- Alphabetical
- Most Reviews
- Most Views
- Top Rated
- Least Recent
- Most Recent
Midnight In Paris quietly arrived in Sarasota today at the Burns Court Cinema , a small film venue that books mostly indies, art, and an occasional foreign film. This was very fortunate for me, as this film, directed and written by Woody Allen, wasn’t booked at either of Sarasota’s big film chain multiplexes. The hall in which I watched the film was indeed small – 10 rows of four seats on each side of a center aisle. Your basic 80-seater. As for Paris, I’ve been there three times. I’ve walked its streets like a true boulevardier. I’ve stretched a thimbleful of coffee into a few hours of people watching on the sidewalk cafe at the Deux Magots on the Left Bank, and I’ve even been aboard one of those glass enclosed tour boats ( Bateaux-mouches ) that slowly make their way up and down the Seine River for a romantic dinner cruise with my main squeeze at the time. In short, Paris, the city of lights, is a very romantic city, especially the Rue Cler neighborhood that I usually stay in. As Ernest Hemingway once said, I f you are lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man, then wherever you go for the rest of your life it stays with you, for Paris is a moveable feast. While Woody’s Midnight In Paris might not qualify as a feast for either the palate or the senses, it is certainly worthy of being called a delight and delicious cinematic pastry. I wrote the above intro to this review before I actually saw the film. Little did I know the Woody would use the same Hemingway quote mere minutes into this film. Then again, I didn’t know that Hemingway himself would be a character portrayed by an actor in the film either. I’ve decided to give this review a secondary title and I’ll call it Woody’s Wish List. Since Woody has more years behind him than he does in front of him, it is altogether natural to look back toward’s one younger days. Or to wish for something that never happened. Our personal memories always to seem to have a glow to them that we didn’t quite see when we lived through those times. But even further back from our own lived in memories are the times we’ve only dreamt about or read about in a book. The film Midnight in Paris is Allen’s homage to a city he adores but doesn’t live in. For the movie going audience it a series of lovely postcards from Woody to us – all set in Paris and environs. The film even begins with about three or four minutes of these visual bon-bons. But it is also themed about living in the now as well as the wished for or desired period of time. The wonderful cast starts with Owen Wilson ( How Do You Know ) as the young writer, Gil Pender, who finds that Paris has much more to offer than he had either hoped for or imagined. He’s paired with the now blonde Rachel McAdams who was delightful in Morning Glory , and quite good here (granted it is a smaller role) as his fiancée Inez. Ostensibly, they’re here in Paris free-loading on her parents who flew in so her Dad could do some business. They take in the sights beginning with a voice over by Gil as Allen shows us the visual pleasures of Paris. Woody even finds a way to incorporate Monet’s Gardens in Giverny into the film (see the title card above). Along the way, Gil expresses his dream of moving to Paris to enjoy the cities pleasures, to finish his novel, to escape the grind of Hollywood, and to live the bohemian life that he’s read about and dreamed of. He’s really longing for the Paris of the 20′s which, in his view, represent the most idyllic and superb time to have lived. Inez calls it a fantasy and a waste of time. Gil and Inez will meet Paul and Carol while out dining. Paul is ‘pedantic’ to say the least, pretentious to take the middle road, and as Gil describes him – a pseudo-intellectual – who seems to know everything about everything to such a degree that he’s boring. Paul’s purpose is to provide Gil with an opportunity to distance self from the foursome making it an off-screen three-some, or even a two-some. After a wine tasting, Paul turns down an invitation to go dancing, instead he wanders off and gets lost. At this point, Allen introduces the whimsy, the fantasy, and the elements on which this film is based – that Paris at Midnight is magical. Without offering us any kind of explanation, we, as well as Gil, are transported back in time to the Paris of the 1920′s. We will meet all of the biggest names of the literary and art world of that era – the very names that Allen probably read about 50 years ago when he was in college. The magic is that these people take Gil in and make him a part of their world. To drop more of these names would constitute a spoiler of a sort, so I won’t name any of them other than the previously mentioned Ernest Hemingway. Gil at first is in a state of disbelief. he thinks he’s being conned. But eventually, the champagne, the smoky cafe, the intellectual talk, and the fact that he, Gil Pender, is somehow living in the time and place that he’s desired for so long. That’s your set up. Of course reality must rear it head, and Inez and her folks, Paul, a delicious guide from the Rodin Museum (played by Carla Bruni),and a saucy sales girl, Gabrielle, played by Lea Seydoux, from an antique shop all come into play. Owen Wilson’s Gil Pender has a delightful manner that will remind you of Woody Allen’s usual on-screen persona, only without the dour or the sour. Gil is really a good guy, he’s likeable, and Wilson does a great job in this role. Allen’s script is delightful. He is going to deliver a message, and it is not too subtle, which is unusual for him. But it isn’t hammered home. Instead you will feel seduced from reality to fantasy and back but without anyone thinking they been taken, or deceived, or fooled. So the film is about the magic of Paris and Allen’s love affair with that city. His story is told through Pender’s dream and you will feel the same awe, surprise, and delight that Pender does. Before closing, I must also mention Marion Cotillard, who as the Parisienne femme , is outstanding. She steals every scene she’s in. Yes, Allen has taken the magic of Paris, and the magic of film-making and has delivered his best film in years. Even the way the films ends – not with a couple walking off into a sunset holding hands – instead they walk off into a delicious Paris light summer rain. I liked this film very much and will have no problem, recommending it. For sure – I’ll be seeing it again.
RATING 5/10 BOTTOM LINE The film has a good message, but the execution is lost, meandering and weak, leaving “Charlie St. Cloud” in a netherworld where it loses its message in a sea of mediocre direction. THE GOOD Teen heart-throb Zac Efron plays the title character Charlie St. Cloud, a young man with a potentially bright future in sailing. When his younger brother Sam (Tahan) is killed in a tragic car accident with Charlie at the wheel, his life is turned upside down, and he puts everything on hold to stay with his brother, becoming curator for the cemetery in which Sam is buried. He forms a spiritual connection with Sam, which becomes all the more poignant when fellow sailor Tess (Crew) shows up in his cemetery, apparently injured. All of these moments lead Charlie to finally discover the meaning of his life. At its basic level, this film is about working out that life is meant to be lived, not be put on hold for someone or something else. A strong scene in the film involving Charlie and the paramedic that saved him highlight the tragedy of Charlie’s life, as he never moved forward after Sam’s death. Zac Efron does an amicable job as Charlie, providing the right amount of grimness and quirkiness to his performance to make him believable. The film tries to capture some moments about ‘life’, and in a few aspects, it does a reasonable job of this. THE BAD The overall execution of the concept of this film is weak. The plot navigates in a meandering and lost manner, never really connecting the dots appropriately. Charlie is something of an arrogant older brother, which doubly compounds his feelings of guilt of Sam’s death. But the film spends an inordinate amount of time at the cemetery where Charlie is talking to other people he knows who have died. When you first see this, you think Charlie is not all there mentally. But later, the film suggests that they are spirits he is in contact with, but by this time, the whole point is lost as the revelation comes too late. It also makes Charlie’s subsequent rescue of Tess that much more unbelievable. To think that she survived in freezing conditions for more than three days, and all Charlie had to do was use his body warmth to heat her up is bordering on ridiculous. It also trivialises their meeting at the end of the film when Tess realises that she has a much stronger connection to Charlie than she anticipated. In many ways, the structure of the script seems to be like that of a novel (probably lifted straight from the one this film is based on). That structure works for a novel, but it does not work for a film which needs a different structure. As a result, the film’s good message is totally lost in a weak and meandering plot that does not seem to go anywhere.
RATING 6/10 Bottom Line While nowhere near as bad as the previous two films in the Pirates franchise, “On Stranger Tides” is at best an average affair that only half-heartedly tries to recapture the magic of the original film. The Good One of the best things about this fourth entry in the Pirates franchise is that it jettisons the convoluted, clumsy, and directionless narratives of the second and third films. Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) seems more like himself again as he is pulled in to a quest to find the fountain of youth, with evil pirate Blackbeard (Ian McShane) and the feisty Angelica (Penelope Cruz) thrown in to the mix. With Sparrow now front and centre in this film with both Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley not returning for this outing, it allows for his iconic character to take centre stage, and quite rightly, the filmmakers have realised that this is a good thing as in the previous films he seemed to be a shadow of his former self. There are many intriguing sequences in the film, with the mermaids’ scenes being quite fascinating and scary all at the same time, or the well-executed first escape scene where Sparrow evades the King’s officers in London. Aside from Johnny Depp having his usual fun as Sparrow, Geoffrey Rush is likewise relishing his character of Barbossa, and in many ways, is a good protagonist in this film and a change of pace for the character. Penelope Cruz is effective as Angelica who seems to be more than a match for Sparrow’s crafty behaviour. “On Stranger Tides” may have been better served as the second film in the franchise as it clearly a step above the poorly executed previous sequels. The Bad This film does not make much of an effort to recapture the magic of the first film. It is dark, and almost bland in its nature. Blackbeard is not particularly scary or formidable, aside from when he waves his hands and fireballs blow out of the front of his ship. A tragic romance between a mermaid and a missionary is dramatically unrealised, and in the end feels tacked on to account for the absence of Orlando and Keira. The film does not look particularly good in 3D at all, with a number of images being way too dark. At the end of the day, there was only one good Pirates film, and this one is just another attempt to cash in on the good will of that film.
The good old Asian monster flick genre has been on hold since the Japanese decided to stop making Godzilla features. Well, the whole King Kong concept has been exploited since the beginnings of the special effects in Cinema. Gigantism is a very Japanese and especially American complex. With the more recent remakes, the Jurassic Park franchise, Cloverfield, etc. The monster genre was a little tired lately. The Host, a Korean monster film opens similarly to Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later, a scientific incident. In the British film it's the infected apes that spread the disease while in the Korean film it's the toxic substance thrown in the river that created this fish-like monster. Besides, the horror/action angle of the film, the story implies a funny 21st century family of a lazy lunatic dad in his thirties, his yuppie cum little criminal brother, his athlete sister, his smart daughter and his good will father. Each of these characters will learn and overpass his weakness to survive to the passage of the wild creature. Tinted with moments of pure horror using the classic codes of the genre while injecting a great dose of humor and just a tint of sentimentality this crossover of genres is a very hip movie. It's a crowd pleaser. The kind of film that can easily become a cult film among young film lovers. The mix of genres may irritate the purists of the horror genre and maybe some older cinephiles will feel that it's too "cool" or too young... The colors of the film are superb and like many Asian films they are a little saturated but it balances itself with an extraordinary cinematography. We are in the presence of an eye candy looking picture; read here in the most positive way. Despite some very interesting moments and many twists, I got bored by the whole thing. I think that the story lacked of tightness in its final thirty minutes. However, The Host is a very good movie.
Richard Linklater is one of the most versatile directors working out there. He goes from doing a authorist oeuvre like Before Sunrise to a more mainstream film like School of Rock and having success in both cases. This original animated feature made with an uncommon technique of "drawing" over actual shoot footage results in a beautiful, but dreamy, graphical picture. Apart from being visually stunning this Odyssey of dreams into dreams recalls Luis Bunuel's Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie for its many states of awakening dreams. Waking Life is mostly philosophical and alike Before Sunset/Before Sunrise the story evolves around many conversations. Some of these conversations are set with concrete matters and others just play on the metaphysical level. Waking Life feels like a film essay about life and our perceptions of the present time. I actually enjoyed most of the film and how the story slowly evolves around the main character. The lower point of the visual effects is that sometimes there are so much movement that it makes you a little dizzy. A must see.
RATING 5/10 BOTTOM LINE: The concept is fascinating, but the character scenarios depicted in this film are two-dimensional and contrived to the point of cliché, which majorly detracts from a story which is otherwise quite interesting. THE GOOD: Having the ability to alter the events of your past to reshape the future is the core concept at the heart of this film, and it is a very fascinating one indeed, particularly as it explores the unintended and dangerous consequences of doing so. Evan (Ashton Kutcher) experiences unexplained memory black outs as a child and teenager. The meaning of these blackouts becomes clear as an adult when he realises that he can travel back in time to the point of those blackouts with the aid of the journals he used to keep of his every day life. Evan and his friends have had traumatic childhoods, and when he sees the opportunity to change things about his childhood during a trip to one of the blackouts, he takes full advantage of it. Very quickly however, he sees a dramatic down side to those changes with nothing really turning out in a way that is positive for every one. He eventually reaches a solution, but it means giving up his love for his childhood sweetheart Kayleigh (Amy Smart). As a science-fiction piece the film works quite well, and has enough going for it in this respect to make it worth watching. This is probably Kutcher’s best film and he amicably steps up to the mark. The most effective performance given here is by Amy Smart who has to play various different versions of her character Kayleigh as Evan make changes to his past that affect the future. “The Butterfly Effect” is not too bad as an exercise in science-fiction story telling. THE BAD: The unfortunate part about this film is that in an attempt to make the stakes for Evan’s character as high as possible by giving him and his family/friends traumatic lives that he would want to change, the filmmakers end up creating some of the most contrived and clichéd character scenarios you are likely to see. Kayleigh’s aggressive brother Tommy is perhaps too aggressive, or at the very least, there is nothing shown here that demonstrates his borderline psychosis in any depth or with any meaning. Kayleigh’s father George (Eric Stoltz) seems to back off too quickly when Evan confronts him multiple times during the film, particularly as the most crucial scenes are done when he is a child. You would expect given George’s sick activities that he would be far more aggressive rather than immediately curtailing himself to a child. Even parts of Kayleigh’s story do not quite gel, even though Amy Smart is effective in her performance of playing different aspects to her character. The film is hampered severely by these contrivances; you can imagine that it would probably have been a great film if more attention was paid to the logic and depth of the characters and their motivations. The irony of course is that the ending is sad for Evan, which is very un-Hollywood like!
RATING 8/10 BOTTOM LINE: The Harry Potter franchise finally takes a step up and delivers a much more thrilling, dramatic and character driven piece, although it does suffer in some places for being too long. THE GOOD: This seventh film in the franchise is something of a surprise, at least given its nature compared to the previous films. There is a grim seriousness, combined with a thrilling narrative, spot on performances and beautifully-shot sequences that immediately elevate this film above its predecessors. Serving as a build-up to the inevitable second part, this film primarily deals with both Harry Potter (Radcliffe) and Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) as they both set about building to their inevitable confrontation. The majority of the film does not take place in Hogwarts, which is a breath of fresh air. Instead, Harry and his friends Hermione and Ron set out on a quest to destroy the Horcruxes while Voldemort searches for the most powerful magic wand ever created that formed part of the “Deathly Hallows”. As Harry and company are in effect on the run, chased by all manner of nasties, the narrative is quite thrilling, and the script allows for the three protagonists to engage each other in dramatic ways as the Horcruxes have a psychological effect on all three of them. Voldemort is as good as ever, with a fantastic opening scene where he feeds a captive to his snake. Another nice touch is when Hermione tells the story of the Deathly Hallows and it segues in to a voiceover with a well designed and executed animated sequence. Director David Yates has the freedom to develop a fantastic story, and although we are only getting half of it in this instalment, the results are thrilling and entertaining, even for those who are not so in to the travails of Harry Potter. THE BAD: The inevitable problem with this film is that it ends on a cliffhanger. The frustration you feel when you are being told a good story and then it does not end is something that will no doubt fuel the box office fire when the second part is released. Having said that, where the cliffhanger occurs in this story is actually quite good as it really does leave you hanging for more. The film also suffers in some parts for being a little long-winded. Clocking in at two and a half hours, the film definitely loses its pace at certain points, mainly due to some scenes that do not advance the plot as well as others.
Director: Michael Apted Running Time: 115 minutes Australian Release Date: 2 December 2010 /</gispan style="font-style: italic;"/>/giReview by Tom Clift /span The span style="font-style: italic;" Chronicles of Narnia /span movies, based on the books by C.S. Lewis, have always been something akin to a red-headed stepchild in the world of the epic fantasy film. The movies have always been profitable, but have (rightfully) never achieved the same level of audience or critical enthusiasm as the far superior span style="font-style: italic;" Lord of the Rings /span and span style="font-style: italic;" Harry Potter /span franchises, whose successes were largely responsible for the span style="font-style: italic;" Narnia /span series being green-lit in the first place. The third and most recent entry in the series is span style="font-style: italic;" The Voyage of the Dawn Treader /span , a movie that owes a lot to the span style="font-style: italic;" Pirates of the Caribbean /span films in addition to the ones previously mentioned. Falling somewhere in between the enjoyable span style="font-style: italic;" The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe /span and the very weak span style="font-style: italic;" Prince Caspian /span , the film is entertaining thanks mostly to the unsurprisingly impressive visual effects and a fun performance from young newcomer Will Poulter, but ultimately does little to distinguish itself from the dozens of other post- span style="font-style: italic;" Potter /span cash grabs that have littered our screens in the past few years. a name="more" /a Michael Apted (the span style="font-style: italic;" Up! /span series, span style="font-style: italic;" The World is Not Enough /span ) takes over the reins from previous series director Andrew Adamson, but mostly retains the style and tone of the earlier films. The story begins, as always, when the Pevensie children Edmund (Skandar Keynes) and Lucy (Georgie Henley), along with their objectionable cousin Eustace (Will Poulter) are transported from their everyday lives in WWII era England to the magical land of Narnia, for reasons that are never quite made clear. Once there, they join King Caspian (Ben Barnes) and Reepicheep the mouse (voiced by Simon Pegg), along with a horde of other Narnians aboard Caspian’s ship The Dawn Trade, on a voyage to relocate seven mystical swords whose power will help Caspian defeat the malevolent forces of the Dark Island, and the evil green mist that is kidnapping his subjects. In a series of poorly connected action beats, the crew of the Treader do battle with slave traders, dragons and sea-serpents, encountering new mission and obstacles as the script necessitates, often just as the prior conflict is conveniently wrapping up. One of the biggest problems with the film is its very formulaic script. From the requisite last minute rescue sequence, the training duel in which a previously inexperienced character finds himself suddenly an expert swordsman, to the cringe-worthy scene where Edmund and Caspian almost come to blows over leadership, there is nothing in this film from a narrative stand-point that we have not seen many times before. This is a film in which characters learn their lessons at precisely the moments one would expect, and where deus ex machina reigns supreme. Edmund continues to be tempted by the spirit of the White Witch (the great Tilda Swinton getting rolled out again in another thankless cameo), while Lucy is plagued by insecurities that she will never be as beautiful as her older sister Susan. The latter could have been an interesting sub-plot, but is mostly abandoned after the halfway point and then called back in an atrociously cloying scene at the end of the film. The dialogue is also very stilted, and does not allow the actors much room to maneuver. Ben Barnes is fine if rather unexciting as King Caspian; he natural charisma and good looks do most of the work, while Keynes and Henley remain only mediocre as the Pevensie children. Simon Pegg brings some life to the film as the voice of Reepicheep – at the very least you can tell he’s having fun. The standout however is Will Poulter as the charmingly irritating Eustace Scrubb. A rude and pompous English schoolboy who does not believe of Narnia despite being trapped on one of its boats, Poulter has almost all the entertaining dialogue in the film, and although he plays an enormous stereotype (one can almost imagine the directors notes to Poulter – “more British-y” they’d read), it is definitely an amusing one. Of course by the end of the film his character learns the error of his ways and becomes just as noble and uninteresting as his relatives. The other big gripe I have with the film are the painful religious undertones; although it might seem slightly redundant criticizing the Christian messages of a story by C.S. Lewis, the moment in which Aslan tells the children that he exists in our world by another name, and that they need to learn to believe in him, was insultingly unsubtle. Likewise, having a character descend from the sky with an ethereal glow when our heroes are in need is both thematically questionable and narratively lazy. Most troubling was the treatment of Eustace; jokes about his obnoxious personality aside, as the only character in the film who puts stock in science, he is an object of ridicule and scorn to both audience members and characters within the film, and only becomes a hero when he abandons everything he believes in and instead embraces faith. Unsubtle and uncreative writing aside however, I cannot deny that I still had a fair amount of fun with this film. The special effects and production design are all top-notch and often very creative, and there are several exciting if unrealistically bloodless action sequences and moments of swordplay peppered throughout. Most importantly, director Michael Apted, in what is probably his biggest creative contribution to the film, brings the story in at just under two hours as opposed to bloated running times of the previous films. As a result, even if you do not entirely buy the story or the actions of its characters, you will probably be engaged enough to find something that you like. More reviews at http://reviewsbytom.blogspot.com and http://rowthree.com
One from Column A and 2 from Column B. Remember that? The traditional Family dinner at your local Chinese restaurant. A little of this and a little of that. Well the mix and match style has reached film-making as well and I don't mean recently. Here director Sngmoo Lee has mixed equal parts of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon for the martial arts, the wire work and even the bamboo forest, spaghetti westerns for the setting and the laconic and iconic posturing of the hero, and the Fantasy film Wild Wild West , he then transported the whole thing to a small town called Lode in the American West, and you come away with The Warrior's Way . We now have reached a new low in cinematic fusion films. Instead of a Sheriff or a Marshall facing down a ruthless baddie at noon in the center of town, we now have a master of the slice and dice teaming up with the local townsfolk including Geoffrey Rush (above) who fared much better in Elizabeth , Shakespeare in Love , and the Pirates of the Caribbean films, as the town drunk who also possesses can't miss shooting skills, against a large gang of bad-ass cowboys led by Danny Huston on one side, and hordes and hordes of faceless and nameless ninjas on the other. Not only that, but this is all done in a CGI style with similar amounts of CGI but with far less style than we saw when Frank Miller 's graphic novel 300 was brought to the screen by Zack Snyder in 2006. However, this film is just so dull. All the swordplay is stylized to the extent that it never takes more than one swing of the blade to kill off an opponent. Blood spurts and gushes, heads, hands, and feet are severed. But all without a lot of color. Forget about sunlight, blue skies, majestic panoramas, even red blood. All of that is totally and emphatically missing. It seems as though the entire film was done on a sound stage. The Ninjas? Not once do they arrive in a standard way, they fall from the sky, explode upward from bodies of water, or even out of the desert floor. Once they have arrived, they stand gathered like so many crows on the wire in Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds . They also enter a room by crashing through the doors, roofs, or boarded up windows. Aside from killing totally defenseless townsmen, they are useless against the one man that matters. The story begins with an assassin from a far off land refusing his mission which was to kill off the absolute very last of this place's enemies. He refused because the last of the enemies was a baby girl. So he leaves with just the clothes on his back, his sword, and the baby girl in tow. Somehow, in what would have to be many, many months later, he arrives in this town called Lode, and he is set up as the town's laundryman. His fortes are silence and looking at you without ever showing any emotions at all. Two strange things have occured so far - the baby hasn't aged much, and this town looks like the home base of a failed circus or carnival. In fact, some of the townsfolk, still are dressed in clown costumes. There's a huge ferris wheel, and beyond that the town looks like a partial ghost town. Why? We aren't told. So much for the story. Kate Bosworth has the female lead, Lynne. Apparently, the original female lead was Zhang Ziyi, but for reasons unknown to me - that didn't work out. So Lynne aligns herself with the laconic assassin who is called Yang in the credits, but I don't think he is called that, or anything else in the film. Her plot purpose? She has to exert revenge on The Colonel. He is played by Danny Huston (below). Huston is hidden behind a leathery mask, ala Phantom of the Opera , for most of the picture. The thing about this Huston, is that these days, he most often plays a villain. But if you close your eyes and listen to him (I think he has the most spoken lines of any character in the film) you will hear that he speaks with the same tone, manner, and style as his father, John Huston . It is uncanny. Danny Huston is speaking and you will hear Noah Cross played by John Huston in the classic 1974 film directed by Roman Polanski called Chinatown . Strange once more: If the assassin Yang left after refusing his mission, as in left the country, with the last of the enemies (the baby girl) why was it necessary to hunt them down a year later, in a foreign land, and waste dozen and dozens of ninjas in the attempt? I think everything in this film was lifted or borrowed from films that came before it. Films that we are quite familar with. The film isn't a good story, has no spoken lines that amount to anything (unquotable to the nth degree), there's hardly any 'acting' in the usual sense, and the film is more of a study in the use of CGI technology instead of film direction as we commonly understand it. I guess you can say that I didn't care for this film. I even dozed off a few times during it. There are no characters to root for. None of the combat is realistic, and the film isn't very visually attractive. All of the sunsets, starry skies, and backdrops are all mattes. A final thought. Most films open on Friday's hoping for good reviews to fill the theaters over the opening weekend. Neither the New York Times , the Los Angeles Times , or even Roger Ebert reviewed this film on Friday. Edit Dec.5th: Both the NYTimes and the LATimes did publish reviews, but not by their lead critics. Ebert still hasn't published a review of the film. The Internet Movie Data Base (IMDB.com) did not show any external reviews at all, and only two user reviews. Edit Dec 5th: IMDB still doesn't show any external (professional reviews but the number of User reviews has increased. To me this means the film was not made available for press screenings, a usual sign of problems. Which only amplies the fact that film was shot in late 2007 and early 2008, but was only released at the end of the 48th week of 2010. Financial problems, maybe? Or lack of any one willing to distribute the film, possibly or even likely... Towards the end of the film, we get this exchange between Rush as Ron and Yang ( Dong-gun Jang ): Ron : I guess that's the end of them Yang: No, it is just the beginning Is a sequel in the works? Heaven forbid. Check out the trailers which are readily available on the web. But don't bother seeing this one at the theater.
Iron Man 2 makes a bold move by stepping away from the awesome array of armament that playboy Tony Stark wields as both casual and business attire. For this highly anticipated sequel, the film grants us access to a deeper, more human side of Stark as he deals with “riddles of the heart,” learns to accept the helping hands of his friends, and battles the hardships of being an entrepreneurial wonder boy and the political pressures that accompany it. Ok, kidding. Stuff gets blow’d up real good, too. But those other things were pretty neat! Iron Man 2 begins where the first film left off: Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr. and his facial hair) has just exclaimed that he is Iron Man during his infamous press conference. Only this time, we see this conference being televised on a 13” standard definition(!) TV in a gritty, poorly lit room oozing with rundown Russian charm. It’s here that we meet Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) who possesses neither the charm nor the resources as Stark, but is not lacking in knowledge and know-how. One spark-filled montage later and it’s clear that he aims to misbehave as he brandishes his newly forged lightening whips, grits at Tony Stark’s televised voice, and slices his TV in half. Which is good because it was about time he made the digital conversion. In addition to this new threat, Stark is also dealing with his diminishing health due to overuse of the Iron Man suit, running his company, demands by the government to turn over his creation, and corporate competition from Justin Hammer, the Bill Gates of weaponry. Being the narcissist that he is, Stark also begins to push away his /</gidel/>/giassistant /del del girlfriend /del del not girlfriend /del “it’s complicated” Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and closest friend Lt. Col. James ‘Rhodey’ Rhodes (Don Cheadle) while chasing the alluring Natalie Rushman (Scarlett Johansson). There’s a lot on Stark’s plate this time around and he nearly cracks completely. Fortunately, he and Rhodey make up long enough for Rhodey to become War Machine, hold hands and use the “buddy system” to give us some ironclad action. Jon Favreau’s sophomore ground-pound into the Iron Man universe maintains the realism and action of the first film while adding weight to the existing characters. Robert Downey Jr.’s natural charm and quirks that made Stark simply enjoyable in the first film are now used as a mask to hide Stark’s failing health. His boyish aloofness is now a crutch that alienates those around him. Rhodey is more a side-kick than an acquaintance in this film and this brings with it more tension between him and Stark. At the same time, Mickey Rourke does an amazing job at keeping Vanto a subtle foe. Rourke manages to keep it sinister as he acts as a puppet master behind the scenes using everything he has access to as a means to an end. The end being the death of Iron Man; Tony Stark optional. There was far too little screen time with Rourke, but this kept his character fresh. This can also be said for Sam Rockwell who plays Justin Hammer and even Gary Shandling who is the face of the government, Senator Stern. I only wished we had seen more of these great actors/characters. And personally, I’ve never wanted to be beat up so badly as I do now after having seen Scarlett Johansson complete an acrobatic smack down. The chemistry between the actors and their characters and even with each other is where Iron Man 2 stands apart from the first. It’s clear that you’re watching a fun summer film and it’s obvious that they know they’re in a fun summer film. Sure, there are plot holes. Yes, Samuel L. Jackson does actually deliver the line “You can solve the riddle of your heart” with an embarrassingly straight face. And yes, some of the sequences feel like they were created for a lunchbox cover, but so? This is Iron Man. It’s a lot of fun and it’s great to have the silver screen filled with characters we all loved, good or bad. -MovieFloss.com
Starring: Johnny Depp, Mia Wasikowska, Anne Hathaway Fantasy, 2010 (Rated PG) Nineteen year old Alice has a huge imagination. So huge in fact that she is the only one who notices the rabbit in the waist coat running across the lawn. After running away from an unwanted marriage proposal she follows this rabbit and finds herself falling down a rabbit hole and into another land. Here she must figure out a way to help the characters in this world restore the white queen to power and oust the evil Red Queen who rules the land with decapitation for anyone who does not agree with her. I really wasn't all that interested in watching this but hubby wanted to so I went along with the program. I found that it was an OK movie. This is coming from someone not really so into animated fantasy type movies. The graphics are excellent and Depp does a great job as the quirky mad hatter. I am not all too familiar with the original story having never taken a huge interest in it so I can't say much regarding the adaptation of the original but the movie itself was entertaining for the most part. 4/5 STARS
Pixar’s ‘Toy Story 3′ stars no other than the original voices of Tom Hanks as Woody, Tim Allen as Buzz and Joan Cusack as Jesse. This movie had more of an emotional impact then most of the rides at Disneyland. On this 3rd chapter reality sets in as you realize that your beloved characters have now been out grown by the soon to be collage student, Andy. These slightly used toys find themselves feeling abandoned and fear they will end up being thrown away or just stored in the attic with the rest of the unused and forgotten items. With a week away Andy must pack his things for collage and has 3 choices of where his things will go. 1 being the box labeled collage stuff, 2 stuff for the attic and 3 the awful black bag that will be taken out to the curb as TRASH. Anxiously awaiting their destiny they secretly watch Andy as he starts to pack up his thing. And true to the other 2 stories lines things end up more complicating then they should have been, ending up in what most of Andy’s toys think to be the next best thing to Andy’s room is the ‘Day Care Center’. Meeting some friendly new toys they are welcomed to the day care with open arm, but friendly has it’s own definition in this day care.. Watching this movie unravel, so did my emotions. I can truly say that I was so glad to have been watching this in 3-D as the glasses helped hide the water works, the anger, the sadness that took over. I highly recommend this movie as the entire theater went quite at one point and you could hear a pin drop along all those little kids who filled the iMax seats. Tissue is recommended for those of you who grew up with these fun loving group of Toys.
Widely inspired by David Lynch's first feature/masterpiece, Eraserhead , Darren Aronofsky's Pi is a multi-layered black and white nightmare. After having been blast away by his The Wrestler , stunned by his Requiem For A Dream I don't know how to handle Pi . I may be need to see his The Fountain to fully apreciate and understand the complexity and real/unreal meaning of is 1998 debut. The story; a mathematician wants to resolve an equation that will solve the logic behind the stock market and behind everything in the universe. We follow this dense and weird path of this strange character, his relations with his neighbors, his sponsors, a sect of Jews and some ants. I warn you this is an uncommon and uneasy film, but with multiple viewings the quality of what it has to present just gets deeper and deeper. Just like Lynch's Eraserhead , it is destined to be a cult classic film. Looking forward to the december release of Black Swan I wanted to catch up on the work of one of the most promising directors of the 21st century with the viewing of Pi . I recommend this film to open minded cinephiles only which I am but nonetheless I prefered his The Wrestler and his Requiem For A Dream way more than his Pi .
Not being a fan of mangas at the first place didn't tend me to discover the work of Asian animation. Having only seen Hayao Miyazaki's Alice in Wonderland inspired Spirited Away in the context of my journey through the 1000 Greatest Films of They Shoot Pictures Don't They?. I liked Spirited Away but I wasn't blown away by it. Since I decided to make parallel quests to the "1000GF TSPDT" I wanted to explore the 35+/- films I haven't seen yet voted by the users of IMDb. There are more than one Animation listed there, escpecially the ones from Miyazaki: Spirited Away , My Neighbor Totoro , Princess Mononoke and Howl's Moving Castle . So the later one was the first I decided to watch, well the plot seemd the most interesting and I had to start somewhere I guess. The story: a young woman, Sofi is a hat tailor that works hard for the factory of his deceased father. One day she meets a strange but attracting sorcerer. But later that night, a witch put a spell on her and she pass from 18 to 70 years old. But she must not tell anyone. The next day she quits the town and embarks on a journey on the moving castle of the sorcerer Hauru. Helped with a scarecrow, a demon fire named Calcifer, and a little boy Markl. As we are in an animation film, I must say that Miyazaki's visuals are very colored and candy for the eye. The colors are satured and the contrast are strong in the colors. I kind of find them very cheesy and maybe too poppy... I'd like to see a darker palette but Asian animation is all about blazing colors. However, with that aside some of the visuals are stunning and they fit perfectly well with that kind of fantastic story. I would have loved Howl's Moving Castle as a child, because I was very entertained by stories that take the character from its normal huma life and change it drastically into some "crazy" but lovable universe. It's like when I was reading comic books as a child I always liked how a story can take you anywhere in a world completely different from our reality. And I think that is well executed with Howl's Moving Castle and it changes from the lately vast offering of animation movies that just don't have the same hold onto their stories and constantly use the same patterns over and over again.
“Sars Wars” (alternate title: "Bangkok Zombie Crisis") is another Thai gem. It’s completely silly and totally crazy, but most of all – it’s hilarious. It was filmed in 2004, written by Sommai Lertulan & Kuanchun Phemyad and directed by Taweewat Wantha. It was a commercial flop, but gained a cult status afterwards. That's how all the cool films do, anyway. In Africa, the Sars virus has mutated, now turning people into zombies. One mosquito manages to find his way into Thailand where he bites Andrew Biggs (he is an actual talk show host in Thailand). In the meantime, Master Tape is visited by an old friend whose daughter Liu has been kidnapped. Master gives the rescue assignment to his student Khun-Krabi also known as Hyper Man. Khun makes himself a cool armor and goes into the building where the kidnappers are. Conveniently, it is the same building that Andrew went in and infected its residents. Like all of this is not enough trouble, the government seals the building and Dr. Diana has only one hour to go in and find the cure, after that – the building is going to blow, courtesy of the army’s C4 explosives. “Sars Wars” is cheesy as hell. There are many sexual references and jokes, funny ones. Like when Dr. Diana must pass by a group of zombies, they rip her clothes off so she’s half naked throughout the rest of the film. In another scene, sprinklers turn on and Liu’s outfit gets all wet. I laughed my ass out during Hyper Man’s introduction dance. In short you’ve got everything – zombie humans, a zombie cat, hot chicks, a zombie baby that bursts out of its mother’s womb and chews off its umbilical cord, lightsabers on batteries, a giant snake that swallowed a radio so it’s now a musical snake, explosions, fistfights, swordfights, violence, blood and gore and much more. What else can you ask for? The soundtrack kicks ass. The main theme song rocks. The CGI are a little bit below the standard, but as the whole film is a joke and looks cartoonish, it really doesn’t matter. Speaking of cartoons, there are also two anime segments, like in "Kill Bill". They aren’t anything special, but are a nice addition to the film. The film pays tribute to "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", "Star Wars", "The Matrix" and "House of Flying Daggers". And now for the cast – Thep Pho-Ngam is Master Tape, Suppakom Kitsuwan is Khun-Krabi. They are both funny as hell. And the best is yet to come – the female cast. Oh my, oh my! The stunningly beautiful Lena Christensen is Dr. Diana. Liu is played by the busty Phintusuda Tunphairao. They even make fun of her big boobs in the film. You'll get your fair share of smokin' hotness. I’ll quote Master Tape: “Zombies, explosions and now a giant snake… this movie must be aiming for some hard cash!” And let me tell you, it’s worth every penny. Just don’t take it too serious, or you’ll be disappointed. Give it a look. Rating: 8/10
» = New Post(s)