Max Payne - PG-13 for violence, including intense shooting sequences, drug content, some sexuality, and brief strong language - Starring Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Beau Bridges, Ludacris, and Chris O'Donnell. ACTION/COMIC
Following nicely the flurry of comic/video game spin off movies such as The Dark Knight, Hulk, Iron Man and Hitman, Max Payne delivers an equal dose of justice to the streets of NY (or should I say Toronto...) Although not in the same class as Iron Man or the Dark Knight, it certainly is in the same class as The Hulk and Hitman. Marky Mark is a quiet, ominous, and convincing Payne, and miss Kurylenko is as beautiful as she was in Hitman (and Quantum of Solace), and mercifully a tad more believable. What was extraspecial about Max Payne were the special effects, particularly some of the slow motion shots. Super violent, realistic and great sound effects and over the top in a good way--everything I would expect from a film of this genre. Forget the plot. Forget the drama. This is not why you see a film like Max Payne. You want to see shooting, winged creatures of the night, and people being flung across the room after being hit by a speeding bullet! And if that's what you want, you will not be disappointed with Max Payne.
It rocked.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Death Race
Death Race - R, Starring Jason Statham, Joan Allen, Ian McShane, and Tyrese Gibson / ACTION (aka Death Race 3000)
Yes, another remake. The original (Death Race 2000) starred David Carradine and Sylvester Stallone. It was laughable if nothing else, but the plot was somewhat different in that in the 1975 version, the racecar drivers were intent on mowing down pedestrians (some who were willing) for a thrill instead of racing to win (even if it means killing each other) in order to gain his freedom. In both cases, the drivers were cheered on by the TV-viewing public. Initially, we skipped over seeing the new version of Death Race in the theatre despite Statham's and Joan Allen’s presence for the simple fact that the previews made it look hokey. Upon renting it, however, we were both pleasantly surprised. It was not nearly as hokey as the previews made it out to be. There was a geeky little cast member that moonlighted on an episode of The Mentalist that was great (and more recently In Plain Sight), and there were other supporting cast that made the movie worthwhile. Of course, there were cheesy moments, and the movie was certainly violent as the previews foretold. The language was certainly gratuitous warranting the R rating. The movie was exactly what you would expect from an action movie of this type. It was theatre-worthy, and would have been worth the ticket had I been brave enough to spend the money to see it there. No, the plot wasn’t deep and intricate, but that isn’t what they claimed it would be, either.
Yes, another remake. The original (Death Race 2000) starred David Carradine and Sylvester Stallone. It was laughable if nothing else, but the plot was somewhat different in that in the 1975 version, the racecar drivers were intent on mowing down pedestrians (some who were willing) for a thrill instead of racing to win (even if it means killing each other) in order to gain his freedom. In both cases, the drivers were cheered on by the TV-viewing public. Initially, we skipped over seeing the new version of Death Race in the theatre despite Statham's and Joan Allen’s presence for the simple fact that the previews made it look hokey. Upon renting it, however, we were both pleasantly surprised. It was not nearly as hokey as the previews made it out to be. There was a geeky little cast member that moonlighted on an episode of The Mentalist that was great (and more recently In Plain Sight), and there were other supporting cast that made the movie worthwhile. Of course, there were cheesy moments, and the movie was certainly violent as the previews foretold. The language was certainly gratuitous warranting the R rating. The movie was exactly what you would expect from an action movie of this type. It was theatre-worthy, and would have been worth the ticket had I been brave enough to spend the money to see it there. No, the plot wasn’t deep and intricate, but that isn’t what they claimed it would be, either.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
The Happening
The Happening, Rated R for violent and disturbing images- Starring Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschenal, John Leguizamo, and Betty Buckley - Horror/Suspense
The Happening is okay. UNLESS you know Shyamalan made it and are expecting the kind of scripts like The Sixth Sense and Signs and The Village. The Happening falls a little short by comparisson. The script itself is not nearly as creepy as The Sixth Sense, not as witty as Sings, and not as original as The Village. It does have one redeeming quality, and that is Mark Wahlberg, which mercifully made this decent film fairly amusing. Standing on its own merits, it would have been rated better, but when you are expecting more (as one does from Mr. Shyamalan), it's somewhat of a let down.
The Happening is okay. UNLESS you know Shyamalan made it and are expecting the kind of scripts like The Sixth Sense and Signs and The Village. The Happening falls a little short by comparisson. The script itself is not nearly as creepy as The Sixth Sense, not as witty as Sings, and not as original as The Village. It does have one redeeming quality, and that is Mark Wahlberg, which mercifully made this decent film fairly amusing. Standing on its own merits, it would have been rated better, but when you are expecting more (as one does from Mr. Shyamalan), it's somewhat of a let down.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Love Guru, 88 Minutes, Speed Racer, Made of Honor
Lots of theatre movies streeting this week:
LOVE GURU $30M
SPEED RACER $43M
MADE OF HONOR $46M
88 MINTUES $17M
YOUNG @ HEART $3M
88 MINUTES-R for disturbing violent content, brief nudity and language-Starring Al Pacino, Alicia Witt, Leelee Sobieski, Amy Brenneman, William Forsythe, and Debra Unger /CRIME/SUSPENSE/THRILLER
Set in Seattle, this is about a forensic psychiatrist/professor (Pacino) who is notorious for testifying on the stand to successfully lock up serial rapists, murderers, and the like—some even put on death row, and some even put away on nothing but his testimony--perhaps slightly embellished testimony. He gets a mysterious phone call announcing that he has 88 minutes to live. It appears this caller knows things that only someone close to him can know. Being a forensic shrinky person, he should be able to deduce who this might be, if it’s really someone he knows, right? That's what I thought. Things are further complicated when he finds that he is under investigation for the murder of one of his best friends—a clear frame job—but making it harder for him to uncover the identity of the caller.
The previews looked decent, and I was fairly geeked to see the movie, which I saw in the theatre. The language was a bit much. It wasn’t quite as good as I was hoping for, but I shouldn't have been disappointed, becaues here’s the problem with most psychological thrillers: you can only make it so clever, or you lose half the audience. That’s just how it is. To dumb it down completely would just be plain insulting; but to be fair, they really do have to dumb it down to some extent, or a fair share of the viewers would stare opened mouthed through 90 percent of the film. And some of you know that’s true and are just too nice to say so. Have you read Harrison Bergeron? You know, where they try to dumb everyone down to the lowest common denominator so everyone is on the same level, which, in reality, is pretty low, and so when the brainiac starts to think too much, his head starts to hurt and all of a sudden his head gets jumbled and he forgets what he was thinking about. Problem solved—no more brainiac. Well, that’s how movies are made. You can’t write a script that caters to those at the collegiate level. Because not everyone went to college. And that market share (college goers) doesn’t bring in enough revenue. It’s just simple math. It’s like the Kincaid/Flesh reading ease method-the thing that judges the level of writing. Newspapers use it. Magazines use it. As an editor, I urge my writers to use it. It basically tells you what grade level your writing is up to. Most shoot for the 8th grade level. Why? Because that’s what engages the most number people--what most people understand. Very few papers target the collegiate level. Sad, but true. And so is true for movies. Set it too high or too tricky, and BAM! There goes your audience. Set it so an 8th grader can understand, and you’ve got the widest possible audience, which translates into the most possible dollars. Unfortunately, every now and then people who have surpassed the 8th grade would like to watch a fairly clever film. Just once in a while would be nice. Now, I’m not being condescending, or if I am, I’m not trying to be. I’m just saying that it would be nice to get lost in a movie once in a while. To go, hmmm… did I miss something? Instead of gee…. I wonder what happens next, with enough sarcasm to sink an oil tanker. I’m not bitter. It just really would be nice to watch a movie not driven solely by the dollar for a change. That’s what makes indies so refreshing. Indies typically don’t target the mass audiences. Sometimes this is by mistake, sometimes it is purposeful. Either way, the end result is the same. They produce clever films because they know their audience will be narrow. They can choose a narrow ignorant audience (but why?) or a narrow clever one. Horray for indies!
All that ranting said, the movie was okay, if not predictable in many areas. Al Pacino is always decent. Leelee Whatever-Her-Name-Is is usually irritating. And so she is again here. She gets lost in presence of Pacino, however.
THE LOVE GURU-PG13 for crude and sexual content throughout, language, some comic violence, and drug references-Starring Mike Myers, Jessica Alba, Justin Timberlake, Romany Malco, Meagan Good, Omid Djalili, Verne Troyer, and Ben Kingsley (with Jessica Simpson) / COMEDY
First, the comic violence, according to every review I’ve read, can hardly be so, since the “comic” part of the “comic violence” was apparently absent. Second, I thought the “sexual content THROUGHOUT” was particularly telling. THROUGHOUT? Great! I was hoping it was just for a while, but I was glad to hear the WHOLE movie was filled with sexual content… you can never have enough of crude and sexual humor, can you? It just sounds so good to me already.
For those of you who have been with me for a while, you might recall the movies Mike and I rated for the theatre at the beginning of summer. The ones from 0-5, 0 being super sucky… Mama Mia and Kit Kittredge coming in at the 0 or 1 level, Iron Man and Dark Knight topping my list at 5. Remember? Well, this information that we passed along to the theatre came from the hour of previews they showed us, which included this lovely little movie, THE LOVE GURU. It, too, fell at the bottom of my list, I think at 1, if I recall correctly. The preview looked so bad that I couldn’t imagine seeing it under any circumstance. However, remember there were two lists; the theatre list that asked us how well we thought it would do at the theatre, and then I did one later based on how the movie was in reality (two so very different things—people see sucky movies all the time). I actually thought this movie would do better in the theatre than it warranted. And yes, I was correct, this horrible little film did $30M in the theatre. Why? Why, indeed. Mike Myers and Jessica Alba, I would guess. She’s a hottie, no? I’ve never bought a movie, good or bad, that hasn’t rented well with her on the cover. And for those in my generation, who can forget Wayne’s World? That was truly funny. SNL? Hysterical. Austin Powers? Marginally funny. Myers not only stars in this movie but he wrote it as well. And then for the younger crowd, there’s Justin Timberlake. Awwww… shucks… all the girls think he’s such a cutey. This movie has what we call star-power. The movie could be a comedy about bathtubs and people would go see it. Suckers.
So what makes this so bad, you ask? Well, that depends how old you are. If you’re a 12-year-old boy, perhaps you might think this is actually funny. How many penis jokes can you hear in a 90 minute timeframe and still be amused? Would it help if you mix in a reference or two about animal sex, or throw in a few HYSTERICALLY CLEVER names like Coach Chercov (get it??? HAHAHA) and Jaques “Le Coq” (EVEN MORE CLEVER)---wait here’s another---Guru Satchabigknoba (that’s my fav)? These are names you think up on the bus ride home in 7th grade to impress your buddies at school. And that’s about the age when you find them funny. Would you think the movie would be funnier, if when Guru Pitka, (Myers) was giving out his guru-ish advice (which sounds fortune cookie-ish) the first letter of each word in the advice, when put together, actually spelled naughty phrases if , kind of like an acronym? Ha ha ha ha ha……………….
In addition, the jokes regarding Verne Troyer (Coach Chercov, aka Mini-Me) are overdone and old. Enough already. I am the last person to be politically correct. (Some cliché about a pot and kettle comes to mind.) You know very well I am about as PC as Sarah Palin (who has managed to capture the attention of my husband, who now thinks he is in love with her due to her political stance, some t-shirt with her in a wonder woman outfit holding a gun, and her ability to field-dress a moose—how can I compete with that??) but really, there’s a point where these kind of denigrating jokes just aren’t funny anymore. It’s like the fat girl who constantly makes reference to herself being fat. Or the blind girl who makes blind jokes (saying “visually impaired” jokes just doesn’t have the same ring, does it?). The joke is funny the first time—even relaxes people. Time number 20 is over the top and is awkward. You might have a complex. It’s called dignity. Get some.
The Love Guru is just such a far cry from the intelligent comedic elements and banter found on SNL that it’s hard to imagine what Myers was thinking (or was he?). He’s actually a decent actor, and there really was no excuse for such a dumbed-down, child-like, absolutely ridiculous, and certainly self-serving/self-indulgent film. Myers clearly thought this was funny, and that is truly disappointing. Leaving him to do as he pleases, he is clearly not nearly as funny as when he is under constant and direct supervision. His idea of funny and the reality of funny are, apparently, worlds apart.
MADE OF HONOR-PG13 for sexual content and language-Starring Patrick Dempsey, Michelle Monaghan, Kevin McKidd, Kathleen Quinlan, and Sydney Pollack. COMEDY/ROMANCE
This is another one of those failure-to-be-funny-or-romantic romantic comedies. Or so it appears to me. But yes, most appear that way to me, to be fair. But tell me if this sounds in any way romantic or comedic to you? I’ll bullet it for you to highlight the non-romantic and non-funny parts.
· Tom has a best friend, Hannah
· Tom falls in love with Hannah
· Hannah falls in love with someone else
· Hannah decides to marry this Someone Else
· Hannah asks Tom to be her maid of honor (yes, maid of honor)
· Tom has to plan Hannah’s wedding, bridal shower, etc., while being in love with Hannah, and watching her marry some other dude
I’m failing to see the humor, or the romance, in seeing the love of your life get engaged to another and sitting back and watching it happen. What part is romantic?
Now, it could be that they just failed to properly explain the romantic part on the back cover, in which case, I apologize for my ill review. Perhaps it’s very romantic. And very funny. Maybe Tom changes his mind, falls in love with one of Hannah’s bridesmaids, and Hannah’s new dude ends up being super romantic and super funny? I don’t know—I’m just saying if the love of my life decided to marry another… and wanted me to participate in the marriage… well... I might be, you know, a little…. sad. I said it before and I’ll say it again (but I swear this is the last time) Hollywood takes the most unfunny things and tries to make them funny. Unsuccessfully.
SPEED RACER-PG for sequences of action, some violence, language, and brief smoking-Starring Emile Hirsch, Christina Ricci, John Goodman, Susan Sarandon, Matthew Fox, and Benno Formann/ FAMILY
Welcome back to the adventures of Speed Racer and Trixie as they try to save the family business. GO, SPEEDRACER, GO!!! There is no way you can’t watch this. I didn’t see it in the theatre, but I have to see it now, if it’s the last thing I do. It’s Speed Racer. Get the kids and watch it. Just do it.
TORTURED-R for violence including torture and language-Starring Cole Hauser, James Cromwell, and Laurence Fishburne/CRIME
FBI agents, organized crime, stolen money—yeah, it looks good. I like Hauser. An undercover FBI agent (Hauser) penetrates an underground crime ring and is instructed by a mob boss to track down stolen money. Looks a little brutal, and the language is probably rough.
YOUNG @ HEART-PG for some mild language and thematic elements-Starring The Young at Heart Chorus / MUSIC
I’m not really sure what this is. I guess this is a senior citizens choir called the Young @ Heart Choir. They are preparing for a rock show in their hometown, and they are learning new songs, which include songs from James Brown, and get this—Coldplay. Apparently they are kind of hard of hearing, and the rehearsals are a little chaotic. I guess it’s supposed to be quite funny. And I guess, You’re Never Too Old To Rock.
LOVE GURU $30M
SPEED RACER $43M
MADE OF HONOR $46M
88 MINTUES $17M
YOUNG @ HEART $3M
88 MINUTES-R for disturbing violent content, brief nudity and language-Starring Al Pacino, Alicia Witt, Leelee Sobieski, Amy Brenneman, William Forsythe, and Debra Unger /CRIME/SUSPENSE/THRILLER
Set in Seattle, this is about a forensic psychiatrist/professor (Pacino) who is notorious for testifying on the stand to successfully lock up serial rapists, murderers, and the like—some even put on death row, and some even put away on nothing but his testimony--perhaps slightly embellished testimony. He gets a mysterious phone call announcing that he has 88 minutes to live. It appears this caller knows things that only someone close to him can know. Being a forensic shrinky person, he should be able to deduce who this might be, if it’s really someone he knows, right? That's what I thought. Things are further complicated when he finds that he is under investigation for the murder of one of his best friends—a clear frame job—but making it harder for him to uncover the identity of the caller.
The previews looked decent, and I was fairly geeked to see the movie, which I saw in the theatre. The language was a bit much. It wasn’t quite as good as I was hoping for, but I shouldn't have been disappointed, becaues here’s the problem with most psychological thrillers: you can only make it so clever, or you lose half the audience. That’s just how it is. To dumb it down completely would just be plain insulting; but to be fair, they really do have to dumb it down to some extent, or a fair share of the viewers would stare opened mouthed through 90 percent of the film. And some of you know that’s true and are just too nice to say so. Have you read Harrison Bergeron? You know, where they try to dumb everyone down to the lowest common denominator so everyone is on the same level, which, in reality, is pretty low, and so when the brainiac starts to think too much, his head starts to hurt and all of a sudden his head gets jumbled and he forgets what he was thinking about. Problem solved—no more brainiac. Well, that’s how movies are made. You can’t write a script that caters to those at the collegiate level. Because not everyone went to college. And that market share (college goers) doesn’t bring in enough revenue. It’s just simple math. It’s like the Kincaid/Flesh reading ease method-the thing that judges the level of writing. Newspapers use it. Magazines use it. As an editor, I urge my writers to use it. It basically tells you what grade level your writing is up to. Most shoot for the 8th grade level. Why? Because that’s what engages the most number people--what most people understand. Very few papers target the collegiate level. Sad, but true. And so is true for movies. Set it too high or too tricky, and BAM! There goes your audience. Set it so an 8th grader can understand, and you’ve got the widest possible audience, which translates into the most possible dollars. Unfortunately, every now and then people who have surpassed the 8th grade would like to watch a fairly clever film. Just once in a while would be nice. Now, I’m not being condescending, or if I am, I’m not trying to be. I’m just saying that it would be nice to get lost in a movie once in a while. To go, hmmm… did I miss something? Instead of gee…. I wonder what happens next, with enough sarcasm to sink an oil tanker. I’m not bitter. It just really would be nice to watch a movie not driven solely by the dollar for a change. That’s what makes indies so refreshing. Indies typically don’t target the mass audiences. Sometimes this is by mistake, sometimes it is purposeful. Either way, the end result is the same. They produce clever films because they know their audience will be narrow. They can choose a narrow ignorant audience (but why?) or a narrow clever one. Horray for indies!
All that ranting said, the movie was okay, if not predictable in many areas. Al Pacino is always decent. Leelee Whatever-Her-Name-Is is usually irritating. And so she is again here. She gets lost in presence of Pacino, however.
THE LOVE GURU-PG13 for crude and sexual content throughout, language, some comic violence, and drug references-Starring Mike Myers, Jessica Alba, Justin Timberlake, Romany Malco, Meagan Good, Omid Djalili, Verne Troyer, and Ben Kingsley (with Jessica Simpson) / COMEDY
First, the comic violence, according to every review I’ve read, can hardly be so, since the “comic” part of the “comic violence” was apparently absent. Second, I thought the “sexual content THROUGHOUT” was particularly telling. THROUGHOUT? Great! I was hoping it was just for a while, but I was glad to hear the WHOLE movie was filled with sexual content… you can never have enough of crude and sexual humor, can you? It just sounds so good to me already.
For those of you who have been with me for a while, you might recall the movies Mike and I rated for the theatre at the beginning of summer. The ones from 0-5, 0 being super sucky… Mama Mia and Kit Kittredge coming in at the 0 or 1 level, Iron Man and Dark Knight topping my list at 5. Remember? Well, this information that we passed along to the theatre came from the hour of previews they showed us, which included this lovely little movie, THE LOVE GURU. It, too, fell at the bottom of my list, I think at 1, if I recall correctly. The preview looked so bad that I couldn’t imagine seeing it under any circumstance. However, remember there were two lists; the theatre list that asked us how well we thought it would do at the theatre, and then I did one later based on how the movie was in reality (two so very different things—people see sucky movies all the time). I actually thought this movie would do better in the theatre than it warranted. And yes, I was correct, this horrible little film did $30M in the theatre. Why? Why, indeed. Mike Myers and Jessica Alba, I would guess. She’s a hottie, no? I’ve never bought a movie, good or bad, that hasn’t rented well with her on the cover. And for those in my generation, who can forget Wayne’s World? That was truly funny. SNL? Hysterical. Austin Powers? Marginally funny. Myers not only stars in this movie but he wrote it as well. And then for the younger crowd, there’s Justin Timberlake. Awwww… shucks… all the girls think he’s such a cutey. This movie has what we call star-power. The movie could be a comedy about bathtubs and people would go see it. Suckers.
So what makes this so bad, you ask? Well, that depends how old you are. If you’re a 12-year-old boy, perhaps you might think this is actually funny. How many penis jokes can you hear in a 90 minute timeframe and still be amused? Would it help if you mix in a reference or two about animal sex, or throw in a few HYSTERICALLY CLEVER names like Coach Chercov (get it??? HAHAHA) and Jaques “Le Coq” (EVEN MORE CLEVER)---wait here’s another---Guru Satchabigknoba (that’s my fav)? These are names you think up on the bus ride home in 7th grade to impress your buddies at school. And that’s about the age when you find them funny. Would you think the movie would be funnier, if when Guru Pitka, (Myers) was giving out his guru-ish advice (which sounds fortune cookie-ish) the first letter of each word in the advice, when put together, actually spelled naughty phrases if , kind of like an acronym? Ha ha ha ha ha……………….
In addition, the jokes regarding Verne Troyer (Coach Chercov, aka Mini-Me) are overdone and old. Enough already. I am the last person to be politically correct. (Some cliché about a pot and kettle comes to mind.) You know very well I am about as PC as Sarah Palin (who has managed to capture the attention of my husband, who now thinks he is in love with her due to her political stance, some t-shirt with her in a wonder woman outfit holding a gun, and her ability to field-dress a moose—how can I compete with that??) but really, there’s a point where these kind of denigrating jokes just aren’t funny anymore. It’s like the fat girl who constantly makes reference to herself being fat. Or the blind girl who makes blind jokes (saying “visually impaired” jokes just doesn’t have the same ring, does it?). The joke is funny the first time—even relaxes people. Time number 20 is over the top and is awkward. You might have a complex. It’s called dignity. Get some.
The Love Guru is just such a far cry from the intelligent comedic elements and banter found on SNL that it’s hard to imagine what Myers was thinking (or was he?). He’s actually a decent actor, and there really was no excuse for such a dumbed-down, child-like, absolutely ridiculous, and certainly self-serving/self-indulgent film. Myers clearly thought this was funny, and that is truly disappointing. Leaving him to do as he pleases, he is clearly not nearly as funny as when he is under constant and direct supervision. His idea of funny and the reality of funny are, apparently, worlds apart.
MADE OF HONOR-PG13 for sexual content and language-Starring Patrick Dempsey, Michelle Monaghan, Kevin McKidd, Kathleen Quinlan, and Sydney Pollack. COMEDY/ROMANCE
This is another one of those failure-to-be-funny-or-romantic romantic comedies. Or so it appears to me. But yes, most appear that way to me, to be fair. But tell me if this sounds in any way romantic or comedic to you? I’ll bullet it for you to highlight the non-romantic and non-funny parts.
· Tom has a best friend, Hannah
· Tom falls in love with Hannah
· Hannah falls in love with someone else
· Hannah decides to marry this Someone Else
· Hannah asks Tom to be her maid of honor (yes, maid of honor)
· Tom has to plan Hannah’s wedding, bridal shower, etc., while being in love with Hannah, and watching her marry some other dude
I’m failing to see the humor, or the romance, in seeing the love of your life get engaged to another and sitting back and watching it happen. What part is romantic?
Now, it could be that they just failed to properly explain the romantic part on the back cover, in which case, I apologize for my ill review. Perhaps it’s very romantic. And very funny. Maybe Tom changes his mind, falls in love with one of Hannah’s bridesmaids, and Hannah’s new dude ends up being super romantic and super funny? I don’t know—I’m just saying if the love of my life decided to marry another… and wanted me to participate in the marriage… well... I might be, you know, a little…. sad. I said it before and I’ll say it again (but I swear this is the last time) Hollywood takes the most unfunny things and tries to make them funny. Unsuccessfully.
SPEED RACER-PG for sequences of action, some violence, language, and brief smoking-Starring Emile Hirsch, Christina Ricci, John Goodman, Susan Sarandon, Matthew Fox, and Benno Formann/ FAMILY
Welcome back to the adventures of Speed Racer and Trixie as they try to save the family business. GO, SPEEDRACER, GO!!! There is no way you can’t watch this. I didn’t see it in the theatre, but I have to see it now, if it’s the last thing I do. It’s Speed Racer. Get the kids and watch it. Just do it.
TORTURED-R for violence including torture and language-Starring Cole Hauser, James Cromwell, and Laurence Fishburne/CRIME
FBI agents, organized crime, stolen money—yeah, it looks good. I like Hauser. An undercover FBI agent (Hauser) penetrates an underground crime ring and is instructed by a mob boss to track down stolen money. Looks a little brutal, and the language is probably rough.
YOUNG @ HEART-PG for some mild language and thematic elements-Starring The Young at Heart Chorus / MUSIC
I’m not really sure what this is. I guess this is a senior citizens choir called the Young @ Heart Choir. They are preparing for a rock show in their hometown, and they are learning new songs, which include songs from James Brown, and get this—Coldplay. Apparently they are kind of hard of hearing, and the rehearsals are a little chaotic. I guess it’s supposed to be quite funny. And I guess, You’re Never Too Old To Rock.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Baby Mama
BABY MAMA-PG13 for crude and sexual humor, language, and a drug reference-Starring Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Greg Kinnear, and Dax Shepard (with Sigourney Weaver). COMEDY
First, I must say there are some strong Saturday Night Live influences here (Fey and Poehler, and some staff). That was a good thing, at least for me. SNL has always been original and amusing. I originally saw this in the theatre. Probably the only movie I’ve seen in the theatre without Mike. I went with his mother and his three sisters, all who were pregnant at the time (oh, no, actually, Kesha had already had Joey…). They thought it would be funny to see this movie, in particular. I thought it didn’t look very good, but wanted to participate in the outing, and so I went. And yes, I was amused. It wasn’t the world’s best movie, but it was laugh out loud in several scenes, thanks to Amy Poehler, who is incredibly funny, and the doorman, and Dax Shepard, who also was in Without a Paddle. Not to shrug off Tina Fey’s performance, but she was more of a stabilizing force throughout the movie, and although funny, her lines were not laugh out loud, nor do I think they were intended to be.
Kate (Fey) is a single ambitious career woman working for a health food conglomerate, and decides she wants a baby but can’t have one. She hires a surrogate (Poehler), who happens to be from a much … different class. The class differences, along with the fact that her surrogate is irresponsible, a junk-food junkie, completely chaotic, and basically Kate’s polar opposite, creates a setting for some laughable moments as they try to get through the 9 months until delivery. There were a few times that were cringe-worthy where I thought they might have gone too far, like the scene when Angie decides she will carry Kate’s baby. The words she uses to let Kate know she has made her decision, and what that decision was, although not profane by any stretch of the imagination, were just a bit much for me. My husband laughed out loud, as he cringed. And yes, you can’t have a movie like this without some political agendas. Surrogacy? Artificial insemination? Natural childbirth? Okay, so this was funny (to me). In birthing class, the instructor says, “How many of you are planning on natural childbirth?” And everyone in the class raises their hand except for Angie and Kate. The instructor, who has a terrible lisp, is very pleased, and says “good for you!” to many people. She follows up and says, “Now… how many of you are planning on drugging and poisoning your baby with toxic chemicals during delivery for your own selfish comfort?” And Angie, sitting on one of those big exercise balls, raises both hands in the air, and screams as you would at a football game “whooo!!!whooooo!!” And of course she is the only one, and everyone just stares silently. Angie is still pleased with herself, completely unaffected by the lack of popular response. This was probably the most amusing part of the entire movie. And sadly, maybe of my last three weeks. It’s worth the rental. It isn’t the best movie you’ll see this year, but it’ll make you laugh at least once or twice if you’re grumpy, and will keep you laughing if you’re not.
First, I must say there are some strong Saturday Night Live influences here (Fey and Poehler, and some staff). That was a good thing, at least for me. SNL has always been original and amusing. I originally saw this in the theatre. Probably the only movie I’ve seen in the theatre without Mike. I went with his mother and his three sisters, all who were pregnant at the time (oh, no, actually, Kesha had already had Joey…). They thought it would be funny to see this movie, in particular. I thought it didn’t look very good, but wanted to participate in the outing, and so I went. And yes, I was amused. It wasn’t the world’s best movie, but it was laugh out loud in several scenes, thanks to Amy Poehler, who is incredibly funny, and the doorman, and Dax Shepard, who also was in Without a Paddle. Not to shrug off Tina Fey’s performance, but she was more of a stabilizing force throughout the movie, and although funny, her lines were not laugh out loud, nor do I think they were intended to be.
Kate (Fey) is a single ambitious career woman working for a health food conglomerate, and decides she wants a baby but can’t have one. She hires a surrogate (Poehler), who happens to be from a much … different class. The class differences, along with the fact that her surrogate is irresponsible, a junk-food junkie, completely chaotic, and basically Kate’s polar opposite, creates a setting for some laughable moments as they try to get through the 9 months until delivery. There were a few times that were cringe-worthy where I thought they might have gone too far, like the scene when Angie decides she will carry Kate’s baby. The words she uses to let Kate know she has made her decision, and what that decision was, although not profane by any stretch of the imagination, were just a bit much for me. My husband laughed out loud, as he cringed. And yes, you can’t have a movie like this without some political agendas. Surrogacy? Artificial insemination? Natural childbirth? Okay, so this was funny (to me). In birthing class, the instructor says, “How many of you are planning on natural childbirth?” And everyone in the class raises their hand except for Angie and Kate. The instructor, who has a terrible lisp, is very pleased, and says “good for you!” to many people. She follows up and says, “Now… how many of you are planning on drugging and poisoning your baby with toxic chemicals during delivery for your own selfish comfort?” And Angie, sitting on one of those big exercise balls, raises both hands in the air, and screams as you would at a football game “whooo!!!whooooo!!” And of course she is the only one, and everyone just stares silently. Angie is still pleased with herself, completely unaffected by the lack of popular response. This was probably the most amusing part of the entire movie. And sadly, maybe of my last three weeks. It’s worth the rental. It isn’t the best movie you’ll see this year, but it’ll make you laugh at least once or twice if you’re grumpy, and will keep you laughing if you’re not.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Then She Found Me
Starring Helen Hunt, Matthew Broderick, Bette Midler
So I watched it. A mistake, I might add. Television programming on Saturday night sucked, and I watched it. It was sappy here and there, but not quite as melodramatic as one would have believed after reading the back matter on the DVD cover. Oh, but there were still many things with which I took issue. Where do I begin?
I guess I could always start with the good stuff. Helen Hunt was marvelously beautiful, and as always, was a believable actress in every way. She plays the role of a 39-year-old teacher who gets dumped by her child-like husband. There is a problem, however, in that Helen Hunt is actually 45. And although she is still very beautiful, she looks like she has lived through every one of her 45 glorious years, not just 39 of them, as the film would have had you believe. And this is Hollywood—if one wanted to look 39, one could easily do so. It’s called stage makeup. So why not put a little effort into covering the age? Not to be entirely superficial, but just put me down if I look like I’m 45 when I’m 39. (Okay, please don’t really do that [MICHAEL]). Actually, my husband can’t put me down because last month he had my name tattooed on his chest, and since my real name is Julianne, in the event of my death, his remarriage would have to be to someone else named Julianne—good luck with that. And for your information, I so told him not to do that. But it is kinda sweet, in a trailory kinda way, is it not? It looks good next to the very large Jewish star on his arm. (No, he’s not Jewish.)
Getting back to Ms. Hunt, who’s elderly looks are exacerbated by the presence of her screen-mate, Bette Midler, who plays the character of Helen’s mother. (Midler did a great job as well) Bette is in her 60s, but looks about the same age as Helen. It’s noticeable and awkward since she is playing the role of her mother. And as my husband so promptly pointed out, they didn’t even try to cover Helen’s age. Ouch.
So there was that. Then there was this little love triangle thing going on with Helen’s husband, who she was separated from (Broderick), and the father of one of her students (Colin Firth). You know, sad things happen. Husbands leave. But here are these screenwriters who want you basically to hate this hubby, who admittedly is the epitome of irresponsibility, and want you to love this man who she starts seeing afterward (although she’s still married--perhaps she forgot). And yes, this man she falls in love with is near perfect (unrealistically so…) and you can’t help but like him too. You cannot help but be irritated by her husband--constantly. Even with this irritation, who can forget the fact that she is a married woman? Perhaps most of the world can set this trivial fact aside and say, “Oh well, she made a mistake.” Well duh, I suppose she did—he’s a complete fool. And I suppose she’ll just have to suck that one up. Some mistakes you end up living with rather than ridding yourself of, and the fact that Hollywood and the rest of the world treats this situation—marriage--with such a disposable and flippant attitude, like it’s no more important than a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, is sad. How far have we fallen, from the days when the stigma of a divorce or separation was tantamount to that of being a whore? And women’s lib (cringe) might track me down and maim me with a flatiron for saying this, but how is that a bad thing, exactly? There is a lot to be said for social perceptions keeping us on our toes. Slowly things have become more acceptable, until now, we look back and what was once a horrible outrage is now not only socially acceptable, it might actually be vogue in some circles. Movies like this, where writers actually sway the viewer by creating a likable character in one and an extremely unlikable character in another make it easy to take our eye off what is really going on behind the curtain: a woman is cheating on her husband. Somehow this is rationalized because her husband is irresponsible and because she finds a much better man (ahem, the man that just happens to be sleeping with a married woman). The more you watch stuff like this without taking the time to understand what it really is about, the more it will start unconsciously to become the social norm. The scary part is, are your kids watching this? Do they see this for what it really is, or will they, too, eventually and unconsciouslly accept this pretty rationalization created by Hollywood? And how long will it take?
So I watched it. A mistake, I might add. Television programming on Saturday night sucked, and I watched it. It was sappy here and there, but not quite as melodramatic as one would have believed after reading the back matter on the DVD cover. Oh, but there were still many things with which I took issue. Where do I begin?
I guess I could always start with the good stuff. Helen Hunt was marvelously beautiful, and as always, was a believable actress in every way. She plays the role of a 39-year-old teacher who gets dumped by her child-like husband. There is a problem, however, in that Helen Hunt is actually 45. And although she is still very beautiful, she looks like she has lived through every one of her 45 glorious years, not just 39 of them, as the film would have had you believe. And this is Hollywood—if one wanted to look 39, one could easily do so. It’s called stage makeup. So why not put a little effort into covering the age? Not to be entirely superficial, but just put me down if I look like I’m 45 when I’m 39. (Okay, please don’t really do that [MICHAEL]). Actually, my husband can’t put me down because last month he had my name tattooed on his chest, and since my real name is Julianne, in the event of my death, his remarriage would have to be to someone else named Julianne—good luck with that. And for your information, I so told him not to do that. But it is kinda sweet, in a trailory kinda way, is it not? It looks good next to the very large Jewish star on his arm. (No, he’s not Jewish.)
Getting back to Ms. Hunt, who’s elderly looks are exacerbated by the presence of her screen-mate, Bette Midler, who plays the character of Helen’s mother. (Midler did a great job as well) Bette is in her 60s, but looks about the same age as Helen. It’s noticeable and awkward since she is playing the role of her mother. And as my husband so promptly pointed out, they didn’t even try to cover Helen’s age. Ouch.
So there was that. Then there was this little love triangle thing going on with Helen’s husband, who she was separated from (Broderick), and the father of one of her students (Colin Firth). You know, sad things happen. Husbands leave. But here are these screenwriters who want you basically to hate this hubby, who admittedly is the epitome of irresponsibility, and want you to love this man who she starts seeing afterward (although she’s still married--perhaps she forgot). And yes, this man she falls in love with is near perfect (unrealistically so…) and you can’t help but like him too. You cannot help but be irritated by her husband--constantly. Even with this irritation, who can forget the fact that she is a married woman? Perhaps most of the world can set this trivial fact aside and say, “Oh well, she made a mistake.” Well duh, I suppose she did—he’s a complete fool. And I suppose she’ll just have to suck that one up. Some mistakes you end up living with rather than ridding yourself of, and the fact that Hollywood and the rest of the world treats this situation—marriage--with such a disposable and flippant attitude, like it’s no more important than a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, is sad. How far have we fallen, from the days when the stigma of a divorce or separation was tantamount to that of being a whore? And women’s lib (cringe) might track me down and maim me with a flatiron for saying this, but how is that a bad thing, exactly? There is a lot to be said for social perceptions keeping us on our toes. Slowly things have become more acceptable, until now, we look back and what was once a horrible outrage is now not only socially acceptable, it might actually be vogue in some circles. Movies like this, where writers actually sway the viewer by creating a likable character in one and an extremely unlikable character in another make it easy to take our eye off what is really going on behind the curtain: a woman is cheating on her husband. Somehow this is rationalized because her husband is irresponsible and because she finds a much better man (ahem, the man that just happens to be sleeping with a married woman). The more you watch stuff like this without taking the time to understand what it really is about, the more it will start unconsciously to become the social norm. The scary part is, are your kids watching this? Do they see this for what it really is, or will they, too, eventually and unconsciouslly accept this pretty rationalization created by Hollywood? And how long will it take?
Monday, August 18, 2008
TROPIC THUNDER
This was written, directed, and produced by Ben Stiller. And he was also the star of the show. I have never been a Ben Stiller fan. Strike one. The other main star here was Robert Downy Jr., of whom I am a huge fan. However, their characters played the roles of actors. Bad actors. Now I'm wondering how much of a stretch that is to pull that off. How hard is it to pretend to be a bad actor delivering poorly written lines (how hard is it to write bad lines either, Ben), pretending to overact them? How hard is it, or how much of a stretch is it to pretend to be a spoiled and pampered big-time actor who is constantly catered to, to the detriment of their character, in essence, turning them into some unmanageable person who no one can stand to be around? I'm thinking this was not a stretch for either of them. Hey guys, just be yourself. We'll just keep rolling.
Strike two: the opening spoof on a commercial for a sports drink "booty sweat" was so wrong that I would have rated the movie NC-17. There was absolutely no excuse for this, no purpose for this at all. It added nothing to the movie, it did not support the story line in any way, was gratuitous, utterly vulgar, degrading, and I have no other words to do this justice. In fact, this part alone was simply X-rated. Keep in mind this was within the first 3 minutes of film, and I nearly walked out.
Strike three: The language was bad throughout the entire film. However, what got to me was not necessarily the language, but the sexual references. People have mentioned "innuendo." There is no innuendo here. This is spelling it out and drawing you a mental picture. There is no subtle undertone so some people will get it and others won't. There was one scene in particular with Jack Black who was attempting to "get clean." Black was offering services (that is an example of innuendo) to another actor in exchange for being released after having second thoughts. The "services" he offered were descriptive to the point of being nauseating. So wrong, in fact that the NC-17 rating again should be applicable.
A SMALL SHINING MOMENT
There was a shining moment or two in the film. (Gasp) Thankfully, someone thought to cast Tom Cruise and Matthew McConaughey, who were absolutely brilliant in their roles, although their screen time was insufficient. Cruise's performance was over the top and he was almost unrecognizable-this was laugh out loud funny. Matthew McConaughey brought a more serious tone to the film, and was not to be outdone by any cast member. By far, their presence in the film is the best thing about it.
There was a shining moment or two in the film. (Gasp) Thankfully, someone thought to cast Tom Cruise and Matthew McConaughey, who were absolutely brilliant in their roles, although their screen time was insufficient. Cruise's performance was over the top and he was almost unrecognizable-this was laugh out loud funny. Matthew McConaughey brought a more serious tone to the film, and was not to be outdone by any cast member. By far, their presence in the film is the best thing about it.
I would never recommend this film to anyone for any reason. I would recommend that you wait for it to come out on DVD, fast forward to the parts with Tom Cruise (particularly the parts where he is dancing) and watch those 10 or 15 minutes of footage only. Spare yourself the crass, vulgar, and cheap slapstick that you can find in any comedy flick.
-Juli
Video Vault
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
