Archive for the ‘movie reviews’ Category

« Newer Entries
Older Entries »
h1

Terminator: Genisys (2015)

July 19, 2015

Starring: Emilia Clarke, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jai Courtney, Jason Clarke
Director: Alan Taylor (Thor: The Dark World, Game Of Thrones)

Bottom Line: I was pretty disappointed with Terminator: Genisys as it was up there with Jurassic World as one of my most anticipated movies of the summer. Granted, the Terminator franchise hasn’t been particularly riveting since James Cameron left it behind more than 20 years ago after T2: Judgement Day. But with Game Of Throne‘s Emilia Clarke taking over as Sarah Connor and what looked like a strong trailer, I was pretty stoked.

Terminator: Genisys starts off just before the first movie began, with John Connor (Jason Clarke) sending one of his soldiers back in time to protect his mother. This time, just before Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) time jumps, it looks like John Connor is taken by surprise and when Reese arrives back in 1984, Sarah Connor is ready for him – and so is a T-800 model she has affectionately named “Pops.” I thought this was a pretty unique twist and was looking forward to where the story would go from there. Unfortunately, the movie keeps twisting and turning until it twists so absurdly that I practically lost all interest in what I was watching.

Emilia Clarke was predictably awesome as Sarah Connor and it was fun to see Arnold Schwarzenegger back in his most iconic role, but the casting of Jai Courtney and Jason Clarke was just atrocious. Courtney gave an extremely limp performance as there was no believable chemistry between Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor and I don’t know what it is about Jason Clarke, but he has a face I just want to punch. I really felt like these two casting decisions brought the overall quality of the film way down.

Terminator: Genisys has some good action sequences and plenty of call backs to the first two films, but I suspect fans of the franchise will feel pretty mixed about this entry. The story is just a bit too hokey for me, personally, and the critics have ripped this movie to shreds. Proceed with caution.

Replay Value: This was slightly more appealing than the last two Terminator movies, both of which I only watched once.
Sequel Potential: The franchise is over 30 years old, but Arnold isn’t getting any younger. Still, Arnold’s retirement won’t stop Hollywood from making these movies.
Oscar Potential: Maybe some visual effects.

Grade: 5/10 (Watchable)

Posted in movie reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

h1

Inside Out (2015)

June 29, 2015

Starring: Amy Poehler, Mindy Kaling, Phyllis Smith, Bill Hader, Lewis Black
Director: Pete Docter (Up, Monsters Inc.), Ronaldo Del Carmen

Bottom Line: Boy, I hate to say it, but Pixar’s Inside Out is one of the most overrated movies I’ve ever seen. It’s at 98% on Rotten Tomatoes and 8.8 on IMDB with a top 60 ranking in their top 250 of all-time. Those are extremely strong ratings and with Pixar’s nearly flawless track record (I’m looking at you Cars 1 and 2) the superlatives being tossed around concerning this movie seemed quite reasonable. When my wife turned to me about thirty minutes into it and asked “is it almost over?” I had a sad moment of realization that Pixar had dropped the ball on this one.

Now, I don’t want to say Inside Out was bad, but it was dangerously close to bad – and it certainly wasn’t the borderline classic critics have made it out to be. It’s the story of a young girl named Riley and the emotions in her head (Joy, Sadness, Anger, Disgust, and Fear) as her family moves from Minnesota to the busy city of San Francisco, leaving behind friends, memories, and the frozen lakes she used to play hockey on. It’s actually a pretty good concept, but the setting of a girl’s head is tough terrain and I really didn’t think the execution was all that great. Inside Out is at its best when all the emotions are together in “Headquarters” interacting with each other hilariously, but Joy and Sadness quickly get separated from the rest of the crew and things get… quite a bit messy and surprisingly boring. During their quest to save “Friendship Island,” “Hockey Island,” “Family Island,” etc. from collapsing and disappearing from Riley’s memory forever, the duo encounter Riley’s old imaginary friend Bing Bong, a cotton candy/elephant/dolphin hybrid that is about as pleasing as Jar Jar Binks was. Seriously. Once the conflict starts in Inside Out and Joy and Sadness take a tour through Riley’s head when the depressing reality of moving to San Francisco really kicks in, the movie’s momentum halts and the story feels like a drag. The best moments of the movie take place outside Riley’s head and that’s a problem.

As usual, Pixar does a good job in the animation department. It’s little wonder that the Bay Area-based company could bring San Francisco to life with such amazing detail. I particularly liked Riley’s encounter with broccoli pizza and SF’s ubiquitous dedication to organic foods – an especially funny touch considering I visited SF last week and the one restaurant I ate in offered only organic food. The voice talent is also well cast and does a good job. The concept and story here are pretty good, I just expected it to be better.

Overall, I found Inside Out to be funny at times and I liked Riley’s story, but I didn’t much care for what was going on with the emotions inside her head – those were the scenes where you just want it to be over already. The themes of growing up were somewhat touching, but they were so much more powerful and well done in Toy Story 3. I also felt like Inside Out was more tailored for kids only than almost any Pixar movie I’ve ever seen. Inside Out isn’t terrible – I would definitely recommend it to families – but it was a massive disappointment for me personally.

Replay Value: I don’t know if I can watch this movie again, but I feel like I might owe it another viewing.
Sequel Potential: Highly likely.
Oscar Potential: Basically a shoo-in for Best Animated movie based on the critic’s reviews.

Grade: 5.5/10 (Watchable/Recommended)

Posted in movie reviews | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

h1

Theory Of Everything (2014)

June 22, 2015

Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones
Director: James Marsh (Man On Wire)

Bottom Line: It’s hard to pinpoint exactly what didn’t sit right with me about The Theory Of Everything, but I just can’t say I loved it. It’s a biopic about the relationship between renowned scientist Stephen Hawking and his first wife Jane Wilde – and maybe that’s my problem. This is a movie about falling in and out of love, while Stephen’s remarkable achievements in science and his impossible fight to stay alive with ALS feel like background music. That’s not to say the story isn’t interesting or touching – the performances from Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones are nothing short of remarkable – I just wanted the movie to help me understand what makes Hawking so important to scientific theory, how he defied the odds of ALS, and how he was able to author what is arguably the most notable book of science in our history despite all his physical limitations. The Theory Of Everything skims over all this, at best. What we are left with is two great performances in a mildly moving romcom about a man that is noteworthy for so many other reasons. For 2014 biopics about historic scholars, The Imitation Game is much more my speed.

Replay Value: Feels like a one and done film to me.
Sequel Potential: Biopic, so no.
Oscar Potential: Eddie Redmayne won Best Actor and the film was nominated for Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Original Score, as well as Felicity Jones for Best Actress.

Grade: 6/10 (Recommended)

Posted in movie reviews | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

h1

Jurassic World (2015)

June 13, 2015

Starring: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Ty Simpkins, Vincent D’Onofrio
Director: Colin Trevorrow (Safety Not Guaranteed)

Bottom Line: I remember when rumblings of a Jurassic Park 4 first started and there were rumors of dinos with guns in the plot and I can’t say I was excited about the prospects for that film. I am happy to report that while some aspects of that concept made it into Jurassic World – in the form of trained raptors and Vincent D’Onofrio’s character wanting to use dinosaurs for military purposes – this movie is much more in the spirit of the first JP film.

From the moment I heard that Jurassic World would feature a functioning park, I couldn’t wait to see it on the big screen. As a huge fan of amusement parks, an operational version of John Hammond’s vision from the first film really intrigued me and the creators of this film bring Jurassic World to life in stunning detail – it looks and feels like a combination of Universal Studios, a high quality zoo, with a splash of SeaWorld. Indeed, the scene-stealing Mosasaur is set up very much like Shamu. The set designers do an incredible job and the park is set up exactly as it looks on the impressive Jurassic World website. We have a petting zoo with young dinosaurs, kayaking down a prehistoric river, and venturing into the fields with live dinos in the (not so) indestructible Gyrosphere. The dinosaurs also look great, but it’s an interesting testament to Steven Spielberg’s original visual effects team how little improvement there has been in that department since the 1993 film.

The plot is similar to past films – a couple of kids make the trip to the island to visit their aunt and tour the park before all hell breaks loose when the Indominus Rex escapes its paddock. The what? Ah yes. In this movie, the park has been open for ten years or so and attendance has dropped while watching a T-Rex feed has become as ho-hum as checking out a tiger at the local zoo. So much like our real world would, the powers-that-be ponder how to turn things around and come up with the idea of creating their own dinosaur: the Indominus Rex, a combination of the tyrannosaur and something else everyone will be able to guess before they even realize it’s supposed to be a surprise. Watching the I-Rex cause carnage is great summer blockbuster fun and seeing velociraptors respond to human training was far less lame than I was expecting.

Like all the Jurassic Park sequels and quite unlike the original, the cast plays second fiddle to the dinosaurs. Chris Pratt is always enjoyable, but as Owen Grady, the raptor whisperer, his usual welcome charm and sense of humor is far less prominent than it has been in most of his other roles. Bryce Dallas Howard is okay as the kids’ aunt and park operations manager; I can’t think of any role of hers that I’ve ever thought she’s been particularly good in and this one is no different. The best addition to the cast has to be Jake Johnson (of “New Girl”), who plays a control operator rocking a vintage Jurassic Park t-shirt he found on eBay and gets most of the films laughs.

Jurassic World was about as satisfying as I could have hoped for. It’s visually stunning, action packed, and plenty of fun. Michael Crichton and John Hammond would be proud.

Replay Value: I already want to see it again and I think it’s a minor travesty that I didn’t watch it in Imax 3D.
Sequel Potential: This franchise probably won’t die before I do.
Oscar Potential: Set design, visual effects, and sound all have strong chances through the first half of 2015.

Grade: 7/10 (Must See)

Posted in movie reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

h1

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

May 25, 2015

Starring: Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron
Director: George Miller (Mad Max, Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior, Happy Feet)

Bottom Line: I felt it necessary to watch the original Mad Max and it’s sequel The Road Warrior to prime myself for George Miller’s 2015 update of his defining franchise. I can assure you, these films are not essential prerequisites. I liked them okay, particularly The Road Warrior, but they have little to do with Fury Road.

Actually, Fury Road is the Mad Max world on steroids – it’s Barry Bonds. George Miller waited thirty years to update this franchise and Fury Road wastes little time establishing itself as the new bar for cinematic action. We are briefly introduced to Tom Hardy’s version of Max Rockatansky before being plunged into a chaotic post-apocalyptic world and a heart-stopping vehicle chase. Miller leaves it up to us to figure out the who and the why as the story develops… and I’ll tell you, I can’t remember being so entertained by a movie where I have almost no idea what’s going on. Fortunately, there is time to fill in the blanks later as Fury Road adds a bit of character development in between its absurdly intense action sequences.

Fury Road is big time cinema at it’s finest. Miller’s world is meticulously crafted – from the costumes, to the set designs, to the vehicles, to the score – it’s all top notch and perfectly executed. It may be grimy, but Fury Road is a truly beautiful film. No dollar in this budget was wasted. Mad Max: Fury Road may be all George Miller, but his cast does great also. Tom Hardy is good enough in the Max role to make you forget about Mel Gibson and Charlize Theron’s Imperator Furiosa is the story’s true hero and Theron knocks it out of the park.

Calling this movie a sequel or a reboot is really doing it a disservice. It pays tribute to the concept of the original run of films while improving on them in every possible way. Perhaps it’s not so bad for Hollywood to constantly rehash old ideas if it’s capable of occasionally producing something as awesome as Mad Max: Fury Road. George Miller has quite possibly crafted a modern classic.

Replay Value: I’d watch this again in theaters and it feels like a must own for the blu-ray collection.
Sequel Potential: Mad Max: The Wasteland has already been announced with Tom Hardy attached to star and George Miller writing, but if Miller isn’t directing mark me as skeptical.
Oscar Potential: Fury Road should have no problems scooping up nominations for some of the technical aspects, particularly costume and set design, sound, editing, etc., and it may have an outside chance at Best Picture and Best Director.

Grade: 8.5/10 (Excellent/Blew My Mind)

Posted in movie reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

h1

Pitch Perfect (2012)

May 25, 2015

Starring: Anna Kendrick, Brittany Snow, Anna Camp, Rebel Wilson
Director: Jason Moore

Bottom Line: I’m not going to waste of bunch of time thinking about what I want to say about a movie that came out three years ago, so I’ll be quick: I liked Pitch Perfect. I’m a fan of well done musicals (think Moulin Rouge or Chicago) and I even enjoyed the first season of Glee. Pitch Perfect feels like a mashup of those two worlds along with the common cinematic theme of a group of ragtag wannabes overcoming their differences to achieve greatness. It’s funny, the musical numbers and singing are well done, the acting is… mostly decent and, by gosh, you actually want to root for these girls. Anna Kendrick has been mostly forgettable to me up to this point in her career, but Pitch Perfect propels her to star status as I loved her in this movie. Rebel Wilson is also great. Consider me a fan and sign me up for the sequel.

Replay Value: Fun movie that could be seen again.
Sequel Potential: In theaters now…
Oscar Potential: None.

Grade: 6/10 (Recommended)

Posted in movie reviews | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

h1

The Gambler (2014)

May 24, 2015

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Brie Larsen, John Goodman, Jessica Lange
Director: Rupert Wyatt (Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes)

Bottom Line: “One man, two lives.” More like no life. And there’s very little life in Rupert Wyatt’s remake of 1974’s The Gambler starring James Caan. Mark Wahlberg plays a college literature professor who not only seems to get off on gambling for high stakes, but also on belittling the people that deal the cards. He treats his mother like she’s another loan shark and makes sure his students know they are unimportant in the grand scope of the world. He borrows money liberally and paying it back is of little concern to him – he’d rather borrow more and take a shot with it. And his style of betting is pretty detrimental. If you bet everything you have and then double your bet every time you win, there’s only one possible outcome: eventually you will lose it all. Because of this, there is very little tension during the gambling scenes. You know what’s going to happen and, even worse, you want it to. Because this is a man that no one could possibly ever want to root for. You want a good, tense gambling scene? Watch In America and wait for the family to go the fair.

I find Mark Wahlberg’s acting to be pretty hit or miss and, for me, The Gambler was a miss. Perhaps it’s a function of a weak script, but I had a really hard time taking his character seriously in this movie. The performance pretty much amounts to strutting around with a smirk on his face and acting like he’s better than everyone else. This guy is at rock bottom and you’d never know it if you were an outsider. He asks someone in his class “do I look happy?” and even though the answer is supposed to be an implied no, he actually seems pretty content with his situation. As one character says to him: “you want to lose” and it sure seems true.

As someone that has had gambling and alcohol dominate their life to the point of bottoming out on multiple occasions, The Gambler just didn’t feel very authentic to me. I can relate to the compulsion of gambling my last dollar and I can even relate to borrowing money to gamble while worrying about how I’ll pay it back later. But what I can’t relate to is a man with no glimpse of humanity. There isn’t a second in this film where they show you even a morsel of someone with a soul. I just never got the feeling that he felt the true gravity of his situation or that he even cared. And if he doesn’t care, why should we?

Replay Value: I can’t imagine watching this again.
Sequel Potential: None.
Oscar Potential: Shut out at the Oscars.

Grade: 4.5/10 (Forgettable/Watchable)

Posted in movie reviews | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

h1

The Imitation Game (2015)

May 17, 2015

Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Keira Knightley, Matthew Goode
Director: Morten Tyldum (Headhunters)

Bottom Line: It was interesting timing for me to watch The Imitation Game considering I just watched director Morten Tyldum’s excellent Headhunters last week and a few weeks before that I saw Ex Machina, whose plot is largely centered around something called a Turing Test, which evaluates if a machine can exhibit intelligent behavior similar to that of a human being. I knew nothing of The Imitation Game plot prior to watching it so it was a pleasant surprise to discover it is the story of Alan Turing, a highly regarded British mathematician and cryptanalyst for whom the Turing Test was named after.

Benedict Cumberbatch gives his typical wonderful performance as Turing, a man whose awkward genius and social ineptitude isn’t that far removed Cumberbatch’s Sherlock Holmes portrayal on his BBC series. He plays Turing with a touch less narcissism and quite a bit more vulnerability. Indeed, Turing was a homosexual in a time (the 1940s-1950s) when such a thing wasn’t just frowned upon, it was prosecutable. While the film spends time detailing his arrest for gross indecency and flashes back to his schooling as a youth and the formation of his first meaningful relationship with another boy, the majority of the film highlights his time at Bletchley Park, a British codebreaking centre, working with a team of fellow geniuses and trying to crack Enigma, a machine used by Nazi Germany to send coded military messages.

The Imitation Game is an amazing and heartbreaking story, in which one of the greatest (unknown) heroes of World War II is later vilified by his country for something we now view as socially acceptable. The film combines drama and humor exceptionally well. Turing is portrayed as a flawed, often self-centered human being, but still someone that is quite easy to root for. Cumberbatch is worthy of his Oscar nomination and Keira Knightley is also great as one of his fellow codebreakers and continues to solidify her status as what I consider to be The Next Kate Winslet.

The Imitation Game delivers on all levels with a great story and top notch acting. Alan Turing is a man whose time and contributions to our world should never be forgotten. The posthumous pardon he was granted by Queen Elizabeth II in 2009 was long overdue.

Replay Value: This is definitely a film worth watch again and probably worth owning.
Sequel Potential: N/A
Oscar Potential: Won Best Adapted Screenplay. Cumberbatch and Knightley received acting nominations, Tyldum a directing nom, and the film was also nominated for Best Picture, film editing, production design, and score.

Grade: 8/10 (Excellent)

Posted in movie reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

h1

Fifty Shades Of Grey (2015)

May 14, 2015

Starring: Dakota Johnson, Jamie Dornan
Director: Sam Taylor-Johnson (Nowhere Boy)

Bottom Line: I have to admit: Fifty Shades Of Grey is a worthy homage to Twilight but… that’s not a good thing. Bella Swan is the worst character I’ve ever encountered in literature and the Twilight series as a whole did nothing but bore me, so when I heard that Fifty Shades Of Grey initially started as Twilight fan fiction – the resulting books and this film never had a chance.

It’s hard to believe that a movie that is essentially all about sex could be so boring, but Fifty Shades Of Grey lacks balls – literally. There is no envelope-pushing here. I’m not even sure the film is rated a hard-R. In between relatively tame sex scenes – all things considered – we get an absurd amount of mundane dialogue.

And very little makes sense in this film. Anastasia Steel is a virgin? Really? But even more importantly, why? Does it make things even remotely more interesting? I feel like it’s a detail meant to spice things up, but it feels contrived, and the script forgets this little factoid soon after it is mentioned. Christian Grey talks himself up as a womanizing monster, but all he does is treat Anastasia with respect the entire film. Also, like Twilight, I don’t get how either of these characters are interesting or likable. Jamie Dornan’s Christian Grey is a permanent scowl and little else. I’d be curious to see what Charlie Hunnan would have done with this role – I can only imagine his casting would have boosted the movie’s draw considerably – but Hunnan is better off having not been involved. Dakota Johnson’s Anastasia at least has a hint of charm and humor, but I certainly don’t get why she’s attracted to someone like Christian Grey. There is zero depth in this film.

Fifty Shades Of Grey amounts to little more than high quality soft core porn… and you can find that for free on the internet… if that’s your thing.

Replay Value: So boring… no way.
Sequel Potential: I can’t believe there is three books of material here. There wasn’t even two hours of material in the first film. I don’t want to see more. With apologies to Rhianna, whips and chains do NOT excite me.
Oscar Potential: I’d bet on Razzie awards. Dakota Johnson might escape unscathed, but I doubt anyone else does.

Grade: 1.5/10 (Torture Material/Horrible)

Posted in movie reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

h1

Headhunters (2011)

May 10, 2015

Starring: Aksel Hennie, Synnove McCody Lund, Nikolaj Colste-Waldau
Director: Morten Tyldum (The Imitation Game)

Bottom Line: My parents have been hassling me to watch Headhunters for months, bringing it up every time I see them and posting on my Facebook page, so I was going to have to raise hell if it wasn’t any good. They’ve been known to put some staunch praise on questionable films (see: August Rush) so it’s not like Headhunters was a lock to be awesome.

I am happy to report that it is – very awesome. It’s a 2011 film that hails from Norway and is directed by Morten Tyldum, whose The Imitation Game was recently nominated for Best Picture. Aksel Hennie, who looks like a Norwegian cross between Billy Crystal and Christopher Walken, stars as Roger, a short man that works as a headhunter – someone that recruits suitable candidates for open positions at various corporations – and steals valuable paintings in his spare time. I say he is short because the whole film seems to revolve around this insecurity. He states at the beginning of the film that he “overcompensates in other ways,” and uses the extra income he gets from stealing paintings to project a lavish lifestyle he otherwise could not afford. It all helps make him feel worthy of his trophy wife played by Lund. It’s a system that seems to work for Roger until he steals a highly valuable painting from Jamie Lannister (of Game Of Thrones), who quickly turns Roger’s world upside down by having an affair with his wife and trying to kill him.

From there, Headhunters quickly becomes a game of cat and mouse (and dog), with Roger on the run for his life. And it gets absurd – fantastically absurd. Part of the reason Headhunters works so well is because it doesn’t take itself too seriously. It’s listed as a crime thriller, but comedy could easily be added to its genre specifications. As awful as the situation was at times, I couldn’t help but laugh at Roger’s elusive tactics. There’s a scene that involves an outhouse that makes the one in Schindler’s List seem tame by comparison.

Headhunters is smart, funny, and plenty entertaining. The acting is good in general, but Hennie is particularly amusing as Roger, although he probably wouldn’t make the best poker player. For someone with so many secrets, he wears his displeasure plainly on his face whenever he is unhappy about something – such as running into a law enforcement agent who is tracking art thieves. I’m not surprised that this film propelled Tyldum to Hollywood success. It’s an enjoyable ride and somewhere in this crazy movie there’s a message about being yourself, but it’s difficult to take away anything serious from such a fun film.

Grade: 7.5/10 (Must See/Excellent)

Posted in movie reviews | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

« Newer Entries
Older Entries »