Straw Dogs (2011) Dir. Rod Lurie
R 110 mins.
Some times it takes me a while to get around to watching something. This movie was released late last year, and I just recently viewed it. And I liked it. James Marsden is fine as the every day Joe pushed to the breaking point when confonted by a group of red neck, hillbilly, ex-high school footballers, turned red neck, hillbilly, beer guzzlin' roofers trying to gain entry into their house. "I will not allow violence against this house". I will always hold this particular arcetype against Kurt Russel's power house performance in 1997's Breakdown. "You want me to stop!?! You want me to stop!?! 'Cause I bet this baby stops on a fucking dime!" Love it. Awesome movie.
Generally I stay away from thrillers. They either frustrate me with the obviously stupid decisions the characters often make, or they serve to remind us just sickly depressing our society is, by reflecting it on screen.
The best (or should I say worst) example in recent memory being Law Abiding Citizen. Good movie, vigilante justice is served. But for anyone who has seen this, it's the opening scene that is most likely remembered. Those of us with children for sure. The fucker that picks up the little girl, walking off camera (thankfully) telling his partner that "he's good with kids" while the horrified father watches helplessly. That scene stuck with me for days. I don't need that shit. I wanna be entertained, whisked away by the fantastical, provoked by new ideas, not reminded of the horrors that so randomly await us. So I tend to stay from this genre, but Straw Dogs doesn't feature any children, so this is safer territory.
Plus I'm a fan of James Marsden.
I'm still bitter over his handling in the X-Men films, especially the third. The one helmed by Brett ("rehearsals are for f*gs") Ratner. Douche. But it was his role as homophobic big brother in 2008's Sex Drive that I think of when his name is mentioned. "Tough talking" then beating the crap out of the garage door when he realises his younger bro stole his prized late model Dodge Charger almost brings me to tears every time I watch it. For those not easily offended, check this one out.
Straw Dogs also has that no-talent twit Kate Bosworth staring as his stupid, clueless, annoying, bitchy wife. I don't if that's what film makers wanted from her, maybe she just put too much of herself into the role. For those who can't read between the lines; I don't like Bosworth. I attribute my disdain for her as a result of her horribly mis-cast turn as Lois Lane in Superman Returns (also starring James Marsden). On a rooftop with Superman (basically the love of her life, for those of you spending the last 75 yrs. off world) after a 5 yr absence looking for remnants of his home world, he's returned and tells Lois that Krypton really is destroyed, and he really is all alone. And what does she say in return? "Oh you'll never be alone"? "Oh, how I've missed you, and love you and I'm so glad you've returned"? No. She says, "well you're back. And eveybody's real happy about it" (said like the real snotty bitch she is). Stupid bitch! Anyways, holy crap, way off topic here. This review was intended as a comment on the whole remake epidemic.
Straw Dogs is a remake of the '71 film of the same name starring Dustin Hoffman. Which was, as is usually the case, better received than this current do-over.
Is Hollywood lacking in originality? Most would argue yes. I can hardly disagree.
I mean look what's come just in the last year: Fright Night, Conan, Footloose and Tinkor, Tailor, Soldier, Spy to name a few. And on the horizon; Total Recall, Judge Dredd, Escape from New York, Poltergeist, Meatballs, Red Dawn.....on and on and.....
If it's not a remake it's a sequel or a prequel or based on a novel [Twilight and it's sequels (are we done yet?), The hunger Games and it's inevitable sequels (although this looks more promising)], or based on TV show (the 80's being the preferred decade), or based on a play. And here is the definitive proof Hollywood's scraping the bottom of the idea barrel: Battleship! Yeah, that's right Battleship. Like the Milton and Bradly Battleship.WTF! How do you stretch; B4..."You sunk my battleship!" into a 2 hr. movie? It will be sheer curiosity, nothing more that leads me to watching this one. And I'm afraid Mr. Neeson I've lost a little respect sir. This is also to be Rhianna's introductory film role. Time will tell if this was a good idea for her or not. (I'm guessing no)
In conclusion, although it only made $10 mil. domestically, Straw Dogs a remake worth a watch.
Saturday 7 April 2012
Wednesday 7 March 2012
Tower Heist (2011) Dir. Brett Ratner
PG -13 104mins.
Funny. Not knee-slappin, piss your pants, hee-haw funny,but funny. and quite enjoyable. I find Ben Stiller pretty reliable in his humorous ability, and Tower Heist is no exception.
It appears Eddie Murphy may be beginning his ascent from the dismal shit abyss his career's been in lately (Dreamgirls and the Shreck movies being the exception) Look at his last few attempts; Meet Dave, Norbit, Haunted Mansion. How the mighty (Axel Foley, please come back) have fallen. But Tower Heist is not his movie, it's Stiller's. Stiller can hold his own, and carry a picture, Murphy, I'm sad to say, can not. But that's maybe why Eddie's character (the "career criminal") works. In a supporting role, not a lead.
Eddie's in good company too. Casey Affleck is an employee of the Tower under Stiller's management, and a reluctant partner in the heist. Now let me say this; Ben Affleck is a tool. Other than his small role in Good Will Hunting (awesome movie), I've never been able to take him seriously. He's not a horrible actor, I just don't like the guy. Now let me also say this; Ben Affleck is an incredible director. You need to go watch Gone Baby Gone (also starring kid brother Casey), and The Town. Fantastic movies. I'd be quite happy with Ben staying behind the camera, instead of showing his face in front of it. I think his brother is the more talented thespian. The afore mentioned Gone Baby Gone and The Assassination of Jesse James are good examples of his work.
Matthew Broderick, Michael Pena, and Alan Alda round out the main male cast.
Alan Alda I grew up with. Watching Hawkeye pierce (M.A.S.H.) operate on the military wounded from the comfort of our living room couch. He's believable as the "wealthy tycoon who never forgot where he came from" to the "piece of human garbage exploiting those under him for financial gain" type guy.
Michael Pena (also along for the heist) has proven he's adept at serious drama or comedy. (See The Lucky Ones and/or Observe and Report)
Then there's Matthew Broderick. I have about as much use for this monotone minion as Ben Affleck. Lt. Cmdr. Data has more emotional range than this guy (that's a Star Trek reference for those of you not in the know) *insert Star Trek plug here.
Gabourey Sidibe (precious), and Téa Leoni (pronounced TAH-uh) plays the sympathetic FBI agent interested in Stiller’s character. Leoni (45) is still lookin’ good. And considering she was married (now separated) to David (admitted sex-aholic) Duchovny, she’s probably a little tired.
Trivia; Leoni was considered for the role of “Rachel” on Friends.
On a final side note, Brett Ratner was assigned the role of directing the Oscars this year but stepped down after receiving obvious heat for his “rehersals are for f*gs” comment. Duh. Eddie Murphy, who was scheduled to host the awards, also walked away after Ratner left.
This was a highly enjoyable film and well worth a watch. Rent it.
Wednesday 29 February 2012
J. Edgar (2011) Dir. Clint Eastwood
R 137 mins.
How do you cram a career spanning 50 yrs. into a 2hr. movie? I don't know, I'm not a filmaker. Were the events they chose to highlight accurate? I don't know, I'm not a historian. Was this film better than Eastwood's last directorial outing? I don't know, I'm not a film critic.
Okay,it was better than Hereafter. but really that's not saying too much. I Look at Mr. Eastwood's very impressive directorial resume, and I'm growing concerned at his last two efforts. Now this is not a terrible movie. And I gain more respect for DiCaprio with every performance, this one included. The rest of the cast is fine too. Naomi Watts, as his ever faithful secretary, Dame Judi Dench, as his slightly overbearing mother, and Armie Hammer as Hoover's "partner" in more ways than one. I haven't yet viewed The Social Network, so this portrayl is my first impression of Hammer. Honestly he kinda gives me the "willies". Maybe that's because of the role he played, maybe that's a testament to his acting skills, I don't know.
On a side note Hammer was cast in the failed Justice League movie, as Batman. Thank God that project was returned to development hell where it belongs. Armie Hammer as Batman? - No Thank You!.
Anyways, way off topic here, What left a lasting impression with me regarding J. Edgar were the makeup effects and the lighting. It was so dark, half the bloody movie was covered in shadow. Intentional or not, I found it too dark. Then there was the makeup. The movie bounced around a lot, from J. Edgar as a young 20's something, right up until his death. There were various settings in time that required DiCaprio and friends to "look their age" so the appropiate level of aging makeup was applied, but if the makeup is distracting, someone hasn't done their job. Especially with Armis Hammer's character, He looked horrible in more than one scene. Maybe these are superficial critisims, maybe the film's a damn masterpiece. What the hell do I know. Rent it yourself.
R 137 mins.
How do you cram a career spanning 50 yrs. into a 2hr. movie? I don't know, I'm not a filmaker. Were the events they chose to highlight accurate? I don't know, I'm not a historian. Was this film better than Eastwood's last directorial outing? I don't know, I'm not a film critic.
Okay,it was better than Hereafter. but really that's not saying too much. I Look at Mr. Eastwood's very impressive directorial resume, and I'm growing concerned at his last two efforts. Now this is not a terrible movie. And I gain more respect for DiCaprio with every performance, this one included. The rest of the cast is fine too. Naomi Watts, as his ever faithful secretary, Dame Judi Dench, as his slightly overbearing mother, and Armie Hammer as Hoover's "partner" in more ways than one. I haven't yet viewed The Social Network, so this portrayl is my first impression of Hammer. Honestly he kinda gives me the "willies". Maybe that's because of the role he played, maybe that's a testament to his acting skills, I don't know.
On a side note Hammer was cast in the failed Justice League movie, as Batman. Thank God that project was returned to development hell where it belongs. Armie Hammer as Batman? - No Thank You!.
Anyways, way off topic here, What left a lasting impression with me regarding J. Edgar were the makeup effects and the lighting. It was so dark, half the bloody movie was covered in shadow. Intentional or not, I found it too dark. Then there was the makeup. The movie bounced around a lot, from J. Edgar as a young 20's something, right up until his death. There were various settings in time that required DiCaprio and friends to "look their age" so the appropiate level of aging makeup was applied, but if the makeup is distracting, someone hasn't done their job. Especially with Armis Hammer's character, He looked horrible in more than one scene. Maybe these are superficial critisims, maybe the film's a damn masterpiece. What the hell do I know. Rent it yourself.
Sunday 26 February 2012
Goon (2012) Dir. Michael Dowse
R 92 mins.
It's not often that I get out to the theatres, my last outing was the third Transformers film, which elicited mixed feelings, let's just say I'm not at all thrilled that Bay is directing the fourth, and likely the fifth, sixth,...eighteenth, anyways, I found Goon hilarious! IMO without the R rating, this would have not been nearly as funny. Some of the crude locker room "ribbing" scenes being the best example.
The exaggerated sound effects, slow motion fists, foreheads, and pucks making bloody contact with helmets and flesh also contribute to the hilarity.
Those who are of the opinion that there is too much violence in hockey might not find too much to laugh at here. As the on ice brawling is at the front and centre of this piece. I don't think anyone behind the camera is making any social comment on it either, just having fun. Very violent, explicit, bloody fun.
This may be the first time since "Stifler's" introduction that I have found Seann William Scott offer up a fresh take on a character. I usually find him one-dimensional, playing a variation on Stifler to one degree or another (See; Road Trip, Dude Where's My Car? or Role Models), but this was different. He was actually likable this time. Honest. Sincere. My sister picked up on this as well. After leaving the theatre, she states; "that was awesome! And he wasn't an asshole this time!" So there you have it. "stifler" has some range after all.
Scott was helped along by Canadian alum Jay Baruchel. Who was as crudely funny and obnoxiously insensitive as he is thin. Alison Pill (cdn.) plays the hockey slut who "Doug the Thug" falls for. Kim Coates (cdn.), who I always remember as the henchman from The Last Boyscout, that had his nose drove into his brain by Bruce Willis, plays the head coach of the Halifax Highlanders, and the one that sees thru the "thug" as the true heart of the team. Eugene Levy (cdn.) plays Doug's father (in only two scenes though). And Liev Schreiber, who was my original choice to play Harvey Dent way back when, during The Dark Knight casting days, plays Ross "the Boss" Rhea.
Filmed in Canada, by a cdn. director and inspired by a true story featuring our favourite pass time, Goon should prove to be a Canadian success story.
Do you need to rush out tonight to view this in the theatre? No it can wait. But definitely pick this on up upon video release.
R 92 mins.
It's not often that I get out to the theatres, my last outing was the third Transformers film, which elicited mixed feelings, let's just say I'm not at all thrilled that Bay is directing the fourth, and likely the fifth, sixth,...eighteenth, anyways, I found Goon hilarious! IMO without the R rating, this would have not been nearly as funny. Some of the crude locker room "ribbing" scenes being the best example.
The exaggerated sound effects, slow motion fists, foreheads, and pucks making bloody contact with helmets and flesh also contribute to the hilarity.
Those who are of the opinion that there is too much violence in hockey might not find too much to laugh at here. As the on ice brawling is at the front and centre of this piece. I don't think anyone behind the camera is making any social comment on it either, just having fun. Very violent, explicit, bloody fun.
This may be the first time since "Stifler's" introduction that I have found Seann William Scott offer up a fresh take on a character. I usually find him one-dimensional, playing a variation on Stifler to one degree or another (See; Road Trip, Dude Where's My Car? or Role Models), but this was different. He was actually likable this time. Honest. Sincere. My sister picked up on this as well. After leaving the theatre, she states; "that was awesome! And he wasn't an asshole this time!" So there you have it. "stifler" has some range after all.
Scott was helped along by Canadian alum Jay Baruchel. Who was as crudely funny and obnoxiously insensitive as he is thin. Alison Pill (cdn.) plays the hockey slut who "Doug the Thug" falls for. Kim Coates (cdn.), who I always remember as the henchman from The Last Boyscout, that had his nose drove into his brain by Bruce Willis, plays the head coach of the Halifax Highlanders, and the one that sees thru the "thug" as the true heart of the team. Eugene Levy (cdn.) plays Doug's father (in only two scenes though). And Liev Schreiber, who was my original choice to play Harvey Dent way back when, during The Dark Knight casting days, plays Ross "the Boss" Rhea.
Filmed in Canada, by a cdn. director and inspired by a true story featuring our favourite pass time, Goon should prove to be a Canadian success story.
Do you need to rush out tonight to view this in the theatre? No it can wait. But definitely pick this on up upon video release.
Thursday 23 February 2012
The Thing (2011) Dir. Mattijis van Heijningen Jr.
R 103 mins.
I watched the Thing (1982) on the advice of my parents way back when. Probably 12, 15 yrs. ago. I liked it, I suppose, the only images that stuck with me though, were that of the opening "chase". The helicopter flying low to the ground, and some guy firing at a dog with a high powered rifle. That, and some scene involving a detached head (how it was seperated from it's body, I don't recall) sprouting "legs" and taking off, much to the bewilderment of the onlookers. Flash forward a decade or so, and Hollywood's makin' another prequel. What a surprise right? So, not expecting too much and having not watched the original in some time, I rented the new one.
Joel Edgerton (Warrior) is really the only actor that I can readily place, some other somewhat familar faces appear, and we're off, charting already explored territory. The Thing doesn't offer too much in the (one of us isn't really us) number. There's some intensity, some paranoia, some frustration as you watch the typical stubborn fools make all the wrong decisions, while the one, rational character with common sence watches it all unfold helplessly. We've all seen this before. The movie finishes as expected, and you're left feeling "yeah, that was alright, I guess. Wait a moment or two for the credits to reveal a direct tie-in to the original.
Then I watched The Thing (1982), and holy shit! It's all there, the axe in the wall, the guy in the chair with slit arteries, the block of ice with the missing inhabitant, the "melding guy/thing" outside. All the shit Mac (Kurt Russell) and the Dr. find in the beginning of the '82 movie, it's all there. They set it all up precisley in the prequel.
The Thing (2011) was actually a satisfying prequel. And we know it's hit or miss with sequel/prequel these days, what with Hollywood completely running out of ideas and all,but this worked. Especially if your a fan of the original, watch this then the original. It's a blast. If you're a fan of the original, this is a definite must see. If you own the Thing (1982), buy this. Complete the story. At least until Hollywood makes a sequel.
R 103 mins.
I watched the Thing (1982) on the advice of my parents way back when. Probably 12, 15 yrs. ago. I liked it, I suppose, the only images that stuck with me though, were that of the opening "chase". The helicopter flying low to the ground, and some guy firing at a dog with a high powered rifle. That, and some scene involving a detached head (how it was seperated from it's body, I don't recall) sprouting "legs" and taking off, much to the bewilderment of the onlookers. Flash forward a decade or so, and Hollywood's makin' another prequel. What a surprise right? So, not expecting too much and having not watched the original in some time, I rented the new one.
Joel Edgerton (Warrior) is really the only actor that I can readily place, some other somewhat familar faces appear, and we're off, charting already explored territory. The Thing doesn't offer too much in the (one of us isn't really us) number. There's some intensity, some paranoia, some frustration as you watch the typical stubborn fools make all the wrong decisions, while the one, rational character with common sence watches it all unfold helplessly. We've all seen this before. The movie finishes as expected, and you're left feeling "yeah, that was alright, I guess. Wait a moment or two for the credits to reveal a direct tie-in to the original.
Then I watched The Thing (1982), and holy shit! It's all there, the axe in the wall, the guy in the chair with slit arteries, the block of ice with the missing inhabitant, the "melding guy/thing" outside. All the shit Mac (Kurt Russell) and the Dr. find in the beginning of the '82 movie, it's all there. They set it all up precisley in the prequel.
The Thing (2011) was actually a satisfying prequel. And we know it's hit or miss with sequel/prequel these days, what with Hollywood completely running out of ideas and all,but this worked. Especially if your a fan of the original, watch this then the original. It's a blast. If you're a fan of the original, this is a definite must see. If you own the Thing (1982), buy this. Complete the story. At least until Hollywood makes a sequel.
Tuesday 21 February 2012
Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) Dir. Rupert Wyatt
PG - 13 105 mins.
Admittedly, I am not a fan of the Planet/Apes films. The only exposure I have to this franchise is the 2001 Tim Burton outing. (meh). Nor do I have any desire to go back and look at them. Mostly because of that douche bag Heston. Charlton heston was one of the greatest actors to grace the screen you say? Yeah, maybe. But he was also a douche bag (watch Bowling for Columbine for proof of his douchebaggery).
But this one was a damn good flick. This is the first Rupert Wyatt film I've seen. He's done at least three others, but I've never heard of 'em. So there's no frame reference for me. Nothing remarkable to note, but of course that's hardly a bad thing.
The credit here goes to (unsurprisingly) Mr. Serkis (I give him the honorific of "Mr." because he deserves our recognition) his performance is pure movie magic. Could Caesar have been portrayed completely by CGI? Of course. But it's the eyes. The complete range of facial expressions that we can now only fully achieve with the advent of motion capture technology that ads the depth of emotion that has you completely sympathising with the chimp. Especially watching his mistreatment at the hands of some jerkoff animal "caretaker". You know the jerkoff caretaker has it coming, and you just can't wait for some monkey payback.
James Franco also does a fine job. I have a lot more respect for Franco after watching 127 hours. While watching RofPofA you find yourself easily understanding his questionable scientific methods, mostly due to the ailing health of his father, played by (an all too short, but moving) performance by the wonderful John Lithgow. Billy Cox and Freida Pinto (slumdog millionare) also co-star.
In the end, Rise of the Planet of the Apes will have you rooting for the apes.
Rating: Rent it (if you have extra cash, Buy it)
PG - 13 105 mins.
Admittedly, I am not a fan of the Planet/Apes films. The only exposure I have to this franchise is the 2001 Tim Burton outing. (meh). Nor do I have any desire to go back and look at them. Mostly because of that douche bag Heston. Charlton heston was one of the greatest actors to grace the screen you say? Yeah, maybe. But he was also a douche bag (watch Bowling for Columbine for proof of his douchebaggery).
But this one was a damn good flick. This is the first Rupert Wyatt film I've seen. He's done at least three others, but I've never heard of 'em. So there's no frame reference for me. Nothing remarkable to note, but of course that's hardly a bad thing.
The credit here goes to (unsurprisingly) Mr. Serkis (I give him the honorific of "Mr." because he deserves our recognition) his performance is pure movie magic. Could Caesar have been portrayed completely by CGI? Of course. But it's the eyes. The complete range of facial expressions that we can now only fully achieve with the advent of motion capture technology that ads the depth of emotion that has you completely sympathising with the chimp. Especially watching his mistreatment at the hands of some jerkoff animal "caretaker". You know the jerkoff caretaker has it coming, and you just can't wait for some monkey payback.
James Franco also does a fine job. I have a lot more respect for Franco after watching 127 hours. While watching RofPofA you find yourself easily understanding his questionable scientific methods, mostly due to the ailing health of his father, played by (an all too short, but moving) performance by the wonderful John Lithgow. Billy Cox and Freida Pinto (slumdog millionare) also co-star.
In the end, Rise of the Planet of the Apes will have you rooting for the apes.
Rating: Rent it (if you have extra cash, Buy it)
Warrior (2011) Dir. Gavin O'Connor
PG - 13 140mins.
Warrior is simply put: Awesome! What a, for lack of a better word, awesome movie.
Long, (2hrs. 20mins.) but never feeling like it, Warrior takes place in the world of MMA fighting. I never watched wrestling as a child (my Dad would not allow it - either because of the "violence" or questionable acting, I'm not sure). So I developed little interest in UFC or MMA. I do train in Aikido myself, but that's the extent of my martial arts experience, so the authenticity of the MMA world presented in the film will have to be left to those who are more qualified than myself to judge.
The performances are all solid. Nick Nolte, who I've only started to warm up to in recent years, gives a real heartbreaking performance as a father desperate to re-connect with two estranged sons. Tom Hardy, who's bulked up considerably since his stint as a star trek villain (Nemesis), has a quiet ferocity that he exudes with very little dialogue. The film though (IMO) is carried by Joel Edgerton. It's nearly an hour before any cage matches are seen, and yet you're so invested in Joel's character (Brendan), it doesn't feel like you're marking time waiting for a fight. Anyone who saw the trailer knows Tom and Brendan are brothers, and we know they fight, but, DAMN! watch it yourself. just awesome stuff, with a satisfying and emotional conclusion, Warrior is just, well, awesome.
Rating; Buy it
PG - 13 140mins.
Warrior is simply put: Awesome! What a, for lack of a better word, awesome movie.
Long, (2hrs. 20mins.) but never feeling like it, Warrior takes place in the world of MMA fighting. I never watched wrestling as a child (my Dad would not allow it - either because of the "violence" or questionable acting, I'm not sure). So I developed little interest in UFC or MMA. I do train in Aikido myself, but that's the extent of my martial arts experience, so the authenticity of the MMA world presented in the film will have to be left to those who are more qualified than myself to judge.
The performances are all solid. Nick Nolte, who I've only started to warm up to in recent years, gives a real heartbreaking performance as a father desperate to re-connect with two estranged sons. Tom Hardy, who's bulked up considerably since his stint as a star trek villain (Nemesis), has a quiet ferocity that he exudes with very little dialogue. The film though (IMO) is carried by Joel Edgerton. It's nearly an hour before any cage matches are seen, and yet you're so invested in Joel's character (Brendan), it doesn't feel like you're marking time waiting for a fight. Anyone who saw the trailer knows Tom and Brendan are brothers, and we know they fight, but, DAMN! watch it yourself. just awesome stuff, with a satisfying and emotional conclusion, Warrior is just, well, awesome.
Rating; Buy it
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)