FLYPAPER (2010) (a review)

FLYPAPER (2011) (a review)

A heist movie and a detective movie and a romance all in one. Stars Ashley Judd and Patrick Dempsey.

The story: Tripp (Dempsey) flirts with a cute teller, Kaitlin, who is about to be married (Judd) when two groups enter the bank to rob simultaneously. But then things start to go wrong and now Tripp, who is eccentric and obsessive tries to figure out who really set up the heist and what plan they have for all of them.

Was it good?

In parts. As a heist movie it isn't that interesting or exciting. As a romance, it isn't that convincing. And as a comedy it wasn't very funny. However, there is something charming about it. Between Tripp and Kaitlin's flirting, everything going wrong and Tripp's attempts to figure out what is happening it is constantly entertaining. Unfortunately, a lot of the explainations don't really hold and the movie at times veers off into the silly/unbelievable catagory. In a lot of ways it reminded me of a silly (and not as good) version of the episode "Bad Breaks" on BURN NOTICE. In that episode Michael is trapped inside a bank during a robbery and he has to try to stop the robbers by sabatoging them while pretending to help them. This movie isn't as clever or as funny and some of the twists are obvious and even the ones that aren't just never really surprise you.

Still, for all the ways in which is doesn't succeed, it is consistantly entertaining and almost always charming. I wouldn't recommend it at theater prices, but for a light/fun movie with a little robbery throw in, it's definitely worth a rental.

*** RENTAL ***

REAL STEEL (2011) (a review) ** RECOMMEND ***

REAL STEEL (2011) (a review)

Yes, I am recommending this movie and yes I am as surprised as anyone. However, if you can get past the silly concept and put your cynicism on hold, the first 3/4 of this movie are as good of a feel good film as anything I've seen in a while. It's a blatant Rocky with robots, and for the most part it works. There are just a couple moments in the final 1/4 that don't ring true that stall this from being just a great, great film. Considering how dumb I thought the trailer was, I can't believe how much I liked it. I liked it a lot.

The story: in the future, boxing match will be held with robots instead of people. Charlie (Hugh Jackman) was a boxer and now prowls the underground boxing circuit with his robot trying to make money and win. Except he keeps losing and ends up owing people a lot of money. Then he gets word an ex-girlfriend has died and Charlie now has custody of his son, whom he has never seen. However, the woman's sister wants custody of the boy instead so Charlie works out a deal with her husband -- $100,000 and he'll give up custody of the boy after looking after him for the summer. After his next robot gets killed in a match, Charlie goes looking in a junkyard and the boy finds an old model sparring robot. charlie helps fix it up and together them go on the underground robot fight circuit, with the boy believing in this old robot and Charlie desperate for money to keep his creditors away, until they work their way up and get a shot at a real title.

Was it good?

Yeah. The concept is silly and if you are cynical parts of this will be ridiculously stupid, but if you can put it aside it is just a fun, fun film with a great underdog story. From Charlie losing his robots and deep in dept to the boy who has become a pawn and who just wants something to believe in. The fight scenes were a little disappointing and the last one didn't work for me at all (is rope-a-dope really a good strategy for robots?), but overall it was just a good feel-good movie with a lot of heart and enough humor to make it a solid film.

*** RECOMMEND ***

THE THING (2011) (a review) *** RENTAL ***

THE THING (2011) (a review)

A prequel to the classic John Carpenter film of the same name. That movie starred Kurt Russell. I have no idea who the director or actors were in this one. (I mean, I do because I checked Wiki, but I'd never heard of them before and don't really care about them now.)

The story: People find an alien frozen in the ice in the arctic. Turns out it is still alive and it begins grabbing people and turning into them. They have to figure out who is human and who is alien as they try to survive.

Was it good?

Depends. The story is basically a mediocre telling of the exact same story from the original. If you've seen the o- there's no reason to watch this. It's the same movie, just with a few bigger scenes and a bunch of sillier stuff. If you haven't seen the Carpenter film, then it might be worth watching.

Still, by staying close to the original they are staying close to a formula that works and there are a few scenes with some genuine tension. It was worth a cheap rental, and a genuine if you didn't see the original.

*** AVOID ***

ARENA (2011) (a review)

ARENA (2011) (a review)

Yikes. Just...yikes. Stars: Kellan Lutz (Twilight: Breaking Dawn, 90210, Immortals), Samuel Jackson, Nina Dobrev (Vampire Diaries) and Daniel Day Kim (Lost). Written by Robert Martinez and Michael Hultquist. Directed by Jonah Loop.

The story: a man's wife and unbron child are killed and he goes on a drinking spree where he gets kidnapped and forced to fight in various to-the-death matches that are being shown over the internet. At first he refuses, but then a man he befriends is killed and he agrees to fight to win his freedom and get the chance to kill the executioner who killed his friend. Additionally, the fights are all different with various computer generated settings.

Was it good?

No. No, no, no, no, no. It wasn't even so-bad-it's-good bad. It was just bad. First, the fight scenes. This is an action movie and the fight scenes need to be cool as hell. And they weren't. They were worse than in the tv show Spartacus. They're not as good as you'd see on Buffy or Alias either.

The rest of the movie isn't any better. If you've ever sat through bad action movies you know they all have a lot in common -- over-the-top acting, bad stories that don't really make sense, 1-dimensional characters, plot twists that don't really make sense but are supposed to be cool. This movie has all of them. It's just that bad.

*** AVOID ***

DRIVE (2011) (review)

DRIVE (2011) (a review)

This is the hot new movie among cinephiles at the moment. Directed with a lot of style by Nicolas Refn and starring well respected actors Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan, with a supporting role by Albert Brooks that has people predicting Oscars. Also stars Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad), Ron Perlman, and Christina Hendricks (Mad Men).

The story: Drive (never named but that's what I'll call him, aka Gosling) is a mechanic/stunt driver for the movies who is in love with the woman in the apartment next door (Mulligan). Her husband gets out of jail, but owes people money so to protect the wife and son, Drive agrees to be his wheel man while he robs a pawn shop. However the heist goes bad and the husband is shot and how Drive has to figure out who is behind it while protecting the woman that he loves.

Was it good?

Sort of. I can understand why some people seem to love it even though I didn't.

The first half I thought was very effective. It starts off with a cool cat-and-mouse car chase with Drive avoiding cops and then we get into his regular life as a mechanic and stunt driver. And, of course, his relationship with his neighbor Irene (Mulligan) and her son. It isn't much of a relationship -- they barely speak, but there clearly is an attraction and a bond. While this is happening his boss borrows money to buy a car so they (he and Drive) can compete on the race circuit and make big money and at the same time, Irene's husband gets out of jail, throwing a wrench into their relationship. While some people have called this part slow, there actually is a lot going on and I liked the focus on character. This, I think, was the strongest part of the film. It isn't done in a gritty fashion -- there is something lyrical and romantic about Refn's approach that makes this work.

Then the plot kicks in. The husband owes people money. Driver agrees to help with the heist. The husband is killed and Drive realizes that they had been double crossed. While he is trying to find there people and find a way out of it, the people of course are looking for him and looking for Irene.

Now some of this is good and some is bad. A lot doesn't make sense. Drive goes from not knowing who is behind it to walking right up to the guy. They present some mystery (who is behind it), but then skip over all the detective work. And it turns out Drive is not only a good looking guy and a brilliant mechanic and brilliant stunt driver, but he is also a killing machine as he tears his way through the bad guys.

All of which was kind of interesting, but the longer it went on the further the movie got from the things in the first act that really pulled me in. The relationship between Drive and Irene never develops or changes. The movie felt less like a story in the second half than a wind up toy -- they wound it up for the first half and then it just winds down until it is empty.

Part of the problem is that while the first half is effective, it is also pretty empty. The relationship between Drive and Irene works at first, because you can see why there two nice good looking people would like each other. However, as the movie descends into violence (and it does get really violent) you realize there really isn't anything to their relationship. A couple looks. Is he really doing this because she is pretty? I felt like we were supposed to feel that these were two lonely people who found each other and now Drive would do anything to save her...and yet that really isn't in the movie. She's a cute girl next door who he hangs out with twice. Is Drive supposed to be this lonely figure? We don't see him with other people, but we don't see him getting rejected by other people either.

So that emotion that is supposed to be pushing him through the second half just wasn't there for me. It felt like they were trying to do something like MAN ON FIRE or THE CROW, almost a revenge film where instead of revenge he is trying to save the girl, but the emotional core just wasn't there.

The first half I thought was really interesting. By the end, I felt like it had been an empty experience, one that had lots of cool stuff but didn't deliver on the emotion or depth that the director seemed to want by making a slow, character focused first half.

I think if you like more European art films, you might like it. Heck, you might even love it. But I think for most other people the movie is going to be a real let down. Still, the first half was strong enough that I think it's work seeing for a lot of people...

*** RENTAL ***

APOLLO 18 (2011) (a review)

APOLLO 18 (2011) (a review)

This is a found footage movie, kind of like BLAIR WITCH PROJECT in space. It's about a secret mission to the moon where the astronauts encounter deadly aliens.

The story: astronauts on a secret mission to the moon encounter aliens.

Was it good?
No.

First, it was boring. Which is bad. And boring in a found footage movie is even worse. It begins with this secret mission, but why it is a big secret? It's about placing something on the moon in case the Russians launch a missile attack. Why keep that secret? I don't know. Then they get to the moon and they see weird things and assume it's the Russians because of course they assume the Russians have launched a secret mission to the moon.

Now look, maybe in 1969 that stuff would have been kind of cool. Today the Russians are a group that can barely work a can opener much less send secret ships to the moon. So this idea of the super-secret Soviets just has no oomph to it, and even worse, while everyone is talking about the Russians, the Russians, even though it is obvious to the audience that it is NOT the Russians, it just makes the astronauts sound dumb. And dumb is fine for a naked blond in a horror movie -- it's bad for an astronaut.

Then, after a LOOOONG time, the movie shifts to a monster movie. Now the idea that we encountered aliens on the moon and that's why we haven't gone back it kind of cool, but why not just tell the story straight? What does this "found footage" effect give you? Nothing. And to make matters worse, they don't really even try to stick with it. One of the cool things about these found footage movies is the way they limit POV and force you into the space of the protagonist. Here, they switch cameras whenever they need to so you don't even get that effect. And the story itself doesn't have anything where it makes sense to do it as a found footage film either.

The other thing those better FF movies do is that they realized one thing that happens with a FF movie is that since you are stuck with the protagonist, the audience becomes closer to them which means you need a real emotional element. Most of the good FF movies have a kind of parallel built into them. CLOVERFIELD is about a guy who realizes he loves a girl and is about to run out to get her when a monster attacks and now he has to run out to save her. PARANORMAL ACTIVITY has a young couple suffering problems with their house; the wife wants to call a professional but the husband wants to fix it himself -- and what's the problem? They are haunted. BLAIR WITCH has a group that go hiking and get lost and turn on each other, except it is worse because they are under the curse of the witch.

Here there is no story, there is no emotion, there is no parallel. Which is why even when the cool alien stuff kicks in the movie is still boring. We haven't gotten connected to the characters. The aliens isn't an extension of what they are really going through. The movie doesn't feel like a story so much as a much of stuff.

*** AVOID ***

EVERYTHING MUST GO (2011) (a review)

EVERYTHING MUST GO (2011) (a review)

This is another of Will Ferrell's serious, only slightly comedic roles (ala STRANGER THAN FICTION). The movie was written and directed by Dan Rush.

The story: after losing his job, a man comes home to find he is locked out of the house and all his stuff is on the lawn. He has no money and his credit cards are declined, so he decides to stay there and have a 5-day yard sale to get rid of his stuff and figure out what to do.

Was it good?

No.

The movie was just too slow and if there was supposed to be something deep and powerful in it, it didn't come through at all. LOST IN TRANSLATION is slow, but it has some powerful emotional moments and a great ending. This one didn't.

There are a few weird choices. For instance the lead (Ferrell) is supposed to be an alcoholic who had a relapse and that's why his wife threw him out. Except we never meet his wife. We never see their relationship. He could have been a single guy getting thrown out of an apartment. Why make him married? Why bother if you aren't going to exploit it? I thought the idea of selling his stuff was a metaphore for moving on, but since we don't know the wife we have no idea what he is moving on from or why he would have trouble letting go. I mean, the only thing we know about her (at the beginning) is that she locks him out and tosses his stuff and destroys his credit cards and bank account...so she seems like a real b*tch! He's lucky to be rid of her! He shouldn't be sulking, he should be out celebrating that the witch is gone!

This is just such a fundamental problem and it's something I see all the time -- writers not setting up their stories properly. Often its because they move too fast, which is just as bad as moving too slow. In this case it guts the entire metaphore.

Now that can be fine if the focus of the movie is on something else. However here there really isn't anything else. There's no deep insight. No powerful relationship. And the main character isn't actively working toward anything.

The other angle is that he is an alcoholic. That's why he got fired and why his wife locked him out. And he spends a good amount of time drinking, and yet there really isn't anything in the movie that deals with alcoholism or anything like that. He might as well have just been bouncing a ball, because that's all they did with the alcoholism -- use it as a way to keep time.

Even the supporting characters don't have much. There's a kid who helps him who doesn't really have a story and a pregnant woman he befriends who doesn't really have a story...

I appreciate that this isn't just a typical Hollywood movie and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that the script made good use of the metaphore and maybe had some powerful moments, but they just didn't translate onto the screen.

This movie wasn't horrible, but there are plenty of character driven movies out there that are a lot better.

*** AVOID ***

RED STATE (2011) (a review)

RED STATE (2011) (a review)

This is the new movie by Kevin Smith (Clerks, Jay and Silent Bob, Dogma, Cop Out). Unlike many of his movies that fall in the View Askew universe this is more of an action/horror movie. The movie stars John Goodman, Kevin Pollack, Michael Parks, Melissa Leo, and Stephen Root.

The story: a couple kids drive out into the woods to meet a woman for quick sex, but are taken hostage by religious cult who plan to kill them. The cops arrive and leads to a stand off between the FBI and the fundamentalists.

Was it good?

Kind of. It was interesting, but I'm not sure I would call it good.

The first half is a pretty standard horror movie. There's some humor and some odd little moments, but it's played much more grounded than, say, a Friday the 13th. The kids are taken hostage and one of them is killed and the others struggle to survive. The religious people are a cult full of wackos and the kids are kind of a-holes, but they don't deserve to die.

Then, around midpoint is when the FBI arrive and that's when the movie gets odd. Up until them it's pretty clear we root for the kids and are against the religious/anti-gay/people killers. However, the FBI isn't actually good. And even more oddly, the kids that we have been following virtually disappear from the story. It becomes a stand off between two sides that no one would really root for.

Now this might work if the story was told in a realistic way and wanted to really explore both sides of a difficult situation, but that's not the case. Both sides are so exaggerated they become parodies at times. And the loss of any character or storyline where there is anything really to root for, it leave you (or me or whoever the audience is) feeling adrift. It's like the story was designed not just to end badly (which a lot of horror movies do...people tend to die at the end of them) but it's meant to end in a way that make you feel useless.

Still it was an interesting movie. For cinephiles and fans of indy movies maybe this will work too. It's just not a movie I could recommend for most. Still, there's enough good here that if you are looking for a rental it might be worth your time.

*** RENTAL ***

WONDER WOMAN PILOT (2011) (a review)

WONDER WOMAN PILOT (2011) (a review)

This was a very high profile pilot made for the 2011 fall season. It was written by David E Kelley (Ally McBeal) and starred Adrianne Palicki (Friday Night Lights) and Elizabeth Hurley. It didn't get picked up. Lots of negative buzz. So how was it? Bad, but let's talk about it.

The story: Wonder Woman, aka Diana Prince (Adrianne Palicki) is a vigilante who is accepted and even loved by the police. She finds out people are being filled with illegal steroids to try to give them super-powers and she tries to take down the woman behind it.

Was it good?

No. And there are a lot of things we could talk about at being bad -- especially the first scene where she is running down the middle of the street which just looked ridiculous -- but let's start with the big one: story.

The idea of her hunting down someone giving people superpowers is interesting, but that never seems to be the focus. The big thing is never that someone is trying to create their own superheroes, it's just illegal steriods. Yawn. They had a cool idea and just didn't sieze it. And it goes to that other big question -- What's this about? If the external side is fighting the bad guy, then what's the internal...and I really couldn't say. There are some weird things in here -- like a long conversation where she while discussing a line of Wonder Woman dolls complains about the size of the breasts on the doll even though her boobs are being pushed up to her chin by her costume. There are other things pointing to the idea of her feeling alone, that being famous and loved isn't all that, but again none of that really seems to be the emotional focus.

So you watch the pilot and just think why??? Why make it, why bother, why was this interesting??? I don't know.

There are a lot of other things wrong. People complained about the costume, but that could be fixed. The acting wasn't great and the fight scenes were lame, but again there's a possiblity those could be improved over time. The humor doesn't work and it's a weird mix when they are struggling to get the drama to work. They also don't talk about WW's origin or anything -- they just throw her out there as a woman who runs down the middle of the street and is cheered by people and makes toys based on herself. Why not have an origin story? Why not start at the beginning?

I've seen good pilots that didn't get picked up (Global Frequency was pretty cool), but this one wasn't close.

*** (actually you don't have to avoid it since it was never picked up) ****

HOUSE OF THE RISING SUN (2011) (a review)

HOUSE OF THE RISING SUN (2011) (a review)

A crime story. Stars Dave Bautista (WWE champion), Amy Smart, Dominic Purcell and Danny Trejo. Based on the novel by Chuck Hustmyre. Directed by Brian A Miller.

The story: an ex-con has to go on the run to prove his innocence after he is blamed for the death of his boss' son as both the cops and the mob close in on him.

Was it good?

No. There are a lot of things wrong with it -- the acting is pretty bad and the directing isn't what you would call good. But the big problem is there just isn't any cool. The idea is fine, but we've seen stuff like this a thousand times. So what's the thing here that's unique? What's the thing that's new? And I just couldn't tell you. The lack of anything new makes you feel like you are watching something you have seen before. Add to the fact that the writing is flat and the acting flatter, and this is a pass. One thing I did like was Amy Smart. She's an actress I like who never seems to get material that fits her, and while this material wasn't a great fit for her either it was better for her than a lot of movies (like MIRRORS). Unfortuantely, that's not enough to recommend it.

*** AVOID ***