Reviews from the Dark Side presents
The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
Released 12/25/13, now in theaters
Ben Stiller directs and stars in this week's release of The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. It's a remake of sorts of the 1947 version of the movie starring Danny Kaye which was itself a loosely based interpretation of the short story by James Thurber. While the Danny Kaye version was a wacky screwball comedy, Stiller has chosen to take the route of a fantasy adventure (with a sprinkling of comedy). Remakes of classics are a tricky business and hard to pull off. Does anyone remember the Vince Vaughn version of Psycho? If you do, you know what I mean.
Walter Mitty (Stiller) is an unassuming, introverted manager in the Negative Assets Department at Life magazine. In other words, he manages the magazine's archive of photo negatives. He has a crush on his co-worker, Cheryl (Kristen Wiig), who he hasn't had the courage to speak to. In fact, Walter attempting to communicate with her on her EHarmony profile is one of the running jokes of the movie. Walter also has an unusual characteristic. He frequently daydreams of fantastic adventures often to his detriment socially.
Walter and photojournalist, Sean O'Connell (Sean Penn), have a great working relationship although the two have never physically met. He sends Water a negative of the "Quintessence" of Life magazine that Walter believes is in a role of recent negatives he has received from Sean. News of the "Quintessence" gets around, but, unfortunately, Walter's department has seemingly lost the photo. This error could also cost him his job as the magazine has been sold to a company who wants to make Life an online only venture. The overbearing overseer of the takeover who makes a hobby of torturing Walter wants the photo for the magazine's last published issue. So, Walter sets out on a journey to find Sean using cryptic clues from the other negatives to determine his whereabouts. Unfortunately, Sean has a penchant for traveling to unusual locations around the world.
While I wished for more comedy, Stiller's version of Walter Mitty is still an entertaining, whimsical adventure story. Credit to the cinematographer for some great visuals of a shark attack and erupting volcano. Credit also goes to the make-up artist for funny sequence between Stiller and Wiig that's an ode to The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. It's the funniest part of the film.
However, the film's heart is the transformation of Walter himself from meek to assertive as he completes his journey to find Sean. The film is also an allegorical representation of old school media print vs. new school online media. The Life magazine employees are the poor, downtrodden souls who are in danger of losing their jobs from the takeover. The expeditors of the takeover are played as complete asses throughout which I suppose was necessary for this particular narrative, but it was a bit of an easy out to me to move the story along.
The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is a solid outing from Ben Stiller as he takes the material a little more seriously than I'm used to (from him anyway). Although I would have liked a more raucous comedy considering what the Danny Kaye version of the story was, I give him credit for not making a take-for-take remake. Sometimes that tact works and sometimes it doesn't. This is one instance where it works for me.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
***1/2 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Friday, December 27, 2013
American Hustle
Reviews from the Dark Side presents
American Hustle
Released 12/13/13, now in theaters
American Hustle is David O. Russell's latest comedy that reunites Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence from last year's critically acclaimed Silver Linings Playbook. In addition to Cooper and Lawrence, an all-star cast has been assembled with Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Louis C.K., and Robert DeNiro in an uncredited role.
The usual problem with following a movie as successful and acclaimed as Silver Linings Playbook is avoiding the obligatory comparisons to your monster hit. While I didn't like American Hustle as much, it's another great effort from Russell who continues his incredible hot streak.
American Hustle is based on some true events from the 1970s. Irving Rosenfeld (Bale) is a small-time businessman and master con-artist. He meets his soulmate in former stripper and fellow con-artist, Sydney Prosser (Adams) at a party and the two soon become lovers. Of course, the affair chafes Irving's loud, shrew of a wife, Rosalyn (Lawrence). Irving, however, refuses to divorce Rosalyn for fear that she will take their son away, who Irving has adopted.
Irving and Sydney run a successful con game embezzling money from their various marks and attract the attention of FBI agent, Richie DiMaso (Cooper), who poses as one the marks to get close to the duo. In exchange for not busting them, Richie enlists their aid to take down four other con artists.
What follows is a scheme that causes the ambitious and greedy Richie to aim for the big fish in Congress who are not immune to taking bribes when Irving involves Carmine Polito (Renner), the mayor of Camden, New Jersey, in the plot. Carmine is generally a good man who is desperate to bring Las Vegas-style gambling casinos to Atlantic City adding much needed revenue to the city. Unfortunately, he hasn't been able to obtain funding. An elaborate plot involving a faux-sheik and notorious gangster, Victor Tellegio (DeNiro), ensues that threatens get Irving and Sydney violently killed if they can't figure out a way to extract themselves from all the players involved.
It's hard for a movie to go wrong with this type of cast, but it has happened. See Dead Man Down and Seven Psychopaths if you don't believe me. All of the main players in American Hustle perform admirably, but I have to say again the standout here is Lawrence. I've said that quite a few times lately. But I say it because it's true. Rosalyn has some of the best comedic scenes in the film. Honestly, this is a woman who takes credit for her husband's moment of clarity in devising a way to extract himself from the mob and FBI after her loose lips nearly get him killed.
American Hustle is a fun time if a bit overlong for my tastes. Russell does something that isn't always easy. He deftly blends comedy and drama in a way where one doesn't overshadow the other. I know I've complained about this very thing when it comes to other directors wishing they would pick a lane. Russell transitions so seamlessly, so naturally. In some directors' hands, the transition feels like speed bump.
I didn't find American Hustle quite as fun as Russell's last outing, but that's not a downgrade of the film. It would have been difficult for it to top my love of Silver Linings Playbook. But nevertheless, American Hustle is a must-see during this holiday season.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
*** 3/4 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
American Hustle
Released 12/13/13, now in theaters
American Hustle is David O. Russell's latest comedy that reunites Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence from last year's critically acclaimed Silver Linings Playbook. In addition to Cooper and Lawrence, an all-star cast has been assembled with Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Louis C.K., and Robert DeNiro in an uncredited role.
The usual problem with following a movie as successful and acclaimed as Silver Linings Playbook is avoiding the obligatory comparisons to your monster hit. While I didn't like American Hustle as much, it's another great effort from Russell who continues his incredible hot streak.
American Hustle is based on some true events from the 1970s. Irving Rosenfeld (Bale) is a small-time businessman and master con-artist. He meets his soulmate in former stripper and fellow con-artist, Sydney Prosser (Adams) at a party and the two soon become lovers. Of course, the affair chafes Irving's loud, shrew of a wife, Rosalyn (Lawrence). Irving, however, refuses to divorce Rosalyn for fear that she will take their son away, who Irving has adopted.
Irving and Sydney run a successful con game embezzling money from their various marks and attract the attention of FBI agent, Richie DiMaso (Cooper), who poses as one the marks to get close to the duo. In exchange for not busting them, Richie enlists their aid to take down four other con artists.
What follows is a scheme that causes the ambitious and greedy Richie to aim for the big fish in Congress who are not immune to taking bribes when Irving involves Carmine Polito (Renner), the mayor of Camden, New Jersey, in the plot. Carmine is generally a good man who is desperate to bring Las Vegas-style gambling casinos to Atlantic City adding much needed revenue to the city. Unfortunately, he hasn't been able to obtain funding. An elaborate plot involving a faux-sheik and notorious gangster, Victor Tellegio (DeNiro), ensues that threatens get Irving and Sydney violently killed if they can't figure out a way to extract themselves from all the players involved.
It's hard for a movie to go wrong with this type of cast, but it has happened. See Dead Man Down and Seven Psychopaths if you don't believe me. All of the main players in American Hustle perform admirably, but I have to say again the standout here is Lawrence. I've said that quite a few times lately. But I say it because it's true. Rosalyn has some of the best comedic scenes in the film. Honestly, this is a woman who takes credit for her husband's moment of clarity in devising a way to extract himself from the mob and FBI after her loose lips nearly get him killed.
American Hustle is a fun time if a bit overlong for my tastes. Russell does something that isn't always easy. He deftly blends comedy and drama in a way where one doesn't overshadow the other. I know I've complained about this very thing when it comes to other directors wishing they would pick a lane. Russell transitions so seamlessly, so naturally. In some directors' hands, the transition feels like speed bump.
I didn't find American Hustle quite as fun as Russell's last outing, but that's not a downgrade of the film. It would have been difficult for it to top my love of Silver Linings Playbook. But nevertheless, American Hustle is a must-see during this holiday season.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
*** 3/4 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
47 Ronin
Reviews from the Dark Side presents
47 Ronin
Released 12/25/13, now in theaters
Japanese legend undergoes the Hollywood treatment in the Christmas release of 47 Ronin. The film is a depiction of the true story of 47 masterless Samurai (ronin) in the 18th century who took revenge for the wrongful death of their master under threat of their own demise by their government if they took action. Director, Carl Rinsch, and Universal Studios have taken the route of turning the story into a mythical fantasy which is sure to anger purists of the true legend.
Kai (Keanu Reeves) is a half-breed (part human, part mystic) who is found by the Asano clan as a boy. He's pretty much treated as a second-class citizen by all the Samurai in the clan with the exception of the clan master who took him in and the master's daughter, Mika, who secretly loves Kai.
The Asano clan has a rival in Lord Kira and his clan who secretly covets the Asano lands and power. And, he's willing to use sorcery to obtain his objective as he has obtained the services of a powerful witch. When the two clans unite for an annual ceremony for the Shogun (governor), an unfortunate event manipulated by Kira's witch forces the Shogun to order the ritual suicide of the Asano clan leader for the offense. Kira is also awarded the Asano lands and the hand of Mika's in one year (to allow the morning of her father). The Asano Samurai, now Ronin, are also ordered to vacate the lands by Kira. Kai is sold into slavery. Oishi, the master's chief lieutenant, is imprisoned by Kira to further humiliate the clan and break his spirit.
Oishi is released a year later and believed to be a broken man. However, he is far from broken. He plans to reunite the Asano Samurai to take vengeance on Kira despite the Shogun's warning a year ago that no vengeance is to be taken. He also needs to liberate Kai as he needs the half-breed's supernatural connection to combat Kira's dark forces.
I went into this movie not knowing the legend of the 47 Ronin. Maybe that's a good thing as I had no preconceived notion of what the story was supposed to be. I admit that I'm a bit of a purist when it comes to characters or stories that I know. The film does make several embellishments on the legend. For example, I'm not completely up on my Japanese history, but I'll take a stab in the dark that dragons and mystical witches didn't exist in 18th century feudal Japan. I'm thinking the liberties that were taken is in part the reason critics have taken a machete to it. But, now knowing the story, I still enjoyed the special effects and embellishments.
That brings me to issue two of why this film has been panned. And, that would be Keanu himself. Come on, now. Insert your Keanu joke here. You know you have one. We all do. And, I'll admit some of those jokes are well earned. But, I also think the actor gets a bit of a bad rap at times. He can be decent, or, at least serviceable in roles that call for an average set of dramatic skills. While I think it would probably be a mistake to cast him in a remake of Raging Bull, he's fine for a role such as this.
I was impressed by the fantasy elements added to the story. It's a fascinating study of loyalty and duty as the 47 Ronin know they face imminent death whether they succeed or fail in their mission. But, honor is paramount in the bushido code and the warriors face their fate with dignity.
47 Ronin won't go down as one my favorite movies of all time, but, I'll be a lone voice in the woods and say it's worth a look. Hurry though. If you want to see it on the big screen, I wouldn't wait too long. Considering the backlash the film is receiving it might be on DVD within the week.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
***1/2 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
47 Ronin
Released 12/25/13, now in theaters
Japanese legend undergoes the Hollywood treatment in the Christmas release of 47 Ronin. The film is a depiction of the true story of 47 masterless Samurai (ronin) in the 18th century who took revenge for the wrongful death of their master under threat of their own demise by their government if they took action. Director, Carl Rinsch, and Universal Studios have taken the route of turning the story into a mythical fantasy which is sure to anger purists of the true legend.
Kai (Keanu Reeves) is a half-breed (part human, part mystic) who is found by the Asano clan as a boy. He's pretty much treated as a second-class citizen by all the Samurai in the clan with the exception of the clan master who took him in and the master's daughter, Mika, who secretly loves Kai.
The Asano clan has a rival in Lord Kira and his clan who secretly covets the Asano lands and power. And, he's willing to use sorcery to obtain his objective as he has obtained the services of a powerful witch. When the two clans unite for an annual ceremony for the Shogun (governor), an unfortunate event manipulated by Kira's witch forces the Shogun to order the ritual suicide of the Asano clan leader for the offense. Kira is also awarded the Asano lands and the hand of Mika's in one year (to allow the morning of her father). The Asano Samurai, now Ronin, are also ordered to vacate the lands by Kira. Kai is sold into slavery. Oishi, the master's chief lieutenant, is imprisoned by Kira to further humiliate the clan and break his spirit.
Oishi is released a year later and believed to be a broken man. However, he is far from broken. He plans to reunite the Asano Samurai to take vengeance on Kira despite the Shogun's warning a year ago that no vengeance is to be taken. He also needs to liberate Kai as he needs the half-breed's supernatural connection to combat Kira's dark forces.
I went into this movie not knowing the legend of the 47 Ronin. Maybe that's a good thing as I had no preconceived notion of what the story was supposed to be. I admit that I'm a bit of a purist when it comes to characters or stories that I know. The film does make several embellishments on the legend. For example, I'm not completely up on my Japanese history, but I'll take a stab in the dark that dragons and mystical witches didn't exist in 18th century feudal Japan. I'm thinking the liberties that were taken is in part the reason critics have taken a machete to it. But, now knowing the story, I still enjoyed the special effects and embellishments.
That brings me to issue two of why this film has been panned. And, that would be Keanu himself. Come on, now. Insert your Keanu joke here. You know you have one. We all do. And, I'll admit some of those jokes are well earned. But, I also think the actor gets a bit of a bad rap at times. He can be decent, or, at least serviceable in roles that call for an average set of dramatic skills. While I think it would probably be a mistake to cast him in a remake of Raging Bull, he's fine for a role such as this.
I was impressed by the fantasy elements added to the story. It's a fascinating study of loyalty and duty as the 47 Ronin know they face imminent death whether they succeed or fail in their mission. But, honor is paramount in the bushido code and the warriors face their fate with dignity.
47 Ronin won't go down as one my favorite movies of all time, but, I'll be a lone voice in the woods and say it's worth a look. Hurry though. If you want to see it on the big screen, I wouldn't wait too long. Considering the backlash the film is receiving it might be on DVD within the week.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
***1/2 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Reviews from the Dark Side presents
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Released 12/13/13, now in theaters
Director, Peter Jackson, revisits the fabled, war-torn lands of Middle Earth in the second chapter of The Hobbit series, The Desolation of Smaug. Like the middle chapter of Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, I thought the action (and brutal slayings) would be amped to 11 for the Hobbit series. In some ways, that is true. In other ways, the pacing of the story is similar to the moderate plotting of An Unexpected Journey which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
The story continues shortly after the events of An Unexpected Journey (and a brief flashback) and finds the ragtag company of Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), the hobbit, Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), and thirteen dwarves led by would-be king, Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), on their perilous quest to regain the former jewel of the dwarf kingdom, Erebor. This time the journey takes them the wilds of Mirkwood where the company (minus Gandalf) escapes giant spiders only to be captured by the Wood Elves of King Thranduil. Thranduil makes an offer of freedom to Thorin in exchange for part of the vast treasures contained in Erebor. Thorin, not a huge supporter of elves or of this elf in particular, refuses the offer. It was Thranduil who abandoned the dwarves on the battlefield when they lost their homeland to Smaug years ago.
Meanwhile, Gandalf leaves the group prior to the others entering Mirkwood to pursue a lead of his own. After discovering an ancient graffiti on an ruin at the border of the forest and receiving a telepathic message from the elf, Galadriel (sorry, but you'll have to look her up if you're not familiar), he travels to the tombs of the Nazgul where he finds the deadly Orc, Azog and his army awaiting orders from the mysterious Necromancer who first made his presence known in An Unexpected Journey.
As dangerous as everyone's plight becomes, there's still the small matter of the humongous fire breathing dragon, Smaug (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch), who claimed the Lonely Mountain in Erebor and all its treasures many years ago. Entering Smaug's lair and retrieving the Arkenstone (a dwarf heirloom) from the most powerful creature on Middle Earth may be a mission none survive.
The Desolation of Smaug features the return (?) of Legolas (Orlando Bloom) to the Peter Jackson madness. Although I'm not sure if you consider this a return since The Hobbit takes place before Lord of the Rings chronologically. But, who cares. The ninja-like elves were the coolest aspects of LOTR. And, their return is a welcome addition to The Hobbit series.
DOS also introduces a new elven character to the mix in Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), the captain of the Elven Guard at Mirkwood. Apparently, she didn't exist in J.R.R. Tolkein's original story, but she's an asset to the story nevertheless whether she's slaying giant spiders or Orcs. And, she takes out a number of each in spectacular fashion with her deadly bow and blades. She's a great character, but I have to wonder what inspired her existence. Do you think Peter Jackson may have read The Hunger Games trilogy before shooting The Hobbit series? Hmmm.
And I would be remiss if I didn't mention the excellent graphics on the old firebreather himself. A character this grand deserves an amazing presence for his first time onscreen and the special effects team made sure that happened. Impressive would be an understatement to describe the dragon. What made his presence more chilling is tremendous voice work from Cumberbatch who mixes a darkly comic undertone when he first encounters another presence in his lair with sinister menace when he tires of the game he plays with his next "lunch."
Let's not forget that The Hobbit is a prelude to LOTR and there's one little shiny object that continues to rear its ugly head. The One Ring's corrupting influence is seen throughout The Desolation of Smaug as its current owner, Bilbo, loses himself more as he uses its magical power.
As I said earlier, don't expect wall-to-wall action in The Desolation of Smaug. There are a few skirmishes with Orcs throughout, but the smackdown we all want to see comes at the very end. Be patient and you'll be rewarded.
The Desolation of Smaug is basically another setup movie much like An Unexpected Journey. I suspect the nonstop battle scene we've been waiting for will come in 2014's There and Back Again. DOS does provide enough excitement to be worthy of a "must-see" qualification and is easily one of the year's best films.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
**** stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Released 12/13/13, now in theaters
Director, Peter Jackson, revisits the fabled, war-torn lands of Middle Earth in the second chapter of The Hobbit series, The Desolation of Smaug. Like the middle chapter of Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, I thought the action (and brutal slayings) would be amped to 11 for the Hobbit series. In some ways, that is true. In other ways, the pacing of the story is similar to the moderate plotting of An Unexpected Journey which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
The story continues shortly after the events of An Unexpected Journey (and a brief flashback) and finds the ragtag company of Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), the hobbit, Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), and thirteen dwarves led by would-be king, Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), on their perilous quest to regain the former jewel of the dwarf kingdom, Erebor. This time the journey takes them the wilds of Mirkwood where the company (minus Gandalf) escapes giant spiders only to be captured by the Wood Elves of King Thranduil. Thranduil makes an offer of freedom to Thorin in exchange for part of the vast treasures contained in Erebor. Thorin, not a huge supporter of elves or of this elf in particular, refuses the offer. It was Thranduil who abandoned the dwarves on the battlefield when they lost their homeland to Smaug years ago.
Meanwhile, Gandalf leaves the group prior to the others entering Mirkwood to pursue a lead of his own. After discovering an ancient graffiti on an ruin at the border of the forest and receiving a telepathic message from the elf, Galadriel (sorry, but you'll have to look her up if you're not familiar), he travels to the tombs of the Nazgul where he finds the deadly Orc, Azog and his army awaiting orders from the mysterious Necromancer who first made his presence known in An Unexpected Journey.
As dangerous as everyone's plight becomes, there's still the small matter of the humongous fire breathing dragon, Smaug (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch), who claimed the Lonely Mountain in Erebor and all its treasures many years ago. Entering Smaug's lair and retrieving the Arkenstone (a dwarf heirloom) from the most powerful creature on Middle Earth may be a mission none survive.
The Desolation of Smaug features the return (?) of Legolas (Orlando Bloom) to the Peter Jackson madness. Although I'm not sure if you consider this a return since The Hobbit takes place before Lord of the Rings chronologically. But, who cares. The ninja-like elves were the coolest aspects of LOTR. And, their return is a welcome addition to The Hobbit series.
DOS also introduces a new elven character to the mix in Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), the captain of the Elven Guard at Mirkwood. Apparently, she didn't exist in J.R.R. Tolkein's original story, but she's an asset to the story nevertheless whether she's slaying giant spiders or Orcs. And, she takes out a number of each in spectacular fashion with her deadly bow and blades. She's a great character, but I have to wonder what inspired her existence. Do you think Peter Jackson may have read The Hunger Games trilogy before shooting The Hobbit series? Hmmm.
And I would be remiss if I didn't mention the excellent graphics on the old firebreather himself. A character this grand deserves an amazing presence for his first time onscreen and the special effects team made sure that happened. Impressive would be an understatement to describe the dragon. What made his presence more chilling is tremendous voice work from Cumberbatch who mixes a darkly comic undertone when he first encounters another presence in his lair with sinister menace when he tires of the game he plays with his next "lunch."
Let's not forget that The Hobbit is a prelude to LOTR and there's one little shiny object that continues to rear its ugly head. The One Ring's corrupting influence is seen throughout The Desolation of Smaug as its current owner, Bilbo, loses himself more as he uses its magical power.
As I said earlier, don't expect wall-to-wall action in The Desolation of Smaug. There are a few skirmishes with Orcs throughout, but the smackdown we all want to see comes at the very end. Be patient and you'll be rewarded.
The Desolation of Smaug is basically another setup movie much like An Unexpected Journey. I suspect the nonstop battle scene we've been waiting for will come in 2014's There and Back Again. DOS does provide enough excitement to be worthy of a "must-see" qualification and is easily one of the year's best films.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
**** stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Gravity
Reviews from the Dark Side presents
Gravity
Released 10/4/13, now in theaters
Sandra Bullock and George Clooney are astronauts who find themselves in one of the scariest life and death situations possible in Gravity, a sci-fi thriller that has gained wide critical approval. The film is directed by the acclaimed Alfonso Cuaron (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban).
Dr. Ryan Stone (Bullock) is a medical engineer on her first space mission aboard the shuttle, Explorer. The expedition is led by veteran astronaut, Matthew Kowalski (Clooney), who is on his last mission before a well-deserved retirement. While working on satellite equipment during a spacewalk, Mission Control (voice of Ed Harris) alerts the Explorer crew to incoming space debris generated from a Russian missile strike on a defunct satellite. The large cloud of high-speed debris hits the shuttle and crew just as the mission is aborted leaving only Stone and Kowalski alive and tethered to each other for dear life. It's a race against time for the pair to reach the nearby International Space Station which has a shuttle they can use to get back to Earth. But, their oxygen is running out and the deadly wave of debris will be back in an estimated 90 minutes.
Check being stranded in space as one of the most horrifying experiences in life along with death by fire and being buried alive. Sandra Bullock's fear is almost palpable as she is tumbling end over end in the deep blackness. And, anyone who is even mildly claustrophobic may be disturbed by the tight spaces she has to squeeze through. Clooney adds a bit of humor as the grizzled veteran trying to keep the crew loose by telling wild personal stories.
The fear caused by the astronauts' plight is diametrically opposed to the grandiose beauty of viewing the Earth from space. As Kowalski eloquently states, "You can't beat the view." Which brings me to how magnificently the film's cinematography. Much thought and effort was placed in Gravity's visuals. Aside from the aforementioned views of Earth, the real-time and slow-motion shots of the debris' path of destruction are nothing short of spectacular. And, there is a scene involving a fiery re-entry into to Earth's atmosphere that is notable as well.
Gravity is also one of the few movies made in 3D whose 3D effects are actually worth paying for. This is what a 3D experience should be. The studio spared no expense to make the effects great and it shows onscreen.
I've done nothing but heap praise on Gravity, so you would think this might be my third five-star review. For all its visual accomplishments, I wasn't doing cartwheels after seeing it. Again, it's visually stunning, but I wasn't particularly moved by the story. It left me flat at times. My reaction to Gravity reminds me of my reaction to another hugely-loved movie, Avatar. The special effects and 3D are the stars and deserve all the credit. Everything else? Not so much.
Please don't misunderstand me. Gravity is a good movie with outstanding special effects. But, as far as anything else is concerned, don't believe the hype.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
***1/2 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Gravity
Released 10/4/13, now in theaters
Sandra Bullock and George Clooney are astronauts who find themselves in one of the scariest life and death situations possible in Gravity, a sci-fi thriller that has gained wide critical approval. The film is directed by the acclaimed Alfonso Cuaron (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban).
Dr. Ryan Stone (Bullock) is a medical engineer on her first space mission aboard the shuttle, Explorer. The expedition is led by veteran astronaut, Matthew Kowalski (Clooney), who is on his last mission before a well-deserved retirement. While working on satellite equipment during a spacewalk, Mission Control (voice of Ed Harris) alerts the Explorer crew to incoming space debris generated from a Russian missile strike on a defunct satellite. The large cloud of high-speed debris hits the shuttle and crew just as the mission is aborted leaving only Stone and Kowalski alive and tethered to each other for dear life. It's a race against time for the pair to reach the nearby International Space Station which has a shuttle they can use to get back to Earth. But, their oxygen is running out and the deadly wave of debris will be back in an estimated 90 minutes.
Check being stranded in space as one of the most horrifying experiences in life along with death by fire and being buried alive. Sandra Bullock's fear is almost palpable as she is tumbling end over end in the deep blackness. And, anyone who is even mildly claustrophobic may be disturbed by the tight spaces she has to squeeze through. Clooney adds a bit of humor as the grizzled veteran trying to keep the crew loose by telling wild personal stories.
The fear caused by the astronauts' plight is diametrically opposed to the grandiose beauty of viewing the Earth from space. As Kowalski eloquently states, "You can't beat the view." Which brings me to how magnificently the film's cinematography. Much thought and effort was placed in Gravity's visuals. Aside from the aforementioned views of Earth, the real-time and slow-motion shots of the debris' path of destruction are nothing short of spectacular. And, there is a scene involving a fiery re-entry into to Earth's atmosphere that is notable as well.
Gravity is also one of the few movies made in 3D whose 3D effects are actually worth paying for. This is what a 3D experience should be. The studio spared no expense to make the effects great and it shows onscreen.
I've done nothing but heap praise on Gravity, so you would think this might be my third five-star review. For all its visual accomplishments, I wasn't doing cartwheels after seeing it. Again, it's visually stunning, but I wasn't particularly moved by the story. It left me flat at times. My reaction to Gravity reminds me of my reaction to another hugely-loved movie, Avatar. The special effects and 3D are the stars and deserve all the credit. Everything else? Not so much.
Please don't misunderstand me. Gravity is a good movie with outstanding special effects. But, as far as anything else is concerned, don't believe the hype.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
***1/2 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Homefront
Reviews from the Dark Side presents
Homefront
Released 11/27/13, now in theaters
Jason Statham returns this Thanksgiving week in the action thriller, Homefront. The screenplay was written by Statham's Expendables running buddy, Sylvester Stallone. As a big fan of Statham myself, I was hoping Homefront was at least a return to form for him after the disappointing and achingly boring, Parker, from earlier in the year.
Statham is DEA agent Phil Broker. As the film begins, he's working deep undercover in a motorcycle gang that is getting its feet wet in the crystal meth trade. The mission goes sideways (don't they always) and the leader's son is shot down by police.
Reeling from the experience, Broker resigns from the DEA and lands in his deceased wife's Louisiana hometown to live a quiet life with his young daughter. Small-town bliss isn't meant to be for the Brokers when an unfortunate chain of events is started by daughter, Maddy. She dispatches a school bully using fighting skills taught to her by her father. Matters are made worse when the bully's father and mother confront Phil on the issue and Phil easily takes the father down. Enraged mother, Cassie (Kate Bosworth), then seeks the aid of her brother, "Gator" Bodine (James Franco), local meth cooker and wanna-be gangster. First, Gator sends his hired thugs to teach Phil a lesson. When that quickly goes bad, he breaks into Phil's house and discovers all he needs to know about Phil's past life.
Gator needs a distribution network for his meth. Who better than the motorcycle gang Phil infiltrated on his last mission? And, as incentive for the gang to do business with him, he sends his ex-biker roadie girlfriend, Sheryl (Winona Ryder), to broker a deal with the incarcerated leader who has a score to settle with Phil. She'll trade the agent's location in exchange for the gang's distribution of Gator's drugs.
Homefront represents a return to form for a Statham action movie. This is the good. The dry wit and fast, blinding fight scenes are back. And there are few who can deliver a simple line of underlying menace better than Statham. "Whatever you're thinking, rethink it!", will go down as one of my favorite pieces of dialog in 2013.
The bad is that Homefront is a bit stagnant when Statham isn't busting heads. Statham is easily the most watchable character in the film. Franco does his best "evil hillbilly" impression, but he's just not very scary.
And someone please tell me why characters in movies act like blithering idiots when there is danger? You have Phil's daughter who gives him major attitude when he decides the heat in town is just too much after days of fighting off Gator's thugs. She sees his bruises and cuts. But now that she thinks she's finally made friends, she doesn't want to go? How about when the bullets start flying outside of the house? As Phil is attempting to usher her to the basement to keep her safe, he almost has to physically toss her in as she keeps asking "What's going on?" Did you not hear the bullets outside young Maddy?
Like last year's Taken 2, Homefront is made palatable on the strength of its star. That is, if you're a Statham fan. It's always good seeing him do what he does best. But the film is average if you take him away. It's worth a viewing as a rental, but that's about all.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
*** stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Homefront
Released 11/27/13, now in theaters
Jason Statham returns this Thanksgiving week in the action thriller, Homefront. The screenplay was written by Statham's Expendables running buddy, Sylvester Stallone. As a big fan of Statham myself, I was hoping Homefront was at least a return to form for him after the disappointing and achingly boring, Parker, from earlier in the year.
Statham is DEA agent Phil Broker. As the film begins, he's working deep undercover in a motorcycle gang that is getting its feet wet in the crystal meth trade. The mission goes sideways (don't they always) and the leader's son is shot down by police.
Reeling from the experience, Broker resigns from the DEA and lands in his deceased wife's Louisiana hometown to live a quiet life with his young daughter. Small-town bliss isn't meant to be for the Brokers when an unfortunate chain of events is started by daughter, Maddy. She dispatches a school bully using fighting skills taught to her by her father. Matters are made worse when the bully's father and mother confront Phil on the issue and Phil easily takes the father down. Enraged mother, Cassie (Kate Bosworth), then seeks the aid of her brother, "Gator" Bodine (James Franco), local meth cooker and wanna-be gangster. First, Gator sends his hired thugs to teach Phil a lesson. When that quickly goes bad, he breaks into Phil's house and discovers all he needs to know about Phil's past life.
Gator needs a distribution network for his meth. Who better than the motorcycle gang Phil infiltrated on his last mission? And, as incentive for the gang to do business with him, he sends his ex-biker roadie girlfriend, Sheryl (Winona Ryder), to broker a deal with the incarcerated leader who has a score to settle with Phil. She'll trade the agent's location in exchange for the gang's distribution of Gator's drugs.
Homefront represents a return to form for a Statham action movie. This is the good. The dry wit and fast, blinding fight scenes are back. And there are few who can deliver a simple line of underlying menace better than Statham. "Whatever you're thinking, rethink it!", will go down as one of my favorite pieces of dialog in 2013.
The bad is that Homefront is a bit stagnant when Statham isn't busting heads. Statham is easily the most watchable character in the film. Franco does his best "evil hillbilly" impression, but he's just not very scary.
And someone please tell me why characters in movies act like blithering idiots when there is danger? You have Phil's daughter who gives him major attitude when he decides the heat in town is just too much after days of fighting off Gator's thugs. She sees his bruises and cuts. But now that she thinks she's finally made friends, she doesn't want to go? How about when the bullets start flying outside of the house? As Phil is attempting to usher her to the basement to keep her safe, he almost has to physically toss her in as she keeps asking "What's going on?" Did you not hear the bullets outside young Maddy?
Like last year's Taken 2, Homefront is made palatable on the strength of its star. That is, if you're a Statham fan. It's always good seeing him do what he does best. But the film is average if you take him away. It's worth a viewing as a rental, but that's about all.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
*** stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Reviews from the Dark Side presents
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Released 11/22/13, now in theaters
Revolution is the word of the day in this week's The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, the first sequel to 2012's, The Hunger Games. Catching Fire follows the further adventures of reluctant heroine, Katniss Everdeen, as she unknowingly inspires rebellion against the oppressive government of post-apocalyptic, Panem. Most of The Hunger Games returns, including Oscar-winner, Jennifer Lawrence.
The story picks up shortly after the events of the first film and finds the two survivors of the 74th Annual Hunger Games, Katniss and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), returned to their home in District 12 for a brief intermission before starting their victory tour through the 12 districts. Before embarking on the tour, Katniss receives a visit from Panem President Snow (Donald Sutherland) who is not at all happy with her actions in the last Hunger Games. There was supposed to be only one winner of this gladiatorial slaughter and Katniss manipulated events so her co-tribute, Peeta, would survive as well. Her manipulation of the Games has been viewed as defiance among the districts and uprisings against Panem have begun. Snow has a proposition for Katniss. She plays the loving girlfriend/fiancée to Peeta during the tour to give the appearance of support for the current regime and make the masses forget about revolution, or all of her friends and family die.
Despite her best, if reluctant, efforts to quell the spirit of defiance, unrest rises in the districts anyway. Unrest which is always put down brutally, many times in front of Katniss who has now become a symbol to the revolutionaries. This presents a problem to President Snow who can't just put Katniss down and make her a martyr. He has to discredit her among the masses before disposing of her. Enter Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the new director of the Games who comes up with an ingenious idea for the 75th Hunger Games known as the Quarter Quell. This will be the Third Quarter Quell which will pull its contestants from the pool of living tributes that have won past years' Hunger Games. The thought is that if the general public witnesses their heroine ruthlessly destroying her opponents in the arena, she will be erased as a symbol of the rebellion. So, the "couple" from District 12 once again is thrown into combat with better trained killers than they faced before. But, fortunately for Katniss and Peeta, not all may be what it appears on the surface and they may have allies in unusual places.
I was able to enjoy Catching Fire a little more than I did last year's The Hunger Games . I'm not sure if it's because I cheated and read ahead and now know how this whole thing ends, or, if it's because this film wasn't achingly drawn out, but I found Catching Fire more compelling. I will give credit where it's due to director, Francis Lawrence, for that.
Catching Fire is an unusual, but intriguing amalgam of political intrigue, gladiatorial combat, and media sensationalism. Panem is a bleak place where most of its citizens live a bleak existence (particularly in District 12). Catching Fire also serves as a metaphor for government betrayal as well. The winning tributes are promised a life privilege and luxury after surviving brutal violence only to be thrown back into that violence on a whim. It's a scary and sad situation conjured by a conniving leadership.
The real attraction here, as with the first film, is Jennifer Lawrence. Is there anyone in Hollywood that is on fire (no pun intended) more than she is right now? With an Oscar ,and now, an immensely popular trilogy under her belt, there' little she can do wrong lately. And hers is easily the most watchable character in the series. She has charisma in spades. Most of the other characters feel like props with no discernible personalities. Sure, there is the quirkiness of Stanley Tucci's and Elizabeth Banks' characters. And Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson) is the closest thing to a well-rounded character outside of Katniss. But many of the characters are pretty much cannon fodder.
The costume designs are beautifully rendered in Catching Fire. The chariot scene featuring our heroes clothing set ablaze is stunning. As impressive as that scene was, it was topped later when Katniss' white dress transforms into the dark likeness of a Mockingjay (a bird) , a symbol of the revolution. Kudos to the costume designer and FX team for such vivid imagination.
Catching Fire improves on the ideas that were started The Hunger Games. While this film is long, little of it feels like wasted motion. I'm on board for the two-part finale coming in 2014-15. That's something I couldn't say after I saw the first movie.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
***1/2 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Released 11/22/13, now in theaters
Revolution is the word of the day in this week's The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, the first sequel to 2012's, The Hunger Games. Catching Fire follows the further adventures of reluctant heroine, Katniss Everdeen, as she unknowingly inspires rebellion against the oppressive government of post-apocalyptic, Panem. Most of The Hunger Games returns, including Oscar-winner, Jennifer Lawrence.
The story picks up shortly after the events of the first film and finds the two survivors of the 74th Annual Hunger Games, Katniss and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), returned to their home in District 12 for a brief intermission before starting their victory tour through the 12 districts. Before embarking on the tour, Katniss receives a visit from Panem President Snow (Donald Sutherland) who is not at all happy with her actions in the last Hunger Games. There was supposed to be only one winner of this gladiatorial slaughter and Katniss manipulated events so her co-tribute, Peeta, would survive as well. Her manipulation of the Games has been viewed as defiance among the districts and uprisings against Panem have begun. Snow has a proposition for Katniss. She plays the loving girlfriend/fiancée to Peeta during the tour to give the appearance of support for the current regime and make the masses forget about revolution, or all of her friends and family die.
Despite her best, if reluctant, efforts to quell the spirit of defiance, unrest rises in the districts anyway. Unrest which is always put down brutally, many times in front of Katniss who has now become a symbol to the revolutionaries. This presents a problem to President Snow who can't just put Katniss down and make her a martyr. He has to discredit her among the masses before disposing of her. Enter Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the new director of the Games who comes up with an ingenious idea for the 75th Hunger Games known as the Quarter Quell. This will be the Third Quarter Quell which will pull its contestants from the pool of living tributes that have won past years' Hunger Games. The thought is that if the general public witnesses their heroine ruthlessly destroying her opponents in the arena, she will be erased as a symbol of the rebellion. So, the "couple" from District 12 once again is thrown into combat with better trained killers than they faced before. But, fortunately for Katniss and Peeta, not all may be what it appears on the surface and they may have allies in unusual places.
I was able to enjoy Catching Fire a little more than I did last year's The Hunger Games . I'm not sure if it's because I cheated and read ahead and now know how this whole thing ends, or, if it's because this film wasn't achingly drawn out, but I found Catching Fire more compelling. I will give credit where it's due to director, Francis Lawrence, for that.
Catching Fire is an unusual, but intriguing amalgam of political intrigue, gladiatorial combat, and media sensationalism. Panem is a bleak place where most of its citizens live a bleak existence (particularly in District 12). Catching Fire also serves as a metaphor for government betrayal as well. The winning tributes are promised a life privilege and luxury after surviving brutal violence only to be thrown back into that violence on a whim. It's a scary and sad situation conjured by a conniving leadership.
The real attraction here, as with the first film, is Jennifer Lawrence. Is there anyone in Hollywood that is on fire (no pun intended) more than she is right now? With an Oscar ,and now, an immensely popular trilogy under her belt, there' little she can do wrong lately. And hers is easily the most watchable character in the series. She has charisma in spades. Most of the other characters feel like props with no discernible personalities. Sure, there is the quirkiness of Stanley Tucci's and Elizabeth Banks' characters. And Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson) is the closest thing to a well-rounded character outside of Katniss. But many of the characters are pretty much cannon fodder.
The costume designs are beautifully rendered in Catching Fire. The chariot scene featuring our heroes clothing set ablaze is stunning. As impressive as that scene was, it was topped later when Katniss' white dress transforms into the dark likeness of a Mockingjay (a bird) , a symbol of the revolution. Kudos to the costume designer and FX team for such vivid imagination.
Catching Fire improves on the ideas that were started The Hunger Games. While this film is long, little of it feels like wasted motion. I'm on board for the two-part finale coming in 2014-15. That's something I couldn't say after I saw the first movie.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
***1/2 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Thor: The Dark World
Reviews from the Dark Side presents
Thor: The Dark World
Released 11/8/13, now in theaters
The Odinson returns this week in the sequel to 2011's, Thor, in Thor: The Dark World. This movie is a continuance of Marvel Films Phase 2 collection following the individual adventures of the Avengers before culminating in the upcoming Avengers sequel in 2015. Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, and Natalie Portman reprise their roles from the first film. Alan Taylor takes over the directing duties from Kenneth Branagh. After the Avengers, Thor was teleported back to his homeland of Asgard and has not been seen since. What world-shattering event could bring him back to Earth (besides lip-locking Jane Foster)?
The scourge of the Asgardian nine realms, The Dark Elves, have returned with their sinister leader, Malekith (Christopher Eccleston). Eons ago, Malekith attempted to plunge the universe into darkness using the ancient power of the Aether, a weapon made of immense ethereal energy. The Dark Elf and his army were defeated by the Asgardians led by Odin's (Anthony Hopkins) father, Bor. Bor contained the Aether within a large stone and placed it in another dimension so it would remain hidden for eternity. Unknown to Bor, Malekith and some of his followers escape into suspended animation until the present day when they are awakened by the Aether's release. It seems Earthwoman, Dr. Jane Foster (Portman) has found the weapon and has inadvertently been infected by it.
Meanwhile, since the events in the Avengers, Thor (Hemsworth) has been in Asgard quelling rebellions within the Asgardian Nine Realms attempting to finally bring peace and harmony to the lands. When Jane found the Aether, she disappeared between realms gaining the attention of the all-seeing Asgardian gatekeeper, Heimdall (Idris Elba), who, in turn, informs Thor. Thor travels back to Earth using the newly reconstructed Bifrost and takes Jane back to Asgard after she accidentally unleashes an unearthly force due to the Aether. Hoping that Odin and the Asgardian healers can help Jane, Thor discovers he has an even larger problem. A rare cosmic alignment of the Nine Realms called the Convergence is approaching. It's Malekith's intention to use the Aether to plunge the realms into eternal darkness during this alignment. All seems hopeless after the Dark Elf, drawn to Jane, surprise attacks Asgard. Thor has to then turn to the last Asgardian he ever thought he would ask for help.
There is something that has bothered me about how Thor has been portrayed on the big screen. I've never understood why the thunder god angle hasn't been played up. He's portrayed more as an Asgardian alien than a Norse God. And, that's disappointing to me. Thor is not Superman. He never has been; he never will be. Thor has always been more sword and sorcery than technological wonder. He's the God of Thunder, an elemental force unto himself. There's not really any science involved here. He's a product of the union between the King of the Norse Gods and Gaea, the Goddess of Earth (you know, Mother Nature). There's actually a reason why he commands the elements. If you don't know the character's comic backstory, there's no movie explanation as to why it always seems to rain when he's around.
Thor: The Dark World felt very Stargate at times to me. Lasers, glowing swords, and spaceships are very nice to look at visually. But, it just doesn't seem very Thor. I always pictured Asgard and the Nine Realms (aside from Earth) in more of a Lord of the Rings setting. I know this is the comic geek in me talking, so, take what I say with a grain of salt if you must.
All of this being said, there is a lot to like about this film, particularly the performances of both Hemsworth and Hiddleston. I've said this previously about Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, and, I believe the same holds true for Chris Hemsworth. He owns this role. He has the look, the charisma, and grace that defines the character. I know that if enough of these movies are made, Hemsworth won't always be Thor. But, his successor will have a tough act to follow.
Tom Hiddleston always seems to play Loki with an evil, menacing glee. And, he lives up to the moniker of "The Trickster" once again. And. like Hemsworth as Thor, Hiddleston is the quintessential Loki, totally untrustworthy and slimy. You never know whose side he is really on. But rest assured, Loki is always on his own side and he'll use anyone and anything to push his agenda.
If you're like me, you were probably hoping for more "hammer time" in 2011's Thor. And, that's exactly what you get in "The Dark World." And isn't that what you really came to see? Don't we all want a large hammer to pound on the ground to make everyone fall down?
If I'm truly honest, the Dark Elves felt slightly like props for Thor to knock down. Oh, they were vicious enough, but you're kind of clueless as to why they want to destroy the universe. If Malekith uses the Aether for this purpose, doesn't he destroy his own people as well? I don't think they were fleshed out as characters very well.
And is it me, or do the human characters feel like they're in the way and slightly unnecessary? Natalie Portman serves a purpose, I suppose, as Thor's love interest (much better chemistry here than with Hayden Christensen). But Kat Dennings, Stellen Skargard and the other Earthlings are annoyances that slow the movie down at times.
I don't deny I have my criticisms, but I will reiterate there is much to like here and I did like this movie despite the misgivings. It's mostly on the strength of Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston. Both are more than worth the price of admission. There are great action sequences as you would expect. There's another Avenger who makes a cameo (sort of). And, of course, there's the obligatory Stan Lee scene. It also has some silly humor to boot. It's a worthy, if not, spectacular addition to Marvel's pantheon of films.
And do I have to tell you to stay through the end credits? It's a Marvel movie. You know there will be a scene or two when the credits role. Thor: The Dark World gives you two, one after the cast credits and one after the final credits. I have two words to describe what's foreshadowed in one of the scenes. Infinity Gauntlet. Don't know what that is? I would recommend grabbing the trade paperback. All I know is that I can't wait for Thanos to show his ugly purple mug again (last seen in the Avengers).
And I have one last note. I saw Thor: The Dark World on an IMAX-type screen in 3D. While it does look magnificent on the large screen, the 3D is nothing special and not worth the money. Another tip from your friendly neighborhood movie critic.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
***1/4 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Thor: The Dark World
Released 11/8/13, now in theaters
The Odinson returns this week in the sequel to 2011's, Thor, in Thor: The Dark World. This movie is a continuance of Marvel Films Phase 2 collection following the individual adventures of the Avengers before culminating in the upcoming Avengers sequel in 2015. Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, and Natalie Portman reprise their roles from the first film. Alan Taylor takes over the directing duties from Kenneth Branagh. After the Avengers, Thor was teleported back to his homeland of Asgard and has not been seen since. What world-shattering event could bring him back to Earth (besides lip-locking Jane Foster)?
The scourge of the Asgardian nine realms, The Dark Elves, have returned with their sinister leader, Malekith (Christopher Eccleston). Eons ago, Malekith attempted to plunge the universe into darkness using the ancient power of the Aether, a weapon made of immense ethereal energy. The Dark Elf and his army were defeated by the Asgardians led by Odin's (Anthony Hopkins) father, Bor. Bor contained the Aether within a large stone and placed it in another dimension so it would remain hidden for eternity. Unknown to Bor, Malekith and some of his followers escape into suspended animation until the present day when they are awakened by the Aether's release. It seems Earthwoman, Dr. Jane Foster (Portman) has found the weapon and has inadvertently been infected by it.
Meanwhile, since the events in the Avengers, Thor (Hemsworth) has been in Asgard quelling rebellions within the Asgardian Nine Realms attempting to finally bring peace and harmony to the lands. When Jane found the Aether, she disappeared between realms gaining the attention of the all-seeing Asgardian gatekeeper, Heimdall (Idris Elba), who, in turn, informs Thor. Thor travels back to Earth using the newly reconstructed Bifrost and takes Jane back to Asgard after she accidentally unleashes an unearthly force due to the Aether. Hoping that Odin and the Asgardian healers can help Jane, Thor discovers he has an even larger problem. A rare cosmic alignment of the Nine Realms called the Convergence is approaching. It's Malekith's intention to use the Aether to plunge the realms into eternal darkness during this alignment. All seems hopeless after the Dark Elf, drawn to Jane, surprise attacks Asgard. Thor has to then turn to the last Asgardian he ever thought he would ask for help.
There is something that has bothered me about how Thor has been portrayed on the big screen. I've never understood why the thunder god angle hasn't been played up. He's portrayed more as an Asgardian alien than a Norse God. And, that's disappointing to me. Thor is not Superman. He never has been; he never will be. Thor has always been more sword and sorcery than technological wonder. He's the God of Thunder, an elemental force unto himself. There's not really any science involved here. He's a product of the union between the King of the Norse Gods and Gaea, the Goddess of Earth (you know, Mother Nature). There's actually a reason why he commands the elements. If you don't know the character's comic backstory, there's no movie explanation as to why it always seems to rain when he's around.
Thor: The Dark World felt very Stargate at times to me. Lasers, glowing swords, and spaceships are very nice to look at visually. But, it just doesn't seem very Thor. I always pictured Asgard and the Nine Realms (aside from Earth) in more of a Lord of the Rings setting. I know this is the comic geek in me talking, so, take what I say with a grain of salt if you must.
All of this being said, there is a lot to like about this film, particularly the performances of both Hemsworth and Hiddleston. I've said this previously about Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, and, I believe the same holds true for Chris Hemsworth. He owns this role. He has the look, the charisma, and grace that defines the character. I know that if enough of these movies are made, Hemsworth won't always be Thor. But, his successor will have a tough act to follow.
Tom Hiddleston always seems to play Loki with an evil, menacing glee. And, he lives up to the moniker of "The Trickster" once again. And. like Hemsworth as Thor, Hiddleston is the quintessential Loki, totally untrustworthy and slimy. You never know whose side he is really on. But rest assured, Loki is always on his own side and he'll use anyone and anything to push his agenda.
If you're like me, you were probably hoping for more "hammer time" in 2011's Thor. And, that's exactly what you get in "The Dark World." And isn't that what you really came to see? Don't we all want a large hammer to pound on the ground to make everyone fall down?
If I'm truly honest, the Dark Elves felt slightly like props for Thor to knock down. Oh, they were vicious enough, but you're kind of clueless as to why they want to destroy the universe. If Malekith uses the Aether for this purpose, doesn't he destroy his own people as well? I don't think they were fleshed out as characters very well.
And is it me, or do the human characters feel like they're in the way and slightly unnecessary? Natalie Portman serves a purpose, I suppose, as Thor's love interest (much better chemistry here than with Hayden Christensen). But Kat Dennings, Stellen Skargard and the other Earthlings are annoyances that slow the movie down at times.
I don't deny I have my criticisms, but I will reiterate there is much to like here and I did like this movie despite the misgivings. It's mostly on the strength of Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston. Both are more than worth the price of admission. There are great action sequences as you would expect. There's another Avenger who makes a cameo (sort of). And, of course, there's the obligatory Stan Lee scene. It also has some silly humor to boot. It's a worthy, if not, spectacular addition to Marvel's pantheon of films.
And do I have to tell you to stay through the end credits? It's a Marvel movie. You know there will be a scene or two when the credits role. Thor: The Dark World gives you two, one after the cast credits and one after the final credits. I have two words to describe what's foreshadowed in one of the scenes. Infinity Gauntlet. Don't know what that is? I would recommend grabbing the trade paperback. All I know is that I can't wait for Thanos to show his ugly purple mug again (last seen in the Avengers).
And I have one last note. I saw Thor: The Dark World on an IMAX-type screen in 3D. While it does look magnificent on the large screen, the 3D is nothing special and not worth the money. Another tip from your friendly neighborhood movie critic.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
***1/4 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa
Reviews from the Dark Side presents
Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa
Released 10/25/13, now in theaters
What do you get when you put Johnny Knoxville in old man makeup, add a scandalous young boy as his traveling companion, and allow the two to pull some of the most outrageous pranks on an unsuspecting public? You get the latest installment from the Jackass film franchise, Bad Grandpa. Yes, Knoxville is back pulling his usual shenanigans with his usual utter lack of taste as 86-year old Irving Zisman. Knoxville also co-directed.
The film follows Zisman "mourning" the death of wife in the beginning. And, mourning, for Irving, means trying to find the first female on two legs who will engage in carnal acts with him. His newfound freedom is cramped when he is forced into caring for his young grandson, Billy (Jackson Nicoll). It seems Irving's daughter has gotten herself into some hot water and is on her way to jail (again). But, as Irving sees his grandson as woman repellant, he's eager to hand him off to his slacker, good-for-nothing father in North Carolina. Billy's father doesn't want the responsibility either until he is erroneously convinced by one of his pothead friends that the boy could be worth money in government subsidies. Irving, however, must take Billy to his father, so the two go on a cross-country road trip(with Irving's dead wife in the trunk-don't ask). Along the way, both pull hidden camera pranks galore on everyone unfortunate enough to cross their paths from convenience store personnel to the audience of a pre-teen beauty pageant.
What struck me about this movie aside from actually having a (very) loose plot, is that it attempts to have a heart among all of the crass silliness. Irving and Billy bond, albeit in a stupid, juvenile way. It's actually kind of sweet if you can look past the pranks.
As for the pranks, you either like this kind of humor or you don't. And I liked Bad Grandpa a lot. It reminded me of the brilliant Borat much more than the Jackass movies. Sorry, Jackass fans. While I thought there were some funny segments in those films, it was pretty much a contest who could get smacked in the crotch the hardest. Bad Grandpa revels unflinchingly in its crudeness and makes no apology.
In addition to Knoxville who is brilliant as the perverted, unscrupulous Zisman, Jackson Nicoll is every bit his equal as Billy. This kid is not the innocent cherub he appears to be. He has some great lines and proves he doesn't need Knoxville in the scene with him to turn it into comedy gold.
If you're looking for a good laugh, you can't do much better at this time of the year than Bad Grandpa. Again, be warned. If you are not familiar with Knoxville's brand of humor, you could be in for a rude awakening. But, if you like your laughs a little on the twisted side, this is your kind of movie.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
**** stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa
Released 10/25/13, now in theaters
What do you get when you put Johnny Knoxville in old man makeup, add a scandalous young boy as his traveling companion, and allow the two to pull some of the most outrageous pranks on an unsuspecting public? You get the latest installment from the Jackass film franchise, Bad Grandpa. Yes, Knoxville is back pulling his usual shenanigans with his usual utter lack of taste as 86-year old Irving Zisman. Knoxville also co-directed.
The film follows Zisman "mourning" the death of wife in the beginning. And, mourning, for Irving, means trying to find the first female on two legs who will engage in carnal acts with him. His newfound freedom is cramped when he is forced into caring for his young grandson, Billy (Jackson Nicoll). It seems Irving's daughter has gotten herself into some hot water and is on her way to jail (again). But, as Irving sees his grandson as woman repellant, he's eager to hand him off to his slacker, good-for-nothing father in North Carolina. Billy's father doesn't want the responsibility either until he is erroneously convinced by one of his pothead friends that the boy could be worth money in government subsidies. Irving, however, must take Billy to his father, so the two go on a cross-country road trip(with Irving's dead wife in the trunk-don't ask). Along the way, both pull hidden camera pranks galore on everyone unfortunate enough to cross their paths from convenience store personnel to the audience of a pre-teen beauty pageant.
What struck me about this movie aside from actually having a (very) loose plot, is that it attempts to have a heart among all of the crass silliness. Irving and Billy bond, albeit in a stupid, juvenile way. It's actually kind of sweet if you can look past the pranks.
As for the pranks, you either like this kind of humor or you don't. And I liked Bad Grandpa a lot. It reminded me of the brilliant Borat much more than the Jackass movies. Sorry, Jackass fans. While I thought there were some funny segments in those films, it was pretty much a contest who could get smacked in the crotch the hardest. Bad Grandpa revels unflinchingly in its crudeness and makes no apology.
In addition to Knoxville who is brilliant as the perverted, unscrupulous Zisman, Jackson Nicoll is every bit his equal as Billy. This kid is not the innocent cherub he appears to be. He has some great lines and proves he doesn't need Knoxville in the scene with him to turn it into comedy gold.
If you're looking for a good laugh, you can't do much better at this time of the year than Bad Grandpa. Again, be warned. If you are not familiar with Knoxville's brand of humor, you could be in for a rude awakening. But, if you like your laughs a little on the twisted side, this is your kind of movie.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
**** stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Carrie
Reviews from the Dark Side presents
Carrie
Released 10/18/13, now in theaters
What? Yet another Hollywood remake? And worse yet, another remake of Carrie? Really? There aren't any other good ideas in Tinseltown? Remaking a movie that many consider a classic will automatically lend itself to the naysayers. But, the naysayers sometimes have a point when you consider the horrid retelling of Psycho starring Vince Vaughn. And, what about the less than stellar 2002 TV remake of Carrie? Prospects weren't good for this one even with the nice, gory trailers.
So, when comparing Kimberly Peirce's version to Brian DePalma's 1976 version, I will say this remake fleshes out Carrie White's character more than the original. She actually goes through a period of self discovery after learning she possesses the power of telekinesis. Peirce allows the audience to feel the entire spectrum of emotion from fear, to exultation, to anger with Carrie as you watch the teenager's tribulation.
As for the story itself, it's almost identical to the '70s version, but has a few asides to make it unique from the original. For those not familiar, Carrie is based on a 1974 novel by Stephen King. Carrie White (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a sheltered teenager who incurs the wrath of a vicious, privileged classmate, Chris Hargensen (Portia Doubleday), after she is punished for leading a group of girls in humiliating Carrie at school (and, later, the internet). Carrie's home life is as grueling as her school life due to her Puritanical mother, Margaret (Julianne Moore). The lonely girl discovers she has telekinesis which excites her, but makes her just as isolated as ever. When another classmate, Sue Snell (Gabriella Wilde), who was involved in Carrie's humiliation convinces her boyfriend to take Carrie to the prom as an apology for her involvement in the fiasco, Carrie is, at first, suspicious, but, later, acquiesces, much to the disappointment and displeasure of her mother. Carrie's life appears to be on an upswing until she suffers the ultimate humiliation at the prom that will move her to unleash the full destructive capability of her new power.
I did mention that there are differences between the new version and the original. The current version begins with a birth sequence in which Carrie almost doesn't survive to become a tormented teenager. Carrie also has more of a self-discovery of her power in the new version that provides a more detailed glimpse of how powerful she has become. And, after the disaster at the prom, she looks positively like a creepy witch as she floats in the air covered in blood. And, there's the shock ending. There's no hand in this one, but the final sequence still involves a strange happening at a gravesite. Neither ending makes much sense if you think about it. They're there simply to create a final jump-scare, although I do think the original is creepier.
Chloe Moretz once again proves why she is one the best young actresses in the business today. To date, I don't think I've ever seen her give a bad performance. The movie she's in may be bummer, but she never is. And this role provides the opportunity for her to display a wide range of emotions.
She's convincing as both a timid, shy mouse and as a raging, emotional instrument of death and destruction. This isn't to say she was any better or worse than Sissy Spacek in the original. Both have stamped their mark on the character in my opinion.
Many have said this remake is totally unnecessary and I agree. It is unnecessary. No one was beating a drum for another version of Carrie. But despite that fact, I try to examine a movie on its own merits. Just because it's a rehash doesn't mean it isn't good. And, this updated version is good. I believe it is better than the original in some ways. There is a greater depiction of the character's incredible power. Carrie specifically targets her tormentors rather than setting the entire gymnasium and everyone in it ablaze. It tries to flesh out this lonely girl's character a little more much in the same way Rob Zombie fleshed out the character of Michael Myers in his remake of Halloween. It's not any better or worse than the original. It's just different. There's room for both movies in your imagination if you leave yourself open to the possibility.
More than fitting into the horror genre, Carrie is a kind of allegory on teen bullying and overparenting. It's easy to see why the girl snaps. Her mother's sheltering of her from life itself has made her a freak among her peers. She's an easy target to the type of cruelty children in general and teenagers, in particular, can heap upon those they consider weak. An even sadder affair is the love Carrie still has for her mother at the end after everything she has done and attempted to do to her daughter. Unfortunately, Margaret is all this sad young woman has ever known.
Even Margaret's character is given a little more depth here than in the original version. I can't say anything other than this woman is a total wreck of a human being. She frequently cuts herself and frequently locks her daughter in a closet to repent for her "sins." She did go through a serious trauma in her daughter's conception which has contributed to the ultra-conservative lifestyle she forces on Carrie and herself. She cares for her daughter but can't reconcile her desire to protect her from all sin and evil for Carrie's desire to live a normal life when she has the opportunity.
Carrie also works as a great revenge motif. Some may not go to the extremes she does to get even, but haven't we all wished someone who mistreated us would have his/her face smashed through a car windshield? No? Maybe it's just me. So, nevermind.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
*** 1/2 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Carrie
Released 10/18/13, now in theaters
What? Yet another Hollywood remake? And worse yet, another remake of Carrie? Really? There aren't any other good ideas in Tinseltown? Remaking a movie that many consider a classic will automatically lend itself to the naysayers. But, the naysayers sometimes have a point when you consider the horrid retelling of Psycho starring Vince Vaughn. And, what about the less than stellar 2002 TV remake of Carrie? Prospects weren't good for this one even with the nice, gory trailers.
So, when comparing Kimberly Peirce's version to Brian DePalma's 1976 version, I will say this remake fleshes out Carrie White's character more than the original. She actually goes through a period of self discovery after learning she possesses the power of telekinesis. Peirce allows the audience to feel the entire spectrum of emotion from fear, to exultation, to anger with Carrie as you watch the teenager's tribulation.
As for the story itself, it's almost identical to the '70s version, but has a few asides to make it unique from the original. For those not familiar, Carrie is based on a 1974 novel by Stephen King. Carrie White (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a sheltered teenager who incurs the wrath of a vicious, privileged classmate, Chris Hargensen (Portia Doubleday), after she is punished for leading a group of girls in humiliating Carrie at school (and, later, the internet). Carrie's home life is as grueling as her school life due to her Puritanical mother, Margaret (Julianne Moore). The lonely girl discovers she has telekinesis which excites her, but makes her just as isolated as ever. When another classmate, Sue Snell (Gabriella Wilde), who was involved in Carrie's humiliation convinces her boyfriend to take Carrie to the prom as an apology for her involvement in the fiasco, Carrie is, at first, suspicious, but, later, acquiesces, much to the disappointment and displeasure of her mother. Carrie's life appears to be on an upswing until she suffers the ultimate humiliation at the prom that will move her to unleash the full destructive capability of her new power.
I did mention that there are differences between the new version and the original. The current version begins with a birth sequence in which Carrie almost doesn't survive to become a tormented teenager. Carrie also has more of a self-discovery of her power in the new version that provides a more detailed glimpse of how powerful she has become. And, after the disaster at the prom, she looks positively like a creepy witch as she floats in the air covered in blood. And, there's the shock ending. There's no hand in this one, but the final sequence still involves a strange happening at a gravesite. Neither ending makes much sense if you think about it. They're there simply to create a final jump-scare, although I do think the original is creepier.
Chloe Moretz once again proves why she is one the best young actresses in the business today. To date, I don't think I've ever seen her give a bad performance. The movie she's in may be bummer, but she never is. And this role provides the opportunity for her to display a wide range of emotions.
She's convincing as both a timid, shy mouse and as a raging, emotional instrument of death and destruction. This isn't to say she was any better or worse than Sissy Spacek in the original. Both have stamped their mark on the character in my opinion.
Many have said this remake is totally unnecessary and I agree. It is unnecessary. No one was beating a drum for another version of Carrie. But despite that fact, I try to examine a movie on its own merits. Just because it's a rehash doesn't mean it isn't good. And, this updated version is good. I believe it is better than the original in some ways. There is a greater depiction of the character's incredible power. Carrie specifically targets her tormentors rather than setting the entire gymnasium and everyone in it ablaze. It tries to flesh out this lonely girl's character a little more much in the same way Rob Zombie fleshed out the character of Michael Myers in his remake of Halloween. It's not any better or worse than the original. It's just different. There's room for both movies in your imagination if you leave yourself open to the possibility.
More than fitting into the horror genre, Carrie is a kind of allegory on teen bullying and overparenting. It's easy to see why the girl snaps. Her mother's sheltering of her from life itself has made her a freak among her peers. She's an easy target to the type of cruelty children in general and teenagers, in particular, can heap upon those they consider weak. An even sadder affair is the love Carrie still has for her mother at the end after everything she has done and attempted to do to her daughter. Unfortunately, Margaret is all this sad young woman has ever known.
Even Margaret's character is given a little more depth here than in the original version. I can't say anything other than this woman is a total wreck of a human being. She frequently cuts herself and frequently locks her daughter in a closet to repent for her "sins." She did go through a serious trauma in her daughter's conception which has contributed to the ultra-conservative lifestyle she forces on Carrie and herself. She cares for her daughter but can't reconcile her desire to protect her from all sin and evil for Carrie's desire to live a normal life when she has the opportunity.
Carrie also works as a great revenge motif. Some may not go to the extremes she does to get even, but haven't we all wished someone who mistreated us would have his/her face smashed through a car windshield? No? Maybe it's just me. So, nevermind.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
*** 1/2 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Machete Kills
Reviews from the Dark Side presents
Machete Kills
Released 10/11/13, now in theaters
Oh, the humanity! And blood! And guts! And gore! And just about any other ridiculous scenario you could conceive! Yes, it's acclaimed director, Robert Rodriguez's follow up to his 2010 B-movie cult hit, Machete, which itself was fleshed out into a motion picture from a "fake" trailer in 2007's Grindhouse. But, this time...Machete Kills! OK, he kills in the first movie, too. But didn't that sound nice and cheesy?
Speaking of cheesy, that's the Machete series in a nutshell. For those not yet familiar with these movies, Machete (Danny Trejo) is an ex-Federale-turned-spy who is tougher than shoe leather, very skilled in the art of killing, and impossible to kill himself. And, he seems to get every beautiful woman in the film like James Bond.
So, what's left for our anti-hero to do after all of the death and carnage from the first film. Is there anyone left to kill? Of course, there is.
After an unfortunate incident involving his partner/love interest, Sartana (Jessica Alba), Machete is recruited by U.S. President, Rathcock (Charlie Sheen, or Carlos Estevez, or whatever he's calling himself these days. And yes that is his name in this movie). An insane ex-drug kingpin-turned-revolutionary, Mendez (Demian Bichir), has acquired a deadly missile that he has pointed squarely at Washington, D.C. Machete is sent to infiltrate Mendez's organization and kill him if he's a serious threat.
On this unbelievable road of chaos, he encounters several unusual people. There is his appointed handler who is only known as Miss San Antonio (Amber Heard). If you haven't guessed, her cover is competing as a pageant queen. There is Madame Desdemona (Sofia Vergara), the proprietor of a seedy brothel in Mexico. You probably won't recognize one of Desdemona's girls who goes by the name, Killjoy (Alexa Vega). Don't remember her? Check out any of the Spy Kids movies and prepare for your mind to be blown! How about the bounty hunter, El Camaleon or La Chamaleon? Oh, you think these are two different people? Well, they aren't, although Antonio Banderas, Cuba Gooding Jr., Walton Goggins, and Lady Gaga each take their crack at being this character. And, finally, there's Luther Voz (Mel Gibson). Luther, the true threat in the film, is an eccentric billionaire arms dealer who has launched a worldwide conspiracy to make the planet a giant crater.
Let's just get this out of the way now. This is one of the craziest, most idiotic movies you will see in your life! Seriously, there is actually a scene where Machete disembowels a bad guy and throws his intestines into a spinning helicopter blade allowing the blade to pull the still attached evildoer into its deadly rotation. That pretty much says it all about the over-the-top violence. Bad, bad, bad, and more bad. It's horrible, mind-numbing, adolescent and...funny as Hell! Made you think I hated Machete Kills, didn't I?
This is the first and only warning I will give those who read this review. This movie is made for a very specialized audience. It's for those who like their big explosions and gory death with a enormous slice of T&A. Machete Kills for all intents and purposes is an unlabeled comedy. The cartoonish violence, bad scene-chewing acting, and massive cleavage is all perpetrated by Rodriguez and company with tongues firmly in cheeks. And then, of course, there's Machete's habit of referring to himself in the third person ("Machete don't text"). This is a B-movie that revels in its lunacy, and for that , you have to give all involved credit.
So, with that said, I do recommend a movie that many will see as tripe. It's one of those movies that's so bad, it's good. So, drink it in Machete Kills. You have now reached the status of other "bad" classics such as Shoot 'Em Up, the 80's version of Flash Gordon, and your predecessor. Very high praise, indeed!
Until the release of Machete Kills Again...In Space (don't laugh, there was a trailer), this is the Dark Lord signing off.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
***1/4 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Machete Kills
Released 10/11/13, now in theaters
Oh, the humanity! And blood! And guts! And gore! And just about any other ridiculous scenario you could conceive! Yes, it's acclaimed director, Robert Rodriguez's follow up to his 2010 B-movie cult hit, Machete, which itself was fleshed out into a motion picture from a "fake" trailer in 2007's Grindhouse. But, this time...Machete Kills! OK, he kills in the first movie, too. But didn't that sound nice and cheesy?
Speaking of cheesy, that's the Machete series in a nutshell. For those not yet familiar with these movies, Machete (Danny Trejo) is an ex-Federale-turned-spy who is tougher than shoe leather, very skilled in the art of killing, and impossible to kill himself. And, he seems to get every beautiful woman in the film like James Bond.
So, what's left for our anti-hero to do after all of the death and carnage from the first film. Is there anyone left to kill? Of course, there is.
After an unfortunate incident involving his partner/love interest, Sartana (Jessica Alba), Machete is recruited by U.S. President, Rathcock (Charlie Sheen, or Carlos Estevez, or whatever he's calling himself these days. And yes that is his name in this movie). An insane ex-drug kingpin-turned-revolutionary, Mendez (Demian Bichir), has acquired a deadly missile that he has pointed squarely at Washington, D.C. Machete is sent to infiltrate Mendez's organization and kill him if he's a serious threat.
On this unbelievable road of chaos, he encounters several unusual people. There is his appointed handler who is only known as Miss San Antonio (Amber Heard). If you haven't guessed, her cover is competing as a pageant queen. There is Madame Desdemona (Sofia Vergara), the proprietor of a seedy brothel in Mexico. You probably won't recognize one of Desdemona's girls who goes by the name, Killjoy (Alexa Vega). Don't remember her? Check out any of the Spy Kids movies and prepare for your mind to be blown! How about the bounty hunter, El Camaleon or La Chamaleon? Oh, you think these are two different people? Well, they aren't, although Antonio Banderas, Cuba Gooding Jr., Walton Goggins, and Lady Gaga each take their crack at being this character. And, finally, there's Luther Voz (Mel Gibson). Luther, the true threat in the film, is an eccentric billionaire arms dealer who has launched a worldwide conspiracy to make the planet a giant crater.
Let's just get this out of the way now. This is one of the craziest, most idiotic movies you will see in your life! Seriously, there is actually a scene where Machete disembowels a bad guy and throws his intestines into a spinning helicopter blade allowing the blade to pull the still attached evildoer into its deadly rotation. That pretty much says it all about the over-the-top violence. Bad, bad, bad, and more bad. It's horrible, mind-numbing, adolescent and...funny as Hell! Made you think I hated Machete Kills, didn't I?
This is the first and only warning I will give those who read this review. This movie is made for a very specialized audience. It's for those who like their big explosions and gory death with a enormous slice of T&A. Machete Kills for all intents and purposes is an unlabeled comedy. The cartoonish violence, bad scene-chewing acting, and massive cleavage is all perpetrated by Rodriguez and company with tongues firmly in cheeks. And then, of course, there's Machete's habit of referring to himself in the third person ("Machete don't text"). This is a B-movie that revels in its lunacy, and for that , you have to give all involved credit.
So, with that said, I do recommend a movie that many will see as tripe. It's one of those movies that's so bad, it's good. So, drink it in Machete Kills. You have now reached the status of other "bad" classics such as Shoot 'Em Up, the 80's version of Flash Gordon, and your predecessor. Very high praise, indeed!
Until the release of Machete Kills Again...In Space (don't laugh, there was a trailer), this is the Dark Lord signing off.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
***1/4 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Prisoners
Reviews from the Dark Side presents
Prisoners
Released 9/20/13, now in theaters
Director, Denis Villeneuve, brings the crime thriller, Prisoners, to the big screen this weekend. If star power is an indication of success, Prisoners should be the best movie of the year starring the likes of Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Terrence Howard, Viola Davis, and Paul Dano. But alas, a great cast doesn't necessarily make a great movie. If fact, the results can be downright dreadful (hello, Seven Psychopaths). Prisoners is a very good, but not great thriller.
Meet Keller Dover (Jackman), a religious, somewhat humorless man with a wife and two children who owns a carpentry business. On a fateful Thanksgiving with their neighbor friends, the Birches (Howard and Davis), both families' youngest daughters disappear without a trace. The only lead is an old RV mysteriously parked in the neighborhood earlier that day that both children were playing around.
Enter Detective Loki (Gyllenhaal), a loner police detective who heads the case to locate the missing girls. He finds the RV and driver, Alex Jones (Dano). He arrests Alex when he panics and attempts to flee. So, the girls are found, the case is closed, and the movie ends. Aaahhh, if it were only that easy.
Two problems arise from Alex's arrest. One, he has the IQ of a 10-year old and rarely speaks. Two, there is no forensic evidence that the girls were forced in the RV. After determining that Alex doesn't have the intelligence to pull off a crime of this nature, the police are forced to let him go after 48 hours, much to the dismay of the Dovers and Birches. Keller takes the news particularly hard and confronts Alex at the police station upon his release. He's more crazed when Alex whispers a cryptic message to him indicating he does indeed know something about the girls' disappearance. He's never more sure that Alex has hidden the girls after witnessing a display between Alex and his aunt's dog while spying on him. So, what is a distraught father to do? If you're Keller Dover, you kidnap the suspect and torture the information out of him (putting your carpentry skills to good use). Unfortunately for Keller, while Alex might be very strange, he's not faking that low IQ. And while Keller desperately tries to unravel the mystery, the clock is ticking on the girls' survival if they are still alive.
Prisoners presents many feints and misdirections like most decent thrillers will. It's a little overlong at around two and half hours, and it doesn't always maintain the suspense. Seriously, I had my fill of scenes featuring Keller's wife being overly medicated to cope with the situation. The big reveal also left me a little flat. I think part of the reason for this is due to reading some early reviews comparing some the suspense and twists to Se7en. And to that I say, no way! Se7en left me stunned at the end. Prisoners left me mildly intrigued as to Keller Dover's ultimate fate, but that's about it. Honestly, after the reveal, the film became a little hokey and clichéd for me.
The best of Prisoners presents fascinating moral dilemma, and if you've read any of my other reviews, you know how I love these conundrums. It forces you to ask the question, "How far would you go?" Keller does some absolutely reprehensible things to Alex to coax information out of him. Keller's not a bad person. He's desperate. But again, Alex has the mentality of a child and doesn't completely understand what's happening. So, how far would you go to save a loved one? How much blood would you spill?
Hugh Jackman gives a good performance portraying grief mixed with seething anger. He does a little scenery chewing, but it fits his character. I didn't mind. The standout performer for me is Gyllenhaal as the somewhat disconnected Detective Loki. It's a very subtle performance amongst all the grief and posturing from the rest of the cast. You see his frustration and disillusionment at times with people and situations, but he usually maintains a calm focus amongst the craziness. I think it's one of Gyllenhaal's best performances.
Prisoners takes you on a wild ride for awhile, but it doesn't maintain the momentum for the full 146 minutes of air time. It presents a great moral dilemma but has a mediocre payoff. It's worth a viewing, but there is no rush.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
*** 1/4 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Prisoners
Released 9/20/13, now in theaters
Director, Denis Villeneuve, brings the crime thriller, Prisoners, to the big screen this weekend. If star power is an indication of success, Prisoners should be the best movie of the year starring the likes of Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Terrence Howard, Viola Davis, and Paul Dano. But alas, a great cast doesn't necessarily make a great movie. If fact, the results can be downright dreadful (hello, Seven Psychopaths). Prisoners is a very good, but not great thriller.
Meet Keller Dover (Jackman), a religious, somewhat humorless man with a wife and two children who owns a carpentry business. On a fateful Thanksgiving with their neighbor friends, the Birches (Howard and Davis), both families' youngest daughters disappear without a trace. The only lead is an old RV mysteriously parked in the neighborhood earlier that day that both children were playing around.
Enter Detective Loki (Gyllenhaal), a loner police detective who heads the case to locate the missing girls. He finds the RV and driver, Alex Jones (Dano). He arrests Alex when he panics and attempts to flee. So, the girls are found, the case is closed, and the movie ends. Aaahhh, if it were only that easy.
Two problems arise from Alex's arrest. One, he has the IQ of a 10-year old and rarely speaks. Two, there is no forensic evidence that the girls were forced in the RV. After determining that Alex doesn't have the intelligence to pull off a crime of this nature, the police are forced to let him go after 48 hours, much to the dismay of the Dovers and Birches. Keller takes the news particularly hard and confronts Alex at the police station upon his release. He's more crazed when Alex whispers a cryptic message to him indicating he does indeed know something about the girls' disappearance. He's never more sure that Alex has hidden the girls after witnessing a display between Alex and his aunt's dog while spying on him. So, what is a distraught father to do? If you're Keller Dover, you kidnap the suspect and torture the information out of him (putting your carpentry skills to good use). Unfortunately for Keller, while Alex might be very strange, he's not faking that low IQ. And while Keller desperately tries to unravel the mystery, the clock is ticking on the girls' survival if they are still alive.
Prisoners presents many feints and misdirections like most decent thrillers will. It's a little overlong at around two and half hours, and it doesn't always maintain the suspense. Seriously, I had my fill of scenes featuring Keller's wife being overly medicated to cope with the situation. The big reveal also left me a little flat. I think part of the reason for this is due to reading some early reviews comparing some the suspense and twists to Se7en. And to that I say, no way! Se7en left me stunned at the end. Prisoners left me mildly intrigued as to Keller Dover's ultimate fate, but that's about it. Honestly, after the reveal, the film became a little hokey and clichéd for me.
The best of Prisoners presents fascinating moral dilemma, and if you've read any of my other reviews, you know how I love these conundrums. It forces you to ask the question, "How far would you go?" Keller does some absolutely reprehensible things to Alex to coax information out of him. Keller's not a bad person. He's desperate. But again, Alex has the mentality of a child and doesn't completely understand what's happening. So, how far would you go to save a loved one? How much blood would you spill?
Hugh Jackman gives a good performance portraying grief mixed with seething anger. He does a little scenery chewing, but it fits his character. I didn't mind. The standout performer for me is Gyllenhaal as the somewhat disconnected Detective Loki. It's a very subtle performance amongst all the grief and posturing from the rest of the cast. You see his frustration and disillusionment at times with people and situations, but he usually maintains a calm focus amongst the craziness. I think it's one of Gyllenhaal's best performances.
Prisoners takes you on a wild ride for awhile, but it doesn't maintain the momentum for the full 146 minutes of air time. It presents a great moral dilemma but has a mediocre payoff. It's worth a viewing, but there is no rush.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
*** 1/4 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Monday, September 16, 2013
The Family
Reviews from the Dark Side presents
The Family
Released 9/13/13, now in theaters
French action director extraordinaire, Luc Besson, brings The Family to the big screen this weekend. Robert DeNiro and Michelle Pfeiffer lead the cast that tells the tale of the Maznoni family. Besson is not known for comedy, so, I wasn't quite sure what to expect. The trailers did show a certain amount of hilarity, so, I was willing to give the director the benefit of the doubt.
Giovanni Maznoni (DeNiro) is a former mafia boss who was placed in the Witness Protection Program with his family several years ago after his actions sent a Don Luchese to prison. Under the supervision of FBI Agent Stansfield (Tommy Lee Jones), Giovanni, his wife, Maggie (Pfeiffer), his daughter, Belle (Dianna Agron), and his son, Warren (John D'Leo), have been relocated several times due to their mob tendencies exposing them to danger. This latest relocation lands the family in Normandy, France, under the fake identities of the Blakes. It isn't long before the Blakes are up to their old habits from Maggie blowing up the local supermarket to Warren wheeling and dealing in several shady commodities at school. These and other unfortunate events once again draw unwanted attention to the family. It brings so much attention that Don Luchese's hitmen are able to catch up to them once more leading to a huge confrontation the "Blakes" may not survive.
Unfortunately, The Family might have been a very good action thriller if Besson had gone in that direction. If anything, I think this establishes that Besson isn't as adept at comedy. I would call The Family mildly amusing at best. The funniest parts of the film are seen in the trailer. It just didn't push the envelope enough on the comedy in my opinion.
There were also parts that didn't fit the characters' personalities. Take Belle, for example. She becomes involved (very involved) with a college student teaching at her school. After he rejects her, she makes preparations to commit suicide. Now, I know what you're thinking. It's a typical teenage overreaction to a stressful situation. The only problem is the audience sees Belle easily dispatching a teenage boy who "wants to get to know her better" with a tennis racket, beating another girl mercilessly for stealing from her, and going into complete Terminator mode in the finale when the hitmen enter the Blakes' home. This is a girl who would fret to point of becoming suicidal because she gave her virginity to a jerk? I didn't buy it. Somehow, I would think a mobster's daughter would be a little more worldly and together.
As for the other main actors, Robert DeNiro was good as the family patriarch who seems slightly guilt-ridden about his past (although he will never admit it). It's a good performance, but nothing you haven't seen him do in his many mafia driven movies of the past. Michelle Pfeiffer is amusing as Maggie. She tries so hard to be normal, but, those mafia tendencies of dealing harshly with things that annoy you keep coming to the surface. Tommy Lee Jones gives his usual dialog of biting sarcasm, but, it just seems like he's searching for something to do here. He's a bit of an afterthought.
Overall, The Family is a decent watch. I was just expecting to like it more based on the trailers. It changes tone several times and the pieces don't fit neatly all the time. You'll enjoy yourself more if you don't pay theater prices.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
*** stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
The Family
Released 9/13/13, now in theaters
French action director extraordinaire, Luc Besson, brings The Family to the big screen this weekend. Robert DeNiro and Michelle Pfeiffer lead the cast that tells the tale of the Maznoni family. Besson is not known for comedy, so, I wasn't quite sure what to expect. The trailers did show a certain amount of hilarity, so, I was willing to give the director the benefit of the doubt.
Giovanni Maznoni (DeNiro) is a former mafia boss who was placed in the Witness Protection Program with his family several years ago after his actions sent a Don Luchese to prison. Under the supervision of FBI Agent Stansfield (Tommy Lee Jones), Giovanni, his wife, Maggie (Pfeiffer), his daughter, Belle (Dianna Agron), and his son, Warren (John D'Leo), have been relocated several times due to their mob tendencies exposing them to danger. This latest relocation lands the family in Normandy, France, under the fake identities of the Blakes. It isn't long before the Blakes are up to their old habits from Maggie blowing up the local supermarket to Warren wheeling and dealing in several shady commodities at school. These and other unfortunate events once again draw unwanted attention to the family. It brings so much attention that Don Luchese's hitmen are able to catch up to them once more leading to a huge confrontation the "Blakes" may not survive.
Unfortunately, The Family might have been a very good action thriller if Besson had gone in that direction. If anything, I think this establishes that Besson isn't as adept at comedy. I would call The Family mildly amusing at best. The funniest parts of the film are seen in the trailer. It just didn't push the envelope enough on the comedy in my opinion.
There were also parts that didn't fit the characters' personalities. Take Belle, for example. She becomes involved (very involved) with a college student teaching at her school. After he rejects her, she makes preparations to commit suicide. Now, I know what you're thinking. It's a typical teenage overreaction to a stressful situation. The only problem is the audience sees Belle easily dispatching a teenage boy who "wants to get to know her better" with a tennis racket, beating another girl mercilessly for stealing from her, and going into complete Terminator mode in the finale when the hitmen enter the Blakes' home. This is a girl who would fret to point of becoming suicidal because she gave her virginity to a jerk? I didn't buy it. Somehow, I would think a mobster's daughter would be a little more worldly and together.
As for the other main actors, Robert DeNiro was good as the family patriarch who seems slightly guilt-ridden about his past (although he will never admit it). It's a good performance, but nothing you haven't seen him do in his many mafia driven movies of the past. Michelle Pfeiffer is amusing as Maggie. She tries so hard to be normal, but, those mafia tendencies of dealing harshly with things that annoy you keep coming to the surface. Tommy Lee Jones gives his usual dialog of biting sarcasm, but, it just seems like he's searching for something to do here. He's a bit of an afterthought.
Overall, The Family is a decent watch. I was just expecting to like it more based on the trailers. It changes tone several times and the pieces don't fit neatly all the time. You'll enjoy yourself more if you don't pay theater prices.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
*** stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Insidious, Chapter 2
Reviews from the Dark Side presents
Insidious, Chapter 2
Released 9/13/13, now in theaters
One sure fire thing that usually dooms a sequel is lack of continuity among the creative teams. You know. Sequels inexplicably change the writer and/or director of the original and you usually end up with something not as good (X-Men: Last Stand rings a bell). I don't know what will happen to subsequent sequels of Insidious, but, at least for Insidious, Chapter 2, James Wan returns as director and Leigh Whannell returns as the screenwriter. Rose Byrne, Patrick Wilson, Barbara Hershey, and Lin Shaye all reprise their roles from Insidious as well. What you get is an attempt to flesh out the events of the first film with a feeling of coherence.
*****SPOILER ALERT*****
If you haven't seen Insidious and are interested in doing so, skip the next paragraph
Chapter 2 picks up almost immediately after Chapter 1. After paranormal investigator, Elise Reiner (Shaye), is killed by a seemingly possessed Josh Lambert (Wilson) at the end of the first movie, the Lambert family comes under investigation by the local police. Josh, his wife, Renai (Byrne), and their three children move in temporarily with his mother, Lorraine (Hershey), while Forensics tears apart their own house. It's immediately apparent that something has followed them as Renai and Lorraine begin seeing apparitions in the house. And Josh is surprisingly calm about everything. As atmosphere becomes increasingly foreboding, it's obvious that Josh isn't quite himself and is quite possibly, someone else. So where is the real Josh? When he entered the realm of evil souls called "The Further" to rescue his son in Insidious, he came face to face with several evil, dead spirits. Is it the shadowy old woman who has haunted him since childhood? Or, is there something even more malevolent behind her making a last attempt to latch on to the land of the living? The Lamberts and their paranormal detective allies (including spirit Elise) need to unravel the mystery fast before everyone is permanently sent to "The Further."
Insidious, Chapter 2 has a nice steady pacing like its predecessor. You don't have to wait almost an hour before it tries to scare the Hell out of you. That's a good and bad thing. It's good because you will stay engaged throughout. It's bad because many of the jump-scares are pretty much what you saw in Insidious. Chapter 2 definitely has a creep factor, but not so much a scare factor.
The powers that be have left Chapter 2 open for another sequel which I'm not sure is good or bad. Wann and Whannell have managed to create a tight story with the first two installments. Again, I fear if these two don't stay on the project, this series can run off the rails quickly. A new family has been introduced in Chapter 2, so there is the opportunity to follow a different path. I just don't know how much story is left. The Lamberts were haunted for a specific reason. So, the ghouls in "The Further" have a beef with everyone? I'm not sure how this is going to work. But, I never thought the Saw series could possibly have enough story for seven installments either.
I liked Insidious, Chapter 2, but didn't love it. I give credit to Wann and Whannell for building upon the events from Chapter 1 and making a plausible story (although the resolution of Chapter 2 leaves something to be desired). But, ultimately, you aren't going to see anything different than you saw in Chapter 1. It's a good watch, but a watch you can wait for.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
***1/4 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Insidious, Chapter 2
Released 9/13/13, now in theaters
One sure fire thing that usually dooms a sequel is lack of continuity among the creative teams. You know. Sequels inexplicably change the writer and/or director of the original and you usually end up with something not as good (X-Men: Last Stand rings a bell). I don't know what will happen to subsequent sequels of Insidious, but, at least for Insidious, Chapter 2, James Wan returns as director and Leigh Whannell returns as the screenwriter. Rose Byrne, Patrick Wilson, Barbara Hershey, and Lin Shaye all reprise their roles from Insidious as well. What you get is an attempt to flesh out the events of the first film with a feeling of coherence.
*****SPOILER ALERT*****
If you haven't seen Insidious and are interested in doing so, skip the next paragraph
Chapter 2 picks up almost immediately after Chapter 1. After paranormal investigator, Elise Reiner (Shaye), is killed by a seemingly possessed Josh Lambert (Wilson) at the end of the first movie, the Lambert family comes under investigation by the local police. Josh, his wife, Renai (Byrne), and their three children move in temporarily with his mother, Lorraine (Hershey), while Forensics tears apart their own house. It's immediately apparent that something has followed them as Renai and Lorraine begin seeing apparitions in the house. And Josh is surprisingly calm about everything. As atmosphere becomes increasingly foreboding, it's obvious that Josh isn't quite himself and is quite possibly, someone else. So where is the real Josh? When he entered the realm of evil souls called "The Further" to rescue his son in Insidious, he came face to face with several evil, dead spirits. Is it the shadowy old woman who has haunted him since childhood? Or, is there something even more malevolent behind her making a last attempt to latch on to the land of the living? The Lamberts and their paranormal detective allies (including spirit Elise) need to unravel the mystery fast before everyone is permanently sent to "The Further."
Insidious, Chapter 2 has a nice steady pacing like its predecessor. You don't have to wait almost an hour before it tries to scare the Hell out of you. That's a good and bad thing. It's good because you will stay engaged throughout. It's bad because many of the jump-scares are pretty much what you saw in Insidious. Chapter 2 definitely has a creep factor, but not so much a scare factor.
The powers that be have left Chapter 2 open for another sequel which I'm not sure is good or bad. Wann and Whannell have managed to create a tight story with the first two installments. Again, I fear if these two don't stay on the project, this series can run off the rails quickly. A new family has been introduced in Chapter 2, so there is the opportunity to follow a different path. I just don't know how much story is left. The Lamberts were haunted for a specific reason. So, the ghouls in "The Further" have a beef with everyone? I'm not sure how this is going to work. But, I never thought the Saw series could possibly have enough story for seven installments either.
I liked Insidious, Chapter 2, but didn't love it. I give credit to Wann and Whannell for building upon the events from Chapter 1 and making a plausible story (although the resolution of Chapter 2 leaves something to be desired). But, ultimately, you aren't going to see anything different than you saw in Chapter 1. It's a good watch, but a watch you can wait for.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
***1/4 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Riddick
Reviews from the Dark Side presents
Riddick
Released 9/6/13, now in theaters
Vin Diesel returns as everyone's favorite glowing-eyed antihero in this week's release of Riddick. This is Diesel's third turn as the titular character following 2000's Pitch Black and 2005's The Chronicles of Riddick. So, this third installment is the rubber match for me in determining if the character truly has any legs going forward as Pitch Black was a surprisingly good sci-fi horror film even if it did borrow (a lot) from Alien. The franchise completely fell off the beam with COR, a film that couldn't have been more different than Pitch Black (in a bad way) with its story of nigh unstoppable world conquerors marauding through space.
One thing I have to say about director, David Twohy, is that he has managed to tie the series together with a neat explanation. It would have been easy to dismiss COR as something that never happened (a la Highlander 2). But, he does incorporate how Riddick turned from king to space fugitive again. And, mercifully, one 5-6 minute recounting of events is the only reference to the second installment. Do you get the sense I really didn't like COR?
The film opens with the king/intergalactic criminal stranded and left for dead on an unknown hostile world. As events were left in COR, Riddick (Diesel) became the king of a galactic army of religious conquerors called the Necromongers (didn't make that up). However, his new followers weren't pleased when it became clear their new king was not interested in conquest. His one burning desire was to find and return to his homeworld of Furya. Deceiving Riddick by taking him to a planet they claimed was Furya, the Necromongers betray him and leave him on the planet after making an attempt on his life. Despite being badly injured, Riddick is able to survive several attacks by this world's many indigenous animal species through sheer will.
Riddick learns to thrive on this new world until a turn of events makes it imperative he gets off planet asap. His only hope is to activate a homing beacon he finds at an abandoned mercenary outpost. But the beacon is going to bring bounty hunters; it's not a good situation for someone who is wanted dead or alive (preferably dead) by most of the known universe.
So, I am happy to say that Riddick follows the lead of Pitch Black rather than that of COR. Riddick returns to the roots of what made the first film an interesting watch. A world filled with ugly vicious beasties are pitted against the most ruthless killer in the galaxy. It's a simple premise, but it works thanks to Diesel. No action star does a slow burn of underlying "badass-ery" quite like him. And, he looks and sounds cool doing it. The other great thing about Diesel in these tough guy roles is he seems to have a sense of humor about the absurdity of it all as he usually delivers eye-rolling one liners with a wry grin.
There is plenty of visceral, bone-crunching action throughout Riddick which I know is what the action junkies are waiting to hear. Katee Sackhoff is a nice addition to the cast as part of the security team that comes to interrogate Riddick. She's very good in action roles. Dave Bautista (for you wrestling fans out there) is a giant hulk of a mercenary.
My general complaint about Riddick isn't really a complaint. It's merely an observation. The final act of the film is almost a complete rip-off of Pitch Black. It's not a bad thing mind you as I previously stated that I thought COR came completely out of left field. It's just that Twohy, who has directed all three movies in the series, hasn't yet found that happy medium of placing the character of Riddick outside of a one note type of atmosphere. We already knew that Pitch Black worked. Did it have to be revisited? Can we put Riddick in a situation that fits the type of character he is without completely jumping off the ledge by throwing in religious world conquerors? I hope the balance is found in future installments.
While you will have the sense that you have seen parts of Riddick before, its undeniably a step back in the right direction for this franchise. It does what it is meant to do. It entertains, and that's the important takeaway here.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
***1/2 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Riddick
Released 9/6/13, now in theaters
Vin Diesel returns as everyone's favorite glowing-eyed antihero in this week's release of Riddick. This is Diesel's third turn as the titular character following 2000's Pitch Black and 2005's The Chronicles of Riddick. So, this third installment is the rubber match for me in determining if the character truly has any legs going forward as Pitch Black was a surprisingly good sci-fi horror film even if it did borrow (a lot) from Alien. The franchise completely fell off the beam with COR, a film that couldn't have been more different than Pitch Black (in a bad way) with its story of nigh unstoppable world conquerors marauding through space.
One thing I have to say about director, David Twohy, is that he has managed to tie the series together with a neat explanation. It would have been easy to dismiss COR as something that never happened (a la Highlander 2). But, he does incorporate how Riddick turned from king to space fugitive again. And, mercifully, one 5-6 minute recounting of events is the only reference to the second installment. Do you get the sense I really didn't like COR?
The film opens with the king/intergalactic criminal stranded and left for dead on an unknown hostile world. As events were left in COR, Riddick (Diesel) became the king of a galactic army of religious conquerors called the Necromongers (didn't make that up). However, his new followers weren't pleased when it became clear their new king was not interested in conquest. His one burning desire was to find and return to his homeworld of Furya. Deceiving Riddick by taking him to a planet they claimed was Furya, the Necromongers betray him and leave him on the planet after making an attempt on his life. Despite being badly injured, Riddick is able to survive several attacks by this world's many indigenous animal species through sheer will.
Riddick learns to thrive on this new world until a turn of events makes it imperative he gets off planet asap. His only hope is to activate a homing beacon he finds at an abandoned mercenary outpost. But the beacon is going to bring bounty hunters; it's not a good situation for someone who is wanted dead or alive (preferably dead) by most of the known universe.
So, I am happy to say that Riddick follows the lead of Pitch Black rather than that of COR. Riddick returns to the roots of what made the first film an interesting watch. A world filled with ugly vicious beasties are pitted against the most ruthless killer in the galaxy. It's a simple premise, but it works thanks to Diesel. No action star does a slow burn of underlying "badass-ery" quite like him. And, he looks and sounds cool doing it. The other great thing about Diesel in these tough guy roles is he seems to have a sense of humor about the absurdity of it all as he usually delivers eye-rolling one liners with a wry grin.
There is plenty of visceral, bone-crunching action throughout Riddick which I know is what the action junkies are waiting to hear. Katee Sackhoff is a nice addition to the cast as part of the security team that comes to interrogate Riddick. She's very good in action roles. Dave Bautista (for you wrestling fans out there) is a giant hulk of a mercenary.
My general complaint about Riddick isn't really a complaint. It's merely an observation. The final act of the film is almost a complete rip-off of Pitch Black. It's not a bad thing mind you as I previously stated that I thought COR came completely out of left field. It's just that Twohy, who has directed all three movies in the series, hasn't yet found that happy medium of placing the character of Riddick outside of a one note type of atmosphere. We already knew that Pitch Black worked. Did it have to be revisited? Can we put Riddick in a situation that fits the type of character he is without completely jumping off the ledge by throwing in religious world conquerors? I hope the balance is found in future installments.
While you will have the sense that you have seen parts of Riddick before, its undeniably a step back in the right direction for this franchise. It does what it is meant to do. It entertains, and that's the important takeaway here.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
***1/2 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
The World's End
Reviews from the Dark Side presents
The World's End
Released 8/23/13, now in theaters
Those whacko Brits, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost team up for the third time with director, Edgar Wright in the sci-fi comedy, The World's End. After the success of both Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, the pressure is on these three to end this pseudo trilogy with a bang. Is there enough energy left in this comedic tank to do so? That is the question.
Almost from the beginning, it's obvious The World's End does not have the kind of inspired lunacy of the other movies. Try as they might, the cast just seems to be searching for jokes that work. Some of them do. Seriously, it would be hard for the team of Pegg and Frost to be totally unfunny. But many times I simply felt mild amusement and not the sidesplitting laughs I'm used to when watching this duo onscreen.
The story begins with Gary King (Pegg) recalling his younger teenage days spent with his four good friends, Peter (Eddie Marsan), Oliver (Martin Freeman), Steven (Paddy Considine), and Andy (Frost). Gary, an addict, quickly realizes as he is speaking to his support group that one of his greatest regrets is not completing the legendary Golden Mile with his mates years ago. The Mile is a pub crawl encompassing 12 bars in their hometown of Newton Haven. Through manipulation and lies, Gary is able to convince his now estranged buddies to take up the challenge again determined to drink his last pint at the final bar on the tour, The World's End.
Gary and crew begin their journey but they are not met with the hero's welcome Gary thinks they should have upon the group's return to Newton Haven after more than a decade's absence. In fact the people in town are a little strange. They get off to a good start in the first three bars and are joined briefly by Oliver's sister, Sam (Rosamund Pike), who had a fling with Gary when they were teens, much to the chagrin of Steven who has always secretly loved her. Things go awry at the fourth pub when Gary gets into a brawl with a teenager who is much stronger than he should be. The brawl escalates to include the remainder of the group where they all discover there might be something not so human about the residents of Newton Hall any longer. But, despite a possible apocalypse, Gary is still Hellbent on reaching The World's End by the end of the night!
So, my thoughts are why would seemingly successful, professional people follow the lead of someone who is stuck in a timewarp from over a decade prior and gives no indication of leaving it? Gary is a hedonistic party animal who was an untrustworthy liar when they were all teens. He proves he's an untrustworthy liar when he re-enters their lives. It doesn't really matter how good natured he is. He's trouble. This reminds me of The Hangover series in the sense that the other characters always allowed Zach Galifianakis' man-child to hang around. Again, the guy is nothing but trouble. Ah, but I guess we couldn't progress the story without people being stupid right? It just doesn't make much sense to me. But maybe it's not supposed to make sense and it simply is what it is.
When Gary and Andy finally arrive at The World's End, the movie takes an unexpected turn for the melodramatic as the audience is given a brief look into the demons that are haunting Gary. It's not a bad scene between the two. It just felt a little weird and awkward that this type of somberness invaded a movie this silly. A movie that again I felt was sometimes trying and failing to find its comedic footing in the first place.
The World's End isn't a bad component of this aforementioned trio of films. But, it is clearly inferior to both Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. It's funny, but not raucously so. It's worth a viewing, but I would have been more satisfied not paying theater prices to see it. This one is more of a renter than an owner if you know what I mean.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
***1/4 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
The World's End
Released 8/23/13, now in theaters
Those whacko Brits, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost team up for the third time with director, Edgar Wright in the sci-fi comedy, The World's End. After the success of both Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, the pressure is on these three to end this pseudo trilogy with a bang. Is there enough energy left in this comedic tank to do so? That is the question.
Almost from the beginning, it's obvious The World's End does not have the kind of inspired lunacy of the other movies. Try as they might, the cast just seems to be searching for jokes that work. Some of them do. Seriously, it would be hard for the team of Pegg and Frost to be totally unfunny. But many times I simply felt mild amusement and not the sidesplitting laughs I'm used to when watching this duo onscreen.
The story begins with Gary King (Pegg) recalling his younger teenage days spent with his four good friends, Peter (Eddie Marsan), Oliver (Martin Freeman), Steven (Paddy Considine), and Andy (Frost). Gary, an addict, quickly realizes as he is speaking to his support group that one of his greatest regrets is not completing the legendary Golden Mile with his mates years ago. The Mile is a pub crawl encompassing 12 bars in their hometown of Newton Haven. Through manipulation and lies, Gary is able to convince his now estranged buddies to take up the challenge again determined to drink his last pint at the final bar on the tour, The World's End.
Gary and crew begin their journey but they are not met with the hero's welcome Gary thinks they should have upon the group's return to Newton Haven after more than a decade's absence. In fact the people in town are a little strange. They get off to a good start in the first three bars and are joined briefly by Oliver's sister, Sam (Rosamund Pike), who had a fling with Gary when they were teens, much to the chagrin of Steven who has always secretly loved her. Things go awry at the fourth pub when Gary gets into a brawl with a teenager who is much stronger than he should be. The brawl escalates to include the remainder of the group where they all discover there might be something not so human about the residents of Newton Hall any longer. But, despite a possible apocalypse, Gary is still Hellbent on reaching The World's End by the end of the night!
So, my thoughts are why would seemingly successful, professional people follow the lead of someone who is stuck in a timewarp from over a decade prior and gives no indication of leaving it? Gary is a hedonistic party animal who was an untrustworthy liar when they were all teens. He proves he's an untrustworthy liar when he re-enters their lives. It doesn't really matter how good natured he is. He's trouble. This reminds me of The Hangover series in the sense that the other characters always allowed Zach Galifianakis' man-child to hang around. Again, the guy is nothing but trouble. Ah, but I guess we couldn't progress the story without people being stupid right? It just doesn't make much sense to me. But maybe it's not supposed to make sense and it simply is what it is.
When Gary and Andy finally arrive at The World's End, the movie takes an unexpected turn for the melodramatic as the audience is given a brief look into the demons that are haunting Gary. It's not a bad scene between the two. It just felt a little weird and awkward that this type of somberness invaded a movie this silly. A movie that again I felt was sometimes trying and failing to find its comedic footing in the first place.
The World's End isn't a bad component of this aforementioned trio of films. But, it is clearly inferior to both Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. It's funny, but not raucously so. It's worth a viewing, but I would have been more satisfied not paying theater prices to see it. This one is more of a renter than an owner if you know what I mean.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
***1/4 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
You're Next
Reviews from the Dark Side presents
You're Next
Released 8/23/13, now in theaters
Home invasion movies, like most sub-genres of horror, have very little that's new to offer. Sure, there are some that amp up the creep factor like the very underrated, The Strangers. But, those seem to be few and far between. That is what intrigued me about this week's release of You're Next. From the first trailers I saw months ago, I was hooked. I knew this was something I had to see. Of course, this can also be a curse if You're Next turns out to be a huge letdown.
One thing I can say about director, Adam Wingard, is that he does have a flair for the absurd. He also directed "Tape 56" segment in last year's underrated V/H/S. You're Next is a crazy blend of visceral gore and unsettling dark humor. And while the film doesn't necessarily break any new ground, it works incredibly well as pure, naked entertainment.
You're Next follows the Davison family as they converge on their remote vacation house for laughter and good times. Not all, however, is rosy between all family members that include the patriarch and matriarch (Paul and Aubrey), their adult children (Drake, Crispian, Felix, and Aimee), and the children's significant others (Erin, Zee, Tariq, and Kelly). Bad feelings begin to come to a head at the dinner table one night. However, before the family can come to blows, they discover they have a larger problem. Three masked killers wearing animal masks are lurking outside, and they make their presence known in a murderous way (poor Tariq). The killers use a signal jammer to block all cell phones essentially trapping the Davisons in the house with no hope of rescue, particularly from the closest neighbor who the killers take care of in the first minutes of the film. So, why are the killers doing this? True, the Davisons are well off. Is it all about money? Is there a vendetta held here? The family has to find the answer quickly as they are systematically being hunted. However, in a surprising twist, the Davisons may have some aid within the house as one of their own may be the most talented killer of all!
The standout performer here is Sharni Vinson as Erin. I don't know much about her as her most noteworthy credits appear to be an Australian soap opera and Step Up 3D (guess why I don't know much about her). But, she undergoes a transformation that keeps You're Next from becoming a standard run-of-the-mill horror movie. Sure, it still has some of the same horror clichés that most movies in the genre have, but there is a wicked sense of humor among the gore that will have you smiling as the blood is splattering. If you've been waiting for a scary movie where the victim fights back with a vengeance, this is the one for you.
On the Sinister-o-meter, I would say You're Next registers about an 8. It's not that it's particularly chilling, but it gets points in my book for having prey that fights back. And by fights back, I mean someone who coldly and calculatingly knows how to do it. It also gets points for its dark humor. It's not humor in the same sense as Evil Dead II or Army of Darkness (which I consider more comedy in some cases) because you still have to keep in mind that people are dying horribly. It's humor that usually stems from over the top violence.
You're Next is not a down to your soul creepy movie. But, what it lacks in full-on actual scares, it more than makes up for in sheer entertainment value. It's a movie I intend to add to my horror collection when the time comes. And could there be a more perfect name for a horror movie?
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
*** 3/4 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
You're Next
Released 8/23/13, now in theaters
Home invasion movies, like most sub-genres of horror, have very little that's new to offer. Sure, there are some that amp up the creep factor like the very underrated, The Strangers. But, those seem to be few and far between. That is what intrigued me about this week's release of You're Next. From the first trailers I saw months ago, I was hooked. I knew this was something I had to see. Of course, this can also be a curse if You're Next turns out to be a huge letdown.
One thing I can say about director, Adam Wingard, is that he does have a flair for the absurd. He also directed "Tape 56" segment in last year's underrated V/H/S. You're Next is a crazy blend of visceral gore and unsettling dark humor. And while the film doesn't necessarily break any new ground, it works incredibly well as pure, naked entertainment.
You're Next follows the Davison family as they converge on their remote vacation house for laughter and good times. Not all, however, is rosy between all family members that include the patriarch and matriarch (Paul and Aubrey), their adult children (Drake, Crispian, Felix, and Aimee), and the children's significant others (Erin, Zee, Tariq, and Kelly). Bad feelings begin to come to a head at the dinner table one night. However, before the family can come to blows, they discover they have a larger problem. Three masked killers wearing animal masks are lurking outside, and they make their presence known in a murderous way (poor Tariq). The killers use a signal jammer to block all cell phones essentially trapping the Davisons in the house with no hope of rescue, particularly from the closest neighbor who the killers take care of in the first minutes of the film. So, why are the killers doing this? True, the Davisons are well off. Is it all about money? Is there a vendetta held here? The family has to find the answer quickly as they are systematically being hunted. However, in a surprising twist, the Davisons may have some aid within the house as one of their own may be the most talented killer of all!
The standout performer here is Sharni Vinson as Erin. I don't know much about her as her most noteworthy credits appear to be an Australian soap opera and Step Up 3D (guess why I don't know much about her). But, she undergoes a transformation that keeps You're Next from becoming a standard run-of-the-mill horror movie. Sure, it still has some of the same horror clichés that most movies in the genre have, but there is a wicked sense of humor among the gore that will have you smiling as the blood is splattering. If you've been waiting for a scary movie where the victim fights back with a vengeance, this is the one for you.
On the Sinister-o-meter, I would say You're Next registers about an 8. It's not that it's particularly chilling, but it gets points in my book for having prey that fights back. And by fights back, I mean someone who coldly and calculatingly knows how to do it. It also gets points for its dark humor. It's not humor in the same sense as Evil Dead II or Army of Darkness (which I consider more comedy in some cases) because you still have to keep in mind that people are dying horribly. It's humor that usually stems from over the top violence.
You're Next is not a down to your soul creepy movie. But, what it lacks in full-on actual scares, it more than makes up for in sheer entertainment value. It's a movie I intend to add to my horror collection when the time comes. And could there be a more perfect name for a horror movie?
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
*** 3/4 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Kick-Ass 2
Reviews from the Dark Side presents
Kick-Ass 2
Released 8/16/13, now in theaters
The ultra-violent, wickedly funny comic book series from Mark Millar and John Romita, Jr. is the latest 2013 film to get the sequel treatment this week in Kick-Ass 2. The sequel is a mash-up of Millar's and Romita's Kick-Ass 2 and Hit-Girl mini-series, and of course it's the follow up to the 2010 cult favorite movie, Kick-Ass. Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Chloe Grace Moretz, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse (what's with all the 3-word names) reprise their roles from the first film. Jim Carrey is the major new addition to the cast this time around as the irreverent and brutal, Colonel Stars and Stripes.
As with the first movie, several liberties are taken with the story of Kick-Ass 2. So, purists beware. It's not exactly like the comic. And while I count myself among the purists at times, the changes in Kick-Ass 2 aren't necessarily a bad thing.
We find our somewhat hapless high school hero, Dave Lizewski (Taylor-Johnson), coaxed into resuming his costumed career by his sometime ally, Mindy Macready (Moretz), aka, the brutal teen vigilante, Hit-Girl. But, Dave usually takes more of a beating than he gives, so Mindy agrees to train him with some hilarious results. However, Mindy becomes torn between continuing her promise to her deceased father to defend the city and her desire to please her guardian, Marcus (Morris Chestnut), by retiring her vigilante persona. Eventually, Marcus wins out after catching Mindy in costume, and the teen hero reluctantly retires to live a normal life leaving Kick-Ass without a partner.
Dave isn't left alone for very long as he soon falls in with a group of do-gooders codenamed, Justice Forever, led by ex-mafia enforcer-turned born again Christian, Sal Bertolinni. Sal now goes by the moniker Colonel Stars and Stripes. These would be heroes have been inspired to fight the good fight by Kick-Ass' example.
Meanwhile, Chris D'Amico (Mintz-Plasse), has become obsessed with making Kick-Ass pay for the murder of his father by way of bazooka from the first film. He has abandoned the faux superhero persona of Red Mist that he created. Through a series of events that further unhinges him and through the assistance of his right hand man, Javier (John Leguizamo), D'Amico assembles his own team of not so super, but deadly villains, and adopts the new name of...The Mother$#%*@. Together with his hired thugs, D'Amico is determined to lay waste to everything and everyone Kick-Ass cares for.
Kick-Ass 2 has been getting a rough ride critically and I'm not exactly sure why. It has all of the ingredients that made the first one so fun to watch. It's as much a testament to bad taste as the first film. And I can say that having read the both the Kick-Ass 2 and Hit-Girl mini-series myself, director, Jeff Wadlow, has done a more than credible job of mashing both of those stories together. Much of the criticisms I've read seem to stem from an unfamiliarity with the source material. Admittedly, a movie of this nature with its blinding and sometimes sickening violence and toilet humor may not be for everyone no matter how knowledgeable you are with the story's origin.
And is it any surprise that once again Chloe Moretz steals this show again as Hit-Girl? Moretz is still the same swearing little ninja dynamo she was in the first movie, but she also show's an unexpected vulnerability as she's trying to lead a normal life. She isn't all about swords and spinning kicks. She can be emotionally hurt by the cruelty of other teenagers just like anybody else.
In contrast to the film's offbeat comedic tone, it takes a decidedly dark turn when D'Amico forms his group. People begin dying in gruesome ways that some may find objectionable. As I stated before, I think that might be the problem that viewers have with it if they're not familiar with the Millar/Romita story. For anyone who does have a problem with the extreme violence depicted here, I will tell you that Wadlow did show some restraint. There are scenes that aren't nearly as graphic as they were in the mini-series. I wonder if Jim Carrey was aware of that when he recently pulled his version of a Katherine Heigl and came out against Kick-Ass 2. It's a shame as it kind of colors my opinion of his nice performance for the brief time he's involved. Carrey is in need of a hit badly and this could possibly be one. You have to wonder what he'll say if Kick-Ass 2 does take off.
Kick-Ass 2 should delight fans of its predecessor. Strip down its over-the-top violence and cursing and you have a story of people who just want to make a difference in the world. Of course there are better ways to make a difference than trying to be a superhero, but that's the point of both movies. These people aren't special in any way other than having a willingness to do something about the injustice they see. Most have no special training or high tech weapons. They definitely don't have super powers. The danger of them getting seriously hurt or dying a bloody death in the street is very real. This is one of the objections I had with last year's The Dark Knight Rises as its implied that there is a Batman in all of us. That's wrong. Not everyone is Bruce Wayne. Not everyone can do what he does or has the means to do what he does. Anyone can't be Batman. I do, however, think anyone could be Kick-Ass.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
***3/4 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Kick-Ass 2
Released 8/16/13, now in theaters
The ultra-violent, wickedly funny comic book series from Mark Millar and John Romita, Jr. is the latest 2013 film to get the sequel treatment this week in Kick-Ass 2. The sequel is a mash-up of Millar's and Romita's Kick-Ass 2 and Hit-Girl mini-series, and of course it's the follow up to the 2010 cult favorite movie, Kick-Ass. Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Chloe Grace Moretz, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse (what's with all the 3-word names) reprise their roles from the first film. Jim Carrey is the major new addition to the cast this time around as the irreverent and brutal, Colonel Stars and Stripes.
As with the first movie, several liberties are taken with the story of Kick-Ass 2. So, purists beware. It's not exactly like the comic. And while I count myself among the purists at times, the changes in Kick-Ass 2 aren't necessarily a bad thing.
We find our somewhat hapless high school hero, Dave Lizewski (Taylor-Johnson), coaxed into resuming his costumed career by his sometime ally, Mindy Macready (Moretz), aka, the brutal teen vigilante, Hit-Girl. But, Dave usually takes more of a beating than he gives, so Mindy agrees to train him with some hilarious results. However, Mindy becomes torn between continuing her promise to her deceased father to defend the city and her desire to please her guardian, Marcus (Morris Chestnut), by retiring her vigilante persona. Eventually, Marcus wins out after catching Mindy in costume, and the teen hero reluctantly retires to live a normal life leaving Kick-Ass without a partner.
Dave isn't left alone for very long as he soon falls in with a group of do-gooders codenamed, Justice Forever, led by ex-mafia enforcer-turned born again Christian, Sal Bertolinni. Sal now goes by the moniker Colonel Stars and Stripes. These would be heroes have been inspired to fight the good fight by Kick-Ass' example.
Meanwhile, Chris D'Amico (Mintz-Plasse), has become obsessed with making Kick-Ass pay for the murder of his father by way of bazooka from the first film. He has abandoned the faux superhero persona of Red Mist that he created. Through a series of events that further unhinges him and through the assistance of his right hand man, Javier (John Leguizamo), D'Amico assembles his own team of not so super, but deadly villains, and adopts the new name of...The Mother$#%*@. Together with his hired thugs, D'Amico is determined to lay waste to everything and everyone Kick-Ass cares for.
Kick-Ass 2 has been getting a rough ride critically and I'm not exactly sure why. It has all of the ingredients that made the first one so fun to watch. It's as much a testament to bad taste as the first film. And I can say that having read the both the Kick-Ass 2 and Hit-Girl mini-series myself, director, Jeff Wadlow, has done a more than credible job of mashing both of those stories together. Much of the criticisms I've read seem to stem from an unfamiliarity with the source material. Admittedly, a movie of this nature with its blinding and sometimes sickening violence and toilet humor may not be for everyone no matter how knowledgeable you are with the story's origin.
And is it any surprise that once again Chloe Moretz steals this show again as Hit-Girl? Moretz is still the same swearing little ninja dynamo she was in the first movie, but she also show's an unexpected vulnerability as she's trying to lead a normal life. She isn't all about swords and spinning kicks. She can be emotionally hurt by the cruelty of other teenagers just like anybody else.
In contrast to the film's offbeat comedic tone, it takes a decidedly dark turn when D'Amico forms his group. People begin dying in gruesome ways that some may find objectionable. As I stated before, I think that might be the problem that viewers have with it if they're not familiar with the Millar/Romita story. For anyone who does have a problem with the extreme violence depicted here, I will tell you that Wadlow did show some restraint. There are scenes that aren't nearly as graphic as they were in the mini-series. I wonder if Jim Carrey was aware of that when he recently pulled his version of a Katherine Heigl and came out against Kick-Ass 2. It's a shame as it kind of colors my opinion of his nice performance for the brief time he's involved. Carrey is in need of a hit badly and this could possibly be one. You have to wonder what he'll say if Kick-Ass 2 does take off.
Kick-Ass 2 should delight fans of its predecessor. Strip down its over-the-top violence and cursing and you have a story of people who just want to make a difference in the world. Of course there are better ways to make a difference than trying to be a superhero, but that's the point of both movies. These people aren't special in any way other than having a willingness to do something about the injustice they see. Most have no special training or high tech weapons. They definitely don't have super powers. The danger of them getting seriously hurt or dying a bloody death in the street is very real. This is one of the objections I had with last year's The Dark Knight Rises as its implied that there is a Batman in all of us. That's wrong. Not everyone is Bruce Wayne. Not everyone can do what he does or has the means to do what he does. Anyone can't be Batman. I do, however, think anyone could be Kick-Ass.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
***3/4 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Saturday, August 10, 2013
We're the Millers
Reviews from the Dark Side presents
We're the Millers
Released 8/7/13, now in theaters
Jason Sudeikis, Jennifer Aniston, Emma Roberts, and Will Poulter star as a makeshift family attempting to transport drugs across the Mexican border in this week's comedy, We're the Millers.
It seems this is the year for me to praise comedies that are critically panned (i.e. Identity Thief and Movie 43). "Millers" is arguably the best non-animated comedy I've seen in 2013.
We're the Millers is the story of small-time marijuana peddler, David Clark (Sudeikis), who is robbed of his stash and money by a gang of thugs while trying to be a good samaritan. This is a big problem for David as part of his boss's money is stolen in the process. His wealthy and eccentric boss, Brad Gurdlinger (Ed Helms), gives David an opportunity to make good on the loss. If he travels to Mexico, acts as the courier for "Pablo Chacon" (Brad's Mexican alias), and transports a "smidge and a half of mari-ju-ana" into the U.S., David's debt will be repaid. David is reluctant to become a drug mule, but he can't turn down the $100,000 Brad is paying him for the job or ignore the insinuation of death if he refuses.
But, how does the scruffy drug dealer cross the border twice without arousing suspicion? He receives unexpected inspiration from a "Brady Bunch" type family traveling in an RV. Noticing that a police officer is more than happy to assist the lost family with directions without a thought, David comes up with the idea that if he travels across the borders with his own "family", the border authorities won't give him a second glance. First, he has to make himself over to look like someone respectable. Second, he has to do some recruiting. With some coaxing and bribery in some cases, he finds his family. There's his down-on-her-luck stripper neighbor, Rose (Aniston), who plays his "wife"; there's the geeky Kenny (Poulter), a teenager whose mother abandoned him after a night out drinking who will be his "son"; and, finally, there's Casey (Roberts), a tough runaway teenager with an unhealthy love for her Iphone who will play the role of his "daughter." Thus, the "Millers" are born.
As you would expect, things don't go quite as planned for the Millers as the "smidge and a half" of pot turns out to be two tons of it. They also unknowingly steal it from the real Pablo Chacon and he's not happy about it. Insert ensuing wackiness here.
Comedies depicting drugs and drug dealers tend to wear thin with me as I've stated before primarily because I don't find drug use particularly funny. What I really enjoyed about We're the Millers is that it was madcap lunacy that happened to have drugs in the plotline. It wasn't all about the drugs themselves. Marijuana was more of a prop than a focus. And for that, I thank all involved.
Much of the cast is on point when it comes to bringing the chuckles. Even the weird and uptight Fitzgeralds (Nick Offerman and Kathryn Hahn) get in on the act. There's a tent scene involving boob fondling and sticking ones finger in a very unusual place that has to be seen to be believed. But, I have to say the standout here is Aniston. Much like how she stole her scenes in Horrible Bosses, Aniston displays comedic chops that I'm still shocked she has. As the least funny character on Friends, I didn't know she could genuinely be funny during that show's run. She more than holds her own with Sudeikis, a comedic heavyweight. And let me say once again how happy I am that she is veering away from rom coms. She's better than that. It would be a true disappointment if she returns to that type of film.
We're the Millers may grab for the lowest common denominator at times for its laughs, but it is exactly what a movie that calls itself a comedy should be. It's hilarious. The laughs are churned out throughout it's 100 minute running time. That can be difficult for a comedy to stay funny that long. It also has a heart among its crudeness as each of the Millers discovers in their own time that they actually don't hate the other members of their ragtag band. Kudos to the cast and the direction of Rawson Marshall Thurber. I was entertained from start to finish.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
****1/4 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
We're the Millers
Released 8/7/13, now in theaters
Jason Sudeikis, Jennifer Aniston, Emma Roberts, and Will Poulter star as a makeshift family attempting to transport drugs across the Mexican border in this week's comedy, We're the Millers.
It seems this is the year for me to praise comedies that are critically panned (i.e. Identity Thief and Movie 43). "Millers" is arguably the best non-animated comedy I've seen in 2013.
We're the Millers is the story of small-time marijuana peddler, David Clark (Sudeikis), who is robbed of his stash and money by a gang of thugs while trying to be a good samaritan. This is a big problem for David as part of his boss's money is stolen in the process. His wealthy and eccentric boss, Brad Gurdlinger (Ed Helms), gives David an opportunity to make good on the loss. If he travels to Mexico, acts as the courier for "Pablo Chacon" (Brad's Mexican alias), and transports a "smidge and a half of mari-ju-ana" into the U.S., David's debt will be repaid. David is reluctant to become a drug mule, but he can't turn down the $100,000 Brad is paying him for the job or ignore the insinuation of death if he refuses.
But, how does the scruffy drug dealer cross the border twice without arousing suspicion? He receives unexpected inspiration from a "Brady Bunch" type family traveling in an RV. Noticing that a police officer is more than happy to assist the lost family with directions without a thought, David comes up with the idea that if he travels across the borders with his own "family", the border authorities won't give him a second glance. First, he has to make himself over to look like someone respectable. Second, he has to do some recruiting. With some coaxing and bribery in some cases, he finds his family. There's his down-on-her-luck stripper neighbor, Rose (Aniston), who plays his "wife"; there's the geeky Kenny (Poulter), a teenager whose mother abandoned him after a night out drinking who will be his "son"; and, finally, there's Casey (Roberts), a tough runaway teenager with an unhealthy love for her Iphone who will play the role of his "daughter." Thus, the "Millers" are born.
As you would expect, things don't go quite as planned for the Millers as the "smidge and a half" of pot turns out to be two tons of it. They also unknowingly steal it from the real Pablo Chacon and he's not happy about it. Insert ensuing wackiness here.
Comedies depicting drugs and drug dealers tend to wear thin with me as I've stated before primarily because I don't find drug use particularly funny. What I really enjoyed about We're the Millers is that it was madcap lunacy that happened to have drugs in the plotline. It wasn't all about the drugs themselves. Marijuana was more of a prop than a focus. And for that, I thank all involved.
Much of the cast is on point when it comes to bringing the chuckles. Even the weird and uptight Fitzgeralds (Nick Offerman and Kathryn Hahn) get in on the act. There's a tent scene involving boob fondling and sticking ones finger in a very unusual place that has to be seen to be believed. But, I have to say the standout here is Aniston. Much like how she stole her scenes in Horrible Bosses, Aniston displays comedic chops that I'm still shocked she has. As the least funny character on Friends, I didn't know she could genuinely be funny during that show's run. She more than holds her own with Sudeikis, a comedic heavyweight. And let me say once again how happy I am that she is veering away from rom coms. She's better than that. It would be a true disappointment if she returns to that type of film.
We're the Millers may grab for the lowest common denominator at times for its laughs, but it is exactly what a movie that calls itself a comedy should be. It's hilarious. The laughs are churned out throughout it's 100 minute running time. That can be difficult for a comedy to stay funny that long. It also has a heart among its crudeness as each of the Millers discovers in their own time that they actually don't hate the other members of their ragtag band. Kudos to the cast and the direction of Rawson Marshall Thurber. I was entertained from start to finish.
The Dark Lord of the Sith says:
****1/4 stars
Ratings Legend
Zero *= Don't waste your time. Pure dreck! Dreck is too good for this! Blind me please!
1 *= Fuggedaboutit!
2 *= Average, Mediocre, Nothing Special
3 *= Good viewing. Much better than a poke in the eye.
4 *= Great. Could possibly foot the price of a non-Matinee.
5 *= Pure eye candy. Hall of Fame material here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Night Swim- Ahhh, a new year and with it brings cinema filled with all sorts of possibilities. We start 2024 with this little Blumhouse h... -
You People- This Netflix Original comically explores race relations through the co-mingling of family. A couple, a Jewish man and an Afri...
