"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
Saturday, June 22, 2013
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)