Eagle Eye (Dvd) - Both

Computers are terribly dangerous. They can do some crazy stuff that you don’t even know about, like change traffic lights, operate cranes, blow the airbag in a truck, anything and everything you think a computer can do – it can. Plus computers hate humans. They find us dangerous. They believe that we are a hindrance to ourselves and to the world. Thus every time a movie imagines a world where computers think, they kick our ass. As long as we can maintain our dominance over conscious thought we’re good, but if they ever gain even semi-conscious thought . . .

Well, Shia Laboof lives in that world.

Shit.

The computers are going to get us. Not only does the computer in this movie hate humans, but it hates humans on the basis that we don’t follow a largely philosophical document that states our desires for our nation.

Wow.

This computer can think, hate and interpret the documents our forefathers wrote. We are in trouble.

The rogue sister of HAL believes that the president has broken a law and thus he needs to be eliminated along with the entire executive branch. The computer then devises an insanely complicated plot involving a trumpet and a diamond necklace to pull off the assassination.

Hell, man. Computers are amazing.

Now, why wouldn’t the computer simply take control of a plane and bomb the white off the executive branch – I don’t’ know. During the course of the movie we see that computers can do that sort of thing. But, I guess, our computer has a flare for the dramatic. Trumpet and diamond necklace – that’s the ticket.

Oh, computers, you are a dangerous match that humans love to play with. When will we actually get burnt?

Shia stumbles through his dialog as he does his fame and drags the film down a notch or two, but with a ridiculous plot like this, I’m not sure this ever had a chance of being good anyways. There are car chases, there are guns, and there is an individual who gets shot, but survives – it’s your basic action movie.

I largely don’t go for these types of movies, and neither does Jennie, but this film seemed to garner some praise, all be it a small amount, and I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why. The bland plot that mixed any action film with 2001: a space odyssey was straight from the latest airplane novel sitting in the tiny Barns & Nobles. I don’t get it. Where did any praise come from?

3 out of 10: I wouldn’t waste my time. This fil[ERROR] JRun Servlet [ERROR](SecModConnectionPool.java:705)[ERROR] THIS MOVIE WAS GREAT \nl GO WATCH IT NOW

Wanted (Dvd)

I would figure a Matrix (1999) rip-off would have been made a little earlier, I mean isn’t this about 5 years late? And when I say rip-off I don’t mean like Heathcliff v. Garfield, I’m talking plagiarism right down to the pseudo-attractive female that kicks ass. This film is the Matrix without computers. I can actually picture the Hollywood heads using that exact phrase, “Matrix without computers,” to describe what this was and how it was going to make money.

The hero is starts in a cubicle where he is picked on by his “best” friend and boss and is ignored by the office hottie.

Oh man, what a set up.

His girlfriend is cheating on him with his “best” friend from the office though she isn’t nice to him anyways. This cardboard situation isn’t developed in anyway though so when his estranged dad turns out to be in a secret group of assassins it seems like a great deal for the main character Wesley “Neo” Gibson. Eventually, this group of assassins needs to show this nobody that he is a somebody by teaching him the ways of his father so that he can track down his father’s killer who just so happens to be the best assassin ever.

I can’t tell you how many Matrix type situations and characters are in this film and as it turns out the graphic novel this film was adapted from was published in 2003 so I think we all know where Mark Miller got is inspiration. And though the plot was a direct rip-off of a better work it is actually a pretty universal plot, so you would think that the audience could get behind this loser with a destiny plot. But the action and actors seem so clichéd and flat it felt like watching an hour and a half commercial for some hot new cell phone, caffeine drink or at least some other product that the kids like. There was absolutely no weight to the characters.

The one character I found that they gave at least an attempt at fleshing out is big-lips herself, Mrs. Angelina Jolie – shudder. I dislike her. I don’t think she is a good actress, and I don’t know why. I won’t watch Changeling (2008) though I have heard great things about, because she is the central actor. She is like the female Vince Vaughn, always adding her sleek “sexiness” to every character she plays. Her back story here involves a clichéd rough childhood, and, I guess, that means she can kick ass.

Yeah.

There is a betrayal, what we thought was true wasn’t – and, finally, a twist a Romcom fan could see coming a mile away - oh, and a huge scene with ass kicking. Ho-hum. There is room for a sequel, of course, but if this is a mediocre Matrix, and the Matrix sequels were horrible, then the amount of suck that a Wanted sequel would create would be monumental.

3 out of 10 – Just rewatch the Matrix.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (Theatre) - Both

Jennie and I love our “destroy the world” flicks Day After Tomorrow (2004), Independence Day (1996), War of the Worlds (2005). I don’t fully understand why Jennie, in particular, loves these films, but I can say that I enjoy them because they are big, wide screen, Movies (with a capital M). They usher me into a childish fantasy where the world is fragile. I don’t love explosions, but when the head gets torn off the Statue of Liberty in Cloverfield (2008) I get the message that something big happened. I don’t know if I am explaining my love for these films right, but I’ll end it at that.

In this remake of the end of the world Keanu Reeves plays an alien, Klaatu, who has come to earth to decide the fate of humanity. His decision is pretty much made for him when as he exits his ship the shoot-first-ask-questions-later American military attacks his alien form. Only America’s top science type person understands that he isn’t necessarily a threat, played by Jennifer Connelly.

She saves him from being sliced and diced, a constant threat to sentient beings who wander to this planet, and finds out he was sent here to see if the human race could turn things around. The Intergalactic Space Council decided that humans were ruining their planet. A planet with other beings on it – dogs, cats, platypuses, you get the idea. Our wasteful habits have brought the wrath of the Space Pope down on us and humans are to be exterminated.

You see, unlike the film this was derived from, this remake no longer believes war is a destructive human construct, or at least it isn’t as important as picking up our litter. To quote the producer, "the specifics of [how] we now have the capability to destroy ourselves have changed". While I agree that the human effect on the environment is substantial I beg to differ that our effects on the environment are as damning to the human race as war has been.

Keanu plays Klaatu well. Though I’m sure we all knew he would. His deadpan looks of logic are straight from Keanu’s past performances. And as for Connelly, well, she is a grade A actress working in a grade C movie, so her abilities fall flat. Jaden Smith is given a horrible role as a child that just can’t make up his mind. Does he love his step mother? Why is he unevenly angry at the world? His acting abilities aren’t as evident as other child stars, and his pedigree seems to be his ticket in, let’s hope he picks up some lessons.

As for the movie on a whole, I wouldn’t run to the few remaining theatres that are playing it, you will be disappointed. It is simply a quick get-in-and-get-out disaster film that is lacking in plot and character development.

3 out of 10 – This remake replaces our guilt of war with our guilt of recycling. The over handed message could have had some gravitas but the stakes were too low.

RocknRolla (Theatre) - Ashleigh

Guy Ritchie’s film career started at the peek. His first two films were brilliantly shot, fast paced gangsta flicks that left me wanting to move to England. Then he met Madonna. She ruined him. She destroyed everything he touched. First she stared in the laughably bad Swept Away (2002) a remake of a classic that allowed Madonna to “act” like a selfish princess. Then came the train wreck Revolver (2005), a movie that took three years to cross the pond. Revolver was an abolishment that tried to mix Ritchie’s gangstas with Madonna’s kabala philosophies. Then rumblings of a breakup – were they divorced – weren’t they. Who cares.

Fucking Guy Ritchie is back. During the tumultuous times Ritchie wrote and directed his return to greatness and while RocknRolla isn’t Ritchie’s peek it shines a light into the darkened alley that his career had become.

RocknRolla is Ritchie back to his roots: British thugs running scams. While it does returns to the formula - it’s ending isn’t as complicated nor twisting as his first two. The film starts by introducing the main players. This has worked for Guy quite well in the past and when something isn’t broke you shouldn’t try to fix it. The cast is a massive mix of characters that seem eager to go at each other in a mad dash for money.

The fun of Guy’s first two efforts is back as well. Gone are Revolver’s preachy messages; gone are the horrible acting and influence of Guys former wife. In its place is a well made crime thriller that has been Ritchie’s signature.

Is it anything new? Not really. The main villain gets taken to task. The anti-hero is given just rewards. The ragtag group of misfits is certainly something to root for. And I’m not sure I want Guy Ritchie to do anything else. If he gave me a movie like this every two years I would be happy.

Technically there were one or two new additions. For the first time Ritchie has added a well written/acted female to the cast of characters. The gorgeous Thandie Newton certainly responds well to the boys club that has been Guy’s cast. Also the promise of a proper sequel was splashed across the screen at the end of the film, so I guess I might get my wish after Sherlock Holmes (2009).

But I am grateful for Guy’s return. It is a welcomed return for me. Recently I have been lamenting the current state of films, and it could be because I live in Michigan. It could be because I’m growing older and people just don’t make movies for people like me anymore. I’m not sure, but I feel Guy’s return will give me something, even if it isn’t perfect, to look forward to.

6 out of 10: Guy Ritchie returns to what works.

Speed Racer (Dvd) - Asheligh

My expectations of this movie were somewhat low. When it opened in May of this year it was berated by the critics and nobody went to see it, how far the Wachoski siblings have fallen. However, I quite enjoyed this film. The plot was tight, the action was only a little bit gratuitous, and the characters where enjoyable.

The recent influx of movies that attempt to be like comic books is an interesting concept. They take an image directly from the source material and attempt to recreate that scene on film in exactly the same way it was drawn. 300 (2007), Sin City (2005), and even the Wachoski siblings directing the Matrix trilogy are examples that use this technique. Speed Racer is loosely related to this because it is attempting to make a Japanese style animation cartoon into a feature film and while doing this they employee some of the same techniques that style of animation is known for. As this is the case we are presented with an over-saturated, sometimes vaudevillian, piece of cinema that works most of the time.

If you go into this film wanting anything other than a cartoon brought to life I can imagine disappointment. This isn’t to say it was perfectly executed – far from it. The beginning hour seemed to drag like a speedster with a flat tire. The viewer didn’t need to see Speed as a little boy in school. The moments establishing his relationship with his brother would have been enough. Also, I would fear for an epileptic to watch this film as its bright colors and flashy special effects sometimes overwhelmed the action. But, our hero was given his plot, as the forty-five minute mark rolled around, and from there the movie picked up its pace.

The plot was actually somewhat complicated as emotions were shouldered and details of financial intrigue forced the characters through their evolutions. I would find it hard to believe that a child could understand what was going on. But, I enjoyed how detailed the plot was. It made me work to understand the motivations of the characters and for a children’s film to do this is unique.

I will not recommend this movie as I’m not sure many would like it. Hell, Jennie fell asleep. But, if you were at all interested in it when you saw it in theatres, take a chance. Just, make it past the first hour.

5 out of 10: when it failed it did so monumentally, but the successes were there as well.

The Dark Knight (Theatre) - Both

Many people have been talking about Heath Ledgers performance as the Joker. The internet has been hot with debate discussing if it will be the definitive version of what Wizard magazine once called the most horrific villain in comic books. The Joker has had many iterations throughout the years; he has been a childish prankster, a mastermind of Gotham’s criminal underworld, and even in one deranged moment of glee killed one of the many Robins floating around. I begin this review of the Batman movie by talking about the Joker because to put it simply this is not a Batman movie. It is a movie about the Joker and Batman is only a side character.

Remarkably, the writer/director Christopher Nolan allows the Joker to be a visitor dropped into Gotham with no back story. I applaud this open ended origin. I feared an origin story that granted humanity to the Joker. I feel that is one of the downfalls of Tim Burton's Joker. The Joker is twisted and foul, amusing and dangerous – extremes. There is no beginning. One of the beautiful little nuances of this character is the Joker’s story about how he obtained his scarred grin. Was it an abusive father? Did he do it to himself because of his disfigured wife? The mirror that the Joker provides in this film to his nemesis propels the action and the drama. The point I’m trying to make is that while Ledger’s performance is fantastic, the writing and story is equally artistic.

This film makes art out of a blockbuster. It still has blockbuster elements that degrade some of the more subtle moments, like the Batpod, or whatever it is called, whipping through the streets of Gotham taking out trucks and generally being ridiculous, but in that same sequence we see the Joker in all his sadistic glory simply climb out of the broken truck and maniacally approach the deadly vehicle in quite defiance. The film is almost all climax.

There is one glaring chink in the Bat armor. One thing that picks at my brain and makes me want to take the perfect rating from this almost perfect film. When Christian Bale dons the cowl and cape he brashly lowers his voice and whisper/screams his dialog rendering every scene with Batman conversing unintentionally comedic. It could be argued that Christian Bale is the best Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is certainly the worst.

Despite this glaring problem Nolan has done what very few, if any, could do – make art out of a commercial product. Much like Alan Moore did with the comic book itself, Nolan has achieved here – an example that a blockbuster could be both artistic and crowd pleasing.

10 out of 10: Near perfect film, with the acting and writing that can top most films, I fear a superhero movie will never be made that can better this.

Hancock (Theatre) - Both

Will Smith is back to his July 4th blockbuster shenanigans once again. And as with his previous efforts this film smacks of mediocrity. It is inventive, interesting, and still somehow vacant.

The opening scene is boisterously ridiculous with a Michael Bay flamboyance - too much for me. It shows Hancock (Will Smith) drunkenly apprehend a cadre of thugs while showing that he is an asshole. This becomes a catch phrase ala Marty McFly’s dreaded nickname “chicken”. Don’t call Hancock an asshole or you will get what is coming to you.

This sort of lazy writing humbles this promising popcorn flick along with Will’s lackluster performance. However, along comes Jason Bateman’s P.R. character to save the day and the film. He befriends Hancock after being saved by him and works pro bono to build his rep. This is when the movie shines – Bateman is his affable self (I fear Bateman may be a one trick pony, but, oh - what a trick) playing against Smith’s cardboard cutout of a self-loathing man.

At this point in time the film has quite a lot of potential. The scene is set for a quality ending as Hancock rises to the occasion showing he is a worthy hero. This is until the small twist rears its ugly head. Every encounter Hancock has had with Bateman’s wife, played by Charlize Theron, has been filled with confused stares and glaring eyes. There is a history there, a lumbering gorilla in the room; these two mean something to each other. The film takes a detour on the way to becoming a hit as Theron throws Hancock through the room displaying her hidden superhero powers. Oh, my – what a twist!

This hack doesn’t completely ruin the film and on the positive side navigates around any attempt at creating a supervillain for Hancock to fight. However, I somehow disliked the addition. The film never really addresses the fact that Theron’s character could have been a superhero too, but chooses domestic life instead. They then simply avoid the fact that Theron and Smith obviously have an unrequited love, but she is married to Bateman. And the film ends on a horrible candy coated note that almost ruins the film entirely. I will be fascinated to get my hands on the disc and see what kind of alternate endings this film had (read: the endings before the homogenization). The garble of ideas that come after the twist do add to the story giving Hancock a background of sorts and allowing the leads to display some emotional growth, but I find it hard to swallow the incomprehensible mess that they force on the audience. I won’t say I hated it, because I didn’t, but I also can’t say I’d recommend it.

5 out of 10: I appreciate the novelty, and can see where it could have been good, but the second half betrayed the first half’s promise.

National Treasure (Dvd) - Jennie

This should be brief. Jennie and I watched Nation Treasure 2 (2007) with her brother on Christmas break. She really enjoyed the story and the movie overall so I suggested that she would probably enjoy the original, and, since she had never seen it, we should probably check out Indiana Jones, as it is about a treasure hunting historian as well. As you know we watched the latest Indy flick and we weren’t too impressed with it, which inclined me to believe that perhaps I only loved Indy for nostalgia’s sake. This I have yet to confirm, though perhaps later this summer we will rent the earlier Indy flicks and cement my views.

As for National Treasure it was as good as I remembered it to be, which was only partially good. The film runs at a brisk pace till Gates is captured, but it quickly regains its footing after this slight tumble. The puzzles are somewhat fun and interesting, though somewhat historically inaccurate. I won’t argue with a film about a hidden revolutionary war era treasure though. Jennie enjoyed it a lot more than the recent Indy flick, and I have to whole-heartedly agree. This is what I wanted, or remembered, Indiana Jones to be: realistic, no aliens, no Mutt - fun. Maybe I remember Indiana Jones incorrectly, but as for recent adventures I choose Ben Gates over Indy anytime.

4 out of 10: A perfectly run of the mill adventure. Subtract one for Nick Cage being Nick Cage.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (Theatre) - Ashleigh

I will reveal significant plot points in this blog. So don’t read this if you don’t want it spoiled.

Aliens? Aliens. Ok, I know searching for the Holy Grail and the Ark of the Covenant is similar to searching for an alien skull in that they are fantastic artifacts. I know. I won’t pretend to argue that. But Jesus didn’t resurrect in front of Indy’s eyes when he drank from the cup. It was never even debated that Jesus himself drank from the cup. It was simply an artifact that someone hid very well in a cave with an invisible bridge so that few could find and retrieve it.

Hmm, invisible bridge – ok, that seems pretty out there too.

Shoot – well, maybe I shouldn’t be so harsh on aliens – I mean, Indiana Jones has never really brought stark realism to the screen. Technically, when a man’s heart can be pulled from his chest magically, I think I should be able to make the jump to aliens. But I couldn’t. When the alien came to life and gave Cate Blanchett her wish I left the world of Indy. I know lampooning George Lucas is a popular thing, but he makes it incredibly easy, not to mention necessary. He knew it was a “controversial” decision, "We're all going to get people throwing tomatoes at us. But it's a fun movie to make,” and I guess he wanted to have fun. But I have to say, I don’t fully understand where Lucas get’s his masochistic tendency to destroy his legacy, but he seems to love doing it.

I also won’t stand here and preach the Gospel of the past Indy films. As the Doobie Brothers are with Jesus – Indy is just alright with me. So this didn’t destroy any childhood that I had.

As a Hollywood blockbuster I can say I was entertained. I can’t say I was impressed with all the action scenes, when Blanchett and Hollywood's new hard-on Shia Labeouf sword fought on cars I could see the green screen. In this day and age that is inexcusable. I don’t care if you are trying to be consistent with your previous films. But the journey to the interdimensional alien spaceship was alright. I know this may sound crazy, but I think National Treasure 2 (2007) achieved more and enthralled me in its journey to unknown plunders better. So, I guess go rent that instead of spending ten bucks to see this.

5 out of 10: Indy is still alright with me – though barely.

Oh and I wanted to post this last time but I forgot. This ran in front of Prince Caspian. I have no words, hopefully you do...

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (Theatre) - Both

I’m not really sure what to think of the Chronicles of Narnia. Are they going to make more movies? Are they going to complete the saga? Can they even try? If they do that will make for an awkward fifth and sixth movie (These two are substantially different to the other books as they don’t have any of the Pevensies children in them and jump backwards into the timeline of what has occurred in Narnia already). If not, why should I continue to follow the saga? These answers are not simple ones. They have much to do money and how the other films fare. But as history has taught us the Chronicles have fared much like the big screen adventures of Don Quixote, a book that is notorious for being impossible to bring to film. The BBC first attempted the chronicles in 1967, but they only made it four novels in. Then in 1984 London's Westminster Theatre attempted the run and again only made it four books in. So, I believe the feat of bringing the chronicles to film is an impossible one. This puts a damper on my desire to continue watching these movies. I can’t really figure out why though. I think it has something to do with knowing that I will not be able to complete the journey with these characters and thus I don’t care where they go.

With this underwhelming intro I hopefully put you in the mind frame I was in when watching this. The movie opens in the Telmarine’s capitol where a child is born to someone. This causes a flourish of activity including an assassination attempt of someone. Jennie and I were sort of lost at this point and I felt that way till about an hour in. I believe if they would have kept C.S. Lewis’ story telling device this confusion may have been avoided, he opened the novel with the Pevensies children coming to Narnia – the events of the past 1300 years were then summed up by a dwarf named Trumpkin including the movies opening scenes. But the way the movie opened caused Prince Caspian and much of his character’s motivations to seem confusing. Why would he be fine with talking animals when he has never seen a talking animal and knew of them only through fairy tales? Why would he join Narnia’s fight so readily? Why didn’t he have control of his kingdom? He certainly seemed old enough. I could go on, but I feel that would be boring.

To continue, I felt the film also felt compact. Much like the Harry Potter films, I feel the chronicles tried to have too much story crammed into the three hour run time. A particular scene I could have done without is the temptation of Caspian to revive the white witch. It simply didn’t need to be in the film. It didn’t advance anyone’s story nor did it cause any real character development. There was a reason Peter Jackson was successful while translating the Lord of the Rings to film, he knew where to cut the fat. Sure, Tom Bombadil was one of my favorite character’s in the trilogy, but he wasn’t necessary. This is a lesson I feel the Narnia crew could learn from.

I also feel that an epic battle sequence with no bloodshed is ridiculous. I know they had to contractually keep the film to a PG rating, but come on. If you swing a sword at a man and make contact I would think there should be some sort of blood. Or should children be misled into thinking violent swordplay has no consequence?
Oh, the other way gets them a better rating?
Screw the kids, they’ll figure it out.

Unlike the last film I reviewed I did buy the magic here. This is essential to the enjoyment of the film. If you can’t turn off your brain for a film about a magical world with talking lions then I fear this is not the film for you. I enjoyed the talking animals with their warrior abilities to kill a man without shedding a single drop of blood – this is a world I can believe in. This also lead to a fantastic discussion after the movie between my wife and I about whether or not we would like the ability to talk to animals. I was completely against it citing the fact that I enjoy eating animals too much and hearing them talk would put a damper on the situation. Jennifer on the other had declared that she would become a vegetarian if this fantasy were at all possible. To this I replied that she would have to become a vegan, because she couldn’t just go up to a talking cow and take her milk, nor could she take enough milk to make cheese with - let's not even discuss fried chicken babies with a side of pig flesh. To this Jennie replied that this was an incorrect assumption because she would be friends with the cow and she would ask it for some of the milk and it would readily give her its bounty. This, I assured her, would not solve the problem as obtaining milk would be too hard for the masses and the milk could not be processed properly thus distorting the taste of the milk. Jennie replied that she simply wanted a talking cow friend which I could not argue with.

5 out of 10: I will not remember this film experience after a month or two. Good thing I write these things.

Iron Man (Theatre) - Ashleigh

Let’s get this out of the way – I know the bad guys were the horribly racists “cave dwellers of middle eastern descent”, I know their were gratuitous millionaire playboy antics that were just plain sexist (see the scene on the plane where the flight attendants danced on a pole), and I know the product placement was shoved in your face by the director enough that I wanted a Whopper after the movie. I know all these things. I’m not going to argue that they didn’t occur. Nor will I say that they didn’t hurt the film (I mean come on, a video with Stark being hooded and having gun wielding men video taping him as they screamed at him in an eastern dialect – Jennie almost wanted to walk out of the theatre), but even with these flaws I am happy to say this summer has started off with a resounding explosion. After the film, while watching the credits role so I could catch a glimpse of S.H.I.E.L.D. leader Nick Fury, I told Jennie that I thought this film reinvigorated the waning superhero genre. I felt like I did when I watched Spider-Man websling through New York City. I must admit I wasn’t expecting this.

Iron Man isn’t really my kind of superhero. I mean, how can you root for a millionaire lord of war? Tony Stark certainly isn’t the everyman. Robert Downey Jr. however brings so much of his charisma to the role that they are one in the same. Downey actually is credited with some of the more memorable Stark moments as he adlibbed the speech he gave while showing off the Jericho and he told the director that Stark should sit on the floor during his return press conference. Downey actually allows you to enjoy Stark as a character. This is certainly to the film’s benefit and it renews a past love of Downey as an actor for me.

The film much like it’s subject has a glossy outer shine that you expect from multimillion dollar bill, but at its core is human. The story is not overshadowed by the effects or the action sequences. The film, when broken down, is about a man who comes to a realization that he has been an accomplice to mass murderers and must atone for that sin. This is why this film is such a success. Also important is that Jon Favreau brought the fun back to superhero movies with brisk action scenes that take up very little of the film and focuses more on the elation of being superhuman and Downey’s perfect performance.

I know some films promote themsleves as “the most fun you can have at the movie theatre” which is something I never really get. But in my estimation this is one movie that comes very close to justifying this expression. It is a great expreince to be had while munching on overpriced popcorn.

9 out of 10: This is what summer movie going is all about. Is the April 29, 2010 midnight showing of Iron Man 2 sold out yet? Cause I am there.

21 (Theatre)

With a keen eye and knowledge of my blog readers will notice this entry doesn’t have a who wanted to watch it and the explanation on that is that no one really wanted to watch it. We wanted to go to a film and there was nothing else on. So, Jennie, Vamsi, and I decided on this bland film that claimed the top spot for two weeks in a row (a hard feet in this movie-of-the-week world).
Early spring is a wasteland for the movie going public. Studios seem to drop films here when they didn’t pan out as ideas, or maybe they weren’t Oscary enough for an Oscar run, or they didn’t have a big name star to anchor them. Films like Daredevil (Feb. 15, 2005), Failure to Launch (March 12, 2006), Disturbia (April 13, 2007) aren’t really expected to do very much – maybe they can hold the audience over till May kicks the movie going season into full swing, maybe they can’t – who cares. But movie studios neglect the early spring. This is the only explanation for a film like Disturbia to be the only movie last year to hold the top box office spot for three weeks in a row – the only one. In that tradition I bring you 21.
This film is about a poor kid who happens to go to MIT and wants to go to Harvard medical school after he graduates, every financially handicapped kid’s dream. Kevin Spacey notices him in a class as being particularly bright, again the kid goes to MIT, and enlists him in his gang of cronies who go to Las Vegas on the weekend to make money. They aren’t doing anything illegal – just counting cards. They teach Ben, played by a forgettable Jim Sturgess, how to count cards, a talent he already seems to know, and he rises in the ranks to become head crony. One of the gang is jealous of him, one is attracted to him, and one is a stereotype Asian guy. The jealous one gets mad and then gets kicked out, the one attracted to him gets laid and befriends him, and the Asian stereotype does what stereotypes do. Kevin Spacey turns on them, then they turn on Spacey – Ben gets to go to Harvard Medical. Nothing really stands out. In the spring wasteland this movie becomes a hit, if it were released against any other competition this film would be seen by Jim Sturgess’ parents and forgotten, but in the 2.99-bin-next-to-the-gas-station-register that is spring this movie is box office gold.

4 out of 10: your two hours and three minutes could be spent doing something else, so do so.

Revolver (Dvd) - Ashleigh

There has been a lot of bad press about this movie. A lot of it centers around the fact that with this film Guy Ritchie unsuccessfully tries to go back to his staple, gangster flicks, after laying the goose egg Swept Away (2002) starring his horrible wife. Still more of it points out the fact that a movie that was released in Britain in 2005 and took more than three years to come out in America (it went straight to DVD and came out last week on March 18, 2008) is not a good sign for the quality of a film. Still more of it focuses on the fact that this Kabbalah-centric film is too serious and too complicated for anyone to enjoy.

I must admit, I agree with all of these sentiments. But to make a short story long: After hearing, over three years ago, that Jason Statham would be returning to work with Ritchie I was elated.

A side note: I, like most twenty year olds, love Snatch (2000) and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998). I own about fourteen movies and these two are privileged enough to be part of my collection. I don’t feel it is necessary to purchase movies for repeat viewings as I rarely view a movie more than once; the miniscule cases that I do actually watch a movie more than once, I purchase it. So, having these films in my library is a unique situation, thus as you can understand, I couldn’t wait for Revolver to jump the pond.

So, I waited. And waited. And eventually forgot. But, the other day while traipsing through the local Blockbuster Revolver stared back at me. I looked to my wife for the oh-crap-I’m-going-to-have-to-watch-this-aren’t-I look - it was there, but she approved! Jennie and I quickly exchanged our Project Runway season 3: Disc 3 from Blockbuster Online and hurried home. I had heard everything that was bad about this film, but I didn’t want to believe it. I tried to think that maybe people just didn’t like that he had made English Gangster Flick 3, because, as we can all admit here, Lock, Stock and Snatch are basically the same film. And if that were the case, if Ritchie had simply made another English Gangster movie I would have been happy. I tried to dismiss the critics. I thought maybe it took this long to cross the pond because Ritchie was unhappy with the packaging. Maybe, just maybe, this movie was so awesomely complicated that not many people got it and the film was waiting to be cracked open like an egg till all the juices flowed out. But, it was an egg alright, a horribly stinky rotten egg.

The movie centers around Jake Green (Jason Statham) who is told, after being released from prison, that he has three days before he dies, they don’t really bother to tell you what aliment he has. He is forced to work for gangsters who are extorting two other gangsters. There is a lot of money involved, people get shot, chess is talked about, and Statham seemingly gets existentially duped. I can’t even really describe why this movie was so awful but I will attempt to. There seems to be no motivation for Statham’s character to work with the first set of gangsters, he just simply starts working for them. Their motivation is also seemingly lost on me as they start a war between two other factions of gangsters for no reason. Why they do this and what they get from it - well, it turns out that they are figments of Jake’s imagination cooked up to force Jake trough the existential ringer. The worst part of this film comes in the form of a long monologue about how the only real con is the one that each individual portrays to himself, namely “I am me” and “me is greed”. This, according to Jake Green, is the biggest con of them all. Guy Ritchie attempts to show this inner struggle with an annoying shoutfest between Statham, Statham, and Statham. Using fast edits and overlapping tracks he attempts to create this dizzying fight between the ego and the I. And, I guess, the real Jake Green wins? But really did I care? The film ends and as the credits role Ritchie shows interviews with psychologists who wax philosophically about the greatest trick we play on ourselves is thinking “I am me.”

3 out of 10: Yes, it is as bad as you have heard, the only redeeming item would be particular shots which were chosen and shot to perfection.

Vantage Point (Theatre) - Jennie

I’ll have to be honest here, I thought this concept could have been good. It was possible. I have seen T.V. shows pull this kind of plot device off with fantastic results. This device goes as follows; the viewer is treated to one scene after another as seen through the eyes of only one character. Other character’s stories are advancing around them; however, we are not privy to their motivations till we see their view point. It is often very difficult to keep the full details of the plot from slipping out while advancing through the earlier character’s stories and revealing just enough to keep the viewer enticed is a key element to this plot device’s success. Confusion is also very hard to escape as some early character’s actions seem very unmotivated and haphazard. However, redundancy is the largest of hazards that can fell this device. Vantage Point fails in all of these areas and more.

Instead of artfully hiding information as to not reveal too much, they simply don’t show the action. Case in point, when Thomas Barnes, played by Dennis Quaid, saw a traitor on a television screen, they held the shot on Barnes, and we got some pathetic eye acting from Quaid. Revealing this information would have destroyed the plot, so instead they simply shot Barnes’ reaction and faded to white, and proceeded to the next character’s story.

Also, Characters motivations were seemingly left up to the viewer to interpret, leading to confusion as to why Forrest Whitaker’s character, Howard Lewis, would run after a supposed assassin when he was simply a tourist with a video camera. I guess he just had to see what happened with the assassin. We were never given a reason for him to follow the action, however his character had to be in the final shot, so he ran for no reason.

Finally, Vantage Point had no qualms with being redundant. They showed the explosion eight or nine times. They replayed character’s interaction; I guess so the viewer didn’t forget what happened. They milked every ounce they could from every car crash that happened, replaying the scenes multiple times.

The failure of the device is the cornerstone to this waste of a movie, but it was not helped by the lackluster performances of some pretty solid actors. The script was stale, with dialog like, “I’ve got you now Mr. President.” And even if these “vantage points” succeeded it would still have been a stale plot about terrorists attempting to sabotage America. It even contained the down but not out cop (secret service agent) who came back to prove he wasn’t done yet, only to end up saving the day (Harrison Ford’s role was played by Dennis Quaid this time).

I must add that Jennie liked it, though. She enjoyed the car chase scenes and that is pretty much all she told me. I prodded for more after declaring, “What a stinkbug,” as we left the theatre, but she didn’t want to placate me with more discussion.

2.5 out of 10: A waste of time, money, and brain cells. Redundant, stale, and annoying.

Jumper (Theatre) - Both

I'm not an adventurous eater, but I have a rule, I will try anything once. This certainly doesn't mean I'll like it, but I'll try it. The same can be said about works of Science Fiction for me. Jennie and I recently got into Jericho, I watched three or four episodes of Firefly this morning, I'll even watch the occasional Star Trek and enjoy it, so I warn you I enjoy Science Fiction stuff a little more than most and will try any of it once.
With that being said Jumper is mediocre at best. Jumper is half taken from a Steven Gould book from the early nineties and half taken from the Matrix. The parts it adds seem to fit quit nicely and add a villain for the protagonist which were absent from the book. Hayden Christensen the cardboard prop from the Star Wars prequels plays David Rice a young outcast, aren't they all, who discovers an ability to teleport. At first he can't really figure out why or how this works but he eventually learns the rules to jumping and uses them to runaway from his abusive dad, aren't they all, and gain wealth. Years pass and David finds that there is a police force to protect the world against Jumpers and this causes David to go underground and return to his home. The movie's multiple cliché relationships create some drama, but lack any weight for the viewer to muster up any emotion for them. His relationship with a childhood crush is the catalyst to most of the movies forward momentum. He takes her to Rome and gives her a Jumper Date allowing him to get into places normal people couldn't. This scene takes far to long and I simply lost interest here. He gets caught, she finds some reason to hate him, he finds some reason to save her, he finds some way to escape the Jumper police, it is all very action filled, and about as much fun as it sounds.
I have to admit, I like the concept. I actually think this would have made a pretty good t.v. show, all the pieces were there, but the movie was just an abridged version of an idea and because of that it lacked any real power.

5 out of 10: mundane execution, but I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Cloverfield (Theatre) - Both

The marketing for this film was, in my opinion, sheer genius. If you watched Transformers this summer you were treated to a preview that portrayed a going away party. This party seemed pretty normal till all hell broke loose and screaming, running, and general mayhem took over. The last shot saw the head of the statue of liberty fly by and land in the street, ripped from its body. The last sound was someone yelling, "I saw it, it's alive, it's huge!" Then no name, no nothing, just 1-18-08 (the release date).
Now, most people have come to know that this is a monster movie. Simple. Monster comes - attacks city - people panic, but Cloverfield has its niche. Not only does it succeed as a solid monster film, it also adds a chaotic first person view. This allows Cloverfield to succeed beyond the other alumni. The sometimes nausea inducing camera work plays to the fear accompanying the characters as they make there way through the hoops the writers make them transverse. The drawback of this device is that there always had to be a reason someone was taping everything, which in a run for your life situation, seems pretty ludicrous. The writers didn’t necessarily succeed in coming up with reasons for this, but I can forgive them this in most instances.
I have seen Cloverfield likened to The Blair Witch Project (July 1999) which I can see, but I believe that is a shallow reference. Yes, the first person view lends itself to the reference, but that is about it. Ultimately this reference simply states that this is the only other movie to have used this device so successfully. However, I would liken it to The Host (July 2006) a South Korean monster movie that, if you watch, seems to be Cloverfield's long-lost brother. I can picture J.J. Abrams sitting with his buddies watching it and saying, “We should totally make a monster flick!” The similarities are many, but the most glaring would have to be its devotion not to the monster, but to the characters. Abram’s film focused on the humans in the situation and not the monster. The monster was an afterthought, a catalyst, but defiantly not the focus. This is why both of these movies succeed and movies like Godzilla (1998 film) fail so miserably. This is not to say the writers did this that well, the dialog was vapid, the characters were thin, and their motivations were confusing, but it is always interesting to see humans react, even unsuccessfully, to sheer terror.
Spoiler Alert:
The way this movie ranks so high to me though, is that it does the one thing you expect to happen when and if a monster were to attack an island. Everyone dies. I love that. It makes everything seem that much more realistic (I know, I know). But, they die too late. The movie would have been a complete success if the Manhattan scenes ended about five minutes earlier than they did: when the helicopter crashes. End it. *Crackle* It’s still alive *Crackle* then Coney Island scene. But no, they had to have a soliloquy by the last two characters before they die. Ho Hum. The second ending, the Coney Island scene was great. And did you see the monster’s origin in that scene? Or did you miss it?

8 out of 10: Succeeded on all levels that it wanted to, at times the melodrama was too much.

Transformers Trailer: