Change Your Image
Kevbo1985
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Halloween (2007)
Impossible To Beat The Original, But Zombie Does It Justice
Being a fan of his music and his theatricality, it was easier than I expected to go into Rob Zombie's re-imagining of the horror classic "Halloween' with an open mind. Considering the original film (and its sequel) rank amongst my highest horror flicks, this was no easy feat from the onset. Balancing my fear of disappointment, as well, were Zombie's first two films, "House of 1,000 Corpses" and the sequel "The Devil's Rejects", which I found to be very entertaining.
I can quickly summarize my thoughts on this film by saying that, in a side-by-side comparison, looking at Zombie's "Halloween" is like looking through a different window to catch a glimpse at the same sight. While the object itself is the same, the perspective is slightly different. Instead of simply thrusting the iconic Michael Myers on us, as Carpenter did, Zombie attempts to introduce us via polarizing back story and a slower build to the final product. In this way, Zombie not only offers a unique perspective on a classic villain, he does so with a modern flair for emotional introspection. Also modernized is the audio, which is something I cannot give Zombie and everyone else responsible enough credit for. The sheer weight of Michael Myers' attacks is felt audibly more so than visually, and Zombie was clever enough to underscore the original "Halloween" theme by using it sparingly, instead introducing an industrial/symphonic score that does wonders for impact and atmosphere.
No doubt about it, Rob Zombie's "Halloween" is easily one of the better horror movies I've ever seen. He does the original justice and never veers far enough from the beaten path, leaving a familiar and uniquely visceral, but more human and tragic, Michael Myers to terrorize us.
Born on the Fourth of July (1989)
Redemption As Gritty As The Path Behind It
To preface my review, I'll say that I am still amazed that I didn't see this film sooner than today. How it escaped even an accidental viewing is, especially considering my thoughts on it in retrospect and my love of war-based cinema, is baffling.
What might color the modern viewer who has yet to experience Born, as it did me, was the idea of Tom Cruise portraying a role more down to earth and realistic than we're used to seeing from the actor. Consider also that in 1989 he was just hitting his stride as a cinematic centerpiece along with the blunt force trauma he had to portray as real-life Vietnam veteran Ron Kovac, and the modern viewer is almost assured of having reservations. Watching some of the special features of my copy of the DVD makes me realize that even then, there were reservations about Cruise. At least outside of Oliver Stone and Ron Kovac, who were sold early on.
It takes maybe half the film until you start to understand it, but Cruise does sell it, and he sells with more honest integrity than I think he's put into any role in his career. It doesn't surprise me as much considering the room and avenues of expression Oliver Stone has traditionally given to his actors, but it does further cement Cruise as an actor of quality more so than quantity.
The film itself, and all of its particulars, offer sharp contrasts, bare humanity and the horrors we're capable of, and the eventual redemption of a man who I do believe, regardless of our own lives, anyone can relate to on some level. It is a story told many times, but this perspective, unique as all perspectives inherently are, is as vital to the entire story of the Vietnam War and ultimately of defining ourselves as any I've ever considered.
Whether or not Stone embellishes is not for me to say; I have yet (and I stress 'yet', as I do believe this film will lead me to reading the book Kovac wrote) to explore the particulars. But, in the end, it doesn't matter; the overall message is as clear as can be by the end. This is the story of a young man who believed and who was deceived, only to once again believe. Each step is fittingly littered with personal conflicts and triumphs, intimate encounters with people from various walks of life. It emphasizes the point that our own beliefs, our own deceptions, our own lives are the product of influence. What we perceive from our families, our friends, our media, inevitably colors our choices in life. For Kovac, these choices led to a swirling chaos of negative consequences. These negative consequences ultimately lead to the redeeming aspects of his later life, but the truth is always there, and it's an ugly truth. A haunting truth, brought to life by haunting moments.
What keeps me from considering this film as more than very good is an inherent disconnect of generations. While my generation will perhaps look back on our current conflicts in the Middle East the same way the Vietnam generation looks at their own conflicts and struggles, Oliver Stone was and, with Born, is a part of a generation that I am not. His perspective is not hard to relate to, but it is hard to understand.
Beyond that, the film has a handful of small issues that feel more like nitpicking but can't be avoided. The cinematography, while advanced for its time, doesn't lend itself as much to intimacy as it does to the swirl of conflict surrounding Kovac and America. The viewer often feels so swept up in the background that it can be difficult to spot and hone in on the essential point of specific scenes. Also, while I applaud Cruise's efforts in his role, he and several other actors are still either miscast or underutilized in my estimation. The storytelling of Oliver Stone, while easy to digest once the film is finished, is choppy and inconsistent, and I felt that certain moments were not given the emphasis they deserved in the overall story of Ron Kovac.
Despite the small flaws, I can't imagine nor have I witnessed a better overall portrayal of a war-torn life and the dirt, grime, pain and suffering that must be carried throughout such a life than this film offers. The gritty realism holds up even today, a time where we can often find more harrowing images on our local news than in this film. There is no individual scene or moment that defines Born On The Fourth Of July; it is a journey that resonates most strongly at its bittersweet conclusion.
Alone in the Dark (2005)
In The Dark, Not Alone
You will invariably come across films where the only plausible response is, "why?". As in, why bother making it at all? You can rarely pin it on one person, and those who do are missing the bigger picture. Regardless, Alone In The Dark did not need to be made. This film should never have been released.
You watch it. Things happen, with only the most tenuous connection making a plot out of the story. This aspect of the film is so bad that, without the introductory dialog, there would be zero hope of the viewer understanding why these things were happening. So, the core of any successful film is, in my opinion, the story and the plot; there is a story here, but it's ridiculous. There is a plot, but it's too loose to do its job.
You watch it. You see Christian Slater overacting, stiff and lifeless. You see Brad Doriff, miscast and unnecessary. You see Tara Reid. And seeing Tara Reid is fine in my book, but when she starts talking, the magic is lost. You see bad acting everywhere, bad casting and ridiculous dialog, poor execution and performance all around.
You watch it. The actual fear from a horror movie is nonexistent; I challenge anyone to describe what truly scared them about this film. The entities that are meant to scare you are nearly void of purpose, poorly designed, digitally executed in a shoddy, video game-esque manner that detracts from the live action film you're watching, and, more than anything, are not scary in and of themselves.
Nothing about this film is scary. Nothing about this film is redeemable. For their budget, they could have filmed somebody playing the classic PC game it is "based on" (in quotes because, beyond the lead character's name, there is nothing in this movie that relates to that game) for two hours and made a more enjoyable film. Terrible, terrible, terrible. Another smudge on Uwe Boll's credibility, but not even close to being completely his fault.
The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)
Wes Anderson Presents: Another Acquired Taste
You honestly have to view the breadth of Anderson's work to understand "The Grand Budapest Hotel". It feels very much like a relatively over-the-top climax of every bit of the man's artistic desires. As if every last thing he wanted fell into place, alongside the pertinent inspiration and a willing audience. An acquired audience.
Many will watch this film and, sooner or later, wonder why they're watching it. These people are not the target audience. Others, in turn, will watch the film and understand within the first ten minutes exactly why they're watching it, and will observe with keen interest Anderson's grand vision of the Grand Budapest and the many overtly and/or subtly intriguing characters surrounding it.
For my money, "The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou" remains Anderson's finest moment, but I cannot take away from the merits of "The Grand Budapest Hotel". Ralph Fiennes is, in quality and quantity, the featured actor of the film, and does an outstanding job as the excessively eccentric M. Gustave. His constant companion is a young lobby boy, Zero, played with a quiet, reserved charm by Tony Revolori. The cast is rounded out by many big names, each with parts of varying significance and, despite the overall positive results, varying intrigue. I personally regret the brief time we get to spend with Bill Murray, Tom Wilkinson, Jude Law and Harvey Keitel. While most of the cast fits into their roles nicely, the occasional head-scratcher remains. Murray's role is perhaps the most obvious.
So, the acting is excellent. Working with Anderson's vision, everything merges together smoothly. The cinematography, a long-standing hallmark of Anderson's films, is breathtaking, truly the heart and soul of the film. The plot is flimsy, but that is ultimately the center of the acquired taste; if you can overlook a flimsy plot to appreciate the other two-thirds of film foundation (acting, atmosphere), then you'll have no problem enjoying the Budapest.
It doesn't surprise me that this movie has received so much praise. It also doesn't surprise me that it's received so much indifference, displeasure and/or disgust. As usual, Wes Anderson remains far enough outside the widest reaching circles of film making to inherently create a "love/hate" offer to viewers with each successive film. While not all of his work has been loved by myself, "The Grand Budapest Hotel" certainly is.
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)
Almost Great...
But still very good all the same, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a film that does an excellent job at continuing the rebooted tale without jumping over too many plot points. It lacks in pure acting ability, but that is strictly reserved for the poorly cast human characters. The apes are portrayed, acted and integrated into the world with seamless precision, allowing for the needed suspension of disbelief.
The story is quite familiar, but also refreshing, a turn of events that the first film in the rebooted franchise doesn't foreshadow. With humanity seemingly at a moment of extreme crisis the world over, Caesar, the original ape who developed increased intelligence and who became the leader of his kind, has led his people into the thick forests of California to establish a home. The entire film centers around the interaction between a small colony of humans and Caesar's tribal apes.
It all progress with fantastic tempo, the pacing only surpassed by the anticipation it builds in the viewer. "What's going to happen?" is a question many movies attempt to have the viewer ask themselves, but only the minority actually succeed at. This film is in that excellent minority.
The only flaws, to my eyes, were as I said: the humans. Gary Oldman, despite being casted in a type of role I've always felt he was suited for, is underutilized in comparison to certain other people. These others, a mixed bag of performances, are mostly overshadowed and at times insignificant to the apes themselves. Perhaps this was inevitable when considering the story, but I do feel that more could have been done to provide a more balanced and engaging human colony in terms of casting and performance.
In the end, I got my money's worth and then some, with only the smallest complaint to offer. Now, my opinion may be more favorable to the reboot as I am one of those who have never seen the originals (shocking, I know), but I can't imagine this film or the last doing any disservice to the classics of the past. Worth the price of admission, and shines well above your average summer blockbuster fare.
RoboCop (2014)
Better than advertised, disappointing all the same
Let's get this out of the way: I expect to be thoroughly entertained, in one way or another, by every film I see. Unless it directly states an ulterior motive at the onset, I want to be moved on my way out of the theater or after ejecting the DVD in a way I wasn't before I watched the film.
Now, in regards to RoboCop, I expected to at least be as happy with the results as I was with the first two, Peter Weller installations. The trailers for this film made this look unlikely, but I wasn't going to be deterred. I'm glad I wasn't.
This film is far from bad. But it is disappointing. With a strong cast (and one of Gary Oldman's best roles in recent memory), more might have been done. That would have necessitated some fleshing out of the script, more intensive relationships between Murphy and those close to him, etc. As it ended up, I enjoyed myself, but was left wanting something else. A weird combination, but an all too common one with major Hollywood productions.
Those who saw and enjoyed the WellerCop films, you'll enjoy this. You might end up wanting more, as I did, but enjoy it you will. You already know the bar wasn't set terribly high to begin with. Those who are virgins to the franchise, start from the beginning and then compare and contrast the old and the new. You don't want to start here. You almost need the plot of the originals to understand how today's technology could lead to that of this film. That, and to understand some of the clever homages to the originals, little treats that definitely made for enjoyable moments.
The Hangover Part III (2013)
Did We Need Part III? Yes. Did We Need This Plot? No.
There's just no way around it: The Hangover could have used a third (and final, hopefully) installment, but this is NOT good enough, in any way, shape or form, to match up to the excellent original and solid sequel.
The main issue is the plot, which feels as hashed together as I can imagine the entire film was. The performances of the main characters are still as solid as they've ever been, but Bradley Cooper has come a long way in between Hangovers and his presence is almost...overbearing? It's hard to pinpoint, but none of the actors (including a more involved Ken Jeong as Chow and a unnecessarily involved John Goodman as the film's antagonist) are helped by the thin and void story.
Without spoiling it, I'll just say that the plot itself chokes the humor out of the film. Each of the previous Hangovers worked by creating situations that were, in and of themselves, hilarious, and then adding the reactions of a handful of excellent comedic actors. A bit of improv must have come into play as well, and even that feels cut off for most of Part III. The potential danger that created the tension in the first two films is diluted to the point where it doesn't work how it's supposed to work: as a platform for the humor. Nothing is better than a good laugh when you might be expecting things to go wrong...and even when they go wrong in Part III, you can't seem to find it in you to care as you once did.
In the end, you'll most likely wonder, like myself, why any of this had to happen in the first place. I'm not talking about the film, but the story within, which is absolutely ridiculous to begin with and gets no better as it continues to unfold. There are some truly funny moments...with such an impressive cast, it was an impossibility to completely avoid that. But these are too far between a shoddy script to justify itself. A poor idea laced into a great overall idea (concluding the series with a bang) makes the entire thing...below itself as a franchise installment.
Now You See Me (2013)
Why? No Reason.
It frankly doesn't surprise me that this film has received more positive than negative feedback; it gives an audience almost everything the trailers and cast lead them to believe they'll get. Plenty of twists, turns, face time with noteworthy actors and a story that doesn't force you to believe in magic in order to believe what's happening on screen. All that being said, there is a minority of viewers, myself included, who know they could have done much more with all the talent and potential lying within Now You See Me...or maybe they couldn't, and shouldn't have bothered to try.
I'm hesitant to say the movie is bad, because deep down it truly isn't. Everyone, from Woody Harrelson to Michael Caine and every name-drop in between does their job and fits in snug with what's going on. Somewhere between the intriguing first 20 minutes and the disappointing last hour or so, I kept asking myself, "why am I not enjoying this?" The answer? It could have been so much more.
Hasty references to the "why" of it all do nothing to satisfy the curiosity of the curious, and when the final credits rolled, I realized that this was the point all along. Even after the major reveal takes place and you finally understand the "how", the "why" never materializes. The introduction of the film makes that question the focal point, and the rest of the film does its best to make you forget you ever had the question in your head to begin with.
Again, I can understand the praise, but I felt as if left the theater having been cheated out of my money. Considering a couple of the main scenes in the film, perhaps this was the filmmakers' entire goal to begin with. It wouldn't surprise me in the least. Regardless, most people seemed to enjoy it, so there's no reason to bash it any further than by saying it simply wasn't what I wanted it to be. It happens sometimes.
Iron Man Three (2013)
It Disappoints...And Doesn't Disappoint.
After two iterations of the series and the Avengers collective effort, most of us who have paid attention thus far more or less knew what to expect from Iron Man 3. Namely, outstanding special effects coupled with heavy doses of Robert Downey Jr's sarcastic one-liners and playful interactions with his supporting cast. Here, Iron Man 3 does not disappoint. However, after so many examples of Tony Stark and his exploits to draw from, this particular batch seems stale in comparison.
I cannot find fault in the plot, despite my lack of comic-book knowledge and the incredible amount of animosity that crowd has towards the inconsistencies and utter lack of translation taking place between particular characters and events. Things unfold at a rapid pace, and even though you have a good feeling regarding how things will all turn out favoring Stark, there are moments where the film remembers (as the original Iron Man did) to remind the audience of his humanity. The standard cast of supporting actors returns, but Ben Kingsley adds some truly unexpected...things...to the film. No spoilers here, I assure you, but his presence is appreciated by this viewer.
So, what's to blame for the disappointment? Simple comparison, of course, and its unavoidable after four films based solely (or largely) on Stark/Iron Man. It entertains, but it also leaves a sour taste in the mouth. The closing line of the credits, "Tony Stark Will Return", is about a 50/50 proposition; we all know the Avengers 2 is coming, but Iron Man 4? Something tells me this is as far as they can (or should) take the series. Something also tells me they won't stop, and continuing to cast the light on Iron Man may end up making the entire franchise (which has been mostly stellar, in my opinion) poorer for it.
Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013)
Unneccesarily Bashed, Interesting Twist On The Franchise
Call me a sucker, but watching this film (rental, minus the 3D trapping that aimed to draw people into theaters) actually made me think that the franchise still has something to offer. This film has something to offer for fans of the franchise, in other words.
The twist, which I won't give away, appeals to me in a way that I can certainly understand many individuals not being able to relate to. That twist is what gives this entry into the series its identity, and the way it all plays out is something I wasn't entirely expecting. A very pleasant surprise, in terms of storytelling, which has never truly been the franchise's strong suit.
The obligatory gore and guts are splattered everywhere across the film, with obvious 3D moments popping up appropriately, but somewhere around the last 45 minutes, you realize you're not just watching a splatter flick. There's more substance here than meets the eye, even if it isn't exactly revolutionary in horror film plot history.
The casting was surprisingly well done, and unlike certain iterations of the franchise, avoids being a detriment to the overall goal.
You're supposed to be scared, but at some point, the film attempts to coax a different feeling from the viewer. Whether or not it works is 100% subjective, of course, but in my case it worked. In the overall scheme of things, Texas Chainsaw 3D isn't the best film in the series (not by a long shot), but when you consider some of the absolutely ridiculous sequels of the past...well...you have to appreciate the gritty reality of this fresh take on a classic.
World War Z (2013)
Deviation Aside, Enjoyable Thrills
Your enjoyment of World War Z doesn't hinge solely on your enjoyment of the book which it claims to be based on, but owes it to anyone who has read the book to disclaim "loosely based". That being said, if you've read the book beforehand, the trailers alone should let you know that the film is going in wholly different direction that Max Brooks laid out in his novel.
I am a huge fan of the zombie franchise, which George Romero essentially put a patent on and dozens of films have branched off from over the years. What "World War Z" does is attempt to mesh the behavioral patterns of the "28 Days Later" infected undead (I refuse to call them zombies, zombies are the slow, shuffling Romero staple) with the essential ideas behind Brooks' book. It does this admirably, but it's a direction that ultimately didn't need to be taken in order to make the film successful. In my mind, it felt like a lazy way of telling a story that builds itself up, cutting time off of the reel in favor of a more fast-paced, energized film experience.
Being a huge fan of the book, I refused to shell out the $10 to see it in the theaters; as I said, the trailers told me clearly that the film was going to diverge far enough from the book for me to lower my expectations. As a rental, and for what it is, it's nowhere near terrible. Remove all comparisons to the book it takes minor inspirations from, and Brad Pitt does a solid job of weaving his way through a decently scripted and constructed horror film.
This ended up being Pitt's highest grossing film to date, and a combination of factors play into that, not least of which being a rather stale list of opposing options in theaters at the time of its release. Still, it's an enjoyable film, however far it deviates from the source material, and however ridiculous some of us may think calling something that runs a zombie. Could have been better...and could have been a whole lot worse.
Oblivion (2013)
Overcasted, Underfed, Average
Tom Cruise is a mercurial actor when you dig into his body of work, and his role in Oblivion almost seems custom-built for somebody else. The story itself is incredibly thin, but all the pieces fall together in proper sequence, and in the end, you're not left surprised so much as satisfied that things play out the way they do.
For much of the early portion of the film, the overall mystery factor leaves you curious, but once they strip this away, the film does a poor job of evaluating the antagonist and its motives. Much like Cruise's role, that of Morgan Freeman could have been filled by a much lesser actor with similar results; there is simply not enough room for him to deftly navigate the film in the manner he is capable. Minor parts aside, the casting is not so much a flaw for Oblivion as it is a point of confusion; such big names need not have applied.
The plot itself, as I mentioned, is thin on detail and heavy on putting things in their right place. Sci-fi goes in either one direction or the other most of the time, and as a huge fan of the genre in a film sense, Oblivion doesn't have the balance between style, substance and storytelling to truly grip me. The big revealing moments are not so much expected as they are dry, leaving a taste in mouth that is familiar, but one which you cannot quite place where you've experienced it before. A strange sort of deja vu.
A few minor tweaks, and a story that didn't pat itself on the back for being sequenced properly and went further into the details of the intriguing world it only dabbles in, could have made Oblivion much more than what it is; an average film, overcasted and underfed.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)
A Comedic Classic...To Some Of Us
You get it, or you don't, or you do and just don't relate anyway. Whatever the case may be, this sort of random, senseless comedy is a sub genre of comedic films that is just as often praised as it is ridiculed.
I find myself praising it more often than not, and particularly so when Will Ferrell is involved. The man is, quite simply, as adept at this style of comedy as anyone ever has been, and his strong and silly performance, alongside a terrific supporting cast, have made Anchorman a classic in my mind. It has provided me and my friends more quotable lines and good times than any other Ferrell flick, and we typically enjoy them all. The upcoming sequel seems to me, at least, to be Ferrell's way of doing justice to what he believes to be his finest film.
Just as important to making the film work is the rest of the Channel 5 News Team. Brick, Champ and Brian are pivotal in playing off of each other, taking advantage of somewhat predictable quirks and eccentricities with skill. Paul Rudd quickly became a comedy/dramatic comedy staple at the box office, and his work here, alongside Steve Carrell's slow-but-sweet portrayal of weatherman Brick Tamlan and the underrated Champ Kind (played by the also underrated David Koechner) round out the film, give it an identity with memorable characters and classic scenes.
The rest of the cast is stand-up as well, including Alicia Silverstone, who holds up strong as Ferrell's counterpart and vying anchorwoman Veronica Corningstone. It all comes together quite nicely cast-wise, and the writing..well, the writing is the best you're going to find in a quote/unquote "silly" comedy, where the story is just a foundation for the ridiculousness to flow off of.
Honestly, I can understand the strong disagreement when I say so, but in my mind, Anchorman is without a doubt one of the finest comedic films ever created. It is, much like Mr. Burgundy himself, the balls
Silver Linings Playbook (2012)
Solid.
To some degree, relating to the situations and conditions of the main characters in Silver Linings Playbook may increase your overall enjoyment of the film. This is a heading that anyone should acknowledge before pressing play.
With that out of the way, what this film is, at its heart, is a romantic comedy that does certain things well and others poorly. The on-screen chemistry between Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence, whose relationship is a focal point of the film, is jagged at best; and this is to the film's benefit, as you watch their interactions unfold. The father-son relationship between Cooper and Robert DeNiro is almost completely unbelievable, and if this film has any sour sticking point, this is it. DeNiro's casting seems almost purely for name power, as if the filmmakers weren't confident enough in Cooper And Lawrence being attractive draws (which they undoubtedly are, Cooper perhaps more so now than DeNiro has been in years).
With the volatile relationship between Cooper and Lawrence, a great many of situations develop, some predictable, some not, but they all are arranged and constructed appropriately to tell a tale of adversity, perseverance, and the crazy moments in between. At times it feels forced, at others confused, but for many American families, this is life. I can relate, and I refer back to my opening paragraph as a reminder that so much of this film can either hit you in the heart or fly over your head depending on who you are. This is true of most art, but Silver Linings Playbook is a bit more focused, almost but not quite a "niche" film.
Overall, a great film, but anything resembling universal appeal is lost due to the subject matter and some unwarranted casting choices. But for those of us who can relate, to some degree, I do believe you'll feel the same as me; well worth the 2 hours.
P.S. - I've noticed more than a few reviews of this film that claim the movie doesn't accurately portray mental illness, and that it makes light of a serious issue. You cannot, in any way, blame the film for this; it is a story, to be enjoyed or not, not a documentary on the mental disorders of the main characters. Keep that in mind.
The Last Stand (2013)
Exactly what it says it is, for better or worse.
Heading into it, I fully expected "The Last Stand" to be boilerplate Schwarzenegger: Guns, one-liners, poor attempts at dramatic turns, car chases, and more guns. "The Last Stand" is all these things, but manages to make it all worthwhile, working a fun supporting cast around the obviously aged Schwarzenegger while pumping every ounce of adrenaline from the predictable action sequences.
Trailers attempted to heavily sell Johnny Knoxville's role as some sort of zany sidekick, but his role is more limited than that, and its probably for the best. He adds to the fun of course, but it is the perturbed Peter Stormare who injects the highest amount of amusement. For a secondary villain, there is enough in his part to have made him the focal point of the entire film. Forrest Whittaker turns in a generic but satisfactory role as a head FBI Agent trying to recapture an escaped drug cartel kingpin, which is the entire plot in a nutshell. Again, nothing surprising here.
As for Arnold, he is a casual master at this sort of film, and despite the wear and tear, he is still more than believable as a small-town sheriff who doesn't know the meaning of the word 'quit'. Early attempts at fleshing out a bit of back story on the character are appreciated, but ultimately unnecessary; it's Arnold Schwarzenegger, he's a cop, and there are bad guys between him and the film's eventual ending.
You can easily fill in the blanks without even watching it, but I recommend it anyway, because it does exactly what its supposed to do and wastes only a small amount of time trying to be something it isn't.
A Late Quartet (2012)
Excellent Acting Propels Thin Plot
In essence, A Late Quartet is a shining example of how the right casting can make all the difference. At its base, the film is not overly intriguing, as it uses the simple idea of a long-running string quartet facing the adversity of a potential split. This, and other individual issues, spiral around the quartet as their personal lives come into direct and indirect conflict with their professions.
Not a terribly exciting plot to be sure, and one that could be viewed as adequately simple or, more easily so, avoiding overbear. What really makes this film so enjoyable is the fantastic acting of the entire casted quartet, starting with a notably restrained and down-to-earth Christopher Walken, whose performance as the group's elder statesman and cellist is one of the finer moments of his career. Rounding out the ensemble cast is the always professional attitude of Philip Seymour Hoffman, a fine performance from talented actress Catherine Keener and an undeniably brilliant performance of the group's dominating 1st violinist by one Mark Ivanir. These four actors breathe incredible life into their roles, and while the writing sometimes leaves certain relationships and scenarios incomplete or unresolved, their performances help to minimize the loss.
An averagely written film is meticulously crafted, as each of the actors underwent some level of training to at least appear comfortable with their instruments. The cinematography is not fussed over to any great extent, leaving the screen to be dominated by the strong acting.
What this film could have used is another 1/2 hour to flesh out certain relationships, as the ending does leave a bittersweet feeling of unresolved issues. But, this is perhaps the entire point, and a re-viewing of the film definitely cements that core ideal. Recommended to anyone who is a fan of any of the four starring actors, or those interested in classical music, as the majority of the film focuses on the subject to some degree or another.
The Avengers (2012)
The Avengers Delivers On All Counts
With each subtle hint at a future collaborative effort of various Marvel superheroes, it seems now that the entire world's anticipation was growing to an immense level. Now that The Avengers has shattered various box office records and is on pace to top the $1 billion worldwide gross mark, I'm sure anyone bothering to write up a review is doing so simply to state his or her case for how they enjoyed it, not so much to tell others what to expect.
As far as that goes, I was incredibly impressed with The Avengers. My initial expectation of an action-packed, SFX-laced adrenaline rush were met with ease, and nothing less would have been satisfactory for any decent superhero picture. I also expected a movie with a hefty dose of comedic relief, mainly because of Robert Downey's lighthearted take on Iron Man in both of his solo pictures. This also turned out to be true, and added just what the film needed in between extremely heavy scenes of fast-paced, chaotic action.
One of the strong dividing lines throughout recent years has been the casting choices for the various superheroes that have gotten both their own pictures and inclusion in the Avenger initiative. Going all the way back to the newer incarnations of the Hulk, fans were unable to come to any semblance of a conclusion on who would be best for what and why. "Why Chris Evans as Captain America?" is a commonly heard question, as is "Why didn't Edward Norton come back as The Hulk?". Unfortunately, you cannot please everyone with so many pivotal casting decisions, but I tend to feel that, overall, the characters portrayed in The Avengers are properly matched up to capable actors. Mark Ruffalo does an excellent job as the mild-mannered Bruce Banner, Jeremy Renner and Scarlet Johansson are easily up to their respective characters Hawkeye and Black Widow. The rest of the team has experience in their roles, from Downey's Iron Man and Evans' Captain America to Chris Hemsworth's Thor and Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury. But, when combined on screen, you cannot tell the "rookies" from the veterans.
Simply put, The Avengers is the best Superhero movie you're likely to come across in terms of sheer entertainment. While I personally wouldn't rank it as my favorite (a reservation I still hold for Watchmen), it's without a doubt worth the price of admission and the incredible amount of hype it's received. An incredible feat of film production and merging talents, The Avengers is destined to be remembered as a high-water mark in superhero cinema.
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Are The Lambs Still Crying?
This is one of those films that sticks with you. The psychological horror of Anthony Hopkin's Hannibal Lecter is like a thick fog that remains in your head, sticking to the corners of your subconscious in a way too few villains have ever managed. It's one of those career-defining roles that, having seen someone so naturally take it on, you cannot imagine anyone else stepping into. Having read Thomas Harris' fantastic novel beforehand, this was one of the biggest selling points to me. As anyone who has read the book(s) can tell you, Hannibal Lecter is an extremely deep and complicated character that demanded an actor capable of both sophisticated mannerisms and a terrible underlying nature of pure evil. The moment Jodie Foster's Clarice Starling meets Hopkins' Lecter, you can see it all in the intense gleam of his eyes.
As a best picture winner, this film was righteously recognized for it's strong merits of precise storytelling, incredible lead acting from Hopkins and Foster and a strong supporting cast, and most of all for truly engaging the viewer in it's atmosphere of horror. The little touches round out the fantastic experience, from Lecter's disturbing facial appliance to Clarice's slow unveiling of her troubled past and Lecter's bizarre way of showing his empathy and affection, all the way to Ted Levine's superb portray of the psychologically disturbed Buffalo Bill.
A movie that still gets under your skin all these years later, it's a crime if you haven't seen it. A brilliant film from beginning to end is rare enough, but when it also features a character who was destined to be one of horror's iconic faces, it becomes a legend in the making.
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)
Mission Accomplished.
Anyone having seen prior installments of Tom Cruise's "Mission Impossible" series would have simple expectations for "Ghost Protocol". Despite the redundancy of both the 2nd and 3rd installments, all of the films, in varying degrees, have managed to satisfy my desire for smart action and minimal interruption. After renting "Ghost Protocol" via my cable provider, my only regret is not having paid the extra $5 to see it on the big screen.
There are few surprises, which ultimately is a good thing; nobody really wants a proved formula to be messed with too much, no matter what they say. That's not to say that specific formulas are immune to the dregs of repetitive redundancy, of course. This film's saving grace is undoubtedly the amount of time that came between it and the last installment in the series.
The film itself builds in predictable fashion, into a rather "safe" plot line. In it, an evil man with an evil henchman attempt to bring about the end of the world in typical fashion (nuclear devastation), and the only people who can do anything about it are Ethan Hawk (Cruise) and his unlikely but strong supporting cast. A cast that brings a dose of comedy relief and bumbling technical prowess (Simon Pegg), a capable woman who's as gorgeous as she is dangerous (Paula Patton) and a mysterious, unproven asset (Jeremy Renner) who is thrown into the mix rather abruptly, to say the least. The casting was well done, as those who spend the most time on screen command the camera and show both their ability to manage both action and the occasional dose of suspense-building narrative.
"Ghost Protocol" rarely lets up, letting the viewer catch his breath in predictable spots as the film unfolds in a manner that leaves you expecting twists and turns and getting them, just perhaps not in the order and/or fashion you thought you saw coming. This combination of fast-paced intensity and subtle, but satisfying reveals and climaxes are the meat and potatoes of Cruise's impossible missions, and not since the original has one of them hit the mark like "Ghost Protocol". As long as you're not expecting more than the previous installments offered, you won't be disappointed with this mission.
Step Brothers (2008)
One Of The Funniest Movies I've Ever Seen
Before I actually dig into the review of this movie, I suppose it would be appropriate to state that I am of the type that finds nonsense, done right (which is relative, I know, just bare with me), incredibly entertaining. Certain people do it better than others. Will Ferrell, without a doubt, does it better than almost anyone in Hollywood. I can absolutely understand those that just "don't get it", or those that get it but are just not of the same inclination to find it at all funny. Like everything else in life, it's okay to disagree and it's okay to feel strongly, one way or the other, about liking or disliking any given thing. In short, it's all in the eye of the beholder.
The premise of Step Brothers, much like the nonsensical humor contained within, is absolutely ridiculous; two grown men, hovering around 40, live with their parents. These men are portrayed by Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly, a comedic duo whom I've come to absolutely love due to this movie and Talladega Nights. They work so well off of each other, their sense of timing and overall chemistry makes them a natural pairing for a solid comedy. In Step Brothers, they end up being forced to live together when their parents fall for one another and attempt to make a big happy family out of the four of them. A sensible, predictable recipe for disaster.
And as each disaster piles onto the next, you may find yourself absolutely aching at the gut from laughter as I usually do. Or you may not. That's okay too. But I really have a hard time distinguishing between "smart" comedy and "stupid" comedy; to me, funny is funny and cannot be a universal thing. Will Ferrell's brand of comedy is that of silly, unbelievable characters, ridiculous dialog and absurdly stupid physical maladies. And, despite the immaturity and childishness of it all, it works better than most any other comedies being produced today.
A variety of supporting actors lend their considerable comedic presence to the overall bottomless pit of funny this movie represents. Mary Steenburgen and Richard Jenkins are excellent as the brother's parents, Mary as the naive, heartfelt mother and Richard as the businesslike, stern and increasingly perturbed father. Adam Scott does a bang-up job as Will's brother, a do-gooder who has seemingly spends his entire life attempting to belittle and one-up his buffoon of a brother. And, although his time on camera is short, Rob Riggle's role of Scott's business associate/crony offers up a few of the movie's funniest moments. It is his presence that forever changed the word "POW!" for me and made it a sort of catchphrase in certain circles.
And that little aspect of Step Brothers is something that, the more I think about it, begins to sum up what Will Ferrell's movies are all about; incredibly funny one-liners that end up getting quoted repeatedly between me and several of my friends. From this movie alone, we were given classic lines regarding drum kits, attempting martial arts in garages, an interesting solution for shoulder pain, the importance of the Catalina Wine Mixer, and a host of others. For those that "get it", Step Brothers seems to be amongst the very best of Ferrell's work in movies. And I am certainly of the opinion that, were it not for the superior "Anchorman", Step Brothers would be his finest moment.
The Sitter (2011)
The Funny Sporadic, The Drama Unwelcome, The Sitter Disappoints
As far as comedy goes, Jonah Hill has steadily made a name for himself as a star in the genre. Personally, his films have always been hit or miss for me, and I've come to the conclusion that his best work is reserved for those times when he has a solid, usually more naturally comedic, actor to support him. With The Sitter, he is already at a disadvantage; his main supporting actors are children and, for the most part, his abilities are front-and-center for the entire film, which was entirely his idea to begin with. The results are mixed at the best of times and, for the most part, lackluster in general.
What immediately screamed at me about the opening sequence was "trying very hard to get the audience's attention". I won't spoil the scene for those who haven't seen the movie, but you'll agree with me once you do. Before I go much further, let it be known that I am an extremely big fan of lighthearted, irrelevant humor (Anchorman is one of my most loved comedies, for instance), and for the most part these are the sorts of films Jonah fits into. The Sitter tries to emulate the formula of many recent successful comedies in terms of witty one-liners and clever trade-offs between characters, occasionally seasoned with a bit of more physical comedy. It's an old system, of course, and something I've more or less come to terms with as being "the norm" in popular comedic cinema. But what disappoints me about The Sitter is how many times it whiffs on the concepts; seemingly custom-made situations for Jonah's quick, nonchalant wittiness are, for the most part, poorly written and performed. The more action-based comedic portions of The Sitter involve a child with a penchant for explosives and some vehicle shenanigans that are rather uninspired and bland without the accompanying depth of creative dialog and jokes.
At some point, perhaps early on or perhaps towards the end, the movie takes a sudden shift into the dramatic, focusing on Jonah's character's relationship with his father or the troubles with his "girlfriend". These aspects of the film ring as hollow and somehow incomplete in the face of a heavy dose of relatively immature and inane comedy. The character development is far too sparse and, when it does take place, far too blunt and, again, uninspired to merit the delving into such intimate places. What does work, and this surprised even me, is how Jonah's character relates to the children he is babysitting. Being an eternal child at heart, Jonah's connection to his ward's problems feels perfectly natural and, in certain ways, touching to a degree. But ultimately it all feels out of place, like a scarecrow in an empty field; it would have a purpose if only it's surroundings were in better shape.
The whole film moves at an increasingly agonizing pace at it becomes more and more clear that you're actually waiting for something funny to happen. Not to say it doesn't happen; but the consistency is so off that it ruins the entire project. There's a certain level of bland, uninspired atmosphere that permeates the film, oozing out of it like a thick mud you cannot remove yourself from. And when you finally do, when the mood lightens and you actually catch yourself grinning or maybe even shocked to hear a chuckle cross your lips, you raise your foot from the mud...only to find your shoe still stuck in it. Relief turns back into aggravation and, more than anything else, you just want it to end.
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
A Shining Piece Of Cinematic Excellence
This movie was released when I was all of 9 years old. Lucky for me, I didn't come across it until nearly 13 years after the fact. I have always been a movie buff and, aside from that, a big fan of the writings of Stephen King. I had read the short story the film is based on and it led me to this film, which I was certainly aware of prior but never checked out. Afterwards, I had a new list of benchmarks for certain aspects of cinema.
First and foremost was the story itself. The writing of this tale, in screenplay form, is absolutely brilliant. The story is fleshed out without lingering in certain areas it would have been easy to linger in, and the pacing of the film is steady and constantly building emotional atmosphere. From the early feelings of confusion and bitter justice (as our main character is judged by his peers) to the dawning realization of what Shawshank Penitentiary has to offer for it's masses of convicted felons. It all flows fabulously, as the tale unwinds from the darkest despair of prison life into the slowly building and palpable hope Andy and Red seem to cultivate for the rest of the prisoners. It's this humanity in the face of inhumane conditions that is at the forefront of The Shawshank Redemption's impact.
Second, but just as vital, was the casting. Tim Robbins has always been, in my mind, a criminally underrated acting talent. He always seems to carry a sense of outward vulnerability that belies an inner strength, and in that conflict one always questions his motivation, his reason for doing things. His skill set was married perfectly to the character of Andy Dufrense, who instantly seems in mortal danger within the walls of Shawshank but eventually rises above the concrete and steel. Indeed, it's safe to say that, mentally at least, Andy spent very little time in that prison.
Morgan Freeman played the role of Red Redding in a manner that, I think, no other actor could have done. He was not only a veteran of Shawshank, he radiated a sense of calm wisdom and strong sense of brotherhood amongst his fellow inmates that lend themselves very well to Freeman's on-stage abilities. As a "man who can get things", Red is instrumental in many inmates' lives in Shawshank. Offering a variety of contraband items in return for the typical currency of incarcerated peoples (cigarettes, petty cash), Red is as important a character as Andy in terms of the film's overall message of hope despite hopelessness. And Morgan Freeman was the best man for that job.
The excellent acting doesn't end there. Bob Gunton, who seems to find a niche in playing white-collar criminal types, portrays the warden of Shawshank as a sinister, scheming man who hides his darker desires behind the Bible and an arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude. William Sadler is another outstanding character actor, similar to Gunton, whose face is more popular than his name and who does a fine job as Heywood. One of the more important supporting roles was that of the hard right hand of the warden, Guard Officer Hadley, who was portrayed by Clancy Brown, well known for his bad-ass-type roles. His no-nonsense, hard-edged persona fits well and leaves you hating his character but appreciating his ability to make you hate someone who doesn't exist.
Beyond the writing and the acting, this movie was perfect in every other aspect. I've seen it many times over the years, often turning to it, perhaps subconsciously, during particularly rough or depressing patches. I've very rarely come across a film that not only meets my expectations, but exceeds them in a way that leaves me constantly comparing future films to it. The Shawshank Redemption is one of those films, where the outstanding story and the remarkable talents of everyone involved combine to bring vivid fiction to life. A masterpiece of modern film-making that has lost none of it's impact or relativity nearly 20 years later.