You know, for some reason I have this sneaky suspicion I have seen this movie before. If only I had a better memory and could remember. Just kidding. Before I begin I would like to say this. I like apple pie and I like cherry pie. I do like both pies equally the same for the qualities that they have. I love the sweetness of the apples mixed with the cinnamon and the sugar but on the other hand I love the sweet tartness of the cherries and the gooey sauce that surrounds them. With both pies I love how the crust can be flaky and buttery with just the right texture to hold the pies all together but still soft and flaky enough that a fork can cut through and the crust melts in your mouth with caramelized sugar coating the top of it.
That being said, Total Recall with Farrell, Beckinsale and Biel would be like a apple pie that went wrong and Total Recall with Arnie, Stone and Ironside would be like a cherry pie with a few mistakes as well. From now on let me discuss the merits, or flaws, of the apple pie Total Recall with Farrell. The action in this film was quite good. Plenty of jumps, shots, explosions and action to keep a guy like me interested in and almost disguised the flimsy plot and tiny little problems in the film that would have me scratching my head. All I can say is that not only is the population in the future totally stupid but they are apparently living in a world without safety back ups and restrictions. In this day and age where I can't get a coffee without warning labels or even open doors without passcards or keys, apparently you can jump around the inner workings of mass transportation vehicles with a twist of a handle or manually pulling the door open.
Acting wise was not too bad though a little on the flimsy side. Farrell does play a lost and confused person quite well, though I think he had a lot of outside help to draw on for the confusion part. Such as asking himself repeatedly "how exactly did I get convinced to be in this film?". Beckinsale does a great job playing the wife/agent assigned to Farrell and is in charge of bringing him down. She convinced me that she is one twisted and vengeful woman. Hell hath no fury than that of a women ticked off for sure in this film. On the whole, I would say that the cast was rather interesting in their performances and had moments of true depth but on the whole nothing really spectacular to write about.
In total I would say that while this movie was not exactly like the Arnie movie of Total Recall it was just another take on the short story "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale". Both movies had their differences like the pies have their apples to cherries, while both movies had their similarities like a pie has crust and sugar topping. They can not really be put side by side and judged but I would say that both of them have gotten the same rating in my mind. I give them 2 out of 5 popped kernels of corn. Not a bad movie to go and kill an afternoon or evening on but don't expect to take a date to this movie and impress them with your cinematography depth and perceptions.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Step Up Revolution - movie review
What is the definition of a 'triple threat'? In the entertainment industry it would be someone that can both sing, dance and act. An example would be, and this is my personal opinion only though I am sure some might disagree, would be Antonio Banderas. An example of someone that is NOT a triple threat would be anyone in the movie Step Up Revolution.
This latest installment of the movie train wreck has a dance crew that is used to public displays of either annoyance or excitement (depending on which person the news crew in the movie asks) known as "The Crew" use their colorful dance crew to go from performance art to protest art to stop the destruction of their homes by the usual 'greedy and corrupt business'. Throw in a bit of Romeo and Juliet in the form of one co-founder of the crew and the daughter of the head of the greedy and corrupt business (sure it is a spoiler but trust me when I say that nothing I say or tell you could possibly hurt this film cause they do a pretty good job themselves in the film making it almost unbearable to watch) and this painful film is born.
I think the only saving factor about the film is that the dancing is quite good. While my knowledge of dance is about on par with my level of current fashion and music, I can appreciate the skill that is required to do what these dancers can do. The only down side that grounds me in a bit of reality is the fact that there is a difference between watching these performers on stage live, watching them on TV reality shows like So You Think You Can Dance? and watching them in a the movies. One has no form of editing and you have to be good to get it on the first take, one could have some mild editing and perhaps they do edit a couple routines here and there for the show which I can not say they do or do not, and the other is edited out the whazoo to get the best form of movie around. After seeing the routines that were done I have to wonder how many of them practiced and then rolled the cameras and got it in one take or had to practice each scene repeatedly again and again.
Regardless of the dancing, the whole movie was simply painful to watch. This film, to me, deserves no popped corns but I would go backwards and give it 2 unpopped corns out of 5 popped corns.
This latest installment of the movie train wreck has a dance crew that is used to public displays of either annoyance or excitement (depending on which person the news crew in the movie asks) known as "The Crew" use their colorful dance crew to go from performance art to protest art to stop the destruction of their homes by the usual 'greedy and corrupt business'. Throw in a bit of Romeo and Juliet in the form of one co-founder of the crew and the daughter of the head of the greedy and corrupt business (sure it is a spoiler but trust me when I say that nothing I say or tell you could possibly hurt this film cause they do a pretty good job themselves in the film making it almost unbearable to watch) and this painful film is born.
I think the only saving factor about the film is that the dancing is quite good. While my knowledge of dance is about on par with my level of current fashion and music, I can appreciate the skill that is required to do what these dancers can do. The only down side that grounds me in a bit of reality is the fact that there is a difference between watching these performers on stage live, watching them on TV reality shows like So You Think You Can Dance? and watching them in a the movies. One has no form of editing and you have to be good to get it on the first take, one could have some mild editing and perhaps they do edit a couple routines here and there for the show which I can not say they do or do not, and the other is edited out the whazoo to get the best form of movie around. After seeing the routines that were done I have to wonder how many of them practiced and then rolled the cameras and got it in one take or had to practice each scene repeatedly again and again.
Regardless of the dancing, the whole movie was simply painful to watch. This film, to me, deserves no popped corns but I would go backwards and give it 2 unpopped corns out of 5 popped corns.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
The Intouchables - Movie Review
I saw the trailer for this movie a few weeks ago and the first thing that popped into my head was "I have to watch this movie". After speaking with a couple friends who saw the movie in an advanced screening my next thought was "I can not miss this movie". So when it came time to go and see a movie, my wife and I both immediately selected this one as our first pick for the evening. Neither of us was disappointed in our choice.
The movie follows the growing friendship bond between an aristocrat quadriplegic and a good hearted young man from the 'other side of the tracks' who is hired on as a care giver. The rest of the story is all about how the two slowly become friends and the things that they do for each other to strengthen their friendship.
Why this is such a funny movie is that the situations and humor are not forced ones like all the other comedies that are out there. An extreme example would be humor like The Hangover where granted there might be some bachelor parties that come like that those situations are more like the chances of being hit by a meteor after winning the lottery. The humor in this movie are all realistic one liner bantering that could happen in your every day life with friends or family, spur of the moment jabs and jokes that make you smile and laugh and even go and repeat it to friends as a 'guess what she said' kind of stories.
The two main characters are great together. They play off each others timing to a T and even made me believe that they were actual friends for life and not just actors portraying friends in a movie. The supporting actors are great as well. The attractive yet unattainable assistant to the aristocrat that the caregiver keeps hitting on relentlessly does an amazing job, and even the house keeper does a great job of playing the frumpy yet friendly person. The only down side is that at the end of the movie you get to see a real video of the two people in the film. The difference in looks are quite apparent. It would be like if I had a movie made about my life and I was played by George Clooney or Tatum Channing instead of someone like Neil Patrick Harris or Michael Cera (geeky main character from SuperBad).
The only really negative thing that I can say about this movie would be the same thing that I say about all foreign subtitled films that both my wife and I disagree on 100%. She likes to have the film played in the original language and subtitled while I prefer to have it dubbed in English, even if the dubbing is horrible and the words don't match the lip movements. There were many times in the movie where one of the characters would go on a rant or discussion and they would take for a good 30-45 seconds of fast talking ranting and the subtitles would come up as reading "No, get out". I, at these moments, sat back and had this sneaky suspicion that something else was said in the exchange but not given. Granted, I do understand that they can't put up a direct translation but only a paraphrase because if a direct translation was up you would be having to read about 20 words a second to keep up with everything. Just sits a bit uneasy with me is all.
I would have to rate this movie at 4.5 popped popcorns out of 5. I would have given it a 5 but that would make a perfect movie and there can be no such thing as a perfect movie....but this one comes close.
The movie follows the growing friendship bond between an aristocrat quadriplegic and a good hearted young man from the 'other side of the tracks' who is hired on as a care giver. The rest of the story is all about how the two slowly become friends and the things that they do for each other to strengthen their friendship.
Why this is such a funny movie is that the situations and humor are not forced ones like all the other comedies that are out there. An extreme example would be humor like The Hangover where granted there might be some bachelor parties that come like that those situations are more like the chances of being hit by a meteor after winning the lottery. The humor in this movie are all realistic one liner bantering that could happen in your every day life with friends or family, spur of the moment jabs and jokes that make you smile and laugh and even go and repeat it to friends as a 'guess what she said' kind of stories.
The two main characters are great together. They play off each others timing to a T and even made me believe that they were actual friends for life and not just actors portraying friends in a movie. The supporting actors are great as well. The attractive yet unattainable assistant to the aristocrat that the caregiver keeps hitting on relentlessly does an amazing job, and even the house keeper does a great job of playing the frumpy yet friendly person. The only down side is that at the end of the movie you get to see a real video of the two people in the film. The difference in looks are quite apparent. It would be like if I had a movie made about my life and I was played by George Clooney or Tatum Channing instead of someone like Neil Patrick Harris or Michael Cera (geeky main character from SuperBad).
The only really negative thing that I can say about this movie would be the same thing that I say about all foreign subtitled films that both my wife and I disagree on 100%. She likes to have the film played in the original language and subtitled while I prefer to have it dubbed in English, even if the dubbing is horrible and the words don't match the lip movements. There were many times in the movie where one of the characters would go on a rant or discussion and they would take for a good 30-45 seconds of fast talking ranting and the subtitles would come up as reading "No, get out". I, at these moments, sat back and had this sneaky suspicion that something else was said in the exchange but not given. Granted, I do understand that they can't put up a direct translation but only a paraphrase because if a direct translation was up you would be having to read about 20 words a second to keep up with everything. Just sits a bit uneasy with me is all.
I would have to rate this movie at 4.5 popped popcorns out of 5. I would have given it a 5 but that would make a perfect movie and there can be no such thing as a perfect movie....but this one comes close.
Monday, July 23, 2012
The Dark Knight Rises - Review
There has always been one thing I have always liked about the new batman movies (and by the 'new' ones I mean the ones with Bale as opposed to Kilmer/Keaton/*shudder*Clooney) is the sense of realism in the new as opposed to the older. In the older versions I always found it hard to believe all the toys that he had and things that he could do with such ease and grace. The newer ones I found more believable in his lack of toys, or at least watching him develop his new play things. In The Dark Knight Rises I was not disappointed in this aspect.
The Dark Knight Rises is definitely one of your more serious and down to earth movies. Gone are the super hero action scenes where the guy is thrown through a building and a concrete wall and comes out shaking his head like someone just slapped him in the face with a wet rolled up newspaper. Gone are the excellent little party favors that are usually laced throughout batman's utility belt and the extra smart computer from the old TV series (Holy bat-crap batman, we don't know where the Riddler is..well let's just input all the info that we know into the bat-computer and *cha-ching cha-ching out pops a piece of paper* yes, looks like the Riddler is at this address and this is his plan). Here we have serious reality based problems with a hero that does it all with strength and items that he develops or Wayne Industries develops. Though just once I would love to see a fight scene in the movies were 10 guys surround the hero and instead of taking turns attacking him one by one when he is ready for the next guy, all 10 just jump him at the same time and pummel him.
Story wise it was a pretty decently thought out one. It is nice to see that in Gotham City that villains are becoming more complex and multi-layered and are not just one sided/one plan individuals. As much as I loved seeing the Penquin sit around his penquin-A-bomb and mock batman relentlessly about how he is going to use it and not really explore other options, having a villain work multiple plans at multiple times (like the Joker from the other film) is always something that is nice to see.
As to the characters, we see some new and some old ones take their place. Gordon (Gary Oldman) has been raised to commissioner, Batman/Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is back and talking through his teeth in that mysterious/drunken manner that we all know and love, Alfred (Michael Canes) and Fox (Morgan Freeman) are still there giving their helping grandfatherly hand and advice to the rash Bruce Wayne as well as a little appearance by Dr Johnathon Crane/Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy). The old returning cast bring the same level of intensity and fun to the film as all the others. Their characters are the same which I find no fault with. I would have been disappointed if for some strange reason Hollywood decided to change some of them, like perhaps giving Alfred or Fox some idea that they should be a side kick and have Alfred running around in a fake batman suit throwing batarangs around. The new additions are also not too bad. I have to say that Bane was quite an adversary for Batman. Creepy voice, creepy character and just down right eerie person to be up against. Catwoman (Anne Hathaway) was also a little different than the other portrayals of her from other movies. Hathaway is not as sexual as Pfeiffer had her in Batman Returns and not as....well, as bad as Berry played her in Catwoman. Hathaway plays a more down to earth realistic semi-sociopathic catwoman developed more out of a life time of hard knocks and learning to fight for herself as opposed to the other character portrayals of someone who was a meek and mild mannered person their whole life and then either shot or beaten and then wake up with a mental breakdown. As well, attractive young lady in skin tight leather outfits doing flips and driving around on a motor cycle, what is not to love?
On the whole, I would say that despite a couple of movie holes that had me going "umm, how did he do that?" it was a good movie to watch. While others are going all out and giving 5/5 on this one and making it sound like a perfect movie, I would say it is a solid 4/5 and one of the better super hero movies of the summer. Give it a watch, it would be a good 3 hours of your life spent, but don't worry about staying to the end of the credits for extra scenes cause there is none.
The Dark Knight Rises is definitely one of your more serious and down to earth movies. Gone are the super hero action scenes where the guy is thrown through a building and a concrete wall and comes out shaking his head like someone just slapped him in the face with a wet rolled up newspaper. Gone are the excellent little party favors that are usually laced throughout batman's utility belt and the extra smart computer from the old TV series (Holy bat-crap batman, we don't know where the Riddler is..well let's just input all the info that we know into the bat-computer and *cha-ching cha-ching out pops a piece of paper* yes, looks like the Riddler is at this address and this is his plan). Here we have serious reality based problems with a hero that does it all with strength and items that he develops or Wayne Industries develops. Though just once I would love to see a fight scene in the movies were 10 guys surround the hero and instead of taking turns attacking him one by one when he is ready for the next guy, all 10 just jump him at the same time and pummel him.
Story wise it was a pretty decently thought out one. It is nice to see that in Gotham City that villains are becoming more complex and multi-layered and are not just one sided/one plan individuals. As much as I loved seeing the Penquin sit around his penquin-A-bomb and mock batman relentlessly about how he is going to use it and not really explore other options, having a villain work multiple plans at multiple times (like the Joker from the other film) is always something that is nice to see.
As to the characters, we see some new and some old ones take their place. Gordon (Gary Oldman) has been raised to commissioner, Batman/Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is back and talking through his teeth in that mysterious/drunken manner that we all know and love, Alfred (Michael Canes) and Fox (Morgan Freeman) are still there giving their helping grandfatherly hand and advice to the rash Bruce Wayne as well as a little appearance by Dr Johnathon Crane/Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy). The old returning cast bring the same level of intensity and fun to the film as all the others. Their characters are the same which I find no fault with. I would have been disappointed if for some strange reason Hollywood decided to change some of them, like perhaps giving Alfred or Fox some idea that they should be a side kick and have Alfred running around in a fake batman suit throwing batarangs around. The new additions are also not too bad. I have to say that Bane was quite an adversary for Batman. Creepy voice, creepy character and just down right eerie person to be up against. Catwoman (Anne Hathaway) was also a little different than the other portrayals of her from other movies. Hathaway is not as sexual as Pfeiffer had her in Batman Returns and not as....well, as bad as Berry played her in Catwoman. Hathaway plays a more down to earth realistic semi-sociopathic catwoman developed more out of a life time of hard knocks and learning to fight for herself as opposed to the other character portrayals of someone who was a meek and mild mannered person their whole life and then either shot or beaten and then wake up with a mental breakdown. As well, attractive young lady in skin tight leather outfits doing flips and driving around on a motor cycle, what is not to love?
On the whole, I would say that despite a couple of movie holes that had me going "umm, how did he do that?" it was a good movie to watch. While others are going all out and giving 5/5 on this one and making it sound like a perfect movie, I would say it is a solid 4/5 and one of the better super hero movies of the summer. Give it a watch, it would be a good 3 hours of your life spent, but don't worry about staying to the end of the credits for extra scenes cause there is none.
Friday, November 12, 2010
movie reviews..
wow, been some time since I had anything to write about. I guess I could go on about the 'interesting' people that I get to ride with on the bus when I go out with the Mrs on her walkabouts. Like the one teen I heard say to the other teen "you know, I heard if you take your 'urine' and 'pooh' ***NOT in those terms were they mentioned but you get the idea*** and put them in a jar, put a tight lid on it for a week and then sniff it you will get one wicked buzz". Personally, all I can say to that is if you have hit that point in your life where you have to smell your own bio-waste to get high, time to check in at re-hab.
I could also mention the few people that hit me up for money when I walk home from work at 3am. Of course I have spare change that I would love to give to you. Now put your cell phone in your pocket and take your iPod ear plugs out of your ears and so that I can give you my hard earned money.
I might also mention the idiots that ride around in cabs. Like when the Mrs and I went to Rocky Horror Picture Show and we managed to flag down a cab at 3:10am (after standing outside in the cold for nearly 45 minutes) and other drunks were screaming at us for getting a cab. To top it all off that evening the cabbie stopped to pick up two other people and since they were going down town like us, the cabbie was more than happy to have them ride with us. Guess it kind of got me a bit unnerved when we were dropped off first and had to pay the full $15 fare from Whyte Ave to our place and then wondered how much the two that he picked up had to pay for the other '...just 4 blocks down the road from here, thanks'.
There was also the time when one of my co-workers was giving me a ride home at 3am and we went down Jasper by Oil City during closing time on Halloween night. It amazes me how these drunken idiots seem to think that any car on the road is a taxi and that we should stop for them and pick them up and drive them where they need to go. Full credit to them for not driving there and then driving home drunk but I don't think we honestly needed the finger and a 'screw you' as we didn't stop for them. I did think it was great of my co-worker who actually swerved out of the way when the idiots walked right into traffic and in front of the car. Apparently in their mind they seem to think that cab drivers don't actually see anyone standing on the sidewalk waving them down so you have to step right in front of them to get their attention. Personally I would have loved to drive straight and taken out a few hips, toes or legs but with the way the legal system is these days they would have gotten away with it as innocent since they were a) drunk and b) pedestrians whereas as the drive I would have been hit criminally and civilly because I was a) sober and b) a sane normal person obeying all rules and regulations of society and the road.
However, I will just mention the one movie in particular that sticks out in my mind that I have seen recently that I have to mention. Due Date (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1231583/ ) with Robert Downey, Jr and Zach Galifianakis. If you are going to go and see one movie at all this week, if you are going to go and see one movie this month, if you are going to go and see one movie this year...in fact, if you are going to go and see one movie at all in your life time....do NOT go to this one! I mean, steer clear of this one like you would a leperous beggar on the street who has at least 25 STDs that wants to give you a kiss and shake your hand. Granted, I might not know comedy, I might not know humour, and I might not know the new development of entertainment in this new day and age and the 'next generation' of movie entertainment. Personally I enjoyed the original of this movie that was called Trains, Planes and Automobiles (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093748/ ) starring Steve Martin and John Candy.
Let's compare them. They both involve two men forced to travel across country together for extremely special and pressing occasions (DD: the birth of the first born child, PT&A: thanksgiving with the family) where one of them is an uptight, serious and stressed out individual and the other is a rather difficult person to travel with. During their travels, in both of the movies, the serious person is tested and bugged by the others quirky behaviours but in due course of the movie, a friendship develops between the two travellers.
How are they different? PT&A difficult character (Del Griffith played by John Candy) is a friendly and loveable guy who does mean to do right in his eyes but somehow manages to screw up from time to time that doesn't really cause any lasting damage to the other but just slows him down and creates somewhat of a difficult situation. DD difficult character (Ethan Tremblay played by Zach Galifianakis) is nothing short of a time bomb that manages to screw up constantly due to his immature and social inept ways that causes major lasting damage to the other character and not only slows him down but throws him back a few feet in the process. Whereas I found myself slowly beginning to like Del Griffith and wanting to see the two characters become friends, I found myself watching Tremblay wondering how long until the other guys snaps and either kills him and bury him in the desert or walk away and find other modes of transportation to get home (which I would have done about 15 minutes into the movie after having been shot by the air marshal with a rubber bullet because the other guy started a rather stupid situation).
The humour in DD is more in the form of the 'pull my finger' type of gross humour more than that funny 'ha ha' kind of humour. I found myself laughing once or twice in the movie and then realized I wasn't laughing at it because I found it amusing and funny but I was laughing the same way there is that dark side of people that laugh at other people's misfortune in the pleasure that they know it isn't them going through that sort of thing. However, if your type of humour is a masturbating dog, a burnt out 20-something idiot smoking dope and causing stupid mayhem and destruction (falling asleep at the wheel and driving a car off a bridge, shooting someone accidentally in the leg with a hand gun because he was handling it carelessly) then perhaps this movie would be right up your alley. For me, not so much....
I guess if I had to give it a rating I would give it 3 unpopped kernels of popcorn out of 5 popped kernels of popcorn. On a number scale that would be on a scale of 0 to 5 I give it a -3. Normally I would say wait until someone rents it and then borrow it to watch it but even then that would be nearly 100 minutes of your life you would never get back again.
It is funny but I found myself wondering if this is what it is like to get old with the next generation of humour. I wonder if my parents went through this where they would put on their classic comedy stars and my brother and I would look at them and go "that is so lame" and then we would watch some of the new comedy of our generation and we would laugh and laugh and they just would shake their head and say "that is just sick and gross, that isn't funny". Granted, I don't think that Robin Williams, Abbot and Costello, John Candy and Dan Ackroyd movies could ever be considered gross, 'pull my finger' type humour and not funny. Those guys, as well as countless others, were amazingly funny comedians and actors.
oh well, guess I will just have to keep thinking of what else I could write about if I am not writing about movies or the idiots that walk amongst us on the street. Which, by the way, movies do and DONT on my list are:
DO: Mega-mind, RED and Easy A.
DON'T: Paranormal Activity 2, Life as We Know It, Due Date.
I could also mention the few people that hit me up for money when I walk home from work at 3am. Of course I have spare change that I would love to give to you. Now put your cell phone in your pocket and take your iPod ear plugs out of your ears and so that I can give you my hard earned money.
I might also mention the idiots that ride around in cabs. Like when the Mrs and I went to Rocky Horror Picture Show and we managed to flag down a cab at 3:10am (after standing outside in the cold for nearly 45 minutes) and other drunks were screaming at us for getting a cab. To top it all off that evening the cabbie stopped to pick up two other people and since they were going down town like us, the cabbie was more than happy to have them ride with us. Guess it kind of got me a bit unnerved when we were dropped off first and had to pay the full $15 fare from Whyte Ave to our place and then wondered how much the two that he picked up had to pay for the other '...just 4 blocks down the road from here, thanks'.
There was also the time when one of my co-workers was giving me a ride home at 3am and we went down Jasper by Oil City during closing time on Halloween night. It amazes me how these drunken idiots seem to think that any car on the road is a taxi and that we should stop for them and pick them up and drive them where they need to go. Full credit to them for not driving there and then driving home drunk but I don't think we honestly needed the finger and a 'screw you' as we didn't stop for them. I did think it was great of my co-worker who actually swerved out of the way when the idiots walked right into traffic and in front of the car. Apparently in their mind they seem to think that cab drivers don't actually see anyone standing on the sidewalk waving them down so you have to step right in front of them to get their attention. Personally I would have loved to drive straight and taken out a few hips, toes or legs but with the way the legal system is these days they would have gotten away with it as innocent since they were a) drunk and b) pedestrians whereas as the drive I would have been hit criminally and civilly because I was a) sober and b) a sane normal person obeying all rules and regulations of society and the road.
However, I will just mention the one movie in particular that sticks out in my mind that I have seen recently that I have to mention. Due Date (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1231583/ ) with Robert Downey, Jr and Zach Galifianakis. If you are going to go and see one movie at all this week, if you are going to go and see one movie this month, if you are going to go and see one movie this year...in fact, if you are going to go and see one movie at all in your life time....do NOT go to this one! I mean, steer clear of this one like you would a leperous beggar on the street who has at least 25 STDs that wants to give you a kiss and shake your hand. Granted, I might not know comedy, I might not know humour, and I might not know the new development of entertainment in this new day and age and the 'next generation' of movie entertainment. Personally I enjoyed the original of this movie that was called Trains, Planes and Automobiles (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093748/ ) starring Steve Martin and John Candy.
Let's compare them. They both involve two men forced to travel across country together for extremely special and pressing occasions (DD: the birth of the first born child, PT&A: thanksgiving with the family) where one of them is an uptight, serious and stressed out individual and the other is a rather difficult person to travel with. During their travels, in both of the movies, the serious person is tested and bugged by the others quirky behaviours but in due course of the movie, a friendship develops between the two travellers.
How are they different? PT&A difficult character (Del Griffith played by John Candy) is a friendly and loveable guy who does mean to do right in his eyes but somehow manages to screw up from time to time that doesn't really cause any lasting damage to the other but just slows him down and creates somewhat of a difficult situation. DD difficult character (Ethan Tremblay played by Zach Galifianakis) is nothing short of a time bomb that manages to screw up constantly due to his immature and social inept ways that causes major lasting damage to the other character and not only slows him down but throws him back a few feet in the process. Whereas I found myself slowly beginning to like Del Griffith and wanting to see the two characters become friends, I found myself watching Tremblay wondering how long until the other guys snaps and either kills him and bury him in the desert or walk away and find other modes of transportation to get home (which I would have done about 15 minutes into the movie after having been shot by the air marshal with a rubber bullet because the other guy started a rather stupid situation).
The humour in DD is more in the form of the 'pull my finger' type of gross humour more than that funny 'ha ha' kind of humour. I found myself laughing once or twice in the movie and then realized I wasn't laughing at it because I found it amusing and funny but I was laughing the same way there is that dark side of people that laugh at other people's misfortune in the pleasure that they know it isn't them going through that sort of thing. However, if your type of humour is a masturbating dog, a burnt out 20-something idiot smoking dope and causing stupid mayhem and destruction (falling asleep at the wheel and driving a car off a bridge, shooting someone accidentally in the leg with a hand gun because he was handling it carelessly) then perhaps this movie would be right up your alley. For me, not so much....
I guess if I had to give it a rating I would give it 3 unpopped kernels of popcorn out of 5 popped kernels of popcorn. On a number scale that would be on a scale of 0 to 5 I give it a -3. Normally I would say wait until someone rents it and then borrow it to watch it but even then that would be nearly 100 minutes of your life you would never get back again.
It is funny but I found myself wondering if this is what it is like to get old with the next generation of humour. I wonder if my parents went through this where they would put on their classic comedy stars and my brother and I would look at them and go "that is so lame" and then we would watch some of the new comedy of our generation and we would laugh and laugh and they just would shake their head and say "that is just sick and gross, that isn't funny". Granted, I don't think that Robin Williams, Abbot and Costello, John Candy and Dan Ackroyd movies could ever be considered gross, 'pull my finger' type humour and not funny. Those guys, as well as countless others, were amazingly funny comedians and actors.
oh well, guess I will just have to keep thinking of what else I could write about if I am not writing about movies or the idiots that walk amongst us on the street. Which, by the way, movies do and DONT on my list are:
DO: Mega-mind, RED and Easy A.
DON'T: Paranormal Activity 2, Life as We Know It, Due Date.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Movie review - The Expendables
Ever notice how one object/substance can be of one particular look or feel in the presence of one thing but then something else when something else is around. Two examples would be a bucket of water when you change temperature and height of people. Take a bucket of body temperature water and soak one of your hands in ice cold water and the other hand in really really hot water. When you place your 'cold' hand in the body temperature water the water feels hot but when you put the 'hot' hand in the same water it feels cold. Another idea would be if you look at a person and say he is average height then put him in a room with shorter people you would describe him as tall, but put that same man in a room of basketball players and he is suddenly short.
Now what does all this have to do with the movie The Expendables (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1320253/ ) you might be asking. To describe the acting in this movie, you have to keep this in mind. I know that some of the actors in this movie can act when given the right opportunity (Stallone nominated for an Oscar in 1977 for his writing and acting in Rocky, and Rourke was nominated for an Oscar in 2009 for Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role in The Wrestler) and I also know that a few of the actors can't really act (namely Dolph Lundgren, who has worked with Stallone before in Rocky IV and is basically just an action hero). However this movie seemed to want to throw the acting out the window and just go for non-stop action hero-ness, which is basically shoot and kill anything that moves with a one liner attached to the end. In this aspect and mind, Jason Statham has to be one of the better, if not the best, actor of the bunch of action heroes...which isn't saying a lot. Put Jason in a movie with Oscar winning actors trying their hardest and Jason looks like a 1st year acting student fresh from the theatre, put him with a bunch of action heroes that only want to fight and not act and he suddenly looks like a real actor.
That is what this movie was all about, total and complete destruction and carnage. I decided that if I didn't see something explode in the first 5 minutes of the movie then I would be extremely disappointed. I have to say that I was not disappointed. Granted it wasn't a fire and blast kind of explosion but an exploding human due to high powered long range shot gun, or maybe it was a mini grenade launcher I am not really sure, was close enough as an explosion to me. That sort of set the scene and feel for the whole movie right then and there.
I went in the frame of mind of total action with no real acting or drama and I was not disappointed. The whole story line is basically fed to the watcher on a silver platter so you really don't have to engage any thinking skills or brain power to come to the conclusion on what is happening but you can simply sit there with your brain turned completely off and just enjoy the mindless action of it all.
One thing you will have to do though is prepare yourself for the blood and gore. I see the trend of director Stallone to be going more in the way of blood, guts and exploding humans. In his last movie "Rambo" and this one there were quite a few exploding humans from high powered guns and lots of heads/limbs being cut off by swords/knives and you get to see the stumps wave around for a bit before the person drops. Now whether this is because he is becoming an old man and is slightly out of touch of what people want to see today but THINKS he knows what we want to see today OR it is because he is adding some realism to gun shot hits and fighting scenes I am not sure since I honestly have not seen, nor do I think I want to see, the real effect of a shot gun blast on a person at point blank range to the chest. Who knows, maybe people do explode like water balloons filled with ground beef when hit by a bullet or high powered rifle.
Anyways, on this movie all I can say is that if you are going to go and see it be in the frame of mind to actually see it for what it is. An assembled cast of action heroes that are in it to show their action fighting skills and not their acting dramatic side. Go for the explosions and the noise, not for the tears or the drama.
Now what does all this have to do with the movie The Expendables (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1320253/ ) you might be asking. To describe the acting in this movie, you have to keep this in mind. I know that some of the actors in this movie can act when given the right opportunity (Stallone nominated for an Oscar in 1977 for his writing and acting in Rocky, and Rourke was nominated for an Oscar in 2009 for Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role in The Wrestler) and I also know that a few of the actors can't really act (namely Dolph Lundgren, who has worked with Stallone before in Rocky IV and is basically just an action hero). However this movie seemed to want to throw the acting out the window and just go for non-stop action hero-ness, which is basically shoot and kill anything that moves with a one liner attached to the end. In this aspect and mind, Jason Statham has to be one of the better, if not the best, actor of the bunch of action heroes...which isn't saying a lot. Put Jason in a movie with Oscar winning actors trying their hardest and Jason looks like a 1st year acting student fresh from the theatre, put him with a bunch of action heroes that only want to fight and not act and he suddenly looks like a real actor.
That is what this movie was all about, total and complete destruction and carnage. I decided that if I didn't see something explode in the first 5 minutes of the movie then I would be extremely disappointed. I have to say that I was not disappointed. Granted it wasn't a fire and blast kind of explosion but an exploding human due to high powered long range shot gun, or maybe it was a mini grenade launcher I am not really sure, was close enough as an explosion to me. That sort of set the scene and feel for the whole movie right then and there.
I went in the frame of mind of total action with no real acting or drama and I was not disappointed. The whole story line is basically fed to the watcher on a silver platter so you really don't have to engage any thinking skills or brain power to come to the conclusion on what is happening but you can simply sit there with your brain turned completely off and just enjoy the mindless action of it all.
One thing you will have to do though is prepare yourself for the blood and gore. I see the trend of director Stallone to be going more in the way of blood, guts and exploding humans. In his last movie "Rambo" and this one there were quite a few exploding humans from high powered guns and lots of heads/limbs being cut off by swords/knives and you get to see the stumps wave around for a bit before the person drops. Now whether this is because he is becoming an old man and is slightly out of touch of what people want to see today but THINKS he knows what we want to see today OR it is because he is adding some realism to gun shot hits and fighting scenes I am not sure since I honestly have not seen, nor do I think I want to see, the real effect of a shot gun blast on a person at point blank range to the chest. Who knows, maybe people do explode like water balloons filled with ground beef when hit by a bullet or high powered rifle.
Anyways, on this movie all I can say is that if you are going to go and see it be in the frame of mind to actually see it for what it is. An assembled cast of action heroes that are in it to show their action fighting skills and not their acting dramatic side. Go for the explosions and the noise, not for the tears or the drama.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
MOVIE RED ALERT: SAVE YOUR MONEY
I thought I would never see a movie that was such a waste of time and attention as Step Up 3D, but little did I know that they were going to release The Last Exorcism. First off, right off the bat let me let it be known that you should save your money and the 87 minutes of your life that I have wasted and can never get back. It is such a horrible waste of time and all that if I can stop one person from going to see this movie then I have done a good service to the world.
The Last Exorcism (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1320244/): Basic idea, a young preacher decides to give up exorcisms and lets a documentary crew follow him on his last exorcism so that he can try to debunk the whole 'scam' that he feels exorcisms really are. Not really much else to that description since that is only what it is. The acting is pretty basic and about the only one in the movie that does show some serious freaky acting would be the girl that is 'possessed' and even that is sketchy. The full capacity of her acting in this movie is giving totally blank and empty expressions at the camera one second and then in a blink of an eye lunge at the camera and attack. I have seen this same blank look and empty expression on many a young kid sitting on the bus or at the mall so not really a HUGE stretch for acting ability required there since she is born in '86. The only horror that exists in this movie is similiar to the jumping fright that you get when you are walking down a hallway and a little 7 year old (or your significant other who has the maturity of a 7 year old) jumps out at you from the dark doorway screaming "YAAAHHHH!". My reaction in this movie was the same as that. I jump, I gasp, I get my breath and laugh at the stupidity of it and then it is gone. Not like the terror and fear that you feel from a really great horror movie where you jump, you gasp and you try desperately to get your breath back and when you get home you sleep with the lights on for weeks or check your shower/car for strangers/monsters cause the thought of that movie still lingers in your mind.
It is also shot in the format of a documentary. You have the preacher and then the boom lady/interviewer who you see quite often and then there is the camera man that you don't see at all, though you hear his voice. While it doesn't have the same jerky seasickness feel that the Blair Witch Project had it is more in the feel of The Fourth Kind.
So, not really much else to say about this movie except do NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT go and see it. If you feel that you must go and see it then I highly suggest that you wait till it is on video and one of your friends buys it and you get it for free from them OR you wait till the library in your area gets it and you borrow it for free. I saw it on a $7.99 night and I feel I was robbed of the whole amount. It isn't even worth a $2.00 movie night cheap seats. If you have to pay a penny for this movie you are being robbed of your good hard earned cash. It is bad enough that you are being robbed of 87 minutes of your life, don't add insult to injury and lose cash to this movie.
Did I happen to mention that I thought this movie was horrible?
The Last Exorcism (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1320244/): Basic idea, a young preacher decides to give up exorcisms and lets a documentary crew follow him on his last exorcism so that he can try to debunk the whole 'scam' that he feels exorcisms really are. Not really much else to that description since that is only what it is. The acting is pretty basic and about the only one in the movie that does show some serious freaky acting would be the girl that is 'possessed' and even that is sketchy. The full capacity of her acting in this movie is giving totally blank and empty expressions at the camera one second and then in a blink of an eye lunge at the camera and attack. I have seen this same blank look and empty expression on many a young kid sitting on the bus or at the mall so not really a HUGE stretch for acting ability required there since she is born in '86. The only horror that exists in this movie is similiar to the jumping fright that you get when you are walking down a hallway and a little 7 year old (or your significant other who has the maturity of a 7 year old) jumps out at you from the dark doorway screaming "YAAAHHHH!". My reaction in this movie was the same as that. I jump, I gasp, I get my breath and laugh at the stupidity of it and then it is gone. Not like the terror and fear that you feel from a really great horror movie where you jump, you gasp and you try desperately to get your breath back and when you get home you sleep with the lights on for weeks or check your shower/car for strangers/monsters cause the thought of that movie still lingers in your mind.
It is also shot in the format of a documentary. You have the preacher and then the boom lady/interviewer who you see quite often and then there is the camera man that you don't see at all, though you hear his voice. While it doesn't have the same jerky seasickness feel that the Blair Witch Project had it is more in the feel of The Fourth Kind.
So, not really much else to say about this movie except do NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT go and see it. If you feel that you must go and see it then I highly suggest that you wait till it is on video and one of your friends buys it and you get it for free from them OR you wait till the library in your area gets it and you borrow it for free. I saw it on a $7.99 night and I feel I was robbed of the whole amount. It isn't even worth a $2.00 movie night cheap seats. If you have to pay a penny for this movie you are being robbed of your good hard earned cash. It is bad enough that you are being robbed of 87 minutes of your life, don't add insult to injury and lose cash to this movie.
Did I happen to mention that I thought this movie was horrible?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)