THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU (2011) (a review)

THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU (2011) (a review)

Movie loosely based on a short story by Philip K Dick, which pits a man against his destiny. Stars Matt Damon and Emily Blunt.

The story: David (Damon) fails to win a seat in congress. While practicing his concession speech he meets a beautiful girl Elise, (Emily Blunt) and is instantly attracted to her. Three years later he is preparing another run for Congress, this one sure to win when he runs into her again. The problem is now she might ruin his chance for Congress and later the Presidency because with her in his life he wn't feel that desperate need that is driving him toward public office. Now fate (or God or angels or whatever) has decided that they want his to be president so they attempt to break the couple up and David and Elise will have to go on the run to try to escape their fates to be together.

Was it good?

Almost. Parts of it were good, but it has a few problems.

First, the whole fate thing is pretty far-fetched. I mean, it's just really hard to by into, and then they have all these guys wearing hats like if fate were such an important thing then they would really let it be decided by whether or not someone is wearing a hat! So the concept itself is pretty weak.

Also, the whole driving force is that fate wants Damon to be president, but there is never any sense of why he needs to be president. So there isn't really a strong struggle here -- he could be with the woman he loves and be happy, or be president which would fulfill someone else's desire which is supposed to be important for some reason.

Now for all the hokeiness to it there are some things that work. The whole idea of fighting fate, of feeling like you are supposed to do something and struggling against it for your own happiness...well, it has a certain Romeo and Juliet quality that works.

And they did a decent job with the romance. It was easy to get a feel for why these two people, who really only spend a couple days together spread out over several years, would fight to be together. However, ultimately the problem is that the story wanders. If they had avoided the beat at the end of the second act when David breaks up with Elise so she can achieve her dream (without even talking to her about it!) and kept it about fate trying to seperate them, it would have worked better. The problem is that there's a difference in a story that is about two people who want to be together but fate is keeping them apart and a story about a man struggling with two choice on where his life should go, and this movie seems to confuse the two.

Still, even for all the hokeiness and story problems, if you are specificlly looking for an actiony-romance this will probably fill your need. And because I can be a sucker too...

*** RENTAL ***

FERTILE GROUND (2010) (a review)

FERTILE GROUND (2010) (a review)

Another dead baby horror movie. I wonder if there really has been a spate of them recently (include THE DOOR, BIRTHWOOD and a couple others). This movie stars Gale Harold (Queer as Folk, Hellcats), Leisha Hailey (L Word) and Chelcie Ross. Written by Jace Anderson and Adam Gierasch. Dicrected by Adam Gierasch (Night of the Demons rmake).

The story: a happy couple expecting their first baby. Then the girl loses the baby. They move so they can start fresh. Then, miraculously the woman gets pregnant again. However she begins seeing strange visions and then people start dying and she becomes worried that her husband is going to kill her like a previous husband in the house killed his wife.

Was it good?

No. It wasn't horrible, but it also wasn't good. The beginning with the couple losing a baby, then starting over and having the woman find out she is pregnant again was good. The rest...well, the big problem is it doesn't make sense. It's all mystery, but even the mystery didn't make sense. Apparently this is a family house (passed down through the family house) and yet no one in the family knows anything about the incredibly large number of people who have died and/or been killed there. Seriously???? Now it's difficult to talk about the problems because everything is played for mystery -- she sees strange visions, her husband starts acting strangely, a couple people die weirdly...and there's no real explanation for it. We get there is something wrong with the house (haunted?) but because it is manifesting in so many different ways that instead of building tension it all just cancels out. Weird stuff + weird stuff + weird stuff = bored.

Again, the problem is that everything is played for mystery so for the vast majority of the film (all but the final 15 minutes) you never know what is going on. So first problem -- you have an incredibly passive protagonist. This takes away one of the basic things people watch movies for -- to see the protagonist achieve a goal. Compare this movie to THE RING or THE GRUDGE where the main characters realize bad stuff is going on and then work to find the root of all of it and free themselves from the curse. This movie lacks all of that. (In fact, I don't think there is an underlying cause of the haunting ever given, simply that it has been happening over and over.)

Second, while you might think having lots of different weird things going on would add to the mystery, it actually works against the mystery. Movies work by building tension, but to do that the audience needs to be able to anticipate what is going to happen and to do that the audience needs to have information. The most basic way is to give the audience more information than the characters have (called dramatic irony). The example Hitchcock used was two people talking in a diner while the audience knows there is a bomb under their seats. By depriving the audience of information, and then having lots of different things going on, it makes it impossible for the audience to anticipate and so the movie is gutted of tension.

It's a shame because with just a few changes to the structure of the screenplay, making the protagonist active and giving the audience a clearer understanding to increase the dramatic tension, this could have been a nice little movie.

But as it stands, it just doesn't work enough.

*** AVOID ****

Frankenstein Syndrome (2010) (a review)

Frankenstein Syndrome (2010) (a review)

A low budget horror movie starring Tiffany Shepis (as all low budget horror movies seem to do). It's an interesting modern take on the classic Frankenstein story, although an alternative name is The Prometheus Project because the Prometheus myth is there as well.

The story: an illegal genetics lab develops a regeneration formula that can bring back people from the dead, but the guy they bring back starts to show supernatural power and wreak havok on the lab.

Was it good?

Yeah, it was a neat little film. Now, this is low budget stuff and they never really overcome their low budget -- the script has problems, the acting is uneven, the directing and camerawork...none of it is top class. The best low budget movies seem to understand their limitations and either find a way to make it part of the film (PARANORMAL ACTIVITY) or find a way to overcome it (MONSTERS). This movie doesn't. What it does have, for the first half, is a nice take on the Frankenstein story that doesn't rely on blood and killing. It focuses on the test subject (well, the one that lives) and how the doctors deal with him. It has some nice writing elements -- for instance one nice reversal was having the doctor most against the project be the one that bonds with the subject. It's a simple thing, but having one or two little reversals is something that helps give the story more dimension and seperates the amateurs from the pros.

Unfortunately, the second half, when all the over-the-top powers come in and all the violence starts, feels pretty ordinary. And while there are some nice elements and reversals to the first half, the second half feels like it's playing out pretty by the numbers. The problem is there is no real depth, no emotion, to the story at all (as opposed to RE-ANIMATOR which had a love triangle played out in a horrible way). Essentially, there is no inner story for any of the characters, so the second half is just plot and much less engaging.

Still, for a low budget horror movie it kept me entertained and for much of it kept me off-kilter so I didn't know exactly what they were going to do. For the first half, I'd recommend it. It's just too bad they didn't find a stronger second half with some character depth instead of gore.

*** RENTAL ****

SUPER (2011) (a review)

SUPER (2011) (a review)

Like other recent movies, this is a slightly skewed take on super-hero movies. Written/directed by James Gunn (Slither, Scooby-Doo, Dawn of the Dead). Stars Rainn Wilson, Ellen Page, Kevin Bacon, Liv Tyler, Nathan Fillion, and Michael Rooker.

The story: Frank (Rainn Wilson)'s wife leaves him for a charismatic drug dealer. After a hallucinatic vision, he puts together a costume and tries to be a super hero, namely trying to save his wife who doesn't want to be saved. Along the way he is joined by a female comic shop employee (Ellen Page) who becomes his sidekick and it turns out is even more into it (unhinged) than Frank. Together they launch a final assult on the drug dealer to save Frank's wife.

Was it good?

Not really. It's one of those off movies that is either going to work for you or it won't and this one just didn't work for me. Like KICK ASS, it takes the point of view of an ordinary person deciding to fight crime, but being incredibly incompetant at it. The problem with all these movies is they seem to want to have both sides -- that being a superhero is idiotic and yet somehow still cool. For me, once I feel like the protagonist is just an idiot, I tend to tune out so when the filmmaker decides in the third act that suddenly trying to be a hero doesn't make you a nut-job but that there is something positive about it, I have lost interest.

Aside from that quirky view, there's nothing really different or interesting here. I just wish the people making these superhero stories would do something more than be smart asses about the genre.

*** AVOID ***

DOA - DEAD OR ALIVE (2006) (a review)

DOA - DEAD OR ALIVE (2006) (a review)

This is a silly martial arts movie with beautiful woman as the ultimate fighters. Loosely based on a team ninja game of the same name. It stars Holly Valance, Jaime Pressly, Devon Aoki, Sarah Carter and Natassia Malthe. Directed by Corey Yuen. Produced by Paul W.S. Anderson.

The story: a bunch of beautiful woman who are expert marial artists are invite to a mysterious island for a DOA match -- matches to the death.

Was it good?

Kind of. Honestly, I watched it a while ago and barely remember anything specific about it. I assume there was a plot (I remember some element of mystery or intrigue), but really it's a bunch of really hot women doing crazy fun martial arts. If you go in expecting anything special or deep you mght be disappointed, but if you are just looking for some crazy fun with action and eye candy then this is a solid choice. (It's mainly PG eye candy -- if you want more, you need to go to Skinemax.)

*** RENTAL ***

PASSION PLAY (a review)

PASSION PLAY (a review)

This is the new movie starring Mickey Rourke (off his comeback with The Wrestler) and Bill Murray and Megan Fox. The two big questions seem to be: can she act and does she get naked? So, yes, she can act (although not really in this movie because they don't give her anything to do) and no, she does not get naked, although there are a few scenes where it would make sense for her to be naked so I'm guessing in the script she was supposed to get naked, but then got the director to change it.

Now that that crap is out of the way, from the rest of the this I'll actually talk about the movie.

The story: Nate (Rourke) slept with a powerful man's wife (Happy, played by Murray) who has his goons drive him out into the desert to kill him. But he is saved and then wanders to a carnival where a winged woman (Fox) is on display. He takes her away from there and they grow close, but really he wants to use her to pay back Happy so he won't get killed. Except he wants to be with her too. But then Happy shows up and tells her how Nate was using her and now she goes with Happy. Of course, Nate is desperate to get her back and break her free of Nate's clutches...

Was it good?

No.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

The movie does everything bad that LOST IN TRANSLATION got right -- an older man's loneliness, bonding with a young girl who is also alone, etc. Except LiT did a great job of explaining why the man felt lost -- away from his family, in a strange country, doing a job he doesn't really like, feeling disconnected from his family -- while this movie doesn't. And they avoided an overt romance that most people would have rolled their eyes at (which this movie doesn't). Here, you are just supposed to look at Rourke and get that he is lost. He's a musician, but that seems to be more just a trinket than anything else (maybe it's to help explain why Fox falls for him...girls do love musicians). He slept with some other guy's wife. He's just this mopey thing, really. Even when he starts to fall for the winged girl...well, even with wings it's still Megan Fox. And he is still using her, which again is kind of a scumbag move.

It's a movie that doesn't really say or do anything. It's for people that feel mopey and ugly and with they were beautiful and, oh, isn't the world cruel, but that don't want to do anything about it, they just want to be mopey and have other people tell them everything is okay. For them, this movie might be great. For everyone else, it's total crap. And the ending will just piss you off even more. Seriously, Ambrose Bierce did it in 1890. Find a new ending already.

One last thing. All the actors are fine. Yes, even Megan Fox, although honestly she doesn't have much to do but stare into Mickey Rourke's eyes and occassionally stand with her hands covering her breasts. The fault is entirely the writer/director -- Mitch Glazer -- who wrote a self-indulgent script, directed it poorly (from a visual standpoint), had bad F/X for the wings which never look real, and included that stupid ending which makes you feel like the whole thing was a waste of time. It's like he was trying to do a cross between WINGS OF DESIRE and "The Very Old Man with Enourmous Wings" but didn't actually know how/why those stories worked and just took all the bad, sappy stuff and stitched it together.

Needless to say...and I don't like saying this because I'm a huge Bill Murray fan...

**** AVOID ****

THOR: TALES OF ASGARD (2011, animated) (a review)

THOR: TALES OF ASGARD (2011, animated) (a review)

This is a direct to dvd animated film released to time with the feature film THOR. It focuses on THOR and LOKI as teens (or the Norse god equivalent of teens) and their adventure into the territory of the frost giants).

The story: a young Thor, wanting to prove himself, goes on a quest with Loki and a few others into the territory of the frost giants to retrieve a legendary sword. They find it, but in doing so kill a couple frost giants, thus almost creating a war.

Was it good?

Yeah. It was good, but not great.

First the good: in the feature film, I didn't like the parts that take place on Earth. In this movie, it is all fastastic environments -- Asgard, the land of the frost giants and a few others. There's lots of action and fantasy.

The bad: the story feels way too similar to the movie. Basically it has a lot of the same elements -- Thor brashly going into the frost giants' territory, almost starting a war, lots of adventures, and then he has to learn the value of peace/self-sacrifice. All it is missing is Loki's scheming, really.

Also bad is the animation. It's not horrible bad, but it's not great. The biggest complaint to me is that it doesn't feel like Marvel at all. It's the same animation style as the animated Hellboy movies. Marvel animation should feel like Marvel. Also, with this animation style, you lose a lot of the cool feel of the otherworld locations -- it just makes everything feel equally cartoony and bland.

Of course, kids won't mind. But with the push of the feature film and all, I wish Marvel would spend a little more to make the animated movies feel special. Marvel spends money to make the art in their comics pop. It's a shame they don't try to take that level of pride in their animated movies.

Still, for fans of Marvel comics or for kids or for adult who are kids at heart, it's worth seeing.

**** RENTAL ****

ALMIGHTY THOR (2011) (a review)

ALMIGHTY THOR (2011) (a review)

This is a cheap SyFy channel knock off of the big Marvel movie trying to capitalize off their advertising.

The story: Loki attacks Vahalla wanting Thor's hammer. Thor goes to earth because he can't fight Loki...and that's where I stopped watching because everything was just so stupid.

Was it good?

NO!

This is one of the worst movie I've ever seen. I'm actually pretty tolerant of most Syfy movies and can appreciate some of their cheesy, low budget charm.

This movie was horrible.

Just horrible.

From the acting, to the story, to...well everything. Loki's attack on Vahalla is just him walking through a forest. It's the most stupid thing I've ever seen. Then Thor is brough to earth and is grabbing guns. None of it makes sense and none of it is interesting.

*** AVOID ***

SANCTUM (a review)

SACTUM (2011) (a review)

This is the 3-D movie produced by James Cameron about people who go cave diving and become trapped.

The story: there's this guy who is a rich adventurer and he's diving in these deep caves to see the last bit of unexplored parts of the world. He brings his son along who resents him because the dad is more into adventuring than parenting. However, a massive storm floods the entrance and they become trapped in the cave and have to find a new way out and the son finds new respect for his father (sort of).

Was it good?

Not really. It wasn't horrible, and there is a lot of exciting stuff, but it doesn't really work for the whole movie. As with many of Cameron's films, the first 1/4 of this is much more character driven, showing the kid and the dad and their relationship, while introducing us to the caves and cave diving. All that is okay, but the relationship between father and son is too simple -- it never hits that spot where it becomes really interesting by itself. Thne the storm hits and they become trapped inside and for a while it's pretty exciting. However, after a while it starts to feel like a lot of the same stuff over and over. They move deeper, they get trapped and have to do something dangerous, they get out but someone dies, repeat. For all the tense stuff that keeps happening, it starts to feel flat and that's mainly because the character work just wasn't smart enough. Action should reveal character, but if the relationships are flat there isn't much to reveal. The only thing left to do is have people turn on each other, bu even that is never really done in an interesting way or done in a way that reveals something deeper thematically. Compare that to THE THING (Carpenter's) and THE DESCENT, which sets up much more interesting character dynamic and then finds interesting ways to explore it when they are trapped in the cave.

The other problem is with the action set up. There's a lot of stuff in the movie that I'm sure to people with the right technical understand is fascinating, but for a pleeb it's kind of confusing and hard to understand. They need to do a better job of educating the audience so we understand each predicament better. Most people think it is bad for an audience to get ahead of the story, but in places it is actually really good. It's foreshadowing. It's dramatic irony. It's tension. And those are all things this movie lacks.

And will all the people dying, I gotta say, this movie felt like a downer. I know the idea is that people have to die to show it is really dangerous, but when they are picked off one by one, again and again, it feels more like a horror movie that thinks it is an action movie than an actual action movie or thriller.

For action movie buffs there is probably enough here to enjoy a rental. For everyone else it's a pass.

*** AVOID (unless you're an action buff) ***

GREEN HORNET (a reivew)

GREEN HORNET (a reivew)

This is the latest movie versoin of the 1940's superhero. The movie stars lovable doofus Seth Rogan as the Green Hornet and Jay Chou as Kato.

The story: Britt (seth Rogan) is the fun loving, incompetant son of a wealthy newspaper owner. When his father dies, he has to take over the family business. He and the chauffeur (Jay Chou) get drunk and go out where they fight some thugs who are trying to hurt a girl. They get such a kick out of it they decide to become superheroes. But with a twist, they decide they will pretend to be villains while really being heroes. During this Britt uses his ownership of the paper to enflame anger at the Green Hornet while engages in a turf war with a dangerous mobster. This also angers the District Attourney who doesn't want articles printed about crime in his city while he is trying to turn for re-election. Eventually all this comes together -- the mobster, the DA, his fathers death -- all the while Britt and Kato fight over a girl.

Was it good?

No, but it wasn't as horrible as you might think. The problem is the story is WAAAAYYY too slow to get going. Action movies tend to be driven by the villain, but really the villain is almost an afterthought until the movie is over half over, and it is a full 3/4 into the movie until all these threads come together. And, oddly enough, instead of a hero movie where the hero is reacting to the villain, this is a movie where the villain is reacting to the hero's plan. Unfortunately this undercuts a lot of the tension since for the most part he could just stop at any time and everything would be fine. So for an action movie, it is lacking in tension.

Now, there are movies that get away with this but they do it by giving the character something they are desperate to achieve, so the audience watches that as they build into the main action thru-line. This is what happens in SPIDER-MAN and BATMAN BEGINS. Spider-Man has Peter Parker and MJ -- that's what the story is about, a boy who loves a girl. BAT-BEGINS has Bruce Wayne trying to deal with the death of his parents and find himself again.

This movie...not so much. It's like they tried to make the superhero version of TOMMY BOY, but it just doesn't quite work. They should have made it more like a superhero version of FLETCH. Move up the action, add some mystery elements early on to catch the viewer's attention...

Even then, the movie isn't horrible. It is just awkward and for the first half not very compelling to watch. If you are doing something else, then throw it on in the background and it'll be pretty enjoyable and there will be plenty of spots where you will want to look up and watch. So while I couldn't recommend it to see in the theaters, I'd recommend it to rent, especially if you are multitasking.

*** RENT (to watch while multitasking) ****

THOR (2011) (a review)

THOR (2011) (a review)

This is the latest in movies from Marvel Studios, the feature film division of Marvel Comics. THOR is one of Marvel's oldest heroes and this movie, with Iron Man and the upcoming Captain America is part of the build up to THE AVENGERS. Stars Chris Helmsworth (who had a small part in the STAR TREK movie) and Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins. It is directed by Kenneth Branagh.

The story: Thor, a Norse God, is the son of Odin and in line to rule Asgard. However, when his crowning ceremony is interrupted by frost giants, he and his friends set out to wage war against them and question the frost giant king about who is responsible. His father tells him not to do it, but he does it anyway, getting into a giant battle and almost starting a war. For his arrogance, Odin strips him of his godhood and his hammer and exiles him to Earth. On Earth, he is found by an astrophysicist (Natalie Portman) and together they try to retrieve his hammer, which now can only be wielded by someone worthy. In Asgard, Odin falls into a sleep and Thor's wicked half brother, Loki, takes the throne. He is also responsible for the frost giants interrupting the ceremony. While Thor's friends go to earth to help him return to Asgard, Loki sends a robot after them. Thor offers himself in sacrifice to save his friends, which makes him worthy of the hammer of Thor and now he is able to defeat the robot and goes back to face Loki and save Asgard.

Was it good?

Kind of. There is a lot of fun here. What really works is the Asgard stuff and fighting the frost giants and the rivalry between the two brothers. What doesn't really work is the relationship between Thor and the astrophysicist (ZERO CHEMISTRY!) and the parts of Thor wandering around on earth. In Asgard, in full armor, he looks kind of god-ish, but on earth he is just a guy in flannel and it's hard to take seriously. Also the whole "being worthy" is pretty lame and random. When he went to fight the frost giants he wasn't worthy, but if he offers himself up as a sacrifice that is worthy? Why? I guess it's something about war being bad, but it's not really explained. Luckily, we've seen lots of this kind of stuff in other (better) movies that did it better, so you can fill in the gaps even if the movie doesn't do a good job of it. What also becomes muddled is the rivalry between Thor and Loki. You see, it turns out Loki isn't just pure evil. He's kind of like Doctor Octopus in SPIDER-MAN 2, except here none of his story really makes sense.

All in all, while there is a lot of good here, there is a lot to be disappointed by as well. I was hoping with Kenneth Branagh (a brilliant Shakespearean actor) that he would realize the rivalry between Thor and Loki is much like the rivalry between Othello and Iago in OTHELLO and he would push the story like that. But instead, the story comes off very light (way too jokey for me tastes) with very little emotional bite. Certainly there's nothing here with the honest pain that is between Peter Parker and Mary Jane. And without some bite, it comes off and fun but forgettable.

I also don't get why Loki attacks them with a giant robot. How is that Norse???

Still I would recommend it, just for some of the early spectacle and there's enough here that I have hope for the AVENGERS and THOR 2.

*** RECOMMEND ***