New Years Eve. This is it. We've had one late comer. It's not on the list. It's called American Hustle. Since it was just okay, it's not on the list.
And now, the winners of the Clara Awards (since these went live in 2010)...
Best Action Picture of the Year
Star Trek Into Darkness
Reasons: Thor 2 and Iron Man 3 were cool but not the best, and The Hobbit 2 has long stretches of nothing happening. The movie does hit the marks and is a fine action ride, even though it is not pure Star Trek.
Best Fantasy Picture of the Year
The Hobbit 2: The Desolation of Smaug
Reasons: The other fantasy pictures like Oblivion and Elysium weren't all that good. Hobbit is a world. It's like an experience.
Best Horror Picture of the Year
The Conjuring
Reasons: The others weren't watched but since Marx liked it, it counts.
Best Picture of the Year
Captain Phillips
Reasons: The Butler wasn't the best, and 12 years a Slave was not seen.
Best Drama of the Year
Gravity
Reason: It was crowd pleasing, intense, interesting and kept the attention of the audience, and the acting was good (even for Clooney and Bullock) and the directing was good. It will likely get an Oscar for something.
Best Comedy of the Year
Jackass: Bad Grandpa
Reasons: An audience that actually really, really laughed, and the two movies about the end of the world were brilliant and at times cleverly shocking, especially At World's End, they were not the best.
Best Animated Movie of the Year
Frozen
Reasons: Epic was good but the Croods was not, and Planes was a vanity piece, and really since this is Disney, why not? The trouble might lie in that it doesn't really strike every chord right and at times is slow and mean spirited. It's just better than the other choices.
Dishonorable Mention
The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
Reason: The movie completely misses the point. Mitty has to have fantasies the whole time because he never leaves the city to go on aventures! If he really goes then it's stupid. He's not just nuts.
Worst Comedy of the Year
Movie 43
Reasons: Too many to count, but mostly it's just not funny, at all, and tries so hard to be. It's a manic badly written mess miscasting actors that are an embarrassment.
Worst Fantasy of the Year
After Earth
Reasons: M Night Shlayaman, Will Smith and his son. Nepotism gone wrong on a planet for 2 hours. Many more. Olibivon was close for being nothing more than another vanity piece for Tom Cruise. With enhancements, he doesn't look bad for 50.
We don't have a worst horror movies or worst drama. Pick any self centered thriller movie sequel this year for horror, or any self centered and pretentious drama.
We don't have a best director, actor, actress or that kind of stuff.
Dumbest Premise of the Year
Movie 43
Reasons: Sketch comedy is best left to the likes of SNL grads who actually kind of can do that, Happy Gilmore, Vacation, or to the old school guys who actually made stuff like Kentucky Fried Movie and Airplane.
Pity Party
Gravity isn't going to get best picture come Oscar time next February, but it will likely get technical awards.
Big Dumb Robot Movie of the Year
Pacific Rim
Reasons: Monsters versus giant robot battle suit mechs! Why not give it an award for something, because it is a fun movie and completely proves a Robotech movie would work if this guy directed it. The movie is fun and entertaining. Leave your logical mind at the door.
Vanity Piece of the Year
One Direction This is Us
Reasons: It likely beats our Justin Bieber 2 Believe, for sheer popcorn star action, and it proves the adage that even if you get second place on X Factor you can be a star. It also helps to know the old guy that runs the thing, and to make your sloagan playing to the premise you are the next Beatles. Uhm, no, but so what? This is a true vanity piece, tying into the mosic video that goes with the theme. (They are not even close to being the Beatles, but we'll give them that they're InSync from Britain).
Also that title is bad grammar. You cannot have a singular and a plural descriptor. It is either These are Us, or This is Me.
Scenery Chewing Fantasy of the Year
Hunger Games 2: Catching Fire
Reason: The actors in this love their work and chew the screen time to a pulp. The story is demented but fun. It's even more like Battle Royale. There I said it. But in that movie it was a horror film. This is more of a dystopian thriller/
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
The 2013 Clara Awards Nominees
The Clara Awards come in on Christmas Day with some familiar ranting and very little drama, at least in movies.
The worst is first. It seems that even though we haven't seen "After Earth", it's a shoe in for worst science fiction film of the year. It actually can't be called a film really, more like a Smith vanity piece.
The most horrid comedy of the year, and possibly movie also, is "Movie 43", a train wreck of a sketch movie that makes "Kentucky Fried Movie" look like "Gone with the Wind". It is truly, truly awe inspiring bad.
The best comedy of the year is a toss up between "Bad Grandpa" and "Anchorman 2".
A slew of action pictures are making the best category busy, and very few other movies have even been seen this year.
We mention the two White House disaster movies, "White House Down" and "Olympus has Fallen", which were not viewed.
We also mention three end of days type movies, most notably "World's End" and "This Is The End". Both were decent comedies but lacked jokes often, and came off as just okay in the end.
Although we did not see "Jobs" we find this movie odd for deliberately excluding Wozniak, who did most of the work at Apple.
Despite the bad press about Orson Card, "Ender's Game", was one of several just okay science fiction flicks, from "Oblivion" to "Elysium".
Action adventure had a few dives, like "A Good Day To Die Hard" and "GI Joe Retaliation" and "Jack the Giant Slayer". And although "Man of Steel" was better than "Superman Returns", it was still not "Superman".
The best action of the year appears to be a toss up between "The Hobbt 2", "Star Trek Into Darkness", "Iron Man 3" and "Thor 2". The Star Trek movie was not really Trek, and the Hobbit movie was a little better than last time, but the Mandarin was deliberately not right in the Iron Man movie.
"Hunger Games Catching Fire" will get a mention.
Although we didn't both see the horror movies, "The Conjuring", gets high marks. "Mama" was also good.
Drama will probably be handed to "12 Years a Slave" or "The Butler" but they were not reviewed. "Captain Phillips" and "Gravity" will chase the award for best drama, and for action in some sense.
Best director, actors, actresses, story, etc, might actually be hard to pick this year, due to most of the films nominated being just action fantasy films.
Animated movies include "Epic", "Frozen" and "The Croods" and "Escpae from Panet Earth" but really it's been a slow year, so Frozen is a shoe in to win.
Worst of this category are "Planes", "Turbo" and "Monster's University" with a special smell to them because they're just bad ideas.
The worst is first. It seems that even though we haven't seen "After Earth", it's a shoe in for worst science fiction film of the year. It actually can't be called a film really, more like a Smith vanity piece.
The most horrid comedy of the year, and possibly movie also, is "Movie 43", a train wreck of a sketch movie that makes "Kentucky Fried Movie" look like "Gone with the Wind". It is truly, truly awe inspiring bad.
The best comedy of the year is a toss up between "Bad Grandpa" and "Anchorman 2".
A slew of action pictures are making the best category busy, and very few other movies have even been seen this year.
We mention the two White House disaster movies, "White House Down" and "Olympus has Fallen", which were not viewed.
We also mention three end of days type movies, most notably "World's End" and "This Is The End". Both were decent comedies but lacked jokes often, and came off as just okay in the end.
Although we did not see "Jobs" we find this movie odd for deliberately excluding Wozniak, who did most of the work at Apple.
Despite the bad press about Orson Card, "Ender's Game", was one of several just okay science fiction flicks, from "Oblivion" to "Elysium".
Action adventure had a few dives, like "A Good Day To Die Hard" and "GI Joe Retaliation" and "Jack the Giant Slayer". And although "Man of Steel" was better than "Superman Returns", it was still not "Superman".
The best action of the year appears to be a toss up between "The Hobbt 2", "Star Trek Into Darkness", "Iron Man 3" and "Thor 2". The Star Trek movie was not really Trek, and the Hobbit movie was a little better than last time, but the Mandarin was deliberately not right in the Iron Man movie.
"Hunger Games Catching Fire" will get a mention.
Although we didn't both see the horror movies, "The Conjuring", gets high marks. "Mama" was also good.
Drama will probably be handed to "12 Years a Slave" or "The Butler" but they were not reviewed. "Captain Phillips" and "Gravity" will chase the award for best drama, and for action in some sense.
Best director, actors, actresses, story, etc, might actually be hard to pick this year, due to most of the films nominated being just action fantasy films.
Animated movies include "Epic", "Frozen" and "The Croods" and "Escpae from Panet Earth" but really it's been a slow year, so Frozen is a shoe in to win.
Worst of this category are "Planes", "Turbo" and "Monster's University" with a special smell to them because they're just bad ideas.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
We are 16 days from Oscar time limit
Every year there are a bunch of Oscar movies in late November and December so that the senile old academy members will recall the movies. This year, I can only think of a few that even make the list. Sure there are some obvious choices, "12 years a slave", (not seen it yet), "The Butler", (not seen either), and "Gravity" (but it is not likely this two people stranded movie will get all the Oscars, because it is set in space).
"Captain Phillips" is a tense dramatic thriller, but is it the best of this year, and we know Oscar doesn't like thrillers.
The slew of science fiction movies and superhero movies over summer means that there will likely be some nods to those, "Star Trek Into Darkness", "Gravity", "Oblivion" (doesn't deserve it though), and "Eysium" (which doesn't deserve it either).
If we'd have to guess now, the Oscar people are going to give it all to "The Butlet" which apparently isn't all that awesome.
They might give it to "Frozen" even though the reviews have melted away and there is only thoguhts of oh, nice Disney movie, but not a great movie.
I did not see the upteenth sequel to Fast and Furious. Meh.
They will likely faun all over Gravity's acting performances, although Clooney was just being Clooney and Bullock was half way decent, even if it was a fun thriller. The problem is it's the same formula as those couple stranded at sea stories, except it's in space. Just last year we had a young man stranded at sea on a boat with a CGI tiger.
Maybe next year it can be two people stranded in space, at sea, with a CGI dragon. :)
The 2013 Clara Awards, coming New Years Eve 2013.
"Captain Phillips" is a tense dramatic thriller, but is it the best of this year, and we know Oscar doesn't like thrillers.
The slew of science fiction movies and superhero movies over summer means that there will likely be some nods to those, "Star Trek Into Darkness", "Gravity", "Oblivion" (doesn't deserve it though), and "Eysium" (which doesn't deserve it either).
If we'd have to guess now, the Oscar people are going to give it all to "The Butlet" which apparently isn't all that awesome.
They might give it to "Frozen" even though the reviews have melted away and there is only thoguhts of oh, nice Disney movie, but not a great movie.
I did not see the upteenth sequel to Fast and Furious. Meh.
They will likely faun all over Gravity's acting performances, although Clooney was just being Clooney and Bullock was half way decent, even if it was a fun thriller. The problem is it's the same formula as those couple stranded at sea stories, except it's in space. Just last year we had a young man stranded at sea on a boat with a CGI tiger.
Maybe next year it can be two people stranded in space, at sea, with a CGI dragon. :)
The 2013 Clara Awards, coming New Years Eve 2013.
Review: "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" returns darkly to the lone mountain
"The Hobbit 2: The Desolation of Smaug" PG 13
Talk about immersion into another world for a long time. Peter Jackson's spread out sequels attempt to make what should have been a single 3 hour movie into yet another 3 hour movie, and there will be more to come. This is a drawback, but the journey is thoroughly enjoyable. If Jackson's intent is to show virtually everything, then okay, why not. They sure don't need an extended cut. In this sequel, the wizard Gandal, the 13 dwarves, the Elves of Mirkwood and the Elvs of Rvendell team up to save a village near the dragon's mountain, and along the way, Bilbo the Hobbit finds his courage, but it may just be the One Ring he pocketed in the last movie. Meanwhile, Gandalf an Ratagast go in search of the Necromonger. The dragon does appear, as in the teaser, and it is a spectacular CGI dragon, with the deep voice of Benedict Cumberbatch. Actually some of the critics are being unfair to the movie for use of CGI. Most of the vistas are actually New Zealand. You can tell when it's CGI only because of the high frame rate. See it in 2D. Watching it in 3D for 3 hours might melt your eyes. Then you will have the lidless eyes of Sauron.
Review by Adam Browne
Talk about immersion into another world for a long time. Peter Jackson's spread out sequels attempt to make what should have been a single 3 hour movie into yet another 3 hour movie, and there will be more to come. This is a drawback, but the journey is thoroughly enjoyable. If Jackson's intent is to show virtually everything, then okay, why not. They sure don't need an extended cut. In this sequel, the wizard Gandal, the 13 dwarves, the Elves of Mirkwood and the Elvs of Rvendell team up to save a village near the dragon's mountain, and along the way, Bilbo the Hobbit finds his courage, but it may just be the One Ring he pocketed in the last movie. Meanwhile, Gandalf an Ratagast go in search of the Necromonger. The dragon does appear, as in the teaser, and it is a spectacular CGI dragon, with the deep voice of Benedict Cumberbatch. Actually some of the critics are being unfair to the movie for use of CGI. Most of the vistas are actually New Zealand. You can tell when it's CGI only because of the high frame rate. See it in 2D. Watching it in 3D for 3 hours might melt your eyes. Then you will have the lidless eyes of Sauron.
Review by Adam Browne
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Review: "Frozen" is really nothing like The Snow Queen but fun
Frozen PG
New Disney movies need to appeal to adults and those with minds like adults by including puerile jokes on occasion, which is something lacking in Frozen, their latest tent-pole. That said, Frozen is loveingly crafted, has feminist themes, a heroin who fights for love, and the whole 'Brave' deal. The story is by the numbers. Some fun to be had with the goofy snowman.
The lackluster cartoon short at the beginning was annoying, not at all fun, as Mickey Mouse avoids a brutish Bluto rip off who steals Minnie, playing Olive Oyle. Come on.
Then we gut to the film set in Scandinavia circa perhaps 1820 or so, around the time of Hanz Christian Anderson, the author of The Snow Queen from which is it is very, very loosely based. It's not a bad adaptation. It doesn't fail like Emperor's New Groove failed to even be close to Emperor's Now Clothes. But after the wonderment of seeing another Disney movie as good as Tangled, and days pass, you realize the glimmer has worn off a little.
The story centers on, without giving it away, a young queen to be who is given magic powers that freeze things, and is locked away until she is older. In this time, the King and Queen are killed, leading to her eventual rise to be queen, thus The Snow Queen of the story.
In the Anderson story, the Snow Queen is something really quite different, there is an evil mirror that breaks that sends evil shards into the world and corrupts this boy and girl. (Snow White like idea).
In the movie, the girl is the queen's little sister, who eventually becomes a princess and on her coronation falls for an obviously over eager prince, and the Queen refuses to let her marry him, but during the ensuing argument causes the town to freeze and runs off. This causes the girl to go off in search of her.
This doesn't give away what happens from there. Along the way, the Queen, Elsa, brings a snowman to life, who becomes a sidekick to the girl, Ana and to a friend, Cristoff, she meets.
The two men in the story are partly a wink to Hanz Christian Anderson, as they are Hanz and Christoff.
Stay after the credits for a silly part involving an abominable snowman.
Anyway, as not to give away anything else, it has pretty visuals and looks dreamy and holiday festive, is worth owning later on bluray, and is a nice cute story about sisterly love and devotion.
I might still eventually own the bluray of this movie anyway, as it is a better film then Pocahontas and as good as Enchanted.
By Adam Browne
New Disney movies need to appeal to adults and those with minds like adults by including puerile jokes on occasion, which is something lacking in Frozen, their latest tent-pole. That said, Frozen is loveingly crafted, has feminist themes, a heroin who fights for love, and the whole 'Brave' deal. The story is by the numbers. Some fun to be had with the goofy snowman.
The lackluster cartoon short at the beginning was annoying, not at all fun, as Mickey Mouse avoids a brutish Bluto rip off who steals Minnie, playing Olive Oyle. Come on.
Then we gut to the film set in Scandinavia circa perhaps 1820 or so, around the time of Hanz Christian Anderson, the author of The Snow Queen from which is it is very, very loosely based. It's not a bad adaptation. It doesn't fail like Emperor's New Groove failed to even be close to Emperor's Now Clothes. But after the wonderment of seeing another Disney movie as good as Tangled, and days pass, you realize the glimmer has worn off a little.
The story centers on, without giving it away, a young queen to be who is given magic powers that freeze things, and is locked away until she is older. In this time, the King and Queen are killed, leading to her eventual rise to be queen, thus The Snow Queen of the story.
In the Anderson story, the Snow Queen is something really quite different, there is an evil mirror that breaks that sends evil shards into the world and corrupts this boy and girl. (Snow White like idea).
In the movie, the girl is the queen's little sister, who eventually becomes a princess and on her coronation falls for an obviously over eager prince, and the Queen refuses to let her marry him, but during the ensuing argument causes the town to freeze and runs off. This causes the girl to go off in search of her.
This doesn't give away what happens from there. Along the way, the Queen, Elsa, brings a snowman to life, who becomes a sidekick to the girl, Ana and to a friend, Cristoff, she meets.
The two men in the story are partly a wink to Hanz Christian Anderson, as they are Hanz and Christoff.
Stay after the credits for a silly part involving an abominable snowman.
Anyway, as not to give away anything else, it has pretty visuals and looks dreamy and holiday festive, is worth owning later on bluray, and is a nice cute story about sisterly love and devotion.
I might still eventually own the bluray of this movie anyway, as it is a better film then Pocahontas and as good as Enchanted.
By Adam Browne
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Review: "Catching Fire" is "Hunger Games" sequel that bests the original
"Hunger Games 2: Catching Fire" PG 13
Director Francis Lawrence, no relation to the lead, Jennifer Lawrence, helms the follow up to the 2012 dystopian gladiator arena themed series, the Hunger Games, a young adult movie version of Suzanne Collins' book.
The movie is quite faithful to the books, but as in the last movie, mentioning how the game works like a simulator was actually more for the movie audience, as there is very little in the books about the theatrical mechanics of making the arena work. The books are told in first person perspective, as though through Katniss and her allies and enemies.
In the follow up, it is nearly a year later, and the victory tour begins, with the wealthy and evil autocracy orchestrating a goodwill tour in order to squelch a rising rebellion stemming from the appearance of the mocking jay symbol, a bird on fire.
In the books, President Snow is thought of as more snake like than an evil old man with snow white hair, but Donald Sutherland is back chewing scenery along with everyone else, and his plans seem to include making Katniss and Peeta, Josh Hutcherson, look like they're on his side. When this fails, he enlists a new director named Heavensby to the games, played by Philip Seymore Hoffman, who advises fear and loss of hope will stop the rebels, but is operating his own agenda. Haymitch Abernathy, Woody Harrelson, returns as the drunken mentor. Elizabeth Banks chews scenery to the heights as the stylist and presenter.
The mods to American Idol are pretty funny and probably intended to be.
The transforming dress that goes from white to gray black is stolen from Black Swan, but this time the dress burns away instead of falling away.
The evil capitol devises that their quarter quell games, the 75th one, will thus include Katnis and Peeta and all finalists from the past 25 years. They intend to make a statement, but early on, the group teams up instead of fights, and means to use whatever means around them to make it the last broadcast of the games.
Some of the physics flies out the window, but maybe a lot of it is staged and is an illusion. Gravity seems to not be an issue in some scenes. Injury seems also to be convenient so that when at points they might get a horrid wound, only to find some kind of antidote. In the books, Peeta loses a leg.He doesn't appear to have lost one in this. Someone attaches a wire to an arrow and somehow it doesn't fall to the ground before reaching the target, from the weight of the wire, but okay. She was shooting CG arrows anyway. But it's a fantasy movie with mutant calling birds and snarling baboon things.
The funniest unintended line was when someone referred to a character called Flavius and it sounded like they said 'labia', causing the audience to chuckle.
This movie is a fun and enjoyable dark fantasy action thriller, more so than the first, and this time they're not trying to hide the similarities to other movies, but to relish in it.
The preview beforehand for Divergent is ironic and the cover and dystopian premise for that series is taken from...the Hunger Games.
Review by Adam Browne
Director Francis Lawrence, no relation to the lead, Jennifer Lawrence, helms the follow up to the 2012 dystopian gladiator arena themed series, the Hunger Games, a young adult movie version of Suzanne Collins' book.
The movie is quite faithful to the books, but as in the last movie, mentioning how the game works like a simulator was actually more for the movie audience, as there is very little in the books about the theatrical mechanics of making the arena work. The books are told in first person perspective, as though through Katniss and her allies and enemies.
In the follow up, it is nearly a year later, and the victory tour begins, with the wealthy and evil autocracy orchestrating a goodwill tour in order to squelch a rising rebellion stemming from the appearance of the mocking jay symbol, a bird on fire.
In the books, President Snow is thought of as more snake like than an evil old man with snow white hair, but Donald Sutherland is back chewing scenery along with everyone else, and his plans seem to include making Katniss and Peeta, Josh Hutcherson, look like they're on his side. When this fails, he enlists a new director named Heavensby to the games, played by Philip Seymore Hoffman, who advises fear and loss of hope will stop the rebels, but is operating his own agenda. Haymitch Abernathy, Woody Harrelson, returns as the drunken mentor. Elizabeth Banks chews scenery to the heights as the stylist and presenter.
The mods to American Idol are pretty funny and probably intended to be.
The transforming dress that goes from white to gray black is stolen from Black Swan, but this time the dress burns away instead of falling away.
The evil capitol devises that their quarter quell games, the 75th one, will thus include Katnis and Peeta and all finalists from the past 25 years. They intend to make a statement, but early on, the group teams up instead of fights, and means to use whatever means around them to make it the last broadcast of the games.
Some of the physics flies out the window, but maybe a lot of it is staged and is an illusion. Gravity seems to not be an issue in some scenes. Injury seems also to be convenient so that when at points they might get a horrid wound, only to find some kind of antidote. In the books, Peeta loses a leg.He doesn't appear to have lost one in this. Someone attaches a wire to an arrow and somehow it doesn't fall to the ground before reaching the target, from the weight of the wire, but okay. She was shooting CG arrows anyway. But it's a fantasy movie with mutant calling birds and snarling baboon things.
The funniest unintended line was when someone referred to a character called Flavius and it sounded like they said 'labia', causing the audience to chuckle.
This movie is a fun and enjoyable dark fantasy action thriller, more so than the first, and this time they're not trying to hide the similarities to other movies, but to relish in it.
The preview beforehand for Divergent is ironic and the cover and dystopian premise for that series is taken from...the Hunger Games.
Review by Adam Browne
Friday, November 1, 2013
Review: "Ender's Game" is fun despite controvercial author
"Ender's Game" PG 13
Orson Scott Card's novels come to the screen in the Ender saga's first installment, and Summit's second use of the material from a homophobic author, the first being Twilight and Stephanie Meyer, (but Meyer had nothing to do with this).
Ender's Game is based on the first book of a series of military science fiction novels from the 1980s to the late 2000s called the Ender saga, by Orson Scott Card. The director, co-writer, is Gavin Hood, who wrote that X Men Origins movie. Harrison Ford is in it as well as some famous adults, but it's not about them. The only well known child star is Abigail Breslin, as most of the children in it are not well known.
The story is set 50 years after the Bugger war, (as it should have been called like in the book), but in the movie it is the Fornacis war, take what you will from either of those names, where these insect like aliens somehow defeat future Earth and yet leave, so the heroes can rebuild and form a battle school to fight aliens. The idea is simple enough, sort of a Power Rangers meets the Matrix movie, and like Twilight has a lot of well chiseled young men in battle play running about in tight fitting suits, and a gratuitous shower scene fight, which is not in the novel, to let the squeamish audience know it is really manly. Ender even has to be interested in the girl so he doesn't appear to be gay, but clearly his enemies are jealous of her, not him, and it only make you wonder if he actually is gay, which would not be Cards' intent! Ha. So it ends up being funny how they keep trying not to be gay in this, and failing.
Ender ends up playing a game that seems very real and is trained to fight the bugs on the eventually mission to the planet of the bugs. No spoilers.
Guest critic review by Kal Kat
Orson Scott Card's novels come to the screen in the Ender saga's first installment, and Summit's second use of the material from a homophobic author, the first being Twilight and Stephanie Meyer, (but Meyer had nothing to do with this).
Ender's Game is based on the first book of a series of military science fiction novels from the 1980s to the late 2000s called the Ender saga, by Orson Scott Card. The director, co-writer, is Gavin Hood, who wrote that X Men Origins movie. Harrison Ford is in it as well as some famous adults, but it's not about them. The only well known child star is Abigail Breslin, as most of the children in it are not well known.
The story is set 50 years after the Bugger war, (as it should have been called like in the book), but in the movie it is the Fornacis war, take what you will from either of those names, where these insect like aliens somehow defeat future Earth and yet leave, so the heroes can rebuild and form a battle school to fight aliens. The idea is simple enough, sort of a Power Rangers meets the Matrix movie, and like Twilight has a lot of well chiseled young men in battle play running about in tight fitting suits, and a gratuitous shower scene fight, which is not in the novel, to let the squeamish audience know it is really manly. Ender even has to be interested in the girl so he doesn't appear to be gay, but clearly his enemies are jealous of her, not him, and it only make you wonder if he actually is gay, which would not be Cards' intent! Ha. So it ends up being funny how they keep trying not to be gay in this, and failing.
Ender ends up playing a game that seems very real and is trained to fight the bugs on the eventually mission to the planet of the bugs. No spoilers.
Guest critic review by Kal Kat
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Review: "Bad Grandpa" is funny homage to road movies
"Bad Grandpa" PG 13
Irving Zissman, Johnny Knoxville in pounds of makeup, is a widower and has a daughter on crack who is going to jail, and leaves him grandson Billy, to take to his father across country. Thus begins the hidden camera casing road movie of the summer, Bad Grandpa.
The old man bits on Jackass are usually tired except for the last one in part 3, but this movie refreshes the concept by ditching Spike Jonze in drag and transforming him into a corpse that gets into a lot of trouble. Jeff Tremaine and the others are along for the ride behind the scenes, and are not featured directly.
Also note that although having a corpse might seem like Weekend at Bernies it is a lot funnier than that movie because here they so not reanimate it.
The trailer directly riffs from the independent road movie Little Miss Sunshine, the inspiration for the Honey Boo Boo series, (Toddlers and Tiaras/Honey Boo Boo being a direct rip off also), and then turns it head over heels into a parody of Victor Victoria. If you're going to homage a classic why not make fun of two, for the price of one.
Clearly they have also been inspired by the work of Walter Matthaw, Neil Simon and the classic old sketches of what to do with a body, and they use this quite a bit including a funeral home scene that although similar to something Mel Brooks would do, was a fun homage not a rip off.
A lot of the funniest stuff isn't in the trailer, including what seems to be an ode to Robot Chicken's humping robot, involving Zissman and a vending machine. Yikes. Also because Jackass is always joking about the penis, there is bound to be a penis joke somewhere.
The breakfast diner scene where they turn the roadie movie cliche about having a man to man talk with the boy is just incredible! They are so making fun of several movies like this, including Little Miss Sunshine again, which is a lot considering that movie was a cult hit. Why not make a nod or two?
The reactions make the story as hidden cameras and staged bits come together to make puerile comedy gold. If you liked Jackass you won't get so many stunts, and might not like that, but you will get Sasha Coen type pranks. Some critics have called them out on this, but actually Knoxville and team are the American form of Ali G show, of which Sasha is the lead, so it's kind of a nod too, not a rip off. In fact, Knoxville has better timing.
Yes, in Borat Sasha dud ruin a wedding, but he was just spoofing wedding movies, and when Jackass did it in at least one episode and in one of their movies, doing it here isn't ripping of Sasha. It's them just doing what they did before. Now what would have been sweet would have been to have Sasha show up in a cameo, but they didn't do that.
The movie was dedicated to Ryan Dunn, the Jackass guy with the cars and the long beard, who died in a car accident. This caused the audience to react positively to the end also.
It should make a lot of money but will likely not get the Oscar. The comedy awards might be the place to go, and it is one of the best of the year.
Review by Adam Browne
Irving Zissman, Johnny Knoxville in pounds of makeup, is a widower and has a daughter on crack who is going to jail, and leaves him grandson Billy, to take to his father across country. Thus begins the hidden camera casing road movie of the summer, Bad Grandpa.
The old man bits on Jackass are usually tired except for the last one in part 3, but this movie refreshes the concept by ditching Spike Jonze in drag and transforming him into a corpse that gets into a lot of trouble. Jeff Tremaine and the others are along for the ride behind the scenes, and are not featured directly.
Also note that although having a corpse might seem like Weekend at Bernies it is a lot funnier than that movie because here they so not reanimate it.
The trailer directly riffs from the independent road movie Little Miss Sunshine, the inspiration for the Honey Boo Boo series, (Toddlers and Tiaras/Honey Boo Boo being a direct rip off also), and then turns it head over heels into a parody of Victor Victoria. If you're going to homage a classic why not make fun of two, for the price of one.
Clearly they have also been inspired by the work of Walter Matthaw, Neil Simon and the classic old sketches of what to do with a body, and they use this quite a bit including a funeral home scene that although similar to something Mel Brooks would do, was a fun homage not a rip off.
A lot of the funniest stuff isn't in the trailer, including what seems to be an ode to Robot Chicken's humping robot, involving Zissman and a vending machine. Yikes. Also because Jackass is always joking about the penis, there is bound to be a penis joke somewhere.
The breakfast diner scene where they turn the roadie movie cliche about having a man to man talk with the boy is just incredible! They are so making fun of several movies like this, including Little Miss Sunshine again, which is a lot considering that movie was a cult hit. Why not make a nod or two?
The reactions make the story as hidden cameras and staged bits come together to make puerile comedy gold. If you liked Jackass you won't get so many stunts, and might not like that, but you will get Sasha Coen type pranks. Some critics have called them out on this, but actually Knoxville and team are the American form of Ali G show, of which Sasha is the lead, so it's kind of a nod too, not a rip off. In fact, Knoxville has better timing.
Yes, in Borat Sasha dud ruin a wedding, but he was just spoofing wedding movies, and when Jackass did it in at least one episode and in one of their movies, doing it here isn't ripping of Sasha. It's them just doing what they did before. Now what would have been sweet would have been to have Sasha show up in a cameo, but they didn't do that.
The movie was dedicated to Ryan Dunn, the Jackass guy with the cars and the long beard, who died in a car accident. This caused the audience to react positively to the end also.
It should make a lot of money but will likely not get the Oscar. The comedy awards might be the place to go, and it is one of the best of the year.
Review by Adam Browne
Friday, October 11, 2013
Review: "Captain Phillips" is tense and cramped modern pirate thriller
"Captain Phillips" PG 13
Paul Greengrass (Flight 93) uses the book and screenplay of the Rick Phillips story to make a Hollywood thriller in order to get Tom Hanks another Oscar. The story is based upon the events of spring 2009 when Somali pirates held up a cargo ship off the coast of Africa and ransomed the captain. The Alabama merchant ship is set upon in open waters. It caught the news media at the time and it's a wonder Hollywood waited so long to make a movie out of it. Phillips wrote a book about the story from which the movie is based, centering on him, and only showing his side of the story, even though the crew worked together to stop the pirates.
The hero of the story faces off with the evil toothy pirate captain, who is played slightly older than the actual person was. The pirates were all young men about 16 to 19 including their leader. The pirates board the ship after a long chase, but the crew fights back using the ship against their oat, cutting power, and breaking some glass so one of them steps barefoot onto it. It's a little hard to buy that they would be that dumb or careless. Anyway, the navy comes in to the rescue, and chases the lifeboat the pirates have fled in with Phillips as their hostage. Eventually they have to drag the boat out to international waters to arrest the pirates.
The background characters are reduced to a few heroic moments but mainly it's a Hanks vehicle, which at times is unfortunate.
The military is played off as kind of trigger happy, sending in a warship, destroyer and a full SEAL team just to extract one merchant captain held on a lifeboat with pirates. It seems a little over the top. It's not like the man was a ranking admiral or something. The navy also manages to retrieve the ship. It is not clear how old the bad guy is supposed to be, but apparently the real bad guy was no older than 18, but the actor in the movie seemed to be in his mid to late 20s. Curiously though there was an awful lot of press about the incident at the time and they made it sound like he was someone incredibly important. Still, the movie is a fine tense thriller and will likely get an Oscar nod. Finally there is a drama that is worthy this year.
Review by Adam Browne
Paul Greengrass (Flight 93) uses the book and screenplay of the Rick Phillips story to make a Hollywood thriller in order to get Tom Hanks another Oscar. The story is based upon the events of spring 2009 when Somali pirates held up a cargo ship off the coast of Africa and ransomed the captain. The Alabama merchant ship is set upon in open waters. It caught the news media at the time and it's a wonder Hollywood waited so long to make a movie out of it. Phillips wrote a book about the story from which the movie is based, centering on him, and only showing his side of the story, even though the crew worked together to stop the pirates.
The hero of the story faces off with the evil toothy pirate captain, who is played slightly older than the actual person was. The pirates were all young men about 16 to 19 including their leader. The pirates board the ship after a long chase, but the crew fights back using the ship against their oat, cutting power, and breaking some glass so one of them steps barefoot onto it. It's a little hard to buy that they would be that dumb or careless. Anyway, the navy comes in to the rescue, and chases the lifeboat the pirates have fled in with Phillips as their hostage. Eventually they have to drag the boat out to international waters to arrest the pirates.
The background characters are reduced to a few heroic moments but mainly it's a Hanks vehicle, which at times is unfortunate.
The military is played off as kind of trigger happy, sending in a warship, destroyer and a full SEAL team just to extract one merchant captain held on a lifeboat with pirates. It seems a little over the top. It's not like the man was a ranking admiral or something. The navy also manages to retrieve the ship. It is not clear how old the bad guy is supposed to be, but apparently the real bad guy was no older than 18, but the actor in the movie seemed to be in his mid to late 20s. Curiously though there was an awful lot of press about the incident at the time and they made it sound like he was someone incredibly important. Still, the movie is a fine tense thriller and will likely get an Oscar nod. Finally there is a drama that is worthy this year.
Review by Adam Browne
Friday, October 4, 2013
Review: "Gravity" is epic acting showcase to get oscars for scifi at last
Gravity PG-13
Alphonso Cuaron, Harry Potter 3, Children of Men, tackles outer space thriller territory in this Oscar worthy performance of two astronauts stranded in space during a space walk mission. George Clooney and Sandra Bullock, both Oscar winners, are cast as two astronauts, although Clooney would be too old, he is likely just there as his last mission into space, as is implied. Bullock would be pushing it actually, but maybe it is also her last space mission.
The story opens with the shuttle crew of a make believe ship called the Explorer making repairs on Hubble, the space telescope, but a freak satellite explosion sends bits of other satellites at them, stranding them in space and out of control. It is sort of like those movies where two people are stranded at sea and that's the movie.
The technology is pretty spot on although the oxygen would have run out long ago. Despite that, the story includes nifty new space stations, a 3D version for those who want a headache in addition to vertigo, and a lot of stuff flying past the screen and being blasted in weightless grandeur.
It appears to be Cuaron's attempt to get an Oscar for a science fiction movie. He tired before with Children of Men. This one though is a pretty exciting bit that makes you root for the Bullock character, even if she has a funny name, and the character does too. Stone.
Clooney is Kowalsky, which is not so funny, but is not an homage to the guy in Big Bang Theory who also went into space in an episode or two.
The idea of being trapped in outer space with little air, floating out there, and the idea of claustrophobic space stations and having Bullock in her shorts flying around inside the cramped station, might cause some alarm bells to go off. She looks the part of an astronaut more than if they cast someone ridiculously hot, as that wouldn't be realistic, and they were trying for that look. Casting Clooney was to appeal to the crowd that thinks he's the hot lead, but the ladies won't get to see him in shorts. Sorry. The older Oscar folks will probably not get it, but maybe if they show enough of the silence it will make them feel like giving it a vote.
NASA people are probably scratching their heads, but at least it's a fun ride and probably deserves at least a nod for acting and special effects. Not going to say best picture yet. Too soon to call.
Review by Adam Browne
Alphonso Cuaron, Harry Potter 3, Children of Men, tackles outer space thriller territory in this Oscar worthy performance of two astronauts stranded in space during a space walk mission. George Clooney and Sandra Bullock, both Oscar winners, are cast as two astronauts, although Clooney would be too old, he is likely just there as his last mission into space, as is implied. Bullock would be pushing it actually, but maybe it is also her last space mission.
The story opens with the shuttle crew of a make believe ship called the Explorer making repairs on Hubble, the space telescope, but a freak satellite explosion sends bits of other satellites at them, stranding them in space and out of control. It is sort of like those movies where two people are stranded at sea and that's the movie.
The technology is pretty spot on although the oxygen would have run out long ago. Despite that, the story includes nifty new space stations, a 3D version for those who want a headache in addition to vertigo, and a lot of stuff flying past the screen and being blasted in weightless grandeur.
It appears to be Cuaron's attempt to get an Oscar for a science fiction movie. He tired before with Children of Men. This one though is a pretty exciting bit that makes you root for the Bullock character, even if she has a funny name, and the character does too. Stone.
Clooney is Kowalsky, which is not so funny, but is not an homage to the guy in Big Bang Theory who also went into space in an episode or two.
The idea of being trapped in outer space with little air, floating out there, and the idea of claustrophobic space stations and having Bullock in her shorts flying around inside the cramped station, might cause some alarm bells to go off. She looks the part of an astronaut more than if they cast someone ridiculously hot, as that wouldn't be realistic, and they were trying for that look. Casting Clooney was to appeal to the crowd that thinks he's the hot lead, but the ladies won't get to see him in shorts. Sorry. The older Oscar folks will probably not get it, but maybe if they show enough of the silence it will make them feel like giving it a vote.
NASA people are probably scratching their heads, but at least it's a fun ride and probably deserves at least a nod for acting and special effects. Not going to say best picture yet. Too soon to call.
Review by Adam Browne
Friday, August 30, 2013
Review: "One Direction: This Is Us" is New Kids movie for this generation
"One Direction: This Is Us" G
Morgan Spurlock didn't get to do the Justin Bieber documentary, so they let him do the One Direction version some years later. It's now 2013 and the kids born around 2000 get another boy band, studio made boy band. British version of American Idol, X Factor, is an international sensation, studio marketing thing, and they make bands. Back in 2010, after a rousing competition, they selected five late teenage boys to form a rock band called One Direction. This is their story, even if the title is a riff on the a Beatles, and others. It's okay because they are a boy band, and every boy band before them, going back into time to the '50s really, has had a slew of devoted fans waiting and screaming to see them on stage.
Naill, Zayne, Liam and Harry seem like handsome fun blokes, which was probably the appeal putting them together, and at times their revelry appears genuine, like driving around in as golf cart, or talking about spooky stand ups, their own personages on cardboard, or dressing up to fool fans, or playing soccer. Being tired going from concert to concert mirrors the Bieber one, and really in that was more genuine. One of their new songs parodies corporate made bands, which is terribly ironic consider yes, you are a made up band! Their parents have barely seen them since the won the Factor show, but one of them buys his Mom a house. Made you wonder if when they aren't famous anymore will the bank take the house back. Ha.
It could have helped had they actually explained some of the business, like in the Bieber one, that the studio that owns them actually paid for all of their stuff, or something. Then fans aren't as crazy as in the Bieber one, or at least are never interviewed. At one point one of them dresses as a fake security guy to tell some fans they stink. Hopefully they got it was a joke.
With the ridiculous rise of instant access internet to everywhere, all at once, they will not be the first boy band to rise incredibly and be everywhere in three years. It's a new sensation. The Net that is.
As for the songs, including an awful Blondie cover, are kind of same like, and the whole appeal is that self esteem troubled girls will listen to music where the cute boys say nice things about their looks. Literally, that is the theme of half if not most of the songs, and they're all very drab. But when you are 13 and a girl, you haven't heard the crooning of InSync or New Kids or even an old Journey song.
Then the fans grow older and they move on. Doing a movie now makes sense. By 2016-2018 the band will likely be another memory, fond for some, maybe not so for others.
Older siblings and parents of the 1960s might recall the Beatles along the same lines, but they were actually highly talented musicians that could sing and play, and they're still remembered nearly 50 years later. 1D will not be. In the 1980s it was New Kids on the Block, and in the late part of that, girl bands like the Spice Girls. They are still remembered.
The 2D version of the 3D concert is enough. You really don't need the gimmicky flying at your face 3D.
So technically wise the move is all right, a little lazy, and visually tries to be interesting with nice flashy venues, from the famous concert halls in New York, MSG, and London, O2 Arena to other parts. It just needed a bit more heart. Charming buddies can only go so far.
And somehow This Is Us seems an awkward title.
Go and see it if you're a recent teenage girl. It is not recommended if you are a boy.
Review by Adam Browne
Morgan Spurlock didn't get to do the Justin Bieber documentary, so they let him do the One Direction version some years later. It's now 2013 and the kids born around 2000 get another boy band, studio made boy band. British version of American Idol, X Factor, is an international sensation, studio marketing thing, and they make bands. Back in 2010, after a rousing competition, they selected five late teenage boys to form a rock band called One Direction. This is their story, even if the title is a riff on the a Beatles, and others. It's okay because they are a boy band, and every boy band before them, going back into time to the '50s really, has had a slew of devoted fans waiting and screaming to see them on stage.
Naill, Zayne, Liam and Harry seem like handsome fun blokes, which was probably the appeal putting them together, and at times their revelry appears genuine, like driving around in as golf cart, or talking about spooky stand ups, their own personages on cardboard, or dressing up to fool fans, or playing soccer. Being tired going from concert to concert mirrors the Bieber one, and really in that was more genuine. One of their new songs parodies corporate made bands, which is terribly ironic consider yes, you are a made up band! Their parents have barely seen them since the won the Factor show, but one of them buys his Mom a house. Made you wonder if when they aren't famous anymore will the bank take the house back. Ha.
It could have helped had they actually explained some of the business, like in the Bieber one, that the studio that owns them actually paid for all of their stuff, or something. Then fans aren't as crazy as in the Bieber one, or at least are never interviewed. At one point one of them dresses as a fake security guy to tell some fans they stink. Hopefully they got it was a joke.
With the ridiculous rise of instant access internet to everywhere, all at once, they will not be the first boy band to rise incredibly and be everywhere in three years. It's a new sensation. The Net that is.
As for the songs, including an awful Blondie cover, are kind of same like, and the whole appeal is that self esteem troubled girls will listen to music where the cute boys say nice things about their looks. Literally, that is the theme of half if not most of the songs, and they're all very drab. But when you are 13 and a girl, you haven't heard the crooning of InSync or New Kids or even an old Journey song.
Then the fans grow older and they move on. Doing a movie now makes sense. By 2016-2018 the band will likely be another memory, fond for some, maybe not so for others.
Older siblings and parents of the 1960s might recall the Beatles along the same lines, but they were actually highly talented musicians that could sing and play, and they're still remembered nearly 50 years later. 1D will not be. In the 1980s it was New Kids on the Block, and in the late part of that, girl bands like the Spice Girls. They are still remembered.
The 2D version of the 3D concert is enough. You really don't need the gimmicky flying at your face 3D.
So technically wise the move is all right, a little lazy, and visually tries to be interesting with nice flashy venues, from the famous concert halls in New York, MSG, and London, O2 Arena to other parts. It just needed a bit more heart. Charming buddies can only go so far.
And somehow This Is Us seems an awkward title.
Go and see it if you're a recent teenage girl. It is not recommended if you are a boy.
Review by Adam Browne
Friday, August 23, 2013
Review: "The World's End" is witty drinking thriller
"The World's End" R
Edgar Wright, (Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim Saves the World), returns to Simon Pegg comedies with this coming of age has gone comedy about a band of friends who back in 1993 attempted to visit every pub (bar) in their hometown in one night and get hammered, but never finished.
Years later, Pegg's character is a loser who reunites his four friends under false pretenses to have them join him in a reenactment of the World's End pub crawl but shortly after a few oddball gags and some mishaps, it's clear the main protagonist is lying. The odd thing is though he also tangles with a strange robot with blue goo for blood. Soon they are finding robots all over the sleepy town, and they're out to get the wayward band.
The names are forgettable but the wry British humor is not, and there are some quirky good lines in this. It seems to channel both goofy party movies and old science fiction exploitation movies, a cross between Invasion of the Body Snatchers and any number of drinking films.
The antiheroes must get to the final pub before the robot monsters kill them, even though their plan seems to be to all be friends, so long as they obey. This is similar to the cult in Hot Fuzz whereas the town was in fact crazy in that one and causing accidents to get rid of dissenters. The robots also dispatch their objectionable patrons.
Funny spoof of those 2012 movies and the whole crackpot doomsday genre.
Review by Adam Browne
Edgar Wright, (Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim Saves the World), returns to Simon Pegg comedies with this coming of age has gone comedy about a band of friends who back in 1993 attempted to visit every pub (bar) in their hometown in one night and get hammered, but never finished.
Years later, Pegg's character is a loser who reunites his four friends under false pretenses to have them join him in a reenactment of the World's End pub crawl but shortly after a few oddball gags and some mishaps, it's clear the main protagonist is lying. The odd thing is though he also tangles with a strange robot with blue goo for blood. Soon they are finding robots all over the sleepy town, and they're out to get the wayward band.
The names are forgettable but the wry British humor is not, and there are some quirky good lines in this. It seems to channel both goofy party movies and old science fiction exploitation movies, a cross between Invasion of the Body Snatchers and any number of drinking films.
The antiheroes must get to the final pub before the robot monsters kill them, even though their plan seems to be to all be friends, so long as they obey. This is similar to the cult in Hot Fuzz whereas the town was in fact crazy in that one and causing accidents to get rid of dissenters. The robots also dispatch their objectionable patrons.
Funny spoof of those 2012 movies and the whole crackpot doomsday genre.
Review by Adam Browne
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Oscar buzz of 2013? Where are the Dramas?
It is now late summer, early fall of 2013 and there hasn't been a single review of an excellent drama all summer. They might have released dramas we haven't seen, but nothing comes to mind.
In the summer there were two White House gets trashed movies. Not reviewed.
They did a zombie movie or two, including a World War Z and a lesser casst of Warm Bodies. Nothing to even write much about here.
"Lee Daniels' the Butler" hasn't been seen yet, but looks like Forrest Gump with a black butler going through 8 presidents in history, except he's not like Forrest. The presidents are played by actors. Hasn't been reviewed because so far it looks kind of meh.
In November we'll have 'Ender's Game' and expect the fur to fly there, as Marx Cards doesn't like Orson Card's work. (No relation), Not going to get an oscar.
Top Oscar sites will wait until November, late in the game, before guessing on anything.
"Gatsby" isn't even going to get a nod. It just isn't that great a movie.
We would welcome a good drama.
Anyway, "Conjuring" was a good horror movie, but only Cards has seen it.
The "Carrie" remake looks like meh.
But there have been plenty of stinkers we have not seen, like "Smurfs 2", "Grown Ups 2", and the horrible "After Earth". That's what they get for stealing the title of an old cartoon and having Wil Smith and his son in it, and getting Shalayman to do anything.
In the summer there were two White House gets trashed movies. Not reviewed.
They did a zombie movie or two, including a World War Z and a lesser casst of Warm Bodies. Nothing to even write much about here.
"Lee Daniels' the Butler" hasn't been seen yet, but looks like Forrest Gump with a black butler going through 8 presidents in history, except he's not like Forrest. The presidents are played by actors. Hasn't been reviewed because so far it looks kind of meh.
In November we'll have 'Ender's Game' and expect the fur to fly there, as Marx Cards doesn't like Orson Card's work. (No relation), Not going to get an oscar.
Top Oscar sites will wait until November, late in the game, before guessing on anything.
"Gatsby" isn't even going to get a nod. It just isn't that great a movie.
We would welcome a good drama.
Anyway, "Conjuring" was a good horror movie, but only Cards has seen it.
The "Carrie" remake looks like meh.
But there have been plenty of stinkers we have not seen, like "Smurfs 2", "Grown Ups 2", and the horrible "After Earth". That's what they get for stealing the title of an old cartoon and having Wil Smith and his son in it, and getting Shalayman to do anything.
Review: "Kick Ass 2" lacks charm of original and comes off mean
"Kick Ass 2" R
Jeff Wadlow helms the sequel to the movie that made Chloe Moretz a star, Kick Ass 2, and it doesn't quite to the original justice. This being said, it is not as bad as Spider Man 3, and as a parody of the lesser Spider Man sequels, it is brilliant. The story starts off about 2 years after the first. Mindy/Hit Girl, is trying to evade her ward, and cut school, while doing double duty as a crime fighting teenager. Dave Lisewski as Kick Ass is not really helping, as he allies with a spot on riff on Robot Chicken like parody of the Justice League from Smallville. Ha. Well known geeky Christopher Mintz Plasse again returns, but not as Red Mist, as Motherf***er, a now crazed parody of Catwoman crossed with the Green Goblin's son, with the same pathos. He organizes a group of super villains, in a spoof of the Legion of Doom, and launches a war against Kick Ass and his minions. Not sure if the director should be doing a future Justice League movie, as he is competent but his story lacks the comic timing of the original. It's a mean spirited movie that tries to take the gritty world and shoehorn it into the superhero comic angle a bit too much. As times it's enjoyable and there are some truly messed up gross out gags, one including a vomit and poo device used to get revenge on school bullies, and another with a dog that sicks balls used to take a bite out of a mobster. Still there are moments. It's not as bad a critics are saying. ** stars.
Review by Adam Browne
Jeff Wadlow helms the sequel to the movie that made Chloe Moretz a star, Kick Ass 2, and it doesn't quite to the original justice. This being said, it is not as bad as Spider Man 3, and as a parody of the lesser Spider Man sequels, it is brilliant. The story starts off about 2 years after the first. Mindy/Hit Girl, is trying to evade her ward, and cut school, while doing double duty as a crime fighting teenager. Dave Lisewski as Kick Ass is not really helping, as he allies with a spot on riff on Robot Chicken like parody of the Justice League from Smallville. Ha. Well known geeky Christopher Mintz Plasse again returns, but not as Red Mist, as Motherf***er, a now crazed parody of Catwoman crossed with the Green Goblin's son, with the same pathos. He organizes a group of super villains, in a spoof of the Legion of Doom, and launches a war against Kick Ass and his minions. Not sure if the director should be doing a future Justice League movie, as he is competent but his story lacks the comic timing of the original. It's a mean spirited movie that tries to take the gritty world and shoehorn it into the superhero comic angle a bit too much. As times it's enjoyable and there are some truly messed up gross out gags, one including a vomit and poo device used to get revenge on school bullies, and another with a dog that sicks balls used to take a bite out of a mobster. Still there are moments. It's not as bad a critics are saying. ** stars.
Review by Adam Browne
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Review: "Elysium" is both dazzling and gritty showing divided worlds
"Elysium" R
Neill Blomkamp, (District 9) directs Matt Damon in the 24 movie, no actually Elysium, the trippy scifi action flick that tells of a world ruined by corporate and political stupidity. This forces the poor class to remain on Earth while the rich can live in orbit on a glittering O'Neill colony Taurus and not ever get sick or die.
Immediately the visuals strike you, as the director is a FX guy at heart and likes stunning images. The ads and movie posters show the exo suit wearing antihero, Max, posing like in the old scifi novels in the tradition of Man Plus and modern video games like Halo and Eve. (Blomkamp was originally going to do a Halo movie).
Maybe the station personnel never get sick because they had to overcome the space radiation that surely would have cooked them inside what appeared to be an unprotected atmosphere field clinging to the inside of the Taurus.
Also the thing changes size and perspective. The opening shot makes it appear as though the station is as big in diameter as the Earth next to it, but other shots show it as big as the moon, to as small as six miles in diameter. If they are generating gravity through centripetal force, it would have to be nearly the diameter of a small moon in oder to be even half an Earth g. Nobody on the station would be able to walk on Earth. That's why they would need exo suits. Genius.
Max's ex girlfriend, Frey, Alice Braga, is a nurse at a local hospital on the mean streets of a gritty, dirty ruined Los Angeles, where she also treats her daughter who has leukemia.
Max works for this evil boss, action star William Finchner as Carlyle, making robot parts and drones. (The drones are actually directly referenced in this, like in the Tom Cruise one, but not like in Star Trek, where they are torpedoes).
Jodie Foster plays the evil station manager, Delacort, who constantly schemes to usurp the power of the station from Faran Tahir, (of Star Trek 2009), President Patel. She even shoots down immigrant ships using a henchman with assorted military weapons.
Delacort is apparently insane and keeps talking with a strange mixture of French, English, highland New Yorker and something else, but it is not consistent and a little distracting. She should have just went for New England upper crust speech. That would have worked better. Eventually she just goes for that anyway.
After she shoots down the immigrant shuttles, she gets in a scheme with the evil boss,who just happens to be the guy that built the station, or at least hjis company did, and he's bragging he did it himself. It's hard to tell if he also is just a super megalomaniac and it just taking credit, and incredible if he actually was the one who built it, as there would havde been tens of thousands of workers building that thing over centuries.
The story only takes place in 2154, so unless they get started tomorrow, they will never finish it by 2154.
Max gets injured when his evil foreman tells him to crawl into a radiation zone where the robots are processed. It is not clear why the robot machine doesn't have a safety device that would immediately shut down the radiation injector thing, and it's not clear why they would have such a dangerous little crawl space on the factory floor. OSHA no longer exists in the future.
He is then sent home to die in a few days, where he comes across two friends, including a whacked out computer hacker who wants to steal the boss man's secrets from right out of his head jack. In the future they all have them. He gets the opportunity when the crazy car jacking buddies that work for him offer to put him in the exo suit so he can play like the guy in Man Plus and Man Plus 2, (an old book series), and maybe like the guy in Gattica a little. Now if only they gave that thing wings! Nope.
Presumably this one mega corporation has bought out the entire world and built the station using all of the metals and materials from Earth, so then the evil boss literally is in charge of the mess. How draconian and dystopian. It's Disctrict 9 without aliens but with a space station. Maybe it's in the same alternate universe as D9 and the station was started in the 1960s. They never said it but then it might explain how it got built so big, so fast.
Eventually Max is involved in accidentally killing the evil boss, and is being chased by the tracker and his evil allies, and Frey and her daughter are taken, and all of them meet up on a ship headed for the station, and a destiny that might change the status quo for the station and Earth.
Review by Adam Browne
Neill Blomkamp, (District 9) directs Matt Damon in the 24 movie, no actually Elysium, the trippy scifi action flick that tells of a world ruined by corporate and political stupidity. This forces the poor class to remain on Earth while the rich can live in orbit on a glittering O'Neill colony Taurus and not ever get sick or die.
Immediately the visuals strike you, as the director is a FX guy at heart and likes stunning images. The ads and movie posters show the exo suit wearing antihero, Max, posing like in the old scifi novels in the tradition of Man Plus and modern video games like Halo and Eve. (Blomkamp was originally going to do a Halo movie).
Maybe the station personnel never get sick because they had to overcome the space radiation that surely would have cooked them inside what appeared to be an unprotected atmosphere field clinging to the inside of the Taurus.
Also the thing changes size and perspective. The opening shot makes it appear as though the station is as big in diameter as the Earth next to it, but other shots show it as big as the moon, to as small as six miles in diameter. If they are generating gravity through centripetal force, it would have to be nearly the diameter of a small moon in oder to be even half an Earth g. Nobody on the station would be able to walk on Earth. That's why they would need exo suits. Genius.
Max's ex girlfriend, Frey, Alice Braga, is a nurse at a local hospital on the mean streets of a gritty, dirty ruined Los Angeles, where she also treats her daughter who has leukemia.
Max works for this evil boss, action star William Finchner as Carlyle, making robot parts and drones. (The drones are actually directly referenced in this, like in the Tom Cruise one, but not like in Star Trek, where they are torpedoes).
Jodie Foster plays the evil station manager, Delacort, who constantly schemes to usurp the power of the station from Faran Tahir, (of Star Trek 2009), President Patel. She even shoots down immigrant ships using a henchman with assorted military weapons.
Delacort is apparently insane and keeps talking with a strange mixture of French, English, highland New Yorker and something else, but it is not consistent and a little distracting. She should have just went for New England upper crust speech. That would have worked better. Eventually she just goes for that anyway.
After she shoots down the immigrant shuttles, she gets in a scheme with the evil boss,who just happens to be the guy that built the station, or at least hjis company did, and he's bragging he did it himself. It's hard to tell if he also is just a super megalomaniac and it just taking credit, and incredible if he actually was the one who built it, as there would havde been tens of thousands of workers building that thing over centuries.
The story only takes place in 2154, so unless they get started tomorrow, they will never finish it by 2154.
Max gets injured when his evil foreman tells him to crawl into a radiation zone where the robots are processed. It is not clear why the robot machine doesn't have a safety device that would immediately shut down the radiation injector thing, and it's not clear why they would have such a dangerous little crawl space on the factory floor. OSHA no longer exists in the future.
He is then sent home to die in a few days, where he comes across two friends, including a whacked out computer hacker who wants to steal the boss man's secrets from right out of his head jack. In the future they all have them. He gets the opportunity when the crazy car jacking buddies that work for him offer to put him in the exo suit so he can play like the guy in Man Plus and Man Plus 2, (an old book series), and maybe like the guy in Gattica a little. Now if only they gave that thing wings! Nope.
Presumably this one mega corporation has bought out the entire world and built the station using all of the metals and materials from Earth, so then the evil boss literally is in charge of the mess. How draconian and dystopian. It's Disctrict 9 without aliens but with a space station. Maybe it's in the same alternate universe as D9 and the station was started in the 1960s. They never said it but then it might explain how it got built so big, so fast.
Eventually Max is involved in accidentally killing the evil boss, and is being chased by the tracker and his evil allies, and Frey and her daughter are taken, and all of them meet up on a ship headed for the station, and a destiny that might change the status quo for the station and Earth.
Review by Adam Browne
Friday, July 26, 2013
Review: "The Wolverine" finds the X Men antihero battling ninjas in Japan
"The Wolverine" PG 13
Seventy some years ago, Logan the Wolverine saved a Japanese army man during the bombing of Nagasaki. Seven decades later, on his dying wish, the man calls for Logan to return to Japan and repay his life debt. Troubled by nightmares about Jean Gray's ghost, and a wisecrascking Japanese guardian, Logan meets up with the man, who allegedly dies and entrusts him with guarding his daughter, and the possible secret of mortality. Logan is called a ronan or samurai without hout a master. Viper, another mutant, has apparently used her own powers to surpress Logan's popwers, so he is on the run through Japan from one amazing action set to another, including a bullet train fight, a Crouching Tiger nod in a palace house, outdoor street battles, and the final fight with the Silver Samurai. It is right out of the 1990s comic adaption. They also do some clever retcon to fix some of the damage from X Men 3, and X Men Origins by pretending some events may have not happened. Like if Jean is a ghost or something, maybe she isn't really dead, and there are other mutants around, so they couldn't have done away with all of them. This is just as well. And stay for the end credits sequence. It is crazy. It also helped that in the theater were several hyperactive teenagers giggling at every other scene. Well maybe that wasn't a help so much. Hugh Jackman though looks much older than when he started 13 years ago. They didn't de-age him. Ha.
Review by Adam Browne
Seventy some years ago, Logan the Wolverine saved a Japanese army man during the bombing of Nagasaki. Seven decades later, on his dying wish, the man calls for Logan to return to Japan and repay his life debt. Troubled by nightmares about Jean Gray's ghost, and a wisecrascking Japanese guardian, Logan meets up with the man, who allegedly dies and entrusts him with guarding his daughter, and the possible secret of mortality. Logan is called a ronan or samurai without hout a master. Viper, another mutant, has apparently used her own powers to surpress Logan's popwers, so he is on the run through Japan from one amazing action set to another, including a bullet train fight, a Crouching Tiger nod in a palace house, outdoor street battles, and the final fight with the Silver Samurai. It is right out of the 1990s comic adaption. They also do some clever retcon to fix some of the damage from X Men 3, and X Men Origins by pretending some events may have not happened. Like if Jean is a ghost or something, maybe she isn't really dead, and there are other mutants around, so they couldn't have done away with all of them. This is just as well. And stay for the end credits sequence. It is crazy. It also helped that in the theater were several hyperactive teenagers giggling at every other scene. Well maybe that wasn't a help so much. Hugh Jackman though looks much older than when he started 13 years ago. They didn't de-age him. Ha.
Review by Adam Browne
Reiew: "Monsters University" is cash grab prequel fuzed with Animal House and others
"Monsters University" G
Mike and Silly are freshman in college in the bizarre prequel to the original hit, Monsters Inc. Why? Cash grab perhaps? Currently there is a cartoon called Monster High, perhaps one of their inspirations, and a remake of Animal House is undoubtedly around the corner, so why not make a college based Monster story? Sure. That will not sound like Ahh Real Monsters even more. The Ahh monsters were in high school, right? Ah yeah. Yikes. Is it because the 8 year olds that watched the first one are now in college and will feel nostalgic 12 years later? Unlike Toy Story 3, which actually made sense, this doesn't. They couldn't do a sequel so they go back in time and show how Mike and Sully met. The problem is, nobody cares. Really. This is information that's just not important. It brought up more questions than answers. It included weird prat and frat sight gags that were lost on anyone that might be under 12. At one point they joke about how frats tend to haze each other. Yeah, little kids know all about that. Exactly who is the target audience? They might not even know. This shoud have gone direct to video. I'd prefer to rewatch Monsters Inc instead, which was not great but better than this. The best part is in the end credits with the snail late for class.Furthermore, Animal House is a better movie than this, and not for kids.
Review by Adam Browne
Mike and Silly are freshman in college in the bizarre prequel to the original hit, Monsters Inc. Why? Cash grab perhaps? Currently there is a cartoon called Monster High, perhaps one of their inspirations, and a remake of Animal House is undoubtedly around the corner, so why not make a college based Monster story? Sure. That will not sound like Ahh Real Monsters even more. The Ahh monsters were in high school, right? Ah yeah. Yikes. Is it because the 8 year olds that watched the first one are now in college and will feel nostalgic 12 years later? Unlike Toy Story 3, which actually made sense, this doesn't. They couldn't do a sequel so they go back in time and show how Mike and Sully met. The problem is, nobody cares. Really. This is information that's just not important. It brought up more questions than answers. It included weird prat and frat sight gags that were lost on anyone that might be under 12. At one point they joke about how frats tend to haze each other. Yeah, little kids know all about that. Exactly who is the target audience? They might not even know. This shoud have gone direct to video. I'd prefer to rewatch Monsters Inc instead, which was not great but better than this. The best part is in the end credits with the snail late for class.Furthermore, Animal House is a better movie than this, and not for kids.
Review by Adam Browne
Review: "Monsters Inc." is similar to Nick toon as monster workers and ends well
"Monsters Inc." G
Prior to 2001, a Nickelodeon cartoon named Ahh Real Monsters featured a band of misfit monsters living in the real world, including floating eyeballs, creaky frog things, snakes, chameleons and annoying snake things. The cartoon was bizarre. It seemed like then Pixar lifted the idea for their version, Monster's Inc., a digital animated version set in a monster's factory, where Mike and Sully are workers who keep the doors closed while the screams of humans are used for power. It is a different concept, but goofy monsters with weird coloring is very similar. The Nick toon went away. The Monster's Inc. became a franchise. The original Monster Inc. premise is that a little girl greeps into the monster world and is not scared of Mike and Sully, changing that world forever. But that frog lady was right out of the other show. Deny it all you will. And the eyeball. The show was cute. The movie was cute.
Review by Adam Browne
Prior to 2001, a Nickelodeon cartoon named Ahh Real Monsters featured a band of misfit monsters living in the real world, including floating eyeballs, creaky frog things, snakes, chameleons and annoying snake things. The cartoon was bizarre. It seemed like then Pixar lifted the idea for their version, Monster's Inc., a digital animated version set in a monster's factory, where Mike and Sully are workers who keep the doors closed while the screams of humans are used for power. It is a different concept, but goofy monsters with weird coloring is very similar. The Nick toon went away. The Monster's Inc. became a franchise. The original Monster Inc. premise is that a little girl greeps into the monster world and is not scared of Mike and Sully, changing that world forever. But that frog lady was right out of the other show. Deny it all you will. And the eyeball. The show was cute. The movie was cute.
Review by Adam Browne
Friday, July 12, 2013
Review: "Pacific Rim" is action love letter to Gozilla and to giant robot fans and great fun
"Pacific Rim" PG 13
Guillermo del Toro, director of Pan's Labyrinth and Children of Men returns to science fiction fantasy with this strange nod to Godzilla and the Monsters, and Macross Super Dimension Fortress, (in the US called Robotech), and any number of other flicks of the genre.
The premise is not so much as Gun Jocks/Evangelon/Macross movie as it is a Godzilla homage, and then some, and not a rip off so much as a love letter to the fans, spattered in grease and slime, and gore, and stumped with giant robot feet! Ha.
The film takes place several years after an alien monster invasion through a wormhole deep down in the Pacific ocean. Apparently in the future the aliens have overcome the crushing pressures at seafloor depth, and are able to roll onto land, tearing apart cities and air forces, navies and armies. Called in to fight the various types of monsters, the Kaiju, are the Jeagers, giant hunter robots driven using two pilots joined by neural bridge.
The designs have some semblance to video games like Halo and Portal, and the characters do talk like they're in a video game, but it's more fun than Transformers 2007, and has much better dialog. They don't make one pee joke at all.
The story does have an excitable black male protagonist, Sttacker, who acts like a GI Joe, which is cool because there has to be one in these types of movies. This is so that he can lead the troops and kick some major butt, and make heroic speeches, and lead to gets and glory.
The hero though is a former jeager pilot, Becket, who had lost his brother years earlier in a battle, but is asked to come back and help out with the lasdt hope, the remaining robots and their scruffy pilots in a Hong Kong base. Along for the ride is a rookie female hero, Mako, who learns to bomd with the hero to help stop the invasion by the beasts.
Also there are two crazy scientists looking to brain link with some alien brains so they can learn what their secret us.
Guillermo del Toro, director of Pan's Labyrinth and Children of Men returns to science fiction fantasy with this strange nod to Godzilla and the Monsters, and Macross Super Dimension Fortress, (in the US called Robotech), and any number of other flicks of the genre.
The premise is not so much as Gun Jocks/Evangelon/Macross movie as it is a Godzilla homage, and then some, and not a rip off so much as a love letter to the fans, spattered in grease and slime, and gore, and stumped with giant robot feet! Ha.
The film takes place several years after an alien monster invasion through a wormhole deep down in the Pacific ocean. Apparently in the future the aliens have overcome the crushing pressures at seafloor depth, and are able to roll onto land, tearing apart cities and air forces, navies and armies. Called in to fight the various types of monsters, the Kaiju, are the Jeagers, giant hunter robots driven using two pilots joined by neural bridge.
The designs have some semblance to video games like Halo and Portal, and the characters do talk like they're in a video game, but it's more fun than Transformers 2007, and has much better dialog. They don't make one pee joke at all.
The story does have an excitable black male protagonist, Sttacker, who acts like a GI Joe, which is cool because there has to be one in these types of movies. This is so that he can lead the troops and kick some major butt, and make heroic speeches, and lead to gets and glory.
The hero though is a former jeager pilot, Becket, who had lost his brother years earlier in a battle, but is asked to come back and help out with the lasdt hope, the remaining robots and their scruffy pilots in a Hong Kong base. Along for the ride is a rookie female hero, Mako, who learns to bomd with the hero to help stop the invasion by the beasts.
Also there are two crazy scientists looking to brain link with some alien brains so they can learn what their secret us.
Review: "World War Z" takes on zombie novel and seems familiar
"World War Z" R
Marc Forster, director of Finding Neverland, does a movie adaptation of the cult zombie novel, War War Z, by Max Brooks with Brad Pitt in the lead, running from zombies wearing surfer hair and a five o'clock shadow beard.
Gerry, Pitt's character, is a United Nations special operations guy who now has a family and is set upon one morning by zombies while trying to get through Philadelphia. Eventually he and his family get to an apartment in New Jersey where the next day they are taken to a ship out at sea by helicopter.
One on the Navy ship, Gerry's old boss wants him to go on a mission to Korea with a scientist to help find a cure, but when he reluctantly goes, the plan goes wrong and the scientist is killed in a zombie attack.
Gerry manages to get to Jerusalem, which has been walled in like a fortress, and he meets a leader there with more of as stubbly beard, who thought it was a good idea to erect a wall before it all even started. The problem is the zombies are clever enough to scale walls, and soon invade the city. Then Gerry must escape by jet plane to Ireland where there is a world health organization base.
In tow with him is a survivor who had to have her hand cut off because a zombie bit her, but she doesn't turn. She can handle a gun.
They crash the plane and end up at the building, where they hope to discover a cure using other pathogens to mask their scent, or something.
The flick borrows liberally from Romero and Rodriquez, and from the creators of the Bourne trilogy. For an action film it has plenty of running and jumping, fighting and loud things blowing apart. In terms of gore, not so much, considering it's a war. The slick special effect are kinetic and the pacing never gets dull. The issue might be with purists of the book, which the critic did not read, and might object to it being just a big action flick. Some surprises happen but most scares are textbook, loud and obvious, so it's not scary. It's a good rental in the future. Don't bother with the 3D version as this moves around so much it would be painful in 3D.
Review by Adam Browne
Marc Forster, director of Finding Neverland, does a movie adaptation of the cult zombie novel, War War Z, by Max Brooks with Brad Pitt in the lead, running from zombies wearing surfer hair and a five o'clock shadow beard.
Gerry, Pitt's character, is a United Nations special operations guy who now has a family and is set upon one morning by zombies while trying to get through Philadelphia. Eventually he and his family get to an apartment in New Jersey where the next day they are taken to a ship out at sea by helicopter.
One on the Navy ship, Gerry's old boss wants him to go on a mission to Korea with a scientist to help find a cure, but when he reluctantly goes, the plan goes wrong and the scientist is killed in a zombie attack.
Gerry manages to get to Jerusalem, which has been walled in like a fortress, and he meets a leader there with more of as stubbly beard, who thought it was a good idea to erect a wall before it all even started. The problem is the zombies are clever enough to scale walls, and soon invade the city. Then Gerry must escape by jet plane to Ireland where there is a world health organization base.
In tow with him is a survivor who had to have her hand cut off because a zombie bit her, but she doesn't turn. She can handle a gun.
They crash the plane and end up at the building, where they hope to discover a cure using other pathogens to mask their scent, or something.
The flick borrows liberally from Romero and Rodriquez, and from the creators of the Bourne trilogy. For an action film it has plenty of running and jumping, fighting and loud things blowing apart. In terms of gore, not so much, considering it's a war. The slick special effect are kinetic and the pacing never gets dull. The issue might be with purists of the book, which the critic did not read, and might object to it being just a big action flick. Some surprises happen but most scares are textbook, loud and obvious, so it's not scary. It's a good rental in the future. Don't bother with the 3D version as this moves around so much it would be painful in 3D.
Review by Adam Browne
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Review: "Now You See Me" is baffling and illogical and lacks magic
"Now You See Me" PG 13
Woody Harrelson is playing a magical mind reader, or cold reader actually, in a strange flick about four magicians who are called together to pull off an elaborate series of heists, from Las Vegas to New Orleans to New York. Mark Raffalo is the secret angent sent to figure out how they pull of the Vegas heist. Morgan Freeman plays a cynical ex magician who debunks magic on his TV show and is following the four magicians. Michael Caine plays their benefactor who they later set up in their second heist. Eisenberg is in it also, playing like he is the same type of smart alec character he played in the Facebook movie, but now he is a magician. The 'four horsemen' as they call their act, want to work for a secret organization known as the Eye which has some odd ties to Egypt where allegedly Robin Hood type magicians robbed from the rich to give to the poor. The first heist involves stealing from a French bank using bait and switch and a fake transporter device. The second involves somehow hacking the bank account of the rich benefactor and forcing all of his money to go to the audience. The third is a double switch where they stage an FBI chase ending in a staged accident, and a large concert like event, all to switch the safes in a secret warehouse somewhere in Manhattan.
Suffice it to say, this movie is popcorn flare, not to be taken seriously, so just enjoy the visuals and paper thin plot, because the closer you look, the less you will find. The heists couldn't even be pulled off! The magicians seemed to have hypnotized not just guards at banks and money exchanges, but computer firewalls, masses of people, and the audience, into thinking that they could do what they did, print fake millions, or make more, or send them into a different car or a truck, or make up fake mirror rooms that make it look like it's empty when it's not. This is not how magic works, but okay. It's not going to make sense. Hypnotism doesn't do this either. If it did, anyone could make someone hand over their wallet and car keys randomly, send them all their money, and then smile doing it. Right. And the big reveal wass telegraphed from the opening scene. It was only when the writers appeared, our Transformers and Catwoman guys, Kurtzman and Urichi, that the audience echoed the words of PT Barnum. There's a sucker born every minute. Which Freeman says in the movie.
Review by Adam Browne
Woody Harrelson is playing a magical mind reader, or cold reader actually, in a strange flick about four magicians who are called together to pull off an elaborate series of heists, from Las Vegas to New Orleans to New York. Mark Raffalo is the secret angent sent to figure out how they pull of the Vegas heist. Morgan Freeman plays a cynical ex magician who debunks magic on his TV show and is following the four magicians. Michael Caine plays their benefactor who they later set up in their second heist. Eisenberg is in it also, playing like he is the same type of smart alec character he played in the Facebook movie, but now he is a magician. The 'four horsemen' as they call their act, want to work for a secret organization known as the Eye which has some odd ties to Egypt where allegedly Robin Hood type magicians robbed from the rich to give to the poor. The first heist involves stealing from a French bank using bait and switch and a fake transporter device. The second involves somehow hacking the bank account of the rich benefactor and forcing all of his money to go to the audience. The third is a double switch where they stage an FBI chase ending in a staged accident, and a large concert like event, all to switch the safes in a secret warehouse somewhere in Manhattan.
Suffice it to say, this movie is popcorn flare, not to be taken seriously, so just enjoy the visuals and paper thin plot, because the closer you look, the less you will find. The heists couldn't even be pulled off! The magicians seemed to have hypnotized not just guards at banks and money exchanges, but computer firewalls, masses of people, and the audience, into thinking that they could do what they did, print fake millions, or make more, or send them into a different car or a truck, or make up fake mirror rooms that make it look like it's empty when it's not. This is not how magic works, but okay. It's not going to make sense. Hypnotism doesn't do this either. If it did, anyone could make someone hand over their wallet and car keys randomly, send them all their money, and then smile doing it. Right. And the big reveal wass telegraphed from the opening scene. It was only when the writers appeared, our Transformers and Catwoman guys, Kurtzman and Urichi, that the audience echoed the words of PT Barnum. There's a sucker born every minute. Which Freeman says in the movie.
Review by Adam Browne
Friday, June 14, 2013
Review: "Man of Steel" is action packed but lacks soul of a hero
"Man of Steel" PG 13
Zack Snyder's reboot of the 2006 Superman Returns has nothing in common with the classic Superman and Superman 2. On a base level, yes it reboots Krypton and casts Russell Crowe in the Brandaw part as Jor El, but the newcomers among the cast never quite jell into the roles they're playing. It doesn't feel like Superman any more than Into Darkness was true to Star Trek. That said, as a action film it makes up for the lackluster 2006 movie in aces, opening with a falling Krypton among a space rebellion led by General Zod, actor Michael Shannon, and his armies. Picking up on the last son of Krypton stuff, and a page out of Chris Nolan's Batman movies, Zimmer's score makes for a riveting send off for the baby Kal El, who will become Superman. The whole back story is told in confusing flashbacks as an adult Clark Kent, in his bearded guise, falls from an oil rig, and then later from something else.
This thing would have been horrid in 3D so I saw the 2D version.
The classic films from the 70s and 80s were not heavy on special effect but had heart and soul, and this movie tried to have heart, and lots of action, and in the blender of shiny bits of action misses out because the audience is jarred from one emotional glance to a burning ship, to a house that gets attacked to some kind of army versus the bad guys battle. It is better than Returns though, which relied much too heavily on the boring moping version of his re imagined early 2000s persona from the later comics.
Snyder and Singer before him didn't get it. Superman is a boy scout. He's the American hero next to Marvel's Captain America. He's fun! Sometimes he is as dark and brooding as Zod and his two henchmen. That's not Superman. That's Batman. Nolan must have done some editing.
Apparently Zod and his ilk have escaped inrpisonment in the phantom zone and have been searching the stars looking for Kal El, even though really their finding him is kind of iffy. They arrive at Earth with an ultimatum and plan to use a terra forming machine called a 'world engine' to reformat the planet into a new Krypton, taking on Lex's plan from the 2006 movie to say, to the nth degree.
Singer harkened to Richard Donner's movies but Snyder chose to amp them up so much it's hard to follow. Also he gets to blast half of Kansas and later New York, or Metropolis, in a mega battle, channeling post 9/11 fears in an obvious clash of falling buildings and super punches and tosses. Yes he does have a knack for laying on the action, but the parts where there is supposed to be character seem washed out.
Compared to Returns from 2006 this is a flawed but enjoyable master work. It is better than Superman 3 (the Pryor one) and way better than Superman 4 (the Nuclear Man one). However, heavy CGI can't make up for the lacking soul in this one, even if Superman holds the key to Krypton, and he can fight Zod in the end.
The idea of the Kyrpton atmosphere being different from Earth is interesting. They have some very cool ideas like that. And tossing in the World Engine was an interesting twist, although you'd expect Zod to have a super weapon, otherwise there isn't a story, as modern super movies have to do that.
When we last saw Zod on film it was 1981 and his version was the machine of doom, and he didn't need a big hulking machine thing. Kryptonians are stronger because of the Sun being yellow. The new Zod is a good actor and warms to the part, and almost channels the original, but not quite. (Like Khan in Into Darkness, he isn't quite right).
Superman has to be fun. The later comics were darker so it's a trend, but really he should be fun. Yes I know there was a generation of stuff before the 1970s movies. I just wasn't born yet. The movie was awesome when it came out in 1978. This is merely a new version with a lot of action. It's better than the 5th movie, but not perfect.
I know some critics have shredded it, but it's not that bad. It gets 3 stars for trying at least.
Review by Adam Browne
Zack Snyder's reboot of the 2006 Superman Returns has nothing in common with the classic Superman and Superman 2. On a base level, yes it reboots Krypton and casts Russell Crowe in the Brandaw part as Jor El, but the newcomers among the cast never quite jell into the roles they're playing. It doesn't feel like Superman any more than Into Darkness was true to Star Trek. That said, as a action film it makes up for the lackluster 2006 movie in aces, opening with a falling Krypton among a space rebellion led by General Zod, actor Michael Shannon, and his armies. Picking up on the last son of Krypton stuff, and a page out of Chris Nolan's Batman movies, Zimmer's score makes for a riveting send off for the baby Kal El, who will become Superman. The whole back story is told in confusing flashbacks as an adult Clark Kent, in his bearded guise, falls from an oil rig, and then later from something else.
This thing would have been horrid in 3D so I saw the 2D version.
The classic films from the 70s and 80s were not heavy on special effect but had heart and soul, and this movie tried to have heart, and lots of action, and in the blender of shiny bits of action misses out because the audience is jarred from one emotional glance to a burning ship, to a house that gets attacked to some kind of army versus the bad guys battle. It is better than Returns though, which relied much too heavily on the boring moping version of his re imagined early 2000s persona from the later comics.
Snyder and Singer before him didn't get it. Superman is a boy scout. He's the American hero next to Marvel's Captain America. He's fun! Sometimes he is as dark and brooding as Zod and his two henchmen. That's not Superman. That's Batman. Nolan must have done some editing.
Apparently Zod and his ilk have escaped inrpisonment in the phantom zone and have been searching the stars looking for Kal El, even though really their finding him is kind of iffy. They arrive at Earth with an ultimatum and plan to use a terra forming machine called a 'world engine' to reformat the planet into a new Krypton, taking on Lex's plan from the 2006 movie to say, to the nth degree.
Singer harkened to Richard Donner's movies but Snyder chose to amp them up so much it's hard to follow. Also he gets to blast half of Kansas and later New York, or Metropolis, in a mega battle, channeling post 9/11 fears in an obvious clash of falling buildings and super punches and tosses. Yes he does have a knack for laying on the action, but the parts where there is supposed to be character seem washed out.
Compared to Returns from 2006 this is a flawed but enjoyable master work. It is better than Superman 3 (the Pryor one) and way better than Superman 4 (the Nuclear Man one). However, heavy CGI can't make up for the lacking soul in this one, even if Superman holds the key to Krypton, and he can fight Zod in the end.
The idea of the Kyrpton atmosphere being different from Earth is interesting. They have some very cool ideas like that. And tossing in the World Engine was an interesting twist, although you'd expect Zod to have a super weapon, otherwise there isn't a story, as modern super movies have to do that.
When we last saw Zod on film it was 1981 and his version was the machine of doom, and he didn't need a big hulking machine thing. Kryptonians are stronger because of the Sun being yellow. The new Zod is a good actor and warms to the part, and almost channels the original, but not quite. (Like Khan in Into Darkness, he isn't quite right).
Superman has to be fun. The later comics were darker so it's a trend, but really he should be fun. Yes I know there was a generation of stuff before the 1970s movies. I just wasn't born yet. The movie was awesome when it came out in 1978. This is merely a new version with a lot of action. It's better than the 5th movie, but not perfect.
I know some critics have shredded it, but it's not that bad. It gets 3 stars for trying at least.
Review by Adam Browne
Friday, June 7, 2013
Review: "The Great Gatsby" does not live up to the hype
"The Great Gatsby"PG 13
Baz Luhrmann, (Moulin Rouge, Austrialia) directs a lavish send up to F. Scott Fitzgerald's flapper era masterpiece, 'The Great Gatsby', despite it being made into a film at least half a dozen times, a stage play, and the bane of school literature classes. Leo DeCaprio plays Gatsby and Tobey McGuire plays Nick Callaway, his neighbor friend, who has a cousin named Daisy (newcomer Carey Mulligan) who Gatsby secretly loves. The trouble is that Daisy is married to Tom Buchanan, the rich aristocrat across the bay from Gatsby. They live in the fictional town of West Egg. Tom is secretly having an affair with this poor man's wife in the sticks part of town. Eventually this all factors together when their worlds collide as Nick meets Gatsby at a party, one of his lavish flapper era digs in an attempt to attract Daisy, and Nick agrees to reintroduce them. Eventually someone is killed in a car accident and in the end it's the same tragedy the book was. That they got right. The movie looks like a glossed version of the book, despite the location obviously not being New York, but some other place in disguise. (Turns out it was Sydney, Australia).
Anyone who was actually raised in the roaring 1920s likely is dead and doesn't remember much about this time period. Since my Grandmother was, I know a lot about it. They did have a prohibition against alcohol which made the mobs rich. They did have speakeasies, places to secretly get booze. The cars in the film were fairly spot on, despite a duusenberg with a breakaway glass modern windshield. (Automobiles didn't have that glass until the 1960s).
The wigs were interesting on the actors. Ha.
Then the jazzy music is both modern rap and modern swag, and doesn't fit. At all. The music s distracting! It pulls your right out of the party scene when something like club music blares over flatter dolls and rich fat cats. Really? Did you have to let them put rap music in it? Fine in Moulin Rouge when it was a fable, but this is kind of based on a story sent in a certain time period where you did the details well enough to suit some folks.
During one scene, Nick and Gatsby are speeding along a highway toward the Brooklyn bridge, a geographically messed up scene, but okay if West Egg is actually very far north of Manhattan. That's not to bad though. The issue is the dialog. They're in a stick car, meaning no automatic, using a clutch and shifting the dusenberg, and for a full five minutes while driving at one point, Gatsby has his eyes right on Nick! Then he does it again! If he was driving he would have driven right off the highway and later, off the bridge into the Hudson river. Come on, Hollywood. You can't have the driver talking to the passenger like that in a car like that. Maybe in a modern car with cruise control, but not in a 1920's model. (Not a good idea in a modern car either). At least Leo gets into the part by pretending to shift the car, which is funny too because he would not be able to reach the shifter from that angle! Ha! (No wonder there was a crash later).
The asylum wrap around part was not in the book and doesn't make sense except to bay homage to a certain other movie called Shutter Island. Why? No idea. Fitzgerald didn't go nuts, but his critics were merciless and didn't like the story. After his death it got more play as time went on. He was ahead of his time, but not in an asylum.
The story could have been so much better if they just went for period piece Oscar bait and not for stylish over the top modern to postmodern remake.
The director does convey the decadence and the speakeasy thing all right, but it lacked in the over all execution. He didn't seem to know if he was out to make a sobering drama or a lighthearted look at rich fat cats and shallow dames.
And according to other sources, the french style telephone with single handle was not invented for another 8 years, and the Deusenberg J class was also from some time later, perhaps 1928. Also the term turbo charged is probably not right either, and he likey meant super charged.
The Chrysler building and the Empire State were not under construction yet in 1922. The matte of them is inaccurate.
The added hip hop music is modern and doesn't feel like jazz. The original jazz was quite different. The sax player is also playing his horn backward with the wrong hand positioning.
This might make a decent rental but it's hardly worth being 3D, and it appears the makers missed the point. Decadence isn't good. It's bad. It destroys Gatsby. He is not meant to be sympathized with. Fitgerald was ahead of his time, but this seems a step backward. Old sport.
Review by Adam Browne
Baz Luhrmann, (Moulin Rouge, Austrialia) directs a lavish send up to F. Scott Fitzgerald's flapper era masterpiece, 'The Great Gatsby', despite it being made into a film at least half a dozen times, a stage play, and the bane of school literature classes. Leo DeCaprio plays Gatsby and Tobey McGuire plays Nick Callaway, his neighbor friend, who has a cousin named Daisy (newcomer Carey Mulligan) who Gatsby secretly loves. The trouble is that Daisy is married to Tom Buchanan, the rich aristocrat across the bay from Gatsby. They live in the fictional town of West Egg. Tom is secretly having an affair with this poor man's wife in the sticks part of town. Eventually this all factors together when their worlds collide as Nick meets Gatsby at a party, one of his lavish flapper era digs in an attempt to attract Daisy, and Nick agrees to reintroduce them. Eventually someone is killed in a car accident and in the end it's the same tragedy the book was. That they got right. The movie looks like a glossed version of the book, despite the location obviously not being New York, but some other place in disguise. (Turns out it was Sydney, Australia).
Anyone who was actually raised in the roaring 1920s likely is dead and doesn't remember much about this time period. Since my Grandmother was, I know a lot about it. They did have a prohibition against alcohol which made the mobs rich. They did have speakeasies, places to secretly get booze. The cars in the film were fairly spot on, despite a duusenberg with a breakaway glass modern windshield. (Automobiles didn't have that glass until the 1960s).
The wigs were interesting on the actors. Ha.
Then the jazzy music is both modern rap and modern swag, and doesn't fit. At all. The music s distracting! It pulls your right out of the party scene when something like club music blares over flatter dolls and rich fat cats. Really? Did you have to let them put rap music in it? Fine in Moulin Rouge when it was a fable, but this is kind of based on a story sent in a certain time period where you did the details well enough to suit some folks.
During one scene, Nick and Gatsby are speeding along a highway toward the Brooklyn bridge, a geographically messed up scene, but okay if West Egg is actually very far north of Manhattan. That's not to bad though. The issue is the dialog. They're in a stick car, meaning no automatic, using a clutch and shifting the dusenberg, and for a full five minutes while driving at one point, Gatsby has his eyes right on Nick! Then he does it again! If he was driving he would have driven right off the highway and later, off the bridge into the Hudson river. Come on, Hollywood. You can't have the driver talking to the passenger like that in a car like that. Maybe in a modern car with cruise control, but not in a 1920's model. (Not a good idea in a modern car either). At least Leo gets into the part by pretending to shift the car, which is funny too because he would not be able to reach the shifter from that angle! Ha! (No wonder there was a crash later).
The asylum wrap around part was not in the book and doesn't make sense except to bay homage to a certain other movie called Shutter Island. Why? No idea. Fitzgerald didn't go nuts, but his critics were merciless and didn't like the story. After his death it got more play as time went on. He was ahead of his time, but not in an asylum.
The story could have been so much better if they just went for period piece Oscar bait and not for stylish over the top modern to postmodern remake.
The director does convey the decadence and the speakeasy thing all right, but it lacked in the over all execution. He didn't seem to know if he was out to make a sobering drama or a lighthearted look at rich fat cats and shallow dames.
And according to other sources, the french style telephone with single handle was not invented for another 8 years, and the Deusenberg J class was also from some time later, perhaps 1928. Also the term turbo charged is probably not right either, and he likey meant super charged.
The Chrysler building and the Empire State were not under construction yet in 1922. The matte of them is inaccurate.
The added hip hop music is modern and doesn't feel like jazz. The original jazz was quite different. The sax player is also playing his horn backward with the wrong hand positioning.
This might make a decent rental but it's hardly worth being 3D, and it appears the makers missed the point. Decadence isn't good. It's bad. It destroys Gatsby. He is not meant to be sympathized with. Fitgerald was ahead of his time, but this seems a step backward. Old sport.
Review by Adam Browne
Friday, May 31, 2013
Review: 'The Hangover 3" is not even trying but okay
"The Hangover: Part 3" R
Returning for a third insult to sanity, the Wolf Pack is again thrust into the desert and forced to get some gold from a mobster, played by John Goodman, who holds one of them ransom until they get the gold that Chow stole from the mobster in the first film. Along the way, the gang hand planned an intervention on their obese friend who started it all, but they don't ever get to that. They have no actual hangover until the end credits where someone gets a boob job they shouldn't have. The movie is such a mess giving away that will not spoil it. Some critics though were unfair. It is justy about as funny as the second one and not much darker, except it seems angrier. The death defying stunts at one point make for a puzzling chase gag involving a parachute and a limousine, in busy downtown Vegas, which is impossible as they could not really do that, but the rest of the film doesn't take any cues from rationality.And the big guy eventually meets a girl in this one. Someone has to get married in order for there to be a third hangover. Actually why didn't they get Mike Tyson again? John Goodman chews scenery as a parody of Brandaw kind of, but comes off more as a mean Fred Flintstone. If you liked the first two this is a little disappointing, like having gone to too many wild parties and growing bored of it. If you hated them it will give you new reasons. It didn't bother me either way. It was sort of meh.
Review by Adam Browne
Returning for a third insult to sanity, the Wolf Pack is again thrust into the desert and forced to get some gold from a mobster, played by John Goodman, who holds one of them ransom until they get the gold that Chow stole from the mobster in the first film. Along the way, the gang hand planned an intervention on their obese friend who started it all, but they don't ever get to that. They have no actual hangover until the end credits where someone gets a boob job they shouldn't have. The movie is such a mess giving away that will not spoil it. Some critics though were unfair. It is justy about as funny as the second one and not much darker, except it seems angrier. The death defying stunts at one point make for a puzzling chase gag involving a parachute and a limousine, in busy downtown Vegas, which is impossible as they could not really do that, but the rest of the film doesn't take any cues from rationality.And the big guy eventually meets a girl in this one. Someone has to get married in order for there to be a third hangover. Actually why didn't they get Mike Tyson again? John Goodman chews scenery as a parody of Brandaw kind of, but comes off more as a mean Fred Flintstone. If you liked the first two this is a little disappointing, like having gone to too many wild parties and growing bored of it. If you hated them it will give you new reasons. It didn't bother me either way. It was sort of meh.
Review by Adam Browne
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Review: "Salad Fingers" is twisted Internet flash cartoon horror
"Salad Fingers"
Stories by David Firth using flash animation
Salad Fingers tells the 9 part story of a psychotic little character who lives alone out in a wasteland and is driven insane by loneliness and possibly insanity.
The first part "Spoons" seems to be about his break from reality where he licks various rusty objects. He also apparently freaks out a boy character that screams at him.
The second part "Friends" is about Salad Fingers apparently committing as bizarre murder by putting a boy in an oven and then later on imagining his finger puppets led him to do it.
In the third one "Nettles" Salad Fingers meets an annoying salesman (or his Father) and allegedly murders him to hang him on a hook, revealing his serial killer side, but it may be part of a fantasy as he also imagines stinging nettles also.
The fourth story "Cage" is even more bizarre, as Salad Fingers imagines going to France through a water faucet, called a tap, and also a screaming boy who seems to love him, as he sees it in his warped mind, and he's in a locked room, maybe a panic room or shelter, at one point.(The brother imagery possibly).
Then in the fifth story "Picnic" it appears Salad Fingers has a psychotic episode where he imagines he has a girlfriend, who is actually a girl he has taken, but it may be imaginary. He then has a picnic with her but something horrible is going on. (The girl imagery is gross).
In the sixth one, "Present", the audience learns that Salad Fingers has definite mutiple personalities, those of possibly his victims, and one of them holds him to account about deflowering someone's daughter, possibly in reference to the last story, or not.
The seventh one, "Shore Leave" implies that the Great War, which is ongoing in the story, has a temporary respite where his imaginary friend comes back, but he is just a dead person found near his house.
In the eight story, "Cupboard" the secret hiding place where Salad Fingers hides in drives him ever more mad when he is spooked one night and imagines his broken radio is speaking and cursing him.
Then finally in the ninth story, "Letter", Salad Fingers has completely lost it and imagines his scary tree is alive after he bites a branch from it, and the tree makes him pregnant with a strange monster, but then he names it Yvonne and gross things happen when he meets a neighbor.
It isn't clear entirely what is going on in these little short cartoons with the green long fingered alien man. Clearly he has a split from reality and has schizoid tendencies that might have led to murder. Many fans of this series, from 2004 to 2011, have tried to analyze what it means.
It is just David Firth's attempt to be gross, but having seen some of his other works on the net, he likes psycho drama and mixes it will murderers and psychopaths. From the other stories, the Salad Fingers one can be explained, sort of.
Because of the references in the story, it takes place in Europe some time just prior to World War II, referencing 'The Great War', which was World War I. Salad Fingers had been a man who was not able to go into the war because he was already deluded, but his abusive family drove him more mad while his friend and his brother went off to war and were killed. He went mad and killed his family. Then possibly he was gassed and it made him even more crazy. It may also reference a mental war between reality and fantasy, as Salad Fingers is clearly beyond borderline personality disorder into full blown paranoid schizophrenic sociopath.
The town in which he lives is not a wasteland. The people there that try to help him are shunned away and scorn him in the end. Some of them are killed, including a man, a mother with a baby, (hence that image), some children and so forth, which is horrible. Others run off. In the end he attempts to make amends by helping out in town, but he again is shunned bwecause he is a horrible killer. It could even be that all of his killer ideas are just fantasies, but this is not likely. That's just a number of net theories strung together.
The story is twisted and to call it good or excellent would be weird, or even entertaining with be a stretch, but it personifies the frantic counter culture of the bloggers and some of the net people who are out there and on another planet. They might enjoy it. It is not for the timid. It is horror.
Review by Adam Browne
Stories by David Firth using flash animation
Salad Fingers tells the 9 part story of a psychotic little character who lives alone out in a wasteland and is driven insane by loneliness and possibly insanity.
The first part "Spoons" seems to be about his break from reality where he licks various rusty objects. He also apparently freaks out a boy character that screams at him.
The second part "Friends" is about Salad Fingers apparently committing as bizarre murder by putting a boy in an oven and then later on imagining his finger puppets led him to do it.
In the third one "Nettles" Salad Fingers meets an annoying salesman (or his Father) and allegedly murders him to hang him on a hook, revealing his serial killer side, but it may be part of a fantasy as he also imagines stinging nettles also.
The fourth story "Cage" is even more bizarre, as Salad Fingers imagines going to France through a water faucet, called a tap, and also a screaming boy who seems to love him, as he sees it in his warped mind, and he's in a locked room, maybe a panic room or shelter, at one point.(The brother imagery possibly).
Then in the fifth story "Picnic" it appears Salad Fingers has a psychotic episode where he imagines he has a girlfriend, who is actually a girl he has taken, but it may be imaginary. He then has a picnic with her but something horrible is going on. (The girl imagery is gross).
In the sixth one, "Present", the audience learns that Salad Fingers has definite mutiple personalities, those of possibly his victims, and one of them holds him to account about deflowering someone's daughter, possibly in reference to the last story, or not.
The seventh one, "Shore Leave" implies that the Great War, which is ongoing in the story, has a temporary respite where his imaginary friend comes back, but he is just a dead person found near his house.
In the eight story, "Cupboard" the secret hiding place where Salad Fingers hides in drives him ever more mad when he is spooked one night and imagines his broken radio is speaking and cursing him.
Then finally in the ninth story, "Letter", Salad Fingers has completely lost it and imagines his scary tree is alive after he bites a branch from it, and the tree makes him pregnant with a strange monster, but then he names it Yvonne and gross things happen when he meets a neighbor.
It isn't clear entirely what is going on in these little short cartoons with the green long fingered alien man. Clearly he has a split from reality and has schizoid tendencies that might have led to murder. Many fans of this series, from 2004 to 2011, have tried to analyze what it means.
It is just David Firth's attempt to be gross, but having seen some of his other works on the net, he likes psycho drama and mixes it will murderers and psychopaths. From the other stories, the Salad Fingers one can be explained, sort of.
Because of the references in the story, it takes place in Europe some time just prior to World War II, referencing 'The Great War', which was World War I. Salad Fingers had been a man who was not able to go into the war because he was already deluded, but his abusive family drove him more mad while his friend and his brother went off to war and were killed. He went mad and killed his family. Then possibly he was gassed and it made him even more crazy. It may also reference a mental war between reality and fantasy, as Salad Fingers is clearly beyond borderline personality disorder into full blown paranoid schizophrenic sociopath.
The town in which he lives is not a wasteland. The people there that try to help him are shunned away and scorn him in the end. Some of them are killed, including a man, a mother with a baby, (hence that image), some children and so forth, which is horrible. Others run off. In the end he attempts to make amends by helping out in town, but he again is shunned bwecause he is a horrible killer. It could even be that all of his killer ideas are just fantasies, but this is not likely. That's just a number of net theories strung together.
The story is twisted and to call it good or excellent would be weird, or even entertaining with be a stretch, but it personifies the frantic counter culture of the bloggers and some of the net people who are out there and on another planet. They might enjoy it. It is not for the timid. It is horror.
Review by Adam Browne
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Review: "Star Trek Into Darkness" mirrors classic Trek neatly
"Star Trek Into Darkness" PG 13
Set about a year after the last one in the Abrams version of the Trek universe, Into Darkness pluges head first into a strange mission to a planet of pink trees and weird mud faced natives, and Kirk and crew running from them, while Spock attempts to freeze dry an active volcano.
On Earth, a mysterious Englishman offers to save a sick child using his special red matter, in this case some kind of blood transfusion, and then another darker British man blows up a building.
The Enterprise returns to Earth to find that London has been attacked, and Kirk fimds he's been reprimanded for completely botching a first contact with aq planet he should have not been to, called Nibiru for some reason. Pike gives him the riot act and then has him attend a board meeting. In this tower, a force of Admirals and such are all gathered, which in a time of terrorist uprising would seem not too swift on their part. Moments later, a rogue British guy attacks the conference with some kind of hovering ship and beams away to another planet. Wow, they can do that now.
Then this Admiral called Marcus offers Kirk a job to go hunt down the rogue agent, who allegedly is called Harrrison, and who can be found on Qonos, the Klingon planet. Kirk offers to round up Harrison because he wants revenge, but Marcus is an operative of Section 31 and has his own agenda.
Marcus sends his daughter aboard the Enterprise before she warps to Klingon space, initially as a spy, but this doesn't work out. The ship bnreaks down while carrying WMDs across the neutral zone, and could be decimated by Klingons, so Kirk leads a team on a captured ship they have to the planet to find Harrison,
On the way home, and somehow in contact with Scotty who has taken leave, the Enterprise learns that Harrison is one of the augments from a captured ship from 300 years in the past, and that his WDMS also carry survivors from the augment ship.
Then Admiral Marcus uses a secret dreadnaught ship allegedly called the Vengeance to find the Enterprise and do battle with it.
Assuming this is clearly not a retread of Space Seed, a classic episode of the series from 1967, and Wrath of Khan, a 1982 film, would be illogical, and to die hard Trek fans this might not make much sense at all, but considerably more than it would to non fans, who might be utterly baffled at the myriad references in this.
It seems they've been remaking TWOK since the classic movies, and even the last one. Now that they have it out of their system, can they please do something original. Lol.
Even so, the movie is a fun ride. New people to Star Trek will like the roller coaster ride and the quick witty action. Nitpickers will be all over it, but really that's the fun isn't it? At least there isn't a black hole this time.
They do have red matter again, but this time it's magic blood, which is central to the sometimes blatantly obvious plot, but it's a solid film anyway.
How many 2013 movies are going to have weapons pods with people aboard this summer? Oblivion, Star Trek 2013, etc...who knows.
Clearly it was not so much a mirror of TWOK as it was Space Seed the darker years, but it was worth it in the long run. Don't bother with the 3D though. It really doesn't need that.
And yes I know Harrison is supposed to be you know who but I didn't want to give it away.
Review by Adam Browne
PS. The Vengeance looks like my design of the Enterprise F from my web site Chimera, which wasn't up that long before I pulled it. It is also a silly name for a ship.It also closely resembles the Star Trek meets On Location dreadnaught, the Pepsi Free.
Set about a year after the last one in the Abrams version of the Trek universe, Into Darkness pluges head first into a strange mission to a planet of pink trees and weird mud faced natives, and Kirk and crew running from them, while Spock attempts to freeze dry an active volcano.
On Earth, a mysterious Englishman offers to save a sick child using his special red matter, in this case some kind of blood transfusion, and then another darker British man blows up a building.
The Enterprise returns to Earth to find that London has been attacked, and Kirk fimds he's been reprimanded for completely botching a first contact with aq planet he should have not been to, called Nibiru for some reason. Pike gives him the riot act and then has him attend a board meeting. In this tower, a force of Admirals and such are all gathered, which in a time of terrorist uprising would seem not too swift on their part. Moments later, a rogue British guy attacks the conference with some kind of hovering ship and beams away to another planet. Wow, they can do that now.
Then this Admiral called Marcus offers Kirk a job to go hunt down the rogue agent, who allegedly is called Harrrison, and who can be found on Qonos, the Klingon planet. Kirk offers to round up Harrison because he wants revenge, but Marcus is an operative of Section 31 and has his own agenda.
Marcus sends his daughter aboard the Enterprise before she warps to Klingon space, initially as a spy, but this doesn't work out. The ship bnreaks down while carrying WMDs across the neutral zone, and could be decimated by Klingons, so Kirk leads a team on a captured ship they have to the planet to find Harrison,
On the way home, and somehow in contact with Scotty who has taken leave, the Enterprise learns that Harrison is one of the augments from a captured ship from 300 years in the past, and that his WDMS also carry survivors from the augment ship.
Then Admiral Marcus uses a secret dreadnaught ship allegedly called the Vengeance to find the Enterprise and do battle with it.
Assuming this is clearly not a retread of Space Seed, a classic episode of the series from 1967, and Wrath of Khan, a 1982 film, would be illogical, and to die hard Trek fans this might not make much sense at all, but considerably more than it would to non fans, who might be utterly baffled at the myriad references in this.
It seems they've been remaking TWOK since the classic movies, and even the last one. Now that they have it out of their system, can they please do something original. Lol.
Even so, the movie is a fun ride. New people to Star Trek will like the roller coaster ride and the quick witty action. Nitpickers will be all over it, but really that's the fun isn't it? At least there isn't a black hole this time.
They do have red matter again, but this time it's magic blood, which is central to the sometimes blatantly obvious plot, but it's a solid film anyway.
How many 2013 movies are going to have weapons pods with people aboard this summer? Oblivion, Star Trek 2013, etc...who knows.
Clearly it was not so much a mirror of TWOK as it was Space Seed the darker years, but it was worth it in the long run. Don't bother with the 3D though. It really doesn't need that.
And yes I know Harrison is supposed to be you know who but I didn't want to give it away.
Review by Adam Browne
PS. The Vengeance looks like my design of the Enterprise F from my web site Chimera, which wasn't up that long before I pulled it. It is also a silly name for a ship.It also closely resembles the Star Trek meets On Location dreadnaught, the Pepsi Free.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Review: The "Iron Man" Films bring on man and machine action
"Iron Man" PG 13
This 2008 movie was the first of Robert Downey Jr. and his return to movies, directed by John Favreau. The film is about a billionaire weapons dealer called Tony Stark who is shot down during an Afgan war and is surgically altered by a strange scientist who claims to be trying to keep him alive, while under captivity. The scientist outfits him with a device that can enhance his power, and he proceeds to build a body armor mech suit to bust out of prison and return to America. Once home he enlists a military man, Rhodes, and a willowy secretary, Potts, to be his liaisons while he fights a mastermind who has also created a dynamo human mech and plans to attack people with it. Based on the late Vietnam era comic books, which have goen through many reincarnations since, Iron Man is a lot like the whole man and mecha robot craze in Japan, (even Ultraman, which was kind of an Iron Man knock off, as it turns out). Marvel comics was betting on this being the first of their Avengers initiative films, leading to last year's Avengers, in 2012. A fun ride and a novel concept.
"Iron Man 2" PG 13
The 2010 sequel to Iron Man sees Favreau back directing but makes it a little convoluted when a weapons maker from Russia wants revenge on Stark for sopme bad deals earlier and creates his own monster mech adaptation, the deadly whip like Whiplash armor arms, and a mech suit also. Maybe in this case it's not such a great sequel, but it is one of the Avengers movies, so it's in there and has to be included. Sure it builds up some of Stark's back story and his broken family relationship, and his alcoholism, but it is supposed to be an action movie too. Sometimes is lacks in that.
"Iron Man 3" PG 13
Shane Black takes the helm for this one.Following the Avengers movie, the first post crisis story takes place around Christmas 2012 when Tony Stark returns but is tormented by panic attacks and by a crackpot inventor from his past, who he snubbed at a Y2K party. Then there is a seemingly unrelated new villain on the loose, the Manderin, who apparently is a white dude, but this will not give much away, as in the comics it was a half Asian megalomaniac. Stark's house is attacked by helicopter gun ships while his buddy in the Iron Patriot armor is running about mugging for the camera, as another Iron Man of sorts. (He was Rhodes or War Machine in part 2). Then after the attack Stark disappears to a small town where he is on the trail of the inventor and the Mandarin, while the President (who is like a Bush clone), is taken hostage by the main baddies. The final showdown features a whole crazy army of mech armors. The FX are done by Digital Domain instead of ILM.See the 2D version. The 3D will not be so hot.
This 2008 movie was the first of Robert Downey Jr. and his return to movies, directed by John Favreau. The film is about a billionaire weapons dealer called Tony Stark who is shot down during an Afgan war and is surgically altered by a strange scientist who claims to be trying to keep him alive, while under captivity. The scientist outfits him with a device that can enhance his power, and he proceeds to build a body armor mech suit to bust out of prison and return to America. Once home he enlists a military man, Rhodes, and a willowy secretary, Potts, to be his liaisons while he fights a mastermind who has also created a dynamo human mech and plans to attack people with it. Based on the late Vietnam era comic books, which have goen through many reincarnations since, Iron Man is a lot like the whole man and mecha robot craze in Japan, (even Ultraman, which was kind of an Iron Man knock off, as it turns out). Marvel comics was betting on this being the first of their Avengers initiative films, leading to last year's Avengers, in 2012. A fun ride and a novel concept.
"Iron Man 2" PG 13
The 2010 sequel to Iron Man sees Favreau back directing but makes it a little convoluted when a weapons maker from Russia wants revenge on Stark for sopme bad deals earlier and creates his own monster mech adaptation, the deadly whip like Whiplash armor arms, and a mech suit also. Maybe in this case it's not such a great sequel, but it is one of the Avengers movies, so it's in there and has to be included. Sure it builds up some of Stark's back story and his broken family relationship, and his alcoholism, but it is supposed to be an action movie too. Sometimes is lacks in that.
"Iron Man 3" PG 13
Shane Black takes the helm for this one.Following the Avengers movie, the first post crisis story takes place around Christmas 2012 when Tony Stark returns but is tormented by panic attacks and by a crackpot inventor from his past, who he snubbed at a Y2K party. Then there is a seemingly unrelated new villain on the loose, the Manderin, who apparently is a white dude, but this will not give much away, as in the comics it was a half Asian megalomaniac. Stark's house is attacked by helicopter gun ships while his buddy in the Iron Patriot armor is running about mugging for the camera, as another Iron Man of sorts. (He was Rhodes or War Machine in part 2). Then after the attack Stark disappears to a small town where he is on the trail of the inventor and the Mandarin, while the President (who is like a Bush clone), is taken hostage by the main baddies. The final showdown features a whole crazy army of mech armors. The FX are done by Digital Domain instead of ILM.See the 2D version. The 3D will not be so hot.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Review: "Oblivion" is ode to odd man out scifi flicks
"Oblivion" PG 13
Joseph Kasinski (Tron 2) directs Tom Cruise flying about in the upper atmosphere of a devasted Earth under a decimated moon with holes in it, in this entertaining send up to video games, science fiction, and the classic 'odd man out' idea. You're allegedly the last man on Earth. You have to survive. You learn that you were wrong. Yeah, we've all seen them before, but this time they took a slightly different take. In order to not be compared to Moon, an underground sleeper hit, and Solaris, a dreary American remake of a Russian film, which would make it dreary too, they destroy the moon in the opening credits.
Jack is a technician who repairs floating gun pods using a big like flying machine and a super bike right out of Robotech A New Generation, but curiously not Tron. He works with his supposed wife, Victoria. They report a crashed ship and things change when another woman is rescued from the crash. The Jack discovers New York under several billion tons of dirt.
The dirt could only have accumulated in 60 years if it wasn't 60 years but a thousand, or if somehow half the moon's surface came back and landed on New York. Nothing would be left of the Empire State Building, a key place in the movie. But if it was a thousand years later, there is no way the narrative would have worked.
Jack has impossible powers. Front the beginning he and his partner appear to live in the cloud deck above Earth, where there would be little to no oxygen.If hey had become used to this, they could never land on the planet because then they'd have too much oxygen. So from the opening glorious flight scene I assumed they might be robots. They weren't.
But still we can forgive them that. Jack soon discovers that the Scavs, short for scavengers, are not really aliens. (This is evident from the trailers). They are revealed also to not be the enemy and Jack is not who he thinks he is either.
Many of the critics liken this to a game called Portal also.
Actually the floating Tet thing with the female red eye computer once does resemble a game cube in a way. Lol. But no, they were thinking 2001 and Eve, and Megazone 23, and Macross Plus, all of which had a floating computer mind (and in Macross Plus it had a red eye and was a monolithic box), but suppose that technically there is nothing new in scifi. Nothing. It's iconic to have a Hal thwere somewhere. It was kind of expected. (I won't tell you just when this thing appears).
I will also say there are clones in the movie, however I will got give away who is a clone.
The movie stands as a solid homage to Solaris and Moon, even if it's on a planet, and witrh nods to anime and games, and also to many stories about clones and identity, memory erasing and the like, staples of science fiction since the golden age of over 60 years ago. Even having it being 60 years after the space war is a nod to that. The whole decimated Earth and man riding on his space bike looking to hook up with a rebellion to free Earth is right out of Mesopeada Space Climber, known in the US as Robotech The New Generation. What's funny here is the Japanese kind of modeled their hero Scott Bernard after Cruise.
Cruise just turned 50, but thanks to his goofy Scientology engrams is in good shape and looks like a man of 37. And I bet he marries one of the co stars. He seems to do that with these movies.
God see it in theaters because on the small screen it's going to look weak. See it in 3D if you want the nausea.
Review by Adam Browne
Joseph Kasinski (Tron 2) directs Tom Cruise flying about in the upper atmosphere of a devasted Earth under a decimated moon with holes in it, in this entertaining send up to video games, science fiction, and the classic 'odd man out' idea. You're allegedly the last man on Earth. You have to survive. You learn that you were wrong. Yeah, we've all seen them before, but this time they took a slightly different take. In order to not be compared to Moon, an underground sleeper hit, and Solaris, a dreary American remake of a Russian film, which would make it dreary too, they destroy the moon in the opening credits.
Jack is a technician who repairs floating gun pods using a big like flying machine and a super bike right out of Robotech A New Generation, but curiously not Tron. He works with his supposed wife, Victoria. They report a crashed ship and things change when another woman is rescued from the crash. The Jack discovers New York under several billion tons of dirt.
The dirt could only have accumulated in 60 years if it wasn't 60 years but a thousand, or if somehow half the moon's surface came back and landed on New York. Nothing would be left of the Empire State Building, a key place in the movie. But if it was a thousand years later, there is no way the narrative would have worked.
Jack has impossible powers. Front the beginning he and his partner appear to live in the cloud deck above Earth, where there would be little to no oxygen.If hey had become used to this, they could never land on the planet because then they'd have too much oxygen. So from the opening glorious flight scene I assumed they might be robots. They weren't.
But still we can forgive them that. Jack soon discovers that the Scavs, short for scavengers, are not really aliens. (This is evident from the trailers). They are revealed also to not be the enemy and Jack is not who he thinks he is either.
Many of the critics liken this to a game called Portal also.
Actually the floating Tet thing with the female red eye computer once does resemble a game cube in a way. Lol. But no, they were thinking 2001 and Eve, and Megazone 23, and Macross Plus, all of which had a floating computer mind (and in Macross Plus it had a red eye and was a monolithic box), but suppose that technically there is nothing new in scifi. Nothing. It's iconic to have a Hal thwere somewhere. It was kind of expected. (I won't tell you just when this thing appears).
I will also say there are clones in the movie, however I will got give away who is a clone.
The movie stands as a solid homage to Solaris and Moon, even if it's on a planet, and witrh nods to anime and games, and also to many stories about clones and identity, memory erasing and the like, staples of science fiction since the golden age of over 60 years ago. Even having it being 60 years after the space war is a nod to that. The whole decimated Earth and man riding on his space bike looking to hook up with a rebellion to free Earth is right out of Mesopeada Space Climber, known in the US as Robotech The New Generation. What's funny here is the Japanese kind of modeled their hero Scott Bernard after Cruise.
Cruise just turned 50, but thanks to his goofy Scientology engrams is in good shape and looks like a man of 37. And I bet he marries one of the co stars. He seems to do that with these movies.
God see it in theaters because on the small screen it's going to look weak. See it in 3D if you want the nausea.
Review by Adam Browne
Friday, March 29, 2013
Review: "GI Joe: Retaliation" delivers live action renegades fun
"GI Joe: Retaliation" (GI Joe 2) PG-13
Jon Chu, the director of the Step Up dance movies, takes over for Summers to direct another live action cartoon GI Joe movie, this time trading dance moves for choreographed ninja fighting. Like the last movie, the people doing this enjoyed GI Joe much more than the other tent pole, Transformers and Michael Bay, who had gone on record saying he didn't even play with or like the toys. Clearly Jon Chu's people like GI Joe and decided to pay homage to the newer stories, from Sigma Six to Renegades, and the comic books. Even though S6, Resolute and Renegades were not as well liked, he accurately had fun with making them interesting.
Roadblock is really not Dwayne Johnson, as he'd be more like Sgt. Slaughter, or Stalker, but okay he kind of grows on you as the lead, after the apparent demise of Duke, Tatum Channing, and most of the Joes in an ambush, similar to the one in the 1987 GI Joe movie and to the one in Resolute. Flint and Lady Jaye and Jinx appear to be the newer versions. This is okay. They got better actors this time to play people. Early on they take a page from the last movie where Zartan had become the President, using a disguise made with nanobot machines, and he manages to free Cobra Commander using Storm Shadow, but leaves Destro behind, and then Firefly and the other Cobra people plot to use the world's nuclear weapons against each other while making a demented series of super bombs that would later be used to destroy cities.
Snake Eyes is done better and no longer has that stupid mask from the first one, with the lips, and the other masks are better, like the Commander's.
Jonathan Pryce chews scenery as the fake president and the real one.
They even have Cobra HISS tanks! Nice.
It's a fun movie with an all star cast which even includes the oddity of General Joe Colton, Bruce Willis of all people, and it kind of works too.
Dont' bother with the 3D version because it's nuts neough as it is and will look confusing converted. Just see it in 2D.
Yo Joe!
Review by Adam Browne
Jon Chu, the director of the Step Up dance movies, takes over for Summers to direct another live action cartoon GI Joe movie, this time trading dance moves for choreographed ninja fighting. Like the last movie, the people doing this enjoyed GI Joe much more than the other tent pole, Transformers and Michael Bay, who had gone on record saying he didn't even play with or like the toys. Clearly Jon Chu's people like GI Joe and decided to pay homage to the newer stories, from Sigma Six to Renegades, and the comic books. Even though S6, Resolute and Renegades were not as well liked, he accurately had fun with making them interesting.
Roadblock is really not Dwayne Johnson, as he'd be more like Sgt. Slaughter, or Stalker, but okay he kind of grows on you as the lead, after the apparent demise of Duke, Tatum Channing, and most of the Joes in an ambush, similar to the one in the 1987 GI Joe movie and to the one in Resolute. Flint and Lady Jaye and Jinx appear to be the newer versions. This is okay. They got better actors this time to play people. Early on they take a page from the last movie where Zartan had become the President, using a disguise made with nanobot machines, and he manages to free Cobra Commander using Storm Shadow, but leaves Destro behind, and then Firefly and the other Cobra people plot to use the world's nuclear weapons against each other while making a demented series of super bombs that would later be used to destroy cities.
Snake Eyes is done better and no longer has that stupid mask from the first one, with the lips, and the other masks are better, like the Commander's.
Jonathan Pryce chews scenery as the fake president and the real one.
They even have Cobra HISS tanks! Nice.
It's a fun movie with an all star cast which even includes the oddity of General Joe Colton, Bruce Willis of all people, and it kind of works too.
Dont' bother with the 3D version because it's nuts neough as it is and will look confusing converted. Just see it in 2D.
Yo Joe!
Review by Adam Browne
Review: "Seeking a Friend for the End of the World" doesn't deliver
"Seeing a Friend for the End of the World" R
This 2012 movie stars Steve Carell and Kiera Knightley as two lonely people that encounter an extremely terse situation, one might say the final situation, that an asteroid will soon obliterate humanity and they of all people must get together. Taking the premise of avoiding someone unless they were the last people on Earth, and being stuck with them, could at times have been funny. Certainly the irony works in their favor, and at the best of times, the little moments are done well. One scene involves the lonely guy letting a spider go in his sink, only to have it bite him all over his face before he awakens the next day. Also a whacked out old man decides to off himself via mobsters, but is all preachy beforehand. In another scene, a couple he yelled at abandons their little dog with a note saying 'Sorry' and he begins using the joke about 'Sorry' as a plot device. The quirky underdog story could have been Wes Anderson territory, but it's actually Lorene Scafaria (Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist), another underdog director. As a character bit it has a tone of delight if not outward humor, but it is in no way laugh out loud. The jokes are more ironic and sad than funny. The guy realizes he is mismatched with the girl who is 20 years younger, but they learn to like each other. The only real drawback is it could have reached a much larger audience being PG 13 rather than R. Normally I don't mind it if a movie is rater R, but sometimes it really isin't necessary. The subject matter in this film doesn't even warrant an R, except a few times they say the F word. Just cutting that out would have meant more people could have seen it. This is the antithesis of the movie "2012" were it written by a Prozac sufferer.
Review by Adam Browne
This 2012 movie stars Steve Carell and Kiera Knightley as two lonely people that encounter an extremely terse situation, one might say the final situation, that an asteroid will soon obliterate humanity and they of all people must get together. Taking the premise of avoiding someone unless they were the last people on Earth, and being stuck with them, could at times have been funny. Certainly the irony works in their favor, and at the best of times, the little moments are done well. One scene involves the lonely guy letting a spider go in his sink, only to have it bite him all over his face before he awakens the next day. Also a whacked out old man decides to off himself via mobsters, but is all preachy beforehand. In another scene, a couple he yelled at abandons their little dog with a note saying 'Sorry' and he begins using the joke about 'Sorry' as a plot device. The quirky underdog story could have been Wes Anderson territory, but it's actually Lorene Scafaria (Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist), another underdog director. As a character bit it has a tone of delight if not outward humor, but it is in no way laugh out loud. The jokes are more ironic and sad than funny. The guy realizes he is mismatched with the girl who is 20 years younger, but they learn to like each other. The only real drawback is it could have reached a much larger audience being PG 13 rather than R. Normally I don't mind it if a movie is rater R, but sometimes it really isin't necessary. The subject matter in this film doesn't even warrant an R, except a few times they say the F word. Just cutting that out would have meant more people could have seen it. This is the antithesis of the movie "2012" were it written by a Prozac sufferer.
Review by Adam Browne
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Review: "The Croods" is tired story but pretty
"The Croods" PG
The prehistoric modern family that is not the Flintstones is here, Dreamworks' cartoon spoof of all those old Ug/Finstones/Thundarr cartoons, or a possible rip off, the Croods. They have the typical brutish Neanderthal father figure, a sort of Fred Flintstone/Peter Griffin clone in animal skin cloth.The mother is identical to Lois from Family Guy or possibly any sassy mom type. The mother in law is basically any sassy old lady. The son is basically Bart and Bud Bundy and Fry from Futurama, or any teen male dweeb type. The daughter is like any sassy Disney princess of trhe past decade, and Guy is the smart know it all prince.
The family are cavemen living out a life of foraging for bird eggs and other stuff to eat, and then going back to their cave, but when one fateful hour the cave is destroyed in an earthquake, they must move to another place. Thankfully, the headstrong daughter has found Guy, modern man, who has fire and becomes a kind of male rival to the father. He is not at all like Bam Bam from the Flintstones. He is also similar to Bud Bundy, a smart know it all, or like Bart also in a way, and like the kid from Up, even though he was less resourceful.
The family and their new companion begin a trek through the strangest prehistoric Earth land forms ever, (for 3D) which includes flying piranha, a land whale that walks on legs, a saber toothed cat with green matted fur, and an eerie resemblance to Stimpy from Ren and Stimpy were he prehistoric, and various birds and mammoths. The big toothy characters are similar to those in Shark's Tale. That's not good. This is all forgiven since it's a fantasy and there is no way they intended to make it accurate, any more than those Ice Age movies. Some kind of doomsday messes up land forms rapidly so they have to keep moving, even though this would destroy everything and they'd have no food. The part where they chuck each other through the air and they land intact was ridiculous. Suggesting as the Guy character does, flying off a cliff is a good thing, it makes one wonder if he was trying to get rid of them, but then they fly off cliffs and nothing happens.
This movie was like many movies in concept, but it had some pretty visuals. It could be an odd rental.
Review by Adam Browne
The prehistoric modern family that is not the Flintstones is here, Dreamworks' cartoon spoof of all those old Ug/Finstones/Thundarr cartoons, or a possible rip off, the Croods. They have the typical brutish Neanderthal father figure, a sort of Fred Flintstone/Peter Griffin clone in animal skin cloth.The mother is identical to Lois from Family Guy or possibly any sassy mom type. The mother in law is basically any sassy old lady. The son is basically Bart and Bud Bundy and Fry from Futurama, or any teen male dweeb type. The daughter is like any sassy Disney princess of trhe past decade, and Guy is the smart know it all prince.
The family are cavemen living out a life of foraging for bird eggs and other stuff to eat, and then going back to their cave, but when one fateful hour the cave is destroyed in an earthquake, they must move to another place. Thankfully, the headstrong daughter has found Guy, modern man, who has fire and becomes a kind of male rival to the father. He is not at all like Bam Bam from the Flintstones. He is also similar to Bud Bundy, a smart know it all, or like Bart also in a way, and like the kid from Up, even though he was less resourceful.
The family and their new companion begin a trek through the strangest prehistoric Earth land forms ever, (for 3D) which includes flying piranha, a land whale that walks on legs, a saber toothed cat with green matted fur, and an eerie resemblance to Stimpy from Ren and Stimpy were he prehistoric, and various birds and mammoths. The big toothy characters are similar to those in Shark's Tale. That's not good. This is all forgiven since it's a fantasy and there is no way they intended to make it accurate, any more than those Ice Age movies. Some kind of doomsday messes up land forms rapidly so they have to keep moving, even though this would destroy everything and they'd have no food. The part where they chuck each other through the air and they land intact was ridiculous. Suggesting as the Guy character does, flying off a cliff is a good thing, it makes one wonder if he was trying to get rid of them, but then they fly off cliffs and nothing happens.
This movie was like many movies in concept, but it had some pretty visuals. It could be an odd rental.
Review by Adam Browne
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Review: "Oz The Great and Powerful" smells strong but not in a good way
"Oz The Great and Powerful" PG
Sam Raimi of the Evil Dead movies and Spider Man tackles the prequel to the Wizard of Oz, a timeless classic from 1939 that essentially established the technicolor musical fantasy genre. Really if any company was going to do another Oz movie it would have to be Peter Jackson and Weta with someone else like Del Toro helming for it to even work, but they got Disney and not Jackson or Del Toro. They also had to pay some rights to Columbia that still holds most of the trademarks and didn't let them use 'flying monkeys' or 'Dorothy'.
The plot is that it's 1905. The actor, Franco, can't really pull it off and his character is too young to be the man Dorothy will meet only 33 years later. Weizs and Klunis have fun playing dress up as witches, but Klunis is no green Wicked clone, not by a long shot. The circus scoundrel, Oz, is accidentally whisked to the magical kingdom by way of a hot air balloon in a tornado, where he encounters a land named for him in glorious color, and meets a smitten witch and her evil sister, who rule a castle of emerald called the Emerald City, which has yellow brick roads and goofy characters, and the guards a flying simians but not monkeys. The wicked sisters trick Oz into going on a quest to destroy their sibling, the white witch, who turns out to be good, and who convinces him to join her in a fight to reclaim the city, like something out of Lord of the Rings, only not nearly as cool, or Narnia, only a little less preachy.
The story has a lot of dazzle and it has a cute subplot about a living orphaned china doll marionette, but it is lacking in the greatness department and doesn't have the charm or the essence of the original. The books were a nod to an election, as was the movie, and the characters timeless because they were archetypes of people which audiences related to. In this movie you don't ever relate to Oz or the witches, or even really the humans at all. The bellman monkey and the china doll could have been a story, and they're CG and puppets, but the humans are just meh, not interesting, and you don't feel for them or their plight, a bit like the Alice and Wonderland sequel from a few years ago.
It's not that the movie is bad. The action and pacing are pretty nice, and it is a visually stunning thing, but there's no heart, like when the wicked witch turns. They should have made Oz less of an ass. They could have improved the story. It's like they just did it to cash in. It makes you appreciate and see the original again, which was a musical, even more.
Worth a rental but not a special edition bluray. The extras wouldn't really be interesting.
Review by Adam Browne
Sam Raimi of the Evil Dead movies and Spider Man tackles the prequel to the Wizard of Oz, a timeless classic from 1939 that essentially established the technicolor musical fantasy genre. Really if any company was going to do another Oz movie it would have to be Peter Jackson and Weta with someone else like Del Toro helming for it to even work, but they got Disney and not Jackson or Del Toro. They also had to pay some rights to Columbia that still holds most of the trademarks and didn't let them use 'flying monkeys' or 'Dorothy'.
The plot is that it's 1905. The actor, Franco, can't really pull it off and his character is too young to be the man Dorothy will meet only 33 years later. Weizs and Klunis have fun playing dress up as witches, but Klunis is no green Wicked clone, not by a long shot. The circus scoundrel, Oz, is accidentally whisked to the magical kingdom by way of a hot air balloon in a tornado, where he encounters a land named for him in glorious color, and meets a smitten witch and her evil sister, who rule a castle of emerald called the Emerald City, which has yellow brick roads and goofy characters, and the guards a flying simians but not monkeys. The wicked sisters trick Oz into going on a quest to destroy their sibling, the white witch, who turns out to be good, and who convinces him to join her in a fight to reclaim the city, like something out of Lord of the Rings, only not nearly as cool, or Narnia, only a little less preachy.
The story has a lot of dazzle and it has a cute subplot about a living orphaned china doll marionette, but it is lacking in the greatness department and doesn't have the charm or the essence of the original. The books were a nod to an election, as was the movie, and the characters timeless because they were archetypes of people which audiences related to. In this movie you don't ever relate to Oz or the witches, or even really the humans at all. The bellman monkey and the china doll could have been a story, and they're CG and puppets, but the humans are just meh, not interesting, and you don't feel for them or their plight, a bit like the Alice and Wonderland sequel from a few years ago.
It's not that the movie is bad. The action and pacing are pretty nice, and it is a visually stunning thing, but there's no heart, like when the wicked witch turns. They should have made Oz less of an ass. They could have improved the story. It's like they just did it to cash in. It makes you appreciate and see the original again, which was a musical, even more.
Worth a rental but not a special edition bluray. The extras wouldn't really be interesting.
Review by Adam Browne
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Review: "Jack the Giant Slayer" is giant loud fairytale
"Jack the Giant Killer" PG 13
Bryan Singer expands an old children's fable about Jack and The Beanstalk into a big loud action movie with CGI enhanced giants and a strange British world during the feudal age. Turning a simple short story into a big budget riff ala Lord of the Rings, just as was done for other recent fables, Red Riding Hood, Snow White, Hanzel and Gretel, Beastly, Mirror Mirror, etc, (not reviewed), Hollywood's attempt to modernize these things into ridiculous showpieces for modern children is kind of silly. Jack and the Beanstalk would have be en better as an animated movie by Disney. Live action just doesn't cut it. The actors don't seem too comfortable as acting against green screens and special effects must be hard. The A list actor cameos are interesting in that the actors probably didn't know what they were getting into. It's not a horrible movie but ist is dumb and loud. If you like watching people running and ducking giants swinging clubs or a war between a castle and giants, it's all there. The FX were not done by ILM or Weta. It was Digital Domain. They also had a 3D version so a lot of the gags are for 3D.
Popcorn rental material.
But what I always wondered, even as a child and the original story, is how the heck the Giants realm could float in the clouds if it clearly was so heavy, with all thous giants. It did not have anti gravity and did not appear to be a space vessel of any kind in the film. Ha. I guess I think too literally sometimes.
Oh and look for the groan causing gags in the film. Yawn.
Review by Adam Browne
Bryan Singer expands an old children's fable about Jack and The Beanstalk into a big loud action movie with CGI enhanced giants and a strange British world during the feudal age. Turning a simple short story into a big budget riff ala Lord of the Rings, just as was done for other recent fables, Red Riding Hood, Snow White, Hanzel and Gretel, Beastly, Mirror Mirror, etc, (not reviewed), Hollywood's attempt to modernize these things into ridiculous showpieces for modern children is kind of silly. Jack and the Beanstalk would have be en better as an animated movie by Disney. Live action just doesn't cut it. The actors don't seem too comfortable as acting against green screens and special effects must be hard. The A list actor cameos are interesting in that the actors probably didn't know what they were getting into. It's not a horrible movie but ist is dumb and loud. If you like watching people running and ducking giants swinging clubs or a war between a castle and giants, it's all there. The FX were not done by ILM or Weta. It was Digital Domain. They also had a 3D version so a lot of the gags are for 3D.
Popcorn rental material.
But what I always wondered, even as a child and the original story, is how the heck the Giants realm could float in the clouds if it clearly was so heavy, with all thous giants. It did not have anti gravity and did not appear to be a space vessel of any kind in the film. Ha. I guess I think too literally sometimes.
Oh and look for the groan causing gags in the film. Yawn.
Review by Adam Browne
Monday, February 25, 2013
The 85th Academy Awards again miss the mark
Oscar
night makes Kal Kat a bad guesser again
Hours
before the Oscars, using data from current film reviews, and from Kat and
Cards' Thursday discussion, Kat picked some of the winners again, less than
last year, and they're in italic.
Best
Picture will again go to the most popular, crowd pleasing film of the year,
which is still Argo, not Les Miserables, or Lincoln. Favorites to win are the
other two. Silver Linings Playbook was not that popular and will not win.
Lincoln will not win because it’s too obvious, being Spielberg and he’s a
leader in the Oscar oldies. It would be cheating, again.
Well
actually Argo did nail Best Picture to upset Zero Dark Thirty and Les
Miserables and Lincoln. It won because the controversy in it is 32 years old
and nobody would argue it except the little details, and some minor bloopers,
and it would win. Les Mis didn't get it because even though Hollywood loves the
musical, Oscar stogies do not.
Argo
also took Film Editing and Screenplay.
Best
Actor will not go to Argo’s Alan Arkin though, but to Lincoln’s Daniel Day
Lewis, to pander to the crowd, and will not go to High Jackman for Les
Mis.
The
end game is the thing, as it appeared Lincoln was a favorite this past month
and was going to win for actor, so Kat was spot on.
Best
Actress will not go to fan favorite Quevenshane Wallis for Beasts of the
Southern Wild (unless it wins best picture, which it will not). It will instead
go to Jennifer Lawrence for Silver Linings Playbook. This is because the
actress is more well known than the other. It will entirely be her notoriety.
Not if she was good in the part. Wallis is just too young, Old Oscar farts will
not recognize her, like they didn’t Keisha Hughes twelve years ago.
The
performance Lawrence gave in the film was amazing, after reflection, and it was
likely she won based on that, not on being popular. The film itself was not all
that popular. Kat got this one right too ut for the wrong reason.
Best
Supporting Actor could go to Robert De Niro for Silver Linings Playbook only
because he is getting old and he’s not going to be around much longer to be in
movies. The other choices are pretty lame really. Maybe Alan Arkin for Argo? It
has to be De Niro. If it isn’t it’s wrong.
Best
Supporting Actress should go to Ann Hathaway of Les Miserables, but might go to
Sally Fields for Lincoln, but only if Lincoln also won for supporting actor
Jones and actor, Lewis, which who wins for Lincoln only if Lincoln wins
picture, and it’s not going to happen unless Spielberg cheated again.
Can
you have a vote on diminishing choices? Yep, Kal Kat is half right again, as
best supporting actress went to Ann Hathaway for Les Mis. This is because the
performance was incredible. They really had no others to choose from that
did it like she did.
List
of Oscar movies
Django
Unchained (too weird and witty, not going to win)
Actually
supporting actor, Christoph Waltz did win and it also won in some tech
categories and for adapted screenplay, a surprise upset. Again the choice
material was not current or topical. That helped a lot.
Argo
(best picture, has everything, crowd pleasing, old controversy)
Nailed
it.
Silver
Linings Playbook (but really it’s the only drama with some humor and may not
win)
It's
a good drama movie about a mental person and Oscar loves that, but it wasn't
going to get it over Argo.
Les
Miserables (dramatic musicals rarely win)
Yes,
Les Miserables is the most crowd gathering, but not pleasant movie, as it's
about a revolution, but it did deserve something more. An upset.
Lincoln
(might win if Spielberg cheated again)
It
did win for actor and for some technical stuff. It could have won picture, but
the fix wasn't in.
Life
of Pi (too weird. It’s not going to win)
Life
of Pie ended up winning for makeup and other technical awards.
Beasts
of the Southern Wild
Not
reviewed by Kal Kat. Was not widely released.
Zero
Dark Thirty (too controversial to win)
Exactly,
but it's the most topical movie choice and people will buy the DVD. It did win
in editing and technical categories.
Brave
won for best animated film, beating out lesser known but more popular and
better Wreck It Ralph. Old Oscar fogies didn't understand Wreck It Ralph.
Why
these Clara movie choices did not win.
Best
Fantasy/Science Fiction
“Marvel’s The Avengers”
Science Fiction has not been recognized since 2001 and Alien and
ET. It is not going to be until they make a talking, long winded, boring drama
in space. Then they will have very little audience.
Nod
to "The Hobbit an Unexpected Journey"
They did kind of pay homage to the Hobbit and Kat later
made a music tribute to 'Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold'.
Best
Animated Fantasy
“Wreck It Ralph”
This was a better movie than Brave but the old farts rating Oscar
never saw it. Third choice Arietty was never even considered.
Best
Horror/Thriller
“Django Unchained”
Actually they did all right by this film at Oscar surprisingly.
Cabin in the Woods was just something Oscar never reviewed.
Best
Drama, Best Picture of the Year
“Les Miserables”
Nods
to The Wallflower, Argo
This is because at the time of the Clara awards, Silver Linings
Playbook and Argo had not yet become intensely popular. Once they did, they
were going to get Oscars. Les Mis will have a special place of honor though and
many people will rent or buy it for the songs. A year from now, even though it
was good, Argo will be another 'bargain bin Oscar movie' like Slumdog Millionaire
and There Will Be Blood. Confessions of a Wallflower was virtually ignored.
Best
Comedy
“21 Jump Street the Movie”
Really? Django was way funnier. We missed the ball on that one.
Sorry.
Best
Director Nods
Peter
Jackson, "The Hobbit an Unexpected Journey"
No, Ang Lee of Brokeback Mountain fame walked away with it for
Life of Pi, an upset but an interesting one. For technical staging direction, Les Mis and Argo tied, and Zero Dark Thirty was done doc. style and
needed a nod. still the Hobbit was not all that good. Jackson's film was good
but will likely not go bargain DVD anytime soon when it comes out, as fans will
pay full price. Still Life of Pi is going that way. It will also be cheap in a
year. Once you've seen the twist ending that's it, like in Signs and Sixth
Sense. (Kat did give Ang Lee a nod in December though).
Nods
in December 2012: Chris Nolan, "The Dark Knight Rises"
Joss
Whedon, "The Cain in the Woods"
Ben
Affleck, "Argo"
DKR wasn't that good and the other two weren't that bad,
but not the best.
Best
Fantasy Director
Pater Jackson, The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey
Best
Drama Director
Tom Hooper, Les Miserables
Best
Thriller Director
Quentin Tarantino, Django
Nod
to Ang Lee, "Life of Pi"
So they didn't pick the others but not based on best
story but on technical wizardry, which begs the question, why didn't those
Harry Potter movies ever win? Oscar oldies are just boring old men! That's why.
Visual
Effects Achievement: the Tiger in Life of Pi, the 48 frames mode in the Hobbit,
the visuals in Dark Knight Rises, the living carnivorous island in"Life of
Pi".
Yes
Life of Pi did get something. TDKR did get a nod.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)