For What It's Worth

Duplicity

2009-03-24T12:58:00.008-04:00

After the fourth plot twist in Duplicity, my head was spinning, but I kinda liked it. From writer/director Tony Gilroy of Michael Clayton fame, Duplicity is a big, classic, movie star movie. And it has a nice political/spy twist to boot.

I guess I've never really thought Julia Roberts was a great actress so much as she is a great movie star. That's not to say that she didn't deserve her Oscar (although that's highly debatable, given her competition that year). But she's got her appeal, and she handily carries this film along with Clive Owen, another actor who continues to climb on my ladder o' respectability. The two previously worked together in Closer, but Duplicity allows them to shine for exactly what they are: pretty movie stars that know how to get the job done and have a good time doing it. Luckily, all that fun shines through and translates to the audience.

It's a different kind of film compared to those of late. It's not cynically funny, it's not full of pop culture references, and it certainly does not have a simple plot. Duplicity is intelligent, fast-paced, humorous, and rather pleasant. Like a warm blanket on a rainy day. Roberts is Claire Stenwick, and ex-CIA agent who works for Burkett and Randle, but she is really a corporate spy for B&R's rival company Equikrom. Meanwhile, Ray Koval (Owen) is an ex-MI6 agent who also works for Equikrom. Or does he? He and Claire become involved, things get complicated, plot twists abound. And that's about all I'm willing to reveal. No spoilers here.

The film also features excellent and hilarious turns from Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson as the CEO's of the two firms. As corporate competitors, the two constantly try to one-up each other, playing with millions of dollars and skirting their ethics in the process. Theirs is the subplot that reveals more about the message of the film than the main plot is able to do. Gilroy may be going for satire here, but he may also be hinting at a bigger problem with capitalism and the corporate world in general (that's Hollywood for you!).

Either way, Roberts and Owen steal the show, and you'll be glad you could visit with them. Duplicity is a good ride, despite the growing convolution. It all makes sense in the end, though. So if you're scratching your head after the one hour mark, just look at Julia's mouth. I think it's bigger than last time I saw it, but it's still a symbol of grand old Hollywood star power. And isn't that really what this movie is all about?

VERDICT:
I can't tell you not to see this movie. Really, I enjoyed it quite a bit. If you're a fan of the political thriller (with a taste of humor), the excitement of plot twisty movies, or just the magnetism of Julia Roberts and Clive Owen, I recommend seeing Duplicity. It's a fun time, and it's a hell of a relief to see a movie that's not caught up in its own irony for once. 8/10

Watchmen

2009-03-23T14:28:00.004-04:00

More and more, I am of the opinion that viral marketing = bad movie. As you know, Watchmen has been touted since last summer as "the next great graphic novel adaptation." And when I say touted, I mean advertised out the wazoo for weeks upon months.

Unfortunately, the hype was a little much, and if people are looking for 300-level excitement, this movie will sorely disappoint. Not only was the film weaker than weak, it was at times downright difficult to watch. The film (and graphic novel) certainly has a philosophy to espouse, but it takes - get ready - two hours and forty minutes to make its point. And when the movie finally does come in for a landing, you are not breathless, shocked, curious, [insert any synonym of "awed" here]. In fact, you're probably asleep by the end of the film. Because when its violence isn't making you squirm in your seat and cover your face, its tedium and verbosity are making you yawn and check your watch.

The Watchmen are a group of superheroes who are really more like vigilantes. They have no superpowers, depending instead on their BAMFish qualities to take down the bad guys. They exist in a - brace yourself - dystopian alternate America in 1985. Nixon is still President (neat?), cars can fly (k?), and crime is rampant (surprise!). One of them, The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) is murdered, and the film's premise follows Rohrschach (Jackie Earle Haley) as he attempts to solve the murder. Rohrschach believes someone is out to kill all the existing Watchmen, who have been banned from fighting crime. No one knows the real identities of the former crime fighters, for they were always masked. The mystery is: How did someone discover The Comedian's true identity? Is his murder related at all to his Watchman status? What the hell is going on?

Anyway, we also meet Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman), Ozymandias (Matthew Goode), Nite Owl II (Patrick Wilson), and Dr. Manhattan('s penis) (Billy Crudup)('s CGI-enhanced penis). Dr. Manhattan, the only Watchman with real superpowers, survived a freak accident that left him indestructable, blue, emotionless, shapeshifting, time-stopping, everything else awesome, and naked. He is, in fact, nude for almost the entire film, which I didn't mind so much, except that I don't know how the film's target market (young men) felt when they saw an enormous blue penis swinging around for the duration. It's ever-present, almost surreal, never sexual, and always comical. Trust me, by the end, you'll be laughing everytime Dr. Manhattan('s penis) appears on screen.

Now for the violence. Watchmen contains more than its share of graphic, graphic violence. Unnecessarily gross, exaggerated, and gory. Wanna see a person explode? This movie's for you. How about a man getting his arms cut off with a table saw? Buy a ticket. Subtle, this movie is not. Heavy on the blood, this movie totally is. I'll give the filmmakers one thing: they embrace the gore factor wholeheartedly.

The characters run the emotional gamut from A to B. Dr. Manhattan('s penis) has no human qualities anymore, other than his physical form. The Comedian, at one point, carelessly murders his pregnant girlfriend because she needs his help with the baby. Rohrschach speaks with a Batman growl that betrays no character. Basically, the film rests on Silk Spectre II and Nite Owl II, who try hard (and engage in a ridiculously lengthy and graphic sex scene that could easily fit into a pornographic film), but never really lift this baby off the ground.

I don't know who would really enjoy this film. Action mongers will be left needing a little more. Those looking for a human story will be highly disappointed. Young male audiences will be uncomfortable and forced to make fun of Dr. Manhattan('s penis) with their buddies to stave off the insecurity. Who's left? Only those that have been duped by this film's deceptive marketing. Judging by the opening weekend numbers, I'd say the marketing department pretty much saved this film from flopping on the deck like a dying fish. And like that fish, you'll be gasping for air by the time nearly three hours of your life have passed you by.

VERDICT:
There's really not much left to say. Overall, Watchmen fails on every level. Its philosophy is tired, its plot is sluggish and excessive, its characters are perhaps too flawed. In the end, you'll probably want your money back. I know I did. I strongly recommend using your time more productively. The film: 5/10. Dr. Manhattan's penis: I'm guessing 9" or 10".

Weekend in Review: February 27 - March 1, 2009

2009-03-01T22:19:00.007-05:00

Looks like a plethora of horrible, horrible films were released this week. The two (count 'em, two) major releases were both flops with critics AND audiences. The others were just trifles not even worth mentioning.

Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience was the highest debut, but it only managed to squeeze out a paltry $12.7 million. That's saying a lot, considering the fact that Tyler Perry's Madea Goes to Jail, which also flopped with critics, is still #1 in its second week. Sorry Jonas Brothers. I guess there aren't enough tweens in the world to save your event movie. (I can only hope this means the Jonas Brothers are losing relevance.)

Speaking of lost relevance, the other major release (did I say "major"?) was Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li. Yeah. I'm guessing you didn't even know this was a movie. The title itself seems to date the film in the mid-nineties, so the fact that it is a 2009 release completely baffles me. Why not make a film version of a more modern, more popular video game instead? Chun-Li couldn't even eke out $5 million, and it's EXTREMELY difficult to receive a 00% on Rotten Tomatoes. Starring Kristin Kreuk of Smallville and Neutrogena fame, I'm pretty sure this one died before the cameras started rolling.

Coming Soon:
An overview of the upcoming releases for this week. Anyone anxious to see if all that viral Watchmen marketing will pay off? We're about to find out.

If You Learn Anything From the Oscars...

2009-02-23T22:14:00.009-05:00

...it's that you should see at least a few of the movies that won acclaim last night. Here's the rundown of movies worth paying for.

1) Slumdog Millionaire. It won 8 awards last night, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, etc. etc. It's also currently at 94% on RottenTomatoes. Plus, I believe it has grossed over $100 million worldwide at this point. That, folks, makes it a blockbuster. And for good reason. See it.

2) Milk. If Hollywood loves anything, it's a good political message film. But Milk is more than that. It's a portrait of a hero - not a hero who wears a rubber suit and fights a made-up, bank robbing villain - but a hero who starts from nothing and turns a cause into a crusade. Winning statues for Best Actor (Sean Penn) and Best Original Screenplay, this is the year's second most inspirational film (see: above).

3) The Dark Knight. Speaking of rubber suits and villains, if you are one of the, oh, dozen or so people on this planet who has NOT seen The Dark Knight, I'd say you should probably hit the video store pretty soon. As a testament to its brilliance, the film has become the second-hi ghest grossing film in history, recently passing the $1 billion mark but still a distant second to Titanic. Still, I've long held the belief that this movie is just short of perfection in filmmaking. So seriously, if you haven't seen it, I must ask...why the hell not?

Considering the fact that Slumdog Millionaire won one-third (8/24) of the possible Oscar categories last night, I'd say that it's THE film to see if you haven't already...or hell, even if you have seen it, see it again. But the other major films that won, which may or may not be worth your time, are listed below.

The Reader (Best Actress - Kate Winslet; so glad she finally won, for she is her generation's finest actress) A lot has already been made of this being 2008's requisite Holocaust film, and it is indeed quite heavy. I would recommend it only for Winslet's performance, which is by all accounts magnificent.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (Best Supporting Actress - Penélope Cruz) I'm afraid I have no opinion here. I still haven't seen this film. Woody Allen's films became chores to watch long ago, with the exception of Match Point. I'm sure Cruz did a fine job, though, and from what I hear, the film itself is fairly enjoyable. Perhaps I'll check it out soon.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Best Art Direction, Best Makeup, Best Visual Effects) 2008's bridesmaid nominee only won 3 of its 13 nominations. My guess is that it's much too similar to Forrest Gump and because "Slumdog Fever" took over late in the game. Still, it's quite an achievement all around. *Warning: This film will take up 3 hours of your life.*

WALL·E (Best Animated Feature) Another charming Pixar film (see my detailed review). If you haven't seen the magic, get to it fast.

So that's it. It's been quite some time since I've posted up here, and I promise I'm getting back to it. It's been a busy 8 months, but I'm revved up again!

WALL·E

2008-07-18T14:33:00.004-04:00

While watching WALL·E, I realized that the robots were more human than the humans. This is definitely a message movie, brought to you by none other than your friendly Pixar studio. Taking place somewhere around 800 years in the future, the film presents us with an Earth so polluted, so dried out, so carelessly left behind, that the Sun's rays struggle through the satellites and the yellow haze that encircle the globe. Skyscrapers of garbage rise side-by-side with city skyscrapers. It is a desolate, depressing sight. Not a human can be found. But before we humans skidaddled, we were thoughtful enough to leave machines to clean up our mess. And that is when we meet WALL·E, a Waste Allocation Load Lifter - Earth-class.

WALL·E's job is to scrape up heaps of garbage, compress them into large cubes, and then dispose of them in the neatest and cleanest way possible. In this case, he builds the aformentioned garbage skyscrapers. Every day, he dutifully cleans up the desolate area, usually bringing along his cockroach friend to keep him company. He carries a lunch box, not for food, but to collect items that he finds interesting (I particularly appreciated when he found a diamond ring in its case, disposed of the ring, and kept the velvet case instead). When he is done for the day, he returns to his "home," which is some sort of garbage truck. His nightly regimen includes studying his collected items and watching old musicals, listening to their love songs and studying their human behavior. All the while, you get the feeling that he is hopelessly and sadly alone.

But machines don't have emotions...right? Well, if not, WALL·E certainly gives the impression that he does. He is so easily relatable, and even if he completely lacks emotions, his solitude is palpable. Once the reconnaissance robot EVE (Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator) shows up, WALL·E seems to be genuinely joyful that he has a companion. EVE's mission is to search for life on Earth, and as she does, she and WALL·E form a bond that is manifestly and beautifully human. It's one of the sweetest, most touching screen romances that I've ever seen. And I know that sounds crazy.

The contrast comes when WALL·E and EVE return to the space station where all mankind now resides. People are brainwashed, enormously fat, and can not even walk. They travel around the ship in floating chairs, with interactive screens in front of their faces at all times, while advertisements from Buy N Large, the corporation responsible for both Earth's pollution and bringing humans into space, are fed through speakers. Yes, like I said, Pixar is making a statement about capitalism.

But beyond that, it's an adventure movie with a heart and a soul. I challenge anyone to keep a dry eye when WALL·E nurses an unresponsive EVE. Or when EVE thinks she has lost WALL·E forever. It's amazing that we can so easily grow to care for these two characters, who have no real faces or human voices. The comedy of the movie usually comes at the expense of the humans, who you shouldn't give up on too quickly. Though the messages of the film are cautionary, the film also allows a chance for redemption. Also of note: the space ship's main robot character is remarkably similar to HAL 9000 of 2001: A Space Odyssey. (Listen closely for that films theme music.) Disney/Pixar is warning us, indeed.

VERDICT:
WALL·E is a fascinating and touching movie, with very little dialogue, that portrays the most basic human emotions: love, loneliness, fear, happiness, and sadness. I'll be honest with you - I jerked a tear or two in some of the film's more emotional scenes. WALL·E is a Disney character for the ages - a true hero who chases love and ultimately helps out the human race. Disney/Pixar provides yet another example of why their films always appear to be superior: because these characters, no matter how mechanical, are able to speak to the audience's hearts and minds...a feat that too many filmmakers have replaced with hollow action and cheap sentimentality.

So should you spend your money? I would say that, with this movie, you can't go wrong. 9/10

Hancock

2008-07-03T22:40:00.007-04:00

I could hear the sounds in my head: CRASH! KABOOM! BANG! WHOOOOPS! They sounded remarkably like a movie plot derailing from its tracks. Kinda like the train that drunken superhero John Hancock (Will Smith) crashes in order to save PR rep Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman). Follow this metaphor: if the train represents the plot, then Hancock himself represents the unnecessary plot twist. When Hancock steps in front of the train, it completely demolishes the locomotive and prevents it from any further smooth traveling. Not only was there so much more that the train could have seen, but the distance it had already traveled was just a happy buildup to a disaster waiting to happen.

But I'm getting ahead of myself, so let's shift it back. Hancock starts out with genuine comedic gold. That is, Will Smith portraying a curmudgeonly, inebriated superhero that leaves more damage in his wake than is necessary. When he stops three bank robbers in a high-speed car chase, he causes $9 million in damages to the city of Los Angeles. Therefore, in a unique spin on the superhero genre, he is actually an unwanted superhero, and he generally does not care about what or whom he saves.

Sample dialogue:
Jeering woman: "I can smell that liquor on your breath!"
Hancock: "'Cause I been drinkin', bitch!"

Then things take a turn. He saves idealistic PR rep Ray Embrey in the aforementioned train collision, for which Ray decides to repay Hancock by changing his public image from one of resentment to one of responsibility. When Hancock meets Ray's wife Mary (Charlize Theron), she gives him a strange, lingering look of...well, she looks like she knows something. Meanwhile, Ray decides to allow Hancock to be arrested for all his outstanding warrants in order to show the public that Hancock takes responsibility for his carelessness. Initially apprehensive, Hancock goes to jail and learns how to say "Good job" to policemen. After a few days, Ray's plan pays off when the LAPD calls on Hancock to stop a violent bank robber. He does...in a very Superman-ly kind of way. (There is even a sample of the Superman theme in this scene.) All of this setup is hunky dory, enjoyable, and even hilarious at times; although, I had a hard time forgiving the tasteless scene in which Hancock punishes a couple of cellmates who clearly don't know what he can do.

And then...it all comes crashing down. A little over halfway through, the plot twist arrives, and all that terrific buildup is rendered useless. Everything that follows it is melodramatic and cliche. Any time a movie shifts from comedy to drama at the midway point, it's a sign that something must have gone wrong somewhere in the writing...or maybe the directing. It almost seems that the second half of the movie could have also been funny, but it was acted straight. Every line, every facial expression, every lighting scheme - all shot as if the movie were a character drama. And I just don't understand why. I don't know why Hancock had to step in front of that train.

Theron can not play comedy, although her scenes with Bateman are especially good, considering the two have played a (slightly mismatched?) couple before in Arrested Development. Smith starts out as an unshaven slob, and when he cleans up he looks like...Will Smith in Independence Day. Or I Am Legend. Or I, Robot. After he loses the edge of the first half of the movie, he loses the interest of the audience. Bateman, too, goes from hilarious to sappy. But like I've already said, all these problems are brought on by the destructive revelation at the halfway point.

I suppose Hancock will open to big - maybe even huge - box office numbers. I concede that the moviegoing public's taste has degraded. I have a friend who dismissed my warnings by insisting that, "as long as we get to see Will Smith prancing around for a couple of hours and maybe a few car crashes and some pretty people on screen, it will be worth the price of admission. I don't want to think when I'm watching a movie." Okay, then. I suppose it has come down to a shallow appreciation for attractive movie stars and pointless special effects to please us. But even movies with pretty people and car crashes can be decent films - Wanted, for example. Hancock is just an exercise in frivolity - a movie that verges on insulting us with its ridiculous tone shifts and completely arbitrary explanations as to why the story backpedals for a good half hour. And the ending is so obviously a last-minute change brought on by unfavorable test audience reactions. I can just hear Joe Filmgoer saying, "Movies must end happily, dammit! This isn't real life!" Indeed, it isn't, Joe. Indeed, it is not.

VERDICT:
Hancock is not a good movie. If anything, it is merely a star vehicle for Will Smith, who is admittedly entertaining in, at least, the first half of the movie. It is a very short film - mercifully so. But it is weak - there is such promise in the setup that just is not delivered. The twist in Hancock is not the kind that delights with its unexpectedness - it is the kind that is added in an attempt to make the movie more than what it should be. Unfortunately, the sudden shift in tone snaps the film in two, and, like Hancock himself, leaves a messy trail of debris. Even a superhero couldn't save this disaster.

So should you spend your money?
Absolutely not. Don't shell out two gallons' gas worth of dough for this dreck. Don't pay for a disappointment. A very generous 4/10.

Wanted

2008-07-02T11:11:00.010-04:00

All I knew going into this movie was what the trailer showed me: relentless action, a fish out of water becoming an assassin, Angelina Jolie in yet another bad ass role, etc. It wasn't much to go on. So I was actually pleasantly surprised by the overall plot and execution of Wanted. Directed by Russian-Kazakh filmmaker Timur Bekmambetov, the movie flows quite smoothly from Acts I, II, and III and never bores the audience.

And I could easily read the audience - far from bored. At one point, a frat-tastic gentleman behind me hollered, very enthusiastically, that "Damn, she's hot!" He was referring to Angelina Jolie, of course, and this particular incident happened during her full rear nudity scene. I suppose he was amped up by all the sound effects that nearly deafened us during the course of the film. Hell, he could have been trying to whisper to his buddy for all I know. Either way, the incident and its determinants perfectly encompass the elements of the genre that have become fodder for critics and delicious morsels of escapist absurdity for many viewers.

At any rate, the film's scenario concerns downtrodden "accounts manager" Wesley Gibson (James McAvoy, for whom I am gaining more and more respect) whose life, for lack of a better word, sucks. He's oppressed by his overweight boss (funny Lorna Scott), his best friend who clearly uses Wesley to feel good about himself (Chris Pratt), and his very hard to please girlfriend (Kristen Hager). Wesley is part of the corporate machine, and he doesn't feel like he's in control of his life. Luckily for him, a badass assassin aptly named Fox (Angelina Jolie) bounces into his life and whisks him away into the world of professional violence.

Fox brings Wesley to an assassination squad called The Fraternity, overseen by Sloan (Morgan Freeman as his usual calm-but-awesome self) and directed by some sort of magical loom, which directs the assassins to their next "hits." The Fraternity has recruited Wesley because someone named Cross (Thomas Kretschmann) is killing, one by one, all of The Fraternity's members. Since Wesley's dad was one of the best assassins in the world, Sloan believes that Wesley can be trained to the impossibly high standards of his father, making him a perfect weapon to destroy Cross. Trust me, all this makes more sense when you're actually watching the movie.

The movie is definitely nothing more than a well-made summer action popcorn flick. There are interesting bits about kill methods, such as "curving a bullet," and most of those interesting bits are straight out of the fictional world of Frank Millar's Wanted graphic novels - they can't possibly be real. However, although Jolie brings nothing new to the screen (she has very few lines and has played an assassin about three times now), McAvoy creates a memorable character in Wesley. At once dorky, witty, bored, awesome, dangerous, and scary, Wesley is easily relatable. McAvoy's American accent couldn't be better. Meanwhile, when Morgan Freeman says, "Shoot this muthafucka!" the audience will roar.

I don't know about most of you, but I'm getting somewhat bored with the summer fare. There are too many comic book/graphic novel adaptations. However, like I said, this one is well-done. If you're looking for an action-packed movie with big names that will make the popcorn go down easy, you've got a lot to choose from right now. I would recommend Wanted over, at the very least, The Incredible Hulk or Get Smart. But I guess it just depends on what you're into. Big green monster versus killing machine Angelina Jolie. Take your pick. Different strokes for different folks.

I also just want to quickly mention the trailers that are shown before Wanted. Not only is there a fanboy fantasy in the newest trailer for The X-Files: I Want to Believe (I'll probably be one of maybe 20 people to see that), but there's also a red-band trailer for Step Brothers. For those of you who don't know, a red-band trailer is one which has not been "approved for all audiences" - you know that green screen before a trailer? Well, unapproved ones have a red screen, meaning they did not go through the approval process, and therefore can feature whatever content the studio damn well pleases (like the f-bomb, nudity, violence, etc.). I thought it was interesting. I don't recommend seeing this movie for the trailers, however. Some of them looked dreadful (Death Race, anyone?).

VERDICT:
Wanted features what anyone could ask for in an R-rated escapist, mindless action movie: lots of people dying in various methods, blood splattering all over the place, a naked hottie for the overcompensating males in the audience to hoot and holler at, plenty of humor, and whathaveyou. In other words, it's basically a judgment call. I can't really tell you that it's a bad choice when so many people are interested in this kind of movie and it's really the only mainstream genre out right now. But what I can tell you is that this one is pretty darn entertaining, as far as they go. And it's got one thing that a lot of actioners don't: a memorable protagonist.

So should you spend your money? I'd say do a little research before you see it, but you'll most likely enjoy it. Unless you're looking for a deep philosophical message about life or have a cynical and jaded attitude towards the genre, go for it. 7/10

The Incredible Hulk

2008-06-15T13:52:00.006-04:00

This seems to be the summer of the superhero blockbuster. Iron Man has already dazzled audiences and critics alike. Coming up are Will Smith's action comedy Hancock, Guillermo del Toro's Hellboy II: The Golden Army, and of course, the highly-anticipated Batman sequel The Dark Knight. And in between those that have already satisfied and those that are bound to satisfy, we have The Incredible Hulk - a quasi-sequel to Ang Lee's 2003 effort Hulk, but more of a retelling of the original story from the ground up than anything.

The film's opening and subsequent re-introduction of the main characters help to completely eliminate the 2003 version from memory. Within the span of a few minutes, we learn how Dr. Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) went from brilliant scientist to not-so-jolly green giant. Shortly thereafter, we learn that Banner is now in Brazil, living in the ghetto and working in a bottling plant. A superimposed text provides us with a count of "Days Without Incident." And all the while, Banner takes breathing lessons and anger management sessions to control his heart rate (presumably to prevent him from transforming into the titular monster).

Then, there is an accident in the bottling factory, which alerts General Ross (William Hurt) to Banner's location. The General recruits Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth) to head to South America with a team of military folks in order to find and capture Banner. Which they do not. Following a chase scene, we get our first glimpse of the Hulk, who quickly disposes of the bothersome tactical team and disappears. Heading north, Banner finds Betty Ross (Liv Tyler), the scientist who helped create the body-changing serum that produced his alter ego. From there, the plot speeds up. General Ross (yes, Betty's father) injects Blonsky with a performance-enhancing chemical that will supposedly make him a better match for the Hulk. It does. Blonsky eventually becomes the Abomination. And then...battle time.

I suppose the only big problem I have with The Incredible Hulk (helmed by French director Louis Leterrier...of The Transporter fame) is its somewhat weak CGI. I guess it's good enough, but the final battle in particular looks downright silly at times. Still, though, this film is very action-oriented, and will no doubt please the fans of the comic books. Taking place in the same universe as Iron Man, this will be the second film in Marvel's arsenal to kick off a successful franchise. I have no reservations saying that.

The Incredible Hulk is certainly not as good as some of the other comic book adaptations of recent years, but then again, the first film in this kind of franchise is nearly always the weakest. It's like a TV show - the first season sets up the characters, establishes the personalities, provides a few good plot details, and the viewer eventually becomes comfortable with the situations and feels like it knows the people. Following the first season, the writers no longer worry about the establishing aspect and can move on to the good stuff. The Incredible Hulk 2 or, more likely, The Incredible Hulk Returns or The Incredible Hulk Forever will be better-paced with a better villain and improved special effects. Audience reaction will let the producers know where they went wrong with this film, so by the time the sequel rolls around, those problems will have been erased.

Don't get me wrong, though. This film entertains. It is a popcorn flick of the first order. Like Spider-Man, X-Men, Superman Returns, and Batman Begins before it, The Incredible Hulk mixes the right amount of setup-setup-action scene-setup-action scene-setup-action scene to keep your interest. And the final scene (with a cameo that will bring down the house) is clever enough to leave you begging for more.

VERDICT:
The Incredible Hulk is a fanboy's fantasy. It's a good mix of the action and emotion that audiences have come to expect from this genre. And even though it's not one of the best, it's still fairly enticing. Although the Hulk is not necessarily a "superhero" of the traditional order, he's certainly an intriguing character. A very angry, intriguing character. And when you hear him growl "Hulk Smash!", your heart rate will probably raise to a dangerously high level. Probably not high enough, though, to transform you into a raging, grayish-green, 10-foot tall beast.

So should you spend your money? If you're a diehard fan of the Hulk, yes. If you're looking for an interesting action movie and/or anything other than The Happening, sure. If you're hoping for a movie on the level of Iron Man, no. 8/10

Kung Fu Panda

2008-06-06T22:15:00.006-04:00

The trend with recent animated flicks is for them to be cute, with lots of camouflaged adult humor, and to provide an uplifting message for the youngsters to take away. Kung Fu Panda follows that trend. It is adorably uplifting, and so funny in parts that I had to stifle a few snorts. (Yes, I'm dead serious.)

Okay, sure. It's geared at kids. And don't get me wrong - it's a terrific kids movie. And it does teach a great (although a little tired) lesson: We should all believe in ourselves. But the best part of the movie is the journey to that message. It's so much fun. And the animation itself is flawless. Jack Black's terrific voice acting provides much of the humor, but there are also sight gags, situational ironies, and perfectly executed sound effects (especially in the slow motion bits) that add to the comedy.

Set in ancient China, the oddly-titled film concerns Po (Black), a panda bear who is quite obviously adopted by his noodle-making father - a goose. But Po doesn't love noodles...he loves Kung Fu! In the meantime, Oogway (Randall Duk Kim), the wise tortoise of Jade Palace, has had a vision that the powerful and crazy Tia Lung (Ian McShane) will escape from prison and destroy the entire nearby village. He must, therefore, choose the next great Dragon Warrior to defeat Tia Lung. Among the potential title-holders are five students of Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman): Master Monkey (Jackie Chan), Master Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Master Viper (Lucy Liu), Master Mantis (Seth Rogen), and Master Crane (David Cross). In a funny mixup involving fireworks, Po himself is chosen by Oogway.

This leads to Shifu's outrage and the Kung Fu Masters' befuddlement, as Po is too fat to even climb the stairs to the Kung Fu temple. But, as these kinds of movies go, Shifu discovers Po's hidden talents. And so forth goes the film.

It's truly entertaining to watch all the martial arts action in Kung Fu Panda. A friend of mine noticed certain allusions to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, particularly with the fast and loose liberties the film takes with the laws of physics. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the film is one of the better kid-flicks I've seen in a long time, but I would say that it's probably the funniest and most engaging animated movie I've seen in the last year or two.

VERDICT:
I really liked this movie. Sure, it's a kids movie. And yes, it's animated. But it's creatively fun and funny. And it's cool to watch all the awesome martial arts effects. So in a way, it's hard to review this movie. I don't want to just say, "It was cute." But I also don't want to be too tough on it. In the end, I'll just say that I was fairly entertained, and it was a pretty good way to pass a (sober) Friday night.

So, should you spend your money? If you're into animated, kid's, or non-offensive movies that provide enough adult humor to keep you from pulling out your hair, YES. If you're not, SKIP IT. 8.5/10.

The Strangers

2008-05-31T21:38:00.013-04:00

So often in the past have I gone into a horror movie with much-too-high expectations and come out disappointed. I have become jaded when it comes to this genre (one of my favorites). Recent offerings have been so very lackluster, or even worse, so splattered in gore that there is really nothing else to think about. When I saw the trailer for The Strangers (one of the best trailers in recent times), I got very excited again, but then immediately reminded myself of the trends of horror films these days. I approached the movie cautiously.

It certainly is an interesting concept. "Why are you doing this to us?" asks a quivery Liv Tyler in the trailer. "Because you were home," answers the masked stranger. Creepy, huh? Lurking intruders breaking into a reasonably secure home and stalking/torturing (psychologically) its inhabitants simply for funsies. It really is unsettling. And to tell the truth, the movie is pretty darn effective.

From the beginning, we are informed that the film is based on true events. Such a disclaimer is usually a really, really bad sign for a horror movie. But in The Strangers, it works. Because, as it turns out, it kinda is based on true events, most notably the Manson family murders from the sixties. No sooner do Kristen (Tyler) and James (Scott Speedman) arrive at his summer home than there are (gasp!) loud bangs on the front door. Commence screaming and jumping.

To tell the truth, although the setup is minimal, I thought it was very serviceable. We know that James has just proposed to Kristen and she has turned him down, so there is a palpable tension between them when the horror begins. She is "not ready" for marriage; he is embarrassed at being turned down. The summer home in which most of the action takes place has been lovingly prepared for romantic celebration, as James had planned a happy getaway with his new fiance. Unfortunately, things did not go as planned, and everything is about to get worse.

Despite the rift between the two characters, there comes time for action (as in any horror film). As the noise from outside the house becomes more and more threatening, the tension mounts until finally, in the most chilling moment in the film (see picture), we realize that the strangers are no longer content to remain outside. That's when the real "fun" begins.

What bothers me is that events like those in The Strangers really do happen in the world. So it's difficult (disturbing?) to enjoy a horror film when its horrors are so very legitimate. That's not to say that the film is not exceptional. It is quite well-done, with the isolated house providing a truly unsafe setting, and a notable soundtrack sending chills up the spine. And Liv Tyler is a surprisingly good horror actress. She screams like the best of 'em. Speedman is a little wooden, but he gets the job done. The masked strangers are pretty creepy, as well, particularly when we first meet them. A face covered with a colorless potato sack is always more terrifying than a plain old human face. Always.

I will say that the ending is (for the most part) refreshingly logical. However, the final shot, as many people will note, is confusing and even frustrating. Considering the information we are given at the beginning of the film, I had a hard time coming to terms with it. But in the end, it's not too big of a stretch...I guess. It feels forced, though, like some Hollywoodized test audience was outraged with the original ending and writer/director Bryan Bertino was forced to reshoot it. Whatever. It's the ending we're given. But it's too bad that it weakens an otherwise strong movie.

VERDICT:
I love horror movies, but I am usually pretty tough on them. It's hard to make a scary movie that will both please an audience and satisfy movie snobs, but I feel like The Strangers comes close to doing both. It might not quite succeed, but it's probably the best-made horror movie that you've seen in a couple of years, or that you'll get for a while. It's not gory, so if that's what you want, rent Saw. This is a high-concept movie that is one big psychological torture scene. It is pretty effective in making you want to invest in a better security system, though.

Should you spend your money? If you're a hardcore horror movie buff who's desperate for a good entry in the genre, YES. If you're in the mood for gore and a high body count, WAIT FOR VIDEO. 7.5/10.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

2008-05-22T21:16:00.006-04:00

So I'm sitting in the darkened theater. I have just watched several movie trailers for upcoming action/adventure films. (Some of them look pretty awesome...but I digress.)

The old familiar Lucasfilm logo comes on the screen, followed by the old school Paramount logo (the one from the 80's, if I know my nostalgia). First image - a prairie dog. I'm thinking, "Okay, interesting choice." Then, there is a car full of teenagers racing with some military officials out in the desert, to the tune of "Hound Dog." The credits roll. I note the superiority of all filmmakers involved. Spielberg aside, there is Janusz Kaminski and his mind-blowing cinematography, Michael Kahn and his adrenaline-infused editing, and of course, Kathleen Kennedy and George Lucas himself in the producers' chairs. Lucas also co-wrote the script with David Koepp. All of these are frequent Spielberg collaborators, and their talents combined, without fail, produce superior results.

When the credits stop rolling, we are almost immediately re-introduced to Indiana Jones (Ford, looking old, but not too old). The old familiar John Williams score plays, and my heart begins to race. I am ready to boogie. Because the first five minutes are superb in their execution. Without missing a beat, every element comes together, and the result is terribly exciting.

And that's the word that best describes Indy 4. It is just so exciting! There are maybe five minutes of down time in the entire movie. It is a popcorn flick, no doubt, but it is so incredibly well-made. This is the way filmmaking should be done, folks. Take a page out of Spielberg's book. As cliche as it might be to say, he genuinely is one of the greatest of this or any time.

Now to a rundown of the plot. It's 1957. Indiana Jones is now a Colonel who served in WWII. He is kidnapped (we learn in the first few minutes) by Russian KGB (no more Nazis - it's Cold War time!), led by Irina Spalko (a terrific as always Cate Blanchett). Spalko plans to use Indy to find...well...a crystal skull. This is immediately followed by the first plot twist, the first huge action scene, an atomic bomb explosion, and Indy's escape.

So we learn that old Indiana Jones is a tenured professor of anthropology. Enter Mutt Williams (latest it-boy Shia LaBeouf, in one of the coolest introductions of the series) to enlist Indy's help to find his old pal Professor Oxley (John Hurt...British and bizarre). Chase scene, character development, travel to foreign land (shown via the old-school line on the world map), action scene, caves and cobwebs, plot development, plot twist #2, more Cate Blanchett, the introduction to the crystal skull, more Shia LaBeouf, more action, more action, more action. Damn, it's just so exciting!

VERDICT:
In the end, it's the kind of movie that you must see. Take my word for it. It's never boring, always interesting, and come on...who wouldn't want to see Harrison Ford try his hardest to be agile again? Spot-on acting, camera work, editing, music, everything. I welcome Indiana Jones back not just as a fan of the franchise, but as someone who loves to be entertained by someone who knows how to entertain well. Thank you Steven Spielberg!

Should you spend your money? For God's sake, YES! 9/10.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

2008-05-17T23:55:00.007-04:00

There were moments in Prince Caspian in which I couldn't tell if I was watching an installment of The Chronicles of Narnia or of The Lord of the Rings. The scope of the franchise has practically doubled in size since December 2005's The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. From what I can tell, that's probably a good thing.

The extra-long movie, all 147 minutes of it, is adapted and helmed by the steady hand of Andrew Adamson, who also kicked off the series with the first film. Adamson is clearly a fan of the C.S. Lewis books, and his treatment of the material brings to life all the finest elements of Narnia. Unfortunately, as any Lewis reader knows, Prince Caspian isn't quite as rich as The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. That being said, though, the film is quite faithful to the source material.

The Pevensies (aka, the Kings and Queens of Narnia) - Peter (William Moseley), Lucy (Georgie Henley), Edmund (Skandar Keynes), and Susan (Anna Popplewell) - all return for the second installment, and of course this time around, there is the addition of Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes). Caspian summons the family Pevensie when he realizes his tyrannical uncle, King Miraz (Sergio Castellitto - who, btw, looks almost eerily like King Leonidas from 300), is out to kill him for the throne. Miraz believes the Narnians are extinct, but as Caspian soon finds out, all the manimal creatures are quite alive and ready to battle! Which they do...several times.

The first hour of Prince Caspian is, to be honest, kind of a slog. It is much too slow for a film of this scope. But the problem is that there's no way around the slowness. It's been nearly three years since the first movie, so we have to get to know the characters again. And thus comes the film's biggest problem - we never know the Pevensies well enough to really care about them. Plus, we pretty much can guess the outcome of the conflict. So it seems that the first hour could have been accelerated, if only so that the second hour and a half didn't feel so rushed. The latter part of the movie picks up the pace (thank God), but is fraught with battle after battle after battle.

That's not to say that the battles are not awesome...they are quite the spectacle, actually. The entire film, for that matter, is extremely pretty. Which is exactly why it feels very Lord of the Rings-esque. I don't guess that's a bad thing, but Prince Caspian is trying too hard. It never reaches the epic proportions of Wardrobe or any of the LOTR movies. Its villain (Miraz) absolutely sucks in comparison to the White Witch. So in the end, I guess I felt a little cheated. The visual presentation is glorious, but the end result is a little muddled. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Whatever. The fantasy still overrules the weaknesses.

As far as the acting goes, well...I guess it doesn't matter. To be honest, I think the filmmakers could have cast cardboard cutouts in the roles and the fans would have been satisfied. The best of the bunch is the newcomer to the series - Barnes. Everyone else gets the job done, but not exceptionally, although Popplewell looks awesome with her bow and arrow, particularly during the climactic battle. But Moseley's interpretation of Peter is awful. As a result, Peter is hardly likable at all: He's arrogant, whiny, confrontational, and emotionless. Notably gone from the cast are James McAvoy's Mr. Tumnus and Mr. and Mrs. Beaver (sure it's been 1300 years in Narnia and they're probably dead, but, you know...). However, there is a surprise appearance by one of Wardrobe's main characters. I won't spoil who it is, but it's a welcome appearance. The other additional characters are great. And Aslan, as expected, makes an honorable appearance.

VERDICT:
The first hour is tough, but after that, it becomes...a pretty good movie. Not as incredible and magnificent as Wardrobe, but still worlds better than other capitalistic sequels (see: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest). It's a movie much more enjoyable on the big screen...looking UP at the beautiful cinematography and flawless CGI as opposed to DOWN at the television adds to the magic. In the end, this is a movie that everyone sees no matter what anyone says about it, particularly if you're my age and/or a fan of the C.S. Lewis book. So should you buy a ticket? YES. 7/10