End of Watch

END OF WATCH

Another thrilling police drama from the writer of Training Day

 

I wish I had a gold AK...

 

2012, Police Drama, Rated R

Distributed by Open Road Films

 

          End of Watch stars Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Pena as LAPD officers and partners in the latest film from David Ayer. Ayer has written many successful movies involving realistic depictions of police officers and this is merely his latest. End of Watch has a twist, though: it's filmed like Paranormal Activity and Cloverfield. Most of the movie is viewed through Officer Taylor's (Gyllenhaal) home recorder. He brings it along and films everything, sort of like in the show Cops. He even has cameras attached to their chest pockets. The illusion really works and it will begin to feel totally reel. The found footage tactic works in End of Watch and that alone makes it worth seeing. The thing is, most found footage movies have big thrills and bad actors. Gyllenhaal and Pena both give excellent portrayals of L.A.'s finest.

          Officer Taylor's camera's aren't the only way we experience End of Watch. There are other shots throughout that are filmed like a traditional movie. They are blended so well into the action that you won't even notice. The fact that the cameras are there, though, provide for many interesting scenes. Many of the other officers are skeptical of Taylor filming them and that always made for funny moments that explored each character involved.

          What's great about the film is that it's not just about cops. It's about the people who happen to be cops. There is a lot of time spent with Taylor's and Zavala's (Pena) families as well as car chases and shootouts. We really get a feel for who these guys are behind the badge. This makes for great dramatic moments between the two men when they're on the job. They fight, laugh, talk sh@# but always act totally human, not like made up charatcers. It's hard to describe. The found footage technique worked very well in End of Watch.  

          The whole thing somehow felt a bit underwhelming, however. It felt like a poor man's Training Day, or rather, a Training Day for a modern, younger audience. I guess that isn't a bad thing. It really is a good movie and the experience of it all is intense, but it somehow reminded me of other police dramas that have been grittier. That's what was missing: the grit. Maybe it was the young, pretty-faced Gyllenhaal that made me feel this way, though he did a great job. Anyway, don't expect Training Day or a new classic police drama. This is a thrill but it won't last.

          After a lull at the box office I'd say this is a good film to catch at the theater. The hand-held gimmick is good for the theater. The whole film will be more intense that way. But hey, plenty of people watch Cops on their TV's so maybe wait for it on DVD. It's a great film, and all the actors turn in good performances, but it isn't a mind-blow. It also felt a bit too long.

 

          Side note: I thought the ending was bad. I won't say what happens and although you may see it coming, I wasn't a fan. They should have kept it original like the film had been up until that point. And then there's a random other ending that is funny but felt really pointless. I think they were hoping to distract you from the cliche ending. 

 



Dredd

DREDD

R-rated sci-fi action at its finest

 

2012: Lionsgate


2012, Sci-Fi/Action, Rated R

Distributed by Lionsgate

 

          I don't think anyone could have predicted this: Dredd is the best R-rated action film of the year. There is no comparison to the amount of brutal and stylish violence that is displayed on screen during this new sci-fi actioner. The film builds its own ultra compelling, crime-ridden, post-apocalyptic world full of interesting characters and futuristic technology. The film's attitude serves it so well: Judgement is coming so you'd better be ready. Strap in and hold on tight, Dredd is absolutely thrilling.

          Let me explain my initial skepticism about the remade, comic book adaptation that is Dredd. Karl Urban is the star. This guy hasn't carried a good action film on his own. He has tried and failed miserably. Pathfinder saw him as a central action hero in another comic book adaptation and that film was awful. It wasn't his fault, though, because Urban is a good actor when he wants to be (see his side roles in The Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Star Trek remake) but his starring roles have not made him a bona-fied action hero yet. Hopefully Dredd can push him in that direction. He does a fabulous job as the one-note, badass law-enforcer named Judge Dredd. He lives in a city surrounded by deadly radiation jampacked with 800 million people. There is a lot of crime and the only force fighting that crime is the Hall of Justice. Judges are like futuristic policemen who do everything on the job: they act as judge, jury, and executioner for each case they handle. They carry out "on site executions" like it's no big deal because the dystopian society that now exists doesn't have time or resources to do it the old way.

          Anyway, a new drug pops up and is slowly getting the whole city hooked. It's called "Slow-Mo" and makes it seem as though time is happening at 1% its normal speed. Dredd is on patrol with a rookie Judge (played by Olivia Thirlby) and they stumble into a tower in which the drug is being produced and controlled by one woman. She's called Ma-Ma (played by Lena Heady) and she is one evil, totally infectious, very powerful villain. She finds out two judges are sniffing around her operations and shuts the whole building down, locking them inside. The two Judges then have to fight their way to the top (200 floors up!) with no backup and hundreds of baddies after them. It's explosive action and cheeky dialogue from then on.

          Dredd takes full advantage of superb special effects, 3D, and gruesome violence. This film is not for the faint of heart. When characters take the Slow-Mo drug, the screen gets this sparkling, ultra-slow-motion fix to it that is just dazzling. Most stylish gimmicks like this can feel like hollow eye candy, but not the visuals in Dredd. I was always glued to the screen during a Slow-Mo scene. It's so cool because each time something new and different will happen to the person on the drug. Usually is involves violence. One scene has a whole room full of users as Dredd and the rookie bust in and shoot pretty much everyone. The whole scene is in slow motion and you see bullets going through people's faces. It's violently gorgeous on a visual effects standpoint. There are violent images in this that are truly unrivaled in other R-rated films. It's not going to win any Oscars, but Dredd succeeds in all areas that it attempts to impress.

          There's a lot of deadpan humor to be found here as well. The filmmakers know that people aren't going to take this movie too seriously so they play around with the dialogue and the action. Dredd doesn't say much but when he does it's either hilarious or extremely menacing. Karl Urban really pulls this one off with flying colors. The scribe too, Alex Garland (28 Days Later), wrote a great script. Another excellent aspect of the film is that Dredd never takes off his helmet. That was an issue fans of the comics had with the original. This time around they did it right. Performances were also top-notch. Lena Heady as Ma-Ma was perfectly creepy and menacing and Olivia Thirlby as the rookie Judge with psychic abilities were both great. The rookie's psychic powers come into play during an interrogation scene that is just plain awesome: like nothing you've ever seen.

          All in all I'd say drop what you're doing and go see Dredd if you like action films, especially if you like overly-violent R-rated action films. All the characters are compelling and the special effects are totally mind-blowing. There's been a lull in good movies since August ended and this is your first real reason to visit the theater post-summer-blockbuster slump.

 

          Side note: September is always a slow time at the movies. The films that come out usually aren't good enough for end-of-the-year Oscar rounds or mainstream enough for the busy summer schedule. The past two weeks have been a good example of that. That's why I haven't been reviewing as much. But this weekend sees the releases of multiple exciting new films. Come back very soon for reviews of The Master, End of Watch, House at the End of the Street, and Trouble with the Curve. It's gonna be a busy weekend...go see Dredd, though, because it's awesome. 



Hit and Run

HIT AND RUN

This is one accident you want to get into

2012: Open Road Films

 

2012, Action/Comedy, Rated R

Distributed by Open Road Films

 

          Hit and Run stars Dax Shepard (from TV's Punk'd) and a dreadlocked Bradley Cooper as criminals in a hysterical cat-and-mouse road trip movie. It's not at all the movie you expect it to be. At first, when my initial expectations (the trailers advertise just another R-rated raunchy comedy) were not reached, I was bracing myself for a bad time at the theater. But then the shift of tone settled in nicely and the film was a great ride from then on. You'll soon learn that it has a very strong and romantic love story and the goofy Dax Shepard can pull this one off.

          The film, co-directed and written by Shepard, is about a couple, played by Shepard and Kristen Bell, who are deeply in love. This is expressed in the opening scene. It's essentially pillow talk between them and Dax Shepard does so well. At first I thought I could only take him in a comedic light but he is a real actor through and through and proves it here. Kristen Bell is great as well; their chemistry was perfect. The movie is hard to explain from there, but that's what I like about it. There is so much back-story that is revealed to the audience slowly and very naturally and it paints the whole picture in the end. There were many comedic scenes that strayed from the plot because of lengthy improv rants from all the actors, but it was always hilarious. Tom Arnold does an especially great job going head to head with these young funny actors. He plays an accident-prone U.S. Marshall meant to monitor Shepard because he is in Witness Protection. 

          The reason he needs protection should not be explained here, you have to let the film unfold its story for you. The pacing is perfect and I was never bored. From each romantic scene to every last chase scene I was glued. Bradley Cooper is probably my favorite in the film, though. As expected, his character is whacked-out but hilarious. There are no good guys or bad guys...I'm stumbling here because it's nearly impossible to describe. There are so many hilarious actors and characters that fill the story, you shouldn't lose interest.

          The action is spectacular as well. It's not CGI robots or anything but the cars were fast and the rubber was hot. Dax Shepard's character was a getaway driver before he met his girlfriend so he always escapes somehow in suped-up cars of various high-end makes and models. There are a few scenes of violence that embrace the R rating but I would say overall this is a comedy. The way each character talked felt very real, so I liked how much swearing I heard. The plot, editing, and pacing were all particularly impressive because it's not a traditional type of story. This is pretty much a great, fun film with tons of likable actors, a funny script, and in a copy-cat world, it's actually original.

 

          Side note: I didn't want to give away the story so I couldn't mention other characters and actors. Here are some noteworthy performances: Michael Rosenbaum as Gil, Kristen Bell's character's pathetic but persistent jealous ex-boyfriend, Christen Chenoweth as Bell's pill-popping boss, Jess Rowland as a desperate homosexual police officer, David Coechner as a redneck thief, and Beau Bridges as Shepard's father. Jason Bateman and Sean Hayes have cameos...need I continue?

 



Premium Rush

PREMIUM RUSH

Goofy title aside, you'll enjoy this one

Gordon-Levitt does just that

2012, Thriller, Rated PG-13

Distributed by Columbia Pictures
 

          The most interesting aspect of this film is its director, David Koepp. Koepp normally sticks to screenplays and has penned some very successful films with broad appeal (Jurassic Park, Panic Room, Spider-Man). His latest, which he wrote and directed, has somewhat limited appeal. It's about a bike messenger in New York City who gets some heavy baggage to deliver. With a very corrupt cop hot on his rubber trail, Wilee must race to get the package into the right hands. People's lives depend on it. It's very intense stuff, but somehow it all feels a bit trivial. It's a great and stylish little film, but I wouldn't say it's for everyone.

          Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Wilee the exceptionally quick and smart bike messenger living and delivering in the heart of NYC. He does a wonderful job playing the character while opening up a world to the audience that most people aren't familiar with. It reminded me of other films that show you the inside workings of an industry or something unknown to the viewer (such as driving a taxi in Collateral, being a male stripper in Magic Mike). The film is held up by the fact that bike messengers live an interesting and fast-paced life, one we get a close-up look at, and Koepp depicts it with style and enthusiasm.

          Opposite Gordon-Levitt is Michael Shannon as the corrupt cop trying to intercept Wilee's new and dangerous package. Just as Wilee picks up the package, Shannon's dirty cop is there to antagonize him and demand the contents of the envelope. It's a gritty and high-octane chase scene from there on. Wilee outwits Shannon's character in many well-crafted scenes but he is relentless. Michael Shannon has proved a versatile actor but in Premium Rush he really shines. He does a superb job playing the grimy villain. He is very good at playing a creep, I'll give him that.

          Even though the film is edge-of-your-seat action and chase scenes, there are surprisingly a few dull moments. What I love about the film is that it begins at about 5:00 pm and ends around 7:00 pm which is when Wilee's message needs to be delivered. It's almost in real-time. Almost. There are overly-long and complicated flashbacks that show the viewer why the dirty cop needs what Wilee is carrying. It's nice to see a well-thought-out reason, but the flashbacks interrupt the flow of the film. I found I could have done without them. His backstory could have been displayed to the audience in a more interesting way. I would have taken advantage of Michael Shannon's excellent acting by giving him a monologue or something to describe his situation. The way they did it, though, wasn't terrible.

          There are so many redeemable aspects of this fresh new film to warrant a trip to theater. It's nothing like The Avengers and isn't as intense as The Bourne Legacy but it is original and it is creative. The visual effects are tremendous and the soundtrack even sticks out as better than average. All in all, I highly suggest it.



The Apparition

THE APPARITION

So, you thought ALVH was bad?

 

Worst movie of 2012

 

2012, Horror, Rated PG-13

Distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures

 

          This is easily the worst theatrical release of 2012. I can't believe it's actually in the theaters. It belongs on the Sci-Fi Channel as a made-for-TV movie. It's absolutely terrible. I hated every minute of it and you will too if you spend the money to see it.

          The trailers for The Apparition tell you more about what's going on in the film than the film itself. Halfway through I realized that literally nothing was being explained. The film relies on so many cliches to distract you from the absence of a real plot. Essentially it's like this: a beautiful couple move into a house together. The house appears to be haunted but in reality it's the man in the relationship that's haunted. He took part in an experiment years prior that meant to create a supernatural being with belief. The trailers told us that they created a supernatural entity in their minds to prove that ghosts aren't real, you simply need to believe that they are and they will come haunt you. Most of what I just told you I got from the trailer. It is not explained in the film itself. It's not a terrible idea for a movie but everything else about the movie is terrible.

          There are no famous people in this movie other than the kid who played Malfoy in the Harry Potter film franchise. He has a very small role. The couple is played by two gorgeous human beings who can't act. The girl doesn't know about the experiment so she runs around scared throughout the whole movie. The guy literally has the same expression on his face in every scene. He looks freaked-out but kind of pissed-off too. The acting is terrible and the script is even worse. I'm still shocked that this got a theatrical release.

          I guess the worst part of the movie is that it steals its premise from a very famous horror film. The idea that you have to believe in the supernatural entity for it to harm you is taken directly from A Nightmare On Elm Street. Nightmare has an antagonist, though, and everyone knows him. Freddy Krueger is unforgettable with his gory burns, Christmas sweater, and knives attached to his gloves. There is no identifiable antagonist in The Apparition. The scary things you see are odd lights, doors closing by themselves, and a random yellow mold that forms on walls near someone who is afraid of "the apparition". I bet they named it that because that's all it is: an apparition. There's no evil force behind it, no reason for these kids to be haunted and killed. I'm also shocked that this film comes in at one hour and twenty minutes and I was still so bored, just begging the credits to roll, not halfway through it.

          This movie is on a whole other level of bad. It's literally only good for laughs. Maybe play a drinking game with it: drink every time you laugh unintentionally. You'll be drunk as a skunk real quick. Avoid it like an apparition.

 

          Side note: I hate when a trailer shows a main character's death. The trailers for The Apparition showed pretty much all of them. I knew when each character was going to die minutes before any danger presented itself.

The Expendables 2

THE EXPENDABLES 2

Norris, Willis, Hemsworth, Schwarzenegger, and Van Damme join the Expendables

There are two of them. This is the second.

2012, Action, Rated R

Distributed by Lionsgate

          Having just come down from the exhilarating high provided by The Bourne Legacy, I can't say this is the best action film of the year so far. It's a close second, though. As far as non-superhero action goes, it doesn't get any better than The Expendables 2. Not only is it a great shoot-em-up adventure, but it doesn't take itself too seriously. The cast makes so many jokes poking fun at itself that you can't help but smile when you're not cringing while heads are exploding.

          The Expendables, which came out the same week two years ago, was terrific for what it was. You would expect that in an R-rated action film there would be sex, drug use, nudity, and bad language to go along with the violence. The Expendables has only violence. The worst swear word used in it is "Hell". There is no sex and no drug use. When Stallone leaves the pretty girl he just saved from death, he doesn't kiss her like all the other cheesy movies out there: he gives her a hug. My point is: The Expendables has more going for it than you would initially expect based on the premise. All those classic action stars from the 80s have created something truly interesting and original in their joint effort that is The Expendables.

          The Expendables 2 is no different from the first. The only difference is more classic action stars. Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger have larger roles this time around in heavy action scenes. Chuck Norris has a great little role as "the lone wolf". Newcomer Liam Hemsworth joins the tough guys for a small but important role. All these new additions enrich the Expendables universe, making it even more fun than the first one. The best addition to this brutal sequel is Jean Claude Van Damme. I was in awe of Van Damme's performance. He plays the villain in this picture and does an incredible job. His accent, his outfit, his eyes even, were all perfectly creepy and villainous. He was my favorite new addition to the cast. I never thought of him as a particularly good actor but he shines brilliantly as a villain. His costumes were even perfect. He wears this menacing black trench coat and black sunglasses in every scene (none of which are in broad daylight). I loved that aspect of the film. It made the scenes on the bad guy side just as entertaining as the ones with Stallone and co.

          All the other expendables turn in great performances. There are too many to name here, but no one faltered. Jet Li was not in it enough, though his one scene was great. Jason Statham once again shows that he can role with the big boys. He fits in so nicely even with those old dinosaurs. Stallone does a great job as always. Willis says a classic Arnie line and Arnie retorts with a "yippie-kai-yay". The most interesting surprise was that Chuck Norris actually makes a "Chuck Norris" joke about himself. Priceless.

          The action scenes are the best of the best. I've never seen so many vehicles, buildings, or people explode with such beauty and realism. I've played my fare share of Call of Duty and this movie reflects the gameplay and visuals somewhat. The headshots were depicted with such realism that it reminded me of headshots in first-person-shooters. The audience for The Expendables 2 is definitely the same audience as a first person shooter so they did a great job replicating that level of violence and ass-kicking.

          Therein lies the only problem with The Expendables 2. It's for a certain audience. If you've never played a first-person-shooter then chances are you might just hate this movie. If you've never seen a film with these old action stars in it, you probably won't understand any of the jokes made in the film. It comes down to this: if you see the trailers for The Expendables 2 and think it looks good, you will love it. If it's not "your kind of movie" then avoid it. It is much better than you would expect, but I won't go as far as to say everyone will enjoy it.



Here's three more trailers...

...that might be better than the movies they advertise.

Here are three more trailers that might be better than the movies they advertise. Mostly new this time...

This. Movie. Looks. Awesome. Well, to me anyway. This trailer makes Branded, out September 7, look so weird that it must have something worthy going for it. It doesn't provide much in the way of explanation, but I bet the whole film is oddly confusing and obscure. I hope to high Heaven that the film is as good as this freaky trailer. Oh, and the way "Branded" is written at the very end? Brilliant. Reminiscent of Enter the Void's opening credits.

Now, I know excorcism movies are a dime-a-dozen and usually lame, but something about The Possession has me hooked. It isn't necessarily this trailer making me want to see it, although it is well-made, but the facts about the movie. It's apparently based on a true story. Jeffrey Dean Morgan is in it and he is great. He doesn't normally star in a film like this so I hope it will be unusal or out of the ordinary (extraordinary hopefully) in some way. Also, it seems to me to sort of be a modern Pandora's box story. I love a good myth modernized. And like always, it's the music that makes this trailer such a success. Will The Possession, out August 31, be as scary as the trailer? I doubt it, but I'm still seein' it.

This is the most tasteful, subtle, gentlest way to drop a movie about Facebook onto an audience. It shows the social networking site in a creepy, demented, and dark light that totally prepares you for the film that it advertises. This movie is one of my all-time favorites so, yes, The Social Network (2010) totally lives up to this excellent teaser. Like I always say, the music is the best part. The cover of Radiohead's "Creep" is just so perfect for the subject and theme. I love this teaser. I watch it today and it still gets me excited for a two-year-old movie.



ParaNorman

PARANORMAN

Missing that unmistakable Neil Gaiman flare

Zombie's got my leg

2012, Stop-motion kid's adventure, Rated PG

Distributed by Focus Features

          There is essentially nothing wrong with the film ParaNorman. It's a great little movie for kids and parents and even teenagers. The only issues one might see in ParaNorman involve the animation company Laika's previous efforts. The first stop-motion film made by the team at Laika was Coraline, based on a novel by Neil Gaiman. Their eerie, gothic take on the classic Gaiman tale was marvelous and fit the Coraline atmosphere perfectly. This time around Laika has made an original film that is based on nothing. It's simply a tale of a little boy who can talk to ghosts and his journey to save a really angry one from destroying his town. It is a good movie, but it undeniably suffers from the absence of Neil Gaiman's mind and ideas.

          If you're not a Neil Gaiman fan or have never seen Coraline then you will love ParaNorman.The animation is even better this time around and colors and characters pop right off the screen. The 3D aids in the "popping" and works wonderfully for all those ghostly apparitions. Norman is a likable character and he is surrounded by other even more likable characters. For some reason, little Norman didn't leave an impression on me as strongly as some of the other more eccentric characters. Norman has a fat, little friend who was hilarious. His big sister is funny and tastefully valley-girl. Her love interest and the older brother of the round friend was probably my favorite character in the whole movie. He is incredibly (and unrealistically) muscly but his meat-head jokes were all fresh. It's a character that shows up in many movies, especially young adult movies, but in ParaNorman he is still funny and fresh. One fact about that character is revealed at the very end (I won't spoil it for you) and represents a GIANT step forward for kids movies. Bravo, Laika, bravo!

          The actors who play these lively clay people were all perfectly cast. The only actor I did not find fitting was Jeff Garlin as Norman's father. It could have been because I expected him to be funnier, but he just didn't sound right. He made a lot of jokes that weren't funny and he also treats Norman unkindly. Maybe I just didn't like the character. All in all the voice acting and characters are incredibly interesting and eccentric.

          The only thing wrong with the film is the pacing. The beginning is not very intriguing. The middle builds a bit more steam. But the finale is downright awesome. The film builds to an insane climax that shows off mature writing and superb animation. The lackluster beginning made the ending that much more enjoyable, but they still could have evened the tone out a bit more. I also didn't really like how they portayed the character of Norman in some parts. The beginning of the film treats the audience as if we don't already know that he can see and talk to ghosts. He sort of walks around and says "hello" to no one as if I'm supposed to be confused by it. Then it shows other kids thinking that he is weird for talking to imaginary people. The camera revolves around Norman in one shot and reveals a hidden world of ghouls surrounding and speaking to Norman. It all just felt totally unnecessary and overly-long. The trailers told us right up front that Norman can talk to ghosts so why drag it out?

          Yes, ParaNorman has its flaws but they are few and far between. It is nothing compared to the brilliant Coraline but does show off some new wit and insight into gothic animated films (I hope one day there's a whole genre devoted to goth animated films). The aspects that are awesome about ParaNorman easily outweigh those that may have needed some work. And this is a definite theater movie. The 3D and epic animation need to be viewed on a big screen.

          Side note: Back to the Neil Gaiman thing. Gaiman wrote a book called The Graveyard Book about...you guessed it: a little boy who can talk to ghosts! Why didn't they simply adapt that? It would have been way cooler than the story that unfolds in ParaNorman.

The Odd Life of Timothy Green

THE ODD LIFE OF TIMOTHY GREEN
Sometimes a good idea grows into a bad movie


2012: Walt Disney Pictures

2012, Family Movie, Rated PG-13
Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures

          The Odd Life of Timothy Green is Disney's newest live-action family affair. I personally was excited to see this movie based on the premise and the trailers. I thought the idea was just so...odd, that it had to make for a fascinating story. The story behind the movie is quite fascinating, but the characters that populate it are boring, one-dimensional, and hardly relatable at all.

          The idea behind Timothy Green begins with a couple, played by Joel Edgerton and Jennifer Garner, who can't have children. One scene I liked in the film was in the beginning when they find this out. The camera shows the two of them sitting in the doctor's office and by the looks on their faces it is impossible to tell which is medically unable to make children. I liked that because it wasn't all that important, who was physically at fault, because what matters is how a couple as a unit handles the situation. Unfortunately the movie gets bad right after that because the way they handle it is annoying. Really cheeky and cutesy and annoying.

          The main problem with this movie is the two lead characters and the actors who play them. I eventually detested the way they treated their unique situation. The couple one night decides to put the infertility thing behind them by writing down all the traits of the imagined kid and putting the writings in a box. They then bury the box in the garden. That night a little boy sprouts up from the garden and he has leaves attached to his legs. The couple realizes that the boy was sent for them because they can't conceive: a miracle! I thought the scene where they are writing down imagined traits looked lame because it was cut short for the trailer but no: it is even worse when watching the whole movie. The problem with this movie is that sometimes it's embarrassing to watch. The script has the couple acting like idiots. There are just so many things I would have done differently in their situation. You can't keep it a secret that you found a kid who grew out of your garden. Jennifer Garner has a sister in the movie and she acts not a like a normal person would regarding the boy either. It was just so daft that the parents simply say "don't let anyone see your leaves" before Timothy goes to school. They think they can keep it a secret that he has vegetation growing out of his legs with knee-high socks. I'm sorry but that's just stupid. It's very odd, the whole movie, but not in a good way. The whole thing eventually feels pointless. I really disliked this movie. It's heart was in the right place, but everything else was a puzzle put together improperly.

          The best part of the film, and something that will make it worth a rental at most down the road, is the performance by CJ Adams playing Timothy. Both Timothy the character and the actor who plays him are wonderful. It's just too bad little Timmy didn't end up in some one's garden who didn't approach every parenting issue with a frantic, wide-eyed "I have no idea what I'm doing" expression on his or her face. The great character of Timothy is brought down by the annoying couple who find him. There were some scenes where I became physically uncomfortable and looked away from the screen when the parents stepped in to try and help Timothy in some odd way. They embarrass themselves and the audience many times throughout the film. They can't embarrass little Timothy because he isn't human: he's a freak of nature.

          The movie's heart is in exactly the right place but everything else is jumbled and messy. You don't want to spend your hard-earned money on this film unless you didn't get enough "weird kid in a weird movie" from Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close last fall. Still, I can't recommend this cheesy, melodramatic, overly-sentimental bore of a movie.

          Side note: Another good aspect of this film is...the title. It makes sense once you see it why they call it the odd "life" of Timothy.



The Bourne Legacy

THE BOURNE LEGACY

You really can't ask for more in a modern action thriller

It's Jared Bourne

2012, Espionage Thriller, Rated PG-13

Distributed by Universal Pictures

          So you didn't think Jeremy Renner could fill Matt Damon's shoes? You were dead wrong. I was so into this movie that two hours and fifteen minutes flew by. I was very surprised (and disappointed) when it ended. It could have gone on for another half hour and I would have been glued. The best part is that the story doesn't end when the credits role. They really leave you hangin'. Be prepared for a whole new trilogy of the Legacy of Bourne.

          As far as straight-up action movies go, this is the best of the year so far. When I say that I pretty much mean excluding comic book movies. This movie is like no other out there. It is truly gripping. From one badass action scenario to another, Renner as Aaron Cross of the Outcome Operation kicks so much butt and in the coolest, most original ways. The story of this film is essentially that what happened in the first three Bourne films set off alarms with everyone involved in the Outcome Operation (Sort of like what Bourne went through: a super secret science experiment to genetically enhance spies like Aaron and Jason). When the stuff hit the fan with Bourne, they decided to terminate all their other enhanced agents in the field. When they send a drone to take out Aaron and another agent, they can't kill Aaron. He escapes and then the movie is dangerous, edgy chase scenes and tension all around.

          I loved each action setting in this film. First we get a snowy Alaskan wilderness where Aaron must avoid detection by, and missiles fired from, a flying attack drone. This is one of the most exhilarating scenes. Everything from the subtle camera work to the action that plays out is superb. I was so into it and seriously worried about Aaron. He is incredibly resourceful, though, so I need not fret. He escapes the drone (I'm not giving anything away there, it's the first action scene) and then you don't see snow ever again in the film. Then he's in America and we get some nice fight and chase scenes in the good ol' U. S. of A. When that gets old, Aaron flies to Minila, Philippines to finish the film off in a totally new and exciting environment. I really liked the changing of the settings in which Aaron beat up baddies. I can't say this enough: as far as gritty action goes look no further than The Bourne Legacy. It's the best of the best.

          As far as acting goes, everyone turns in a great performance. Rachel Weisz as Dr. Marta Searing and Jeremy Renner as Cross carry the film and keep it interesting, giving the best two performances. I also really liked that even the small roles (people chasing Aaron, Marta's co-workers, people looking for Aaron) were superbly acted. There isn't a dull moment in this film and credit must go to the bit-part actors as well as the leads. The only performance I was not enthralled by was Edward Norton's. For some reason he was the only actor that I felt didn't belong in the film. He does a nice job but I felt like the way he played it didn't fit the Bourne universe. Oh well, it's still a great film.

          The Bourne Legacy is a must-see for many reasons, such as the ones listed above. There is one scene in this movie, however, that should be experienced in light of the whole film. Aaron Cross isn't even in the scene. It's not even an action scene. The tension and suspense built up in it, though, is incredibly well-crafted. I'm not going to say what the scene is but it involves Rachael Wiesz's workplace. When you see it, you'll know what I mean. It's edge-of-your-seat riveting.

          This film is not an after-thought. It is a great expansion to the Bourne universe and totally deserves a viewing whether you are a Bourne fan or not. I can safely say that you will be able to pick up on what's happening if you haven't seen the first three Bourne movies. You just need to know minimal back story. Overall I applaud the makers of this film. It is exhilarating and in this comic book action movie era, even though it is not original, it feels like a nice breath of fresh air. I loved it. You will too.

Nitro Circus: The Movie

NITRO CIRCUS: THE MOVIE

For a movie featuring death-defying stunts, Nitro is somewhat tedious

2012: Arc Entertainment

2012, Stunt Movie, Rated PG-13

Distributed by Arc Entertainment

          You'll realize a little ways into Nitro Circus: The Movie that it isn't a movie at all. What the Jackass guys did so well with three successful movies, Nitro Circus fails at horribly. What I got out of the Nitro Circus movie is that they really want you to go see their bigger, better, and more expensive live show. The whole film honestly felt like promotional material for the live show. The Jackass movies are like the show only with a bigger budget and an R-rating. The Nitro Circus movie is totally different. Although I applaud them for trying something new, the result is slightly underwhelming.

          The movie starts with a way-too-long opening sequence that introduces the audience to each member of the Nitro Circus crew. There is a narrator spitting out unfunny commentary about each person. Then it heads into discussion of the Nitro Circus live show in Las Vegas. Throughout the film, between stunts, it cuts back to "1 hour until showtime" and then "30 minutes until showtime" and then "15 minutes until showtime" and finally "showtime". They felt it necessary to remind us that they are now doing a live show and that it is much more spectacular than the TV show or the movie you just paid to watch. I really didn't like this aspect of the film.

          Having said that, Nitro Circus: The Movie is something worth your time. If you like the show then stop reading this and go see the movie. It's sort of like the show but with a bigger budget and bigger stunts. What's missing from the show is the humor and spontaneity. The show is funny. The movie tries to be as funny but everyone appears to be trying too hard, like they were all thinking that they needed to be extra funny because it was a movie this time. The movie feels drained of the formula that seemed to work so well in the show.

          What's great about the movie is the stunts and the 3D. Although there are less stunts than there should be, they are bigger and more dangerous this time around. Some are funny and stupid while others are impressive and actually took extreme sport talent. There was a good balence of the two kinds of stunts. The only problem is that there should have been more. The movie takes too much time in between to explain some back story for some character or something involving the live show. I just wanted to see Nitro Circus on the big screen and I guess I got that, just not the way I expected it. 

          Nitro Circus: The Movie is a must-see if you've ever enjoyed the show. I was thoroughly entertained but there was definitely something missing. I think people who are unfamiliar with the show will not be able to disregard that missing "something". The movie felt sort of cheap: it's like a giant advertisement for the live show in Vegas. It's entertaining and adrenaline-pumping but it undeniably feels like it could have been so much better.

          Side note: The only thing that saves this movie from being made-for-TV is the 3D aspect. It's the only reason you should view it in the theater. They utilized the technique very well so a trip to the big screen may be in order if you want to get all you can out of the Circus.

          Another side note: There are some great interviews sprinkled throughout the film with the likes of Johnny Knoxville and Rob Dyrdek. These candid interviews provided the heartiest laughs.

          The last side note: Where the *beep* is Andy Bell for this movie? He was nowhere to be seen, nor was he even mentioned.

Hope Springs

HOPE SPRINGS

Judging by the weather in Hope Springs, Oscar season is on its way

2012: Columbia Pictures
Sorry there's no photo,
sometimes the theater doesn't display a poster :(

2012, Drama, Rated  PG-13

Distributed by Columbia Pictures

          Hope Springs is easily the best drama of the year so far. No kidding. It might seem like Meryl Streep has to do something wrong in her career, but her role in Hope Springs is definitely not that something. Tommy Lee Jones showed a lazy bit of acting earlier this summer in Men In Black 3, but he completely and totally redeems himself with his role opposite Streep. These two powerhouse actors bring a fictional marriage to life right before your eyes. I am amazed at how interesting and realistic their chemistry is in this film. If you want to get a head start on your Oscar movies, now is the time to do it.

          Hope Springs stars Streep and Jones as Kay and Arnold, a married couple celebrating their 31st wedding anniversary. Kay is unhappy in her same-thing-every-day-no-romance-or-affection marriage but Arnold seems perfectly happy with the routine. Kay looks into an intensive couples counseling program that lasts a week in Great Hope Springs, Maine. As the trailers tell us, she gets Arnold to board the plane toward therapy after much protest. Once there, the couple's marriage will never be the same.

          The most impressive part of this film is the two performances by the lead actors. Meryl Streep always delivers, but it seems these days she only plays important characters or pivotal real-life people. Her performance as Kay is so humble and restrained that you will forget you are watching the queen of thespians pretend to be sad and married. Tommy Lee Jones as Arnold is a revelation. He was my favorite of the two. He did such an incredibly convincing job as the tired old married man. The way these two acted around each other was so pitch-perfect. They really seemed like they had been married for 31 years. There were so many little details that were included in the performances that really sold the idea that these two people have been living under the same roof for three decades. Even the slightest placement of Jones' hand on the banister on his way up the stairs tells the viewer that this man has lived in this home for many, many years. Words can't really describe these two magnificent actors at the top of their game, so you simply must go see this movie. Even Steve Carrell, playing the couple's therapist, was so marvelously subdued. I forgot as soon as he was on screen that he once played Michael Scott or the 40-year-old virgin. He literally doesn't crack a single joke in the whole movie. He is so believable as a serious "I want to help you" couples therapist. Incredible performances all around. Bravo!

          Another superb aspect of this film is the screenplay. Now I've never been married but I have a feeling the scribe of this picture, Vanessa Taylor, has. The details in the marriage you see unfold before you are so perfectly suited to the situation and story. I loved how Arnold and Kay slept in different beds...in different rooms! It doesn't make any sense when you first see them go to their own rooms at bedtime, but then later you get the reason and it just makes sense. It's tough to describe a film as flawless as this. Everything happens so naturally and you're right there to experience it along with the willing or unwilling protagonists. I dislike unnecessarily long movies, so I was worried about Hope Springs's two-hour run time. Not once did I wonder how much longer until the credits would role. I completely lost track of time while watching this film. It's that captivating. I always complain in my reviews about characters that make decisions or say things simply to move the plot forward, not because the character would actually say or do something based on his development up until that point. Everything uttered by these characters feels right. Everything feels natural.

          Finally: the direction. Director David Frankel does a wonderful job steering and controlling this story from frame one until the credits. I must say that the trailers for Hope Springs were not properly representative of the picture as it is. The trailers advertised a good romantic comedy. Hope Springs is actually an excellent romantic drama. Every joke in the trailers is a lot funnier and in a totally different context than what you would expect. The pacing is great, the acting splendid, and even the music was just right. There were some scenes that had interesting contemporary music played over them that felt odd at first but morphed the scene into something stylish that was perfect for the intended emotion. Everything in this film came together for the best. All around this is a touching, emotional, funny, embarrassing, and poignant look at love.

          Side note: This is not a film for old people! Even though it is about a marriage after 31 years, it will be relevant if you've ever loved someone, no matter how old you are! Take it from all the young couples on dates surrounding me in the theater. I was shocked when I walked in and saw only couples snuggling up to enjoy a movie. I was the only one alone, but I didn't care, Hope Springs is so great! Go see it!







It's the return of trailers...

...that might be better than the movies they advertise.

After a long hiatus, it's the return of trailers that are probably better than the movies they advertise. They're mostly new this time...

If you love comic book movies as much as I do you're probably already pumped for Man of Steel (2013), Zack Snyder's Superman reboot. This tasteful teaser makes Snyder's reboot look creepy, eerie, and even serene. We barely see any shots of the man of steel until the very last. This teaser makes Man of Steel look pretty awesome: the Superman movie for the new generation of comic book fans. Will Man of Steel be as cool as this teaser? I think so...but wait...


...remember how epic you thought Superman Returns (2006) was going to be? These teasers are undeniably similar. They attempt to excite the viewer with familiar mythological and legendary images and words. I'm not alone in thinking Superman Returns did not live up to the hype or style presented in this slick teaser. Even though the movie was pretty boring, watching this six years later reignites that burning desire to see Superman done well post-2000. All I'm saying it be warned and remember old flops...

There is no better word for this marvelous teaser other than...EPIC! The new animated film Epic (2013) comes to us from the creator and director of the original Ice Age. What makes this teaser so intense in my opinion (other than those incredible chase scene shots) is the Snow Patrol song played over it. This movie looks absolutely stunning, a must-see in the theater, but it may be all in the trailer. The film shows its ugly, cliche side when characters actually talk. Hearing those comedic actors cracking jokes among that lush landscape sort of turns me off. This trailer makes the film look more mature than most animated films, but the dialogue puts it right there with all the others. Oh well, I'll still be seeing this opening day on the biggest screen I can find. 





Total Recall

TOTAL RECALL

Total Refund

2012: TriStar Pictures

2012, Science Fiction, Rated PG-13

Distributed by TriStar Pictures

          It seems these days that nothing original hits the theaters. I blame technology and capitalism. Many action movies from decades past have been remade for our high-tech digital world. I don't think these films are remade for any desire to see their stories updated with slick visuals, I think studios are just trying to make money. In the case of this summer's last big action pic, Total Recall, they miscalculated, and won't make their money back.

          This movie is just plain bad. Yes, it's exciting and action-packed, but without an interesting story or intelligent dialogue, it's just one pointless digital action scene after another. Let's talk about the remake aspects of it. The original Total Recall (I also want to point out that this is technically not a remake. The original Total Recall is based on a Phillip K. Dick short story called "We Will Remember it for You Wholesale", so this new one is actually just based on the same story) was set partly on Mars. The new one excludes the Mars trip completely. I believe this would have been a good idea had they replaced Mars with something as interesting. What's left is just another dystopian future on Earth. We've all seen what the makers of Total Recall have to offer in other films. This remake doesn't justify its own existence. One thing I did like was how the world is described before you get a full on visual of what life is like post-21st century. It's a sweeping shot that shows the viewer the true scope of the slums of the future.

          The only redeemable aspects of this film are the little sci-fi scenes done right. There are a few to marvel at in this remake. The world in which our characters live is a post-chemical warfare world. The only inhabitable places are eastern Europe (where the rich people live) and the continent of Australia (where the poor working people live). You can't go anywhere else or you will die. So the future has a massive elevator called "The Fall" that takes people down to the core of the Earth before it brings them up to the other inhabitable continent. What was cool about this was that gravity cuts out for a time at the center of the Earth. The first time this little trick is revealed to the audience, you might think you're watching a scene from 2001: it's that trippy and cool. The end of the film has a great action stunt where Colin Ferrell's Quaid is not strapped in during the gravity loss and starts floating around while he's killing and fighting off guards. It's the best action scene of the film yet it lasts about two minutes. It was also a source of frustration for me. The guards who are pursuing Quaid act like they don't know the gravity was going to cut out and scramble to reach for their floating guns when their feet leave the floor. I feel like highly trained guards would know what they were getting themselves into before they went on their man-hunt. Little silly moments like that ruin films for me.

          Every actor in the film delivers a lazy performance. At least it felt that way, but it could have been because the script was boring a weak as well. Nobody stood out and everyone looked half asleep. They were just there to make some money and star in a huge summer action film. I thought Bryan Cranston as the villain was the worst casting decision in the film. He brought nothing and was barely in it enough to be menacing. Jessica Biel is always good for making a decent action film worse. Kate Beckinsale was okay I guess. She didn't leave any impression (she ain't no Sharon Stone, that's for sure). I liked how she was evil, but then she didn't do anything particularly interesting throughout the film so her bad girl charm wore off. Colin Farrell, whom I usually like in a starring role, was also just okay. There is nothing spectacular about this film. It's all B-movie action and hollow dialogue.

          Side note: Let's consider why this movie stinks. It's directed by the Underworld series director, Len Wisemen. If that doesn't spell out "the action movie you are about to watch will suck" then I don't know what does. The Underworld movies are very cheesy and boring, just like Total Recall. Not only do we have the director of four (there are four of these Underworld films...and a fifth in the works!) underwhelming action movies but also the star: Beckinsale. And the villain: Bill Nighy (he has a small role in Recall). So I guess if you like the Underworld movies you will dig Recall. If you think the Underworld movies are lame, don't go see Recall.

          Another side note: Sharon Stone plays Beckinsale's character in the original Total Recall, in case you didn't know.



Bernie

BERNIE

This movie has everything...A++

2011: Millennium Entertainment

2011, Comedy/Drama, Rated PG-13

Distributed by Millenium Entertainment

          Before I begin the review I'm going to just list off all the awesome things about this movie. Feel free to stop reading when one catches your eye and you realize that Bernie is totally worth seeing. Okay, first: it's directed by Richard Linklater. Linklater has directed so many incredible films in many different genres. He directed such classics as Dazed and Confused, Slacker, Waking Life, School of Rock and many others. Bernie demonstrates the return of Jack Black and Linklater together for the first time since School of Rock. Also, Matthew McConaughey hasn't starred in a Linklater film since his epic role in Dazed and Confused. Another reason this movie is awesome is that it has mockumentary elements. Many scenes are just interviews with people involved in the happenings of the plot. Another reason: it's based on a true story. This is the oddest story you'll come across in any film in recent years. It could only be that odd because it is true. Jack Black is the last reason I'll list here. He has proven time and time again (let's just pretend Gulliver's Travels never happened, shall we?) that he is an incredible actor and not just in the arena of comedy. Did anyone see The Big Year? Probably not because it flew under the radar. But it's great, and Jack Black does a superb job as the lead. Black does an amazing job in Bernie...just check out that mustache!

          Bernie is about an assistant funeral director named Bernhardt Tiede who is the bee's knees in his community (Carthage, Texas). Everyone loves him because he is just so nice and friendly. On the other hand, everyone hates the old widow Marge Nugent (Shirley McClaine) because she is just so mean and nasty. After Bernie conducts Marge's husband's funeral, Marge takes a liking to Bernie. She is elderly and Bernie is in his mid-thirties and yet they fall in love. They don't get married but Marge does hand over all her wealth (she's very rich) to Bernie in her will. She becomes controlling, however, and cuts Bernie off from all his friends and duties in the community. Bernie can't take it and one day he finally cracks and shoots her four times in the back. For a while he hides her body and plays it off like she's in the hospital. During that time however he does not run or hide. He steadily takes her money and puts it back into his community in various ways. That's the plot pretty much. I didn't technically give anything away because it's a true story and it can all be read about on the web.

          What makes the film so interesting is whether Bernie should be considered evil or not. That's the big question throughout the film, one that the viewer can't help but wrestle with in his or her mind. In the film, Marge is really, really mean to Bernie even though he does everything and more for her. She was at the end of her life anyway, right? And he didn't fly off to South America or some island in the Caribbean, he took all her money and put it into his community, making it much happier and healthier. I'm still struggling to decide whether Bernie should be in jail or not (I won't say the final verdict of the film even though it's easily obtainable information) after killing a very old, very mean, very rich widow. Obviously murder is wrong, but they wouldn't have made a film about it if the story was too clear-cut as to who is at fault and who is not. I liked that about the movie, though. Bernie is shown as evil and innocent. Marge is shown as both deserving and a victim of Bernie's killing her. Matthew McCaunoghey's character, Buck the D.A., is shown as both a good cop for holding up the law and incarcerating murderers, but he isn't Bernie: he doesn't know what it was like living with that awful woman.

         There isn't much else to say about the film itself: it's pretty much perfect. It's no Inception or Avatar (as in, it won't be the biggest film of the year) but as an indie comedy/drama you couldn't ask for more. Every actor, I mean every actor (even the little bit- part interviewees), does a fine job. Richard Linklater makes a beautifully eerie yet funny film, but I expected that. Sort of like what I said about Steven Soderbergh and Magic Mike: it's not a male stripper movie, it's just Soderbergh's next great film. Bernie isn't a movie about murder or funeral homes, it's just Linklater's next great film. Go see it, people...if you can find it. It was at Los Angeles Film Festival in 2011 and is just receiving limited distribution now.

 

          Side note: I really liked the ending of this film. During the credits we see the real Bernie and Marge together in a photo. Then we see the real Bernie in present day having a conversation with Jack Black. Cool stuff.

 



Hysteria

HYSTERIA

British film tries to by hysterical, but ends up merely light-hearted and fun

2011: BIM Distribuzione

2011, Historical Comedy, Rated PG-13

Distributed by BIM Distribuzione

          British films have a tendency to be underwhelming, despite promising premises and ideas. Remember The Iron Lady? It's okay if you don't: it's hardly memorable. It's a British biopic about Margaret Thatcher with big ideas that falls short of its intended grandeur. Hysteria doesn't depict the life of a prime minister but it does tell a story based on true events in Britain's past. What could have been an insightful look into a corrupt and demented view of women's health in the late 1800s ends up being light-hearted fun with many a playful wink at the audience.

          Hysteria is about a doctor who only wants to do good by his patients. He lives in a London populated by doctors who don't know what germs are or the importance of cleanliness in treating wounds. The doctor, Dr. Mortimer Granville, is out of work because no hospital will hire a doctor who babbles on about  tiny invisible creatures that make you sick if things aren't clean. He stumbles upon a new and innovative medical practice conducted by a Dr. Dalrymple. Dr. Dalrymple is in the business of curing "hysteria" in women all over London. Hysteria, during that time, was a fictional condition thought to be real with a list of symptoms that left nearly no woman without the condition. These women are essentially not being pleased by their husbands and are too Christian to masturbate. So the good doctor does it for them. I'm serious: that's what this movie is about. The big payoff is that this medical practice led to the invention of the vibrator. The vibrator was invented as a home-use cure for hysteria. And as the film claims at the end, the vibrator is to this the day the best selling sex toy.

         The most interesting aspect of this story is that late 19th-century doctors actually believed they were curing this illness called hysteria by massaging women's genitals. It's really gross and odd that what doctors were doing back then was considered science but that's the way it was. The film tries to ignore these more jarring ideas by making it light-hearted and more a film about the emergence of women's rights shortly after this time period. On that front the film is excellent. There is a playful exuberance about women's rights in the time period: there's a sort of acknowledgement that they were achieved that the actors use to make the film more cheeky and fun. Maggie Gylenhaal plays the daughter of Dr. Palrymple and love interest of Mortimer. She defies her father by standing up against this false illness called hysteria. As the film begins it is wholly concerned with this idea of hysteria and developing characters, but morphs into a courtroom fight for rights. This was both good and bad. The tone of the film changed slightly but it wasn't enough to distract from the whole picture.

          I thoroughly enjoyed the love story in this film. It was not your traditional Hollywood love story. Mortimer is first enthralled by Dr. Dalrymple's other daughter because she would make the most sense to marry. But then through an awakening and realization that reason is not the be-all-end-all, he falls for Gyllenhaal's character, Charlotte. The character development and acting in this picture were perfect. All characters were written and acted wonderfully. Watching this film is a joy: it never falters in its playful attitude and so never becomes boring. Also, it can be very funny. Mortimer has a friend, played by the great Rupert Everett, who is also toying with an invention: the telephone. Every scene involving him on his new telephone was hysterical. And of course, the scenes in which women are being "cured" by the good doctor are absolutely ridiculous but tastefully so.

          Overall this film feels like it could have been more dynamic, more insightful, but ends up being a mere fun time at the movies instead. As a historical document I'm not sure just how accurate it is, but it sheds light on the beginning of something taboo in our society. It's a topic not normally discussed, but displayed with wit and humor in Hysteria, it is a welcome surprise

           Side note: This film also works wonderfully as a story about an invention. The vibrator goes from a mere idea halfway through the film, to a mass-produced, home-use product at the very end of the film. The end credits have a great visual tour through the different models of vibrators from 1880 until today.