Stone - 1 star out of 10
"Stone" is lacking something... quality. After viewing it, I'm still trying to figure out why I did not turn it off early on in the movie. It is the only 105 minute film that I have ever experienced that goes through distinct phases. There is a religion phase, a philosophical phase, a phase where the sex and nudity never seem to end (to the point of looking away because it just needs to end), unending language without a purpose (which I like to call the "Tourette's Phase"), and of course the oft-recurring "boring phase." Even with Robert DeNiro, Edward Norton, and Milla Jovovich's names on the poster, the acting falls short because this script is just so boring. The script drones on and on. Probably the only redeeming quality of the film is Norton's character, who has some depth but doesn't even fit into this story very well. I just don't care about any of these characters and will save you the time, because you won't care about them either. This movie gets a strong thumbs-down.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Tucker & Dale vs. Evil - 5 stars out of 10
Tucker & Dale vs. Evil - 5 stars out of 10
Its title alone makes "Tucker & Dale vs. Evil" seem absolutely absurd, and it is! Who knew that two blissfully unaware hillbillies could create such a hysterical horror film? You could argue that this film is making a deep statement about the dangers of judging a book by its cover... but you would be wasting your time. The sole intention of this film is to make you laugh through cliche and irony. I can't really call this a "quality" film but if you asked me if I was entertained, I would give an emphatic yes. Each moment of irony is carefully crafted to create an "Are you serious?' moment, followed by graphic gore (which always manages to be humorous?) and an ever-growing love for these two hillbillies. Tyler Labine steals the show with his dimwitted ignorance while Katrina Bowden provides enough eye candy to hold your attention for the first 20 minutes. Then the ridiculousness begins. This is definitely not a film for everyone. I think that you need to have a love for horror films to interpret the deaths "the group of kids committing suicide on our property" as clever instead of dumb. It's kind of like "Scary Movie," except that instead of making everything in dumb humor, it is just extreme irony. Really the only movie to compare it to is "Zombieland" and although I feel that it falls a bit short of that, it's still worth watching if smart humor and horror films are your thing.
Its title alone makes "Tucker & Dale vs. Evil" seem absolutely absurd, and it is! Who knew that two blissfully unaware hillbillies could create such a hysterical horror film? You could argue that this film is making a deep statement about the dangers of judging a book by its cover... but you would be wasting your time. The sole intention of this film is to make you laugh through cliche and irony. I can't really call this a "quality" film but if you asked me if I was entertained, I would give an emphatic yes. Each moment of irony is carefully crafted to create an "Are you serious?' moment, followed by graphic gore (which always manages to be humorous?) and an ever-growing love for these two hillbillies. Tyler Labine steals the show with his dimwitted ignorance while Katrina Bowden provides enough eye candy to hold your attention for the first 20 minutes. Then the ridiculousness begins. This is definitely not a film for everyone. I think that you need to have a love for horror films to interpret the deaths "the group of kids committing suicide on our property" as clever instead of dumb. It's kind of like "Scary Movie," except that instead of making everything in dumb humor, it is just extreme irony. Really the only movie to compare it to is "Zombieland" and although I feel that it falls a bit short of that, it's still worth watching if smart humor and horror films are your thing.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Annie (1999) - 6 stars out of 10
Annie (1999) - 6 stars out of 10
I'm a purist who typically prefers the original, but this version of "Annie" is REALLY enjoyable! I will try to review this as its own entity instead of constantly drawing comparisons to the original 1981 version. I really like Alicia Morton as Annie. She seems less "dated" than the original (oops, comparison) and has a nice voice. Kathy Bates and Alan Cumming were fantastic as Miss Hannigan and Rooster, but they did not achieve the comic chemistry accomplished by Carol Burnett and Tim Curry in the original (grr, comparison again!) I don't feel that Kristin Chenoweth reached her potential and Audra McDonald had a beautiful singing voice but just didn't feel like Grace. Victor Garber is the one who surprised me - based on his picture on the DVD cover, I never expected him to fit this role but his chemistry with Morton was very nice, and his singing was even nicer. I can talk about the cast all day but the reason that this film keeps stride with the original is because well-written songs like Hard Knock Life are so much fun, regardless of the version. My main complaint is the amount of the story that is left out. I understand that they are limited on time because this is a made-for-tv movie but they just did not give enough time for the relationships to properly develop. In fact, Grace and Warbucks only share about 10 minutes of screentime and magically, they are in love without any chemistry. The film feels even more rushed when it's like "We need to find Annie's parents! Oh well, we spent a day searching and came up empty, might as well give up and adopt her." By cutting out the radio show and the visit to the White House, the search for Annie's parents feels half-hearted, which weakens the character of Daddy Warbucks. He is supposed to care about Annie so much that he will even do the thing that will take her away from him, but I just wasn't buying that. And what about Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who is such an important part of the Broadway show? Oh, let's just toss him in at the end for good measure. I can be critical, but the fact remains that I was very entertained by the film and it had the same emotional impact as the original (that was my last comparison, I promise!) I don't really understand what it is about this show that makes me cry so much. I mean, the dog runs to her when she calls it. No big deal, right? I honestly don't understand but there must be something very special about the music, to be able to affect me this way even when I purposefully try not to care. I particularly loved the arrangement of Tomorrow that Grace sings, with Maybe playing as a countermelody overtop of it. Say what you will about "Annie," but this is a story that is just as much for adults as it is for kids (if not more), and it teaches a few lessons that we could all stand to be reminded of.
I'm a purist who typically prefers the original, but this version of "Annie" is REALLY enjoyable! I will try to review this as its own entity instead of constantly drawing comparisons to the original 1981 version. I really like Alicia Morton as Annie. She seems less "dated" than the original (oops, comparison) and has a nice voice. Kathy Bates and Alan Cumming were fantastic as Miss Hannigan and Rooster, but they did not achieve the comic chemistry accomplished by Carol Burnett and Tim Curry in the original (grr, comparison again!) I don't feel that Kristin Chenoweth reached her potential and Audra McDonald had a beautiful singing voice but just didn't feel like Grace. Victor Garber is the one who surprised me - based on his picture on the DVD cover, I never expected him to fit this role but his chemistry with Morton was very nice, and his singing was even nicer. I can talk about the cast all day but the reason that this film keeps stride with the original is because well-written songs like Hard Knock Life are so much fun, regardless of the version. My main complaint is the amount of the story that is left out. I understand that they are limited on time because this is a made-for-tv movie but they just did not give enough time for the relationships to properly develop. In fact, Grace and Warbucks only share about 10 minutes of screentime and magically, they are in love without any chemistry. The film feels even more rushed when it's like "We need to find Annie's parents! Oh well, we spent a day searching and came up empty, might as well give up and adopt her." By cutting out the radio show and the visit to the White House, the search for Annie's parents feels half-hearted, which weakens the character of Daddy Warbucks. He is supposed to care about Annie so much that he will even do the thing that will take her away from him, but I just wasn't buying that. And what about Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who is such an important part of the Broadway show? Oh, let's just toss him in at the end for good measure. I can be critical, but the fact remains that I was very entertained by the film and it had the same emotional impact as the original (that was my last comparison, I promise!) I don't really understand what it is about this show that makes me cry so much. I mean, the dog runs to her when she calls it. No big deal, right? I honestly don't understand but there must be something very special about the music, to be able to affect me this way even when I purposefully try not to care. I particularly loved the arrangement of Tomorrow that Grace sings, with Maybe playing as a countermelody overtop of it. Say what you will about "Annie," but this is a story that is just as much for adults as it is for kids (if not more), and it teaches a few lessons that we could all stand to be reminded of.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World - 4 stars out of 10
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World - 4 stars out of 10
"Master and Commander" creates a similar experience for the audience as it does for its characters - it's a bunch of guys on a ship, waiting for something interesting to happen. I was warned that this story would be slow, but I still wasn't prepared for the first hour+ of this film. Don't get me wrong, there is important character development taking place and one interesting battle, but they need to have the characters DOING something as they're developed while we wait for the big 30-minute finale that we saw on the previews. It has great special effects... when there is actually action. Unfortunately, there is very little action. I realize that the critics liked this film and that it was nominated for 10 Oscars, but 2003 was a weak year for movies and I can't place this as a Best Picture nominee in other Oscar classes (or even in 2003). When compared with "Pirates of the Caribbean" (which did not receive a Best Picture nomination), this film looks inferior. I have trouble labeling it "Action & Adventure" when very little of the film involves these two things. "Pirates" is interesting from start to finish whereas this film alternates between epic adventure and nap-time. It's okay, just not worthy of 10 Oscar nominations. The one portion of this film that garnered my attention was the story of Dr. Stephen Maturin, and I give credit to Paul Bettany for making me like this character so much. The final battle made me sit up and take note, and even made me say to myself "Okay, this movie isn't as bad as I thought and I'm finally enjoying it." But if you are expecting "Gladiator" when you see Russell Crowe's name on this film, you are going to find yourself one hour short of an epic.
"Master and Commander" creates a similar experience for the audience as it does for its characters - it's a bunch of guys on a ship, waiting for something interesting to happen. I was warned that this story would be slow, but I still wasn't prepared for the first hour+ of this film. Don't get me wrong, there is important character development taking place and one interesting battle, but they need to have the characters DOING something as they're developed while we wait for the big 30-minute finale that we saw on the previews. It has great special effects... when there is actually action. Unfortunately, there is very little action. I realize that the critics liked this film and that it was nominated for 10 Oscars, but 2003 was a weak year for movies and I can't place this as a Best Picture nominee in other Oscar classes (or even in 2003). When compared with "Pirates of the Caribbean" (which did not receive a Best Picture nomination), this film looks inferior. I have trouble labeling it "Action & Adventure" when very little of the film involves these two things. "Pirates" is interesting from start to finish whereas this film alternates between epic adventure and nap-time. It's okay, just not worthy of 10 Oscar nominations. The one portion of this film that garnered my attention was the story of Dr. Stephen Maturin, and I give credit to Paul Bettany for making me like this character so much. The final battle made me sit up and take note, and even made me say to myself "Okay, this movie isn't as bad as I thought and I'm finally enjoying it." But if you are expecting "Gladiator" when you see Russell Crowe's name on this film, you are going to find yourself one hour short of an epic.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Tower Heist - 7 stars out of 10
Tower Heist - 7 stars out of 10
"Tower Heist" is an entertaining comedy that focuses more on quirky characters than it focuses on the actual heist. The film succeeds because of its strong actors and entertaining script. Unlike "Meet the Parents" (in which I feel so sorry for his character that it's unpleasant), all of these characters will make you smile. Alan Alda steals the show as the villainous Arthur Shaw, blurring the line between genuine nice guy and conniving criminal. Another highlight is Tea Leoni as the spunky FBI agent. I feel like FBI characters are often static and non-emotional, but Leoni gives her character a human side that you can connect with. Stiller is funny, Eddie Murphy is even funnier, and Matthew Broderick is hysterical in his characterization of Mr. Fitzhugh. I'm not sure if the scene with him hanging from the red Ferrari on the side of the building was intended as a reference to "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," but it made me chuckle. I often find Casey Affleck to be "just alright," but his average-ness is emphasized by the inclusion of so many big names in this film (also including Gabourey Sidbe (a.k.a. Precious), and Judd Hirsch). These actors can only do so much unless they have a good script, and I feel like this was a well-written comedy. A lot of the jokes are sexual and hinder this from being a family film like "Night at the Museum," but it's a great comedy for adults. Unlike "Ocean's Eleven," which focuses on the heist and character development, this film focuses on dialogue and jokes. It certainly is not as good as the Ocean's series but it still entertains and will have you laughing from start to finish.
"Tower Heist" is an entertaining comedy that focuses more on quirky characters than it focuses on the actual heist. The film succeeds because of its strong actors and entertaining script. Unlike "Meet the Parents" (in which I feel so sorry for his character that it's unpleasant), all of these characters will make you smile. Alan Alda steals the show as the villainous Arthur Shaw, blurring the line between genuine nice guy and conniving criminal. Another highlight is Tea Leoni as the spunky FBI agent. I feel like FBI characters are often static and non-emotional, but Leoni gives her character a human side that you can connect with. Stiller is funny, Eddie Murphy is even funnier, and Matthew Broderick is hysterical in his characterization of Mr. Fitzhugh. I'm not sure if the scene with him hanging from the red Ferrari on the side of the building was intended as a reference to "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," but it made me chuckle. I often find Casey Affleck to be "just alright," but his average-ness is emphasized by the inclusion of so many big names in this film (also including Gabourey Sidbe (a.k.a. Precious), and Judd Hirsch). These actors can only do so much unless they have a good script, and I feel like this was a well-written comedy. A lot of the jokes are sexual and hinder this from being a family film like "Night at the Museum," but it's a great comedy for adults. Unlike "Ocean's Eleven," which focuses on the heist and character development, this film focuses on dialogue and jokes. It certainly is not as good as the Ocean's series but it still entertains and will have you laughing from start to finish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)