"The Watch" PG 13
Ben Stiller and Jonah Hill join a cast of comedians in a strange blend of 21 Jump Street Men in Black and Superbad in this odd duck comedy about a middle American town where a strange alien infestation happens to elevate the goofy watchmen of the town into infamy. When Stiller's character runs a Costco, his assistant watchman is killed gruesomely, while local cops josh with him and suggest he could have done it, but when others start dying and alien green goo is left at the crime scenes, it looks like aliens have invaded and plan to take over the town. It's like they got a hold of some 14 year old boy's version of a cop adventure. The timing of it being just weeks after the Zimmerman vs family of Martin case is a coincidence, (watchman in gated town shoots unarmed man, not an alien), as Stiller and his gang know nothing of that case since the movie was in production probably a year ago.The aliens apparently have a strange knack for stealing skin, which could have been some high camp horror. At times the gross outs almost save it from being Mall Cop with Aliens. It isn't a terrible movie. One cannot expect it to be great.
Review by Adam Browne
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Review: "Courageous" is a tazer of a preachy cop flick
"Courageous" PG 13
The creators of the religious firefighter drama Fireproof bring another middle America religious drama, this time with police officers, or at least, amateur actors playing cops. Immediately the story does a staged but inaccurate carjack chase, (the truck was in park during the cab scenes, a cop would never do that, etc), leading to the religious black cop's revelation to the white friend that his child was in the truck. The good white cop and his buddies go through some trauma. One of them befriends an immigrant Mexican man who he happens to meet on the road, after hiring him to build a shed (as God makes coincidences possible), and then later the white guy's friend's plucky daughter is killed in an off screen car crash. Its hard to tell which white guy is which because they're such wooden actors, but they haven't likely ever been in many movies outside their church, as they're actually church people acting. These hoodlems are involved in local drug crime too, and the other coincidences, and one of the thugs is picked up and put in a cop car for some amusing Police Academy like goofy stuff, (again irrational as cops would never put a thug with a civilian in their car), and then the cops all take a pledge because they all helped to be Christians (possibly Evangelicals). They also have a bad cop who gets caught. Then there is a big dramatic finish stolen right out of any number of cop chase movies. The move tries too much to preach at the audience and force home the notion of 'courage as Christ' which seems interesting considering the implication of 'Christ as martyr who died for the sins of men' is also evident. It was popular at religious men's functions, made a little box office, and supposedly if who are already Christian you will love it. It's not a bad movie, just overly preachy. At least it isn't Fireproof, which was not very good. The actors are at least partly convincing, except for the chemistry between actors, which is sometimes dreadful. It would be much better had it not been a vehicle for selling converted bible study literature and was just an afterschool special on USA channel.
Review by Adam Browne
The creators of the religious firefighter drama Fireproof bring another middle America religious drama, this time with police officers, or at least, amateur actors playing cops. Immediately the story does a staged but inaccurate carjack chase, (the truck was in park during the cab scenes, a cop would never do that, etc), leading to the religious black cop's revelation to the white friend that his child was in the truck. The good white cop and his buddies go through some trauma. One of them befriends an immigrant Mexican man who he happens to meet on the road, after hiring him to build a shed (as God makes coincidences possible), and then later the white guy's friend's plucky daughter is killed in an off screen car crash. Its hard to tell which white guy is which because they're such wooden actors, but they haven't likely ever been in many movies outside their church, as they're actually church people acting. These hoodlems are involved in local drug crime too, and the other coincidences, and one of the thugs is picked up and put in a cop car for some amusing Police Academy like goofy stuff, (again irrational as cops would never put a thug with a civilian in their car), and then the cops all take a pledge because they all helped to be Christians (possibly Evangelicals). They also have a bad cop who gets caught. Then there is a big dramatic finish stolen right out of any number of cop chase movies. The move tries too much to preach at the audience and force home the notion of 'courage as Christ' which seems interesting considering the implication of 'Christ as martyr who died for the sins of men' is also evident. It was popular at religious men's functions, made a little box office, and supposedly if who are already Christian you will love it. It's not a bad movie, just overly preachy. At least it isn't Fireproof, which was not very good. The actors are at least partly convincing, except for the chemistry between actors, which is sometimes dreadful. It would be much better had it not been a vehicle for selling converted bible study literature and was just an afterschool special on USA channel.
Review by Adam Browne
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Review: "The Dark Knight Rises" is stunning conclusion to the Gotham tales
Review: "The Dark Knight Rises" PG-13
In Gotham, now looking like New York again, eight years have passed since Batman and Bruce Wayne disappeared. Chris Nolan (Inception), returns to direct the third and most psychotic adventure in the franchise yet, channeling the gritty 90's aged comics including the infamous Bane issues, and the Arhkam city ones, where the city is literally captured. When Bane (Tom Hardy from Star Trek, pumped up and on tall boots), and Selina Kyle (Ann Hathaway), seem to be working together to obtain Bruce Wayne's fortunes, Batman is called back into action once more. The problem is that he has seen better days. As Wayne, his body is a wreck from all those stunts. In one crucial scene a doctor tells him he has destroyed all the cartilage in his knees. So much is going on this thing has to be seen again soon. Bane attempts to deliver his ultimatum, which reminds Bruce and thus Batman of the old nemesis and teacher, Ras al Ghoul, as the new menace who breathes through a black mask is of the mysterious League of Shadows, the same organization. When also a socialite and a clean energy magnet attempts to buy out Wayne it is that instant when Kyle uses her hacking skills and cleverness to bankrupt the billionaire, forcing him to deal with the clean energy lady. Then something amazing happens, the director actually stages the Bane comic in movie form! Yes! Only they do have to change some things, otherwise Batman would be completely crippled, and would not have been able to rise again. Still the story takes on the imprisonment of Batman in those later comics, and the siege of Gotham in demented glee, with Scarecrow as a maniacal judge quoting from old Roman doctrine, "Banishment or death?" It's just nuts how awesome this movie was.
Hardy was not trying to top Ledger but he could not, so there were some setbacks to his character, such as the mumbling, but he got the word across that he was not only a darker villain but also a colder, nastier opportunist. Joker had been more about playing cruel jokes while Bane is more about just being an unchained animistic bully.
Hathaway's version of early Catwoman was similar to the older Newmar character, but not so campy, and was not bad. She was actually a better Selina than in the Burton one. Even though the blonde cat was more fun to watch. She was a more late comics 90s crossover with the late 60s type. Pretty good there.
Chris Bale did a little better job showing messed up Wayne than in previous outings and understood more of the whole schizoid feel of the character.
(Fortunately the premiere I saw this at did not have any terrorists, as did the one in Colorado, as I am not in Colorado. That stinks that some people take this stuff so extreme they have to go bat crazy and actually kill people, before it starts even. Come on! It's a movie!).
(And no, Rush Limbaugh, the character of Bane is from the comics from twenty years ago, not a riff from the Romney campaign and a slight at Bain capital. Who does your research? Elmer Fudd? Bane is right up there with Killshot and the Killer Croc, as even this minor Batman fan knos that, as does everyone else on the planet. I suggest Rush should stay away from commenting on comic book villains unless he does some actual research).
Review by Adam Browne.
In Gotham, now looking like New York again, eight years have passed since Batman and Bruce Wayne disappeared. Chris Nolan (Inception), returns to direct the third and most psychotic adventure in the franchise yet, channeling the gritty 90's aged comics including the infamous Bane issues, and the Arhkam city ones, where the city is literally captured. When Bane (Tom Hardy from Star Trek, pumped up and on tall boots), and Selina Kyle (Ann Hathaway), seem to be working together to obtain Bruce Wayne's fortunes, Batman is called back into action once more. The problem is that he has seen better days. As Wayne, his body is a wreck from all those stunts. In one crucial scene a doctor tells him he has destroyed all the cartilage in his knees. So much is going on this thing has to be seen again soon. Bane attempts to deliver his ultimatum, which reminds Bruce and thus Batman of the old nemesis and teacher, Ras al Ghoul, as the new menace who breathes through a black mask is of the mysterious League of Shadows, the same organization. When also a socialite and a clean energy magnet attempts to buy out Wayne it is that instant when Kyle uses her hacking skills and cleverness to bankrupt the billionaire, forcing him to deal with the clean energy lady. Then something amazing happens, the director actually stages the Bane comic in movie form! Yes! Only they do have to change some things, otherwise Batman would be completely crippled, and would not have been able to rise again. Still the story takes on the imprisonment of Batman in those later comics, and the siege of Gotham in demented glee, with Scarecrow as a maniacal judge quoting from old Roman doctrine, "Banishment or death?" It's just nuts how awesome this movie was.
Hardy was not trying to top Ledger but he could not, so there were some setbacks to his character, such as the mumbling, but he got the word across that he was not only a darker villain but also a colder, nastier opportunist. Joker had been more about playing cruel jokes while Bane is more about just being an unchained animistic bully.
Hathaway's version of early Catwoman was similar to the older Newmar character, but not so campy, and was not bad. She was actually a better Selina than in the Burton one. Even though the blonde cat was more fun to watch. She was a more late comics 90s crossover with the late 60s type. Pretty good there.
Chris Bale did a little better job showing messed up Wayne than in previous outings and understood more of the whole schizoid feel of the character.
(Fortunately the premiere I saw this at did not have any terrorists, as did the one in Colorado, as I am not in Colorado. That stinks that some people take this stuff so extreme they have to go bat crazy and actually kill people, before it starts even. Come on! It's a movie!).
(And no, Rush Limbaugh, the character of Bane is from the comics from twenty years ago, not a riff from the Romney campaign and a slight at Bain capital. Who does your research? Elmer Fudd? Bane is right up there with Killshot and the Killer Croc, as even this minor Batman fan knos that, as does everyone else on the planet. I suggest Rush should stay away from commenting on comic book villains unless he does some actual research).
Review by Adam Browne.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Review: "The Help" is good but inaccurate depiction of 1960s south
"The Help" PG-13
The Help is based on a 2007 novel depicting the plight of a newspaper socialite columnist and a cluster of maids living in Jackson, Mississippi in the middle of the Civil Rights Movement, just prior to the assassination of Medgar Evers. It s not the next Beloved by any stretch, which was a little too graphic. Going for the crowd pleasing Oscar bunch, the story is watered down so that not once does the N word ever get uttered, in the South, in 1960s America. Sure the sets are pretty and the costumes are period, and the cars accurate, but hardly any of the actual emotion is. The story centers on Skeeter, a white socialite, and her black maid friends, who commune to write a book about the plight of the maids and their working conditions. The theme is similar to a white washed 1960s program done about the South with all the real danger and tribulation removed.
The most shocking and funny scene is when the socialite evil white lady is tricked into consuming a slice of poo pie. Had this really happened, the result would have been immediate arrest and imprisonment of the maid lady, even if it was funny. Suppose if Spike Lee directed this is would have been too socially conscious, but the director here is operating from a 2007 book, where the only info she has is from watching reruns of Father Knows Best, The Brady Bunch and the Andy Griffith Show on TV. When Evers is killed, there is no actual shouting of obscenities at the townsfolk who were of black persuasion, and there would have been, not just them running around scared. Some of them might even have died. Although the toilet scene on the lawn was funny also, because the socialite white lady hated germs, it didn't make any sense. Pranks would get the maids all kicked out, or sent to some horrible prison. It was like they were channeling Media's Family.
Trying to be crowd pleasing diminished the messages in the picture, but as a movie of that type, not taken seriously, it is all right. The original book was hard to follow. And how did the publisher even allow it to be printed in the movie? He knew it was a scandal sheet on Jackson, and everyone knew, so it was like, he just allows it? Anyway, if you ignore the watered down civil rights aspects of this and take it as a progressive Yankee Hollywood interpretation, fine. Just don't confuse it for Mississippi in the 1960s, but rather a modern washed over version.The main issue with it is parts of the South are still racist, and also that back then they were far worse about it, than depicted in the movie. It wasn't just that they segregated and treated blacks unfairly, they beat them and paid them almost nothing, and were constantly berating them, thinking them lower species, which is totally messed up, because they weren't white folks. That was not in there and if it was, it was watered down. The Klan would have rode into town and done terrible things to them. They would have had a lynching. Only implying it is to deny historic events happened. Granted it is not a historical story and the reviewer is not from the South, but still. If you're going to pretend like it's 1960s America it has to at least follow the theme. Racism is not some socialite or joking thing to just be mulled over at coffee houses and pie shops, with a fresh slice of chocolate poo pie. Meh.
So if you're looking for a fable, go see this. Best picture nominee, really? No. Well if nothing better happened, I suppose. It did push all the right buttons in terms of canned emotion and strife, someone dying, someone sinning, something happening, that Oscar likes. Best picture history, no. If you want to see accurate Oscar bait movies about messed up Southern places, Beloved and the Color Purple and Malcolm X are far better.
Review by Adam Browne
The Help is based on a 2007 novel depicting the plight of a newspaper socialite columnist and a cluster of maids living in Jackson, Mississippi in the middle of the Civil Rights Movement, just prior to the assassination of Medgar Evers. It s not the next Beloved by any stretch, which was a little too graphic. Going for the crowd pleasing Oscar bunch, the story is watered down so that not once does the N word ever get uttered, in the South, in 1960s America. Sure the sets are pretty and the costumes are period, and the cars accurate, but hardly any of the actual emotion is. The story centers on Skeeter, a white socialite, and her black maid friends, who commune to write a book about the plight of the maids and their working conditions. The theme is similar to a white washed 1960s program done about the South with all the real danger and tribulation removed.
The most shocking and funny scene is when the socialite evil white lady is tricked into consuming a slice of poo pie. Had this really happened, the result would have been immediate arrest and imprisonment of the maid lady, even if it was funny. Suppose if Spike Lee directed this is would have been too socially conscious, but the director here is operating from a 2007 book, where the only info she has is from watching reruns of Father Knows Best, The Brady Bunch and the Andy Griffith Show on TV. When Evers is killed, there is no actual shouting of obscenities at the townsfolk who were of black persuasion, and there would have been, not just them running around scared. Some of them might even have died. Although the toilet scene on the lawn was funny also, because the socialite white lady hated germs, it didn't make any sense. Pranks would get the maids all kicked out, or sent to some horrible prison. It was like they were channeling Media's Family.
Trying to be crowd pleasing diminished the messages in the picture, but as a movie of that type, not taken seriously, it is all right. The original book was hard to follow. And how did the publisher even allow it to be printed in the movie? He knew it was a scandal sheet on Jackson, and everyone knew, so it was like, he just allows it? Anyway, if you ignore the watered down civil rights aspects of this and take it as a progressive Yankee Hollywood interpretation, fine. Just don't confuse it for Mississippi in the 1960s, but rather a modern washed over version.The main issue with it is parts of the South are still racist, and also that back then they were far worse about it, than depicted in the movie. It wasn't just that they segregated and treated blacks unfairly, they beat them and paid them almost nothing, and were constantly berating them, thinking them lower species, which is totally messed up, because they weren't white folks. That was not in there and if it was, it was watered down. The Klan would have rode into town and done terrible things to them. They would have had a lynching. Only implying it is to deny historic events happened. Granted it is not a historical story and the reviewer is not from the South, but still. If you're going to pretend like it's 1960s America it has to at least follow the theme. Racism is not some socialite or joking thing to just be mulled over at coffee houses and pie shops, with a fresh slice of chocolate poo pie. Meh.
So if you're looking for a fable, go see this. Best picture nominee, really? No. Well if nothing better happened, I suppose. It did push all the right buttons in terms of canned emotion and strife, someone dying, someone sinning, something happening, that Oscar likes. Best picture history, no. If you want to see accurate Oscar bait movies about messed up Southern places, Beloved and the Color Purple and Malcolm X are far better.
Review by Adam Browne
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Review: "Amazing Spider Man" is alternate spectacle of the web slinger
Amazing Spider Man PG-13
The first Spider Man movies came out only 10 years ago with Sam Raimi's version, but a lackluster third installment some years ago turned Sony from doing any more with him, even though it was the studio that decided on taking the mutiple villain approach, Sandman and Venom, and making Spidey filled with angst. Thew new one though looked to be another even more emotional, darker version of the other series, a reboot set in New York with as brooding 20 something due playing a teenager, Andrew Garfield. The director is ironically named Webb. The story starts out with clumsy Peter Parker in high school, encountering bullies, getting his butt handed to him, and striving to get the girl, this time Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy. (She's not a teen anymore either). So it's like Spider Boy to Men, or something. The Ozcorp lab is holding a field trip which Parker attends to hang out with Stacy, and find out about his lost parents, from the slippery one armed scientist dude there, Kurt Conners. The lab does genetic cross breeding and some of it involves special spiders, as radioactive spiders nowadays sounds silly, and Peter crashes into the room with them to accidentally pick up one, that later bites him. Seemingly overnight he is transformed into a slick footed, fast paced, extrovert motormouth, where he is able to best bad guys. After his Uncle Ben is killed, (Martin Sheen), Aunt May sees to him, (Sally Fields). Then Connors uses the green goo (like that in Resident Evil) to turn himself into a lizard man, which sends him on a trashing spree. The Lizard is born! (If he turned cold blooded he would not be able to do that stuff). Now Spider Man must suit up to fight crime, and oput on his mask so the criminals don't know he's Peter Parker. The run ins with the Lizard on a bridge, in a subway, through a school, and on top of the big black clad glassy corporate tower, bring action scenes into an otherwise tart drama about boy with parent issues meets girl with a father who's a gruff cop who has issues. It could have been dreadful, but it was actually good. The angst is played well partly because Garfield is a more convincing actor than McGuire. A times the mood swing elements almost would attract the Twilight crowd, which was likely the idea, and plenty of people enjoyed it in theaters, midweek for the July 4 weekend. Worth owning on DVD. It's not the Avengers, but it does do what it set out to do, revitalize the franchise. Some might argue it wasn't necessary. Really with the actual ages of the leads, this could have been part 4 and just left out the angst, but then it would just be another same seeming action movie. So it is good.
Review by Adam Browne
The first Spider Man movies came out only 10 years ago with Sam Raimi's version, but a lackluster third installment some years ago turned Sony from doing any more with him, even though it was the studio that decided on taking the mutiple villain approach, Sandman and Venom, and making Spidey filled with angst. Thew new one though looked to be another even more emotional, darker version of the other series, a reboot set in New York with as brooding 20 something due playing a teenager, Andrew Garfield. The director is ironically named Webb. The story starts out with clumsy Peter Parker in high school, encountering bullies, getting his butt handed to him, and striving to get the girl, this time Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy. (She's not a teen anymore either). So it's like Spider Boy to Men, or something. The Ozcorp lab is holding a field trip which Parker attends to hang out with Stacy, and find out about his lost parents, from the slippery one armed scientist dude there, Kurt Conners. The lab does genetic cross breeding and some of it involves special spiders, as radioactive spiders nowadays sounds silly, and Peter crashes into the room with them to accidentally pick up one, that later bites him. Seemingly overnight he is transformed into a slick footed, fast paced, extrovert motormouth, where he is able to best bad guys. After his Uncle Ben is killed, (Martin Sheen), Aunt May sees to him, (Sally Fields). Then Connors uses the green goo (like that in Resident Evil) to turn himself into a lizard man, which sends him on a trashing spree. The Lizard is born! (If he turned cold blooded he would not be able to do that stuff). Now Spider Man must suit up to fight crime, and oput on his mask so the criminals don't know he's Peter Parker. The run ins with the Lizard on a bridge, in a subway, through a school, and on top of the big black clad glassy corporate tower, bring action scenes into an otherwise tart drama about boy with parent issues meets girl with a father who's a gruff cop who has issues. It could have been dreadful, but it was actually good. The angst is played well partly because Garfield is a more convincing actor than McGuire. A times the mood swing elements almost would attract the Twilight crowd, which was likely the idea, and plenty of people enjoyed it in theaters, midweek for the July 4 weekend. Worth owning on DVD. It's not the Avengers, but it does do what it set out to do, revitalize the franchise. Some might argue it wasn't necessary. Really with the actual ages of the leads, this could have been part 4 and just left out the angst, but then it would just be another same seeming action movie. So it is good.
Review by Adam Browne
Monday, July 2, 2012
Review: "The Artist" is silent movie ode but just okay
"The Artist" PG
The best picture of 2011 is a movie with almost no sound acting that won for acting, presumably in mime form. The overlong movie tells the story of a falling silent film actor and star, and the rise of his paramour, a sound film star.
The movie is interesting as a recreation of historical time period piece and interesting show of old movies, but it was done much more real in Hugo when they used the actual films.
It is not a bad film however it is certainly not the best picture of the year, last year. That film should have been the final Harry Potter, or Hugo, or one of the other movies, but certainly not this one. It's a nice movie. It has heart. Likely the Academy fogies liked it because nothing much actually happens in it. The ending makes the movie. At least it goes through all the crowd pleasing moments. That's what they like.
Technically there are some interesting gaffs though, such as the frame rate, which would have been jumpy not seamless, or the parts where people pose wildly for 1920s era flash cameras. This is an issue as even in 1930 cameras that took stills were not fast enough (the film stock that is, light levels, and shutter speed mostly), to take accurate sudden photos of still life in motion. Movie cameras were also rather primitive and had that jumpy frame rate.
Review By Adam Browne
The best picture of 2011 is a movie with almost no sound acting that won for acting, presumably in mime form. The overlong movie tells the story of a falling silent film actor and star, and the rise of his paramour, a sound film star.
The movie is interesting as a recreation of historical time period piece and interesting show of old movies, but it was done much more real in Hugo when they used the actual films.
It is not a bad film however it is certainly not the best picture of the year, last year. That film should have been the final Harry Potter, or Hugo, or one of the other movies, but certainly not this one. It's a nice movie. It has heart. Likely the Academy fogies liked it because nothing much actually happens in it. The ending makes the movie. At least it goes through all the crowd pleasing moments. That's what they like.
Technically there are some interesting gaffs though, such as the frame rate, which would have been jumpy not seamless, or the parts where people pose wildly for 1920s era flash cameras. This is an issue as even in 1930 cameras that took stills were not fast enough (the film stock that is, light levels, and shutter speed mostly), to take accurate sudden photos of still life in motion. Movie cameras were also rather primitive and had that jumpy frame rate.
Review By Adam Browne
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)