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.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Send Help- We kick off the new year with a Sam Raimi experience. The gross-out horror aficionado brings a tale of survival, isolationism,... -
Companion- Ahhh, new year, a new slate of movies. And we'll start the year off with a quirky darkly comedic thriller. A young woman ... -
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...