sense of tragic irony. Mark founds Facebook, at least according to the movie, as a way to get back at a girlfriend who dumps him. Along the way he alienates himself from many people and loses friends. Mark eventually finds himself the creator of the biggest social networking tool whose sole purpose is keeping up with and making friends, and yet he doesn't seem to have any friends of his own.
(120 minutes - Rated PG-13 for sexual content, drug and alcohol use and language - 2010) (Netflix)


Note: I highly recommend checking out Shattered Glass if you haven't seen it: Netflix

Ramona, Knight and St. Cloud (Attorneys at Law?)

Well, finally a batch of movies in which I can recommend every one. Each one was enjoyable in its own way and I even brought back my * to denote my must watch movie of the batch. I haven't been using it because lately it's been pretty obvious which ones to watch and which ones not to (as in they mostly stunk). I haven't updated in a bit as I still feel like I'm catching up from the holiday season and not quite in a rhythm yet. Hopefully things should get going again soon.

Knight and Day - (3 1/2 Stars)
After watching the trailer for "Knight and Day," I wasn't too thrilled to see it. I usually enjoy Tom Cruise, but Cameron Diaz is a completely different story (I mentioned my dislike for her briefly in my previous review of The Green Hornet). However, I was pleasantly surprised with the over-the-top action/thriller. The movie from the start seems to wink at the audience and acknowledge that it's going to be a goofy, but action-packed, ride which is why it works. A movie that purposely attempts being ridiculous is always better than a movie that doesn't try and ends up that way due to poor writing or acting. This is a great example of a good popcorn movie that you know not to take too seriously and just enjoy.
(109 minutes - Rated PG-13 for sequences of action violence throughout, and brief strong language - 2010) (Netflix)

Charlie St. Cloud - (3 Stars)
Went into this one with an open mind and I was rewarded with an enjoyable experience. The movie, though starring Zac Efron, is not a romantic comedy or teen romance movie. There are elements, very slight, but overall the story focuses more on loss. Overall I found "Charlie" to be pretty likable and engaging. Granted, at some parts it got a little strange or overly sappy (and one or two "suspend your disbelief" moments as well), it was still definitely worth watching.
(99 minutes - Rated PG-13 for language including some sexual references, an intense accident scene and some sensuality - 2010) (Netflix)

Ramona and Beezus - (4 Stars)*
I remember (vaguely) reading and enjoying the Henry Huggins books, and in turn, the Ramona books. I was also a big fan of the Ramona TV series that ran in the 90's starring Sarah Polley as Ramona. So, I had some lofty expectations for this new incarnation of Ramona and I was not disappointed.

From the start, if you were a fan of the old TV series, you need to distance the two and not try to make comparisons. It's the same with any remake/revision: don't try to compare it with the old one, just watch it and judge it on its own merits and not how it stands up to its predecessor. With that being said, I really enjoyed Joey King's Ramona. She was funny and quirky and definitely brought to life the character very well (with many memorable lines). Selena Gomez, who I was really worried they'd use too much because of her star power, gets about as much screen time as Beezus should. The books were written awhile ago so the movie takes some liberties with modernizing which I think is probably shown most in Beezus' casting.

"Ramona and Beezus" is basically what one would expect: a funny, sweet and enjoyable family film. But it also delivers more than that as a solid retelling of the classic Ramona stories with a solid cast. The movie is genuinely funny as well, not just for kids, but for adults as well. For some it might seem sappy or sentimental. But those who find it to be too much for them, probably aren't the people who enjoy this type of film anyway (or they are just trying to exude a little too much machismo).
(103 minutes - Rated  G - 2010) (Netflix)

The Green Hornet - or the Green Bee if you think that sounds better...

The Green Hornet - (4 Stars)

When first we meet Britt Reid (Seth Rogen) he is a spoiled playboy. While his father operates the respectable and integrity filled newspaper "The Daily Sentinel," Britt parties and acts the all-around fool. However, when his father dies, everything changes for Britt and he becomes the Green Hornet in order to seek vengeance. At least, that's how you'd expect it to go if this were a typical superhero movie. Instead, Britt is shaken up but not particularly sad. In fact, instead of trying to honor his dead father he seems to go the complete opposite direction. Green Hornet is not your typical superhero movie.

Hornet plays mostly against genre norms by changing our expectations for things such as the hero's origin, his motivations and even his skill level. In fact, for the most part, Britt Reid starts out as a very selfish "superhero." Bruce Wayne he is not. But this is why the character works so well.

Co-written by Rogen and directed by Michel Gondry, Hornet is the funniest movie I've seen all year* and contains some of the better actions scenes as well thanks to Gondry's direction. Rogen brings his usual type of humor (minus the drug references) but instead of being the likable loser, he's more of a selfish jerk. Think Tony Stark, but not as capable. Jay Chou complements Rogen extremely well as the sidekick Kato and the two play comically well off of each other. After his fantastic performance in Inglourious Basterds, Christoph Waltz is once again playing the quirky villain. Chudnofsky is shades of Hans Landa, but a little less secure in his ability to make an impression. Cameron Diaz is the only casting misfire. I really wish they had cast someone else. I've never been a fan of her, and her role here didn't change my mind any.

The movie is a great example of an action comedy as it balances the line between serious and ridiculous perfectly, keeping the story interesting and the jokes natural. The fighting and action is over-the-top, but it fits the film and it's not the blatantly fake, obvious green screen type of action where it looks like actors in the middle of a computer game. With all this being said, don't go into the movie expecting to be cinematically blown away like "The Dark Knight," but rather enter on the prospect of simply having a fun time with a movie that is equal parts humor and action.
(108 minutes - Rated PG-13 for sequences of violent action, language, sensuality and drug content - 2011) (Netflix - Estimated for May) (Release Reminder - VideoETA)


*I saw this in 2010, remember, so I'm not trying to make a joke relating to the beginning of the year.

Early Thoughts: The Green Hornet

In a new twist on my reviews, I finally saw a movie not only before it hit DVD, but before it even hit theatres everywhere! Last week, after bitterly missing the opportunity to see an advanced screening of "True Grit," I got a second chance at a preview screening when I got an e-mail invite for tickets to see "The Green Hornet" more than 3 weeks before it releases. I was definitely excited since it was a movie I was interested in (although, I'll be honest, I wanted to see "True Grit" more). So, after anxiously waiting, returning cell phones to the car and being wanded (they really don't want you to pirate the movie) I finally got to see the movie. Since the movie is still a ways away and there aren't really any other reviews of the movie floating around out there, I'm going to hold off on a full review (don't worry, I already wrote it up so I wouldn't forget) until probably the first of the year. I think it'd be a fitting way to ring in a new year of writing reviews. With all that being said, I will leave you with a few tidbits of what I thought of the movie. A tease, if you will:

- After what seemed like a pretty dry year for comedy (and still will be since this technically releases next year), this is definitely the movie that I laughed the hardest during.
- Christoph Waltz (Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds) plays the villain quite well.
- James Franco has a brief, uncredited role.
- The film has, at times, a campy feel to it (as a throwback to its radio roots). It doesn't make the movie campy itself, though.
- I watched the movie in 2D and it will apparently also be released in 3D. You can tell which camera shots, etc. were designed for the 3D, but it isn't too distracting (as it mostly fits in with the aesthetic of the movie)

"The Green Hornet" will be released January 14, 2011 and is rated PG-13 for sequences of violent action, language, sensuality and drug content.

Transformers: A Creation Cop Out

With Christmas coming up, I haven't had a chance to watch as many movies. Here are the few that I have gotten to, although 'Transformers' is from a while back (one I forgot to review):

Cop Out - (2 Stars)
There are plenty of buddy cop action comedies out there, including one of my favorite movies, so Cop Out already starts itself from a bad position. Add in the fact that this is the first time Kevin Smith is directing something he didn't write, and things are not looking any better. Had Smith written and directed this, it might have fared better as I've enjoyed some of Smith's previous movies, but not all of them by any means. This movie is going to be added to the "not so much enjoyed" list.

The movie starts funny enough with a good mix of visual and verbal humor from leads Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan but then nothing really happens. The story, which is never top focus in this type of movie, is pretty weak and the laughs drop off dramatically once the main arc of the story picks up. I ended up finding myself bored more than laughing. There wasn't even that much action to pick up the lack of comedy.
(107 minutes - Rated R for pervasive language including sexual references, violence and brief sexuality - 2010) (Netflix)

Creation - (2 1/2 Stars)
Paul Bettany does a wonderful job with his very emotional, human portrayal of Darwin. Most times when people think of Darwin, they focus on his theory and not on what lead Darwin to his theories. Creation instead makes an interesting focus on Darwin's religious beliefs and the conflict he felt with his newfound discovery. But, it's not without its faults. Creation is another movie that builds well, but falters near the end. Creation, like many movies that dwell in the realm of emotions, built up but never hit that perfect end note.
(108 minutes - Rated PG-13 for some intense thematic material - 2009) (Netflix)

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - (2 Stars)
After the very successful first 'Transformers' movie, it would have seemed that Michael Bay could only improve on the flawed but fun movie. Instead, like many people predicted, Bay created a mess of a sequel. There is simply too much going on for a movie that should know that it's more about giant fighting robots than complicated exposition. It's too long, too tedious and too ridiculous, and that's hard to do when you are already expecting to see giant, transforming robots.

The first entry into the Transformers series wasn't great by any means, but it was at least more than an excuse for Michael Bay to blow stuff up and overcomplicated mythology. Okay, it probably was just an excuse for Michael Bay to blow stuff up, but at least (unfortunately) it made me interested in seeing the second one. Now the only reason I want to see the third one is to see whether or not the train completely derails or gets back on track. Just don't expect me to head to the theatre to do so.
(150 minutes - Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, language, some crude and sexual material, and brief drug material - 2009) (Netflix)

The Christmas Repo Writer

Today I have two new reviews and one old one that I missed. These movies still fall a bit on the underwhelming side, but each has their own interesting aspect that bumped their reviews up a bit. I also have some tidbits for these movies that will work well in my first "After the Movie" post. I'm a bit miffed that I missed out on an easy chance at winning tickets again today (I thought they were just more tickets to see Due Date, and I'm good in that respect, but they were actually for any movie so I never called). So, no Harry Potter review upcoming just yet. Anyway, here are the reviews in order of my viewing:

Repo Men – (2 ½ Stars)

I'm a sucker for a well done, clever Science Fiction story. So, going into the movie, I thought there could be some potential for a surprise. To me that's one of the best movie going experiences, when a movie completely delivers something you don't expect. And while "Repo Men" has an interesting enough concept, it doesn't completely deliver in the end.

Jude Law and Forrest Whitaker play the title characters who, in the semi-near future, are tasked with tracking down and repossessing artificial organs that the owners have fallen behind in payments on. The idea is both well executed and sloppy at the same time. Some plot holes exist because of this (or I guess, more along the lines of logic or character motivation holes). 

The movie still moves at a pretty quick pace and provides some decent action. I actually gave the movie a higher rating because of the ending (which I will discuss more in my AtM post). While it may lack in some areas, "Repo Men" at least offers some action and some interesting ethical dilemmas. For example, to think of predatory lending extending to something that is actually in your body is a scary idea indeed.  

(119 minutes - Rated R for for strong bloody violence, grisly images, language and some sexuality/nudity - 2010) (Netflix)

A Christmas Carol – (2 ½ Stars)

I will be very happy when this 3-D fad finally comes to an end and movies will be made for the sake of the story, and not to serve a gimmicky technology. Disney's latest version of Charles Dickens' classic is a perfect example. What starts off as a seemingly faithful adaptation quickly falls prey to ridiculous flying scenes and various objects coming at the camera just for the sake of a 3-D audience. I did not watch the movie in 3-D, so it just came across as awkward and, well, unnecessary.

Since Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" is such a well known and beloved story, there's not much to say that people don't already know when it comes to the story. At times, this version follows the story closer than other adaptations. But, just when you think it might be on the right track, another gimmicky chase/action scene is thrown in. Jim Carrey does a pretty good job at channeling his inner miser (and the various spirits), but even that isn't enough to save this rendition. However, it still had some enjoyable moments. But this is mostly due to its source material. 

Note: Since it does try to keep closer to the story, there are some frightful moments. This is not recommended for younger kids. If you have younger kids, watch the much better Muppet Christmas Carol. If you don't have younger kids, watch Scrooge, or you might as well still watch the Muppet version anyway, too.

(98 minutes - Rated PG for scary sequences and images - 2009) (Netflix)

The Ghost Writer – (3 Stars)*

There was a lot of press build-up for Roman Polanski's latest film due to his possible extradition to the US and being placed under house arrest, and so on and so forth. To be honest, all of the press probably helped this movie get noticed, but it doesn't really help the movie as a whole. Especially when there are definite parallels to Polanski within the characters in the film.

Ewan McGregor is the ghost hired to help pen the memoirs of a former British Prime Minister (Pierce Brosnan) when the previous ghost writer is mysteriously found dead. The movie takes this premise and builds a suspenseful, complicated web of politics and deceit. The scenery in the movie is fantastically dreary and only adds to suspense. Perhaps the strongest aspect of the movie is Polanski's directing. However, the story is where things begin to unravel.

"The Ghost Writer" builds everything up incredibly well, but it all falls apart and becomes rather simplistic by the end. The movie, based on a book by Robert Harris (a former BBC reporter), also doesn't really try to hide its political opinions and message. So, instead of a good suspense movie to take you out of reality, you have a suspenseful movie that tries a little to hard to force an idea on you. Overall, there are many elements to this movie that are extremely well done, in the end it just fizzles.

(128 minutes - Rated PG-13 for language, brief nudity/sexuality, some violence and a drug reference - 2010) (Netflix)

How to Train Toys for Inception

After what seems like an endless quagmire of mediocre or sub-par movies that I've been seeing lately, these are some of the best movie options of the year. There are two animated movies, both of which are wonderful for both kids and adults alike, and a movie that I may end up considering one of my personal favorites. I can tell you right now that I recommend that you check out all three of these movies. So, before I go ahead and make the actual reviews superfluous, I better just stop typing...


Inception - (5 Stars)
First thing I will say: this is the best movie I have seen all year. Second thing: This may be the best movie I have seen in a while. I am and have always been a huge fan of all of Christopher Nolan's movies. As soon as I see his most recent movie, I'm looking ahead to see what he has coming up. Memento was the first of his movies that I saw, and it blew me away. His takes on Batman have been equally brilliant (with the Dark Knight considered by many to be the best comic book movie out there) and The Prestige is one of my favorite movies of all time.

So what did I expect going in to Inception? Nothing short of brilliance again. I don't really want to go into what happens in the movie as it is definitely one that needs to be watched for oneself, but I will say that despite my really high expectations, it delivered way beyond what I had hoped for. The story is smart, engaging and a little bit puzzling (in a good way). The scenery/imagery is fantastic. There were several scenes in the movie where I was blown away. They were the kind of scenes that are iconic (some of which have, unfortunately, been in the trailers). Hans Zimmer also delivers a haunting, reverberating (literally) score that pairs wonderfully with Nolan's vision. Perhaps the aspect that works the best about this movie is its phenomenal ensemble cast. Every person, from Leonardo DiCaprio to Tom Hardy to Joseph Gordon-Levitt, fit perfectly into the puzzle without a piece missing or out of place.

I realize that I haven't really explained what the movie is about and for the sake of those of you who may be on the fence about seeing it, think of it as a con/heist movie that takes place within the mind. There's action, suspense, some funny parts and some real emotional moments as well. Definitely worth seeing (several times).
(148 minutes - Rated PG-13 for violence and action throughout - 2010) (Netflix - Dec. 7)


How to Train Your Dragon - (4 Stars)
When it comes to animated movies, I'll admit that sometimes I'm a little biased towards Pixar movies. That's not to say that I'll only watch their movies or that I turn my nose up at Dreamworks or other studios movies, it's just that when your track record is as good as Pixar's it's hard not to be jaded towards the competition. That being said, 'How to Train Your Dragon" is by far the best movie Dreamworks Animation has put out.


Based on the book by Cressida Cowell, "How to Train Your Dragon" follows a young viking by the name of Hiccup. He lives in a world where vikings and dragons are engaged in a constant battle against each other for existence. The vikings believe that all dragons should be killed on sight and the dragons, well...what would you do if you saw a big, hairy guy swinging an ax? However, when Hiccup encounters a young, injured dragon he begins to learn that things aren't so black and white when it comes to the scaly beasts.


"Dragon" has a pretty decent voice cast, smooth animation and a good story that makes Madagascar look even more like it was written by a group of chimpanzees (sorry, sorry...but it's true...Madagascar is a mess). It's also reinforces that not everything is always as it seems (or don't judge a book by its cover). Hopefully, though, it doesn't also give kids the idea to walk up to the nearest scaly reptile and attempt to pet it. Overall, "Dragon" is a solidly entertaining movie that both kids and adults should enjoy. It's not as funny as I thought it would be, but it's still a great time.
(98 minutes - Rated PG for sequences of intense action and some scary images, and brief mild language - 2010) (Netflix)


Toy Story 3 - (4 1/2 Stars)
Inception's challenge was all about whether or not Christopher Nolan could top his previous movies and How to Train Your Dragon's was whether or not Dreamworks could put out something decent and on almost on par with Pixar. Toy Story 3 probably has the biggest challenge of the three: How do you create a sequel, more than ten years later, to one of the most beloved franchises of all time? The movie itself is the answer to that question. Pixar has outdone themselves with Toy Story 3 by creating a movie that is both fresh and nostalgic and is a sequel that doesn't just retread old territory but provides a proper send-off for some of animation's most beloved characters.


Toy Story 3 picks up about 10 years after the last Toy Story (so, just about as long as it was in real life). Andy is getting ready to head off to college, and his favorite toys are starting to get nervous because they haven't been played with in a long time. Eventually, due to a mix up, the gang ends up in a daycare center. This provides the opportunity for a lot of new characters to be introduced. However, at no point does the amount of toys get confusing or detract from the main story.


Once again, sticking with my usual stance, I don't want to go into too much detail because I don't like spoiling what happens (hopefully my explanation above only covers what was in the previews). I will say that there were parts that I did feel where a bit rehashed or tired (although, I will admit that when I watched the movie I was in the midst of an annoying cold and was a bit more irritable about stupid stuff) but by the end of the movie I completely forgot about them and was fully engaged and emotionally invested in the story. Pixar shows that, once again, they are the masters of animated storytelling and that they know how to properly end a story as cherished as Toy Story.
(103 minutes - Rated G - 2010) (Netflix)

The Survival of Temple's Iron Hood

Here are a couple more movies I've watched recently. It's a pretty mixed bag with mixed results as well. Temple Grandin is from a few weeks ago (forgot to include it before), but the other 4 I just watched this week and most are relatively new releases.

Temple Grandin* - (4 Stars)
A touching, and wholly interesting look at the life of one of the leaders in humane livestock handling who also happens to be autistic. Won the Emmy for best Made for TV movie (it was on HBO), as such it is not rated. It is basically the equivalent of a PG movie along the lines of Finding Neverland (no real objectionable content but not really interesting for younger kids). (103 minutes - NR - 2010) (Netflix)


Survival of the Dead^ - (1 Star)
George A. Romero has officially lost his touch with zombie movies. It's a good thing "The Walking Dead" starts on AMC on Halloween night (10pm) or else there would be nowhere to turn for good zombies anymore. I have four words to summarize how bad this movie is: zombie riding a horse. Oh yeah, and he uses digital effects instead of makeup effects (see my review of Zombieland if you really want to know more about how I feel about zombie movies) (90 minutes - Rated R for strong zombie violence/gore, language and brief sexuality - 2009/2010)(Netflix)


Iron Man 2  - (4 Stars)
Great follow-up to the original. If you liked the first one, you'll like this one. I like that they are building up to a big team-up movie (The Avengers), but they are forcing too much information into the Iron Man story that could just be saved for the actual Avenger movie. As a side note: I thought Sam Rockwell stands out as being perfectly annoying as Justin Hammer, Tony Stark's business rival, whereas my wife just found him annoying. (124 minutes - Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence, and some language - 2010) (Netflix)


Robin Hood - (2 1/2 Stars)
Ridley Scott, who apparently lives to make epic battle movies, brings his style to a Robin Hood prequel tale. Some of the changes to the mythos work, others are just confusing. I found myself liking some parts and hating other parts of this movie. Overall, the movie is a bit long and convoluted (too many extra characters, some of which are probably set-up for a potential sequel) and probably would have been better had it not been about Robin Hood. (140 minutes - Rated PG-13 for violence including intense sequences of warfare, and some sexual content - 2010) (Netflix)


Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths^ - (2 1/2 Stars)
Not the best and not the worst of the DC Animated movies. Standard comic book fare that is at the very least an entertaining popcorn watch. (75 minutes - Rated PG-13 for action violence - 2010) (Netflix)


*Recommended Pick of the Week
^Netflix Instant Play

(Not So) Grown Ups

Grown Ups - (1 1/2 Stars)

Adam Sandler has been making movies for quite some time. Most of these movies, at least the ones he writes, are fairly similar. They follow a loveable loser, always played with the same immature charm by Sandler, who must overcome some obstacle or solve some problem. A common solution to these problems is that Sandler’s character needs to simply learn to grow up and take more responsibility. Also, there are usually a decent amount of laughs to keep the story chugging along. Lately, however, these laughs have been coming fewer, farther between and a lot more forced. “Grown Ups” continues this downward trend despite its all star cast of funnymen in Kevin James, Chris Rock, David Spade and Rob Schneider.

The group of friends, who played together on a CYO championship basketball team, is brought back together after 30 years when their coach passes away. Sandler, the leader of the group, is now a successful Hollywood agent whose kids are so spoiled they text their nanny for hot chocolate. The rest of the group, while not as well off as Sandler’s character, seem to be doing well enough. After the funeral they decide to spend the holiday weekend together at a lake house they often spent summers at to reminisce and put the coach to rest. It is at the lake house that they begin to realize that maybe things haven’t turned out the way they had hoped and aren’t living their lives the way coach may have wanted.

The movie is full of the usual sight gags, as well as many scenes where the comedians just riff on each other. Either way a lot of the jokes felt contrived or out of place. Often a joke would immediately be followed by a scene change or transition as if they were trying to fit in too much. While there are some parts where I found myself chuckling, overall the movie never really hits its stride.

I found myself wondering often throughout the movie why, with all of the talent involved, the movie wasn’t funnier? My best guess is that the actors just really wanted to do a movie together and hang out.  Unfortunately, this hang out time does not equal more laughs.

In the end, “Grown Ups” ends up being a disappointment. Despite its title, the comedy included in the movie is a bit childish. If you are looking for a summer movie that you don’t really have to think about and maybe laugh a little, “Grown Ups” should do just fine. If you’re looking for something a bit meatier, I’m sure there are plenty of other good choices at the theater right now.

 (102 minutes – Rated PG-13 for crude material including suggestive references, language and some male rear nudity – 2010) (Netflix)

John the Night Road Stalker: In Rome!!!

Finally, after quite a long hiatus, I have some new movie reviews. I've had a lot going on and just haven't had the time to getting these reviews finished and posted. They've been partially completed after I watched each movie, but now here they are. Part of the reason I didn't post was also due to not watching as many movies (nothing coming in, starting to watch "Fringe" again). However, now there should be a pretty steady stream of movies coming in (and maybe a few theatrical reviews as well!)

*The Road – (3 ½ stars) – 

“The Road,” based on the Cormac McCarthy novel of the same name, is a bleak vision of a post-apocalyptic American wasteland. The story follows a man and his son as they trek the wasteland in search of food and hope for a place that is free from all of the destruction. The movie is fairly faithful to book, however some character chemistry is lacking until the end of the movie, which does take away from the movie since most of the story emphasizes the relationship between the man and his son. I also found that the young actor who played the boy was quite annoying (more than I remembered the boy being in the book). Overall the movie does an excellent job of adapting the book although, at the same time, you really could just read the book.

(Netflix) (111 minutes - Rated R for some violence, disturbing images and language - 2009)

The Night Stalker – (3 Stars) – A television movie that kicked-off a subsequent series, “The Night Stalker” is the supernatural precursor to “The X-Files.” The story follows the exploits of the great character of Darren McGavin’s Kolchak, a newspaper reporter, as he tracks down what he believes to be an actual vampire preying on young women. The movie is a bit dated, but still a lot of fun. There is a second movie and the series, however it was short lived, but there was another an attempted resurrection a few years back (to no avail). Also, for those not familiar with the name Darren McGavin, he is the dad who finally relents to getting his son a Red Rider BB gun in “A Christmas Story.”

(Netflix) (74 minutes - Not Rated/Television Movie - 1972)

Dear John – (1 Star) – Chances are that if you are sitting in on “Dear John” you are either the intended audience or were dragged there/coaxed into renting it by the intended audience. Either way, expect the expected. As is standard in a Nicholas Sparks book-to-movie adaptation, we have our typical boy meets girl story full of bad acting, annoying characters and plenty of clichés. You can definitely tell that Sparks is a man trying to write a woman character because they always turn out terribly two-dimensional. By the way, I checked with the intended audience (two teenaged girls and one twenty-something girl): they didn’t like it either.

(Netflix) (108 minutes - Rated PG-13 for some sensuality and violence - 2010)

When In Rome – (3 Stars) –“When in Rome” is a romantic comedy that doesn’t take itself seriously and doesn’t require you to. Starring Kristen Bell (who is most know from her turn as Veronica Mars on CW) and Josh Duhamel (mostly known for being Fergie’s husband), as the couple of interest. They meet at a destination wedding in Rome near a famous fountain of love. The movie includes some funny bit parts from comedians Jon Heder, Danny DeVito, Will Arnett and Dax Shepard (Bell’s real-life love interest). Overall the movie is pretty predictable but remains enjoyable.
(Netflix) (91 minutes - Rated PG-13 for some suggestive content - 2010)


Upcoming Reviews:
Alice in Wonderland
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (for real this time)
The Wolfman (2010)
Dead Alive


Some potential movie reviews currently in theatrical release:
Grown Ups (definite review incoming, I have free passes)
Toy Story 3
Inception