Wednesday, April 30, 2014
FilmHamster
Like my reviews and looking for more? After taking a haitus from reviewing I started a new site - FilmHamster - in 2013. Check it out for reviews, contests, and more!
Friday, December 31, 2010
Elf
Elf is a modern Christmas classic from 2003, directed by Jon Favreau (who also cameos as a pediatrician). It stars Will Ferrell, James Caan, Bob Newhart, Ed Asner, Mary Steenburgen and Zooey Deschanel.
Buddy (Ferrell) is a baby in an orphanage when Santa (Asner) pays a visit. Unbeknownst to the jolly fat man - who is apparently Jewish? - Buddy sneaks into his sack and winds up back at the North Pole. Raised by old Papa Elf (Newhart) who never took the time to settle down before, Buddy, who was named after the diaper brand he was wearing a la Marty McFly, grows up (and up) feeling a little out of place. It's thirty years, however, before Papa Elf breaks the news to him. Learning he was adopted, he also learns that his biological father (Caan) never knew he existed and is a big time publisher working in the Empire State Building. Unfortunately he is also on the naughty list. Determined to meet him anyway and give him lots of hugs while eating sugar plums, Buddy sets out and manages to walk all the way from the North Pole to NYC before the beginning of the movie is over, in a nice little scene that pays homage to Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer.
Buddy meets his father, as well as his stepfamily (Steenburgen and Daniel Tay) who are a lot nicer than the N-listed head of the household. He also falls for a enblonded Zooey Deschanel who plays a Gimbels' employee.
While some parts feel typical of Ferrel - such as a twelve second belch and a raccoon attack - the movie evokes an innocent feel that is seriously atypical of the crude actor. There are some clever parts and some truly endearing scenes. The plot is about as predictable as something very predictable and is very obvious about its morals of the story and Christmas feelgood message. There are also a few kind of weird scenes, particularly with the Central Park Patrol, that might be a little off putting to some.
When all is said and done, however, this is a modern Christmas movie that doesn't suck, and it has indeed made it onto many a person's favorite holiday movie list.
*** (3/5 stars)
Buddy (Ferrell) is a baby in an orphanage when Santa (Asner) pays a visit. Unbeknownst to the jolly fat man - who is apparently Jewish? - Buddy sneaks into his sack and winds up back at the North Pole. Raised by old Papa Elf (Newhart) who never took the time to settle down before, Buddy, who was named after the diaper brand he was wearing a la Marty McFly, grows up (and up) feeling a little out of place. It's thirty years, however, before Papa Elf breaks the news to him. Learning he was adopted, he also learns that his biological father (Caan) never knew he existed and is a big time publisher working in the Empire State Building. Unfortunately he is also on the naughty list. Determined to meet him anyway and give him lots of hugs while eating sugar plums, Buddy sets out and manages to walk all the way from the North Pole to NYC before the beginning of the movie is over, in a nice little scene that pays homage to Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer.
Buddy meets his father, as well as his stepfamily (Steenburgen and Daniel Tay) who are a lot nicer than the N-listed head of the household. He also falls for a enblonded Zooey Deschanel who plays a Gimbels' employee.
While some parts feel typical of Ferrel - such as a twelve second belch and a raccoon attack - the movie evokes an innocent feel that is seriously atypical of the crude actor. There are some clever parts and some truly endearing scenes. The plot is about as predictable as something very predictable and is very obvious about its morals of the story and Christmas feelgood message. There are also a few kind of weird scenes, particularly with the Central Park Patrol, that might be a little off putting to some.
When all is said and done, however, this is a modern Christmas movie that doesn't suck, and it has indeed made it onto many a person's favorite holiday movie list.
*** (3/5 stars)
Thursday, December 30, 2010
A Christmas Carol 1999
The second film version of Charles Dickens' famous novel A Christmas Carol I saw this year, this one stars the venerable Sir Patrick Stewart as Scrooge. Stewart has plenty of experience with the role, having starred in an award winning one man stage production of the Christmas Carol multiple times. Stewart is joined by Richard E. Grant, Ian McNeice, and more lesser known British actors in this 1999 movie made for television.
Despite being a made for TV effort, this movie excels in nearly every way. It's biggest drawback is the occasional special effects scene that shows its age and budget in a painful way. They are few and forgivable, however. Patrick Stewart plays the role a little masterfully - he knows exactly what he is saying and how he wants to say it in a way that shows he knows the role inside and out. Unfortunately sometimes that makes his performance feel a little canned, even though it is, indeed, excellent.
This version is extremely close to the source material, including little unusual details like Jacob Marley's jaw becoming unhinged for some unexplained reason that perhaps made more sense in the time it was written. It is fascinating to realize how many lines of dialogue we know so well are exactly the same in version to version, coming from the original book. Even the line "there is more gravy than grave about you," is there - something which I had originally thought was a clever cheesy line in the Muppets version only.
All in all, it has a very realistic, very British feel to it that is modern in its presentation but very old school at the same time, making for a very rewarding experience.
**** (4/5 stars)
Despite being a made for TV effort, this movie excels in nearly every way. It's biggest drawback is the occasional special effects scene that shows its age and budget in a painful way. They are few and forgivable, however. Patrick Stewart plays the role a little masterfully - he knows exactly what he is saying and how he wants to say it in a way that shows he knows the role inside and out. Unfortunately sometimes that makes his performance feel a little canned, even though it is, indeed, excellent.
This version is extremely close to the source material, including little unusual details like Jacob Marley's jaw becoming unhinged for some unexplained reason that perhaps made more sense in the time it was written. It is fascinating to realize how many lines of dialogue we know so well are exactly the same in version to version, coming from the original book. Even the line "there is more gravy than grave about you," is there - something which I had originally thought was a clever cheesy line in the Muppets version only.
All in all, it has a very realistic, very British feel to it that is modern in its presentation but very old school at the same time, making for a very rewarding experience.
**** (4/5 stars)
The Muppet Christmas Carol
There have been dozens of adaptations of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. Wikipedia lists 134 adaptations in fact, including a Klingon stage production among other stage, radio, recorded, film, cartoon, and other versions of this classic tale. It could very well be the most well known fictional story in the Western World. The Muppets version has long been a favorite among all ages.
Gonzo the Great (Dave Goelz) is Charles Dickens, narrating the familiar story while accompanied by Rizzo the Rat (Steve Whitmire). Michael Caine chills your soul as the Humbugging Mr. Scrooge. Kermit the Frog (Steve Whitmire) is his poor clerk, Bob Cratchit who is married to Mrs. Cratchit, Miss (Mrs?). Piggy (Frank Oz). Scrooge's nephew Fred is played by Steven Mackintosh. Fozzie Bear (Oz) is "Fozziewig." In perhaps the biggest departure from the original plot, Jacob Marley has a brother, Robert, and they are played by Jerry Nelson and Frank Oz, both of whom also provide voices for numerous other Muppet characters throughout, as does much of the cast.
The plot is more or less the same as any standard adaptation of this well known story, with some Muppety twists. The real beauty of what the Muppets do is integrate with human actors without so much as an eye blink. Singing fruit is just as commonplace in 1800's England as the cobblestone streets and where else would you get to see a singing frog join in with the penguins annual sliding contest? This is the Muppets at their near best, full of wit and skillful story retelling. The old story is fresh again many times over and will be enjoyed for years to come by ages of all variations. It is not perfect and has a song or two - yes it is a musical - that drag the pace down a bit. It is cast so perfectly though that you would think that Dickens wrote the story with a cast in mind that includes a beaker shaped person thing that doesn't talk and a brusque female pig. If you have not yet seen this one, plan to do so next Christmas - or even before!
**** (4/5 stars)
Gonzo the Great (Dave Goelz) is Charles Dickens, narrating the familiar story while accompanied by Rizzo the Rat (Steve Whitmire). Michael Caine chills your soul as the Humbugging Mr. Scrooge. Kermit the Frog (Steve Whitmire) is his poor clerk, Bob Cratchit who is married to Mrs. Cratchit, Miss (Mrs?). Piggy (Frank Oz). Scrooge's nephew Fred is played by Steven Mackintosh. Fozzie Bear (Oz) is "Fozziewig." In perhaps the biggest departure from the original plot, Jacob Marley has a brother, Robert, and they are played by Jerry Nelson and Frank Oz, both of whom also provide voices for numerous other Muppet characters throughout, as does much of the cast.
The plot is more or less the same as any standard adaptation of this well known story, with some Muppety twists. The real beauty of what the Muppets do is integrate with human actors without so much as an eye blink. Singing fruit is just as commonplace in 1800's England as the cobblestone streets and where else would you get to see a singing frog join in with the penguins annual sliding contest? This is the Muppets at their near best, full of wit and skillful story retelling. The old story is fresh again many times over and will be enjoyed for years to come by ages of all variations. It is not perfect and has a song or two - yes it is a musical - that drag the pace down a bit. It is cast so perfectly though that you would think that Dickens wrote the story with a cast in mind that includes a beaker shaped person thing that doesn't talk and a brusque female pig. If you have not yet seen this one, plan to do so next Christmas - or even before!
**** (4/5 stars)
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World
Based on the comic book series by Bryan Lee O'Malley and taking its name from the second in the six book series, Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World is about a Canadian Slacker, Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera). Directed by Edgar Wright, the plot revolves around Scott having to defeat the seven evil exes of his new American girlfriend Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). Kieran Culkin is Scott's sarcastic gay roommate who steals every scene he is in. Lesser knowns Ellen Wong, Alison Pill, Mark Webber, Johnny Simmons, Anna Kendrick, Brie Larson, make up most of the other main characters. Chris Evans Brandon Routh, and Jason Schwartzman also star. Clifton Collins, Jr. has a cameo as a member of the Vegan Police and Bill Hader narrates.
The whole movie plays out like a video game, using logic that only exists in such instances and includes dozens of different video game references throughout. Not the least of which is the fact that enemies burst into piles of coins when defeated. All of the characters seem to accept the bizarre as ordinary despite the fact that their world seems pretty realistic otherwise. Things like pulling swords from one's chest and Vegans having super powers are just accepted without a second thought.
I have never seen a movie display such symptoms of ADD as Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World. There is always something happening and it's usually happening quickly. Scenes flash from one to another before the previous two are even properly digested. Stats about characters and various jokes flash onto the screen for a second or two before we move on. It is a flashy film often distracted by itself. Having never read the comics I cannot comment on the accuracy of the movie, but if you are interested, there is a list of changes made to the movie here.
Michael Cera has never been a favorite of mine, but when playing a character that's supposed to be a huge loser anyway, it works. Sadly he can't ever shake off the loser persona though, so even when you should like him by the end, he still comes off as a jerk covered in a wet blanket. Nearly every other character in the movie is more likable than he is.
I can't think of another movie that this can be compared to, and I doubt we will ever see another that comes close to the explosive display of something that this is. I can't imagine most people over the age of thirty will enjoy this movie in the least bit. If there is a geek inside of you or you just really like video game references, there is a lot here to keep you entertained and on your toes if you can keep up and accept the fact that it doesn't really makes sense much of the time. Regardless, it does what it does extremely well and is unique to boot.
**** (4/5 stars)
The whole movie plays out like a video game, using logic that only exists in such instances and includes dozens of different video game references throughout. Not the least of which is the fact that enemies burst into piles of coins when defeated. All of the characters seem to accept the bizarre as ordinary despite the fact that their world seems pretty realistic otherwise. Things like pulling swords from one's chest and Vegans having super powers are just accepted without a second thought.
I have never seen a movie display such symptoms of ADD as Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World. There is always something happening and it's usually happening quickly. Scenes flash from one to another before the previous two are even properly digested. Stats about characters and various jokes flash onto the screen for a second or two before we move on. It is a flashy film often distracted by itself. Having never read the comics I cannot comment on the accuracy of the movie, but if you are interested, there is a list of changes made to the movie here.
Michael Cera has never been a favorite of mine, but when playing a character that's supposed to be a huge loser anyway, it works. Sadly he can't ever shake off the loser persona though, so even when you should like him by the end, he still comes off as a jerk covered in a wet blanket. Nearly every other character in the movie is more likable than he is.
I can't think of another movie that this can be compared to, and I doubt we will ever see another that comes close to the explosive display of something that this is. I can't imagine most people over the age of thirty will enjoy this movie in the least bit. If there is a geek inside of you or you just really like video game references, there is a lot here to keep you entertained and on your toes if you can keep up and accept the fact that it doesn't really makes sense much of the time. Regardless, it does what it does extremely well and is unique to boot.
**** (4/5 stars)
The Fountain
The Fountain comes from the consistently twisted mind of Darren Aronofsky and stars Hugh Jackman - a pairing that is due to be revisited in The Wolverine. Rachel Weisz also stars in this tale of life and death.
Containing three narratives, The Fountain is the story of conquistador Tomas (Jackman) and his search for the Tree of Life for Queen Isabel (Weisz) in the 16th century, scientist Tommy and his search for a cure for his wife Izzi's cancer, and Tom, a space faring man in the year 2500 who travels in a bubble containing a tree that represents his lost love as he attempts to reach a golden nebula. Jackman and Weisz play all five of these characters.
It is never made clear which, if any or all, of these narratives are fact or fiction. They are all clearly intertwined, but whether that is because they exist in the imagination or memories, or past of the characters is never made concretely clear. The plot is secondary to the theme of death and life with the movie really being about that concept more than a linear story. As is true of any Aronofsky film that I am familiar with, visuals and music play an extraordinarily large part in the film, illustrating ideas more clearly and conceptually than simple exposition would be able to.
This movie is closer to a painting or a poem than a movie. Beautiful in parts, open to interpretation, and unclear as to what it's true meaning is. It could have been better, I think, if at least Aronofsky's meaning was made a little clearer, but a unique experience nonetheless.
*** (3/5 stars)
Containing three narratives, The Fountain is the story of conquistador Tomas (Jackman) and his search for the Tree of Life for Queen Isabel (Weisz) in the 16th century, scientist Tommy and his search for a cure for his wife Izzi's cancer, and Tom, a space faring man in the year 2500 who travels in a bubble containing a tree that represents his lost love as he attempts to reach a golden nebula. Jackman and Weisz play all five of these characters.
It is never made clear which, if any or all, of these narratives are fact or fiction. They are all clearly intertwined, but whether that is because they exist in the imagination or memories, or past of the characters is never made concretely clear. The plot is secondary to the theme of death and life with the movie really being about that concept more than a linear story. As is true of any Aronofsky film that I am familiar with, visuals and music play an extraordinarily large part in the film, illustrating ideas more clearly and conceptually than simple exposition would be able to.
This movie is closer to a painting or a poem than a movie. Beautiful in parts, open to interpretation, and unclear as to what it's true meaning is. It could have been better, I think, if at least Aronofsky's meaning was made a little clearer, but a unique experience nonetheless.
*** (3/5 stars)
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 marks the first of the two movies being made out of the seventh and final book in J. K. Rowling's epic series. While squeezing two movies out of one book might seem like a final cash grab to eek the franchise on just a bit longer, it does actually work.
Even if you have somehow never read one of the books or seen one of the movies, you probably know the basic premise. Boy wizard Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and his friends Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) go to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry while at the same time fighting the evil force of Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). The seventh book is the logical conclusion of the fight ending in a final confrontation with Voldemort. Helena Bonham Carter, Robbie Coltrane, Warwick Davis, Rhys Ifans, Jason Isaacs, Bill Nighy, Alan Rickman, Timothy Spall, Imelda Staunton, and more fill out the massive cast.
The first movie covers nearly exactly two thirds of the book, leaving the final third all for the final movie. While this might seem illogical if you haven't read the book, it makes perfect sense. Of all the books, the seventh is the most uneven with the first part being long and drawn out with most of the action happening in the final chapters. The extended time allotted to each part of the story allows for more character development and inclusion of interesting details than the other movies have. It would have been interesting if all seven books were turned into two part movies but I don't think the American audience has that kind of patience and the actors would likely have aged much more than they have. As it is, the actors all fit their characters ages pretty closely, which is a pleasant rarity in movies these days. See Percy Jackson.
All the actors have matured and grown into their roles rather nicely, really becoming the group of magical friends they are supposed to be. One of the biggest weaknesses this movie has is that because of the extra time allowed and details explored there are characters and relationships that are shown here for the first time or at least the first time other than some passing mention. The average movie goer may be a bit confused by some things the characters seem to take for granted if they have not read the books and kept up with all the relationships etc. That said, for being the near conclusion of such an expansive story, things are, for the most part, not confusing and presented in a straightforward yet interesting manner. One of the pleasant surprises was the animated sequence that tells the story of the Deathly Hallows.
As is true with the books, this movie continues the trend of growing with it's readers/viewers, being the darkest and most serious yet. This is fine if someone started reading them when they were 9-12 - the reading level of the first book. Those people are now 22-25 and certainly old enough to deal with more mature themes. Not so for the 8-10 year old who devoured the series over the summer for the first time and now wants to go see the new movie. It is a solidly PG-13 movie.
Overall, this is a good movie that stays pretty true to the source material and manages to stay interesting despite the dry spells (no pun intended) that the book presents.
**** (4/5 stars)
Even if you have somehow never read one of the books or seen one of the movies, you probably know the basic premise. Boy wizard Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and his friends Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) go to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry while at the same time fighting the evil force of Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). The seventh book is the logical conclusion of the fight ending in a final confrontation with Voldemort. Helena Bonham Carter, Robbie Coltrane, Warwick Davis, Rhys Ifans, Jason Isaacs, Bill Nighy, Alan Rickman, Timothy Spall, Imelda Staunton, and more fill out the massive cast.
The first movie covers nearly exactly two thirds of the book, leaving the final third all for the final movie. While this might seem illogical if you haven't read the book, it makes perfect sense. Of all the books, the seventh is the most uneven with the first part being long and drawn out with most of the action happening in the final chapters. The extended time allotted to each part of the story allows for more character development and inclusion of interesting details than the other movies have. It would have been interesting if all seven books were turned into two part movies but I don't think the American audience has that kind of patience and the actors would likely have aged much more than they have. As it is, the actors all fit their characters ages pretty closely, which is a pleasant rarity in movies these days. See Percy Jackson.
All the actors have matured and grown into their roles rather nicely, really becoming the group of magical friends they are supposed to be. One of the biggest weaknesses this movie has is that because of the extra time allowed and details explored there are characters and relationships that are shown here for the first time or at least the first time other than some passing mention. The average movie goer may be a bit confused by some things the characters seem to take for granted if they have not read the books and kept up with all the relationships etc. That said, for being the near conclusion of such an expansive story, things are, for the most part, not confusing and presented in a straightforward yet interesting manner. One of the pleasant surprises was the animated sequence that tells the story of the Deathly Hallows.
As is true with the books, this movie continues the trend of growing with it's readers/viewers, being the darkest and most serious yet. This is fine if someone started reading them when they were 9-12 - the reading level of the first book. Those people are now 22-25 and certainly old enough to deal with more mature themes. Not so for the 8-10 year old who devoured the series over the summer for the first time and now wants to go see the new movie. It is a solidly PG-13 movie.
Overall, this is a good movie that stays pretty true to the source material and manages to stay interesting despite the dry spells (no pun intended) that the book presents.
**** (4/5 stars)
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The Last Airbender
Not to be confused with James Cameron's Avatar, The Last Airbender is the film adaptation of the first season of the kids' television series Avatar: The Last Airbender, from Nickelodeon. Despite being an American children's series, Avatar: The Last Airbender has garnered attention from kids and adults alike, especially appealing to fans of Anime. It was extremely well directed with artwork and writing well above average, excellent voice talent, and a story compelling enough to keep anyone's attention. It is with good reason that fans of the show were nervous about M. Night Shyamalan directing the film version as his track record has, for the most part, gone steadily down hill.
The story tells of the Avatar, a reincarnated being who can control the elements of earth, wind, fire, and water. In this case, he is a young boy, Aang (Noah Ringer), an Air Nomad, the last of his kind. Hence the title. Having been lost, frozen, for the past 100 years, he awakens to find the Fire Nation has declared war on the rest of the world and things are no longer well for anyone else. With some new found friends, Sokka (Jackson Rathbone) and Katara (Nicola Peltz), a brother and sister from the Southern Water Tribe, Aang sets out to defeat the Fire Lord (Cliff Curtis). Along the way he faces the Fire Lord's banished son Zuko (Dev Patel of Slumdog Millionaire, and the only actor here who acts like he cares he is in a movie) and a Fire Nation General, Zhao (Aasif Mandvi), both of whom have personal reasons for capturing the Avatar.
I went into this film knowing it was bad and still was disappointed. I am not going to go into detail about all the changes from the source material that were made for seemingly no good reason, but there is a rather comprehensive list here to look at. I will say this - how the **** do you pronounce half the main characters' names wrong when you can simply look at an entire television series to hear them?
If I had half stars I would add one onto the score because if you have no knowledge of the series going in to it, as a movie in and of itself it is almost passable if you have low standards. The plot is rushed and often makes little sense, the battles - something the show was known for - are at times tedious, the actors either seem like they don't care or don't know what they are doing. If there is something opposite of character development, this movie features it prominently. There are really so many things wrong with it - basically the whole construction is shaky at best and the only thing that saves it at all are some decent special effects at times. Though, from what I've heard, those are lost in some muddy cinematography if you watch it in post converted 3D as it was marketed.
For fans of the series, this movie feels like a crime against something that had so much potential to be good, and should not have been hard to make as such. For the average movie goer, this is a forgettable/bad experience that will probably prevent them from ever giving the series the chance it deserves.
*(1/5 stars)
The story tells of the Avatar, a reincarnated being who can control the elements of earth, wind, fire, and water. In this case, he is a young boy, Aang (Noah Ringer), an Air Nomad, the last of his kind. Hence the title. Having been lost, frozen, for the past 100 years, he awakens to find the Fire Nation has declared war on the rest of the world and things are no longer well for anyone else. With some new found friends, Sokka (Jackson Rathbone) and Katara (Nicola Peltz), a brother and sister from the Southern Water Tribe, Aang sets out to defeat the Fire Lord (Cliff Curtis). Along the way he faces the Fire Lord's banished son Zuko (Dev Patel of Slumdog Millionaire, and the only actor here who acts like he cares he is in a movie) and a Fire Nation General, Zhao (Aasif Mandvi), both of whom have personal reasons for capturing the Avatar.
I went into this film knowing it was bad and still was disappointed. I am not going to go into detail about all the changes from the source material that were made for seemingly no good reason, but there is a rather comprehensive list here to look at. I will say this - how the **** do you pronounce half the main characters' names wrong when you can simply look at an entire television series to hear them?
If I had half stars I would add one onto the score because if you have no knowledge of the series going in to it, as a movie in and of itself it is almost passable if you have low standards. The plot is rushed and often makes little sense, the battles - something the show was known for - are at times tedious, the actors either seem like they don't care or don't know what they are doing. If there is something opposite of character development, this movie features it prominently. There are really so many things wrong with it - basically the whole construction is shaky at best and the only thing that saves it at all are some decent special effects at times. Though, from what I've heard, those are lost in some muddy cinematography if you watch it in post converted 3D as it was marketed.
For fans of the series, this movie feels like a crime against something that had so much potential to be good, and should not have been hard to make as such. For the average movie goer, this is a forgettable/bad experience that will probably prevent them from ever giving the series the chance it deserves.
*(1/5 stars)
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
MacGruber
MacGruber, the film version of the SNL skit of the same name joins the ranks of such comedic icons as Coneheads and The Blues Brothers, though this SNL adaptation is not nearly as funny. A parody of the classic 80's television show, MacGyver, the film features Will Forte as the titular hero. SNL regulars Kristen Wiig and Maya Rudolph co-star and Val Kilmer is, for some reason, the villain Dieter Von Cunth, who looks oddly like Steven Seagal, and whose last name is used repeatably.
Cunth has taken possession of a very dangerous nuclear missile and the only person who can stop him from whatever nefarious plot he has up his sleeve is MacGruber who has been hiding out in remote Ecuador after faking his own death to retire. He has a personal vendetta against Cunth though, he being responsible for the gruesome death of his bride (Rudolph) on their wedding day. That is enough for MacGruber to come out of retirement and assemble a crack team which includes his new love interest Vicki St. Elmo (Wiig) and a bunch of other people who don't matter because MacGruber accidently blows them all up at the beginning. Youngster Dixon Piper (Ryan Phillippe) joins them and they are off to stop Cunth using a combination of ripping out throats and waddling around naked with stalks of celery stuck between their cheeks.
Some movies are so stupid that they are amazing. That's a dangerous goal to shoot for, however, because if a film comes just shy of accomplishing that, all you are left with is an incredibly stupid mess of a film in which people have sex with ghosts and the greatest secret agent of all time has the intelligence of a rat fed a steady diet of LSD and Xanax while wearing a mullet wig. With the right crowd in the right situation this movie will probably induce a decent number of laughing fits - if only by making people laugh at other people for laughing at the movie in the first place.
Even stupid humour needs some intelligence of some kind. You know how some SNL skits don't seem to make much sense? This is like a bunch of those thrown together, connected by a plot concocted by two ten year old boys who were inspired by a funny sounding fart.
*(1/5 stars)
Cunth has taken possession of a very dangerous nuclear missile and the only person who can stop him from whatever nefarious plot he has up his sleeve is MacGruber who has been hiding out in remote Ecuador after faking his own death to retire. He has a personal vendetta against Cunth though, he being responsible for the gruesome death of his bride (Rudolph) on their wedding day. That is enough for MacGruber to come out of retirement and assemble a crack team which includes his new love interest Vicki St. Elmo (Wiig) and a bunch of other people who don't matter because MacGruber accidently blows them all up at the beginning. Youngster Dixon Piper (Ryan Phillippe) joins them and they are off to stop Cunth using a combination of ripping out throats and waddling around naked with stalks of celery stuck between their cheeks.
Some movies are so stupid that they are amazing. That's a dangerous goal to shoot for, however, because if a film comes just shy of accomplishing that, all you are left with is an incredibly stupid mess of a film in which people have sex with ghosts and the greatest secret agent of all time has the intelligence of a rat fed a steady diet of LSD and Xanax while wearing a mullet wig. With the right crowd in the right situation this movie will probably induce a decent number of laughing fits - if only by making people laugh at other people for laughing at the movie in the first place.
Even stupid humour needs some intelligence of some kind. You know how some SNL skits don't seem to make much sense? This is like a bunch of those thrown together, connected by a plot concocted by two ten year old boys who were inspired by a funny sounding fart.
*(1/5 stars)
Monday, December 20, 2010
Splice
Written and directed by Vincenzo Natali who is the mind behind the bizarre cult classic - and on my list of best movies you've never seen - Cube, Splice is a strange horror drama thriller starring Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley. Guillermo del Toro, whose name seems to be attached to almost everything these days, produces. Before I go any further, I must disclaim: This is one of the most disturbing movies I have ever seen - right up there with Oldboy. If (highlight for semi-spoiler) incestuous bestiality alien rape bothers you terribly, you can stop right now and not even bother hearing what I think of this film. Otherwise, carry on.
Clive (Brody) and Elsa (Polley) are partners in science as well as in life, working together to combine the DNA of animals to create new species at Nucleic Exchange Research and Development labs. Yes that does spell "NERD." Convinced that a human-animal hybrid would revolutionize science and medicine, pushing their research to the forefront of, well, everything, the proceed to do so despite being forbidden by their superiors. The result is Dren (Delphine Chanéac), a female creature that is part human and part other stuff. Not content to simply observe that their theories are possible, they raise Dren together in secret, watching her grow and making startling discoveries along the way. As she gets older things get weirder.
It has probably been brought up in most every review, but for good reason: The third act changes this film, which is probably a bad thing. Up until then it was an intriguing, if disturbing, examination of morality, ethics, humanity, and science with some truly unique elements. As the conclusion draws near, it changes over to one of the strangest horror films I have ever seen and the disturbing factor goes through the proverbial roof.
This is one of the more imaginative, creative, thought provoking and different movies in a long time. The special effects are almost top notch, as are the actors' performances. It does have a slightly indie feel to it. I don't recall being bored during any of it, and despite the nature of the film it felt believable throughout - if a bit far fetched at times.
There were a few things that never seemed to be properly explained or addressed, and the story itself had some uneven patches. The shortcomings, however, are easily forgiven. If you can get past the very distubing nature of this movie, it offers an experience you are not likely to find very often.
**** (4/5 stars)
Clive (Brody) and Elsa (Polley) are partners in science as well as in life, working together to combine the DNA of animals to create new species at Nucleic Exchange Research and Development labs. Yes that does spell "NERD." Convinced that a human-animal hybrid would revolutionize science and medicine, pushing their research to the forefront of, well, everything, the proceed to do so despite being forbidden by their superiors. The result is Dren (Delphine Chanéac), a female creature that is part human and part other stuff. Not content to simply observe that their theories are possible, they raise Dren together in secret, watching her grow and making startling discoveries along the way. As she gets older things get weirder.
It has probably been brought up in most every review, but for good reason: The third act changes this film, which is probably a bad thing. Up until then it was an intriguing, if disturbing, examination of morality, ethics, humanity, and science with some truly unique elements. As the conclusion draws near, it changes over to one of the strangest horror films I have ever seen and the disturbing factor goes through the proverbial roof.
This is one of the more imaginative, creative, thought provoking and different movies in a long time. The special effects are almost top notch, as are the actors' performances. It does have a slightly indie feel to it. I don't recall being bored during any of it, and despite the nature of the film it felt believable throughout - if a bit far fetched at times.
There were a few things that never seemed to be properly explained or addressed, and the story itself had some uneven patches. The shortcomings, however, are easily forgiven. If you can get past the very distubing nature of this movie, it offers an experience you are not likely to find very often.
**** (4/5 stars)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
