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 ***

JUST GO WITH IT (a review)

JUST GO WITH IT (a review)

A remake of a French film. A rom-com starring Adam Sandler and Jennifer Aniston with Brooklyn Decker (Sports Illustrated cover model). Also has Nicole Kidman.

The story: Danny (Sandler), after getting left at the alter, realizes a wedding ring is a perfect way to pick up women uses that lie to have a string of one night stands. Then he meets Palmer (Decker) who he connects with and thinks she might be the one (after he sleeps with her, of course), but when she discovers his wedding ring she thinks he is another cheating man and wants nothing to do with him. To get her back, he uses his assistant, Katherine (Aniston) to pretend they are married and getting a divorce...of course things go wrong when Katherine's kids become involved and her son blackmails him into taking them on a trip to Hawaii where he begins to have feelings for Katherine.

Was it good?

No. But it wasn't bad. It was just kind of blah.

They throw in a lot of comedy -- the kids blackmailing Danny and the constant complication from trying to keep the lie going -- and setting half the movie in Hawaii lets them show Decker in a bikini several times (and Aniston once) which all men will appreciate, but the problem is the story just isn't compelling.

The problem is there's nothing at stake. Jerry (Sandler) is a liar and scammer, but not even a particularly clever or fun one (comared to WEDDING CRASHERS). And while Palmer (Decker) is beautiful, there's never anything about her that makes you think the connection is more than physical. (Oddly, the one beat they include to make it seem more than just sex is that she can tell when he is lying...except she can't and it's never really brought up or used in the movie again which is weird since he spends the whole movie lying to her.) So he likes this girl, but it's not like he has a prolem getting women and he's a successful plastic surgeon in LA so even if he decided to stop lying he could still probably meet tons of women.

So you're never really rooting for him to win over Palmer. In fact, most of the time I was rooting against him because having him get caught would have been more fun.

Then there's the switch from him liking Palmer to him having feelings for Katherine. It basically happens at one event where they go from zero to sixty with feelings for each other. Except there was nothing really that special about that night. The whole falling in love stuff between them seemed incredibly inrealistic, so while I didn't really care about Jerry and Palmer, I also didn't care about whether he would choose to be with Katherine instead. They also have a running joke for most of the movie that Palmer is incredibly hot and Katherine is a frumpy woman...except Katherine is still Jennifer Aniston who might not be as hot as the cover girl for Sports Illustrated, but she's still hot. So all those jokes failed miserably.

So what you have is a rom-com that follows all the beats of a generic rom-com (the creative lie, falling for the other person, etc), but has nothing else to it other than a few gratuitous shots of a swimsuit model in a swimsuit.

Still the movie wasn't horrible. It had a likable energy and they keep things moving with lots of comedic set pieces. The problem is there's just nothing else there -- it's generic romantic comedy 101. It's a movie that has nothing to say. It's like a sequel that only has the inspiration that it can make money. Still, Sandler and Aniston are enjoyable enough that it's fine to watch as long as you know what you're getting into.

**** RENTAL ***

Watch instead: WEDDING SINGER -- just a great, great romantic comedy. Or any episode of FRIENDS, if you're a Jennifer Aniston fan.

BLOODED (2011) (a review)

This is a Scottish thriller. Never heard of any of the actors before, or the director. It's pretty good though and worth checking out. It's available on demand and on dvd. The offical website is here.

The story: a group of friends go to a remote cabin in the Scottish highlands. This is after fox hunting has been banned in Britian, but fox hunting continued as the police chose make the law a low priority. One person in the group is very vocal, public pro-fox hunting. After shooting and gutting a deer, the next morning they wake up stripped to their underwear and left on the moors in the cold where they are hunted by pro-animal extremists who force them to read an anti-hunting statement. However, all does not go as planned...

Was it good?

Yes.

I had never heard of this or any of the people in it so I had no idea what to expect. The movie does a lot of things very well that make it a film worth watching, but makes a few bad choices that prevent it from becoming a real classic.

*** SPOILERS -- there's no way to talk about the film without having some spoilers, but they are more general spoilers and fairly mild ****

First the good. The story takes it's time. It let's us get to know the characters and the situation. It starts talking about the banning of fox hunting and how polarizing that was. Then it focuses on the people. Two couples are in relationships. In one a man is preparing to propose to a woman. The other is a relationship just getting started, with a man bringing his American girlfriend out to Scotland for the first time. There is also an element with two brothers where one brother left for a long time, basically abandoning the other brother. All of this is well done. The writer finds interesting spaces for these relationships with lots of questions and lots of tension. Throughout the movie, there are clips to interviews with the characters where they can fill in some backstory about the people and places. It let's them give a lot of information quickly, so you feel like you get to know all the people fast and keeps the story moving. There is also a scene where the American woman shoots a deer and they later gut it. It is very disturbing and a nice prelude to what will happen when these people themselves are hunted.

The parts where the people are hunted have lots of tension and moves along. First they wake up with no idea what has happened, then the shooting begins. For the most part, they stick to a POV style, so we are in the situation with the characters which is effective. However, it is also here that the problems begin to appear.

The first problem is that the short interview segments continue. Now in the beginning, they were a nice way to quickly add information. Here, they keep pulling us out of the action and continually remind us that these people don't die. For a movie centered around people being hunted and shot at, to know none of them die takes a lot of the tension out of this section of the film.

The second problem is with what I call "the plan." Now most thrillers have two different plans -- there is the plan the bad guys have and the plan the good guys have to foil them. It's part of the fun of watching these sorts of movies. However, here, because the people-hunting-people are completely unknown we never get much sense of what their plan is. On the flip side, the people-being-hunted don't really ever get a plan either. Now this might work if the movie really stay in the POV of the characters (or better yet, one character) so it was a true man-in-the-trenches sort of feel, but they don't do that and with the constant cutting to the external interviews, it really cuts out a lot of the tension and makes you feel in places like you are just watching people run almost randomly, which isn't very exciting.

The third problem is the twist. Or rather lack of one. Anyone who reads a logline for the movie (hunters stripped almost-naked and then hunted) can guess most of the movie and it plays out according to form. What it needed was one good twist around 1/2-way or 3/4's in to shake things up. It wouldn't have to be a plot twist -- it could be something more emotional or perosonal. There is a shift when the people-being-hunted find a gun, but even that is pretty expected in this sort of movie. It's why movies like this need to have another element, usually something personal. THE DESCENT has the reveal that the woman's husband was having an affair, which puts a startling twist on the emotions of the film, since the movie revolved around the closeness of these women and how they had been affected since her husband's death. They do have a powerful emotional moment in the last quarter of the film, which would have made a powerful ending, but then the movie drags on another five minutes with boring post-interviews, making you feel more like you get to the end, rather than having that last rush of excitement that great movies have.

Even with those flaws, it's a well made movie and a good watch for people who like realistic thrillers.

*** RECOMMEND ****

SOURCE CODE (a review)

THIS MOVIE IS NOT A REMAKE OF DEJA VU. Yes, the concept might seem similar and the plot might seem similar and the everything else about it might seem similar, but it is a new movie based on an original script that just happened to be written after Deja Vu came out and has no real similarities other than being incredibly similar in every way. But not as good.

The story stars Jake Gyllenhaal and was directed by Duncan Jones (Moon).

The story: a man becomes aware on a train that he is in someone else's body. Then the train explodes. He wakes up in a science lab where he is informed he is to go back and repeat the last eight minutes before the explosion and find out who the bomber is so they can stop a second, more devestating bomb from exploding.

Was it good?

Sure. It was good...okay-ish. It's a fun movie and just for entertainment it's entertainmenting enough. It's got a nifty concept of sending the guy back to repeat the last eight minutes, a clear goal in finding the bomber to prevent a second attack, lots of explosions (though technically it is just one explosion happening again and again).

But honestly, it's just okay. The movie never really become very exiciting. Part of the problem is the concept. He is trying to stop a second bomb but he can never really stop the first bomb. So no matter what he does all the people you meet die and we never really meet the people he does save, so instead of a personal/emotional goal it's very abstract. (There is some gobbledygook about alternate realities and so maybe he save the train in some other dimension, but all that sounded like BS to me as they tried to find a happier ending then the obvious one.)

Now honestly, I don't know how you solve that problem for the concept without radically changing the concept. However, there were a few other problems that could have been better. The most obvious is that this is a detective story (find the bomber) and yet the actual steps he goes through to find the bomber are pretty boring. He looks around, accused a few people and then stumbles on the right guy who basically admits to everything and gives him all info he needs. So basically, it's a detective movie where the detective element is boring. That's not good.

The second is the emotional element. Now the movie has one aspect of the character trying to connect again to his father that I liked a lot and thought worked and wish they had had more of. However, the big emotional element seems to be the girl on the train whom he falls for (and who falls for him) who he tries to save even though he is told that he cannot change the past. However, I never really felt anything between them. There just wasn't that moment when you want -- desperately -- for them to be together. So the idea that he will go to extremes to save her just didn't click for me.

It's also worth noting that while it might be billed as an action/sci-fi movie, there aren't really any action scenes of note. If you are expecting exciting chase scenes, they ain't there.

Again, the movie isn't bad. But it's more of an empty popcorn flick instead of a classic. Too bad they thought they were making a classic and didn't embrace the popcorn movie feel more -- it would have made for a more entertaining film. Because of that I don't feel like giving it a full recommend -- no reason to blow theater money on it. It will play just fine on cable.

**** RENTAL ****

Watch instead: DEJA VU, the similar action/sci-fi movie starring Denzel Washington. This movie is also flawed but I liked it more. It's biggest problem is the relationship between Denzel and the woman he tries to save. In the original script, you understood that Denzel's character was alone and isolated and in the act of watching this girl he falls in love with her, which makes it understandable that he would go to extremes to try to save her. In the movie, however, this never quite works. Denzel is just too charismatic and likable; he doesn't project the kind of loneliness needed to make that element work. Still, overall a good movie and better action scenes than SOURCE CODE.

TUCKER AND DALE VS EVIL (a review)

TUCKER AND DALE VS EVIL (a review)

A horror/comedy that flips the horror genre on its head. Stars Alan Tudyk (Serenity/Firefly), Tyler Labine and Katrina Bowden (30 Rocks). Written by Eli Craig and Morgan Jurgenson and directed by Eli Craig.

The story: A group of college students are going up to some remote location where they run into local hillbillies -- the kind who are always serial killers in movies. However, the movie then switches to be about the hillbillies who are just a couple nice guys going up to a cabin to fix it up as a summer home. However, the kids are convinced that they are serial killers. When one of the girls falls in the water in her attmept to get away from them, they save her from drowning and now the other kids will try to rescue her by any means necessary. Unfortunately their plans backfire and they end up killing off themselves...which only convinces the survivors that the hillbillies really are killers.

Was it good?

YES. It was good -- very good. It just fell a smidgeon short of being great. I mean this movie is THAT CLOSE to being a classic. I would have thought that the concept would be too one-note and it would get boring and repetative, but the writers did a nice job of mixing it up. Specifically, there is a love story between the captured girl (Bowden) and the hillbillie. So why doesn't it get the classic rating? Hmmm. It's hard to say. While the movie didn't feel too one-note, it never reached that second level of awesomeness either. It has the reversal of cliche in the concept, but then everything really does play out as expected. The girl realizes the hillbillies are actually nice, the college guys end up being violent jerks, etc. It all works fine, but for greatness it needs that next smart spin to make the second half be not simply good, but great. Still, the is one of the best horror-comedies I've seen in a long time. I've seen ads saying it's the best since SHAUN OF THE DEAD. I actually liked T&DvE more!

*** STRONGLY RECOMMEND ***

BURLESQUE (2010) (a review)

BURLESQUE (2010) (a review)

The movie adaptation of the hit musical. Stars Christina Aguilera and Cher, with Stanley Tucci, Kristen Bell, Eric Dane, Cam Gigandet and Peter Gallagher.

The story: Ali (Aguilera) moves to LA wanting to be a singer/star and begins working at a burlesque club where everyone lip syncs. The club is run by Tess (Cher), but there's a money problem and she's in danger of losing the club. Eventually Ali makes it into the show and sings and is really good. She also has a relationship with the bartender who likes her but has a girlfriend who is away in New York, so she starts dating a rich man who dates lots of dancers and is trying to buy the club, but of course she really likes the bartender instead and eventually she finds a way to save the club.

Was it good?

No. But it wasn't horrible. It was just blah. The singing and musical stuff was good, and Aguilera is Hawt! However, the story is just totally blah. You cna tell from the summary -- there just isn't much of a story. Cher has the best storyline, wanting to save the club, except she never actually DOES anything. All she does is complain. The closest she comes to doing anything is switching the acts to live singing from lip syncing...but it's not like that seems to have much impact and she never seems to fight to get people in the club. They also say they could fill up the club every night for months and it wouldn't be enough, so the change didn't do anything.

As bad as that is, the storyline for Ali (Aguilera) is worse. There just isn't any story there. She wants to perform and she gets that. She wants to sing and she gets that. She becomes the center of attention..by the middle of the film! So what's the rest of it about? Well, she likes the bartender who has a girlfriend, but he won't go after her, so she starts dating some rich guy that she isn't into. So then we have to wait until the bartender finally breaks up with his girlfriend and goes for Ali, who falls into bed with him. Then they break up because his ex-comes back and then they get together again.

Huh????

So what Ali wants is to be a star and she gets that by midpoint. Then she wants the bartender, but she never really does anything to get him. So for the first half of the film she has a goal which she easily gets, and for the second half she has a goal she never actually pursues. She does eventually solve the money problems that Tess has...although that solution has nothing to do with singing or dancing, so all the musical numbers are really extraneous.

I don't really get it. Most musicals are over-the-top on drama. That's part of the fun of muscials -- the crazy emotional highs and lows they can send the audience to. Here, everything is flat. No highs, no lows...it's like that tried to make a movie that would be just slightly pleasant.

And it was pleasant. Just not actually good. Still, for the singing alone (yes, I am an Aguilera fan) it's worth giving a listen. But story-wise there's nothing to watch.

*** WATCH AS BACKGROUND NOISE ***

WATCH INSTEAD: for a great muscial, try MOULIN ROUGE. Baz Luhrhmann directs a tragic love story with Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman. The story is a little uneven, but with tons of brilliant stuff and tons of emotion. Fantastic stuff.