Well, it isn't the usual Judd Apatow comedy that America seems to be used to now, but Cop Out worked. Tracy Morgan is funny as always and Bruce Willis is funny as he can be in a comedy film. Even though the script isn't a work of magic, as seen in The Hangover, it does provide plenty of moments that will have your side cramping. Cop Out is stupid, goofy fun.
The plot of Cop Out is well hidden by the trailers and not what was is expected. Jimmy (Bruce Willis) and Paul (Tracy Morgan) have been partners on the police force for 9 years and they not exactly conventional detectives. They tend to do things not by the book, and usually in a comical way. After the opening, Jimmy and Paul are suspended off the force for 30 days following the opening scenes. Unfortunately for Jimmy, his daughters wedding is in six weeks and he needs to come up with $48,000 to pay for it. Her step-dad is offering but being his daughters dad, Jimmy insists that he pay for it. He has no money so he comes up with a plan to sell an extremely rare baseball card that he has with an extremely high selling price. He finds a guy to sell it to only when he is the store, Dave (Seann William Scott and another guy come into rob the store. They end up tasering Jimmy and getting away with his baseball card. Jim and Paul begin their hilarious pursuit to get the card back in order to be able to pay for his daughters wedding. Along the way they become entangled up in a story that I'm convinced the writers even know what was happening. There's an 11 year old car thief, a pretty girl that can only speak Spanish and all the Mexicans guys with guns that showed for the auditions. Rashida Jones also has a small role in the film as Paul's wife. He's convinced that she's cheating on him. Right away, no the plot isn't exactly completely believable. Yes, there's a lot of things in in that would never happen, but with a comedy like this, who cares? The script isn't perfectly well written but it is Funny. Yes, that funny with a capital F. Willis and Morgan are hilarious. There's nothing worse than when in a film, there is a reference to another film that the actor in the film you're watching has been in. Take in this film, in which there is a reference to Die Hard and Willis says that he's never seen the film. God, why do they have to do things like that? Funny cop films have been done before, at this point hasn't everything but Cop Out manages to do what comedy films set out to do. Make you laugh. This isn't a smart film, absolutely zero intelligence, but it's funny. It succeeds in what it sets out to do.
Not that this is saying much, but Cop Out is funniest film of this year to date. Not a lot of the humor falls flat, it's at least chuckle worthy. Willis and Morgan are great together on screen in a film that should have you laughing throughout. If you feel like a comedy night out or in the mood for some laughs, Cop Out would be perfect. Hopefully everyone thinks it's as funny as my theater did. If not, I'm sorry. Not really.
Final Verdict: B-
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Alice In Wonderland
One of Disney's most infamous, and perhaps controversial, stories of all time finally comes to life on the big screen in a big, real life motion picture. While the story written for the screen loses most of the material that made it controversial to begin with, it still comes with a lot of problems. Maybe it's because I don't really know the story of Alice In Wonderland (it's actually called the Underworld) or maybe it's because of another reason, but this film definitely suffered from its quite lackluster script.
In a film that seriously might have more CGI than Avatar, Tim Burton and Johnny Depp come to together again to do what they do best, make something weird. I tend to like their collaborations but this time was much different. Alice In Wonderland is about, who else, but Alice. In the film she is portrayed by Mia Wasikowska. She was very miscast. She doesn't bring much to the part and missed the mark on the way that Alice is supposed to be. The way that I remember (loosely) the story from my childhood is not like anything that is portrayed in this film adaptation. It's hard to explain how Mia Wasikowska missed the hard (isn't that what I'm here for though?) but it just is. She didn't capture the original Alice. The feeling of the character just isn't there. In a world where the only believable thing is Alice, she is unbelievable. The story in the film goes like this. Alice falls down a hole into the Underworld, or Wonderland. There she meets all of the characters from the story. The twins, the cat, the mouse and everybody else. They tell her that this time scroll shows that Alice will be the one to slay this dragon like creature to restore power to the White Queen (played by Anne Hathaway) and to take it away from the Red Queen (played by Helena Bonham Carter). Along the way she meets the Mad Hatter (played by Johnny Depp) who used to be the hatter for the White Queen back when she ruled the land. Only everything has gone to crap since then because the Red Queen rules now. The film follows the quest of Alice, the Mad Hatter (I'm not sure that's actually his name) and all of the other characters in their quest to get Alice the only sword that can slay the dragon so that she can. Yes, as best as I remember it, that is not really the original story. Don't misread me, I'm not ragging on this film because it doesn't follow the original story. Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter give strong performances and Anne Hathaway is good too, but other than that, the film doesn't offer much. At all. The humor falls mostly flat and it's just too poorly written. Obviously this story would have to rely a lot of CGI, which went well but the script was not convincing that this was all real, like it's supposed to be. The film looks awesome visually, and if you've seen Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow, yes with Johnny Depp, if you watch at the beginning when Alice first walks into Wonderland, the tree of the dead is clearly visible in the background. At least the actors could do their best with the script. Usually I have to think about a film before I write a review. The pros, cons, its grade and everything but this film came easily to me. Watching it, I knew the only things the film offered was the acting. Yes, Tim Burton is good always as the director but, to me, direction doesn't mean a whole lot to a film. In extreme cases, it can be really good or really bad but usually it's just there - it's fine.
You know that a film can't be that good when at one o'clock in the afternoon, you yawn several times while watching it. That's a big ouch. Alice In Wonderland has great CGI, isn't too long and Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter shine. I'm not saying that they should of stuck with the original story word for word, I liked the story that the film offered. Unfortunately, I think it's safe to call this the poorest written film of the year to date. If there are two things that are important in a film, it's the acting and the script. If one is great and the other is just so-so, that's manageable. If one is just completely horrible, that's going to hurt. Alice In Wonderland is missing one of the most, if the most, important aspect to a good film. A script.
Final Verdict: C-
In a film that seriously might have more CGI than Avatar, Tim Burton and Johnny Depp come to together again to do what they do best, make something weird. I tend to like their collaborations but this time was much different. Alice In Wonderland is about, who else, but Alice. In the film she is portrayed by Mia Wasikowska. She was very miscast. She doesn't bring much to the part and missed the mark on the way that Alice is supposed to be. The way that I remember (loosely) the story from my childhood is not like anything that is portrayed in this film adaptation. It's hard to explain how Mia Wasikowska missed the hard (isn't that what I'm here for though?) but it just is. She didn't capture the original Alice. The feeling of the character just isn't there. In a world where the only believable thing is Alice, she is unbelievable. The story in the film goes like this. Alice falls down a hole into the Underworld, or Wonderland. There she meets all of the characters from the story. The twins, the cat, the mouse and everybody else. They tell her that this time scroll shows that Alice will be the one to slay this dragon like creature to restore power to the White Queen (played by Anne Hathaway) and to take it away from the Red Queen (played by Helena Bonham Carter). Along the way she meets the Mad Hatter (played by Johnny Depp) who used to be the hatter for the White Queen back when she ruled the land. Only everything has gone to crap since then because the Red Queen rules now. The film follows the quest of Alice, the Mad Hatter (I'm not sure that's actually his name) and all of the other characters in their quest to get Alice the only sword that can slay the dragon so that she can. Yes, as best as I remember it, that is not really the original story. Don't misread me, I'm not ragging on this film because it doesn't follow the original story. Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter give strong performances and Anne Hathaway is good too, but other than that, the film doesn't offer much. At all. The humor falls mostly flat and it's just too poorly written. Obviously this story would have to rely a lot of CGI, which went well but the script was not convincing that this was all real, like it's supposed to be. The film looks awesome visually, and if you've seen Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow, yes with Johnny Depp, if you watch at the beginning when Alice first walks into Wonderland, the tree of the dead is clearly visible in the background. At least the actors could do their best with the script. Usually I have to think about a film before I write a review. The pros, cons, its grade and everything but this film came easily to me. Watching it, I knew the only things the film offered was the acting. Yes, Tim Burton is good always as the director but, to me, direction doesn't mean a whole lot to a film. In extreme cases, it can be really good or really bad but usually it's just there - it's fine.
You know that a film can't be that good when at one o'clock in the afternoon, you yawn several times while watching it. That's a big ouch. Alice In Wonderland has great CGI, isn't too long and Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter shine. I'm not saying that they should of stuck with the original story word for word, I liked the story that the film offered. Unfortunately, I think it's safe to call this the poorest written film of the year to date. If there are two things that are important in a film, it's the acting and the script. If one is great and the other is just so-so, that's manageable. If one is just completely horrible, that's going to hurt. Alice In Wonderland is missing one of the most, if the most, important aspect to a good film. A script.
Final Verdict: C-
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Brooklyn's Finest
Brooklyn's finest aren't great, good, fine or even okay. Brooklyn's finest are horrible. Stars like Richard Gere, Ethan Hawke and Don Cheadle could have, and should have, created such a better film. This film never created an attachment to the characters, never got off of the ground and never makes any attempt for anything.
Just a quick note: The number of cliches in this film is almost enough to bring up vomit. Not that I was ever counting, but I bet that it would of been more than six. Richard Gere stars as Eddie, the mother of the most hated cliche in Hollywood. The retiring cop with days left on the force. My God, that cliche is more tired than the horror movie "the boyfriend is the killer" one. Ethan Hawke stars as Sal and his character is just another cliche. Not as severe as Gere's, but still. Hawke's character is the one dealing with the money problems and the religious problems. The one that is so far gone that he doesn't want any help while everyone around is trying to help him. Another quick note: I think Ethan Hawke is great and he is on the top of my favorite actors list. Next up is Don Cheadle starring as Tango. Yes, don't worry his charatcer comes with a cliche too. He's the guy who goes so deep undercover that he starts questioning who the good and bad guys are. Wesley Snipes also stars as Caz, a man that Tango (Cheadle) knows in the gang underground. The film just goes back and forth and back and forth and back and forth between the three of their story lines, all climaxing in one building. While it is true that all cliches are obvious and overdone, I can still watch a film full of them. What's nice is when a film brings something new and original (or at least a new and original feeling) to the cliches. This film makes no attempt what so ever to do that. It is cliches just in black and white. It's disappointing that especially with such a great actor like Richard Gere that this film couldn't make any less of an attempt to get the audience feeling for and attached to the characters. This is definitely one of the worst performances that I have seen Richard Gere do. He brings nothing to the character. He's a veteran cop with 22 years on the force with days left to retire, his wife is gone and he's always debating suicide. Yes, that's a cliched but great written character, however Gere brings nothing to it. It's not just him though. Hawke and Cheadle really aren't selling their characters either. The ending is nothing amazing either. The whole time I was thinking that the film could save itself with a worthwhile ending. No, it couldn't even do that. The ending might have been the worst part of the whole film. On top of the fact that their isn't one believable character in the film, it's got more cliches than a old Hollywood Western film, the ending sucks, it's also way too long. I think that it's equally as long as Shutter Island and maybe 25 minutes shorter than Avatar. When you go for a long film with nothing to sell, that makes the film even worse because at least when the film is short and sucks the misery doesn't last long. Unfortunately, here in Brooklyn it's slow and somehow drags on for 133 minutes.
It's really too bad about Brooklyn's Finest. I was expecting at least a decent film but unfortunately all you get are characters that are more hollow than a cave. The script does have some problems, but it was definitely the acting that had more problems. If Gere, Hawke and Cheadle had been able to come together and give the best performances of their career this could have been a pretty great cop drama. However, this is the three of them at some of their worst. I was not sold that this is "real life" like other cop dramas are so good at doing. Some cop films can get it right, others can't. Too bad that Brooklyn's Finest sets a new low of not being able to get it right.
Final Verdict: D-
Just a quick note: The number of cliches in this film is almost enough to bring up vomit. Not that I was ever counting, but I bet that it would of been more than six. Richard Gere stars as Eddie, the mother of the most hated cliche in Hollywood. The retiring cop with days left on the force. My God, that cliche is more tired than the horror movie "the boyfriend is the killer" one. Ethan Hawke stars as Sal and his character is just another cliche. Not as severe as Gere's, but still. Hawke's character is the one dealing with the money problems and the religious problems. The one that is so far gone that he doesn't want any help while everyone around is trying to help him. Another quick note: I think Ethan Hawke is great and he is on the top of my favorite actors list. Next up is Don Cheadle starring as Tango. Yes, don't worry his charatcer comes with a cliche too. He's the guy who goes so deep undercover that he starts questioning who the good and bad guys are. Wesley Snipes also stars as Caz, a man that Tango (Cheadle) knows in the gang underground. The film just goes back and forth and back and forth and back and forth between the three of their story lines, all climaxing in one building. While it is true that all cliches are obvious and overdone, I can still watch a film full of them. What's nice is when a film brings something new and original (or at least a new and original feeling) to the cliches. This film makes no attempt what so ever to do that. It is cliches just in black and white. It's disappointing that especially with such a great actor like Richard Gere that this film couldn't make any less of an attempt to get the audience feeling for and attached to the characters. This is definitely one of the worst performances that I have seen Richard Gere do. He brings nothing to the character. He's a veteran cop with 22 years on the force with days left to retire, his wife is gone and he's always debating suicide. Yes, that's a cliched but great written character, however Gere brings nothing to it. It's not just him though. Hawke and Cheadle really aren't selling their characters either. The ending is nothing amazing either. The whole time I was thinking that the film could save itself with a worthwhile ending. No, it couldn't even do that. The ending might have been the worst part of the whole film. On top of the fact that their isn't one believable character in the film, it's got more cliches than a old Hollywood Western film, the ending sucks, it's also way too long. I think that it's equally as long as Shutter Island and maybe 25 minutes shorter than Avatar. When you go for a long film with nothing to sell, that makes the film even worse because at least when the film is short and sucks the misery doesn't last long. Unfortunately, here in Brooklyn it's slow and somehow drags on for 133 minutes.
It's really too bad about Brooklyn's Finest. I was expecting at least a decent film but unfortunately all you get are characters that are more hollow than a cave. The script does have some problems, but it was definitely the acting that had more problems. If Gere, Hawke and Cheadle had been able to come together and give the best performances of their career this could have been a pretty great cop drama. However, this is the three of them at some of their worst. I was not sold that this is "real life" like other cop dramas are so good at doing. Some cop films can get it right, others can't. Too bad that Brooklyn's Finest sets a new low of not being able to get it right.
Final Verdict: D-
Thursday, February 25, 2010
From Paris With Love
For those who don't know, even though it sounds like one, no this not a sappy French love story. For those of you who do know, you are laughing at that because this film is quite the opposite. It's about John Travolta and Jonathan Rhys Meyers snorting coke and killing people. Well, Travolta kills people. For a movie that was bashed by critics, flopped at the box office and that didn't even look all that good to begin with, I actually really enjoyed it.
Jonathan Rhys Meyers stars as James Reece who works for the ambassador of France and does some secret spy work on the side. Only his spy work doesn't consist of shooting people and car jackings, he's the guy who changes license plates. He wants more from his secret employeer but he's just the nice guy with the fiancee who has probably never even punched, much less killed, anyone in his entire life. Finally the call of his dreams comes - he's finally getting some cool secret ops assignment. The assignment also comes with a partner. John Travolta stars as Charlie Wax, a man who has had more sex with hookers, snorted more coke and killed more people than any other nice French man could ever dream of. If you haven't figured it out yet, they are put together on the assignment. Reece and Wax make a great team and what makes them different as people, make them great together. The Chinese have some kind of secret underground drug operation going on (of course it's the Chinese) and it's up to Wax and Reece to stop them. This film is pure stupid entertainment. It's full of action, guns, explosions, deaths and all the cussing and drug use that they could of shoved in the script. Obviosuly, the film doesn't do anything new, it's quite predictable, but somehow manages to keep the average movie-goer entertained for 90 minutes. Travolta and Meyers were perfectly cast, however the director was not. There were some cool stylized like shots, but otherwise the direction is quite lackluster. Travolta clearly has fun in his role. I'm not sure that I've ever seen him having this much fun.
No one could ever say that this is a smart film, there could never be made an arugement for that, but who needs smart when you've got all the fun and action you could ever ask for. From Paris With Love is cool and entertaining. If 90 minutes of pure unadulterated fun can entertain you, I would without a doubt recommend From Paris With Love. And if not, run far and fast from this action flick.
Final Verdict: B
Jonathan Rhys Meyers stars as James Reece who works for the ambassador of France and does some secret spy work on the side. Only his spy work doesn't consist of shooting people and car jackings, he's the guy who changes license plates. He wants more from his secret employeer but he's just the nice guy with the fiancee who has probably never even punched, much less killed, anyone in his entire life. Finally the call of his dreams comes - he's finally getting some cool secret ops assignment. The assignment also comes with a partner. John Travolta stars as Charlie Wax, a man who has had more sex with hookers, snorted more coke and killed more people than any other nice French man could ever dream of. If you haven't figured it out yet, they are put together on the assignment. Reece and Wax make a great team and what makes them different as people, make them great together. The Chinese have some kind of secret underground drug operation going on (of course it's the Chinese) and it's up to Wax and Reece to stop them. This film is pure stupid entertainment. It's full of action, guns, explosions, deaths and all the cussing and drug use that they could of shoved in the script. Obviosuly, the film doesn't do anything new, it's quite predictable, but somehow manages to keep the average movie-goer entertained for 90 minutes. Travolta and Meyers were perfectly cast, however the director was not. There were some cool stylized like shots, but otherwise the direction is quite lackluster. Travolta clearly has fun in his role. I'm not sure that I've ever seen him having this much fun.
No one could ever say that this is a smart film, there could never be made an arugement for that, but who needs smart when you've got all the fun and action you could ever ask for. From Paris With Love is cool and entertaining. If 90 minutes of pure unadulterated fun can entertain you, I would without a doubt recommend From Paris With Love. And if not, run far and fast from this action flick.
Final Verdict: B
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Shutter Island
Secrets, secrets, secrets. Everyone has theirs and Shutter Island is full of them. This film was pushed back from October and from watching the trailers for some time, I was expecting a pretty good film. After viewing, to call Shutter Island "pretty good" would be an insult. Shutter Island is everything that one could hope from a thriller. The acting, direction, script and music. Everything. This film is nothing short of amazing. Shutter Island is stunning and spectacular.
Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo star as Teddy Daniels & Chuck Aule, respectively, as federal marshals sent to this island to investigate the disappearance of a female patient who went missing from her room the night before. Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley) is the man behind the whole set up on the island. It his methods that all of these criminally insane patients are being treated. As their investigation into this woman's disappearance begins it becomes clear early on that nothing is how it is seems to be on the island. Daniels wants to end the investigation early, however, a huge storm like hurricane is looming over the island and no one is going anywhere. There is no outside communication because, of course this is the '50s, so the radios and telephone lines are down. The film continues to delve deeper into the mystery and both Daniels and Aule are forced with questions that they don't want to hear and nobody seems to have answers to. Daniels is having to deal with his own personal demons because his wife (played in flashbacks by Michelle Williams) was killed in a fire at their apartment. While present day was mostly visually depressing, dark and real the flashbacks were more "artsy" and alive with color. He can't let her go and the man who set the fire was a patient on the island and he wants to find him after he also disappeared without a trace. Daniels has to face his demons with this, and the answers are not the answers he was hoping for. I won't spoil how the film answers all the questions and how all of the secrets are revealed but it's nothing less than shocking. The characters in the film are having their minds played with but as the viewer, you do too. The plot of the film moves way past the investigation of the missing woman and into something much bigger. The questions of Shutter Island are real mysteries. The answers are unlike anything imaginable and the secrets revealed are shocking. The film will have you guessing until the credits roll. Leonardo DiCaprio gives quite possibly the best performance of his career and Martin Scorseses' direction is at his highest standard. The music of the film fits perfectly and creates a tone that will not be forgotten. The film does have a pretty lenghty running time (138 minutes with the end credits) but effectively uses every minute. The film does not feel slow at all. I always run into this problem with a film that I review that I thought was amazing. It doesn't take long at all to run out of things to write. This film offers everything and is an eerie mystery that should not be missed for any reason.
Shutter Island is so good that mine, or anyone's reviews, could never do it justice. This film is haunting, disturbing, intriguing and chilling. The film is strong right from the very beginning and to the final scene, it never lets up. I can't remember the last time that a film pulled me in like Shutter Island did. Any film that has been made on the questions of insanity has nothing on this film. Shutter Island is an epic masterpiece that will blow your mind.
Final Verdict: A
Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo star as Teddy Daniels & Chuck Aule, respectively, as federal marshals sent to this island to investigate the disappearance of a female patient who went missing from her room the night before. Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley) is the man behind the whole set up on the island. It his methods that all of these criminally insane patients are being treated. As their investigation into this woman's disappearance begins it becomes clear early on that nothing is how it is seems to be on the island. Daniels wants to end the investigation early, however, a huge storm like hurricane is looming over the island and no one is going anywhere. There is no outside communication because, of course this is the '50s, so the radios and telephone lines are down. The film continues to delve deeper into the mystery and both Daniels and Aule are forced with questions that they don't want to hear and nobody seems to have answers to. Daniels is having to deal with his own personal demons because his wife (played in flashbacks by Michelle Williams) was killed in a fire at their apartment. While present day was mostly visually depressing, dark and real the flashbacks were more "artsy" and alive with color. He can't let her go and the man who set the fire was a patient on the island and he wants to find him after he also disappeared without a trace. Daniels has to face his demons with this, and the answers are not the answers he was hoping for. I won't spoil how the film answers all the questions and how all of the secrets are revealed but it's nothing less than shocking. The characters in the film are having their minds played with but as the viewer, you do too. The plot of the film moves way past the investigation of the missing woman and into something much bigger. The questions of Shutter Island are real mysteries. The answers are unlike anything imaginable and the secrets revealed are shocking. The film will have you guessing until the credits roll. Leonardo DiCaprio gives quite possibly the best performance of his career and Martin Scorseses' direction is at his highest standard. The music of the film fits perfectly and creates a tone that will not be forgotten. The film does have a pretty lenghty running time (138 minutes with the end credits) but effectively uses every minute. The film does not feel slow at all. I always run into this problem with a film that I review that I thought was amazing. It doesn't take long at all to run out of things to write. This film offers everything and is an eerie mystery that should not be missed for any reason.
Shutter Island is so good that mine, or anyone's reviews, could never do it justice. This film is haunting, disturbing, intriguing and chilling. The film is strong right from the very beginning and to the final scene, it never lets up. I can't remember the last time that a film pulled me in like Shutter Island did. Any film that has been made on the questions of insanity has nothing on this film. Shutter Island is an epic masterpiece that will blow your mind.
Final Verdict: A
The Wolfman
One of the oldest tales of horror comes to life on the big screen again. While the newest attempt with at the Wolfman doesn't really do anything new with the tale, the film is helped along with great visual effects, a solid act 2, a pretty good performance from Benicio Del Toro and all the blood, guts and gore one could ask for, The Wolfman turns out being not half bad.
The plot of this film has to be one that most people that haven't being living in a cave their whole lives have heard. Beast is terrorizing town. Man comes to find beast. Beast bites/scratches man. Man turns into beast. For the sake of still giving a plot outline, Benicio Del Toro stars as Lawrence Talbot a stage actor whose brother goes missing. Lawrence shows up to the town to find that his brother's body has been recovered and he plans to stay to try to figure out who, or what, killed his brother. Anthony Hopkins also stars as John Talbot, Lawrence's father. Everyone decides to set up a huge camp in the middle of the forest (for whatever reason...sheer stupidity maybe) and when they do, the beast comes for as much blood as he can. He gets a lot, and even gets some from Lawrence when he comps into his shoulder. Over time, the wound heals up perfectly and, no spoilers here, Lawrence turns into the wolfman. The film is just his adventure being this beast, with Emily Blunt co-starring as Gwen Conliffe his love interest, formally his now dead brother's fiancee. Del Toro doesn't give a solid performance, but it is pretty good. He isn't one of those actors that I would peg as being able to play the main character in a film, but he proved me wrong here. The film did suffer though. I'm going to chop this movie into thirds and discuss each one differently. The first act is horrible. The film started off much slower than I imagined it would. Understandably, there were things had that the film had to set up. However, they could have gone about it much faster. The second is where the film shines. I was entertained and enthralled with the film. This act starts as soon as Del Toro turns into the beast for the first time. It's exciting and felt that that old Hollywood horror. It had the sense of being filmed as an old '30s movie, only it looked visually stunning. Lastly, the third act of the film doesn't do anything for the film and it climaxes and ends pretty weakly. It felt cheesy and overdone. I don't know if the "twist" revealed halfway through the film was intended to be a "twist" or not. If it was, that's horrible because I saw it coming from practically the title cards. If it wasn't, they made it feel like it was and they shouldn't have. Fortunately, the slow first act and cheesy third act are both saved by the amazing second half. The middle is the only time that the film captured what I hope it was intending to - that old Hollywood horror. The horror genre is such an out dating genre. No film has deserved the real title of horror in a long time. I would say that this film finally breaks that streak. Once it manages to be entertaining, it stays that way. To all of the parents whose 11 year olds want to see this film because the wolfman is cool to them, don't let them go because this film is R rated for a reason. It is extremely graphic in some scenes.
The Wolfman brings amazing visual effects, good acting and excellent music done by Danny Elfman together to create a good horror film. Some parts could be called cheesy or slow, and some of those claims are fair, but when the film shines, it really shines. The film overcomes those weaknesses to create an enjoyable monster movie. The scenes that created the "old movie" feel are great. The Wolfman is thrilling, scary and will make you jump out of your seat.
Final Verdict: B-
The plot of this film has to be one that most people that haven't being living in a cave their whole lives have heard. Beast is terrorizing town. Man comes to find beast. Beast bites/scratches man. Man turns into beast. For the sake of still giving a plot outline, Benicio Del Toro stars as Lawrence Talbot a stage actor whose brother goes missing. Lawrence shows up to the town to find that his brother's body has been recovered and he plans to stay to try to figure out who, or what, killed his brother. Anthony Hopkins also stars as John Talbot, Lawrence's father. Everyone decides to set up a huge camp in the middle of the forest (for whatever reason...sheer stupidity maybe) and when they do, the beast comes for as much blood as he can. He gets a lot, and even gets some from Lawrence when he comps into his shoulder. Over time, the wound heals up perfectly and, no spoilers here, Lawrence turns into the wolfman. The film is just his adventure being this beast, with Emily Blunt co-starring as Gwen Conliffe his love interest, formally his now dead brother's fiancee. Del Toro doesn't give a solid performance, but it is pretty good. He isn't one of those actors that I would peg as being able to play the main character in a film, but he proved me wrong here. The film did suffer though. I'm going to chop this movie into thirds and discuss each one differently. The first act is horrible. The film started off much slower than I imagined it would. Understandably, there were things had that the film had to set up. However, they could have gone about it much faster. The second is where the film shines. I was entertained and enthralled with the film. This act starts as soon as Del Toro turns into the beast for the first time. It's exciting and felt that that old Hollywood horror. It had the sense of being filmed as an old '30s movie, only it looked visually stunning. Lastly, the third act of the film doesn't do anything for the film and it climaxes and ends pretty weakly. It felt cheesy and overdone. I don't know if the "twist" revealed halfway through the film was intended to be a "twist" or not. If it was, that's horrible because I saw it coming from practically the title cards. If it wasn't, they made it feel like it was and they shouldn't have. Fortunately, the slow first act and cheesy third act are both saved by the amazing second half. The middle is the only time that the film captured what I hope it was intending to - that old Hollywood horror. The horror genre is such an out dating genre. No film has deserved the real title of horror in a long time. I would say that this film finally breaks that streak. Once it manages to be entertaining, it stays that way. To all of the parents whose 11 year olds want to see this film because the wolfman is cool to them, don't let them go because this film is R rated for a reason. It is extremely graphic in some scenes.
The Wolfman brings amazing visual effects, good acting and excellent music done by Danny Elfman together to create a good horror film. Some parts could be called cheesy or slow, and some of those claims are fair, but when the film shines, it really shines. The film overcomes those weaknesses to create an enjoyable monster movie. The scenes that created the "old movie" feel are great. The Wolfman is thrilling, scary and will make you jump out of your seat.
Final Verdict: B-
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Valentine's Day
Jessica Alba. Kathy Bates. Jessica Biel. Bradley Cooper. Patrick Dempsey. Jamie Foxx. Jennifer Garner. Topher Grace. Anne Hathaway. Ashton Kutcher. Queen Latifah. Taylor Lautner. George Lopez. Julia Roberts. Taylor Swift. All of these celebrities, and more that I know I'm missing, come together for a movie about a group of people and their journey through the most romantic day of the year, Valentine's Day.
I'm not even going to begin to match of all these people up like they are in the film. The plot of the film is very basic. It's about all of these people, and more, and their interactions, blunders and successes throughout one day. Of course, that has to be made interesting so that one day happens to be Valentine's day. I hear that there will be a sequel about these people on New Year's Eve. Should be interesting to see how that is handled... Anyway, the celebrities that shine in this film. Jennifer Garner stars as an elementary school teacher who is best friends with Ashton Kutcher and involved with Patrick Dempsey. She really likes him but little does she know that he's married. Garner shines the brightest in this film. The way that she plays her character is beautiful and moving. Next up is Julia Roberts who plays a woman in the military who sits next to Bradley Cooper on a 14 hour plane ride home. Neither one of them have very much screen time at all but Roberts is great in her role. Ashton Kutcher proposes to Jessica Alba in the opening scene of the film and the rest of the film is their story from there. Kutcher is ok in his role. He tries to get a lot of emotion out of his character and sometimes it works a lot better than other times. Kutcher has probably the most screen time of anyone. Topher Grace and Anne Hathaway are dating in the film with Hathaway hiding a dirty, but funny, secret. Again, like Kutcher, they are both just ok. Taylor Swift and Taylor Lautner are dating in the film, both playing high school students. Let's get one thing straight. Swift cannot and should not act. Her character is not funny and their story line is very lost on the film. Did I have a favorite story? Not really but I liked it most when Garner, Roberts, Kutcher or Cooper were on screen. The other celebrities have supporting roles, if that even exists in a film like this. That's where the film starts to run into problems. When a film like this has so entertainers, one would think that it would be very entertaining. And with all of these celebrities in it, it's not really that entertaining. Sure it has some laugh out loud moments and some moments that get to your heart that will have those "movie criers" reaching for the tissues. If you're not laughing or having your heart strings pulled at, the film really isn't doing anything. The film was at least 20 minutes too long and I found myself wondering when it was going to end. All of these characters live out just one day that feels like a least a week. There are too many different stories happening in the film. Ones that I connected with kept me entertained. Ones that I didn't connect with had me yawning. That's the shot that these kinds of scripts take. Usually a film is one, maybe two, plots. With those, it's a pretty basic opinion about the film. What did I think about that one plot? With movies like this, it's harder to have one opinion about 10 (or however many it is) different plots. The film takes a chance that you're going to like all of those plots. Which is harder to get someone to like than the one that films usually revolve around. In this case, a lot of the plots fell short. The film isn't particularly entertaining all the time. The film has too many hollowed out parts that left me feeling like I was watching a very boring film about random peoples lives.
Where Valentine's Day succeeds is getting you to laugh and getting you to cry. Or at least, feel sad. Otherwise, it falls pretty flat. It is saved by the moments that you'll remember and the few stars that do a really excellent job but it is brought down too much by the moments that you'll just forget to remember, which is most of the film. If a film is going to have this many celebrities, I would expect it to be one of the films that is filled with hundreds of "Remember when.." or "Wasn't it funny/sad/great when..." moments that you'll be talking about for weeks. Unfortunately, most of film is quite forgettable. Valentine's Day will make you feel a lot of different things, which is great, it's just that those feelings are placed in a film which is just a bunch of A and B list celebrities coming together for something that really isn't all that entertaining.
Final Verdict: C-
I'm not even going to begin to match of all these people up like they are in the film. The plot of the film is very basic. It's about all of these people, and more, and their interactions, blunders and successes throughout one day. Of course, that has to be made interesting so that one day happens to be Valentine's day. I hear that there will be a sequel about these people on New Year's Eve. Should be interesting to see how that is handled... Anyway, the celebrities that shine in this film. Jennifer Garner stars as an elementary school teacher who is best friends with Ashton Kutcher and involved with Patrick Dempsey. She really likes him but little does she know that he's married. Garner shines the brightest in this film. The way that she plays her character is beautiful and moving. Next up is Julia Roberts who plays a woman in the military who sits next to Bradley Cooper on a 14 hour plane ride home. Neither one of them have very much screen time at all but Roberts is great in her role. Ashton Kutcher proposes to Jessica Alba in the opening scene of the film and the rest of the film is their story from there. Kutcher is ok in his role. He tries to get a lot of emotion out of his character and sometimes it works a lot better than other times. Kutcher has probably the most screen time of anyone. Topher Grace and Anne Hathaway are dating in the film with Hathaway hiding a dirty, but funny, secret. Again, like Kutcher, they are both just ok. Taylor Swift and Taylor Lautner are dating in the film, both playing high school students. Let's get one thing straight. Swift cannot and should not act. Her character is not funny and their story line is very lost on the film. Did I have a favorite story? Not really but I liked it most when Garner, Roberts, Kutcher or Cooper were on screen. The other celebrities have supporting roles, if that even exists in a film like this. That's where the film starts to run into problems. When a film like this has so entertainers, one would think that it would be very entertaining. And with all of these celebrities in it, it's not really that entertaining. Sure it has some laugh out loud moments and some moments that get to your heart that will have those "movie criers" reaching for the tissues. If you're not laughing or having your heart strings pulled at, the film really isn't doing anything. The film was at least 20 minutes too long and I found myself wondering when it was going to end. All of these characters live out just one day that feels like a least a week. There are too many different stories happening in the film. Ones that I connected with kept me entertained. Ones that I didn't connect with had me yawning. That's the shot that these kinds of scripts take. Usually a film is one, maybe two, plots. With those, it's a pretty basic opinion about the film. What did I think about that one plot? With movies like this, it's harder to have one opinion about 10 (or however many it is) different plots. The film takes a chance that you're going to like all of those plots. Which is harder to get someone to like than the one that films usually revolve around. In this case, a lot of the plots fell short. The film isn't particularly entertaining all the time. The film has too many hollowed out parts that left me feeling like I was watching a very boring film about random peoples lives.
Where Valentine's Day succeeds is getting you to laugh and getting you to cry. Or at least, feel sad. Otherwise, it falls pretty flat. It is saved by the moments that you'll remember and the few stars that do a really excellent job but it is brought down too much by the moments that you'll just forget to remember, which is most of the film. If a film is going to have this many celebrities, I would expect it to be one of the films that is filled with hundreds of "Remember when.." or "Wasn't it funny/sad/great when..." moments that you'll be talking about for weeks. Unfortunately, most of film is quite forgettable. Valentine's Day will make you feel a lot of different things, which is great, it's just that those feelings are placed in a film which is just a bunch of A and B list celebrities coming together for something that really isn't all that entertaining.
Final Verdict: C-
Friday, February 12, 2010
Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief
The first comment that I have about this film is in regards to the title. "Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief." What a ridiculous joke title. I can't even say that seriously! I'm surprised the MPAA doesn't have a rule preventing that long of a title or a title with that many syllables in it.
Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief (no I will not abbreviate that) features up and coming (hopefully star soon) Logan Lerman as Percy Jackson, son of Poseidon. I don't know much about Greek mythology at all. Going into the film, it's probably best that you have at least some background on the subject. Zeus is the ruler, Hades is the ruler of the underworld and Poseidon is God of water. They are all brothers who do not get along at all. In the film, someone has stolen Zeus' (played by Sean Bean) lightning bolt. Also known as the most powerful weapon in the universe. The title tells us that much but the rest of the plot is well hidden and not given away in the trailer. What the film is really about is Percy, his protector Grover (Brandon T. Jackson) and hopeful crush Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario) going around the country in search of 3 pearls that will get them into the underworld to get Percy's mom back from Hades who kidnapped her because he thinks that Percy is the lightning thief. Their adventure could of been more believable had either Logan Lerman or the script convinced us better of Percy's love for his mom. He seems to want her back and risk it all to get her back but overall he really doesn't seem to care about her at all. They run into Medusa (Uma Thurman) who will turn you into stone if you look into her eyes, a 5 headed dragon and a casino that has kept people under spells for years. Uma Therman does a good job as Medusa and the visual effects that makes snakes her hair is done really well. Rosario Dawson is also great as Hades' wife Persephone. Logan Lerman in his first starring role shines as Percy Jackson. He fits the role perfectly well. One actor who does not shine at all is Pierce Brosnan. He plays a horse. Well, actually it's him from the waist up but from the waist down it's just the body of a horse. If you can take that seriously, kudos to you. It would be an awful role for anyone to take on but it should not of been Pierce Brosnan. The second half of this film is way better than the first half. Before the hunt for the pearls begins, there is a series of scenes where all of these kids who are half human and half God are "training" at this camp in the forest. Apparently this huge camp has just never been stumbled upon by any human. In the history of time. Ever. The scenes at this camp are just awful. The medieval like feel is horribly done and if you've seen Role Models, it's like those scenes. Only worse. After the film leaves behind horse Pierce Brosnan and the medieval training camp, the film does get better. The hunt for the 3 pearls is entertaining, the action is cool and the visual effects are stunning. The humor keeps the film fun in a great way and who the lightning thief is a well kept secret. The ending scene in Olympus is sappy and emotional. It's probably because I have a soft spot for things like that, but it was a touching scene. Unfortunately, the film closes out in the God awful medieval camp. Also, stay for half way through the end credits because there is another scene.
Overall, the film is fun, funny and enjoyable. If there a kid inside of you at all or you have any interest in the Greek Gods, you should be able to like the film. Apparently this film is also a book or something but I don't know anything about that. The second half is really what makes the film. The film takes a much different turn and with action, humor and with a plot that some part inside of you has to love, Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief manages to turn around from its weak first half and will entertain more than expected.
Final Verdict: C
Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief (no I will not abbreviate that) features up and coming (hopefully star soon) Logan Lerman as Percy Jackson, son of Poseidon. I don't know much about Greek mythology at all. Going into the film, it's probably best that you have at least some background on the subject. Zeus is the ruler, Hades is the ruler of the underworld and Poseidon is God of water. They are all brothers who do not get along at all. In the film, someone has stolen Zeus' (played by Sean Bean) lightning bolt. Also known as the most powerful weapon in the universe. The title tells us that much but the rest of the plot is well hidden and not given away in the trailer. What the film is really about is Percy, his protector Grover (Brandon T. Jackson) and hopeful crush Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario) going around the country in search of 3 pearls that will get them into the underworld to get Percy's mom back from Hades who kidnapped her because he thinks that Percy is the lightning thief. Their adventure could of been more believable had either Logan Lerman or the script convinced us better of Percy's love for his mom. He seems to want her back and risk it all to get her back but overall he really doesn't seem to care about her at all. They run into Medusa (Uma Thurman) who will turn you into stone if you look into her eyes, a 5 headed dragon and a casino that has kept people under spells for years. Uma Therman does a good job as Medusa and the visual effects that makes snakes her hair is done really well. Rosario Dawson is also great as Hades' wife Persephone. Logan Lerman in his first starring role shines as Percy Jackson. He fits the role perfectly well. One actor who does not shine at all is Pierce Brosnan. He plays a horse. Well, actually it's him from the waist up but from the waist down it's just the body of a horse. If you can take that seriously, kudos to you. It would be an awful role for anyone to take on but it should not of been Pierce Brosnan. The second half of this film is way better than the first half. Before the hunt for the pearls begins, there is a series of scenes where all of these kids who are half human and half God are "training" at this camp in the forest. Apparently this huge camp has just never been stumbled upon by any human. In the history of time. Ever. The scenes at this camp are just awful. The medieval like feel is horribly done and if you've seen Role Models, it's like those scenes. Only worse. After the film leaves behind horse Pierce Brosnan and the medieval training camp, the film does get better. The hunt for the 3 pearls is entertaining, the action is cool and the visual effects are stunning. The humor keeps the film fun in a great way and who the lightning thief is a well kept secret. The ending scene in Olympus is sappy and emotional. It's probably because I have a soft spot for things like that, but it was a touching scene. Unfortunately, the film closes out in the God awful medieval camp. Also, stay for half way through the end credits because there is another scene.
Overall, the film is fun, funny and enjoyable. If there a kid inside of you at all or you have any interest in the Greek Gods, you should be able to like the film. Apparently this film is also a book or something but I don't know anything about that. The second half is really what makes the film. The film takes a much different turn and with action, humor and with a plot that some part inside of you has to love, Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief manages to turn around from its weak first half and will entertain more than expected.
Final Verdict: C
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Legion
When I first saw previews for this film over the past summer I knew right away that I couldn't wait to see it. After finally viewing it yes, I was slightly disappointed. But it wasn't as extreme as some films when they make the film look like it is going to be the best film ever through its trailer and then its really not at all. For me, personal examples include 21 and 30 Days of Night.
First The Book of Eli. Then Legion. In 2 weeks 2 movies heavily centered on the religion & God topic. I'm surprised there isn't rioting in the streets. The first missed the mark by a mile. Legion not so badly, even though it was a far from perfect movie. Legion stars Paul Bettany as an angel from heaven sent to kill a baby that will potentially save from mankind only he can't do it so he joins Dennis Quaid, Tyrese Gibson and others who are holding up in a diner to fight off whatever and whomever God is going to send there way to protect the baby, themselves and mankind. Right off the bat, the plot does not sound Oscar worthy and it sounds immediately like a movie that the critics will start bashing. Which, as of this writing, it holds 18% on rotten tomatoes. As the film opens, Michael (Bettany) the God defying angel is cast down from heaven and loses his wings and all of the people that are going to get stuck inside the diner arrive. Personally, Kyle (Gibson) is my favorite. He plays the role of the stereotype "black guy with a gun who has a heart with a kid." Again, yes a stereotype role but he does it well. After some of the stranded people try to leave the diner and run into a wall of bugs, the battle is on. Yes, the wall crawling old woman (and she brings along with her a few words that you won't hear in the previews) and the man with the long fingers and huge mouth that you see in the previews are in film. Neither one of them stay in the film for very long but while they are in it, they missed the mark. I mean, come on. Really? How do they except me to take that seriously? The film even includes a shot of heaven. No film has ever been able to pull that off and this one is no exception. The film continues to move along with the survivors trying to put the whole thing together and fight for their lives as different "tests" or waves of blood seeking God possessed people are placed before them. But hey, at least God isn't going back on his word that he won't ever flood us out again. The film overall did have several pluses for me. Including Dennis Quaid who is always awesome no matter where he shows up. The film managed to bring some emotion out of me when some characters were killed. You can't believe in the plot, the angels, the possessed people but I could believe for the people in film. Maybe I'm a sucker, but that was enough to keep me entertained. If their faith wasn't being tested, they were having problems of their own to deal with.
Just by reading the first line of a plot summary of this film, you know that it won't be a film that you're going to be able to take seriously. And you really can't either. That's the problem today with most critics. They expect every movie to be as good as The Godfather, as powerful as The Shawshank Redemption and as entertaining as The Dark Knight. It doesn't work like that. I walked into this film knowing I wasn't going to see the best thing but that I was going to be entertained for the next 2 hours. And was I right? Damn right I was. The filmed failed on the level that the only real believable aspect of it is the characters. I just couldn't totally buy into the angles or the "angel demons". The people that God possessed to come and kill the baby were a little overdone. Well, actually very overdone. The wall crawling old woman and Mr. Fantastic who comes driving in in an ice cream truck don't exactly scream serious. I also didn't care much for the last 15 or so minutes. Otherwise, by not excepting the next movie to sweep the country in pandemonium, it was good.
Final Verdict: C+
First The Book of Eli. Then Legion. In 2 weeks 2 movies heavily centered on the religion & God topic. I'm surprised there isn't rioting in the streets. The first missed the mark by a mile. Legion not so badly, even though it was a far from perfect movie. Legion stars Paul Bettany as an angel from heaven sent to kill a baby that will potentially save from mankind only he can't do it so he joins Dennis Quaid, Tyrese Gibson and others who are holding up in a diner to fight off whatever and whomever God is going to send there way to protect the baby, themselves and mankind. Right off the bat, the plot does not sound Oscar worthy and it sounds immediately like a movie that the critics will start bashing. Which, as of this writing, it holds 18% on rotten tomatoes. As the film opens, Michael (Bettany) the God defying angel is cast down from heaven and loses his wings and all of the people that are going to get stuck inside the diner arrive. Personally, Kyle (Gibson) is my favorite. He plays the role of the stereotype "black guy with a gun who has a heart with a kid." Again, yes a stereotype role but he does it well. After some of the stranded people try to leave the diner and run into a wall of bugs, the battle is on. Yes, the wall crawling old woman (and she brings along with her a few words that you won't hear in the previews) and the man with the long fingers and huge mouth that you see in the previews are in film. Neither one of them stay in the film for very long but while they are in it, they missed the mark. I mean, come on. Really? How do they except me to take that seriously? The film even includes a shot of heaven. No film has ever been able to pull that off and this one is no exception. The film continues to move along with the survivors trying to put the whole thing together and fight for their lives as different "tests" or waves of blood seeking God possessed people are placed before them. But hey, at least God isn't going back on his word that he won't ever flood us out again. The film overall did have several pluses for me. Including Dennis Quaid who is always awesome no matter where he shows up. The film managed to bring some emotion out of me when some characters were killed. You can't believe in the plot, the angels, the possessed people but I could believe for the people in film. Maybe I'm a sucker, but that was enough to keep me entertained. If their faith wasn't being tested, they were having problems of their own to deal with.
Just by reading the first line of a plot summary of this film, you know that it won't be a film that you're going to be able to take seriously. And you really can't either. That's the problem today with most critics. They expect every movie to be as good as The Godfather, as powerful as The Shawshank Redemption and as entertaining as The Dark Knight. It doesn't work like that. I walked into this film knowing I wasn't going to see the best thing but that I was going to be entertained for the next 2 hours. And was I right? Damn right I was. The filmed failed on the level that the only real believable aspect of it is the characters. I just couldn't totally buy into the angles or the "angel demons". The people that God possessed to come and kill the baby were a little overdone. Well, actually very overdone. The wall crawling old woman and Mr. Fantastic who comes driving in in an ice cream truck don't exactly scream serious. I also didn't care much for the last 15 or so minutes. Otherwise, by not excepting the next movie to sweep the country in pandemonium, it was good.
Final Verdict: C+
The Book of Eli
Last year the first movie that I saw in theaters was One Missed Call. I don't know if you've seen that or not but I really hope you haven't. If you have, you know it is one of the worst movies of all time. This year, the first movie I saw in theaters was The Book of Eli. I was hoping for something that could get the year at the movies started right. However, I was horribly disappointed. For a about week before I went to see The Book Of Eli all I could see on TV was the one preview which included a critic saying "it will rock your soul." I have no idea what he was smoking because I've had episodes of TV shows rock my soul more than this movie did.
The Book of Eli stars Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman and Mila Kunis in a post apocalyptic world set 30 years in the future. If, God forbid, an apocalypse ever does happen I would really hope that this movie is not showing how the world would handle it. Any concept of society is gone and the world is a dust filled messed in which outlaws rule the land, people are eating other people for food and the only way that you can read is if you were born before this apocalypse. Its nice within the first few minutes of a movie that something has happened that makes me want to keep watching. The Book Of Eli opens with Eli (Washington) hunting, walking, sitting and sleeping. If that doesn't sound exciting enough, it doesn't get much more exciting there. The premise of the movie is that it has taken Eli 30 years to walk across the country. Why its taken him that long, I don't know. It's very hard to write about this movie without spoiling it, or at least some aspects of it. I haven't decided if I want to spoil movies yet here, but for now I'm not going to. Eli has this book that he feels me must protect and get it across the country. Knowing the heavy religion feel of the movie, I bet you've already figured out what it is. Carnegie (Oldman) wants the book and he has a motorcycle gang out looking for it. Eli shows up in this town that Carnegie seems to rule. He has the whole town doing whatever he wants and listening to his commands. He wants the book because he thinks that if he gets it, he will be able to rule all. When Carnegie finds out that Eli has the book, the chase is on. As exciting as that may sound, I've already summed up the first half, maybe more, of the movie. I'd pretty much already had this figured out by the time the trailer and TV spots were over. I won't spoil the climax or the end of the movie. But I will say the twists are overdone, not believable and ironic.
I wanted this movie to be so much better than it was. Except for the occasional slow-mo action scene or the humor offered from Mila Kunis this movie doesn't offer much. If I hadn't been with a friend, I would of walked out of this movie. Yes, it was that boring. This is just another religion based film that falls flat. It takes it too long off the ground and when it finally does, it's shaky. The third act of the film was okay but it doesn't make up for the first two. What was accomplished in the first two acts could of been accomplished in 15 minutes. There are two things that save this film. First, are the parts that Denzel Washington "beasts" it up and does something cool with a slow-mo part. Second, was one of the twists in the end. Again, I won't spoil it but it's so funny and ironic. I'm big on ironic things so that that was a plus for me. Unfortunately, the movie was just too boring and slow to do anything for me. The parts when Denzel Washington does something cool on screen bring the film up from an F to a D-. The one ironic twist brings it up from a D- to a D. There was no other reason for me to like this film. It was boring and the feel of the new post apocalyptic world was something that I couldn't buy into. The film is about faith and believing but you're not given anything to believe in.
Final Verdict: D
The Book of Eli stars Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman and Mila Kunis in a post apocalyptic world set 30 years in the future. If, God forbid, an apocalypse ever does happen I would really hope that this movie is not showing how the world would handle it. Any concept of society is gone and the world is a dust filled messed in which outlaws rule the land, people are eating other people for food and the only way that you can read is if you were born before this apocalypse. Its nice within the first few minutes of a movie that something has happened that makes me want to keep watching. The Book Of Eli opens with Eli (Washington) hunting, walking, sitting and sleeping. If that doesn't sound exciting enough, it doesn't get much more exciting there. The premise of the movie is that it has taken Eli 30 years to walk across the country. Why its taken him that long, I don't know. It's very hard to write about this movie without spoiling it, or at least some aspects of it. I haven't decided if I want to spoil movies yet here, but for now I'm not going to. Eli has this book that he feels me must protect and get it across the country. Knowing the heavy religion feel of the movie, I bet you've already figured out what it is. Carnegie (Oldman) wants the book and he has a motorcycle gang out looking for it. Eli shows up in this town that Carnegie seems to rule. He has the whole town doing whatever he wants and listening to his commands. He wants the book because he thinks that if he gets it, he will be able to rule all. When Carnegie finds out that Eli has the book, the chase is on. As exciting as that may sound, I've already summed up the first half, maybe more, of the movie. I'd pretty much already had this figured out by the time the trailer and TV spots were over. I won't spoil the climax or the end of the movie. But I will say the twists are overdone, not believable and ironic.
I wanted this movie to be so much better than it was. Except for the occasional slow-mo action scene or the humor offered from Mila Kunis this movie doesn't offer much. If I hadn't been with a friend, I would of walked out of this movie. Yes, it was that boring. This is just another religion based film that falls flat. It takes it too long off the ground and when it finally does, it's shaky. The third act of the film was okay but it doesn't make up for the first two. What was accomplished in the first two acts could of been accomplished in 15 minutes. There are two things that save this film. First, are the parts that Denzel Washington "beasts" it up and does something cool with a slow-mo part. Second, was one of the twists in the end. Again, I won't spoil it but it's so funny and ironic. I'm big on ironic things so that that was a plus for me. Unfortunately, the movie was just too boring and slow to do anything for me. The parts when Denzel Washington does something cool on screen bring the film up from an F to a D-. The one ironic twist brings it up from a D- to a D. There was no other reason for me to like this film. It was boring and the feel of the new post apocalyptic world was something that I couldn't buy into. The film is about faith and believing but you're not given anything to believe in.
Final Verdict: D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
