THIS PAGE CONTAINS MOVIE SUGGESTIONS AND REVIEWS
Prisoners is a crime thriller about a pair of children kidnapped outside their homes and the lengths each character is willing to go to in order to find them and bring them back alive. Originally I was told this movie was going to be unbearably intense, but while it was tough to watch at times, it never quite got the point of Pan's Labyrinth.
All of the actors in this movie do a fabulous job. Maria Bello as Keller's (Hugh Jackman) wife Grace who lives in a constant state of denial that her daughter has been kidnapped. She keeps insisting the girls are lost or have run away and will show up, finding solace in sleeping medication. It is not always easy to believe someone will ignore the truth like that, but Bello makes the scenes with Grace heartwrenching leaving the audience to feel sympathy for her instead of dismissing her feigned ignorance.
Viola Davis and Terrence Howard as the parents of the other kidnapped daughter do well with their roles, making each scene they're in count. However, one of the few qualms I had with the movie is that it doesn't focus enough on the family of the second victim. We see Keller drag Franklin into helping him kidnap Alex (Paul Dano), but after Franklin claims he can't torture Alex anymore, he and his wife seem to drop out of the movie entirely. A damn shame indeed since both are proven to be award-winning actors.
The other issue I had with the movie was Jake Gyllenhaal's character. While I feel Gyllenhaal did as much as he could with what he had, it's clear he didn't have much. This is disappointing since Loki is one of the lead characters . He was very one dimensional, married to his job, and obviously doing it better than his superiors. Unfortunately, this is all we learn about Loki as everything else is simply him doing what he does best, his job.
Though, I have to say, they did a fine job of not making Loki clairvoyant. Sometimes good detectives in movies and television are too good to be true. The writer and director did a fantastic job keeping Loki human, even when it was frustrating to the audience who knew something he didn't or when he suspected something he couldn't prove he always did things the proper way.
What hits this movie out of the ballpark is Hugh Jackman. His performance as Keller, the father of one of the kidnapped girls is phenomenal. Keller finds himself in such a precarious position. He wants to find his daughter at all costs and from his point of view the police aren't doing enough. We feel his helplessness and this is not a man used to being helpless, so he does something about it.
The question is whether or not the something he does is worth it. He kidnaps the person he believes is responsible, Alex, and tries to torture the information out of him. It's immoral and illegal. At first it looks like Alex may be responsible, but does that make what Keller is doing right? Doubt begins to grow in our minds as well as Keller's, but he keeps going, relying on his instincts. Suddenly, the audience starts to see Keller not as the victim, but as the villain.
While I don't want to give the ending away, most people I've spoken to feel it's the only issue they have with the movie. I compare it to the ending of Castaway, where Tom Hanks returns the one box he never opened on the island to it's owner, but we never see what's inside. Prisoners ends with the possibility of Loki finding one of the missing characters, but we don't know if he does or not. I like to believe that because Loki is such a good cop, he does. However, it's all up to the individual to decide, which is always a good way to end a movie. Keep the audience thinking.
Prisoners stands at the crossroads between what is right, what is wrong, and what is necessary. It's humanity at it's core. It forces us to see into ourselves and take a good look at who we are and how far we're willing to go if pushed to the breaking point. This movie will be a classic and should be watched by anyone and everyone.
Warm Bodies
Warm Bodies is either a unique spin on the old zombie apocalypse classic or a modern, fantastical remake of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. You'll definitely get a different answer depending on which party of the date night couples you ask. I was originally in the zombie camp, but after watching the film, I might be more inclined to take the Shakespeare route.
This movie follows outcast zombie "R" as he falls for human "Julie" and struggles to regain his humanity. It's cute and funny. The premise is simple and the film seems to follow the same path, sadly.
This is one of those movies that I liked, but I feel could have been better. Reminds me of 30 Days of Night. Great premise. Lackluster execution. They scratch the surface of what could have been an epic film and made it a once-and-done romantic comedy.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think Warm Bodies could have done with more voiceover. This is a situation where I believe it is an essential part of the character and the story. After all, he is a zombie, and he can't communicate.
The voiceover should have been used more so greater attention would have been paid to "R"'s verbal words. If they were few and far between, they could have carried immense emotional weight, if given the chance.
As for the romance between "R" and Julie, it is too easy. There is way too much time spent on them developing their relationship, especially with Julie so readily accepting "R" in the first place.
They only really have one big issue between them, and that is "R" ate her boyfriend, who she didn't really seem to like anymore anyway. There really isn't any drama over it. While she did run away after, when she sees him next, I don't think she even brings it up.
Other than that, the only thing keeping them apart is the post-apocalyptic world they live in. Zombie's trying to kill her. Boney's trying to kill them both. Her dad trying to kill "R".
Other than a few run-in's with the zombies, the rest doesn't really come up until the end of the movie. The whole zombie/boney/human conflict is an afterthought. In which he saves her, by sacrificing himself, but because he's dead it doesn't kill him. Honestly, I would have preferred a more Shakespeare-like ending.
They don't go in depth with zombie lore, what started the outbreak, or even how they stop it, which is something I kind of liked about it. It allowed them to focus more on the human side, the power of redemption, how they were able to spread this power to others.
All in all it was a good movie. The cast was great, but I feel the script lacked conflict, and that is what caused me to be so harsh with this review. I'm glad I saw it once, but I don't think I will see it again.
If you love romantic movies and want to have date night with your significant other, Warm Bodies is perfect. Just enough to gross you out and keep you excited, while being sweet and sappy. If you don't have the cash for the theater, save it to rent for a night in.
The Hangover: Part II
The Hangover (parts I and II) follows an ingeniously simple paradigm. A group of guys wake up hungover with no idea where they are, how they got there, or where their missing friend is. They try to retrace their steps to find him, hilarity ensues.
All you have to do is add it new/improved gags for every movie and you have the comedy equivalent of the SAW franchise. Seven movies and about one billion dollars later, it'll finally get old.
Now, I have nothing against these movies per say. I watched it. It was raunchy. It was damn funny. However, while those involved hit pay dirt, they're definitely not mining gold. This is not a movie that will be know for its well written script, cinematography, or directing, and it won't win an emmy.
In other words, don't go into it looking for it to be anything more than what it is. Still, it is well done, for what it is. And, if I could get paid for doing it seven times, I'd keep doing it too.
Now, there are two reasons I went to watch this movie. The first was because of talk that the Mike Tyson tattoo might have been edited on the DVD version; and if I was going to watch it, I wanted the full effect. Secondly, I wanted to view for myself the controversial nudity.
For years we've been seeing quick glances of naked women on movie screens (while premium TV has extended boob shots). Very few movies coming through theaters have prolonged nudity shots. Even fewer have female "below the belt" shots.
The Hangover: Part II chose to go beyond all boundaries with not just male "below the belt" shots, but also boob shots, on the same people. That's something I never thought I'd see outside of porn...not that I thought I'd ever see it in porn.
It was shocking. BUT. It wasn't the focal point of the scene, as it would be, for instance, in most erotic horror films. They breezed through it as if it was a natural part of the scene.
However, in the beginning of the movie there was a male "below the belt" scene that was the main focus of the scene. It was played well enough, though, that it wasn't obvious what was going on right away.
So, I have to give them props for pushing the boundaries of what can and can't be shown on film to mass audiences in worldwide theaters, and doing it fairly tactfully, considering the content.
Since the Mike Tyson thing has been settled, without the editing being necessary, it's not necessary to watch this one in the theaters. If you don't like raunchy comedy. Stay away. If you watched and like the first one, you'll like this one. Words of caution, though, make sure all minors are no where near the TV when you decide to do so.
Thor
Thor itself felt like a prequel, even with the amount of story included, it still felt like the tip of the iceberg. I have to praise the writers and the Kenneth Branagh for being able craft convincingly a film set in both the mythological world AND the real world.
It gracefully depicted how a family tiff seeped from one realm to another, and the opening scene on Earth, which we later return to, helped us tie the two planes together from the beginning.
The story was exceedingly well done, if not a little too well done. Occasionally, (very, VERY, rarely nowadays) films contain more story than they do action, which if this wasn't supposed to be an action flick wouldn't have been a problem.
There was too much time spent on the relationships between Thor, Loki, and Odin; though in one way this paid off, of all the relationships in the movie, the family dynamic was the most real. However, because of the heavy exposition and the amount of time spent on the royal family, I felt there was a missing action sequence on Earth.
The movie was already long enough, so I understand why another sequence wouldn't have been included. Even without it, the film moved fluidly. It just felt like there was something needed to fully balance out the action and the story, and it belonged in the middle of the earth sequences.
It's interesting how in Thor verses many of the other superhero movies in the last decade the romantic element was very subtile and not a key element to the film. We did build up to the typical kiss scene (kudos for Jane kissing him, not vice versa).
Yet, with everything else going on around them , it was nice to simply let Thor charm Jane along with the audience. Their progress felt natural, unlike the forced romances we tend to see in film.
The actors were well chosen for their roles. Anthony Hopkins was flawless as Odin, and Tom Hiddleston did a fantastic job pulling our heartstrings as Loki, the troubled brother (so much so that I feel weird labeling him the villain).
Natalie Portman was a good choice for Jane. The character was without any notable characteristics, i.e. sass, sweet naivety, femme fetal. Portman brought out the cute, nerd-next-door qualities in what would have been a lifeless character had it been played by a lesser actress.
I know there was some trepidation about Chris Hemsworth playing such an iconic role when he didn't have significant acting experience. Turns out, he fit the role perfectly...as well as those low-cut pants...(wipes away drool).
Thor was littered with small doses of comedy that helped bridge those fine lines between drama and action. I'd expect nothing less of a Shakespeare connoisseur.
Even the insert of Hawkeye was well placed. I have to admit, I didn't realize who he was until after someone told me, but I was certain as I was watching it that he was singled out because he would be a rising superhero in a future movie.
Thor's sets were another example of perfection. Asgard was magnificent and bright in contrast to Jötunheim, the dark, frozen wasteland of the Frost Giants. Even Earth was well separated by it's dusty, midwestern visuals. The CGI, special effects, and action sequences were well coordinated to provide just the right amount of action where and when necessary.
Finally, I said this before about The Sorcerer's Apprentice, and I'll say it again for Thor. I find the integration of magic and science fascinating. And, I expect The Avengers to capitalize on this concept.
Thor should be seen in theaters, at the very least in a surround sound home theater system. However, if possible, I would stay clear of the 3D. There are some movies made to be seen in 3D, and it simply just doesn't enhance the experience of this one.
The Green Hornet
Being that it was a Seth Rogen movie and I've never loved his movies, I didn't have high expectations. I've found this is the best way to go into a movie because it makes it hard for it to disappoint you and gives you fuzzy feelings when it pleasantly surprises you.
It's a terrific concept, though a somewhat cliched storyline, about a son who knows nothing but partying until his father dies and he inherits the newspaper. Ergo, he must learn responsibility by becoming a bad superhero...that's how it always works right?
The dynamic between Britt and Kato drove the story. Though he was surrounded by people, Britt didn't have anyone close to him who understood his anger at his father, until he met Kato-the guy who makes his coffee. (That connection was actually a very clever lead in to Kato's ability to build magnificent machinery.) It was nice to watch their relationship change from employee to sidekick to friend and back again.
However, there seemed to be too much time spent on the wild escapades of Britt and Kato. It seemed the sequences just repeated themselves. Then, after Lenore's entrance, it speeds up and the bulk of the movie takes place in the last half.
Speaking of Lenore, I have no problems with the character. She's a strong, smart woman working hard to establish a career. The fuel of the story. The woman who unwittingly helps Britt and Kato to commit their "crimes". Cameron Diaz in the role, however, is just flat out weird. Diaz simply didn't fit the young ambitious temp I think the role was created to be.
The villain on the other hand was superb. The introductory scene with James Franc was in one word, priceless. The dialogue and character might have been a bit cheesy, but Christoph Waltz brought Chudnofsky to life and made us feel bad for the aging Lord of the LA trying to reinvent his outdated image.
After Lenore was introduced, the romantic element jump-started the dying script. The thread between Britt and Kato started to fray as Kato got fed up with Britt's selfish ways and the adventures turned dangerous, eventually breaking and opening Britt's eyes to the reality of his situation.
While Britt is set on the right path, Kato is tempted by the dark side. I have to applause the writers' decision to have Chudnofsky send Kato to kill Britt because you're not sure whether or not he actually will. It comes down to the wire. But all is well in the end. They get the bad guy, though not exactly in the way they intended. Plus, Lenore's ending cover up is pretty sweet.
The one factor I found very interesting in the movie is the amount of death and destruction. They kill people and don't seem to have any moral qualms about it! Which is not realistic, even for a movie, considering these are two ordinary guys and not military trained snipers or vengeance seeking cops. For them it's fun to beat up, maim, and blow up people. But I don't find it a turn off, exactly, it's just odd.
However, because of that I don't agree with the PG-13 rating. While the movie itself doesn't feel like it should be rated R, this whole concept of them considering what they're doing fun has me giving out the advice not to let kids watch it until they're older.
For everyone 18 and over, I say go for it. The Green Hornet's action packed stunts makes it enjoyable in theaters, but also a good rent for a HD surround sound system. I'm not so much a fan of the 3D version. It's not a necessary expense. I'd say go to the theaters if you can, and rent it if you can't. Watching it on TV with commercial breaks just won't be the same.
RED
This is totally a french movie poster, but I like it better than the American ones.
It is by far no Inception or Avatar, but instead one of those feel good movies that every time it comes on tv you have to stop and watch it. Just cause.
The cast and the acting are great, though, the movie's something you've seen before. Just, with an older group of actors. There's lots of shooting, the typical romance between the main character and a younger girl-who gets dragged along for the ride, and as usual one of the sidekicks die.
However, the great thing about those well used archetypes is that if they're used right, it doesn't matter if it's been done before, as long as it's done well, which this has.
I enjoyed Willis's portrayal of his character-who no matter what happens is quiet, shy, and calm-and Malkovich's childlike insanity. Even though Willis's girlfriend, Parker, doesn't hold a prominent spotlight, her ability to adapt to the situation and even enjoy the life or death situations she finds herself in is a breath of fresh air next to those screaming banshees who usually get picked up by the main character in action flicks.
The plot was also well done. It was simple and to the point. All assets covered. Though, I could have done with a bit more development in Willis and Parker's storyline, Mirren's renewed relationship with Brian Cox's character made up for it in the end.
It was a little bit of everything, which in my mind makes for the perfect movie. If you're going to the movies anytime soon, I'd pick it over most of that other tripe playing right now. However, I don't think I'd make a special visit to the theaters just to see it.
Unlike the Expendables, which was an action flick made to be seen on the big screen what with all of it's explosions and exotic locations, RED is something that must be seen, but can wait to be rented.
The Sorcerer's Apprentice
Went to the movies again the other day for a late night showing. I thought, it's almost 10, how many people can there be? Well, the answer was surprisingly a lot. So instead of going to watch Inception because that seemed like it would be packed, we watched The Sorcerer's Apprentice instead.
People give Nicholas Cage a lot of hassle for the roles he takes, but I have to say no matter what he's in, I usually enjoy it. And I think he choses roles that he enjoys, which I gotta give him credit for not giving a damn what other people think and doing whatever the hell he wants.
In any case, I liked it. My sister was harping on some of the plot holes, which I'll admit there are a few that don't really add up to anything. I'd say the biggest being the "morganians". To put it in perspective they're like the Dark Army. The 3 minions pretty much appear in a few scenes and they've fulfilled their role. It'd been nice if they'd been given more backstory and if the movie had better explained the present day world of sorcery. But, oh well.
The special effects are pretty sweet, though, and it's blend of magic and science is pretty cool. Who doesn't want to watch a movie about Merlin and physics?
In the end, the movie is what it seems to be. A good, non-animated movie to watch with your family. It's funny. It's cute. It's magical. It's predictable, but in a good way. If you're a fan of Chuck, then the main character, David (played by Jay Baruchel), will be right up your alley. And, it's a good role for Nicholas Cage now that he's starting to age a bit.
It's definitely worth the watch, but I think I'd wait for it to come out on DVD and watch it on Netflix or rent it from Blockbuster.
The Last Airbender
Went to see The Last Airbender today, well, guess it's yesterday now. Can't say I loved or hated it, but I am glad I went to see it. It was definitely an M. Night Shyamalan film.
- First of all, I want to address the race thing that's been surrounding the film. Personally, even before I went to see it, I thought the whole race argument was a bunch of crap. The only reason anyone had issues with it is because Shyamalan is of Indian descent, and he cast a bunch of white kids to play the main three characters. If James Cameron or Peter Jackson had done The Last Airbender, it wouldn't have been such a big deal.
Now that I've seen the film, I can say with all honesty that the whole lot of them should just shut their pie holes. Shyamalan went to a great deal of trouble to create this fantasy world. Each tribe has their own culture and beliefs, and he works hard to show that through the diversity in his casting, diversity in wardrobe, and the design of the sets.
It just so happens that Katara and Sokka are members of the water tribe, who Shyamalan cast as a whole to be of European appearance. The entire Fire Nation looks to be of Middle Eastern descent. The Earth nation (what we saw of them in this film, which wasn't much because that's mainly book 2, but Shyamalan promised factions of them to be of African descent.) appeared Asian. And the Air Nomads, were a mix of different appearances, some of which looked like they could have once been apart of the Fire nation. Gyatso was actually black and not very old, but I think it suited the movie well to show the closeness between he and Ang, like father and son, despite their differences in appearance.- On a similar note, let's talk about the actors. Noah Ringer, despite not being asian, is a great fit for the role of Ang. Dev Patel and Shaun Toub, also, do amazing jobs as Zuko and Iroh. Nicola Peltz and Jackson Rathborne as Katara and Sokka, unfortunately left much to be desired. However, I don't know that it was as much their fault as it was Shyamalan's. He did a good job with managing Ang and Zuko's storylines. However, Sokka and Katara's fall to the wayside. To me, this is the movie's biggest downside.
Katara's fight for her right to learn to be a water bender is completely left out. Though since he made Yue (a girl) the ruler of the northern water tribe, it would make it weird that they wouldn't allow female benders. In the end, she just kind of runs around being kind of clumsy at bending and telling Ang she believes in him, over and over and over. And, she kept calling Ang (au-ng) and Sokka (So-ka). I think it was just her accent, but it was still very frustrating.
Also, instead of calling Ang her family--as she did in the cartoon--and taking a motherly role, she called him her responsibility, which didn't set well with me. I think I could have handled her sexism storyline being axed IF she had been given more of a purpose in the story, instead of just being the voiceover.
While, all that was annoying, I think the lack of story involving Sokka upset me more. Second to Zuko, Sokka is my favorite character, and not because he's the comedic relief of the show. (I might add, Shyamalan still needs to work on his comedic timing.) Sokka is the normal one. He can't bend, so he has to rely on his mind and his strength. I loved watching him struggle to prove that he could be just as useful to the group over the course of the series, and I felt that was lost in the movie.
It was set-up early on that while he tried, he just wasn't a great warrior/hunter. Therefore, I was waiting to see later on, during the siege of the northern water tribe, Sokka step up and prove his worth, just a bit. Or at least try to and fail. Instead, all we got was his relationship with Yue. Which was done well, mind you, it's just that was about all there was. Though, I did approve of Sokka spurring on Ang's fighting spirit in the Earth town. PS - Now that I've seen Eclipse, I can safely say that I approve of Jackson Rathborne's acting skills and am not bothered in the least at his appointment as Sokka. His mini-storyline was the best part of that movie, right behind Taylor Lautner's bare chest.- There are a lot of people who probably aren't going to like the movie simply because of it's style. I say this because Shyamalan has a tendency to make his movies somewhat choppy and abstract. The characters also tend to talk to the camera a lot. It's just the way he makes movies. They don't flow the same way a Jerry Bruckheimer film does, but it's not choppy because it wasn't done well (like in HP 4). It's done that way on purpose for artistic effect.
Honestly, it's not the way I like my movies or the way I'd write one; but it's his style, and I'm not gonna fault him for doing his thing. It's just not something the majority of the audience is going to relate well to considering the original style of the show and it's popularity. Though I would like to see him continue his quest to make the last two films, simply because I respect him and his vision, I kind of wonder if they won't get someone else to direct the next set.- The one thing I don't think anyone can fault him for is not being true to the original. He keeps close to the series and doesn't add in or change anything that doesn't complement the movie. He does take out a great deal, but we're dealing with a full season crammed into a two hour movie where just about every episode has a character or plot point that reappears and connects to something else later on in other seasons. It's like trying to make HP7 and keeping everything in it. It's damn near impossible.
As for the things he does take out, I believe Suki and Roku will show up in the second movie. Suki was cut, I think, because Shyamalan wanted to focus more on Sokka and Yue's relationship so we didn't get too confused over his love life. I'm not sure why Roku was cut, but I think he'll make an appearance or at least be mentioned because of the emphasis Shyamalan put on Ang not being able to have a family and Zuko's mention of how his father hates him because he's too much like his mother. For those of us who have watched the series all the way through, we know Roku was Zuko's great-grandfather, which would dispel the notion that the Avatar can't have a family. And since that seems to be something Shyamalan was emphasizing for Ang in this movie, I think it will become a big thing when his feelings for Katara grow. I kind of wanted them to capitalize on it in the show with Zuko, but they never did. So, I'm gonna hold out hope that Shyamalan does instead.
Other than them, the rest of the characters Boomi, Bato, Jet, Jong Jong, and the inventor were all great characters but not necessary in the grand scheme of things. Still, there's a chance for some of them to show up in later movies. The biggest thing I think Shyamalan cut was going to the fire nation and learning about the comet, but I think that's because he's just going to have them learn about it in the great library instead, which makes sense and is, in my eyes, acceptable.
Finally, to see it in theaters, wait to rent it, or see it when comes out on tv? I'd say go watch it in theaters. Unlike a lot of Shyamalan's other movies, which are very contained, this one is extremely cinematic. There is a lot to look at, and I think watching it on tv will dwarf it the way I felt The Dark Knight lost it's charm when not on the big screen.
So, then the big question is 3D or 2D? This is kind of a toss up. It's gonna sound weird when I say this, but if you aren't a Shyamalan fan or a big fan of the series, I'd actually watch it in 3D. Simply because then the cinematics will WOW you more and keep you entertained while Shyamalan is doing his artistic thing. But, if you aren't in it just for the cinematics OR you don't want to spend the extra money, just go ahead and watch it in 2D.
