Review by Michael Jaffe
As a white boy who listens to hip-hop, I knew that I was going to like THE WACKNESS. What I didn’t know was how much I would like it. While its easy to summarize the film as the story of one young man’s summer selling weed in New York in 1994, there is so much more to the film. There is his first love, his friendship with his psychiatrist who he trades pot for sessions, his trouble with his parents, his loneliness, his music and the city. The film comes off as a genre bender that can truly only be defined as a real film. I am 19, white and just spent a year in New York at school, so many elements of this film struck home, I find myself baffled at trying to explain just how much I enjoyed the film. But the problem is that because I can relate to the film so much, I have a view that is skewed and I am probably blinded by this fact to what could be the films faults.
But maybe that is why this is a truly great film. As a critic, I try to judge a films quality with how much it makes me feel, be it hate or lust or excitement, and this film made me feel all those things. There are moments that are sad and moments hysterical, but above all, the moments all ring as true and realistic things that happen. Last summer, SUPERBAD was a film that a lot of 17-20 year olds could relate to, not because of the ridiculous situations that the characters got into, but because of what they were feeling and going through that last summer before they go to college and THE WACKNESS is another film about that last summer of high school and of adolescence where a young man is forced to grow up and go out into the world of school and how prepares himself for this.
There really are no female characters to relate to as the two main characters are Dr. Squires, played with a youthful charm by Ben Kingsley, and the lonely Luke Shapiro. Josh Peck, of Nickelodeons DRAKE & JOSH really comes through with this role. There is no voiceover, so the audience really needs to see what is going through his head via his actions and reactions and the look of Luke through most of the film shows the sadness and confusion and regret that everyone has as they leave high school. Dr. Squires is a similarly relatable character as he reflects on his lost youth and perhaps try to regain some of it by hanging out with Luke and trying to impart some of his drugged out, psychiatric wisdom on the young lost soul.
The 1994 setting in New York allows for some great scenery, including a late scene where Squires sits drinking a 40, smoking a joint and looking as the sun sets behind the World Trade Centers. And while the usually reaction is to feel sorrow over 9/11, in the context, I had to smile and reflect on a city that even without one of its greatest landmarks continues to stand strong through all the grit and shit that you have to now dig to find. Gotta love the beauty of trash. Method Man makes a cameo as well, as Luke’s Jamaican supplier, and gives Luke “a new tape called ‘Ready to Die’.” I had to chuckle at the reference to one of hip-hop’s classic albums being referred to as new, and its on cassette.
This film was obviously made by someone who knows their subject matter and truly loves it. Songs by Craig Mack and Tribe Called Quest kept my head nodding and my lips rhyming along with classic joints that show how writer/director Jonathon Levine should keep making stuff like this like a hip-hop Woody Allen. The characters are fleshed out, the city shines through its grime, the music is good and he cast Olivia Thirby as that first love, which is always a good decision. Technically, there is a scene on the beach between Squires and Luke where the camera keeps losing its focus in the sun and everything seems to be seen through some glass, but I realized since both characters were under the influence, why not the audience to? The direction and writing keep the story moving foreword at a brisk pace, showing deft skill from Mr. Levine
But forget his technical prowess in conveying a good story, the ability to get so much across is his true gift. While not everyone may be able to get as much out of WACKNESS as this reviewer did, I would really hope that everyone is able to see it and know that what happens is all true and something that every man must go through on his route to maturity. Sorry if this review is rambling, but I saw this film two days ago and it still has so much rattling around in my head, all to the beat of “The What.” can you imagine what I was thinking when I walked out the theatre with my friends and we were all humming different songs that appeared in the film and quoting different scenes and acting as excited as I think I’ve ever seen 4 19-20 year old white boys getting out of an “indie darling film.” And the big thing is we were all smiling and laughing because despite some down moments, in the end, the characters we care about all redeem themselves and continue on to another day in the city.
9.5/10
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
SPEED RACER!
Review by Michael Jaffe
They don’t get it. I don’t think anyone does. Established film critics everywhere just don’t know what they are talking about. SPEED RACER was perfect. It was everything that the filmmakers set out to make. A fitting tribute to the original anime, the Wachowski brothers created a big budget cartoon that no one seemed to understand because there are real actors present. I have heard people call it stupid and childish as if that’s a bad thing. The creators of the heavy handed MATRIX trilogy and the brilliant film noir, mystery BOUND decided to have fun with their work and it shows in how something they obviously love, the old show, was able to retain the magic of what made the show great.
But, as there always is a but with these things, there are problems. Its not the Wachowski’s fault that SPEED struggles to maintain an even pace for the entire 135 minute runtime. The show was short and skipped a lot of heavy-handed dialogue because any that existed was laughably dubbed into English. The action was what mattered and it is the same in the film, except that the actors speak English so you couldn’t laugh as the corny, message heavy dialogue was delivered. Thank god the cast is very talented actors obviously having fun with being cartoon characters. Chim chim is a real monkey to by the way.
I really don’t have much more to say about the film as there really isn’t a whole lot there. The story drags a bit but the visuals during the chase scenes are brighter and better looking that anything that I can recall ever seeing on screen. They didn’t make me catch my breath, they just made me smile and enjoy the experience of seeing the bright colors and explosions. So what if the characters aren’t developed very well or the story isn’t very engaging? If you went into SPEED RACER expecting those things to be stellar, than you’re just ignorant. Sorry to say it, but if you try to outsmart this film and actually think, then sure, you will see that it is no GONE WITH THE WIND. But if BEN-HUR could win an Oscar for its visuals, I think SPEED deserves a shot of being accepted by the public for being a fun film that kept me wanting more for the entire film. Go speed, go. 7.5/10
I cant really end this review with that line. Shit. How about the line pops says after his fight. “Ninja? More like a nanja.” If you laugh at that line, not for its quick wit, but for being ridiculously stupid and goofy, then this is a film you will enjoy.
They don’t get it. I don’t think anyone does. Established film critics everywhere just don’t know what they are talking about. SPEED RACER was perfect. It was everything that the filmmakers set out to make. A fitting tribute to the original anime, the Wachowski brothers created a big budget cartoon that no one seemed to understand because there are real actors present. I have heard people call it stupid and childish as if that’s a bad thing. The creators of the heavy handed MATRIX trilogy and the brilliant film noir, mystery BOUND decided to have fun with their work and it shows in how something they obviously love, the old show, was able to retain the magic of what made the show great.
But, as there always is a but with these things, there are problems. Its not the Wachowski’s fault that SPEED struggles to maintain an even pace for the entire 135 minute runtime. The show was short and skipped a lot of heavy-handed dialogue because any that existed was laughably dubbed into English. The action was what mattered and it is the same in the film, except that the actors speak English so you couldn’t laugh as the corny, message heavy dialogue was delivered. Thank god the cast is very talented actors obviously having fun with being cartoon characters. Chim chim is a real monkey to by the way.
I really don’t have much more to say about the film as there really isn’t a whole lot there. The story drags a bit but the visuals during the chase scenes are brighter and better looking that anything that I can recall ever seeing on screen. They didn’t make me catch my breath, they just made me smile and enjoy the experience of seeing the bright colors and explosions. So what if the characters aren’t developed very well or the story isn’t very engaging? If you went into SPEED RACER expecting those things to be stellar, than you’re just ignorant. Sorry to say it, but if you try to outsmart this film and actually think, then sure, you will see that it is no GONE WITH THE WIND. But if BEN-HUR could win an Oscar for its visuals, I think SPEED deserves a shot of being accepted by the public for being a fun film that kept me wanting more for the entire film. Go speed, go. 7.5/10
I cant really end this review with that line. Shit. How about the line pops says after his fight. “Ninja? More like a nanja.” If you laugh at that line, not for its quick wit, but for being ridiculously stupid and goofy, then this is a film you will enjoy.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
A Good Year
Review by Michael Jaffe
Rarely can I say that I am a sap. I loathe and openly mock romantic comedies, heartfelt family films and Russell Crowe. But when a film takes the most predictable story line of all, casts Russell Crowe in the lead and sets it in France, a country which, I must say, is not really my favorite, the obvious prediction is that the only thing to put me in a good mood is the end credits. How wrong I was. A GOOD YEAR, Ridley Scott’s break from epic pictures, sets Mr. Crowe as a money grubbing, English asshole who goes to France to claim his uncles chateau, and learns a lesson about life in the process. Its as run of the mill as you can get. As I started the film up, I rolled my eyes because you have Ridley Scott, the guy who made BLADE RUNNER and ALIEN and GLAIATOR and BLACK RAIN, making a small picture about life lessons. But while the scope of the film may be small, it hits its mark as neither a comedy nor a drama, but simply a charming little film with moments of both.
While it didn’t really hit many of the emotional chords that it was aiming for, the acting and cinematography was superb. It was as if I was watching UNDER THE TUSCAN sun again but actually liking the movie! Russell Crowe doesn’t really do much in the role other than hit every line just right. The flashback scenes, that have to his childhood, feature Albert Finney, who could whistle for two hours and I wouldn’t be able to blink, as his Uncle Henry and the time young Max, played by Freddie Highmore, spend together. Freddie Highmore does a most excellent impression of Mr. Crowe. The true star of the picture though is Marion Cotillard. Now everybody’s sweetheart after winning the Oscar for her portrayal of Edith Piaf, here she takes a simple role and really doesn’t do anything extraordinary with it. The incredible part is that while as Ms. Piaf she covered her beauty, her it shines so bright. While gorgeous, charming and truly endearing in the role of Max love interest, I can’t help but get slack jawed at her very appearance on screen. She truly is a joy to watch.
The second most beautiful thing in the film is the southern French countryside. Mr. Scott must really have a love for where they shot because while London is shot as a dark, lonely industrial city, the countryside is all warmth and nature. As someone who has been to the south of France and stayed in a chateau, all I could think about was how it was exactly as I remember it. And that is what this film really boils down to; a very beautiful and predictable love. While unrealistic and truly fantastical in its spendor sometime, all I wanted to do afterwards was listen to Yves Montand on vinyl on the veranda of my chateau with a beautiful woman, a handsome cigar and a bottle of the deepest red wine I can find. 7/10
Rarely can I say that I am a sap. I loathe and openly mock romantic comedies, heartfelt family films and Russell Crowe. But when a film takes the most predictable story line of all, casts Russell Crowe in the lead and sets it in France, a country which, I must say, is not really my favorite, the obvious prediction is that the only thing to put me in a good mood is the end credits. How wrong I was. A GOOD YEAR, Ridley Scott’s break from epic pictures, sets Mr. Crowe as a money grubbing, English asshole who goes to France to claim his uncles chateau, and learns a lesson about life in the process. Its as run of the mill as you can get. As I started the film up, I rolled my eyes because you have Ridley Scott, the guy who made BLADE RUNNER and ALIEN and GLAIATOR and BLACK RAIN, making a small picture about life lessons. But while the scope of the film may be small, it hits its mark as neither a comedy nor a drama, but simply a charming little film with moments of both.
While it didn’t really hit many of the emotional chords that it was aiming for, the acting and cinematography was superb. It was as if I was watching UNDER THE TUSCAN sun again but actually liking the movie! Russell Crowe doesn’t really do much in the role other than hit every line just right. The flashback scenes, that have to his childhood, feature Albert Finney, who could whistle for two hours and I wouldn’t be able to blink, as his Uncle Henry and the time young Max, played by Freddie Highmore, spend together. Freddie Highmore does a most excellent impression of Mr. Crowe. The true star of the picture though is Marion Cotillard. Now everybody’s sweetheart after winning the Oscar for her portrayal of Edith Piaf, here she takes a simple role and really doesn’t do anything extraordinary with it. The incredible part is that while as Ms. Piaf she covered her beauty, her it shines so bright. While gorgeous, charming and truly endearing in the role of Max love interest, I can’t help but get slack jawed at her very appearance on screen. She truly is a joy to watch.
The second most beautiful thing in the film is the southern French countryside. Mr. Scott must really have a love for where they shot because while London is shot as a dark, lonely industrial city, the countryside is all warmth and nature. As someone who has been to the south of France and stayed in a chateau, all I could think about was how it was exactly as I remember it. And that is what this film really boils down to; a very beautiful and predictable love. While unrealistic and truly fantastical in its spendor sometime, all I wanted to do afterwards was listen to Yves Montand on vinyl on the veranda of my chateau with a beautiful woman, a handsome cigar and a bottle of the deepest red wine I can find. 7/10
Saturday, February 02, 2008
STRANGE WILDERNESS
Review by Michael Jaffe
By writing a review of STRANGE WILDERNESS I am doing something that really shouldn’t be attempted: intellectualizing this film. And by using the word “film” I am probably overdoing it again. STRANGE WILDERNESS is a collection of scenes filmed with reckless abandon, some of which are hysterical because of their obvious spontaneity and some which make you stare slack jawed at your neighbor as if to ask “is this movie real?” That this is a major release really is a testament to Adam Sandler’s power in Hollywood because this is exactly like GRANDMA’S BOY. There are a lot of Sandler cronies floating around, being high and doing ridiculous shit that is just like what any other 20-year-old stoners would do except more extreme.
The basic premise for STRANGE WILDERNESS is that Peter Gaulke (played by Steve Zahn) and Fred Wolf (Allen Covert of GRANDMA’S BOY) make a wilderness show called “Strange Wilderness” except that it sucks and will get cancelled if they can’t get something for better ratings. Then an old friend shows up and says for 1000 dollars they can buy a map that takes them to Ecuador and a cave where big foot lives. Hilarity ensues. The plot and the series of events that ensues makes so little sense you will cause yourself sever damage if you try to understand what is transpiring. The characters are all very odd and all the faces involved (Zahn, Covert, Kevin “FARVA!” Heffernan, Justin “HI, I’m a Mac” Long, Jonah “the fat kid from SUPERBAD” Hill and Ernest “I’m 90 and have an Oscar. Why am I in this” Borgnine) are well known and relatively respected comedians who have done much better work in other films and apparently were offered a million dollars each to shoot in Disney land’s fake jungle for 2 weeks and smoke a lot of weed with producer Sandler. Justin Long is surprisingly hilarious as a guy who really has smoked himself retarded and isn’t giving up his favorite herb anytime soon.
There really is about 60 minutes of real movie here and then just a lot of sidetracked insanity. There is nitrous oxide inhalation, body paint, weird tattoos, lots of weird fake penises, a boob, lots of stupid jokes and actually a few spots where I laughed out loud. I am not sure you should see this movie without any type of substance, but I did and I FELT high when I walked out of the theatre. It truly is an unbelievable feat that this film in its current state was made and released to the public.
I laughed and gaped in astonishment and just about had one of the more enjoyable times at the movies I have had in a while. With terribly low expectations going in, the stupid, lowbrow humor was exactly what I was expecting except more. With such films as NARNIA and NATIONAL TREASURE making hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office, dumbing the masses, I am glad films like STRANGE WILDERNESS still exist where reasonably intelligent youths can go and forget about the horror that is real life and seriousness (fuck you Hillary, I’m voting for Barack). If a viewer can accept that this is a piece of shit film, it really becomes a hilarious, R-rated episode of the live action SIMPSONS with dumber writers and more innuendo. Its nuts. You’ll love it. 6/10 sober, 11/10 when fucked up.
By writing a review of STRANGE WILDERNESS I am doing something that really shouldn’t be attempted: intellectualizing this film. And by using the word “film” I am probably overdoing it again. STRANGE WILDERNESS is a collection of scenes filmed with reckless abandon, some of which are hysterical because of their obvious spontaneity and some which make you stare slack jawed at your neighbor as if to ask “is this movie real?” That this is a major release really is a testament to Adam Sandler’s power in Hollywood because this is exactly like GRANDMA’S BOY. There are a lot of Sandler cronies floating around, being high and doing ridiculous shit that is just like what any other 20-year-old stoners would do except more extreme.
The basic premise for STRANGE WILDERNESS is that Peter Gaulke (played by Steve Zahn) and Fred Wolf (Allen Covert of GRANDMA’S BOY) make a wilderness show called “Strange Wilderness” except that it sucks and will get cancelled if they can’t get something for better ratings. Then an old friend shows up and says for 1000 dollars they can buy a map that takes them to Ecuador and a cave where big foot lives. Hilarity ensues. The plot and the series of events that ensues makes so little sense you will cause yourself sever damage if you try to understand what is transpiring. The characters are all very odd and all the faces involved (Zahn, Covert, Kevin “FARVA!” Heffernan, Justin “HI, I’m a Mac” Long, Jonah “the fat kid from SUPERBAD” Hill and Ernest “I’m 90 and have an Oscar. Why am I in this” Borgnine) are well known and relatively respected comedians who have done much better work in other films and apparently were offered a million dollars each to shoot in Disney land’s fake jungle for 2 weeks and smoke a lot of weed with producer Sandler. Justin Long is surprisingly hilarious as a guy who really has smoked himself retarded and isn’t giving up his favorite herb anytime soon.
There really is about 60 minutes of real movie here and then just a lot of sidetracked insanity. There is nitrous oxide inhalation, body paint, weird tattoos, lots of weird fake penises, a boob, lots of stupid jokes and actually a few spots where I laughed out loud. I am not sure you should see this movie without any type of substance, but I did and I FELT high when I walked out of the theatre. It truly is an unbelievable feat that this film in its current state was made and released to the public.
I laughed and gaped in astonishment and just about had one of the more enjoyable times at the movies I have had in a while. With terribly low expectations going in, the stupid, lowbrow humor was exactly what I was expecting except more. With such films as NARNIA and NATIONAL TREASURE making hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office, dumbing the masses, I am glad films like STRANGE WILDERNESS still exist where reasonably intelligent youths can go and forget about the horror that is real life and seriousness (fuck you Hillary, I’m voting for Barack). If a viewer can accept that this is a piece of shit film, it really becomes a hilarious, R-rated episode of the live action SIMPSONS with dumber writers and more innuendo. Its nuts. You’ll love it. 6/10 sober, 11/10 when fucked up.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
D3: The Mighty Ducks
Review by Michael Jaffe
Childhood for me was defined by a few movies and I am happy to say that Mighty Ducks is one of those few films that was so heavily ingrained in my mind that even today when I watch it I can become six years old again. Not a care in the world can overpower how much I view Goldberg as a sign to fat, Jewish boys everywhere that we to can be the wisecracking side character to a successful youth sports team. However, when the inevitable sequels started, I was juiced. D2 was phenomenal, keeping all the classic old characters and adding new ones AND having coach Bombay, played perfectly by the incomparable Emilio Estevez, have a personal vendetta against the opposition’s coach. The tension was incredible and the film was even better. Then D3.
Usually with trilogies, you find that the middle portion lags while the third film swoops in as the biggest film yet and saves the franchise. Since D2 simply built on the first, the third film was going to have no less than three explosions, two Goldberg chase scenes and the Bash Brothers literally picking someone up and throwing them into the next county. Anticipation swelled and as an eight year old I remember walking out of the theatre, on opening day of course, feeling that while I had enjoyed the movie and the candy very much, something wasn't right. Now, an unbelievable 11 years after the films first release I went back to see if I could find what was wrong with D3: The Mighty Ducks.
So now, as a 19 year old I have watched all three films, and the first two still hold up remarkably well. While some of the humor is a little juvenile at times, I really could care less because the kids are supposed to be 13 year olds anyway and they act like it. The films are really good and the acting is way above what is to be expected from these sorts of films. Then came D3 and I had to wonder what exactly happened? The heart of the first two films was this team and their coach. In the opening of D3 Coach Gordon Bombay tells team captain Charlie that he has taken a better job and promptly leaves the film. That is the start of the third film: getting rid of the best coach and the one adult character that is real, and truly holds the films together. And also, while Charlie is the captain and team leader, the films worked because the great side characters got real roles and kept the film about the team. While the dialogue and the acting in D3 is really not so bad, the story and direction of the film veers sharply from what made the first two magical. Charlie becomes the main character and the focus of the film. He whines and complains to the new coach relentlessly about how he hates defense.
Like B.B. King said, "the thrill is gone." By switching the focus to a now teenage Charlie, the film spends the majority of its run time on Charlie leading the Ducks, now the freshman JV squad at an elite prep high school, on a series of pranks against the varsity team. The characters of the varsity team are atrociously acted and ever worse written by the way. The familiarity with the Ducks however is shown because the snippets where we see such great supporting characters as Goldberg, Averman and Fulton are perfect, but minute roles that are there to kill time while Charlie walks between spots to sulk. The characters of Mendoza and Portman, introduced in the second film, are all but forgotten and have two scenes apiece.
While D3 does have the big shoes to fill of the previous two works of prepubescent hockey perfection, it doesn't even try to copy the previous formula to make it work. While the Ducks remain underdogs, it no longer is really about the Ducks and that is what makes this film sub par. It falls into all the genre traps and really can't do much to save it once Emilio checks out (hockey pun for all those out there who don't follow the sport) and doesn't return until the final twenty minutes. What else did he have to film at this time??? Ridiculous that the films main bankable star was removed after two films and replaced by a throw away, hard ass coach character. While this film no longer is a puzzlement to me about what went wrong, it is really just like when a parent isn't mad but just "disappointed." And that hurts so much more. 5/10
Childhood for me was defined by a few movies and I am happy to say that Mighty Ducks is one of those few films that was so heavily ingrained in my mind that even today when I watch it I can become six years old again. Not a care in the world can overpower how much I view Goldberg as a sign to fat, Jewish boys everywhere that we to can be the wisecracking side character to a successful youth sports team. However, when the inevitable sequels started, I was juiced. D2 was phenomenal, keeping all the classic old characters and adding new ones AND having coach Bombay, played perfectly by the incomparable Emilio Estevez, have a personal vendetta against the opposition’s coach. The tension was incredible and the film was even better. Then D3.
Usually with trilogies, you find that the middle portion lags while the third film swoops in as the biggest film yet and saves the franchise. Since D2 simply built on the first, the third film was going to have no less than three explosions, two Goldberg chase scenes and the Bash Brothers literally picking someone up and throwing them into the next county. Anticipation swelled and as an eight year old I remember walking out of the theatre, on opening day of course, feeling that while I had enjoyed the movie and the candy very much, something wasn't right. Now, an unbelievable 11 years after the films first release I went back to see if I could find what was wrong with D3: The Mighty Ducks.
So now, as a 19 year old I have watched all three films, and the first two still hold up remarkably well. While some of the humor is a little juvenile at times, I really could care less because the kids are supposed to be 13 year olds anyway and they act like it. The films are really good and the acting is way above what is to be expected from these sorts of films. Then came D3 and I had to wonder what exactly happened? The heart of the first two films was this team and their coach. In the opening of D3 Coach Gordon Bombay tells team captain Charlie that he has taken a better job and promptly leaves the film. That is the start of the third film: getting rid of the best coach and the one adult character that is real, and truly holds the films together. And also, while Charlie is the captain and team leader, the films worked because the great side characters got real roles and kept the film about the team. While the dialogue and the acting in D3 is really not so bad, the story and direction of the film veers sharply from what made the first two magical. Charlie becomes the main character and the focus of the film. He whines and complains to the new coach relentlessly about how he hates defense.
Like B.B. King said, "the thrill is gone." By switching the focus to a now teenage Charlie, the film spends the majority of its run time on Charlie leading the Ducks, now the freshman JV squad at an elite prep high school, on a series of pranks against the varsity team. The characters of the varsity team are atrociously acted and ever worse written by the way. The familiarity with the Ducks however is shown because the snippets where we see such great supporting characters as Goldberg, Averman and Fulton are perfect, but minute roles that are there to kill time while Charlie walks between spots to sulk. The characters of Mendoza and Portman, introduced in the second film, are all but forgotten and have two scenes apiece.
While D3 does have the big shoes to fill of the previous two works of prepubescent hockey perfection, it doesn't even try to copy the previous formula to make it work. While the Ducks remain underdogs, it no longer is really about the Ducks and that is what makes this film sub par. It falls into all the genre traps and really can't do much to save it once Emilio checks out (hockey pun for all those out there who don't follow the sport) and doesn't return until the final twenty minutes. What else did he have to film at this time??? Ridiculous that the films main bankable star was removed after two films and replaced by a throw away, hard ass coach character. While this film no longer is a puzzlement to me about what went wrong, it is really just like when a parent isn't mad but just "disappointed." And that hurts so much more. 5/10
Sunday, March 25, 2007
TMNT
Review by Michael Jaffe
I am not afraid to admit that I was raised with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles running through my veins. As a youngster, I couldn’t fall asleep at night without my dad reading me one of the Turtle comic books, of which I had a complete set. When I saw the first, live action movie as a kid I remember being so sucked into it at the doctor’s office I threw a tantrum as they tried to get me to leave the doctors office. To this day, I still watch the original two movies and love them as much as I did that first day at the doctors. This newest installment of the turtles series is CGI, not live action, and completely devoid of Shredder. The bad guys in this installment are the foot clan who are being controlled by businessman Max Winters. Mr. Winters calls in some stone generals from south America and then some foolishness goes on with some big monsters but the heart of the movie is the turtles.
The story takes place a few years after the previous three movies and Leo has been sent away by Splinter to learn how to be a better leader. April O’Neil goes and finds him and asks him to come back. The turtles back home have become weak without their leader, with Don working as tech support, Mikey being entertainment for kids birthday parties and Raph becoming even more surly and angrier than he ever was before. April and Casey are now living together in a safe, at home life, but Casey longs to get back out there and fight crime again. The movie is fun and fast and there are hardly any dull moments and the animation, while extremely cartoony is smooth, sleek and really easy to watch. The voice work by Patrick Stewart as Max Winters is very villainous and his deep baritone makes the character seem quite intimidating. Sarah Michelle Gellar is fine as April, but doesn’t really bring anything special to the role. Chris Evans as Casey Jones is as perfect a voice for the role as you could get without getting Elias Koteas circa 1990. The voices of the turtles are all done by relatively unknown voice actors and all are really quite good, with barely any noticeable difference from the distinct voices that were developed during the original cartoon TV show.
The movie is surprisingly funny with the jokes and one liners and the action scenes look great. The movie is not without fault however. The dialogue, while mostly good, can fall into fairly lame territory on occasion and the non-realistic animation could hamper some people’s enjoyment of the movie about talking turtles. And the movie is fairly childish, but any true fan of the turtles won’t care because the turtles were never the most challenging stories intellectually. The story was really without much connection to the TV show and hopefully the next film will have Shredder and Krang back, completing the turtles’ complete return to glory. 8/10
I am not afraid to admit that I was raised with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles running through my veins. As a youngster, I couldn’t fall asleep at night without my dad reading me one of the Turtle comic books, of which I had a complete set. When I saw the first, live action movie as a kid I remember being so sucked into it at the doctor’s office I threw a tantrum as they tried to get me to leave the doctors office. To this day, I still watch the original two movies and love them as much as I did that first day at the doctors. This newest installment of the turtles series is CGI, not live action, and completely devoid of Shredder. The bad guys in this installment are the foot clan who are being controlled by businessman Max Winters. Mr. Winters calls in some stone generals from south America and then some foolishness goes on with some big monsters but the heart of the movie is the turtles.
The story takes place a few years after the previous three movies and Leo has been sent away by Splinter to learn how to be a better leader. April O’Neil goes and finds him and asks him to come back. The turtles back home have become weak without their leader, with Don working as tech support, Mikey being entertainment for kids birthday parties and Raph becoming even more surly and angrier than he ever was before. April and Casey are now living together in a safe, at home life, but Casey longs to get back out there and fight crime again. The movie is fun and fast and there are hardly any dull moments and the animation, while extremely cartoony is smooth, sleek and really easy to watch. The voice work by Patrick Stewart as Max Winters is very villainous and his deep baritone makes the character seem quite intimidating. Sarah Michelle Gellar is fine as April, but doesn’t really bring anything special to the role. Chris Evans as Casey Jones is as perfect a voice for the role as you could get without getting Elias Koteas circa 1990. The voices of the turtles are all done by relatively unknown voice actors and all are really quite good, with barely any noticeable difference from the distinct voices that were developed during the original cartoon TV show.
The movie is surprisingly funny with the jokes and one liners and the action scenes look great. The movie is not without fault however. The dialogue, while mostly good, can fall into fairly lame territory on occasion and the non-realistic animation could hamper some people’s enjoyment of the movie about talking turtles. And the movie is fairly childish, but any true fan of the turtles won’t care because the turtles were never the most challenging stories intellectually. The story was really without much connection to the TV show and hopefully the next film will have Shredder and Krang back, completing the turtles’ complete return to glory. 8/10
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Hannibal Rising
review by Michael Jaffe
HANNIBAL RISING is one of the most confusing and terribly written movies that I have seen in a while. The movie tries to be a quality film and looks beautiful. Director Peter Webber, director of the fabulous GIRL WITH THE PEARL EARING is completely stuck with a miserable script. Everything about the movie seems good, the acting, the setting, the plot, but the writing is so dreadful that numerous times laughter rang through the theatre because it was like watching a Roger Corman production. I have read the book and I noticed how bad the writing of the book was, and then I saw that Thomas Harris wrote both witch would explain just how flat out dreadful the dialogue is.
The plot is that young Hannibal’s family dies on the eastern front of WWII and then some bad men come and eat his sister. Hannibal then is magically 16 and a complete killing maching. He then goes to live with his Japanese aunt in France where she trains him to become a samurai. He then becomes a medical student and seeks revenge on the men who ate his sister 8 years earlier. Luckily, 3 of the men live in France right by Hannibal so he can swing over on weekends and kill them. If this story seems ridiculous, that is because it is. There are plot twists that I won’t reveal that simply made me want to leave the theatre.
The reason I stayed however was the acting. A beautifully shot film that makes Gaspard Ulliel’s performance as the young Dr. Lecter look that much better. It might not have been on par with Anthony Hopkins, but I won’t deny that I was very afraid of his Joker like grin and long nose. He would certainly look good as Joker in the next BATMAN movie. Mr. Ulliel is very good as are Rhys Ifans as a bad guy and THE WIRE’s Dominic West as a concerned policeman. Gong Li does not particularly act well in HR, but she sure looks great as Hannibal’s Japanese aunt who teaches him the way of the samurai.
The movie is a mess and is completely unnecessary for the series. The only good that might come out of it are that Mr. Ulliel might get more work in mainstream cinema. 4/10
HANNIBAL RISING is one of the most confusing and terribly written movies that I have seen in a while. The movie tries to be a quality film and looks beautiful. Director Peter Webber, director of the fabulous GIRL WITH THE PEARL EARING is completely stuck with a miserable script. Everything about the movie seems good, the acting, the setting, the plot, but the writing is so dreadful that numerous times laughter rang through the theatre because it was like watching a Roger Corman production. I have read the book and I noticed how bad the writing of the book was, and then I saw that Thomas Harris wrote both witch would explain just how flat out dreadful the dialogue is.
The plot is that young Hannibal’s family dies on the eastern front of WWII and then some bad men come and eat his sister. Hannibal then is magically 16 and a complete killing maching. He then goes to live with his Japanese aunt in France where she trains him to become a samurai. He then becomes a medical student and seeks revenge on the men who ate his sister 8 years earlier. Luckily, 3 of the men live in France right by Hannibal so he can swing over on weekends and kill them. If this story seems ridiculous, that is because it is. There are plot twists that I won’t reveal that simply made me want to leave the theatre.
The reason I stayed however was the acting. A beautifully shot film that makes Gaspard Ulliel’s performance as the young Dr. Lecter look that much better. It might not have been on par with Anthony Hopkins, but I won’t deny that I was very afraid of his Joker like grin and long nose. He would certainly look good as Joker in the next BATMAN movie. Mr. Ulliel is very good as are Rhys Ifans as a bad guy and THE WIRE’s Dominic West as a concerned policeman. Gong Li does not particularly act well in HR, but she sure looks great as Hannibal’s Japanese aunt who teaches him the way of the samurai.
The movie is a mess and is completely unnecessary for the series. The only good that might come out of it are that Mr. Ulliel might get more work in mainstream cinema. 4/10
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Casino Royale
Review by Michael Jaffe
I hate Martin Campbell. Once, he was a competent director with such movies as GOLDENEYE and MASK OF ZORRO, both entertaining films that were competently made. Then he made VERTICAL LIMIT, BEYOND BORDERS and, of course, THE LEGEND OF ZORRO. VERTICAL LIMIT was barely decent, as was BEYOND BORDERS, but THE LEGEND OF ZORRO was easily one of the most terrible movies I have ever seen. His newest film, CASINO ROYALE is somewhere in between. The first two acts are nearly pitch perfect. There is action and women and cars and exotic locales and everything you could ever want from a Bond movie. Without question, it is the best first two acts to any Bond movie in over 30 years. The problem arises with the third act. The movie 2 hours and 20 minutes, at least 20 minutes longer than it should’ve been. The third act though is completely unnecessary, and I won’t say why, but it seems as if someone else wrote that final act. It’s sappy and slow and the action sequences aren’t as well planned at all. There were three writers, one of whom is Oscar winner Paul Haggis. The third act simply doesn’t fit as Bond softens up and looses his new cool that is build up perfectly in the first two acts.
On the acting front, Daniel Craig is awesome as Bond, playing his as ice cold and manipulative as he should be. Craig may be blue eyed and blonde but he IS Bond as Ian Fleming would’ve wanted him. He isn’t perfect, he quite often messes up his assignments and his fighting is somewhat unrefined, but it makes him human and that why we love him. Bond also is depicted as a brilliant Texas hold-‘em player which leads Bond to Montenegro to engage in a high stakes, $150 million, hold-‘em game to beat an underworld banker named Le Chiffre. If Le Chiffre loses, he will be bankrupt and will be forced to become a rat for the government or be killed by the international bad guys whose money he has lost. Eva Green tags along as Vesper Lynd, not your usual Bond girl. While beautiful, she is also as brilliant and cool as Bond himself is. The characters battle wits from the first time they meet, eventually falling in love which leads to the sappy third act.
The movie is so disappointing. The first two acts are so good, so violent, so freaking awesome that when the third act rolls around it is like Episode I all over again. This build up and you feel so good about the movie and the incredible chase scene through a construction site makes the sloppy finale hurt so much more. In the end, if you want to know whether or not you should see this movie, the answer is a resounding yes, but be warned. 8/10
I hate Martin Campbell. Once, he was a competent director with such movies as GOLDENEYE and MASK OF ZORRO, both entertaining films that were competently made. Then he made VERTICAL LIMIT, BEYOND BORDERS and, of course, THE LEGEND OF ZORRO. VERTICAL LIMIT was barely decent, as was BEYOND BORDERS, but THE LEGEND OF ZORRO was easily one of the most terrible movies I have ever seen. His newest film, CASINO ROYALE is somewhere in between. The first two acts are nearly pitch perfect. There is action and women and cars and exotic locales and everything you could ever want from a Bond movie. Without question, it is the best first two acts to any Bond movie in over 30 years. The problem arises with the third act. The movie 2 hours and 20 minutes, at least 20 minutes longer than it should’ve been. The third act though is completely unnecessary, and I won’t say why, but it seems as if someone else wrote that final act. It’s sappy and slow and the action sequences aren’t as well planned at all. There were three writers, one of whom is Oscar winner Paul Haggis. The third act simply doesn’t fit as Bond softens up and looses his new cool that is build up perfectly in the first two acts.
On the acting front, Daniel Craig is awesome as Bond, playing his as ice cold and manipulative as he should be. Craig may be blue eyed and blonde but he IS Bond as Ian Fleming would’ve wanted him. He isn’t perfect, he quite often messes up his assignments and his fighting is somewhat unrefined, but it makes him human and that why we love him. Bond also is depicted as a brilliant Texas hold-‘em player which leads Bond to Montenegro to engage in a high stakes, $150 million, hold-‘em game to beat an underworld banker named Le Chiffre. If Le Chiffre loses, he will be bankrupt and will be forced to become a rat for the government or be killed by the international bad guys whose money he has lost. Eva Green tags along as Vesper Lynd, not your usual Bond girl. While beautiful, she is also as brilliant and cool as Bond himself is. The characters battle wits from the first time they meet, eventually falling in love which leads to the sappy third act.
The movie is so disappointing. The first two acts are so good, so violent, so freaking awesome that when the third act rolls around it is like Episode I all over again. This build up and you feel so good about the movie and the incredible chase scene through a construction site makes the sloppy finale hurt so much more. In the end, if you want to know whether or not you should see this movie, the answer is a resounding yes, but be warned. 8/10
Sunday, October 08, 2006
The Departed
Review by Michael Jaffe
I don’t ever really remember why I started loving movies. Maybe it was escapism, maybe it was because it was two hours where I was perfectly in my rights to yell at my mom for disturbing me. After seeing THE DEPARTED I realized that this was the movie I had kind of always wanted to see. It is like the first time I saw INFERNAL AFFAIRS (the film on which DEPARTED is based on) I just knew that if there was a single line between good and bad movies, this movie was on the good side. DEPARTED is on of the movies that while you watch it, you just know its good. Be it the music, the lighting, the brilliant dialogue or the great performances, everything in this movie pretty much clicked at such a high rate that, while a flawed movie, nothing about could be changed and actually improve on it. It is the best movie that could be made with this subject. Not that it was better that INFERNAL AFFAIRS, a brilliant movie in its own right, but the departed is a completely different beast that tackles completely different things with a totally more engaging, more vicious American edge to it. Scorsese puts the petal to the metal and doest let up for two and a half solid hours as the plot keeps getting thicker and thicker building to the final conclusion that had me nearly out of my seat with anticipation. To boot, this is all from someone who saw the original and pretty much knew what was going to happen in the end, but nevertheless, I was so sucked into the world of these characters that I didn’t care what the ending was.
The plot is fairly basic, with a mole in the police force (Damon) and a mole in the mob (DiCaprio) and eventually, through a deal gone bad, they become aware of each others existence and are assigned to smoke each other out. The tension builds up as the movie goes on as the two men both develop relationships with the same woman, a police psychiatrist, which shows both of their strengths and vulnerabilities. The writing by William Monaghan is truly funny, genuine dialogue that shows no awkwardness or falsity to it, simply flowing as a bunch of street thugs in south Boston would speak, with loads of vulgarities and such. Scorsese goes to the genre that he helped create and keeps the streets of Boston as mean as he ever made the streets of New York. He doesn’t do any overdone craziness that Tony Scott uses; Scorsese simply shows us exactly how a story unfolds with no frills or anything. Unlike his ambitious film GANGS OF NEW YORK, that also starred DiCaprio, here there is no extra fat, surprising for a film with a 150-minute runtime.
The acting here is so key to the movie, because if the actors don’t come across as hardened criminals or smooth talking cops, the great writing and directing would all be null and void, and for the most part the cast is outstanding. Alec Baldwin as policeman Ellerby is so funny that I grabbed the arm of a stranger next to me just to stop myself from flailing in my chair violently at his rants. Jack Nicholson is still at the top, and portrays the role of gang boss Frank Costello perfectly as a crazy, old dog starting to lose touch with the world around him. Ray Winstone and Mark Whalberg both play sidekicks, Winstone’s Mr. French to Costello and Whalberg’s Dignam to Police Chief Queenan, with so much character of their own that they probably could have entire movies shaped around just their characters cause they came across as characters with so much more to share and tell. The problem I had is with the leads. DiCaprio, as hard as he tries, never came across as “street” as he should’ve, but his character’s vulnerability, a trait he plays very well, comes across so often in the movie, that his “street” side’s weakness could easily be forgiven. Damon also is mostly good, but has moments where I wanted to slap his goofy Irish mug off of the screen because he came across so ridiculously phony and cold.
THE DEPRARTED shouldn’t be compared to any other film out there because it is so different. Not quite a New York gangster film, not quite a slick Hong Kong action film, THE DEPARTED is simply a new breed of gangster movie that can only be described as one of the more inspired works to come out of Hollywood in a long time.
--9/10--
I don’t ever really remember why I started loving movies. Maybe it was escapism, maybe it was because it was two hours where I was perfectly in my rights to yell at my mom for disturbing me. After seeing THE DEPARTED I realized that this was the movie I had kind of always wanted to see. It is like the first time I saw INFERNAL AFFAIRS (the film on which DEPARTED is based on) I just knew that if there was a single line between good and bad movies, this movie was on the good side. DEPARTED is on of the movies that while you watch it, you just know its good. Be it the music, the lighting, the brilliant dialogue or the great performances, everything in this movie pretty much clicked at such a high rate that, while a flawed movie, nothing about could be changed and actually improve on it. It is the best movie that could be made with this subject. Not that it was better that INFERNAL AFFAIRS, a brilliant movie in its own right, but the departed is a completely different beast that tackles completely different things with a totally more engaging, more vicious American edge to it. Scorsese puts the petal to the metal and doest let up for two and a half solid hours as the plot keeps getting thicker and thicker building to the final conclusion that had me nearly out of my seat with anticipation. To boot, this is all from someone who saw the original and pretty much knew what was going to happen in the end, but nevertheless, I was so sucked into the world of these characters that I didn’t care what the ending was.
The plot is fairly basic, with a mole in the police force (Damon) and a mole in the mob (DiCaprio) and eventually, through a deal gone bad, they become aware of each others existence and are assigned to smoke each other out. The tension builds up as the movie goes on as the two men both develop relationships with the same woman, a police psychiatrist, which shows both of their strengths and vulnerabilities. The writing by William Monaghan is truly funny, genuine dialogue that shows no awkwardness or falsity to it, simply flowing as a bunch of street thugs in south Boston would speak, with loads of vulgarities and such. Scorsese goes to the genre that he helped create and keeps the streets of Boston as mean as he ever made the streets of New York. He doesn’t do any overdone craziness that Tony Scott uses; Scorsese simply shows us exactly how a story unfolds with no frills or anything. Unlike his ambitious film GANGS OF NEW YORK, that also starred DiCaprio, here there is no extra fat, surprising for a film with a 150-minute runtime.
The acting here is so key to the movie, because if the actors don’t come across as hardened criminals or smooth talking cops, the great writing and directing would all be null and void, and for the most part the cast is outstanding. Alec Baldwin as policeman Ellerby is so funny that I grabbed the arm of a stranger next to me just to stop myself from flailing in my chair violently at his rants. Jack Nicholson is still at the top, and portrays the role of gang boss Frank Costello perfectly as a crazy, old dog starting to lose touch with the world around him. Ray Winstone and Mark Whalberg both play sidekicks, Winstone’s Mr. French to Costello and Whalberg’s Dignam to Police Chief Queenan, with so much character of their own that they probably could have entire movies shaped around just their characters cause they came across as characters with so much more to share and tell. The problem I had is with the leads. DiCaprio, as hard as he tries, never came across as “street” as he should’ve, but his character’s vulnerability, a trait he plays very well, comes across so often in the movie, that his “street” side’s weakness could easily be forgiven. Damon also is mostly good, but has moments where I wanted to slap his goofy Irish mug off of the screen because he came across so ridiculously phony and cold.
THE DEPRARTED shouldn’t be compared to any other film out there because it is so different. Not quite a New York gangster film, not quite a slick Hong Kong action film, THE DEPARTED is simply a new breed of gangster movie that can only be described as one of the more inspired works to come out of Hollywood in a long time.
--9/10--
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Crank
Review by Michael Jaffe
CRANK is incredible. By no means an actual ‘Oscar worthy’ film, (one that will be praised by real critics for its emotional center and blah, blah…) CRANK is flat-out stupid, balls to the wall, action comedy. Directed by a duo of first-time directors, Brian Taylor and Mark Neveldine, show some of the tricks they learned as stunt men and bring a completely new view to the action genre. While the plot is laughable for its pointless one mindedness (Chev Chelios, mob hit man, must keep his adrenaline pumping long enough to say goodbye to his girl, kill the guys who poisoned him and maybe save his life) the action comes so fast and furious as Chev tries to keep his heart beating, there isn’t time in the theatre to do anything but grab your seat hard and watch the carnage unfold. The straight foreword point of CRANK is to show Jason Statham being badass while killing people and having sex with his girlfriend in public all in the name of saving his life. The little parts of the film and the trick camera shots that randomly scatter throughout the film keep things interesting, although the movie hardly needs it. This film has one purpose to serve and that is to be a hard R-rated action movie that will have the audience laughing at the ludicrous set pieces and cringing at the butcher knife to the wrist trick. 7/10
CRANK is incredible. By no means an actual ‘Oscar worthy’ film, (one that will be praised by real critics for its emotional center and blah, blah…) CRANK is flat-out stupid, balls to the wall, action comedy. Directed by a duo of first-time directors, Brian Taylor and Mark Neveldine, show some of the tricks they learned as stunt men and bring a completely new view to the action genre. While the plot is laughable for its pointless one mindedness (Chev Chelios, mob hit man, must keep his adrenaline pumping long enough to say goodbye to his girl, kill the guys who poisoned him and maybe save his life) the action comes so fast and furious as Chev tries to keep his heart beating, there isn’t time in the theatre to do anything but grab your seat hard and watch the carnage unfold. The straight foreword point of CRANK is to show Jason Statham being badass while killing people and having sex with his girlfriend in public all in the name of saving his life. The little parts of the film and the trick camera shots that randomly scatter throughout the film keep things interesting, although the movie hardly needs it. This film has one purpose to serve and that is to be a hard R-rated action movie that will have the audience laughing at the ludicrous set pieces and cringing at the butcher knife to the wrist trick. 7/10
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Snakes On A Plane
Review by Michael Jaffe
I have seen the light and it is SNAKES ON A PLANE. While this film lives up to everyone’s expectations as a ridiculous, over the top action packed movie with Sam Jackson being badass, it actually exceeds the idea that it will be “so bad its funny” and is quite entertaining with out the chock-shocks. Everyone should know the basic plot, straight from the title, but what the title doesn’t tell you is that a surfer on Hawaii named Sean witness’s a murder committed by notorious gangster Eddie Kim. Sam Jackson plays FBI agent Flynn whose job it is to get Sean back to LA to testify against Kim. Unfortunately, Kim’s plan to kill Sean en route is to put a huge crate filled with deadly snakes on the plane timed to let the snakes free exactly mid way from Hawaii to LA so that the plane must keep going. So midway the flight, snakes are let free on the plane and mayhem ensues. The films snakes are occasionally fake looking and sometimes I could even identify a non poisonous snake or two attacking people, but for the most part the snake attacks are so ridiculous and awesome, you could care less.
The acting in this film is one thing that surprised me in the fact that other than Nathan Phillips, who plays Sean, the entire cast is really quite good. Other than the always brilliant Sam Jackson, Julianna Margulies, David Koechner and Sunny Mabrey all are entertaining and keep the action lively. Koechner especially is funny and boisterous as the sexually harassing Texan co-pilot.
I’ve seen this movie twice, once at 10:00 pm and another time at a matinee. The 1000 showing had the entire theatre yelling at the screen and cheering and throwing snakes. And if there was ever a quiet moment, the theatre started making snake hissing sounds. The matinee on the other hand had a girl tell me to shut up when I tried to whoop it up for the title. I recommend seeing a screening where people don’t mind yelling at the screen and howling at the vicious snake attacks. Remember its all about having fun, and SOAP definetly is tons of fun. 8/10
I have seen the light and it is SNAKES ON A PLANE. While this film lives up to everyone’s expectations as a ridiculous, over the top action packed movie with Sam Jackson being badass, it actually exceeds the idea that it will be “so bad its funny” and is quite entertaining with out the chock-shocks. Everyone should know the basic plot, straight from the title, but what the title doesn’t tell you is that a surfer on Hawaii named Sean witness’s a murder committed by notorious gangster Eddie Kim. Sam Jackson plays FBI agent Flynn whose job it is to get Sean back to LA to testify against Kim. Unfortunately, Kim’s plan to kill Sean en route is to put a huge crate filled with deadly snakes on the plane timed to let the snakes free exactly mid way from Hawaii to LA so that the plane must keep going. So midway the flight, snakes are let free on the plane and mayhem ensues. The films snakes are occasionally fake looking and sometimes I could even identify a non poisonous snake or two attacking people, but for the most part the snake attacks are so ridiculous and awesome, you could care less.
The acting in this film is one thing that surprised me in the fact that other than Nathan Phillips, who plays Sean, the entire cast is really quite good. Other than the always brilliant Sam Jackson, Julianna Margulies, David Koechner and Sunny Mabrey all are entertaining and keep the action lively. Koechner especially is funny and boisterous as the sexually harassing Texan co-pilot.
I’ve seen this movie twice, once at 10:00 pm and another time at a matinee. The 1000 showing had the entire theatre yelling at the screen and cheering and throwing snakes. And if there was ever a quiet moment, the theatre started making snake hissing sounds. The matinee on the other hand had a girl tell me to shut up when I tried to whoop it up for the title. I recommend seeing a screening where people don’t mind yelling at the screen and howling at the vicious snake attacks. Remember its all about having fun, and SOAP definetly is tons of fun. 8/10
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest
Review by Michael Jaffe
With such high expectations, it was going to be impossible for POTC:DMC to live up to them. What has happened is the jokes have gone a little stale and Jack’s a little meaner and a lot less light hearted as he was in the fist movie. If this wasn’t a sequel, it would probably look a lot better, but since the first movie was so good, the flaws are amplified and unfortunately ruined my experience. The story involves Jack trying to get a key to a chest to get Davy Jones’s heart so that jack won’t need to pay off his debt to Davy, which is his soul. The plot takes back seat to the hijinks and side stories of which there are many and just about everything works pretty well except the love story. Elizabeth falling for Jack was a little joke in the first movie, but it blossoms to an entire side story in DMC. I hated every moment that they were developing this plot because Jack’s a pirate and he isn’t supposed to love anything other than his ship and gold. And the other problem with this movie was how boring it got at parts. While a lot of the movie was go go go action bang bang stuff, there were too many scenes where I found myself yawning and the reason I because the dialogue lacked the crack of a whip sharpness of the first movie and came off as extremely forced in places. At least Johnny Depp was funny and drunk and excellent again in his role, even if some of his lines weren’t as great as before, he got enough shots off that I was kept laughing. Orlando Bloom is still likable and seemed more manly in this movie as opposed to a little fruity in the last one. I like the direction he’s going as an actor, even though he’s still too skinny to be a knight. The action scenes were cool and overall I had fun, but not as much fun as the first movie so now I’m really hoping the third movie is ass kickery. 7/10
With such high expectations, it was going to be impossible for POTC:DMC to live up to them. What has happened is the jokes have gone a little stale and Jack’s a little meaner and a lot less light hearted as he was in the fist movie. If this wasn’t a sequel, it would probably look a lot better, but since the first movie was so good, the flaws are amplified and unfortunately ruined my experience. The story involves Jack trying to get a key to a chest to get Davy Jones’s heart so that jack won’t need to pay off his debt to Davy, which is his soul. The plot takes back seat to the hijinks and side stories of which there are many and just about everything works pretty well except the love story. Elizabeth falling for Jack was a little joke in the first movie, but it blossoms to an entire side story in DMC. I hated every moment that they were developing this plot because Jack’s a pirate and he isn’t supposed to love anything other than his ship and gold. And the other problem with this movie was how boring it got at parts. While a lot of the movie was go go go action bang bang stuff, there were too many scenes where I found myself yawning and the reason I because the dialogue lacked the crack of a whip sharpness of the first movie and came off as extremely forced in places. At least Johnny Depp was funny and drunk and excellent again in his role, even if some of his lines weren’t as great as before, he got enough shots off that I was kept laughing. Orlando Bloom is still likable and seemed more manly in this movie as opposed to a little fruity in the last one. I like the direction he’s going as an actor, even though he’s still too skinny to be a knight. The action scenes were cool and overall I had fun, but not as much fun as the first movie so now I’m really hoping the third movie is ass kickery. 7/10
Miami Vice
Review by Michael Jaffe
If you have ever seen or heard of the original MIAMI VICE TV show, then the movie is probably not for you. While the original show was all style and oozing with coolness, the movie is a dark, gritty, very talkative cop drama. That’s right, I said drama as there is maybe 3 action scenes in this movie, all of which appears in the trailer. It is shot in the same way Michael Mann shot COLLATERAL and HEAT except that those movies had a lot more to them and a lot more action sequences to move the story along. I really wanted to love this movie as I really like everyone involved and I really like the original show, but the final product is unfortunately no where near the potential sum of its parts. The two stars, Farrell and Foxx, are both quite good in their roles as both can stare at stuff with the staring bests. The dialogue seems realistic on one hand as the people in the movie are all business all the time, but on the other hand it seemed very static and fairly dull, which doesn’t help the barely visible plot. If a movie doesn’t have much of a plot, it should have other things that excel to make up for it, but the straight foreword story consists of Miami PD detectives Crockett and Tubbs going undercover in the Columbian drug cartel to try and find a leak into the FBI. So for over two hours, you see what its like to be a runner for a drug cartel and never find out who the mole is, but you do have a lot of love scenes. That was another thing that bothered me was the amount of scenes where Colin Farrell and Chinese goddess Gong Li (still really hot) engage in a) sex or b) conversations about their families. While it was nice to see some character development, Farrell’s character was undercover at the time so I was left wondering if his back story was real or his cover, so it didn’t really shed any light on his character at all. Li was quite good in her role as the middleman for the big Columbian drug dealer. And she apparently was his girl, which I didn’t figure out until someone said “she’s his woman” almost two thirds of the way through the movie. The plot had me trying to figure stuff out the whole way, and once important plot points were uncovered you had to ask “why does this matter?” Not saying that Michael Mann has lost his touch, but this film is definitely a down point in his illustrious career. He has perfected the pseudo-documentary look and feel of the film as he did in COLLATERAL and that works great in this film, but with such bland dialogue and a goofy plot, I wonder if all the distractions on set from Farrell’s drug problem to a shooting on set, effected the final product of the film. The cool and grit that seeps out of this movie save it from just being bad. 6/10
If you have ever seen or heard of the original MIAMI VICE TV show, then the movie is probably not for you. While the original show was all style and oozing with coolness, the movie is a dark, gritty, very talkative cop drama. That’s right, I said drama as there is maybe 3 action scenes in this movie, all of which appears in the trailer. It is shot in the same way Michael Mann shot COLLATERAL and HEAT except that those movies had a lot more to them and a lot more action sequences to move the story along. I really wanted to love this movie as I really like everyone involved and I really like the original show, but the final product is unfortunately no where near the potential sum of its parts. The two stars, Farrell and Foxx, are both quite good in their roles as both can stare at stuff with the staring bests. The dialogue seems realistic on one hand as the people in the movie are all business all the time, but on the other hand it seemed very static and fairly dull, which doesn’t help the barely visible plot. If a movie doesn’t have much of a plot, it should have other things that excel to make up for it, but the straight foreword story consists of Miami PD detectives Crockett and Tubbs going undercover in the Columbian drug cartel to try and find a leak into the FBI. So for over two hours, you see what its like to be a runner for a drug cartel and never find out who the mole is, but you do have a lot of love scenes. That was another thing that bothered me was the amount of scenes where Colin Farrell and Chinese goddess Gong Li (still really hot) engage in a) sex or b) conversations about their families. While it was nice to see some character development, Farrell’s character was undercover at the time so I was left wondering if his back story was real or his cover, so it didn’t really shed any light on his character at all. Li was quite good in her role as the middleman for the big Columbian drug dealer. And she apparently was his girl, which I didn’t figure out until someone said “she’s his woman” almost two thirds of the way through the movie. The plot had me trying to figure stuff out the whole way, and once important plot points were uncovered you had to ask “why does this matter?” Not saying that Michael Mann has lost his touch, but this film is definitely a down point in his illustrious career. He has perfected the pseudo-documentary look and feel of the film as he did in COLLATERAL and that works great in this film, but with such bland dialogue and a goofy plot, I wonder if all the distractions on set from Farrell’s drug problem to a shooting on set, effected the final product of the film. The cool and grit that seeps out of this movie save it from just being bad. 6/10
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Initial D
Review by Michael Jaffe
Initial D is a phenomenon is asia with the anime series and the manga books. The writing and the capturing of the drifting car culture combined with interesting characters made for a guaranteed winner. Now look at the team of writers and directors behind the Infernal affairs trilogy, one of the best and highest grossing film series to come out of Hong Kong in a while. Put these two separate yet equally awesome entities together and you get Initial D, the film experience. Neither the source material nor the film makers made any mistakes in getting this incredibly unique and exhilarating film experience to the screen. Simply put, Initial D is one of my favorite movies already because its combination of jaw dropping race scenes, funny ass dialogue, great acting and best of all, inspiring directing all came together in perfect unity.
The plot has tofu delivery boy Takumi, who has grown up driving fast on the curves of Japan’s greatest mountain. As Takumi sleeps (actually sleeps) through high speed, daring races on the mountain, he gains fame and notoriety and eventually begins racing other champions. The plot is kind of bazaar and remarkably simple, but the characters and the cars keep you fully locked and honed in on the movie for the entire run time. The actors are all familiar to fans of Hong Kong Cinema, and for anyone who has seen Infernal Affairs; many faces will look familiar to you. The actors all play their roles extremely well; especially Anthony Wong who plays Bunta, Takumi’s drunken, comedic father perfectly, frequently making one liners that caused the audience to roar with laughter. The writing of the film is very odd and quirky, but at no point does it not cause you to groan because it is simply so stupid. Occasionally lines are so hokey that a chuckle is required, but based on the writer’s previous credits, the probably put in the cheesy lines just to get laughs, and they achieve their goal remarkably well.
The race scenes though are the real star of the film as with not a hint of CGI through most of the driving sequences, I found myself actually moving my hands like I was steering and shifting along with the characters on screen I was so sucked into the experience of the movie. For car buffs, the races aren’t between super charger American muscle cars like we see in Fast and the Furious, but who car handle better, the GTR or the AE86. The racing sequences at night on the curvy mountain roads are truly poetry in motion as the drivers, at least the good ones, drift smoothly, with no bumps around curves at intense speeds.
As either a car geek, or just a movie lover, Initial D will thouroughly entertain you and make you want to see more. I saw this at a film festival, so I don’t know about a mainstream, US theatre run, but it is out on DVD in the states and I highly recommend you pick it up now. 9/10
Initial D is a phenomenon is asia with the anime series and the manga books. The writing and the capturing of the drifting car culture combined with interesting characters made for a guaranteed winner. Now look at the team of writers and directors behind the Infernal affairs trilogy, one of the best and highest grossing film series to come out of Hong Kong in a while. Put these two separate yet equally awesome entities together and you get Initial D, the film experience. Neither the source material nor the film makers made any mistakes in getting this incredibly unique and exhilarating film experience to the screen. Simply put, Initial D is one of my favorite movies already because its combination of jaw dropping race scenes, funny ass dialogue, great acting and best of all, inspiring directing all came together in perfect unity.
The plot has tofu delivery boy Takumi, who has grown up driving fast on the curves of Japan’s greatest mountain. As Takumi sleeps (actually sleeps) through high speed, daring races on the mountain, he gains fame and notoriety and eventually begins racing other champions. The plot is kind of bazaar and remarkably simple, but the characters and the cars keep you fully locked and honed in on the movie for the entire run time. The actors are all familiar to fans of Hong Kong Cinema, and for anyone who has seen Infernal Affairs; many faces will look familiar to you. The actors all play their roles extremely well; especially Anthony Wong who plays Bunta, Takumi’s drunken, comedic father perfectly, frequently making one liners that caused the audience to roar with laughter. The writing of the film is very odd and quirky, but at no point does it not cause you to groan because it is simply so stupid. Occasionally lines are so hokey that a chuckle is required, but based on the writer’s previous credits, the probably put in the cheesy lines just to get laughs, and they achieve their goal remarkably well.
The race scenes though are the real star of the film as with not a hint of CGI through most of the driving sequences, I found myself actually moving my hands like I was steering and shifting along with the characters on screen I was so sucked into the experience of the movie. For car buffs, the races aren’t between super charger American muscle cars like we see in Fast and the Furious, but who car handle better, the GTR or the AE86. The racing sequences at night on the curvy mountain roads are truly poetry in motion as the drivers, at least the good ones, drift smoothly, with no bumps around curves at intense speeds.
As either a car geek, or just a movie lover, Initial D will thouroughly entertain you and make you want to see more. I saw this at a film festival, so I don’t know about a mainstream, US theatre run, but it is out on DVD in the states and I highly recommend you pick it up now. 9/10
Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift
Review by Michael Jaffe
In the Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift, the plot is a lot more like NASCAR than the exciting and visually stimulating badassery that is drift racing. In FFTD, one of the better chase scenes I have seen, where four cars weave in and out of Tokyo traffic. Director Justin Lin uses the scenery of Tokyo to make the chase scenes not only exciting, but they are one of the rare bright spots in this highly predictable, wannabe macho flick. The plot is probably as run of the mill as they come where a outcast in Texas is shipped to live with his dead beat army dad in Tokyo to escape prosecution in the states. As far as flawed logic goes, this is ridiculous as the main character, Shawn, is allowed to flee the country after causing massive property damage in an exhilarating race scene at the movies beginning.
At least the races are fun to watch, because that is the only part of the movie that are worth watching. Once Shawn gets to Tokyo, his father tells him to stay away from cars, but immediately Shawn’s new friend Twinkie throws him into the world of Tokyo’s underground drift racing. The story that follows has no real twists or turns and simply goes thought the motions. This really disappointed me as I thought that Justin Lin would bring new life to the series, and he has, but not to the story line. The writing lags at points and doesn’t really spice anything up. The actors don’t really seem at fault; even Bow Wow does an OK job with the material handed to him. Lucas Black, who I thought was a rising star, hits hopefully what is a brief low in his career as I had really liked his performances is Jarhead and especially Crazy in Alabama. Sung Kang as the man who befriends Shawn and takes him into the world of drift racing goes to the Brad Pitt school of cool and constantly is eating and fiddling with stuff in his mouth and surprisingly is a highpoint of the film and the only character who provides not only emotion, but the crowds cheers.
The film really does its best when the drivers are behind the wheels of the cars, spinning and grooving to a surprisingly decent, albeit repetitive, soundtrack. Also, Director Lin’s use of the Japan location really brings new life into scenes that would otherwise be boring, but instead there is a lot of cool scenery to look at. The race at Mt. Akina is pretty good. The cameo by Sonny Chiba is pretty good as he just jokes his way through three scenes, not really caring and playing it fairly tongue in cheek, Reynolds style.
Compared to the other FF movies, it is maybe on par with the first one which I recently re-viewed and liked a lot for the races and macho attitudes carried by the stars, and FFTD is much better than 2F2F which was pretty much a homoerotic joke. But FF:Tokyo Drift is a completely different animal that really shouldn’t be considered part of the seires as it isn’t about the macho bull shit, but how people feel, which might have worked if the critical flaw of the movie trying to be macho, but falling far short in the manly category. As a separate movie though, it was a half decent, somewhat enjoyable time at the movies. 6/10
P.S. For someone looking for a better race movie, that has tons of funny movies, intentional or not but still some great racing scenes, I recommend Initial D (review coming real soon!), which is now out on DVD in the states. It is what Tokyo Drift should’ve been.
In the Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift, the plot is a lot more like NASCAR than the exciting and visually stimulating badassery that is drift racing. In FFTD, one of the better chase scenes I have seen, where four cars weave in and out of Tokyo traffic. Director Justin Lin uses the scenery of Tokyo to make the chase scenes not only exciting, but they are one of the rare bright spots in this highly predictable, wannabe macho flick. The plot is probably as run of the mill as they come where a outcast in Texas is shipped to live with his dead beat army dad in Tokyo to escape prosecution in the states. As far as flawed logic goes, this is ridiculous as the main character, Shawn, is allowed to flee the country after causing massive property damage in an exhilarating race scene at the movies beginning.
At least the races are fun to watch, because that is the only part of the movie that are worth watching. Once Shawn gets to Tokyo, his father tells him to stay away from cars, but immediately Shawn’s new friend Twinkie throws him into the world of Tokyo’s underground drift racing. The story that follows has no real twists or turns and simply goes thought the motions. This really disappointed me as I thought that Justin Lin would bring new life to the series, and he has, but not to the story line. The writing lags at points and doesn’t really spice anything up. The actors don’t really seem at fault; even Bow Wow does an OK job with the material handed to him. Lucas Black, who I thought was a rising star, hits hopefully what is a brief low in his career as I had really liked his performances is Jarhead and especially Crazy in Alabama. Sung Kang as the man who befriends Shawn and takes him into the world of drift racing goes to the Brad Pitt school of cool and constantly is eating and fiddling with stuff in his mouth and surprisingly is a highpoint of the film and the only character who provides not only emotion, but the crowds cheers.
The film really does its best when the drivers are behind the wheels of the cars, spinning and grooving to a surprisingly decent, albeit repetitive, soundtrack. Also, Director Lin’s use of the Japan location really brings new life into scenes that would otherwise be boring, but instead there is a lot of cool scenery to look at. The race at Mt. Akina is pretty good. The cameo by Sonny Chiba is pretty good as he just jokes his way through three scenes, not really caring and playing it fairly tongue in cheek, Reynolds style.
Compared to the other FF movies, it is maybe on par with the first one which I recently re-viewed and liked a lot for the races and macho attitudes carried by the stars, and FFTD is much better than 2F2F which was pretty much a homoerotic joke. But FF:Tokyo Drift is a completely different animal that really shouldn’t be considered part of the seires as it isn’t about the macho bull shit, but how people feel, which might have worked if the critical flaw of the movie trying to be macho, but falling far short in the manly category. As a separate movie though, it was a half decent, somewhat enjoyable time at the movies. 6/10
P.S. For someone looking for a better race movie, that has tons of funny movies, intentional or not but still some great racing scenes, I recommend Initial D (review coming real soon!), which is now out on DVD in the states. It is what Tokyo Drift should’ve been.
Saturday, May 27, 2006
X-Men: The Last Stand
Review by Michael Jaffe
I am not homophobic but I hated Wolverine in X3. Not that everyman who cries is a woman, but in the course of a two hour movie, what is supposed to be a purely animal character filled with rage took out his rage not by using his unbreakable claws, but by crying. Twice. One of the manliest characters ever developed a feminine side. What the fuck? The sequel is gonna be X4: Gotta Dance where Wolverine goes to Broadway. As a fan and reader of the comics I know for a fact that Wolverine has testicles, so the movie is way off what it should be.
But the movie, other than the numerous differences from the comic that the previous two films didn’t make, this films was shoddily made with a terrible script. The writer, Zak Penn famed for X2 but also Elektra, Suspect Zeroand Inspector Gadget, shows that X2 might have been either a fluke or a testament to Bryan Singer’s genius. The characters have no real depth in this movie, even Jean Grey who has a lot of time devoted to her, appears just to be a confused teenager. The movie tells us Phoenix, her alter-ego is the most powerful mutant out there, but she has two tirades and a lot of walking around looking angry and confused. The plot of the movie takes the Dark Phoenix tale from the comics and combines it with the threat of a mutant cure, a great idea from Joss Whedon of Serenity. When a wealthy owner of a drug company develops a mutant cure drug, Magneto feels threatened and assembles a brotherhood to fight it. He is joined by the now evil Jean Grey who’s split personality broke out at the end of X2.
The direction on this film is big and bold but fails as continuity of the simplest kind is ignored (one second its mid day, the next its night) and the effects, while done by WETA (Peter Jackson’s effects team), vary from incredible to shoddy looking. While these mistakes could be overlooked, I wish Brett Ratner had been able to at least read the script before he started shooting or to work of figuring out some of the mutants. There are character mistakes from the comics and there is some terrible dialogue. Possible the greatest mistake is how Professor X’s character pulls a complete 180 turn from what he has been in the movies and books, and he becomes a condescending asshole. Really, I love Prof X but he acts like such a pompous dick in this movie, I started rooting for the Brotherhood.
The addition of Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut is brilliant as he was the funniest and most bad ass mutant in the entire film as he even gets the best line in the movie. And of course the addition of puffer boy lightens things up. The new mutants really made this film watchable. Patrick Stewart is good in his role as Prof X even thought the character is shoddy and Ian McKellen continues his run as a standout in crap films, continuing from Da Vinci Code. Mr. McKellen made me root for Magneto because he gave the character life, depth and some emotional base even though his lines where on occasion unintentionally funny.
That’s another thing about this movie that I hated. There were numerous times where lines that were supposed to be serious received a big laugh from the audience. The Juggernaut line was hysterical and some moments just got the audience laughing. I heard more laughs at this screening than I did when I saw Rush Hour 2, which was a funny movie that I liked! I really want Brett Ratner to making Rush Hour movies and leave the superhero stuff to either the professionals or people who have enough time to work on the script a little. My real highlight for this movie though was the Snakes on a Plane trailer which got a real big WHOOP from the audience. And also, don’t leave until after the credits because there is a little bit of X-trocity left. 4/10
I am not homophobic but I hated Wolverine in X3. Not that everyman who cries is a woman, but in the course of a two hour movie, what is supposed to be a purely animal character filled with rage took out his rage not by using his unbreakable claws, but by crying. Twice. One of the manliest characters ever developed a feminine side. What the fuck? The sequel is gonna be X4: Gotta Dance where Wolverine goes to Broadway. As a fan and reader of the comics I know for a fact that Wolverine has testicles, so the movie is way off what it should be.
But the movie, other than the numerous differences from the comic that the previous two films didn’t make, this films was shoddily made with a terrible script. The writer, Zak Penn famed for X2 but also Elektra, Suspect Zeroand Inspector Gadget, shows that X2 might have been either a fluke or a testament to Bryan Singer’s genius. The characters have no real depth in this movie, even Jean Grey who has a lot of time devoted to her, appears just to be a confused teenager. The movie tells us Phoenix, her alter-ego is the most powerful mutant out there, but she has two tirades and a lot of walking around looking angry and confused. The plot of the movie takes the Dark Phoenix tale from the comics and combines it with the threat of a mutant cure, a great idea from Joss Whedon of Serenity. When a wealthy owner of a drug company develops a mutant cure drug, Magneto feels threatened and assembles a brotherhood to fight it. He is joined by the now evil Jean Grey who’s split personality broke out at the end of X2.
The direction on this film is big and bold but fails as continuity of the simplest kind is ignored (one second its mid day, the next its night) and the effects, while done by WETA (Peter Jackson’s effects team), vary from incredible to shoddy looking. While these mistakes could be overlooked, I wish Brett Ratner had been able to at least read the script before he started shooting or to work of figuring out some of the mutants. There are character mistakes from the comics and there is some terrible dialogue. Possible the greatest mistake is how Professor X’s character pulls a complete 180 turn from what he has been in the movies and books, and he becomes a condescending asshole. Really, I love Prof X but he acts like such a pompous dick in this movie, I started rooting for the Brotherhood.
The addition of Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut is brilliant as he was the funniest and most bad ass mutant in the entire film as he even gets the best line in the movie. And of course the addition of puffer boy lightens things up. The new mutants really made this film watchable. Patrick Stewart is good in his role as Prof X even thought the character is shoddy and Ian McKellen continues his run as a standout in crap films, continuing from Da Vinci Code. Mr. McKellen made me root for Magneto because he gave the character life, depth and some emotional base even though his lines where on occasion unintentionally funny.
That’s another thing about this movie that I hated. There were numerous times where lines that were supposed to be serious received a big laugh from the audience. The Juggernaut line was hysterical and some moments just got the audience laughing. I heard more laughs at this screening than I did when I saw Rush Hour 2, which was a funny movie that I liked! I really want Brett Ratner to making Rush Hour movies and leave the superhero stuff to either the professionals or people who have enough time to work on the script a little. My real highlight for this movie though was the Snakes on a Plane trailer which got a real big WHOOP from the audience. And also, don’t leave until after the credits because there is a little bit of X-trocity left. 4/10
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Mission: Impossible III
Review by Michael Jaffe
Tom Cruise may be insane, but he still can run real fast. Matter of fact, I don’t think that I have seen a Tom Cruise movie where he didn’t run. In M:I III Cruise runs a whole lot and doesn’t really get anywhere. The plot of this mission has Ethan Hunt called back into the field to hunt an arms dealer named Owen Davian who is said to be selling something called “the rabbits foot.” After Ethan kidnaps Davian, Davian escapes and Ethan’s girlfriend is kidnapped and Ethan and his team goes AWOL to get her back.
Cruise plays Hunt more like the first M:I movie, more of a thinking man with a soul a little sense of humor. The back story about Hunt’s personal life adds more depth to the character and makes his action more believable. The supporting cast is what really stands out in this movie and makes the experience enjoyable. Oscar winner Phillip Seymour Hoffman makes his character sadistic and completely sociopathic. He takes these characteristics and makes his wealthy and intelligent character seem almost bored throughout the entire movie, yet when he is on screen, it is hard to look away. Ving Rhames seems to be having more fun this time around in his role as Luther the tech guy than he has before and it comes through as he and Cruise banter at random moments in the movie. Johnathon Rhys-Meyers is good as the young assistant/driver of the team and Maggie Q looks incredibly hot as she slinks through this movie. The best part of this movie though is definitely Simon Pegg, better known as Shaun from Shaun of the Dead, who has only two short scenes but it is impossible to look away or to stop laughing.
J.J. Abrams, who co-wrote and directed M:I III, doesn’t break down any barriers with his writing or his direction, but he makes the experience of watching M:I III so fun, that I can’t wait to see what he does next. For anyone who has seen his TV Shows, Lost and Alias, this films up beat dialogue and intense action scenes carry this film through with ease. He is obviously a good enough director to shoot an awesome helicopter chase through windmills in the beginning of the film.
While the plot is ridiculous/pointless at times, everything else about the film is funny and engaging enough and enough stuff blows up in awe inspiring fashion that I recommend this to anyone with a pulse. 8/10
Tom Cruise may be insane, but he still can run real fast. Matter of fact, I don’t think that I have seen a Tom Cruise movie where he didn’t run. In M:I III Cruise runs a whole lot and doesn’t really get anywhere. The plot of this mission has Ethan Hunt called back into the field to hunt an arms dealer named Owen Davian who is said to be selling something called “the rabbits foot.” After Ethan kidnaps Davian, Davian escapes and Ethan’s girlfriend is kidnapped and Ethan and his team goes AWOL to get her back.
Cruise plays Hunt more like the first M:I movie, more of a thinking man with a soul a little sense of humor. The back story about Hunt’s personal life adds more depth to the character and makes his action more believable. The supporting cast is what really stands out in this movie and makes the experience enjoyable. Oscar winner Phillip Seymour Hoffman makes his character sadistic and completely sociopathic. He takes these characteristics and makes his wealthy and intelligent character seem almost bored throughout the entire movie, yet when he is on screen, it is hard to look away. Ving Rhames seems to be having more fun this time around in his role as Luther the tech guy than he has before and it comes through as he and Cruise banter at random moments in the movie. Johnathon Rhys-Meyers is good as the young assistant/driver of the team and Maggie Q looks incredibly hot as she slinks through this movie. The best part of this movie though is definitely Simon Pegg, better known as Shaun from Shaun of the Dead, who has only two short scenes but it is impossible to look away or to stop laughing.
J.J. Abrams, who co-wrote and directed M:I III, doesn’t break down any barriers with his writing or his direction, but he makes the experience of watching M:I III so fun, that I can’t wait to see what he does next. For anyone who has seen his TV Shows, Lost and Alias, this films up beat dialogue and intense action scenes carry this film through with ease. He is obviously a good enough director to shoot an awesome helicopter chase through windmills in the beginning of the film.
While the plot is ridiculous/pointless at times, everything else about the film is funny and engaging enough and enough stuff blows up in awe inspiring fashion that I recommend this to anyone with a pulse. 8/10
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Date Movie
Review by Michael Jaffe
Date Movie is a rare case of someone smearing fecal matter all over some film, and slapping it in the can and calling it a movie. The supposed parody comedy of romantic comedies didn’t make me laugh once through its, thankfully quick, 80 minute run-time. The point of a parody, like the successful Scary Movie or, my favorite, Not another Teen Movie, takes stuff that is either serious or comedic and turns it with a wink and a nod into something different and occasionally better than the source materials. Date Movie takes some movies that were OK before like My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Hitch and makes me long for the originals. It is almost a compliment to the makers of Date Movie to make me feel such a strong emotion as most of Hollywood films lately have been so bland that no emotion is evoked.
The plot is exactly like a stupid date movie itself, so the parody is almost lost and completely turned onto itself. The story of a once ugly girl from a strict family goes to a date doctor and becomes beautiful. She then falls in love with someone her parents do not approve of but eventually her parents turn when the meet the grooms parents. Then stuff goes wrong but who really cares at this point? All I cared about 40 minutes into the movie was how to get my money back. The cast was people who’s faces were familiar, including Alyson Hannigan as the lead and Eddie Griffin as her father. Who comes up with these casts? Fred Willard, apparently suffering from Eugene Levy “can’t say no” syndrome shows up as the groom’s father as well. I actually felt bad for the cast who had to do this stuff and when the credits started rolling I dashed for the door only to be drawn back in to watch the bloopers. They were the best part as people’s errors were better than the piece of sh…I mean script.
I usually look for some technical points or some direction but overall, the movie was so bad that who cares? I recommend avoiding being in a theatre or next to a theatre playing this movie because some of it might rub off on you, then you would be screwed. 1/10
Date Movie is a rare case of someone smearing fecal matter all over some film, and slapping it in the can and calling it a movie. The supposed parody comedy of romantic comedies didn’t make me laugh once through its, thankfully quick, 80 minute run-time. The point of a parody, like the successful Scary Movie or, my favorite, Not another Teen Movie, takes stuff that is either serious or comedic and turns it with a wink and a nod into something different and occasionally better than the source materials. Date Movie takes some movies that were OK before like My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Hitch and makes me long for the originals. It is almost a compliment to the makers of Date Movie to make me feel such a strong emotion as most of Hollywood films lately have been so bland that no emotion is evoked.
The plot is exactly like a stupid date movie itself, so the parody is almost lost and completely turned onto itself. The story of a once ugly girl from a strict family goes to a date doctor and becomes beautiful. She then falls in love with someone her parents do not approve of but eventually her parents turn when the meet the grooms parents. Then stuff goes wrong but who really cares at this point? All I cared about 40 minutes into the movie was how to get my money back. The cast was people who’s faces were familiar, including Alyson Hannigan as the lead and Eddie Griffin as her father. Who comes up with these casts? Fred Willard, apparently suffering from Eugene Levy “can’t say no” syndrome shows up as the groom’s father as well. I actually felt bad for the cast who had to do this stuff and when the credits started rolling I dashed for the door only to be drawn back in to watch the bloopers. They were the best part as people’s errors were better than the piece of sh…I mean script.
I usually look for some technical points or some direction but overall, the movie was so bad that who cares? I recommend avoiding being in a theatre or next to a theatre playing this movie because some of it might rub off on you, then you would be screwed. 1/10
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Ultraviolet
Review by Michael Jaffe
For anyone who saw or was a fan of Kurt Wimmer’s previous sci-fi action flick Equilibrium, I apologize because Ultraviolet is like Equilibrium if you lobotomized the writer so all he knew were action scenes and dialogue from Rocky V. The plot is fairly thin, making it seem like it should be a 20 page book, and not a waste of a movie with only an eighty minute run time. The story is about a vampire-like disease that is very contagious and the government wishes to exterminate the people with the disease. Violet is one of the infected and she fights back at the big bad government.
For those of you who didn’t see the under-the-radar classic Equilibrium, it was a sci-fi film that had some depth to it as its characters battled not people, but their emotions. Ultraviolet has none of that emotional depth. While Equilibrium didn’t have awe inspiring dialogue, the words all seemed like the characters and actual people would actually say them. In Ultraviolet, any amount of believability is thrown out the window for corny one-liners that make sense in a movie trailer or even a comic book, but in a feature film, most of the dialogue came off as pure comedy. Frequently in the screening I saw, people would break out into violent laughter as Milla Jovovich uttered most of the ridiculous phrases.
While Milla Jovovich is a former model, and a somewhat capable action actress, see the first Resident: Evil or The Fifth Element, her acting ability is not strong enough by a long shot to make the corny dialogue work. While she does look incredible in tight outfits performing incredible action stunts, whenever someone isn’t dying, a little but of my soul was because of her delivery. The supporting cast though was surprisingly decent, at least you felt bad for them having to say the lines. William Fitchner delivers an actually acceptable bit performance as a scientist, making me believe that he is one of the most underrated actors in Hollywood today.
Kurt Wimmer continues to show that he can direct the most incredible action sequences on earth with such sequences as a motorcycle race on the side of buildings and even a awesome flaming sword fight. Unfortunately, any sign of being an intelligent action film director he showed in Equilibrium was ditched for the sake of his most recent flick. While the film is visually stunning, not only the fight scenes, but even the sunsets in the background were so stunning that you could actually not hear the dialogue for minutes because you were gaping at the beautiful landscapes. The art and action value of the film was incredible but it was still hard to get over such lines as “Get over here and sit your little butt down or you’ll see who the real bad guy is!”
While I really hope Mr. Wimmer continues to make bad ass action movies, I hope he gets a co-writer next time to help him recover some of the magic that made his previous adventure great. This time though, Mr. Wimmer has struck out in the fashion of a three year old trying to hit Randy Johnson: looking cute, but once you get down to what matters it’s a big swing and a miss. 4/10
For anyone who saw or was a fan of Kurt Wimmer’s previous sci-fi action flick Equilibrium, I apologize because Ultraviolet is like Equilibrium if you lobotomized the writer so all he knew were action scenes and dialogue from Rocky V. The plot is fairly thin, making it seem like it should be a 20 page book, and not a waste of a movie with only an eighty minute run time. The story is about a vampire-like disease that is very contagious and the government wishes to exterminate the people with the disease. Violet is one of the infected and she fights back at the big bad government.
For those of you who didn’t see the under-the-radar classic Equilibrium, it was a sci-fi film that had some depth to it as its characters battled not people, but their emotions. Ultraviolet has none of that emotional depth. While Equilibrium didn’t have awe inspiring dialogue, the words all seemed like the characters and actual people would actually say them. In Ultraviolet, any amount of believability is thrown out the window for corny one-liners that make sense in a movie trailer or even a comic book, but in a feature film, most of the dialogue came off as pure comedy. Frequently in the screening I saw, people would break out into violent laughter as Milla Jovovich uttered most of the ridiculous phrases.
While Milla Jovovich is a former model, and a somewhat capable action actress, see the first Resident: Evil or The Fifth Element, her acting ability is not strong enough by a long shot to make the corny dialogue work. While she does look incredible in tight outfits performing incredible action stunts, whenever someone isn’t dying, a little but of my soul was because of her delivery. The supporting cast though was surprisingly decent, at least you felt bad for them having to say the lines. William Fitchner delivers an actually acceptable bit performance as a scientist, making me believe that he is one of the most underrated actors in Hollywood today.
Kurt Wimmer continues to show that he can direct the most incredible action sequences on earth with such sequences as a motorcycle race on the side of buildings and even a awesome flaming sword fight. Unfortunately, any sign of being an intelligent action film director he showed in Equilibrium was ditched for the sake of his most recent flick. While the film is visually stunning, not only the fight scenes, but even the sunsets in the background were so stunning that you could actually not hear the dialogue for minutes because you were gaping at the beautiful landscapes. The art and action value of the film was incredible but it was still hard to get over such lines as “Get over here and sit your little butt down or you’ll see who the real bad guy is!”
While I really hope Mr. Wimmer continues to make bad ass action movies, I hope he gets a co-writer next time to help him recover some of the magic that made his previous adventure great. This time though, Mr. Wimmer has struck out in the fashion of a three year old trying to hit Randy Johnson: looking cute, but once you get down to what matters it’s a big swing and a miss. 4/10
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Match Point
Review by Michael Jaffe
Match Point is a fantastically tense and beautiful modern tragedy. The dialogue isn’t as biting or intelligent as Mr. Allen has done in the past, but the film is all about minimalism in a society of over the top summer houses and fancy cars. The story is about Chris Wilton, a famous Irish tennis player who comes to London as a tennis instructor and becomes married to a wealthy Londoner. Her wealthy father gives Chris a job and things are looking up. But Chris cannot forget about his brother-in-laws former fiancée, American actress Nola Rice. He eventually meets back up with her and starts an affair. The rest of the movie is a taught drama that views the struggle Chris goes through with his infidelity and the morality of his actions.
The acting in the movie is all underplayed, with very subtle performances from Jonathan Rhys-Meyers and Emily Mortimer. Rhys-Meyers has always been under the radar of American film goers, but after winning an Emmy for Elvis, his performance in the now Oscar nominated Match Point and being cast in the upcoming Mission: Impossible III should vault Rhys-Meyers to stardom. His performance in Match Point is very quiet, conveying the full spectrum of emotions without having to blow up like Al Pacino. Emily Mortimer also is up and coming and in Match shows a perky, rich upper-class Londoner, but still can show her doubt and self consciousness. Scarlett Johansson as the American Nola Rice, Mathew Goode as Tom Hewett, the brother in law and Brian Cox as the Londoners wealthy father all turn in very good performances that get all the points across, but none of the trio captures the movie. Ms. Johansson does display a level of sexuality that made most men in the theatre squirm, but her naturally incredible looks doesn’t make an entire performance even though her beauty does rule the screen whenever she appears. A hidden treat for filmophiles, Ewen Bremmer, Spud from Trainspotting, and James Nesbitt, Ivan from Bloody Sunday, make appearances as detectives in the film.
Woody may not be at the top of his game when writing or directing Match Point, but he should be applauded for writing one of the best films of the year while exploring new territory. His direction has little action, but the slightest of camera movement and lighting set a mood as only an American master could. The film’s setting in London allows for Mr. Allen to use the English social latter to move the story. While the film may only by Mr. Allen sticking out his feelers in London before busting out in 2006 with Scoop, a London-set comedy also with Ms. Johansson. With his touch for the subtle still intact, I hope to see his movies get better and better from now on. As for this film, I think a great new tragedy for the cannon has been created. 8.5/10
Match Point is a fantastically tense and beautiful modern tragedy. The dialogue isn’t as biting or intelligent as Mr. Allen has done in the past, but the film is all about minimalism in a society of over the top summer houses and fancy cars. The story is about Chris Wilton, a famous Irish tennis player who comes to London as a tennis instructor and becomes married to a wealthy Londoner. Her wealthy father gives Chris a job and things are looking up. But Chris cannot forget about his brother-in-laws former fiancée, American actress Nola Rice. He eventually meets back up with her and starts an affair. The rest of the movie is a taught drama that views the struggle Chris goes through with his infidelity and the morality of his actions.
The acting in the movie is all underplayed, with very subtle performances from Jonathan Rhys-Meyers and Emily Mortimer. Rhys-Meyers has always been under the radar of American film goers, but after winning an Emmy for Elvis, his performance in the now Oscar nominated Match Point and being cast in the upcoming Mission: Impossible III should vault Rhys-Meyers to stardom. His performance in Match Point is very quiet, conveying the full spectrum of emotions without having to blow up like Al Pacino. Emily Mortimer also is up and coming and in Match shows a perky, rich upper-class Londoner, but still can show her doubt and self consciousness. Scarlett Johansson as the American Nola Rice, Mathew Goode as Tom Hewett, the brother in law and Brian Cox as the Londoners wealthy father all turn in very good performances that get all the points across, but none of the trio captures the movie. Ms. Johansson does display a level of sexuality that made most men in the theatre squirm, but her naturally incredible looks doesn’t make an entire performance even though her beauty does rule the screen whenever she appears. A hidden treat for filmophiles, Ewen Bremmer, Spud from Trainspotting, and James Nesbitt, Ivan from Bloody Sunday, make appearances as detectives in the film.
Woody may not be at the top of his game when writing or directing Match Point, but he should be applauded for writing one of the best films of the year while exploring new territory. His direction has little action, but the slightest of camera movement and lighting set a mood as only an American master could. The film’s setting in London allows for Mr. Allen to use the English social latter to move the story. While the film may only by Mr. Allen sticking out his feelers in London before busting out in 2006 with Scoop, a London-set comedy also with Ms. Johansson. With his touch for the subtle still intact, I hope to see his movies get better and better from now on. As for this film, I think a great new tragedy for the cannon has been created. 8.5/10
Monday, January 09, 2006
Hostel
Review by Michael Jaffe
In Eli Roth’s latest film, Hostel, I finally remembered why I love movies more than food. After sitting through countless hours of beautiful but slow stuff and films, like American-Pie: Band Camp, that insult my intelligence, this film comes through with dialogue and a plot that made me laugh and gasp. The plot is basic; a couple guys looking for sex wind up in Slovakia at a hostel where they expect to find the best women in Europe, but instead find an art show where you can pay to torture poor unsuspecting people. That is almost as straightforward as it gets, but what kept me looking was the bodies. I mean this in two basic senses: the gorgeous, living women and the dismembered dead ones. For anyone who saw the cool gore fest that was Cabin Fever, this is what could be expected but in both aspects Eli Roth goes above and beyond the call of duty. The movie isn’t very long, but in the first 30 minutes of the film about, there is an average of 2 boobs per minute on the screen, which I can appreciate. And in the last 30 minutes there is an average of something getting chopped off at about a part per minute. For those of you who are wondering what happens in the middle 30 minutes, the plot is kind of a sneaky mystery where you can’t help but feel an impending sense of dread about what will happen to these guys.
The direction of Hostel is shinning and damn near pitch perfect on every level as Roth shows an ability to get some humor in while also knowing when to spray the blood. I can’t wait to see what this guy does with a real budget over 5 million as he showed impressive growth from his first to his second film. He also picks his actors well as Jay Hernandez, long an ensemble member shines through in this film. Even Derek Richardson from Dumb and Dumberer conveys the nervousness and eventually terror of his character with pathos I wouldn’t normally expect from such a young actor. The comic relief is the Icelandic friend Oli, played with a goofy zest by investment banker Eythor Gudjonsson, who has no previous experience and got the job by talking to Eli Roth at a press junket.
For people with strong stomachs, the gore will not surprise, but for majority of people used to the PG-13 violence of late, this film’s intense scenes will likely make you queasy. The film as a whole is a little shallow but is supurb in almost every aspect. 8.5/10
In Eli Roth’s latest film, Hostel, I finally remembered why I love movies more than food. After sitting through countless hours of beautiful but slow stuff and films, like American-Pie: Band Camp, that insult my intelligence, this film comes through with dialogue and a plot that made me laugh and gasp. The plot is basic; a couple guys looking for sex wind up in Slovakia at a hostel where they expect to find the best women in Europe, but instead find an art show where you can pay to torture poor unsuspecting people. That is almost as straightforward as it gets, but what kept me looking was the bodies. I mean this in two basic senses: the gorgeous, living women and the dismembered dead ones. For anyone who saw the cool gore fest that was Cabin Fever, this is what could be expected but in both aspects Eli Roth goes above and beyond the call of duty. The movie isn’t very long, but in the first 30 minutes of the film about, there is an average of 2 boobs per minute on the screen, which I can appreciate. And in the last 30 minutes there is an average of something getting chopped off at about a part per minute. For those of you who are wondering what happens in the middle 30 minutes, the plot is kind of a sneaky mystery where you can’t help but feel an impending sense of dread about what will happen to these guys.
The direction of Hostel is shinning and damn near pitch perfect on every level as Roth shows an ability to get some humor in while also knowing when to spray the blood. I can’t wait to see what this guy does with a real budget over 5 million as he showed impressive growth from his first to his second film. He also picks his actors well as Jay Hernandez, long an ensemble member shines through in this film. Even Derek Richardson from Dumb and Dumberer conveys the nervousness and eventually terror of his character with pathos I wouldn’t normally expect from such a young actor. The comic relief is the Icelandic friend Oli, played with a goofy zest by investment banker Eythor Gudjonsson, who has no previous experience and got the job by talking to Eli Roth at a press junket.
For people with strong stomachs, the gore will not surprise, but for majority of people used to the PG-13 violence of late, this film’s intense scenes will likely make you queasy. The film as a whole is a little shallow but is supurb in almost every aspect. 8.5/10
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
American Pie: Band Camp
Review by Michael Jaffe
In a first for Mouldy’s movies, the film being reviewed is a direct to DVD feature. I have been a big fan of the American Pie trilogy since I saw the first film at least a dozen times with buddies in middle school. The fourth film in the series, titled Band Camp, might as well not be considered part of the series at all but an occasional funny, mostly aggravating soft core porno. The film stars newcomer Tad Hilgenbrinck as Matt Stifler, the younger brother of Steven Stifler from the previous films. After a prank goes wrong, Matt is sent to band camp for the summer and proceeds to go through the motions as he starts mean, then becomes nice and then goes mean again but redeems himself in the end. Mr. Hilgenbrinck may be a great actor deep, DEEP down, but in this film he very often does one of the worst Stifler impressions I have ever seen. On numerous occasions I almost punched myself in the head to try and numb the pain that some of the lines in this film evoked. The acting from the rest of the cast is on par with a porno, so it is below acceptable but not to the lowness that is the stiff-meister. Eugene Levy is in this film for no reason other than the paycheck I expect, but lightens the film up and brings back some great memories from the previous films in this series. Overall, this film is pretty poor, with an occasional chuckle and the frequent nude girl, but even that cant save this turd.
Since this is a DVD review, the special features should also gain mention so as you don’t buy the film for the extras only. The extras are different with a cast interview and a “Love Lesson” with former porn star Ginger Lynn which was not so much informative but a poor attempt at humor that boors quickly. There are also the usual bloopers and deleted scenes and thankfully no full length audio commentary.
Movie: 4/10
Features: 5/10
Overall: 4.5/10
In a first for Mouldy’s movies, the film being reviewed is a direct to DVD feature. I have been a big fan of the American Pie trilogy since I saw the first film at least a dozen times with buddies in middle school. The fourth film in the series, titled Band Camp, might as well not be considered part of the series at all but an occasional funny, mostly aggravating soft core porno. The film stars newcomer Tad Hilgenbrinck as Matt Stifler, the younger brother of Steven Stifler from the previous films. After a prank goes wrong, Matt is sent to band camp for the summer and proceeds to go through the motions as he starts mean, then becomes nice and then goes mean again but redeems himself in the end. Mr. Hilgenbrinck may be a great actor deep, DEEP down, but in this film he very often does one of the worst Stifler impressions I have ever seen. On numerous occasions I almost punched myself in the head to try and numb the pain that some of the lines in this film evoked. The acting from the rest of the cast is on par with a porno, so it is below acceptable but not to the lowness that is the stiff-meister. Eugene Levy is in this film for no reason other than the paycheck I expect, but lightens the film up and brings back some great memories from the previous films in this series. Overall, this film is pretty poor, with an occasional chuckle and the frequent nude girl, but even that cant save this turd.
Since this is a DVD review, the special features should also gain mention so as you don’t buy the film for the extras only. The extras are different with a cast interview and a “Love Lesson” with former porn star Ginger Lynn which was not so much informative but a poor attempt at humor that boors quickly. There are also the usual bloopers and deleted scenes and thankfully no full length audio commentary.
Movie: 4/10
Features: 5/10
Overall: 4.5/10
King Kong
Review by Michael Jaffe
Peter Jackson has been one of my film idols since I saw Dead Alive in 5th grade. Then I saw The Frighteners and loved his work even more, but then those Ring movies came out and my boy PJ went main stream and now everybody loves him. And after viewing King Kong, I think PJ loves himself too much as well. The light-handed approach that came with The Frighteners is all but completely lost in the 500 ton gorilla that is King Kong. While it is true that the previous versions of Kong, the 1930’s version and the 1970’s version with Jessica Lange, the films weren’t happy or funny, but they weren’t boring either and in this Kong the moments that took place before Skull Island, almost 45 minutes, were so boring that I was more focused on the jackasses in the row ahead of me and their conversation. While the film was boring for the first act, I couldn’t help but admit how glorious the film looked and the acting and the writing and everything was superbly done, but I couldn’t help but feel if it was necessary? Maybe it was all my anticipation to see Kong in action, but nevertheless I couldn’t help but wish that they would just get to the damn island.
Once they get on the island though, hot damn, the barrage of action never lets up and actually gets so intense that people, my mother for one, left the theatre during a massive and horrifically disturbing bug fight in a dark pit. The scenes with Kong are absolutely dazzling and so incredible that even if you wanted to, you can’t look away from the smooth, yet powerful beast. Since Kong is on screen for most of the second and third acts, the film after they get to the island is unbelievable. As for the humans in this film, Jack Black is appealingly sleazy as Carl Denham, the film director. Adrien Brody, academy award winner, is somewhat bland and run of the mill as the hero of the film. Naomi Watts, in the role immortalized by Fay Wray, is the blonde haired beauty who draws the affection of the beast and eventually his destruction. Ms. (Mrs.?) Watts delivers a performance that doesn’t move, but doesn’t disturb and distress either; it is a perfectly acceptable performance that doesn’t distract from the heart of the film: KONG!!!
Since this film is flawless visually and in almost every other aspect other than its pacing, I cant help but give it a good rating, but I also cant help but fell that it could’ve been so much more, not literally though as it is three and a half hours.
9/10
Peter Jackson has been one of my film idols since I saw Dead Alive in 5th grade. Then I saw The Frighteners and loved his work even more, but then those Ring movies came out and my boy PJ went main stream and now everybody loves him. And after viewing King Kong, I think PJ loves himself too much as well. The light-handed approach that came with The Frighteners is all but completely lost in the 500 ton gorilla that is King Kong. While it is true that the previous versions of Kong, the 1930’s version and the 1970’s version with Jessica Lange, the films weren’t happy or funny, but they weren’t boring either and in this Kong the moments that took place before Skull Island, almost 45 minutes, were so boring that I was more focused on the jackasses in the row ahead of me and their conversation. While the film was boring for the first act, I couldn’t help but admit how glorious the film looked and the acting and the writing and everything was superbly done, but I couldn’t help but feel if it was necessary? Maybe it was all my anticipation to see Kong in action, but nevertheless I couldn’t help but wish that they would just get to the damn island.
Once they get on the island though, hot damn, the barrage of action never lets up and actually gets so intense that people, my mother for one, left the theatre during a massive and horrifically disturbing bug fight in a dark pit. The scenes with Kong are absolutely dazzling and so incredible that even if you wanted to, you can’t look away from the smooth, yet powerful beast. Since Kong is on screen for most of the second and third acts, the film after they get to the island is unbelievable. As for the humans in this film, Jack Black is appealingly sleazy as Carl Denham, the film director. Adrien Brody, academy award winner, is somewhat bland and run of the mill as the hero of the film. Naomi Watts, in the role immortalized by Fay Wray, is the blonde haired beauty who draws the affection of the beast and eventually his destruction. Ms. (Mrs.?) Watts delivers a performance that doesn’t move, but doesn’t disturb and distress either; it is a perfectly acceptable performance that doesn’t distract from the heart of the film: KONG!!!
Since this film is flawless visually and in almost every other aspect other than its pacing, I cant help but give it a good rating, but I also cant help but fell that it could’ve been so much more, not literally though as it is three and a half hours.
9/10
Sunday, December 11, 2005
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe
Rant by Michael Jaffe
So, it has taken my two days, one spent at a speech tournament to come to grips with how terrible this film is. I am a big fan of the books; I did read all of them, but the fact that I know what C.S. Lewis was trying to say made this sludge seem all the more pathetic. Where to start with the flaws? The acting was miserable all around except for two surprise appearances: Jim Broadbent as the professor and Ray Winstone as the voice of a CGI beaver. Any time your films best performance comes from a digital beaver, you have problems. The kids were either underplaying or overplaying to an extreme where I almost yelled at William Moseley, the 18 year old Aryan poster boy who plays Peter Pevensie because he was so appallingly terrible. At least in the Harry Potter films, the kids were acceptable and took a back seat to their supporting adults. In Narnia, the kids take back seat to Mr. Beaver, voiced with excellent skill by underrated British actor Ray Winstone, who does an excellent voice job. Surprisingly, Tilda Swinton, who is usually a consistently excellent actress, hams it up to the point where I wonder if maybe Roger Corman was directing her scenes. She also suffers one of the worst hair styles I have ever scene, with her thick blonde dread locks. Since the supporting cast was bad, the kids somehow looked even worse as all four expressed one thing through the entire film: “all I want for Christmas is some ACTING LESSONS!!!”
Since the acting was so bad, the directing almost didn’t matter as you couldn’t look away from the train wreck that was the acting in this film. Andrew Adamson, best known for the Shrek films, makes a meek and half hearted shift to live action films, still relying very heavily on computer generated images and battles. The CGI in this film ranges from incredible, some of the battle scenes and the creatures, to the appallingly bad in some other battle scenes. It suppressed me that on such a major film, I would one minute be awed by the CGI and then there would be a creature fighting and it would appear blocky and fuzzy. However they created Aslan, the massive, magic lion, stupefied me though. It looked exactly like a real lion, but was three times the size of the kids, yet never for a moment looked like it was out of place. I know it is childish, but in a kids film to occasional moment of youth broke through and that was what happened every time Aslan, voiced with royal grace by Liam Neeson, graced the screen. Unfortunately, the script to boot was also inconsistent, with some moments of Mr. Adamson’s wit that showed in Shrek breaking through, but other times the dialogue came through with such staleness that I had to do a double take in my head because I couldn’t believe that such pathetic words would crawl onto the film of a $120 million movie.
I write this rant as a warning to everyone to drastically lower their expectations of this film. If you were expecting anything nearly as good as the BBC version from 1988, you will be disappointed at how poor this film really is. I don’t think I will ever recover from this terrible shock. 2/10
So, it has taken my two days, one spent at a speech tournament to come to grips with how terrible this film is. I am a big fan of the books; I did read all of them, but the fact that I know what C.S. Lewis was trying to say made this sludge seem all the more pathetic. Where to start with the flaws? The acting was miserable all around except for two surprise appearances: Jim Broadbent as the professor and Ray Winstone as the voice of a CGI beaver. Any time your films best performance comes from a digital beaver, you have problems. The kids were either underplaying or overplaying to an extreme where I almost yelled at William Moseley, the 18 year old Aryan poster boy who plays Peter Pevensie because he was so appallingly terrible. At least in the Harry Potter films, the kids were acceptable and took a back seat to their supporting adults. In Narnia, the kids take back seat to Mr. Beaver, voiced with excellent skill by underrated British actor Ray Winstone, who does an excellent voice job. Surprisingly, Tilda Swinton, who is usually a consistently excellent actress, hams it up to the point where I wonder if maybe Roger Corman was directing her scenes. She also suffers one of the worst hair styles I have ever scene, with her thick blonde dread locks. Since the supporting cast was bad, the kids somehow looked even worse as all four expressed one thing through the entire film: “all I want for Christmas is some ACTING LESSONS!!!”
Since the acting was so bad, the directing almost didn’t matter as you couldn’t look away from the train wreck that was the acting in this film. Andrew Adamson, best known for the Shrek films, makes a meek and half hearted shift to live action films, still relying very heavily on computer generated images and battles. The CGI in this film ranges from incredible, some of the battle scenes and the creatures, to the appallingly bad in some other battle scenes. It suppressed me that on such a major film, I would one minute be awed by the CGI and then there would be a creature fighting and it would appear blocky and fuzzy. However they created Aslan, the massive, magic lion, stupefied me though. It looked exactly like a real lion, but was three times the size of the kids, yet never for a moment looked like it was out of place. I know it is childish, but in a kids film to occasional moment of youth broke through and that was what happened every time Aslan, voiced with royal grace by Liam Neeson, graced the screen. Unfortunately, the script to boot was also inconsistent, with some moments of Mr. Adamson’s wit that showed in Shrek breaking through, but other times the dialogue came through with such staleness that I had to do a double take in my head because I couldn’t believe that such pathetic words would crawl onto the film of a $120 million movie.
I write this rant as a warning to everyone to drastically lower their expectations of this film. If you were expecting anything nearly as good as the BBC version from 1988, you will be disappointed at how poor this film really is. I don’t think I will ever recover from this terrible shock. 2/10
Monday, November 28, 2005
The Ice Harvest
Review by Devin Sullivan
Ah, Harold Ramis, director of Analyze This, Groundhog Day, and the beloved Caddyshack. The man has been putting out good films since 1980 and even after the slightly disappointing Analyze That, he can still knock one out of the park. Not only that, but with The Ice Harvest, Ramis has evolved as a director to bring us a comedy with much more serious tones. In fact, let me say right here, despite the trailers you have seen for The Ice Harvest, this film is not a comedy. This film is a crime-noir, which just happens to be funny, Sin City mixed with Groundhog Day if you will. So don’t buy into the crap that this movie is, “A dark comedy.” That’s just Hollywood trying to grab a larger audience during the holiday season.
And the holidays, are ironically, the main focus of scorn during the movie. The Ice Harvest is a bloody, humorous, and cynical yarn set on Christmas Eve. The film begins with mob-lawyer Charlie Arglist (John Cusack) and mob-run-strip-club owner Vic (Billy Bob Thornton) planning to escape with two-million-dollars that they have just stolen from their employer, mob boss Bill Guerrard (Randy Quaid). However, the duo’s perfect crime soon unravels as they wait for their chance to get out of Wichita, Kansas, the streets of which are covered in freezing rain. What follows is a dark adventure, full of bullets, cynical comments, lots of strip-clubs, and gore. It’s one hell of a cold Christmas.
The film is not for everyone, but there is something for everyone in it. For instance, you have to be impressed with Oliver Platt’s performance as Pete, the new husband of the protagonist’s ex-wife. Oliver Platt steals some serious scenery with this drunken stupor of a character. When he’s not bitching out his father-in-law at Christmas dinner, he is pondering the moral reality of what it is to be a modern man. Of course, all of the characters in this film are full of life – and also happen to be very bad people. There’s not a single worthy person in the whole film, which is really what makes it great. Cusack’s Charlie Arglist isn’t the stereo-typical mobster with a heart of gold. He isn’t struggling to get out of the mob; he just wants to screw it over for his own personal gain. The Ice Harvest is a harsh, almost sarcastic vision of organized crime. It might be too cynical for some audiences, but it’s still an excellent film if you know what you’re getting into. It’s a shame the trailers don’t help you know quite what that is.9/10
Ah, Harold Ramis, director of Analyze This, Groundhog Day, and the beloved Caddyshack. The man has been putting out good films since 1980 and even after the slightly disappointing Analyze That, he can still knock one out of the park. Not only that, but with The Ice Harvest, Ramis has evolved as a director to bring us a comedy with much more serious tones. In fact, let me say right here, despite the trailers you have seen for The Ice Harvest, this film is not a comedy. This film is a crime-noir, which just happens to be funny, Sin City mixed with Groundhog Day if you will. So don’t buy into the crap that this movie is, “A dark comedy.” That’s just Hollywood trying to grab a larger audience during the holiday season.
And the holidays, are ironically, the main focus of scorn during the movie. The Ice Harvest is a bloody, humorous, and cynical yarn set on Christmas Eve. The film begins with mob-lawyer Charlie Arglist (John Cusack) and mob-run-strip-club owner Vic (Billy Bob Thornton) planning to escape with two-million-dollars that they have just stolen from their employer, mob boss Bill Guerrard (Randy Quaid). However, the duo’s perfect crime soon unravels as they wait for their chance to get out of Wichita, Kansas, the streets of which are covered in freezing rain. What follows is a dark adventure, full of bullets, cynical comments, lots of strip-clubs, and gore. It’s one hell of a cold Christmas.
The film is not for everyone, but there is something for everyone in it. For instance, you have to be impressed with Oliver Platt’s performance as Pete, the new husband of the protagonist’s ex-wife. Oliver Platt steals some serious scenery with this drunken stupor of a character. When he’s not bitching out his father-in-law at Christmas dinner, he is pondering the moral reality of what it is to be a modern man. Of course, all of the characters in this film are full of life – and also happen to be very bad people. There’s not a single worthy person in the whole film, which is really what makes it great. Cusack’s Charlie Arglist isn’t the stereo-typical mobster with a heart of gold. He isn’t struggling to get out of the mob; he just wants to screw it over for his own personal gain. The Ice Harvest is a harsh, almost sarcastic vision of organized crime. It might be too cynical for some audiences, but it’s still an excellent film if you know what you’re getting into. It’s a shame the trailers don’t help you know quite what that is.9/10
Monday, November 21, 2005
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Review by Michael Jaffe
Apologies to our loyal readers for the delay, but there was some miscommunication between the staff here at Mouldy’s Movies. So Harry Potter…’wow’ is the most I can say about this masterwork. The plot as many of you SHOULD know is Harry, now in his fourth year at Hogwarts, is put into the tri-wizard tournament, and is faced with more dangers than ever before. The story, for those big fans of the big misses some major sections, none actually necessary to the plot, but still,, I would have enjoyed seeing the quiditch world cup match.
Some of these dangers for the film unfortunately happen to be the young trio’s inconsistencies in front of the camera. While Daniel Radcliff (Harry), Emma Watson (Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron) have improved many times over since their debuts, they still have moments where there acting fails and the stunning cast around them outshines them a billion times over. Speaking of which, the supporting cast, other than new addition Brendan Gleeson as ‘Mad-Eye’ Moody, the new defense against the dark arts teacher, the supporting teachers, such as Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman and Miranda Richardson are in the 2 and a half hour film much less than they should be. Also new the series, director Mike Newell of the great Four Weddings and a Funeral and Donnie Brasco as well as the dreadful Mona Lisa Smile more visual flair than Chris Columbus and even Alfonso Cuarón, awing the entire audience when Harry fights a dragon, or when Harry finally meets his mortal enemy, Lord Voldemort, somewhat underplayed by Ralph Fiennes, the fights all had my jaw open and my knees quaking to see it again on the big screen. The film is the fastest 2 ½ hours I have ever experienced as Harry’s year speeds by, but by the time I walked out of the theatre, I wished there was more. 9/10
Apologies to our loyal readers for the delay, but there was some miscommunication between the staff here at Mouldy’s Movies. So Harry Potter…’wow’ is the most I can say about this masterwork. The plot as many of you SHOULD know is Harry, now in his fourth year at Hogwarts, is put into the tri-wizard tournament, and is faced with more dangers than ever before. The story, for those big fans of the big misses some major sections, none actually necessary to the plot, but still,, I would have enjoyed seeing the quiditch world cup match.
Some of these dangers for the film unfortunately happen to be the young trio’s inconsistencies in front of the camera. While Daniel Radcliff (Harry), Emma Watson (Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron) have improved many times over since their debuts, they still have moments where there acting fails and the stunning cast around them outshines them a billion times over. Speaking of which, the supporting cast, other than new addition Brendan Gleeson as ‘Mad-Eye’ Moody, the new defense against the dark arts teacher, the supporting teachers, such as Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman and Miranda Richardson are in the 2 and a half hour film much less than they should be. Also new the series, director Mike Newell of the great Four Weddings and a Funeral and Donnie Brasco as well as the dreadful Mona Lisa Smile more visual flair than Chris Columbus and even Alfonso Cuarón, awing the entire audience when Harry fights a dragon, or when Harry finally meets his mortal enemy, Lord Voldemort, somewhat underplayed by Ralph Fiennes, the fights all had my jaw open and my knees quaking to see it again on the big screen. The film is the fastest 2 ½ hours I have ever experienced as Harry’s year speeds by, but by the time I walked out of the theatre, I wished there was more. 9/10
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang
Review by Michael Jaffe
Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang is aptly titled as if it were a pulp novel from the 1950’s. and true to its title, the confusing murder mystery of a plot is overshadowed by the acting and the brilliantly written script. Shane Black, writer of the great Lethal Weapons I, II, III and The Last Boy Scout and of the not so great Lethal Weapon IV and The Long Kiss Goodnight, shows why he was at one point the hottest writer in Hollywood. Kiss Kiss is his directorial debut, directing from his script, and he shows that he has picked up a lot of flair from the directors who he has written for previously. Kiss Kiss provides us what Black does best writing, offbeat buddy cops bantering, and directing, great lighting and cool camera shots. The plot of the film though is a terribly conceived plot involving a NY small time criminal, Harry Lockhart, who accidentally aces an audition and gets flown to LA where he receives detective training from a real private investigator named Gay Perry. And yes, Perry is actually homosexual. The two men accidentally witness a murder, then the body winds up in Harry’s apartment and the plot goes downhill from there. It involves twins and incest and Michelle Monaghan.
Ms. (I hope) Monaghan plays Harmony Faith Lane, was Harry’s best friend in high school and they run in to each other at a bar. By chance Harmony’s sister who she left at home appears, further dragging the plot into a level of silliness that shouldn’t be allowed in Hollywood, unless your Michael Bay of course. The acting is what really saves this movie though, as Robert Downey Jr. playing Harry ahs his best role in years and is hysterical with his quick one-liners and even his mannerisms make you forget that this is Downey. Val Kilmer, one of my personal favorite actors, is Gay Perry and the fact that he is gay never really shows through his incredibly cynical, straight (pun intended) performance. The characters of Harry and Perry play off of each other so well and their dialogue and acting is so good, you never really notice that the film’s story really, REALLY sucks. The acting, writing and even the pretty good, not spectacular directing makes up for the fact that nothing going on makes sense. 7.5/10
Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang is aptly titled as if it were a pulp novel from the 1950’s. and true to its title, the confusing murder mystery of a plot is overshadowed by the acting and the brilliantly written script. Shane Black, writer of the great Lethal Weapons I, II, III and The Last Boy Scout and of the not so great Lethal Weapon IV and The Long Kiss Goodnight, shows why he was at one point the hottest writer in Hollywood. Kiss Kiss is his directorial debut, directing from his script, and he shows that he has picked up a lot of flair from the directors who he has written for previously. Kiss Kiss provides us what Black does best writing, offbeat buddy cops bantering, and directing, great lighting and cool camera shots. The plot of the film though is a terribly conceived plot involving a NY small time criminal, Harry Lockhart, who accidentally aces an audition and gets flown to LA where he receives detective training from a real private investigator named Gay Perry. And yes, Perry is actually homosexual. The two men accidentally witness a murder, then the body winds up in Harry’s apartment and the plot goes downhill from there. It involves twins and incest and Michelle Monaghan.
Ms. (I hope) Monaghan plays Harmony Faith Lane, was Harry’s best friend in high school and they run in to each other at a bar. By chance Harmony’s sister who she left at home appears, further dragging the plot into a level of silliness that shouldn’t be allowed in Hollywood, unless your Michael Bay of course. The acting is what really saves this movie though, as Robert Downey Jr. playing Harry ahs his best role in years and is hysterical with his quick one-liners and even his mannerisms make you forget that this is Downey. Val Kilmer, one of my personal favorite actors, is Gay Perry and the fact that he is gay never really shows through his incredibly cynical, straight (pun intended) performance. The characters of Harry and Perry play off of each other so well and their dialogue and acting is so good, you never really notice that the film’s story really, REALLY sucks. The acting, writing and even the pretty good, not spectacular directing makes up for the fact that nothing going on makes sense. 7.5/10
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Jarhead
Review by Devin Sullivan
I went into this film, with a knowledge of the book it was adapted from, and general understanding of the direction it would take. I came out pleased as hell. However, a lot of people are going to expect political undertones about Iraq, or in the case of some girls I met, Jake Gyllenhaal’s lower half. The audience gets neither, though it comes close to both in some respects.
This may disappoint an audience, and if it does, that is too bad. Because, while this isn’t the best film about war ever made, it is arguably the best film about being a soldier ever made. Taken from the memoirs of real-life Gulf War veteran, Anthony Swofford, we are given a portrait of a man, made into a killer, who hasn’t yet been given a chance to kill. Swofford (played, uncharacteristically, with passion by Gyllenhaal) is trained as a marine, and then recruited as a scout sniper. However, when Swofford and his platoon finally get their war, they are assigned to defend Kuwait in Operation Desert Shield. What this entails for Swofford, and many other American troops in 1990, is over a hundred and fifty days in the desert with nothing to do.
While (as the movie portrays it) this sucked for the troops, it’s a great thing for the audience. Most of the film involves all of the ways that the soldiers cope with their boredom. In fact, the actual war (Operation Desert Storm) doesn’t begin until about two-thirds into the film. With this plot, JARHEAD could have been completely boring, but (under Sam Mendes’ directing skill) it is completely entertaining.
There are so many reasons that this film works, but none of them are more prevalent than the fact that, without a doubt, no one could have directed it as well as Sam Mendes. He’s a badass with an honest eye for emotion, and is easily one of the best things to come out of England in the last ten years. (Not to mention that he’s married to Kate Winslet, which proves his badassery.) Mendes has real skill in molding characters honestly, just look at the other two films he has made (American Beauty, and Road to Perdition). Both films are full of characters that are neither good or bad, they are just people in dramatic situations.
Mendes’ skill translates well into the story of JARHEAD, because the account is true. The characters are full of flaws that don’t necessarily get redeemed, but are never without a sense of humanity. All that analysis aside though, what this really means, is that they do some crazy fucking shit, and it’s all great, crazy fucking shit. It’s pretty hard not to be drawn in by the marines playing football in their hazard-suits (that they need in case of gas attacks) or Jake Gyllenhaal naked drunk in a Santa hat on Christmas Eve. One of the better moments of the film is when the Christmas party is interrupted by what they think is an enemy attack.
With all of these events strung together, the film can be a bit slow at times, but it’s all good stuff. Everything is tied together as one fluent piece of work with a lasting impression. As good as Sam Mendes is, he couldn’t have pulled this off without his cast. The performances in this flick are outstanding. Why Jamie Fox ever got by doing goofy comedies, I’ll never know. Personally, I never thought he was all that funny (Except Booty Call, still his best work). Fox’s roll as Staff Sgt. Sykes steals the show at times, and balances out Gyllenhaal’s Swofford. While Swofford provides the angst ridden emotions of an infantryman in his first war, Staff Sgt. Sykes provides a hardened veteran who loves his career. This view of war by Staff Sgt. Sykes is very believable, and despite a pro-war statement in what can sometimes be an anti-war film, everything he says is for the right reasons. Sykes’s pro-war mentality is expressed to an extent that the audience can understand where he is coming from. This is also another great example of how Mendes’ directing style shines in this film. He makes the characters very specific, and presents their points of view honestly.
And honestly, that directing style, some kick ass performances, and a unique memoir by Anthony Swofford all couple together for a great film here. The CGI effects and polish on the, “burning oil scenes” don’t hurt either. Basically, if you go to see this movie, you’re in for a fun romp through Iraq with some kooky characters, a very honest tale of soldiers at war, and some very interesting military incite all wrapped into one.
8.5/10
I went into this film, with a knowledge of the book it was adapted from, and general understanding of the direction it would take. I came out pleased as hell. However, a lot of people are going to expect political undertones about Iraq, or in the case of some girls I met, Jake Gyllenhaal’s lower half. The audience gets neither, though it comes close to both in some respects.
This may disappoint an audience, and if it does, that is too bad. Because, while this isn’t the best film about war ever made, it is arguably the best film about being a soldier ever made. Taken from the memoirs of real-life Gulf War veteran, Anthony Swofford, we are given a portrait of a man, made into a killer, who hasn’t yet been given a chance to kill. Swofford (played, uncharacteristically, with passion by Gyllenhaal) is trained as a marine, and then recruited as a scout sniper. However, when Swofford and his platoon finally get their war, they are assigned to defend Kuwait in Operation Desert Shield. What this entails for Swofford, and many other American troops in 1990, is over a hundred and fifty days in the desert with nothing to do.
While (as the movie portrays it) this sucked for the troops, it’s a great thing for the audience. Most of the film involves all of the ways that the soldiers cope with their boredom. In fact, the actual war (Operation Desert Storm) doesn’t begin until about two-thirds into the film. With this plot, JARHEAD could have been completely boring, but (under Sam Mendes’ directing skill) it is completely entertaining.
There are so many reasons that this film works, but none of them are more prevalent than the fact that, without a doubt, no one could have directed it as well as Sam Mendes. He’s a badass with an honest eye for emotion, and is easily one of the best things to come out of England in the last ten years. (Not to mention that he’s married to Kate Winslet, which proves his badassery.) Mendes has real skill in molding characters honestly, just look at the other two films he has made (American Beauty, and Road to Perdition). Both films are full of characters that are neither good or bad, they are just people in dramatic situations.
Mendes’ skill translates well into the story of JARHEAD, because the account is true. The characters are full of flaws that don’t necessarily get redeemed, but are never without a sense of humanity. All that analysis aside though, what this really means, is that they do some crazy fucking shit, and it’s all great, crazy fucking shit. It’s pretty hard not to be drawn in by the marines playing football in their hazard-suits (that they need in case of gas attacks) or Jake Gyllenhaal naked drunk in a Santa hat on Christmas Eve. One of the better moments of the film is when the Christmas party is interrupted by what they think is an enemy attack.
With all of these events strung together, the film can be a bit slow at times, but it’s all good stuff. Everything is tied together as one fluent piece of work with a lasting impression. As good as Sam Mendes is, he couldn’t have pulled this off without his cast. The performances in this flick are outstanding. Why Jamie Fox ever got by doing goofy comedies, I’ll never know. Personally, I never thought he was all that funny (Except Booty Call, still his best work). Fox’s roll as Staff Sgt. Sykes steals the show at times, and balances out Gyllenhaal’s Swofford. While Swofford provides the angst ridden emotions of an infantryman in his first war, Staff Sgt. Sykes provides a hardened veteran who loves his career. This view of war by Staff Sgt. Sykes is very believable, and despite a pro-war statement in what can sometimes be an anti-war film, everything he says is for the right reasons. Sykes’s pro-war mentality is expressed to an extent that the audience can understand where he is coming from. This is also another great example of how Mendes’ directing style shines in this film. He makes the characters very specific, and presents their points of view honestly.
And honestly, that directing style, some kick ass performances, and a unique memoir by Anthony Swofford all couple together for a great film here. The CGI effects and polish on the, “burning oil scenes” don’t hurt either. Basically, if you go to see this movie, you’re in for a fun romp through Iraq with some kooky characters, a very honest tale of soldiers at war, and some very interesting military incite all wrapped into one.
8.5/10
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
The Weatherman
Review by Michael Jaffe
The Weatherman, a film that looked like a quirky, off-beat comedy was exactly what the ads said it would be, but be warned: it might be quirkier than you think! This film’s plot is about a Chicago weatherman, Dave Spritz, who has to deal with a troubled son, an overweight daughter, a ex-wife who has her own problems, a father who has a couple months to live and to top it off he is chasing a big job in New York doing the national weather reports. With all of this stuff happening, the events spiral out of Dave’s control until he hits rock bottom. His redemption will be found or lost in the end depending on his family, which is the real message of the film: family is IT.
Dave is played by the sometimes fabulous, sometimes shitty Nicolas Cage. In Weatherman he is Dave Spritz, for better or worse and he plays this poor asshole to perfection. With two good acting jobs in a row, Lord of War and now Weatherman, I have an impending sense of fear about how terrible Ghost Rider, his next big budget film, will be. He is joined by Michael Caine as his father and Hope Davis as his ex-wife. Both Caine and Davis are always incredible, and this film is no different as they are both mellow, yet so subdued as their offbeat characters that you forget that you are watching actors. Gore Verbinski, famed for Pirates of the Caribbean, returns to what made The Ring great; nothing overplayed, everything, even the extraordinary, all underplayed and mellow. Mr. Verbinski shows a bit of the flair that mad Pirates fun without actually having anything fun happen.
The film does run slow, and is longer than most people will like, but this reviewer appreciates patience in developing a story. Also, many people will not find any of the bazaar and very, very dark dialogue humorous, but for those who can find the humor in death and obesity; this is the film for you. The main problem with this film is how dark it gets, it drains you emotionally and makes you feel bad about the world, but once the lights go up, you feel so much better that your life isn’t as messed up as this weatherman. 8/10
The Weatherman, a film that looked like a quirky, off-beat comedy was exactly what the ads said it would be, but be warned: it might be quirkier than you think! This film’s plot is about a Chicago weatherman, Dave Spritz, who has to deal with a troubled son, an overweight daughter, a ex-wife who has her own problems, a father who has a couple months to live and to top it off he is chasing a big job in New York doing the national weather reports. With all of this stuff happening, the events spiral out of Dave’s control until he hits rock bottom. His redemption will be found or lost in the end depending on his family, which is the real message of the film: family is IT.
Dave is played by the sometimes fabulous, sometimes shitty Nicolas Cage. In Weatherman he is Dave Spritz, for better or worse and he plays this poor asshole to perfection. With two good acting jobs in a row, Lord of War and now Weatherman, I have an impending sense of fear about how terrible Ghost Rider, his next big budget film, will be. He is joined by Michael Caine as his father and Hope Davis as his ex-wife. Both Caine and Davis are always incredible, and this film is no different as they are both mellow, yet so subdued as their offbeat characters that you forget that you are watching actors. Gore Verbinski, famed for Pirates of the Caribbean, returns to what made The Ring great; nothing overplayed, everything, even the extraordinary, all underplayed and mellow. Mr. Verbinski shows a bit of the flair that mad Pirates fun without actually having anything fun happen.
The film does run slow, and is longer than most people will like, but this reviewer appreciates patience in developing a story. Also, many people will not find any of the bazaar and very, very dark dialogue humorous, but for those who can find the humor in death and obesity; this is the film for you. The main problem with this film is how dark it gets, it drains you emotionally and makes you feel bad about the world, but once the lights go up, you feel so much better that your life isn’t as messed up as this weatherman. 8/10
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Doom
Review by Michael Jaffe
I have mixed feelings. I love the game, and like the game the plot in the movie is worthless and pointless. In the movie, people die on mars, so an elite group of marines, each with their own personalities go and kill monsters. The film is two halves. The first half, a sneaky thriller with nary a shot to be seen, while the second half is bloody brilliance. A variety of awesome decapitations and fights that come en masse. For fans of shit exploding, the 2nd half is perfect. The first half is too good for the movie, with two much The Rock is charismatic for the first 75% of the movie, but at one point his character loses continuity and becomes good, then bad, then good until you have no idea about what the character is anymore. Karl Urban, a character baddy from such films as Chronicles of Riddick and The Bourne Supremacy, plays the emotionally torn Reaper. But really, who cares about the plot or the acting? I like the 2nd half, but a great half doesn’t make a good whole. 5/10
I have mixed feelings. I love the game, and like the game the plot in the movie is worthless and pointless. In the movie, people die on mars, so an elite group of marines, each with their own personalities go and kill monsters. The film is two halves. The first half, a sneaky thriller with nary a shot to be seen, while the second half is bloody brilliance. A variety of awesome decapitations and fights that come en masse. For fans of shit exploding, the 2nd half is perfect. The first half is too good for the movie, with two much The Rock is charismatic for the first 75% of the movie, but at one point his character loses continuity and becomes good, then bad, then good until you have no idea about what the character is anymore. Karl Urban, a character baddy from such films as Chronicles of Riddick and The Bourne Supremacy, plays the emotionally torn Reaper. But really, who cares about the plot or the acting? I like the 2nd half, but a great half doesn’t make a good whole. 5/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)