Thursday, August 2, 2007
Friday, May 11, 2007
SPIDER-MAN 3 (2007) - Directed by Sam Raimi
STARRING:
Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/Spider-Man
Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane
James Franco as Harry Osborn/New Goblin
Thomas Haden Church as Flint Marko/Sandman
Topher Grace as Eddie Brock, Jr./Venom
PLOT: Peter Parker (Magiure) has finally found an equilibrium between his love life with girlfriend Mary Jane (Dunst) and his duties as the friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. Then...things go to hell. Ex-best friend Harry becomes the New Green Goblin; escaped convict Flint Marko, who turns out to be Peter's Uncle Ben's killer, turns into a huge sand monster; and a new photographer shows up at the Daily Bugle to try and steal his job. All of this on top of an alien symbiote that attachs itself to Peter and amplifies his "darker" side and we get one messed up movie.
REVIEW: I liked the first two "Spider-Man" movies, so much that I bought them, which is a high praise from me for a movie. And I was legitimately jazzed to see Venom on the big screen in the third installment of this insanely lucrative franchise. Keep in mind that "SM2" was BETTER than "SP1" - so that meant that "SP3" was either going to be the best of the series...or be a complete bust compared to the other two. It's the nature of trilogies (see: "Return of the Jedi", "Godfather Part III", "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom").
So how was the "SP3"? Well, I had a blast while watching it the first time because it's a summer movie that is just plain fun to watch, though I did notice a few flaws and was thrown off by a few things too. Then I saw it a second time...and came to the decision that this is a bad comic book movie. And in no particular, here's what I didn't like about "SM3":
-When the alien symbiote joins together with Peter, the black Spider-Man suit doesn't look like it did in the comics or cartoons. This should have been an easy one for Raimi to give to fanboys, and I'm not even a real Spider-Man fanboy. And why did the symbiote wait two whole days to attach itself to Peter?
-During flashbacks showing Flint Marko (Church) killing Uncle Ben, they're on the wrong side of the street than in "SP1". Continuity error that stood out to me BIG TIME for such an "important" plot line.
-The New Goblin's outfit made him look like a skaterboy. And he was a wuss. Grow a pair, Harry.
-On the same token, when Peter was wearing the black Spidey suit under his clothes and Raimi was showing his "dark" side, what the hell was up with Peter looking emo? Seriously! WTF? And the dancing? I was laughing, not because it was funny, but because it was so out of place.
-The Sandman storyline was pointless. The Uncle Ben storyline was like warmed up meatloaf and took up space for what bugged me the most...
-THERE WASN'T ENOUGH VENOM! Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, was looking forward to "SP3" for one reason - Venom. And what do we get? About twenty minutes of Venom (if that) fighting Spider-Man alongside Sandman, and then he gets blown the hell up. I also thought the whole beating Venom with sound waves thing was too much like a deus ex machina. Not good.
-The acting was sub-par compared to the first two Spidey movies, with the lone exception of Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) and J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons). Speaking of which, there wasn't enough J.J. for my taste.
-Last, but not least, for a movie that reportedly cost above $250 million to make and promote, the CG was WAY too noticeable. My biggest example was in a transition scene where the camera pans and zooms around a church steeple to where Spider-Man is sulking, the gray, stormy clouds completely change tone and brightness. Horrible editing.
Was there anything I liked about the movie? Yeah, I love Bruce Campbell's cameo as a maitre d'; Elizabeth Banks continues to scorch the screen as J.J.'s secretary, Ms. Banks; Danny Elfman's Spider-Man theme continues to be a great piece of film music; Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen Stacey was hot as hell. Not enough of her now that I think about it.
ACTING: As I mentioned earlier, the acting was subpar compared to "SP1" and "SP2". Maguire seemed uninterested at times, Dunst hasn't been the best actress in the world, and it seemed like all the villians were used poorly - though Church, Grace, and Franco did there jobs well with not enough given to them. Just shoddy work from the main two "stars", overall.
DIRECTING: It seemed to me that Raimi, who admittedly says he didn't want to include Venom in the movie, didn't care about this movie as much as the other two. He just kind of floated through the actual shooting of the movie and put everything into post-production, which wasn't very good either. He didn't get the best out of Maguire and Dunst, and for that he disappointed me as well. The movie LOOKED beautiful, as all three have, but again the CG was too noticeable.
RATING REASON: "Spider-Man 3" is rated PG-13 for intense action violence. This means...c'mon. It's a Spider-Man movie, if you didn't expect there to be hand-to-hand battles, then you've been living under a rock for the past decade.
THE FINAL WORD: I wanted to like SP3, especially because I have a number of friends who absolutely adore(d) it, but I just couldn't get past all of the flaws after I had stepped out of the theatre. Yeah, there was action, and yeah, my eyes were glued to the screen, but I was left with an empty feeling. An empty feeling that the first two Spidey movies did leave. And for that, as well as all of the things that bugged me about the movie, I give "Spider-Man 3" TWO STARS out of four.
P.S. -"SP3" has shattered box-office records, but I don't think it'll have the legs to be the year's biggest movie. I still think "Pirates of the Caribbean 3" will do that.
Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/Spider-Man
Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane
James Franco as Harry Osborn/New Goblin
Thomas Haden Church as Flint Marko/Sandman
Topher Grace as Eddie Brock, Jr./Venom
PLOT: Peter Parker (Magiure) has finally found an equilibrium between his love life with girlfriend Mary Jane (Dunst) and his duties as the friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. Then...things go to hell. Ex-best friend Harry becomes the New Green Goblin; escaped convict Flint Marko, who turns out to be Peter's Uncle Ben's killer, turns into a huge sand monster; and a new photographer shows up at the Daily Bugle to try and steal his job. All of this on top of an alien symbiote that attachs itself to Peter and amplifies his "darker" side and we get one messed up movie.
REVIEW: I liked the first two "Spider-Man" movies, so much that I bought them, which is a high praise from me for a movie. And I was legitimately jazzed to see Venom on the big screen in the third installment of this insanely lucrative franchise. Keep in mind that "SM2" was BETTER than "SP1" - so that meant that "SP3" was either going to be the best of the series...or be a complete bust compared to the other two. It's the nature of trilogies (see: "Return of the Jedi", "Godfather Part III", "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom").
So how was the "SP3"? Well, I had a blast while watching it the first time because it's a summer movie that is just plain fun to watch, though I did notice a few flaws and was thrown off by a few things too. Then I saw it a second time...and came to the decision that this is a bad comic book movie. And in no particular, here's what I didn't like about "SM3":
-When the alien symbiote joins together with Peter, the black Spider-Man suit doesn't look like it did in the comics or cartoons. This should have been an easy one for Raimi to give to fanboys, and I'm not even a real Spider-Man fanboy. And why did the symbiote wait two whole days to attach itself to Peter?
-During flashbacks showing Flint Marko (Church) killing Uncle Ben, they're on the wrong side of the street than in "SP1". Continuity error that stood out to me BIG TIME for such an "important" plot line.
-The New Goblin's outfit made him look like a skaterboy. And he was a wuss. Grow a pair, Harry.
-On the same token, when Peter was wearing the black Spidey suit under his clothes and Raimi was showing his "dark" side, what the hell was up with Peter looking emo? Seriously! WTF? And the dancing? I was laughing, not because it was funny, but because it was so out of place.
-The Sandman storyline was pointless. The Uncle Ben storyline was like warmed up meatloaf and took up space for what bugged me the most...
-THERE WASN'T ENOUGH VENOM! Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, was looking forward to "SP3" for one reason - Venom. And what do we get? About twenty minutes of Venom (if that) fighting Spider-Man alongside Sandman, and then he gets blown the hell up. I also thought the whole beating Venom with sound waves thing was too much like a deus ex machina. Not good.
-The acting was sub-par compared to the first two Spidey movies, with the lone exception of Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) and J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons). Speaking of which, there wasn't enough J.J. for my taste.
-Last, but not least, for a movie that reportedly cost above $250 million to make and promote, the CG was WAY too noticeable. My biggest example was in a transition scene where the camera pans and zooms around a church steeple to where Spider-Man is sulking, the gray, stormy clouds completely change tone and brightness. Horrible editing.
Was there anything I liked about the movie? Yeah, I love Bruce Campbell's cameo as a maitre d'; Elizabeth Banks continues to scorch the screen as J.J.'s secretary, Ms. Banks; Danny Elfman's Spider-Man theme continues to be a great piece of film music; Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen Stacey was hot as hell. Not enough of her now that I think about it.
ACTING: As I mentioned earlier, the acting was subpar compared to "SP1" and "SP2". Maguire seemed uninterested at times, Dunst hasn't been the best actress in the world, and it seemed like all the villians were used poorly - though Church, Grace, and Franco did there jobs well with not enough given to them. Just shoddy work from the main two "stars", overall.
DIRECTING: It seemed to me that Raimi, who admittedly says he didn't want to include Venom in the movie, didn't care about this movie as much as the other two. He just kind of floated through the actual shooting of the movie and put everything into post-production, which wasn't very good either. He didn't get the best out of Maguire and Dunst, and for that he disappointed me as well. The movie LOOKED beautiful, as all three have, but again the CG was too noticeable.
RATING REASON: "Spider-Man 3" is rated PG-13 for intense action violence. This means...c'mon. It's a Spider-Man movie, if you didn't expect there to be hand-to-hand battles, then you've been living under a rock for the past decade.
THE FINAL WORD: I wanted to like SP3, especially because I have a number of friends who absolutely adore(d) it, but I just couldn't get past all of the flaws after I had stepped out of the theatre. Yeah, there was action, and yeah, my eyes were glued to the screen, but I was left with an empty feeling. An empty feeling that the first two Spidey movies did leave. And for that, as well as all of the things that bugged me about the movie, I give "Spider-Man 3" TWO STARS out of four.
P.S. -"SP3" has shattered box-office records, but I don't think it'll have the legs to be the year's biggest movie. I still think "Pirates of the Caribbean 3" will do that.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
GRINDHOUSE (PLANET TERROR/DEATH PROOF) (2007) - Directed by Robert Rodriguez & Quentin Tarantino
NOTE: In case you've been living under a rock for the last month or so, you know that ""Grindhouse" is a double-feature movie that is comprised of Robert Rodriguez's "Planet Terror" and Quentin Tarantino's "Death Proof". The former is an all-out zombie movie that's a throwback to directors like George A. Romero ("Dawn of the Dead") and even early Peter Jackson ("Dead Alive"), while the latter is a homage to car chase movies like "Vanishing Point". Since they are two completely different movies, I shall review them as such.
"PLANET TERROR"
STARRING:
Rose McGowan as Cherry Darling
Freddy Rodriguez as Wray
Marley Shelton as Dr. Dakota Block
James Brolin as Dr. William Block
PLOT: Cherry (McGowan) is a Go-Go dancer in a small Texas town who comes across an old flame, Wray (Rodriguez), who gives her a ride in the night. At the same time, some top secret Army stuff is going down just down the road where a chemical leak causes people to start turning into zombies. Eventually the town runs amok with zombies while those resistant to the disease, led by Wray and Cherry, fight them off. Ladies and gentlemen...may I present my favorite zombie movie of all-time!
REVIEW: "Planet Terror" is an all-out, balls to the walls gorefest slapped with hilarity whenever given the chance. You cannot, repeat, CANNOT take this movie seriously at all or else you will not have a fun time. Rodriguez has constructed a perfect piece of entertainment while at the same time honoring the grindhouse movies of his childhood. The movie is made to look like the film on which it is printed is grainy, it warps at times, there's a key sex scene that's missing and then the movie picks right back up at an opportune moment (funny as hell, by the way), etc. This is just a fun movie with tons of over the top elements, including the acting, violence, and dialogue. For example, a character has an obsession with collecting victims' testicles. 'Nuff said.
I cannot find any fault with this movie. The subplots in the film that include Wray and Cherry's love story, a husband and wife (Shelton and Brolin) that deal with marraige issues in the midst of the hell going on around them, and a restaurantuer who is searching for the perfect BBQ recipe are all engaging and well-drawn out. And I loved the actors in the film, which also included Bruce Willis as the main villian, Quentin Tarantino as a sex-fiend soldier, Naveen Andrews (tv's "Lost") as a bio-chemical engineer, and Jeff Fahey as the BBQ owner. Hell, even Robert Rodriguez's son is in the movie, who ends up with a hilarious fate (if you ask me). Again, no faults I could find.
ACTING: Since "Planet Terror" was meant to be a made as a b-movie, the actors give it that kind of a feel, yet they all did great! McGowan should not be on television - she's too damn attractive and charming to be kept on the small screen. Freddy Rodriguez's Wray is a BAMF to the 'nth degree and he plays it was a shit-ton of charisma. Shelton and Brolin are an engaging couple - she seriously seems like she's frightened of him, and he's a scary mofo. Then all of the other characters do very good jobs with their small screen time.
DIRECTING: Rodriguez was a fave of mine before this movie with his works like "Once Upon a Time in Mexico", "From Dusk 'til Dawn", "The Faculty", and most notably "Sin City" (can't wait for "Sin City 2"!), and after this, he's unquestionably in my Top 5 favorite directors. The guy is a freakin' genius and his movies are some of the most fun I ever see. He has a knack for getting awesome performances from his acctors, not matter who they are, and his films look fantastic - same holds true here. And I got a huge kick out of the film looking "worn" and the "missing" sex scene between Wray and Cherry. (That had better be on the DVD!)
RATING REASON: "Grindhouse" as a whole is Rated R, so that means if "Planet" were a stand-alone film, it would be R, too. The reason being for strong graphic bloody violence, pervasive language, and some sexuality - this means zombies being shot, stabbed, and having their heads cut off by a helicopter; f-bombs being dropped, as well as sh*t (the word); and the beginnings of a sex scene with McGowan and Rodriguez.
THE FINAL WORD: Awesome, entertaining, cheesy as all hell, and a fun movie-going experience. As a stand-along film, "Planet Terror" is FOUR STARS out of four.
"DEATH PROOF"
STARRING:
Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike
Rosario Dawson as Abernathy
Tracie Thoms as Kim
Zoe Bell as Herself
Sydney Tamilia Poitier as Jungle Julia
PLOT: Stuntman Mike (Russell) is an old Hollywood stunt double who likes to go to bars and regale women with his stories of past stunts. Stuntman Mike also happens to be a homicidal psychopath who uses his reinforced, "Death Proof" stunt car to kill the same women talks to at bars. After coming across Jungle Julia and her pals one night in Austin, Texas, Mike moves on to Tennessee where he stalks three friends working on a movie shoot. What Mike doesn't know is that two of the friends are also professional stuntwomen and don't take too kindly to Mike's murderous antics. A riveting car chase ensues!
REVIEW: Where "Planet Terror" was an all-out action fest, "Death Proof" is almost the complete opposite. "Proof" is vintage Tarantino in so many ways: lots and lots of vulgar yet funny and insightful dialogue by the characters, unique and engaging characters, great shots (a number of them of girls' feet), and memorable action sequences. "Death Proof" can probably be divided into four quarters of varying time and it goes like this:
1st Quarter: Jungle Julia and pals talking about getting high and having sex and meeting Stuntman Mike.
2nd Quarter: Stuntman Mike killing a childhood friend of Julia's (Rose McGowan) with his car, then Julia and Co. in a spectacular head-on collision that gets replayed three times in slow-motion.
3rd Quarter: We meet Abernathy (Dawson), Kim (Thoms), Lee (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and Zoe Bell (Bell) as they take a break from shooting a movie. Lots of talking ensues, we see Stuntman Mike stalking them.
4th Quarter: The girls get their hands on a 1970 Dodge Challenger, like the one from the movie "Vanishing Point", Mike chases them and scares the hell out of them, then girls get their revenge.
It's that simple, except that within all of that I didn't mention that when Abernathy and Co. get their hands on the Challenger, they play a game called "Ship's Mast" - where Zoe gets on the hood of the car while Kim drives it. During this game is when Mike shows up and a heart-pounding action scene takes place without any CG. Unforgettable. Sadly, it came a little too late in the movie because you literally sit there for about an hour before the real action sequence takes place.
ACTING: "Death Proof" is almost an exercise in seeing how long the actors/actresses can keep the audience engaged with their looks and how they deliver the dialogue. And for the most part, everybody does a great job in doing so. Poitier is a future star, McGowan shows up and steals a little bit of the screen with her banter with Russell, Rosario Dawson is funny and good-looking, and so on and so forth. What I really want to point out is how good of a job Zoe Bell does. Yes, I know she's playing herself for the most part, but she was hilarious and what she had to do on the hood of that Challenger was beyond comprehension. Mad props. Oh yeah, and Stuntman Mike was the shit - mainly because Kurt Russell is the man.
DIRECTING: "Death Proof" is notable in that it's the first movie of QT's that he was also the director of cinematography and he did very well with it. Considering the car chase sequence had no CG whatsoever, it was even more amazing. At no point during the chase do you feel quesy or taken out of anything, and that's incredible to me. Definitely one of the best car chase scenes I've ever seen.
RATING REASON: "Death Proof" would be rated R if it were a stand-alone film, because of strong graphic bloody violence and gore, pervasive language, some sexuality, and drug use. This means: Stuntman Mike's kilings were brutal as hell and QT shows you what happens when a tire runs over somebodies face as well as the aftermath of a head-on crash; the girls swear like sailors, there's mention of sexual acts, and Jungle Julia and Co. smoke some weed.
THE FINAL WORD: "Death Proof" is a solid movie, but at times it gets sluggish with too much talk. It's also much slower than "Planet Terror", and seeing as that it comes after such an action packed movie, "Proof" will probably lose some of the audience with its pacing and the style of movie that it is. I liked it however and give it THREE STARS out of four.
THE FINAL WORD ON "GRINDHOUSE": I loved "Grindhouse". As soon as I heard that Rodriguez and Tarantino (two of my favorite directors) were doing this I couldn't wait. The only qualm I have about "Grindhouse" is that "Death Proof" should've been shown before "Planet Terror". That way the audience could've been eased into the style of the movies and then it could've gone out with a BANG! Instead, it almost peaks too soon and then kind of wimpers out towards the end. Overall though, the experience was a different one and definitely one that needs to be seen in theatres, especially with the faux trailers for the movies "Werewolf Women of the S.S." by Rob Zombie ("The Devi's Rejects"), "Don't" by Edgar Wright ("Shaun of the Dead"), "Machete" by Rodriguez, and my favorite, "Thanksgiving" by Eli Roth. If you are a movie fan and have three hours to kill, go see "Grindhouse", which I'll give FOUR STARS.
"PLANET TERROR"
STARRING:
Rose McGowan as Cherry Darling
Freddy Rodriguez as Wray
Marley Shelton as Dr. Dakota Block
James Brolin as Dr. William Block
PLOT: Cherry (McGowan) is a Go-Go dancer in a small Texas town who comes across an old flame, Wray (Rodriguez), who gives her a ride in the night. At the same time, some top secret Army stuff is going down just down the road where a chemical leak causes people to start turning into zombies. Eventually the town runs amok with zombies while those resistant to the disease, led by Wray and Cherry, fight them off. Ladies and gentlemen...may I present my favorite zombie movie of all-time!
REVIEW: "Planet Terror" is an all-out, balls to the walls gorefest slapped with hilarity whenever given the chance. You cannot, repeat, CANNOT take this movie seriously at all or else you will not have a fun time. Rodriguez has constructed a perfect piece of entertainment while at the same time honoring the grindhouse movies of his childhood. The movie is made to look like the film on which it is printed is grainy, it warps at times, there's a key sex scene that's missing and then the movie picks right back up at an opportune moment (funny as hell, by the way), etc. This is just a fun movie with tons of over the top elements, including the acting, violence, and dialogue. For example, a character has an obsession with collecting victims' testicles. 'Nuff said.
I cannot find any fault with this movie. The subplots in the film that include Wray and Cherry's love story, a husband and wife (Shelton and Brolin) that deal with marraige issues in the midst of the hell going on around them, and a restaurantuer who is searching for the perfect BBQ recipe are all engaging and well-drawn out. And I loved the actors in the film, which also included Bruce Willis as the main villian, Quentin Tarantino as a sex-fiend soldier, Naveen Andrews (tv's "Lost") as a bio-chemical engineer, and Jeff Fahey as the BBQ owner. Hell, even Robert Rodriguez's son is in the movie, who ends up with a hilarious fate (if you ask me). Again, no faults I could find.
ACTING: Since "Planet Terror" was meant to be a made as a b-movie, the actors give it that kind of a feel, yet they all did great! McGowan should not be on television - she's too damn attractive and charming to be kept on the small screen. Freddy Rodriguez's Wray is a BAMF to the 'nth degree and he plays it was a shit-ton of charisma. Shelton and Brolin are an engaging couple - she seriously seems like she's frightened of him, and he's a scary mofo. Then all of the other characters do very good jobs with their small screen time.
DIRECTING: Rodriguez was a fave of mine before this movie with his works like "Once Upon a Time in Mexico", "From Dusk 'til Dawn", "The Faculty", and most notably "Sin City" (can't wait for "Sin City 2"!), and after this, he's unquestionably in my Top 5 favorite directors. The guy is a freakin' genius and his movies are some of the most fun I ever see. He has a knack for getting awesome performances from his acctors, not matter who they are, and his films look fantastic - same holds true here. And I got a huge kick out of the film looking "worn" and the "missing" sex scene between Wray and Cherry. (That had better be on the DVD!)
RATING REASON: "Grindhouse" as a whole is Rated R, so that means if "Planet" were a stand-alone film, it would be R, too. The reason being for strong graphic bloody violence, pervasive language, and some sexuality - this means zombies being shot, stabbed, and having their heads cut off by a helicopter; f-bombs being dropped, as well as sh*t (the word); and the beginnings of a sex scene with McGowan and Rodriguez.
THE FINAL WORD: Awesome, entertaining, cheesy as all hell, and a fun movie-going experience. As a stand-along film, "Planet Terror" is FOUR STARS out of four.
"DEATH PROOF"
STARRING:
Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike
Rosario Dawson as Abernathy
Tracie Thoms as Kim
Zoe Bell as Herself
Sydney Tamilia Poitier as Jungle Julia
PLOT: Stuntman Mike (Russell) is an old Hollywood stunt double who likes to go to bars and regale women with his stories of past stunts. Stuntman Mike also happens to be a homicidal psychopath who uses his reinforced, "Death Proof" stunt car to kill the same women talks to at bars. After coming across Jungle Julia and her pals one night in Austin, Texas, Mike moves on to Tennessee where he stalks three friends working on a movie shoot. What Mike doesn't know is that two of the friends are also professional stuntwomen and don't take too kindly to Mike's murderous antics. A riveting car chase ensues!
REVIEW: Where "Planet Terror" was an all-out action fest, "Death Proof" is almost the complete opposite. "Proof" is vintage Tarantino in so many ways: lots and lots of vulgar yet funny and insightful dialogue by the characters, unique and engaging characters, great shots (a number of them of girls' feet), and memorable action sequences. "Death Proof" can probably be divided into four quarters of varying time and it goes like this:
1st Quarter: Jungle Julia and pals talking about getting high and having sex and meeting Stuntman Mike.
2nd Quarter: Stuntman Mike killing a childhood friend of Julia's (Rose McGowan) with his car, then Julia and Co. in a spectacular head-on collision that gets replayed three times in slow-motion.
3rd Quarter: We meet Abernathy (Dawson), Kim (Thoms), Lee (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and Zoe Bell (Bell) as they take a break from shooting a movie. Lots of talking ensues, we see Stuntman Mike stalking them.
4th Quarter: The girls get their hands on a 1970 Dodge Challenger, like the one from the movie "Vanishing Point", Mike chases them and scares the hell out of them, then girls get their revenge.
It's that simple, except that within all of that I didn't mention that when Abernathy and Co. get their hands on the Challenger, they play a game called "Ship's Mast" - where Zoe gets on the hood of the car while Kim drives it. During this game is when Mike shows up and a heart-pounding action scene takes place without any CG. Unforgettable. Sadly, it came a little too late in the movie because you literally sit there for about an hour before the real action sequence takes place.
ACTING: "Death Proof" is almost an exercise in seeing how long the actors/actresses can keep the audience engaged with their looks and how they deliver the dialogue. And for the most part, everybody does a great job in doing so. Poitier is a future star, McGowan shows up and steals a little bit of the screen with her banter with Russell, Rosario Dawson is funny and good-looking, and so on and so forth. What I really want to point out is how good of a job Zoe Bell does. Yes, I know she's playing herself for the most part, but she was hilarious and what she had to do on the hood of that Challenger was beyond comprehension. Mad props. Oh yeah, and Stuntman Mike was the shit - mainly because Kurt Russell is the man.
DIRECTING: "Death Proof" is notable in that it's the first movie of QT's that he was also the director of cinematography and he did very well with it. Considering the car chase sequence had no CG whatsoever, it was even more amazing. At no point during the chase do you feel quesy or taken out of anything, and that's incredible to me. Definitely one of the best car chase scenes I've ever seen.
RATING REASON: "Death Proof" would be rated R if it were a stand-alone film, because of strong graphic bloody violence and gore, pervasive language, some sexuality, and drug use. This means: Stuntman Mike's kilings were brutal as hell and QT shows you what happens when a tire runs over somebodies face as well as the aftermath of a head-on crash; the girls swear like sailors, there's mention of sexual acts, and Jungle Julia and Co. smoke some weed.
THE FINAL WORD: "Death Proof" is a solid movie, but at times it gets sluggish with too much talk. It's also much slower than "Planet Terror", and seeing as that it comes after such an action packed movie, "Proof" will probably lose some of the audience with its pacing and the style of movie that it is. I liked it however and give it THREE STARS out of four.
THE FINAL WORD ON "GRINDHOUSE": I loved "Grindhouse". As soon as I heard that Rodriguez and Tarantino (two of my favorite directors) were doing this I couldn't wait. The only qualm I have about "Grindhouse" is that "Death Proof" should've been shown before "Planet Terror". That way the audience could've been eased into the style of the movies and then it could've gone out with a BANG! Instead, it almost peaks too soon and then kind of wimpers out towards the end. Overall though, the experience was a different one and definitely one that needs to be seen in theatres, especially with the faux trailers for the movies "Werewolf Women of the S.S." by Rob Zombie ("The Devi's Rejects"), "Don't" by Edgar Wright ("Shaun of the Dead"), "Machete" by Rodriguez, and my favorite, "Thanksgiving" by Eli Roth. If you are a movie fan and have three hours to kill, go see "Grindhouse", which I'll give FOUR STARS.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
MEET THE ROBINSONS (2007) - Directed by Stephen J. Anderson
PLOT: Twelve-year old orphan Lewis is a brilliant inventor who has no luck when it comes to his projects, let alone getting adopted. In comes Wilbur Robinson, a self-proclaimed kid from the future, who has a warning for Lewis about an invention. Wilbur ends up taking Lewis back to the future (no pun intended), which apparently is a big time-traveling no-no, and hijinks ensue as we and Lewis..."Meet The Robinsons".
REVIEW: Yes, this is a Disney movie geared towards the kiddies and people who think the commercial with the T. Rex and his small arms are funny. And yes, this movie is predictable. But you know what? It was enjoyable, had very good computer-animation, very good voice actors, and I had a fun time watching it. I will admit that there were plenty of times where the rest of the audience was laughing at the action on the screen and I wasn't, and vice versa, but that just means that there's something in this movie for everybody. Right?
Like I said, "Meet The Robinsons" is a computer-animated movie by Disney, but it's not a Pixar movie. Despite that fact, it was a very colorful and entrancing movie as far as the visuals went. I liked the writer's ideas of the future (people commune via bubbles, robots like C-3PO are wise-cracking servants, and buildings are erected in three seconds flat) as well as the wacky family that Wilbur Robinson had. Kids liked the movie as far as I could tell, and plenty of college-age students were in attendance, too. I think the strongest thing about this movie was the fact that it stayed away from the usual social references like in the "Shrek" movies and stayed within its own story.
Other pros, and a few cons, about this movie include the villian - "Bowler Hat Guy". I liked this dude. He was stupid and funny, yet not too stupid-funny, if that makes any sense. Basically he made me laugh the most. I also liked how the writers made sure that the whole time-space continuum plot didn't get confusing. Well done! On the flip side, the movie was predictable in my mind (saw the plot's main twist about fifteen minutes into the movie), and I also didn't believe that just making Lewis wear a hat as a disguise would keep some of the main players from figuring things out. But that's just me.
Overall, "Robinsons" was a cute, funny Disney movie (especially with a reference to real-life actor Tom Selleck) that sadly will almost be completely forgotten by me by the time Disney's next animated movie, "Ratatouille", comes out. But with that said, it got the job done and I enjoyed watching it.
ACTING: Since this WAS a CG-animated movie, there isn't much to say as far as actual "acting" goes. Makes this review easier though! The voice acting was good. I was thrown by the fact that there were two kids who voiced Lewis (Daniel Hansen and Jordan Fry) but they both did well. I guess. I liked that television's first Batman, Adam West, was the voice of one of the Robinson clan as a pizza delivering uncle, as well as the fact that Tom Selleck actual voices a key character (can't say who, cuz that would ruin something). Oh yeah, and the director did a number of the voices too, including Bowler Hat Guy.
DIRECTING: Um...I really don't know how to critique an animated movie's director, so I'll just give him props based on the fact that it was a sharp looking movie. I'd especially like to see this movie in the way it was meant to be seen - Disney 3D. That's right! It's a 3D movie! But I saw it on a regular screen with a regular projector, so boo that. But good job Mr. Anderson!
RATING REASON: Rated G. Why? Cuz it's a freakin' Disney animated movie, that's why. There's nothing here to garner anything even close to making sure kids as old as 3 don't see it.
THE FINAL WORD: If you enjoy Disney movies then you'll probably like this one. It's not my favorite CG movie of all-time, but I did enjoy it and I laughed/smiled at numerous things. Again, predictable, but that's not a real bad thing. As far as kiddie movies go, I'd give this one THREE STARS (out of four).
TRIVIA:
-- The music for "Robinsons" was done by Tim Burton fave Danny Elfman.
-- One of the characters, Frankie the Frog, is a tribute to Frank Sinatra. Go figure.
-- SPOILER ALERT: Tom Selleck makes a voice cameo as an adult Lewis.
REVIEW: Yes, this is a Disney movie geared towards the kiddies and people who think the commercial with the T. Rex and his small arms are funny. And yes, this movie is predictable. But you know what? It was enjoyable, had very good computer-animation, very good voice actors, and I had a fun time watching it. I will admit that there were plenty of times where the rest of the audience was laughing at the action on the screen and I wasn't, and vice versa, but that just means that there's something in this movie for everybody. Right?
Like I said, "Meet The Robinsons" is a computer-animated movie by Disney, but it's not a Pixar movie. Despite that fact, it was a very colorful and entrancing movie as far as the visuals went. I liked the writer's ideas of the future (people commune via bubbles, robots like C-3PO are wise-cracking servants, and buildings are erected in three seconds flat) as well as the wacky family that Wilbur Robinson had. Kids liked the movie as far as I could tell, and plenty of college-age students were in attendance, too. I think the strongest thing about this movie was the fact that it stayed away from the usual social references like in the "Shrek" movies and stayed within its own story.
Other pros, and a few cons, about this movie include the villian - "Bowler Hat Guy". I liked this dude. He was stupid and funny, yet not too stupid-funny, if that makes any sense. Basically he made me laugh the most. I also liked how the writers made sure that the whole time-space continuum plot didn't get confusing. Well done! On the flip side, the movie was predictable in my mind (saw the plot's main twist about fifteen minutes into the movie), and I also didn't believe that just making Lewis wear a hat as a disguise would keep some of the main players from figuring things out. But that's just me.
Overall, "Robinsons" was a cute, funny Disney movie (especially with a reference to real-life actor Tom Selleck) that sadly will almost be completely forgotten by me by the time Disney's next animated movie, "Ratatouille", comes out. But with that said, it got the job done and I enjoyed watching it.
ACTING: Since this WAS a CG-animated movie, there isn't much to say as far as actual "acting" goes. Makes this review easier though! The voice acting was good. I was thrown by the fact that there were two kids who voiced Lewis (Daniel Hansen and Jordan Fry) but they both did well. I guess. I liked that television's first Batman, Adam West, was the voice of one of the Robinson clan as a pizza delivering uncle, as well as the fact that Tom Selleck actual voices a key character (can't say who, cuz that would ruin something). Oh yeah, and the director did a number of the voices too, including Bowler Hat Guy.
DIRECTING: Um...I really don't know how to critique an animated movie's director, so I'll just give him props based on the fact that it was a sharp looking movie. I'd especially like to see this movie in the way it was meant to be seen - Disney 3D. That's right! It's a 3D movie! But I saw it on a regular screen with a regular projector, so boo that. But good job Mr. Anderson!
RATING REASON: Rated G. Why? Cuz it's a freakin' Disney animated movie, that's why. There's nothing here to garner anything even close to making sure kids as old as 3 don't see it.
THE FINAL WORD: If you enjoy Disney movies then you'll probably like this one. It's not my favorite CG movie of all-time, but I did enjoy it and I laughed/smiled at numerous things. Again, predictable, but that's not a real bad thing. As far as kiddie movies go, I'd give this one THREE STARS (out of four).
TRIVIA:
-- The music for "Robinsons" was done by Tim Burton fave Danny Elfman.
-- One of the characters, Frankie the Frog, is a tribute to Frank Sinatra. Go figure.
-- SPOILER ALERT: Tom Selleck makes a voice cameo as an adult Lewis.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
REIGN OVER ME (2007) - Directed by Mike Binder
STARRING:
Adam Sandler - Charlie Fineman
Don Cheadle - Alan Johnson
Jada Pinkett Smith - Janeane Johnson
PLOT: Alan Johnson (Cheadle) is a successful dentist in New York City who seems to be in a rut as far as his life at home is with his beautiful wife (Pinkett Smith) and their two daughters - that is until he comes across his old dentist school roommate Charlie (Sandler), whose own wife and three daughters were killed aboard one of the two planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. With Charlie's life relegated to playing video games and riding on his moped all night, Alan becomes infatuated with his old pal's "freedom" while also becoming increasingly involved in trying to help Charlie finally cope with his losses...before he loses something himself.
REVIEW: When I saw the trailer for this movie a couple of months ago I said to myself, "That looks like it'll be good." And guess what? It was. "Reign Over Me" is the second best movie of 2007, behind Zack Snyder's "300", but for very different reasons. Where "300" was pretty much all action and very little character development, "Reign" is completely character development and that's why I liked it. I cared about Alan and Charlie and their friendship, old and new. The main reason for this is because Cheadle and Sandler absolutely owned this movie. Cheadle (who I like from the "Ocean's 11/12" movies) and Sandler (who I love from all his movies) do an incredible job of making these characters their own, making it seems like the banter between the two was honest and sincere, and making it harder to watch when their friendship was strained at different points in the movie.
On the good side of this movie was the acting and the character development, as I've mentioned. It was very realistic to watch all of the actors and how they related with one another. Another part I loved was the subplot where Alan has a particularly "friendly" patient who only wishes to perform sexual favors on him. Sandler and Cheadle are able to get a lot of laughs out of this subplot, which made for some good lightness in a movie that for all intents and purposes is pretty heavy.
On the downside of "Reign" was the total time of the movie and how it looked occasionally. There were a few scenes that could have either been cut completely or snipped down to make the movie shorter (in particular, some scenes where Charlie is seeing a psychiatrist). Also, the whole movie was shot on digital camera, and at times the screen looked grainy and it threw me out of the movie. It was almost as if I was watching a documentary sometimes.
ACTING: Don Cheadle (Alan) does a very good job of making himself the "Everyman". He pulled the part of exasperated, mid-life crisis sufferer off and we were able to laugh at his situations when the time came for us to laugh and we cringed when something went wrong. He also has very expressive eyes. It's Adam Sandler (Charlie) that steals the show, however. Sandler played the part of a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder sufferer to a T. Sandler used his repetoire of crazy guy and everyman with complete ease and that was needed for a character like this. I felt sorry for the guy throughout the whole movie. Basically, I think Sandler should get nominated for an Oscar for this role. Pinkett Smith does a fine job of playing the stressed out wife; Liv Tyler does an okay job playing a psychiatrist; and the great Donald Sutherland was awesome as a hard-ass judge.
DIRECTING: Binder ("The Upside of Anger"), who also played Charlie's accountant, does a great job of making us feel for the characters in his movie. The most important thing in a movie or television show to me is whether or not I care about the characters, and he made me care about his. Binder probably got the most out of Sandler and Cheadle that he could, so props to him. The look of the movie was good for the most part (nice shots of NYC) but as I said earlier, I was thrown off by the movie obviously being shot on digital camera sometimes.
RATING REASON: "Reign Over Me" is rated R for language and some sexual situations. Language means f*ck, sh*t, p*ssy, and even f*gg*t. Sexual situations means joking around about and discussing oral sex.
THE FINAL WORD: Overall, I really liked "Reign Over Me", mainly because of Cheadle and Sandler. I could totally see the two of them as buddies in real life. The acting was top notch, the musical choices were excellent (Charlier loves him some vinyl records), and Binder did a fantastic job of making his movie about 9/11 while at the same time not. If you're looking for a movie to entertain you for two straight hours, this is not that movie. It's 98% dialogue, so if you're going to see this movie, make sure you like to listen to people talk. THREE AND A HALF STARS (out of four)
TRIVIA:
--The film was shot using the Panavision Genesis camera system and edited using Apple Inc.'s Final Cut Pro software.
--Brad Pitt was considered for the role that ultimately went to Adam Sandler.
Adam Sandler - Charlie Fineman
Don Cheadle - Alan Johnson
Jada Pinkett Smith - Janeane Johnson
PLOT: Alan Johnson (Cheadle) is a successful dentist in New York City who seems to be in a rut as far as his life at home is with his beautiful wife (Pinkett Smith) and their two daughters - that is until he comes across his old dentist school roommate Charlie (Sandler), whose own wife and three daughters were killed aboard one of the two planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. With Charlie's life relegated to playing video games and riding on his moped all night, Alan becomes infatuated with his old pal's "freedom" while also becoming increasingly involved in trying to help Charlie finally cope with his losses...before he loses something himself.
REVIEW: When I saw the trailer for this movie a couple of months ago I said to myself, "That looks like it'll be good." And guess what? It was. "Reign Over Me" is the second best movie of 2007, behind Zack Snyder's "300", but for very different reasons. Where "300" was pretty much all action and very little character development, "Reign" is completely character development and that's why I liked it. I cared about Alan and Charlie and their friendship, old and new. The main reason for this is because Cheadle and Sandler absolutely owned this movie. Cheadle (who I like from the "Ocean's 11/12" movies) and Sandler (who I love from all his movies) do an incredible job of making these characters their own, making it seems like the banter between the two was honest and sincere, and making it harder to watch when their friendship was strained at different points in the movie.
On the good side of this movie was the acting and the character development, as I've mentioned. It was very realistic to watch all of the actors and how they related with one another. Another part I loved was the subplot where Alan has a particularly "friendly" patient who only wishes to perform sexual favors on him. Sandler and Cheadle are able to get a lot of laughs out of this subplot, which made for some good lightness in a movie that for all intents and purposes is pretty heavy.
On the downside of "Reign" was the total time of the movie and how it looked occasionally. There were a few scenes that could have either been cut completely or snipped down to make the movie shorter (in particular, some scenes where Charlie is seeing a psychiatrist). Also, the whole movie was shot on digital camera, and at times the screen looked grainy and it threw me out of the movie. It was almost as if I was watching a documentary sometimes.
ACTING: Don Cheadle (Alan) does a very good job of making himself the "Everyman". He pulled the part of exasperated, mid-life crisis sufferer off and we were able to laugh at his situations when the time came for us to laugh and we cringed when something went wrong. He also has very expressive eyes. It's Adam Sandler (Charlie) that steals the show, however. Sandler played the part of a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder sufferer to a T. Sandler used his repetoire of crazy guy and everyman with complete ease and that was needed for a character like this. I felt sorry for the guy throughout the whole movie. Basically, I think Sandler should get nominated for an Oscar for this role. Pinkett Smith does a fine job of playing the stressed out wife; Liv Tyler does an okay job playing a psychiatrist; and the great Donald Sutherland was awesome as a hard-ass judge.
DIRECTING: Binder ("The Upside of Anger"), who also played Charlie's accountant, does a great job of making us feel for the characters in his movie. The most important thing in a movie or television show to me is whether or not I care about the characters, and he made me care about his. Binder probably got the most out of Sandler and Cheadle that he could, so props to him. The look of the movie was good for the most part (nice shots of NYC) but as I said earlier, I was thrown off by the movie obviously being shot on digital camera sometimes.
RATING REASON: "Reign Over Me" is rated R for language and some sexual situations. Language means f*ck, sh*t, p*ssy, and even f*gg*t. Sexual situations means joking around about and discussing oral sex.
THE FINAL WORD: Overall, I really liked "Reign Over Me", mainly because of Cheadle and Sandler. I could totally see the two of them as buddies in real life. The acting was top notch, the musical choices were excellent (Charlier loves him some vinyl records), and Binder did a fantastic job of making his movie about 9/11 while at the same time not. If you're looking for a movie to entertain you for two straight hours, this is not that movie. It's 98% dialogue, so if you're going to see this movie, make sure you like to listen to people talk. THREE AND A HALF STARS (out of four)
TRIVIA:
--The film was shot using the Panavision Genesis camera system and edited using Apple Inc.'s Final Cut Pro software.
--Brad Pitt was considered for the role that ultimately went to Adam Sandler.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
A New Beginning
Okay, so it's been a while since I've had a blog that wasn't the occasional rant on MySpace, so this is a little weird for me. Put let me get to the point - this is a new blog by me, Andrew Keck a.k.a. Cocky Keck, as a sort of movie review blog. It's definitely similar to one that I had my freshman year of college but this time I'll include movies that are old, new in theatres or just came out on DVD. The purpose of these reviews are so that you, my friends, can easily access my thoughts on particular movies that I have seen.
I know that most of my friends hold me in high regards as far as my thoughts on movies. I'll admit, I do a significant amount of research in looking up multiple reviews on movies I would like to see or have heard very good things about, so that I already have a good idea as to whether or not a movie should be good. As I have stated previously, the point of THIS blog is for you to check out what I think, and do with it what you will.
I'm not going to claim that I'm original with this blog. I'm not going to claim that I came up with the particular layout that I'm going to use to review the movies. In fact, I'll attribute the layout right now to ArrowInThe Head.com, my favorite horror movie review website. And with that said, here is how the layout of my reviews will be:
PLOT
This will be a short blurb that basically sums up the idea of the movie.
REVIEW
This will be the main review of the movie as a whole - the plot, the look, the feel, the characters, how I felt, etc. This will be the longest part of the review.
ACTING
This section will be my take on how the actors/actresses did in the movie, like how I may have thought Mark Walhberg did in "The Departed" or how Gerard Butler did in "300".
DIRECTING
This section will obviously be for how I felt the director did with the movie - how it looked from a cinematography sort of stand and how he/she did in getting the most from their actors/actresses.
RATING REASON
This section will be reserved for discussing why a particular movie was rated a particular reason by the MPAA. More or less, I'll tell you how much sex, nudity, violence and language there was in the movie in this section. Hell in all honesty this may be the key indicator in whether or not you see the movie at all!
THE FINAL WORD
Like the section's name says, this will be my final thoughts on the movie. This will include my rating of the movie based on a four star rating system. 'Nuff said.
TRIVIA
The last section will contain a couple of little tidbits on the movie that I've found either through magazines or on the internet that I find interesting.
So there it is! That's how the reviews will go down, and I'll probably start my new reviews this weekend when I plan on seeing "TMNT" and "The Hills Have Eyes 2". Or I'll start by randomly putting some up on movies I recently saw like "300" and "Dead Silence". I hope you enjoy. And if I haven't posted anything in a while and you're getting annoyed, let me know at www.myspace.com/cockykeck or here. Also, so you know, I own a Mac Powerbook which means that my web browser is a little different and I can't italicize or underline words, which is why all movie titles will be in quotation marks. Peace.
I know that most of my friends hold me in high regards as far as my thoughts on movies. I'll admit, I do a significant amount of research in looking up multiple reviews on movies I would like to see or have heard very good things about, so that I already have a good idea as to whether or not a movie should be good. As I have stated previously, the point of THIS blog is for you to check out what I think, and do with it what you will.
I'm not going to claim that I'm original with this blog. I'm not going to claim that I came up with the particular layout that I'm going to use to review the movies. In fact, I'll attribute the layout right now to ArrowInThe Head.com, my favorite horror movie review website. And with that said, here is how the layout of my reviews will be:
PLOT
This will be a short blurb that basically sums up the idea of the movie.
REVIEW
This will be the main review of the movie as a whole - the plot, the look, the feel, the characters, how I felt, etc. This will be the longest part of the review.
ACTING
This section will be my take on how the actors/actresses did in the movie, like how I may have thought Mark Walhberg did in "The Departed" or how Gerard Butler did in "300".
DIRECTING
This section will obviously be for how I felt the director did with the movie - how it looked from a cinematography sort of stand and how he/she did in getting the most from their actors/actresses.
RATING REASON
This section will be reserved for discussing why a particular movie was rated a particular reason by the MPAA. More or less, I'll tell you how much sex, nudity, violence and language there was in the movie in this section. Hell in all honesty this may be the key indicator in whether or not you see the movie at all!
THE FINAL WORD
Like the section's name says, this will be my final thoughts on the movie. This will include my rating of the movie based on a four star rating system. 'Nuff said.
TRIVIA
The last section will contain a couple of little tidbits on the movie that I've found either through magazines or on the internet that I find interesting.
So there it is! That's how the reviews will go down, and I'll probably start my new reviews this weekend when I plan on seeing "TMNT" and "The Hills Have Eyes 2". Or I'll start by randomly putting some up on movies I recently saw like "300" and "Dead Silence". I hope you enjoy. And if I haven't posted anything in a while and you're getting annoyed, let me know at www.myspace.com/cockykeck or here. Also, so you know, I own a Mac Powerbook which means that my web browser is a little different and I can't italicize or underline words, which is why all movie titles will be in quotation marks. Peace.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
