With both The Fighter and Black Swan already generating wide critical acclaim, the strong praise surrounding True Grit only further illustrated that audiences were being spoiled with a surprisingly large number of high-quality films during the Holiday Movie Season. While I may not be the biggest fan of traditional Westerns, I’ve learned that when the Coen brothers make a film, it is to any movie fan’s benefit to pay attention. Between O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Burn After Reading, and the Oscar-winning No Country for Old Men, the Coen brothers have been responsible for some of my favorite films, so even though I had never seen John Wayne’s 1969 original performance, I was nevertheless excited for True Grit. In addition to the strong reputation of the directors, True Grit also benefited from a truly talented cast, which included the increasingly-popular Jeff Bridges, fan-favorite Matt Damon, and the often-underrated Josh Brolin (who clearly wanted to forget his last venture into the western genre, last summer’s disastrous Jonah Hex). With these credentials, it was clear that True Grit would appeal to both fans of the original and an entirely new and younger movie-going generation.
In retrospect, True Grit is a good film with strong acting, but I confess that I found myself slightly bored throughout. The trailers make it seem like True Grit is action-packed and filled with old-fashioned western violence, but the reality is that those “exciting” scenes only last a few minutes and appear largely towards the end of the two-hour story. Jeff Bridges and newcomer Hailee Steinfeld give the standout performances among the cast, but it’s unfair to label the other actors as underperforming when they only appear in a handful of scenes. Matt Damon’s role is relatively small, and even though Josh Brolin’s character is talked about almost the entire film, he only appears for about 10 minutes, if that, thereby making it seem like both talented actors were largely underused. In all likelihood, I probably didn’t like True Grit that much just because I’m not used to traditional Westerns, a formula that the film sticks to so closely that it limits the overall appeal as it clearly caters to older audiences.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Thursday, December 30, 2010
True Grit: Full Review
True Grit - (December 22nd, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $24,850,000
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $36,068,000
Gross Revenue: $49,381,000
Budget: $38 million
Directors: Joel & Ethan Coen
When the Coen brothers first set out remake the 1969 John Wayne classic True Grit, they knew that the best way to faithfully adapt the novel of the same name was to select an appropriate young actress to portray the stubborn protagonist Mattie Ross. After an open casting call of more than 15,000 applicants, Paramount settled on newcomer Hailee Steinfeld, who would have to hold her own against Hollywood heavyweights Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, and Josh Brolin. Perhaps the biggest challenge would fall to Bridges, who would have to take up a role made famous by the legendary “Duke,” John Wayne, but between his Best Actor Oscar for 2009’s Crazy Heart and his diverse body of work from everything to Iron Man and Tron: Legacy, it was clear that Bridges was up to the challenge. And let’s not forget that Bridges previously worked with the Coen brothers in the cult classic The Big Lebowski. With the shared track record of both the directors and the actors, it looked like True Grit had an absolute formula for success, and trailers seemed to promise plenty of old-fashioned Western action to appease even the most casual fans of the genre. Needless to say, I was expecting nothing short of another Coen brothers’ masterpiece.
True Grit starts off by introducing audiences to headstrong fourteen-year-old Mattie Ross (Steinfled), who is trying to avenge her father’s murder at the hands of one of his workers, Tom Chaney (Brolin). Seeking to hire a Deputy U.S. Marshall to track down Chaney and bring him to justice, Mattie settles on the weathered yet experienced Rooster Cogburn (Bridges). With the help of Texas Ranger La Boeuf (Damon), who has been tracking Chaney for months, the trio set out on the terrain to hunt the ruthless murderer. Facing everything from outlaws to an uncertain terrain, Mattie must remain strong and face her fears alongside the two men in which she has decided to place her trust. In the end, the three wildly different personalities learn from each other and protect one another through the shared goal of catching the notorious outlaw.
As the grizzled and often-intoxicated Cogburn, Bridges is thoroughly entertaining and his antics are often a welcome break from the otherwise monotonous situations that plague True Grit. Though he is at times impossible to understand through his slurred speech, Bridges brings a level of intensity to the character that helps the audience to both sympathize with the experiences that weigh on the Marshall’s shoulders and relate to the bond that he forms with the young Mattie. It’s almost as if Cogburn is seeking redemption for the past sins he has committed by becoming a paternal figure to the girl that has just lost her father, and especially in the dramatic ending, the relationship is heartwarming. When it comes to Mattie herself, Steinfeld demonstrates considerable acting ability, coming across as a tough-as-nails youth who is eager to prove her competence and rectify any and all injustices that have befallen her over the course of her short life. While Mattie’s determination comes off a little strong at times and therefore makes it difficult to sympathize with the character, few can deny the high quality of the overall performance. Unfortunately, as I mentioned before, the strong acting is largely unable to build up any momentum thanks to the painfully slow pace of the underlying narrative.
While the previews would have potential audiences believe that True Grit is an action-packed adventure, the sad reality is that all of the action sequences within the film only amount to a few minutes of screen time, not lasting much longer than the very trailers in which they were first introduced. Granted, the core story of True Grit does involve the three heroes searching the wilderness, but watching the characters ride around slowly and talk about life can only hold my attention for so long; any and all action is localized in the film’s climax, and by then, I would suspect that a majority of younger audiences will have lost interest. Another great tragedy involves the underuse of Matt Damon and Josh Brolin; Damon is humorous as the cocky Texas Ranger, but he is only around for a couple of scenes, leaving almost no room for any form of character development. As for Brolin, an often-underrated actor, even though his character is the supposed main villain of the film, he only appears onscreen for about five minutes, which is both disappointing and anti-climatic. Now, maybe I’m just not used to Western films, but between the slow pacing, low character development, and a thoroughly cornball soundtrack, I was disappointed in True Grit.
From a box office perspective, True Grit opened strongly during the holiday weekend, taking in just under $25 million. I had previously been concerned that the film’s overall quality would suffer from a PG-13 as opposed to an R-rating, but critics don’t seemed phased in the least and such a rating is clearly helping to boost box office receipts. Paramount has already recovered its production budget and it is likely that more revenue will flow in as Oscar-season begins to approach. I may sound critical in this review, but I want to emphasize that True Grit is not a bad movie; it simply wasn’t my type of movie. If you are a fan of Westerns (as is likely for a majority of older audiences), then I’m sure you will love the Coen brothers’ newest offering, but for everyone else, be warned that the end result is not as entertaining as you may have been led to believe.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $24,850,000
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $36,068,000
Gross Revenue: $49,381,000
Budget: $38 million
Directors: Joel & Ethan Coen
When the Coen brothers first set out remake the 1969 John Wayne classic True Grit, they knew that the best way to faithfully adapt the novel of the same name was to select an appropriate young actress to portray the stubborn protagonist Mattie Ross. After an open casting call of more than 15,000 applicants, Paramount settled on newcomer Hailee Steinfeld, who would have to hold her own against Hollywood heavyweights Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, and Josh Brolin. Perhaps the biggest challenge would fall to Bridges, who would have to take up a role made famous by the legendary “Duke,” John Wayne, but between his Best Actor Oscar for 2009’s Crazy Heart and his diverse body of work from everything to Iron Man and Tron: Legacy, it was clear that Bridges was up to the challenge. And let’s not forget that Bridges previously worked with the Coen brothers in the cult classic The Big Lebowski. With the shared track record of both the directors and the actors, it looked like True Grit had an absolute formula for success, and trailers seemed to promise plenty of old-fashioned Western action to appease even the most casual fans of the genre. Needless to say, I was expecting nothing short of another Coen brothers’ masterpiece.
True Grit starts off by introducing audiences to headstrong fourteen-year-old Mattie Ross (Steinfled), who is trying to avenge her father’s murder at the hands of one of his workers, Tom Chaney (Brolin). Seeking to hire a Deputy U.S. Marshall to track down Chaney and bring him to justice, Mattie settles on the weathered yet experienced Rooster Cogburn (Bridges). With the help of Texas Ranger La Boeuf (Damon), who has been tracking Chaney for months, the trio set out on the terrain to hunt the ruthless murderer. Facing everything from outlaws to an uncertain terrain, Mattie must remain strong and face her fears alongside the two men in which she has decided to place her trust. In the end, the three wildly different personalities learn from each other and protect one another through the shared goal of catching the notorious outlaw.
As the grizzled and often-intoxicated Cogburn, Bridges is thoroughly entertaining and his antics are often a welcome break from the otherwise monotonous situations that plague True Grit. Though he is at times impossible to understand through his slurred speech, Bridges brings a level of intensity to the character that helps the audience to both sympathize with the experiences that weigh on the Marshall’s shoulders and relate to the bond that he forms with the young Mattie. It’s almost as if Cogburn is seeking redemption for the past sins he has committed by becoming a paternal figure to the girl that has just lost her father, and especially in the dramatic ending, the relationship is heartwarming. When it comes to Mattie herself, Steinfeld demonstrates considerable acting ability, coming across as a tough-as-nails youth who is eager to prove her competence and rectify any and all injustices that have befallen her over the course of her short life. While Mattie’s determination comes off a little strong at times and therefore makes it difficult to sympathize with the character, few can deny the high quality of the overall performance. Unfortunately, as I mentioned before, the strong acting is largely unable to build up any momentum thanks to the painfully slow pace of the underlying narrative.
While the previews would have potential audiences believe that True Grit is an action-packed adventure, the sad reality is that all of the action sequences within the film only amount to a few minutes of screen time, not lasting much longer than the very trailers in which they were first introduced. Granted, the core story of True Grit does involve the three heroes searching the wilderness, but watching the characters ride around slowly and talk about life can only hold my attention for so long; any and all action is localized in the film’s climax, and by then, I would suspect that a majority of younger audiences will have lost interest. Another great tragedy involves the underuse of Matt Damon and Josh Brolin; Damon is humorous as the cocky Texas Ranger, but he is only around for a couple of scenes, leaving almost no room for any form of character development. As for Brolin, an often-underrated actor, even though his character is the supposed main villain of the film, he only appears onscreen for about five minutes, which is both disappointing and anti-climatic. Now, maybe I’m just not used to Western films, but between the slow pacing, low character development, and a thoroughly cornball soundtrack, I was disappointed in True Grit.
From a box office perspective, True Grit opened strongly during the holiday weekend, taking in just under $25 million. I had previously been concerned that the film’s overall quality would suffer from a PG-13 as opposed to an R-rating, but critics don’t seemed phased in the least and such a rating is clearly helping to boost box office receipts. Paramount has already recovered its production budget and it is likely that more revenue will flow in as Oscar-season begins to approach. I may sound critical in this review, but I want to emphasize that True Grit is not a bad movie; it simply wasn’t my type of movie. If you are a fan of Westerns (as is likely for a majority of older audiences), then I’m sure you will love the Coen brothers’ newest offering, but for everyone else, be warned that the end result is not as entertaining as you may have been led to believe.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Little Fockers: Short and Sweet
It’s been a decade since audiences were first introduced to neurotic male nurse Gaylord “Greg” Focker (Ben Stiller) in 2000’s Meet the Parents, but in all that time the character has become something of a cultural icon. Not only do we love to pronounce his last name, but the interaction between Greg and his ex-CIA father-in-law Jack Byrnes (Robert De Niro) has also proven to be a successful formula for box office success. Having previously met both sets of in-laws, it was now time for moviegoers to meet the newest and youngest members of Greg’s family, the titular “Little Fockers.” Marketing for the film was relatively straightforward, as even though the last installment of the franchise was in 2004 (Meet the Fockers), Universal was able to bring back the entire star-studded original cast. So, at the very least, audiences would be greeted by some familiar faces to see the next chapter in the always-hectic story of everyone’s favorite male nurse.
Now, I’ll admit that I am not the biggest fan of Meet the Parents or Meet the Fockers, so I went into this film with extremely low expectations, but I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed Little Fockers. I have no problem labeling this sequel the funniest of the series, but then again, given my opinion of the whole franchise, that might not be saying all that much. The interaction between Ben Stiller and Robert De Niro is easily the most enjoyable part of the film, and Little Fockers took a significant step forward in toning down both Barbra Streisand and Dustin Hoffman, who I felt were rather annoying past additions to the cast. That being said though, the film in its entirety still felt largely unnecessary, as both the story and humor came across as forced, in the end adding nothing new or wholly original to the comedy genre. Overall, Little Fockers is mildly entertaining, good for a few cheap laughs, and successfully plays-off viewer familiarity with big-name celebrities, but it is nothing that you should rush off to the theater to see this weekend.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Now, I’ll admit that I am not the biggest fan of Meet the Parents or Meet the Fockers, so I went into this film with extremely low expectations, but I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed Little Fockers. I have no problem labeling this sequel the funniest of the series, but then again, given my opinion of the whole franchise, that might not be saying all that much. The interaction between Ben Stiller and Robert De Niro is easily the most enjoyable part of the film, and Little Fockers took a significant step forward in toning down both Barbra Streisand and Dustin Hoffman, who I felt were rather annoying past additions to the cast. That being said though, the film in its entirety still felt largely unnecessary, as both the story and humor came across as forced, in the end adding nothing new or wholly original to the comedy genre. Overall, Little Fockers is mildly entertaining, good for a few cheap laughs, and successfully plays-off viewer familiarity with big-name celebrities, but it is nothing that you should rush off to the theater to see this weekend.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Little Fockers: Full Review
Little Fockers - (December 22nd, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Universal Studios (subsidiary of NBC Universal)
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $30,833,665
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $45,083,800
Gross Revenue: $88,279,000
Budget: $100 million
Director: Paul Weitz
When I saw the first trailer for Little Fockers, I couldn’t believe that Universal was still spending the time and energy to explore the dynamic between a male nurse and his ex-CIA father-in-law, especially since I wasn’t thrilled by the first two installments in the franchise. We first met Greg’s potential in-laws in 2000’s Meet the Parents and then were introduced to his bizarre and off-beat parents in 2004’s Meet the Fockers; this time around, audiences would now see how Greg handles fatherhood with two young children. Little Fockers was originally planned for release in late July, but Universal hoped to benefit from the long holiday weekend and so pushed the release date back to December 22nd. With the trailer attached to everything from summer hits like Grown Ups or recent releases such as Morning Glory, buzz for the film had months to build; and let’s not forget the media attention that followed the rumors that Dustin Hoffman would not be returning as Greg’s eccentric father, Bernie Focker. Luckily, last-minute negotiations enabled Universal to bring back the entire cast, so even though I wasn’t particularly thrilled by this sequel, I was willing to give the star-studded comedy Little Fockers the benefit of the doubt.
Little Fockers starts off by introducing audiences to Henry and Samantha, the five-year-old twins of Greg Focker (Ben Stiller) and his wife Pam (Teri Polo). With the help of his in-laws Jack (Robert De Niro) and Dina (Blythe Danner), Greg is busy planning the twins’ 5th birthday party and preparing for the arrival of his own parents, Roz (Barbara Streisand) and Bernie (Dustin Hoffman). Unfortunately, Jack has been running into some health problems and wants to make sure that Greg will make an appropriate patriarch for the family, but his paranoia begins to set in when he discovers that Greg is working with young and sexy pharmaceutical rep Andi (Jessica Alba). Adding to the complications is the arrival of Pam’s ex-boyfriend, the wealthy and immensely successful Kevin (Owen Wilson). With so many hectic and comical family dynamics at play, Greg is tasked with proving his competence as both a family leader and a devoted father.
As I mentioned in the “Short and Sweet” review, Little Fockers actually ended up being way funnier than expected, mixing both cheap laughs with some truly clever situations. Though I felt that the first two installments in the franchise were relatively weak, the interaction between Greg and Jack has always been entertaining, and this time around, the bickering between father-in-law and son-in-law is surprisingly funny. Another positive includes the fact that Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand’s roles were downgraded to little more than extended cameos; I found both incredibly annoying and unfunny in Meet the Fockers, so I was glad that the writers decided to tone down the two characters. The biggest surprise was Jessica Alba, whose character started off as an incredibly misplaced addition to the cast, but later evolved into a nutty and enjoyable potential home wrecker for the Focker family. As likely the last film in the franchise, Little Fockers helps bring a humorous ending to the family legacy that was set into motion ten years ago.
However, a few laughs are not enough to save some of the big problems present in Little Fockers, the most apparent being the film’s lack of compelling story. By an large, Little Fockers felt like it was made out of necessity rather than innovation, with studio execs trying to squeeze a few more dollars out of a dying franchise rather than adding an original and compelling chapter to the overall story. We met one set of in-laws in the original, so it made sense that audiences would be introduced to the other side of the family in the sequel, but this time around, it just doesn’t seem necessary to explore the addition of young children into the mix; especially when you consider the fact that the kids themselves are only in the film for a handful of scenes. What starts out as a story about the kids quickly shifts solely to the dynamic of Jack obsessively accusing Greg of infidelity, and it’s both unnecessary and rather boring. Finally, some critics hailed Owen Wilson as the funniest part of the cast, but I couldn’t disagree more; his presence in this film was little more than a name drop, as his erratic character largely served as an unwelcome intrusion in the flow of the narrative. For every step that Little Fockers took forward with a funny joke or humorous situation, these numerous errors helped serve as massive leaps backwards.
Competing against True Grit and Gulliver’s Travels over the holiday weekend, Little Fockers was able to bring in a respectable 5-day total of $45 million for the top spot at the box office. Combining this strong domestic performance with international receipts, Little Fockers has already achieved a worldwide total of nearly $90 million, so even sub-par reviews don’t seem to be deterring audiences. Now, despite all the negative aspects, I still consider Little Fockers to be the funniest and best entry in the franchise, an opinion which considerably differs from a majority of critics, who largely panned the film. It’s up to you, Little Fockers appealed to my style of humor where the previous films failed, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll find it funny. There are still major flaws that prevent me from strongly compelling anyone to see this newest comedy.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Distributor: Universal Studios (subsidiary of NBC Universal)
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $30,833,665
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $45,083,800
Gross Revenue: $88,279,000
Budget: $100 million
Director: Paul Weitz
When I saw the first trailer for Little Fockers, I couldn’t believe that Universal was still spending the time and energy to explore the dynamic between a male nurse and his ex-CIA father-in-law, especially since I wasn’t thrilled by the first two installments in the franchise. We first met Greg’s potential in-laws in 2000’s Meet the Parents and then were introduced to his bizarre and off-beat parents in 2004’s Meet the Fockers; this time around, audiences would now see how Greg handles fatherhood with two young children. Little Fockers was originally planned for release in late July, but Universal hoped to benefit from the long holiday weekend and so pushed the release date back to December 22nd. With the trailer attached to everything from summer hits like Grown Ups or recent releases such as Morning Glory, buzz for the film had months to build; and let’s not forget the media attention that followed the rumors that Dustin Hoffman would not be returning as Greg’s eccentric father, Bernie Focker. Luckily, last-minute negotiations enabled Universal to bring back the entire cast, so even though I wasn’t particularly thrilled by this sequel, I was willing to give the star-studded comedy Little Fockers the benefit of the doubt.
Little Fockers starts off by introducing audiences to Henry and Samantha, the five-year-old twins of Greg Focker (Ben Stiller) and his wife Pam (Teri Polo). With the help of his in-laws Jack (Robert De Niro) and Dina (Blythe Danner), Greg is busy planning the twins’ 5th birthday party and preparing for the arrival of his own parents, Roz (Barbara Streisand) and Bernie (Dustin Hoffman). Unfortunately, Jack has been running into some health problems and wants to make sure that Greg will make an appropriate patriarch for the family, but his paranoia begins to set in when he discovers that Greg is working with young and sexy pharmaceutical rep Andi (Jessica Alba). Adding to the complications is the arrival of Pam’s ex-boyfriend, the wealthy and immensely successful Kevin (Owen Wilson). With so many hectic and comical family dynamics at play, Greg is tasked with proving his competence as both a family leader and a devoted father.
As I mentioned in the “Short and Sweet” review, Little Fockers actually ended up being way funnier than expected, mixing both cheap laughs with some truly clever situations. Though I felt that the first two installments in the franchise were relatively weak, the interaction between Greg and Jack has always been entertaining, and this time around, the bickering between father-in-law and son-in-law is surprisingly funny. Another positive includes the fact that Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand’s roles were downgraded to little more than extended cameos; I found both incredibly annoying and unfunny in Meet the Fockers, so I was glad that the writers decided to tone down the two characters. The biggest surprise was Jessica Alba, whose character started off as an incredibly misplaced addition to the cast, but later evolved into a nutty and enjoyable potential home wrecker for the Focker family. As likely the last film in the franchise, Little Fockers helps bring a humorous ending to the family legacy that was set into motion ten years ago.
However, a few laughs are not enough to save some of the big problems present in Little Fockers, the most apparent being the film’s lack of compelling story. By an large, Little Fockers felt like it was made out of necessity rather than innovation, with studio execs trying to squeeze a few more dollars out of a dying franchise rather than adding an original and compelling chapter to the overall story. We met one set of in-laws in the original, so it made sense that audiences would be introduced to the other side of the family in the sequel, but this time around, it just doesn’t seem necessary to explore the addition of young children into the mix; especially when you consider the fact that the kids themselves are only in the film for a handful of scenes. What starts out as a story about the kids quickly shifts solely to the dynamic of Jack obsessively accusing Greg of infidelity, and it’s both unnecessary and rather boring. Finally, some critics hailed Owen Wilson as the funniest part of the cast, but I couldn’t disagree more; his presence in this film was little more than a name drop, as his erratic character largely served as an unwelcome intrusion in the flow of the narrative. For every step that Little Fockers took forward with a funny joke or humorous situation, these numerous errors helped serve as massive leaps backwards.
Competing against True Grit and Gulliver’s Travels over the holiday weekend, Little Fockers was able to bring in a respectable 5-day total of $45 million for the top spot at the box office. Combining this strong domestic performance with international receipts, Little Fockers has already achieved a worldwide total of nearly $90 million, so even sub-par reviews don’t seem to be deterring audiences. Now, despite all the negative aspects, I still consider Little Fockers to be the funniest and best entry in the franchise, an opinion which considerably differs from a majority of critics, who largely panned the film. It’s up to you, Little Fockers appealed to my style of humor where the previous films failed, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll find it funny. There are still major flaws that prevent me from strongly compelling anyone to see this newest comedy.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Friday, December 24, 2010
The Fighter: Short and Sweet
It’s not that often that Hollywood rewards audiences with an ensemble cast in an engaging drama, so when I heard that Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, and Amy Adams would be working together in a boxing film, I was understandably excited. Early trailers for this newest sports drama were engaging enough, but what really helped build the buzz for The Fighter was the high level of early critical acclaim surrounding the film. Even before release, The Fighter earned multiple Golden Globe nominations, honoring the strong acting, directing, and overall quality of the film. Christian Bale is notorious for the physical and emotional dedication he puts into his different roles, and many critics predicted that his performance as troubled boxer Dicky Eklund would not only get him the Golden Globe, but also earn him his first Oscar nomination. With TIME Magazine characterizing The Fighter as a mix between Rocky, The Blind Side, and The Departed, I couldn’t wait to see this early Oscar contender.
There are times when a strongly-hyped film falls short of expectations, but that certainly isn’t the case with The Fighter, which I am happy to report is one of the best films of the year. With humor, drama, and action brilliantly blended together, The Fighter brings engaging characters to life to tell a thoroughly entertaining story that audiences won’t soon forget. Wahlberg and Adams demonstrate outstanding acting ability, but as expected, the standout performance belongs to Christian Bale, whose mannerisms, speech patterns, and expressions so fully embody his drug-addicted character that it’s hard to believe this is the same guy who dressed like a bat and beat up the Joker two summers ago. Looking back, I really don’t have anything truly negative to say about The Fighter, I loved the film and would see it again in a heartbeat. Sports Illustrated has called The Fighter the “best sports film of the decade,” and I couldn’t agree more; during the Holiday Movie Season, do not miss this must-see film, which is sure to entertain audiences, win numerous awards, and become an instant classic.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
There are times when a strongly-hyped film falls short of expectations, but that certainly isn’t the case with The Fighter, which I am happy to report is one of the best films of the year. With humor, drama, and action brilliantly blended together, The Fighter brings engaging characters to life to tell a thoroughly entertaining story that audiences won’t soon forget. Wahlberg and Adams demonstrate outstanding acting ability, but as expected, the standout performance belongs to Christian Bale, whose mannerisms, speech patterns, and expressions so fully embody his drug-addicted character that it’s hard to believe this is the same guy who dressed like a bat and beat up the Joker two summers ago. Looking back, I really don’t have anything truly negative to say about The Fighter, I loved the film and would see it again in a heartbeat. Sports Illustrated has called The Fighter the “best sports film of the decade,” and I couldn’t agree more; during the Holiday Movie Season, do not miss this must-see film, which is sure to entertain audiences, win numerous awards, and become an instant classic.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
The Fighter: Full Review
The Fighter - (December 17th, 2010): R
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #4 with $12,135,468
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $19,074,000
Gross Revenue: $19,074,000
Budget: $11 million
Director: David O. Russell
During the Summer Movie Season, I had mentioned that Inception represented the penultimate pet project for director Christopher Nolan; in a similar vein, during the Holiday Movie Season, The Fighter represents an absolute passion project for Mark Wahlberg. Because of his close friendship with the real “Irish” Mickey Ward and his attraction to the plot’s focus on an underdog story, Wahlberg threw himself fully into this role, training for close to four years (even receiving instruction from world champion boxer Manny Pacquiao), constructing a boxing-ring in his home to help his preparation, and even refusing to use stunt-doubles during the film’s brutal fight scenes (he almost broke his nose twice). Christian Bale’s preparation to play Mickey Ward’s half-brother Dicky Eklund was equally impressive; though both Brad Pitt and Matt Damon were initially attached to the role, Bale’s ability to physically transform himself made his transition to portray Eklund’s drug addiction relatively easy (he had once lost sixty-three pounds to play the emaciated protagonist in 2003’s The Machinist). Individually, both of these actors have an extremely dedicated fan-base, so putting them together was a natural choice for Hollywood that was successfully highlighted in Paramount’s marketing campaign for The Fighter. By positioning this newest sports drama as a future classic with an ensemble cast that has already been warmly received by critics and evokes memories of past crowd pleasers like Rocky or The Departed, it was clear that The Fighter would be an absolute success and a must-see for holiday audiences.
Based on a true story, The Fighter follows the story of young boxer “Irish” Micky Ward (Wahlberg), who is trying to launch his fighting career with the support of his family and the Lowell, Massachusettes, community. Ward is following in the footsteps of his older half-brother and sparring partner Dicky Eklund (Bale), a former welterweight who was once a local hero famous for fighting Sugar Ray Leonard, but has now declined into a crippling crack addiction. With Dicky as his trainer, Micky is managed by his well-meaning but closed-minded mother Alice (Melissa Leo); though, as his family, they claim to have his best interests in mind, Micky soon realizes that both his mother and brother are hampering his opportunities with their erratic behavior. Once Micky meets outgoing bartender and potential love-interest Charlene Fleming (Amy Adams), he starts to separate from his family by following his own path and, as a result, considerable tension begins to rise. In the end, Micky must balance his family loyalty and his own ambitions, all while helping his brother through his destructive addiction and achieving success as a professional fighter in search of a world title.
There are so many positive aspects to The Fighter that it is hard to know where to begin, but I feel that the setting of the film helped bring an extra dimension of realism to both the story and the characters. Because The Fighter was filmed on location in Lowell, Massachusettes, the audience gets a true sense of not only the protagonist’s desire to move beyond his hometown but also the strong dynamic that exists between Ward’s family and the community. Melissa Leo is entertaining as Ward’s confrontational mother and Wahlberg displays a determination and vulnerability that characterizes the best type of underdog, but the true standout performances belong to Amy Adams and Christian Bale. As Ward’s love interest Charlene, Adams steps into the grittiest role of her career, portraying a tough, sexy, and sharp-tongued young woman that is a surprising and pleasant break from her usually sweet and sensitive characters. When it comes to Bale, his performance is nothing short of mesmerizing, as everything from his mannerisms to his speech patterns are so fully dedicated to and convincing in bringing the character of Ward’s crack-addicted sibling to life that you would think he himself was going to his trailer and lighting up between takes. If Bale doesn’t win both the Golden Globe and Oscar for this performance, I will be nothing short of horrified. Besides the characters and setting, the story and dialogue of the film perfectly blend elements of humor, emotion, and action, so that the audience is able to laugh at the banter between Charlene and Micky’s family, to sympathize with Dicky as he realizes how far his addiction has gone, and to cheer as Micky steps into the ring; the transitions are seamless and constant, making the end-result thoroughly entertaining.
As I said in the “Short and Sweet” review, I really don’t have any substantial criticisms of The Fighter. If anything, the film itself does start off a bit slow, as it takes some time for the characters and setting to build momentum, but the whole experience is so entertaining that this shortcoming (which only lasts about twenty minutes) is easily forgivable. In terms of the story, some may criticize that the underdog angle is a little predictable, with Ward fighting his way to the top of the boxing circuit, but I would argue that the true focus of The Fighter is the dynamic between the two siblings. Wahlberg and Bale play very convincing brothers, and despite all the turbulence that their two characters have been through together, it is very clear that they will always care for each other. In one notable scene, after Micky has started to separate himself from the family, Dicky questions him as to whether he would be anywhere without his older brother looking after him, and after a heated argument, the two decide to vent their frustrations in a sparring match; throughout the scene, the energy and emotion between the two is just electrifying. With so few criticisms, all I can do is echo my earlier praise and tell audiences to sit back and enjoy The Fighter.
Unfortunately, even though The Fighter has been critically acclaimed, from a box office perspective, the film’s performance is nowhere near as impressive. The Fighter was initially slated for a December 10th release, but Paramount pushed the film back a week to avoid competition with The Tourist. I consider this a big misstep, since now, rather than go up against a mediocre Depp-Jolie thriller and the underperforming Narnia franchise, The Fighter was forced to contend with everything from romantic comedy (How Do You Know) to family-friendly (Yogi Bear and Tron: Legacy) and dark drama (Black Swan). While opening in fourth with just over $12 million may sound weak, in the face of so much competition, the R-rated drama’s performance is still respectable. On a brighter note, thanks to the small production budget, Paramount was already able to turn a profit after just one weekend, and with so much award buzz surrounding the film, box office receipts should only continue to increase. Of all the films that I have reviewed since I started writing this blog, The Fighter is easily one of my favorites, and I cannot emphasize enough how much audiences need to go see this gift of a movie…Merry Christmas! (I don’t care if you thought that last line was corny, I found it clever and witty)
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #4 with $12,135,468
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $19,074,000
Gross Revenue: $19,074,000
Budget: $11 million
Director: David O. Russell
During the Summer Movie Season, I had mentioned that Inception represented the penultimate pet project for director Christopher Nolan; in a similar vein, during the Holiday Movie Season, The Fighter represents an absolute passion project for Mark Wahlberg. Because of his close friendship with the real “Irish” Mickey Ward and his attraction to the plot’s focus on an underdog story, Wahlberg threw himself fully into this role, training for close to four years (even receiving instruction from world champion boxer Manny Pacquiao), constructing a boxing-ring in his home to help his preparation, and even refusing to use stunt-doubles during the film’s brutal fight scenes (he almost broke his nose twice). Christian Bale’s preparation to play Mickey Ward’s half-brother Dicky Eklund was equally impressive; though both Brad Pitt and Matt Damon were initially attached to the role, Bale’s ability to physically transform himself made his transition to portray Eklund’s drug addiction relatively easy (he had once lost sixty-three pounds to play the emaciated protagonist in 2003’s The Machinist). Individually, both of these actors have an extremely dedicated fan-base, so putting them together was a natural choice for Hollywood that was successfully highlighted in Paramount’s marketing campaign for The Fighter. By positioning this newest sports drama as a future classic with an ensemble cast that has already been warmly received by critics and evokes memories of past crowd pleasers like Rocky or The Departed, it was clear that The Fighter would be an absolute success and a must-see for holiday audiences.
Based on a true story, The Fighter follows the story of young boxer “Irish” Micky Ward (Wahlberg), who is trying to launch his fighting career with the support of his family and the Lowell, Massachusettes, community. Ward is following in the footsteps of his older half-brother and sparring partner Dicky Eklund (Bale), a former welterweight who was once a local hero famous for fighting Sugar Ray Leonard, but has now declined into a crippling crack addiction. With Dicky as his trainer, Micky is managed by his well-meaning but closed-minded mother Alice (Melissa Leo); though, as his family, they claim to have his best interests in mind, Micky soon realizes that both his mother and brother are hampering his opportunities with their erratic behavior. Once Micky meets outgoing bartender and potential love-interest Charlene Fleming (Amy Adams), he starts to separate from his family by following his own path and, as a result, considerable tension begins to rise. In the end, Micky must balance his family loyalty and his own ambitions, all while helping his brother through his destructive addiction and achieving success as a professional fighter in search of a world title.
There are so many positive aspects to The Fighter that it is hard to know where to begin, but I feel that the setting of the film helped bring an extra dimension of realism to both the story and the characters. Because The Fighter was filmed on location in Lowell, Massachusettes, the audience gets a true sense of not only the protagonist’s desire to move beyond his hometown but also the strong dynamic that exists between Ward’s family and the community. Melissa Leo is entertaining as Ward’s confrontational mother and Wahlberg displays a determination and vulnerability that characterizes the best type of underdog, but the true standout performances belong to Amy Adams and Christian Bale. As Ward’s love interest Charlene, Adams steps into the grittiest role of her career, portraying a tough, sexy, and sharp-tongued young woman that is a surprising and pleasant break from her usually sweet and sensitive characters. When it comes to Bale, his performance is nothing short of mesmerizing, as everything from his mannerisms to his speech patterns are so fully dedicated to and convincing in bringing the character of Ward’s crack-addicted sibling to life that you would think he himself was going to his trailer and lighting up between takes. If Bale doesn’t win both the Golden Globe and Oscar for this performance, I will be nothing short of horrified. Besides the characters and setting, the story and dialogue of the film perfectly blend elements of humor, emotion, and action, so that the audience is able to laugh at the banter between Charlene and Micky’s family, to sympathize with Dicky as he realizes how far his addiction has gone, and to cheer as Micky steps into the ring; the transitions are seamless and constant, making the end-result thoroughly entertaining.
As I said in the “Short and Sweet” review, I really don’t have any substantial criticisms of The Fighter. If anything, the film itself does start off a bit slow, as it takes some time for the characters and setting to build momentum, but the whole experience is so entertaining that this shortcoming (which only lasts about twenty minutes) is easily forgivable. In terms of the story, some may criticize that the underdog angle is a little predictable, with Ward fighting his way to the top of the boxing circuit, but I would argue that the true focus of The Fighter is the dynamic between the two siblings. Wahlberg and Bale play very convincing brothers, and despite all the turbulence that their two characters have been through together, it is very clear that they will always care for each other. In one notable scene, after Micky has started to separate himself from the family, Dicky questions him as to whether he would be anywhere without his older brother looking after him, and after a heated argument, the two decide to vent their frustrations in a sparring match; throughout the scene, the energy and emotion between the two is just electrifying. With so few criticisms, all I can do is echo my earlier praise and tell audiences to sit back and enjoy The Fighter.
Unfortunately, even though The Fighter has been critically acclaimed, from a box office perspective, the film’s performance is nowhere near as impressive. The Fighter was initially slated for a December 10th release, but Paramount pushed the film back a week to avoid competition with The Tourist. I consider this a big misstep, since now, rather than go up against a mediocre Depp-Jolie thriller and the underperforming Narnia franchise, The Fighter was forced to contend with everything from romantic comedy (How Do You Know) to family-friendly (Yogi Bear and Tron: Legacy) and dark drama (Black Swan). While opening in fourth with just over $12 million may sound weak, in the face of so much competition, the R-rated drama’s performance is still respectable. On a brighter note, thanks to the small production budget, Paramount was already able to turn a profit after just one weekend, and with so much award buzz surrounding the film, box office receipts should only continue to increase. Of all the films that I have reviewed since I started writing this blog, The Fighter is easily one of my favorites, and I cannot emphasize enough how much audiences need to go see this gift of a movie…Merry Christmas! (I don’t care if you thought that last line was corny, I found it clever and witty)
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Monday, December 20, 2010
Tron: Legacy - Short and Sweet
Ever since it was first announced at 2008’s San Diego Comic-Con, Tron: Legacy has easily been one of Walt Disney Pictures’ biggest and most expansive projects, geared towards reviving and expanding a multimedia franchise that began with the 1982 original, Tron. With nearly thirty years between the original and sequel, Disney clearly had a big challenge in introducing an iconic sci-fi film to an entirely new generation, but the sad reality is that Tron wasn’t that popular when it was first released. To compensate for this potential shortcoming, Disney launched a shockingly aggressive and innovative marketing campaign (valued at nearly $100 million), not only releasing numerous fan-sites and redubbing the monorails at Walt Disney World Resort “TRONORAILS,” but also establishing a high-energy street festival at Disney’s California Adventure known as ElecTRONica, which included everything from dance shows to incandescent drinks. To reach the target audience of teenagers and young adults, the strongest selling point of the newest Tron film would clearly be the impressive special effects and 3D technology that could now be used to bring the digital world of the narrative to life. Though I myself had never seen the original Tron, I was open to some cool special effects; at the very least, with all the hype surrounding the sequel, Tron: Legacy had earned my time and attention.
In retrospect, Tron: Legacy was nowhere near as good as it could have been, but that is not to say that the end result wasn’t enjoyable; the biggest problem with this film is that its quality was too inconsistent. Because of the big time gap between the original of the sequel, a large portion of the two hour running time is spent explaining and setting up the world in which the film exists; so audiences will be treated to a fast-paced and visually stunning action sequence, only for the pacing of the movie to come to a dead stop so a character can explain what just happened. As far as acting goes, Jeff Bridges’ is surprisingly strong in playing two different characters, but Garret Hedlund was just not engaging or entertaining enough to stand-out as the central protagonist. Now, in terms of special effects, the digital world created for Tron: Legacy was visually stunning, helping the audience believe that they had truly entered a videogame, but as is common in so many “3D” films, the potential 3D technology was largely underused. Plain and simple, Tron: Legacy is a good (not great) sci-fi movie that is sure to please audiences young and old alike, but given the hype surrounding this project, audiences deserved much more.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
In retrospect, Tron: Legacy was nowhere near as good as it could have been, but that is not to say that the end result wasn’t enjoyable; the biggest problem with this film is that its quality was too inconsistent. Because of the big time gap between the original of the sequel, a large portion of the two hour running time is spent explaining and setting up the world in which the film exists; so audiences will be treated to a fast-paced and visually stunning action sequence, only for the pacing of the movie to come to a dead stop so a character can explain what just happened. As far as acting goes, Jeff Bridges’ is surprisingly strong in playing two different characters, but Garret Hedlund was just not engaging or entertaining enough to stand-out as the central protagonist. Now, in terms of special effects, the digital world created for Tron: Legacy was visually stunning, helping the audience believe that they had truly entered a videogame, but as is common in so many “3D” films, the potential 3D technology was largely underused. Plain and simple, Tron: Legacy is a good (not great) sci-fi movie that is sure to please audiences young and old alike, but given the hype surrounding this project, audiences deserved much more.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Tron: Legacy - Full Review
Tron: Legacy - (December 17th, 2010): PG
Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $44,026,211
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $44,026,211
Gross Revenue: $67,026,211
Budget: $170 million
Director: Joseph Kosinski
As I mentioned in the “Short and Sweet” review, the biggest obstacle facing Tron: Legacy involves the fact that the original Tron was released decades ago, and even back then, it wasn’t that popular. Still, with today’s audiences, the idea of people existing as programs within a videogame was sure to resonate and draw strong crowds who would undoubtedly enjoy a visually stunning adventure, regardless of whether or not they remembered the original story. Once I saw the first trailers attached to everything from Alice in Wonderland to Resident Evil: Extinction, I did a little research and was shocked to discover the massive marketing plan Disney had prepared for Tron: Legacy…they were clearly gearing up the beginning of a massive franchise. In addition to the strong special effects promised to audiences, another strong draw for Tron: Legacy was the presence of crowd-pleaser Jeff Bridges, who would be reprising the characters he brought to life almost thirty years ago. As a notorious videogame enthusiast, needless to say I had my 3D glasses in-hand, ready for the digital adventure Disney had been preparing for years.
The world of the Tron franchise follows Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), a brilliant software programmer who, in the first film, built a virtual domain within a videogame system that human beings can enter and fully interact with, a frontier known as The Grid. Within The Grid, computer programs appear as humans, and in an attempt to perfect his system, Flynn built two programs, a security program known as “Tron” and a development program known as “Clu,” Flynn’s identical digital representation within the system (also played by Bridges). Tron: Legacy picks up just as Flynn goes missing…fast forward twenty years and Flynn’s now-adult son Sam (Garret Hedlund, Eragon) is still haunted by his father’s disappearance. As fate would have it, Sam stumbles into The Grid, where Clu now rules with an iron fist and Flynn has been trapped for all this time. It is revealed that Clu betrayed both Flynn and Tron in an attempt to build the perfect system and has been trying to steal Flynn’s information disc (a literal disc that houses all of an individual’s collected knowledge) so that he can enter the real world and impose his rule on humanity. Now that Sam has entered The Grid, a temporary portal has been opened to our reality, so Sam must now work with his father and his father’s faithful apprentice, a program known as “Quorra” (Olivia Wilde, best known for her work as “13” on Fox’s House), in order to get to the portal before it closes and escape without Clu capturing Flynn and getting through to our world.
Well, as was expected, the best part of Tron: Legacy involved the action sequences, whose impressive graphics and energetic soundtrack listings truly brought the notion of existing within a videogame to life (electronic music duo Daft Punk composed the music and even cameo as DJs). The scenes where Sam and Clu battle in a light cycle race or engage in a mid-air dogfight with virtual fighter jets are just jaw-droppingly cool, there’s really no better way to describe the sequences. The other big surprise involves Jeff Bridges, who is an absolute scene-stealer as he plays both a young and old version of himself (Clu was created in the original Tron, and, unlike Flynn, does not age), one a hero, and the other a villain. Even Olivia Wilde is enjoyable as the spunky and determined Quorra, injecting the right amount of attitude and innocence into the film to balance the rest of the cast. As a PG film, Tron: Legacy’s audience will largely be comprised of children, but sci-fi and video game fans of all ages will find something in this Disney adventure to ignite their imaginations.
Unfortunately, every element that acts as a strength within Tron: Legacy also has a weaker aspect, which severely hinders the overall quality of the film. As impressive as the special effects were, they could have been better as they almost completely ignored the potential of 3D technology; some have called Tron: Legacy the “3D event of the year,” and that is a horribly inaccurate overstatement, as a majority of the film is in 2D, which makes paying for the 3D glasses largely a waste of money. You would think that a film about live-action videogames would represent the perfect avenue for 3D action…talk about a missed opportunity. And as good as Jeff Bridges is as Flynn and Clu, he completely overshadows Garret Hedlund, who, even though he is supposed to be the main protagonist, is so one-dimensional and unsympathetic that it is hard for the audience to get behind his character or regard him as a hero. Beyond these weaknesses, my biggest complaint about Tron: Legacy is the uneven pacing of the narrative, switching between fast-paced action sequences and painfully slow exposition dialogues so often that it becomes a chore to try and follow or remain engaged in the story. The story is good, but after two hours of trying to understand it, the ending just feels labored, confusing, and anti-climatic. And on a smaller note, if you’re not a fan of techno-music, the soundtrack can get old quickly; in one scene in particular, the music is so dominating that it causes the set to resemble nothing more than a bad Vegas nightclub. In the end, with as much as audiences were promised with Tron: Legacy, the end result was disappointing.
After the lackluster box office weekends that met The Tourist and the newest Narnia, hopes were high that Tron: Legacy would be able to kick-start the Holiday Movie Season, but after the combined cost of both the production and marketing budgets (approx. $270 million), a 3-day haul of $44 million is hardly impressive. With this massively hyped sequel, industry analysts were projecting a $50 million opening, at minimum, but now, Disney execs are a little panicked that a strong international performance is needed for the film to break even. In all likelihood, family-friendly Yogi Bear drew away a portion of the younger potential audience, with some parents questioning Tron: Legacy’s appropriateness for children, while the PG-rating deterred some older moviegoers. Still, despite some weak elements and a large uphill battle to turn a profit, Disney has produced an entertaining adventure worth seeing, just don’t expect anything revolutionary and forego the 3D glasses.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $44,026,211
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $44,026,211
Gross Revenue: $67,026,211
Budget: $170 million
Director: Joseph Kosinski
As I mentioned in the “Short and Sweet” review, the biggest obstacle facing Tron: Legacy involves the fact that the original Tron was released decades ago, and even back then, it wasn’t that popular. Still, with today’s audiences, the idea of people existing as programs within a videogame was sure to resonate and draw strong crowds who would undoubtedly enjoy a visually stunning adventure, regardless of whether or not they remembered the original story. Once I saw the first trailers attached to everything from Alice in Wonderland to Resident Evil: Extinction, I did a little research and was shocked to discover the massive marketing plan Disney had prepared for Tron: Legacy…they were clearly gearing up the beginning of a massive franchise. In addition to the strong special effects promised to audiences, another strong draw for Tron: Legacy was the presence of crowd-pleaser Jeff Bridges, who would be reprising the characters he brought to life almost thirty years ago. As a notorious videogame enthusiast, needless to say I had my 3D glasses in-hand, ready for the digital adventure Disney had been preparing for years.
The world of the Tron franchise follows Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), a brilliant software programmer who, in the first film, built a virtual domain within a videogame system that human beings can enter and fully interact with, a frontier known as The Grid. Within The Grid, computer programs appear as humans, and in an attempt to perfect his system, Flynn built two programs, a security program known as “Tron” and a development program known as “Clu,” Flynn’s identical digital representation within the system (also played by Bridges). Tron: Legacy picks up just as Flynn goes missing…fast forward twenty years and Flynn’s now-adult son Sam (Garret Hedlund, Eragon) is still haunted by his father’s disappearance. As fate would have it, Sam stumbles into The Grid, where Clu now rules with an iron fist and Flynn has been trapped for all this time. It is revealed that Clu betrayed both Flynn and Tron in an attempt to build the perfect system and has been trying to steal Flynn’s information disc (a literal disc that houses all of an individual’s collected knowledge) so that he can enter the real world and impose his rule on humanity. Now that Sam has entered The Grid, a temporary portal has been opened to our reality, so Sam must now work with his father and his father’s faithful apprentice, a program known as “Quorra” (Olivia Wilde, best known for her work as “13” on Fox’s House), in order to get to the portal before it closes and escape without Clu capturing Flynn and getting through to our world.
Well, as was expected, the best part of Tron: Legacy involved the action sequences, whose impressive graphics and energetic soundtrack listings truly brought the notion of existing within a videogame to life (electronic music duo Daft Punk composed the music and even cameo as DJs). The scenes where Sam and Clu battle in a light cycle race or engage in a mid-air dogfight with virtual fighter jets are just jaw-droppingly cool, there’s really no better way to describe the sequences. The other big surprise involves Jeff Bridges, who is an absolute scene-stealer as he plays both a young and old version of himself (Clu was created in the original Tron, and, unlike Flynn, does not age), one a hero, and the other a villain. Even Olivia Wilde is enjoyable as the spunky and determined Quorra, injecting the right amount of attitude and innocence into the film to balance the rest of the cast. As a PG film, Tron: Legacy’s audience will largely be comprised of children, but sci-fi and video game fans of all ages will find something in this Disney adventure to ignite their imaginations.
Unfortunately, every element that acts as a strength within Tron: Legacy also has a weaker aspect, which severely hinders the overall quality of the film. As impressive as the special effects were, they could have been better as they almost completely ignored the potential of 3D technology; some have called Tron: Legacy the “3D event of the year,” and that is a horribly inaccurate overstatement, as a majority of the film is in 2D, which makes paying for the 3D glasses largely a waste of money. You would think that a film about live-action videogames would represent the perfect avenue for 3D action…talk about a missed opportunity. And as good as Jeff Bridges is as Flynn and Clu, he completely overshadows Garret Hedlund, who, even though he is supposed to be the main protagonist, is so one-dimensional and unsympathetic that it is hard for the audience to get behind his character or regard him as a hero. Beyond these weaknesses, my biggest complaint about Tron: Legacy is the uneven pacing of the narrative, switching between fast-paced action sequences and painfully slow exposition dialogues so often that it becomes a chore to try and follow or remain engaged in the story. The story is good, but after two hours of trying to understand it, the ending just feels labored, confusing, and anti-climatic. And on a smaller note, if you’re not a fan of techno-music, the soundtrack can get old quickly; in one scene in particular, the music is so dominating that it causes the set to resemble nothing more than a bad Vegas nightclub. In the end, with as much as audiences were promised with Tron: Legacy, the end result was disappointing.
After the lackluster box office weekends that met The Tourist and the newest Narnia, hopes were high that Tron: Legacy would be able to kick-start the Holiday Movie Season, but after the combined cost of both the production and marketing budgets (approx. $270 million), a 3-day haul of $44 million is hardly impressive. With this massively hyped sequel, industry analysts were projecting a $50 million opening, at minimum, but now, Disney execs are a little panicked that a strong international performance is needed for the film to break even. In all likelihood, family-friendly Yogi Bear drew away a portion of the younger potential audience, with some parents questioning Tron: Legacy’s appropriateness for children, while the PG-rating deterred some older moviegoers. Still, despite some weak elements and a large uphill battle to turn a profit, Disney has produced an entertaining adventure worth seeing, just don’t expect anything revolutionary and forego the 3D glasses.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
The Tourist: Short and Sweet
Though there is by no means a sure-fire formula for a successful movie, by all accounts The Tourist seemed to contain everything necessary to please audiences: exotic foreign setting, a plot filled with mystery and intrigue, and a pairing of two of Hollywood’s biggest A-list celebrities. When she’s not jetting around the globe as a UN Ambassador or maintaining a high-profile relationship with Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie has been receiving praise for recent hits such as Changeling or Salt, while Johnny Depp has been entertaining audiences with offbeat characters like Captain Jack Sparrow of The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise or The Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland; together, these two would be virtually unstoppable. Despite the potential draw of this film, marketing for The Tourist was surprisingly mild, with early trailers simply identifying that Depp and Jolie would be in a film that involved a case of mistaken identity. Still, when you consider the sheer star-power of The Tourist, aggressive marketing wasn’t really necessary; fans of both celebrities would undoubtedly want to see them work together in this newest adventure. Obviously, my hopes were very high for The Tourist.
As a member of both Depp and Jolie’s monumentally large fan-base, I hate to admit that I was thoroughly disappointed in The Tourist, which is plagued by a ridiculous plot, boring action sequences and characters, and a spectacular case of miscasting. Granted, a plot involving mistaken identity is bound to be a little misleading, but I found myself rolling my eyes and shaking my head in disbelief at the uneven and ridiculous story that audiences were expected to swallow. And, for a film billed as a romantic thriller, some of the “action” sequences present were horribly yawn-inducing, with the lead characters being chased by an embarrassingly unthreatening villain. To be fair, Angelina Jolie does what she can with film, sizzling onscreen as a mysterious and hypnotic femme fatale, but Depp’s character is such a departure from his usual roles that his presence just comes across as awkward. Devoted fans can usually be pretty forgiving when their favorite star makes a bad film, but I doubt anyone would disagree that The Tourist represents a definite step backwards for these two Hollywood juggernauts.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Low
As a member of both Depp and Jolie’s monumentally large fan-base, I hate to admit that I was thoroughly disappointed in The Tourist, which is plagued by a ridiculous plot, boring action sequences and characters, and a spectacular case of miscasting. Granted, a plot involving mistaken identity is bound to be a little misleading, but I found myself rolling my eyes and shaking my head in disbelief at the uneven and ridiculous story that audiences were expected to swallow. And, for a film billed as a romantic thriller, some of the “action” sequences present were horribly yawn-inducing, with the lead characters being chased by an embarrassingly unthreatening villain. To be fair, Angelina Jolie does what she can with film, sizzling onscreen as a mysterious and hypnotic femme fatale, but Depp’s character is such a departure from his usual roles that his presence just comes across as awkward. Devoted fans can usually be pretty forgiving when their favorite star makes a bad film, but I doubt anyone would disagree that The Tourist represents a definite step backwards for these two Hollywood juggernauts.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Low
The Tourist: Full Review
The Tourist - (December 10th, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Columbia Pictures (subsidiary of Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $16,472,458
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $30,791,000
Gross Revenue: $53,091,000
Budget: $100 million
Director: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
While I would love to tell you that this newest romantic thriller is a wholly original adventure for audiences, The Tourist is actually a remake of the 2005 French film Anthony Zimmer. Though the original hardly made headlines, some of the Hollywood talent originally attached to this project included Tom Cruise, Sam Worthington, and Charlize Theron, but once Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie settled into the lead roles, The Tourist generated massive media attention throughout its filming. With every entertainment news medium from Entertainment Weekly to Access Hollywood reporting on this first collaboration between A-listers Depp and Jolie, little else was needed to market the film; all audiences needed to know was the release date. For me, the strong emphasis on the foreign setting of the film alone was intriguing, because even though such a production decision has worked in the past, it is by no means a guarantee of success; filming in Beijing added an excellent dimension to this past summer’s The Karate Kid, but George Clooney made rural Italy look like the most boring place on earth in The American. At the very least, the promise of a mysterious and dangerous romance between two such high-profile celebrities made The Tourist an absolute must-see.
The Tourist opens with Scotland Yard officials following a mysterious woman named Elise Clifton-Ward (Jolie), who is the former lover of high-profile thief Alexander Pearce. While sitting at a café in Paris, Elise receives a letter from Alexander instructing her to board a train to Venice and pick out a man that the police will believe is him, as it is believed that Pearce has recently had a large amount of reconstructive surgery. While on the train, Elise picks out and engages an American tourist, Frank Tupelo (Depp), who is instantly attracted to the mysterious woman. Soon enough, because of Elise’s actions, Frank finds himself pursued by British agent John Acheson (Paul Bettany) and gangster Reginald Shaw (Steven Berkoff), both of whom believe Frank to be the famous criminal that they have been chasing for years. While Frank is left to sort through this case of mistaken identity, Elise finds herself developing feelings for the man she has put in harm’s way, and together the two must evade their pursuers and find the real Alexander Pearce.
Though there is a veritable laundry list of negative aspects to this film, the one element that saves The Tourist from being an absolute disaster is Angelina Jolie. As the seductive and hypnotic femme fatale Elise, audiences are engaged by Jolie’s every move onscreen, making it very easy to understand how someone as naïve as Depp’s Frank could follow her into a dangerous situation. Unfortunately, this is about as far as the chemistry goes between Jolie and Depp, because it almost seems like The Tourist couldn’t decide if it wanted to be a romance or a thriller; rather than successfully blending the two genres, the film switches between mushy proclamations of love and tense chase sequences so often that the budding romance between the lead characters feels forced rather than natural. Audiences are just supposed to accept that Jolie and Depp belong together without any of the plot elements truly backing up that conclusion…by film’s end; Elise’s proclamation of love for Frank is so far out of left field that it is near-impossible for the audience to accept. Now, this lack of chemistry has led many to criticize Depp’s performance, but I believe that rather than this being a representation of bad acting, The Tourist simply showcases a case of bad casting. Johnny Depp is famous for offbeat and outrageous characters like Captain Jack Sparrow, but Frank is so horribly vanilla that Depp feels simply out-of-place in this bland role, and that’s a shame.
Aside from the uneven acting and chemistry between the A-listers, the biggest problem with The Tourist still involves the weak story elements. As I mentioned earlier, Frank is being mistaken for a high-profile criminal and is being chased by both the police and ruthless gangsters, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen such potentially thrilling elements presented in such an un-engaging manner. For instance, at one point there is a boat chase through the Venice canals that is shockingly boring as Depp and Jolie try to escape embarrassingly incompetent henchmen. The film’s primary antagonist, gangster Reginald Shaw, tries to be as threatening as possible, but even when he’s holding a knife to Jolie’s throat or a gun to Depp’s head, the audience still feels no sense of danger or urgency. The Tourist also tries to throw in a few twists to keep the audience interested, but they are so predictable and lazy that anyone who has seen a spy or action film can see them coming a mile away. In the end, even the combined star power of Depp and Jolie can’t save a film as flawed as The Tourist.
Well, early critical reviews were decidedly unkind to The Tourist, and judging from the opening weekend box-office numbers, audiences weren’t much more sympathetic. In light of the early negative feedback, Columbia had actually dampened its projections for The Tourist’s first weekend in theaters; studio execs were hoping for $20 million, which is low considering the two film leads, so a performance of under $17 million is undoubtedly embarrassing. Admittedly, The Tourist opened up against the new entry in the Narnia series, but the combined performance for both films was still weak, signaling a poor start to the Holiday Movie Season. Even though Jolie was easily the best part of this film, The Tourist still represents the worst start for both of the high-profile stars in years, and with so many new films coming in the next few weeks, most accompanied by buzz of Oscar-worthy performances, it is unlikely that Columbia Pictures will recover it’s $100 million production budget. Regardless of how you feel about Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp, it’s a better use of your time and money to wait for The Tourist to hit Red Box or Netflix.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Distributor: Columbia Pictures (subsidiary of Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $16,472,458
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $30,791,000
Gross Revenue: $53,091,000
Budget: $100 million
Director: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
While I would love to tell you that this newest romantic thriller is a wholly original adventure for audiences, The Tourist is actually a remake of the 2005 French film Anthony Zimmer. Though the original hardly made headlines, some of the Hollywood talent originally attached to this project included Tom Cruise, Sam Worthington, and Charlize Theron, but once Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie settled into the lead roles, The Tourist generated massive media attention throughout its filming. With every entertainment news medium from Entertainment Weekly to Access Hollywood reporting on this first collaboration between A-listers Depp and Jolie, little else was needed to market the film; all audiences needed to know was the release date. For me, the strong emphasis on the foreign setting of the film alone was intriguing, because even though such a production decision has worked in the past, it is by no means a guarantee of success; filming in Beijing added an excellent dimension to this past summer’s The Karate Kid, but George Clooney made rural Italy look like the most boring place on earth in The American. At the very least, the promise of a mysterious and dangerous romance between two such high-profile celebrities made The Tourist an absolute must-see.
The Tourist opens with Scotland Yard officials following a mysterious woman named Elise Clifton-Ward (Jolie), who is the former lover of high-profile thief Alexander Pearce. While sitting at a café in Paris, Elise receives a letter from Alexander instructing her to board a train to Venice and pick out a man that the police will believe is him, as it is believed that Pearce has recently had a large amount of reconstructive surgery. While on the train, Elise picks out and engages an American tourist, Frank Tupelo (Depp), who is instantly attracted to the mysterious woman. Soon enough, because of Elise’s actions, Frank finds himself pursued by British agent John Acheson (Paul Bettany) and gangster Reginald Shaw (Steven Berkoff), both of whom believe Frank to be the famous criminal that they have been chasing for years. While Frank is left to sort through this case of mistaken identity, Elise finds herself developing feelings for the man she has put in harm’s way, and together the two must evade their pursuers and find the real Alexander Pearce.
Though there is a veritable laundry list of negative aspects to this film, the one element that saves The Tourist from being an absolute disaster is Angelina Jolie. As the seductive and hypnotic femme fatale Elise, audiences are engaged by Jolie’s every move onscreen, making it very easy to understand how someone as naïve as Depp’s Frank could follow her into a dangerous situation. Unfortunately, this is about as far as the chemistry goes between Jolie and Depp, because it almost seems like The Tourist couldn’t decide if it wanted to be a romance or a thriller; rather than successfully blending the two genres, the film switches between mushy proclamations of love and tense chase sequences so often that the budding romance between the lead characters feels forced rather than natural. Audiences are just supposed to accept that Jolie and Depp belong together without any of the plot elements truly backing up that conclusion…by film’s end; Elise’s proclamation of love for Frank is so far out of left field that it is near-impossible for the audience to accept. Now, this lack of chemistry has led many to criticize Depp’s performance, but I believe that rather than this being a representation of bad acting, The Tourist simply showcases a case of bad casting. Johnny Depp is famous for offbeat and outrageous characters like Captain Jack Sparrow, but Frank is so horribly vanilla that Depp feels simply out-of-place in this bland role, and that’s a shame.
Aside from the uneven acting and chemistry between the A-listers, the biggest problem with The Tourist still involves the weak story elements. As I mentioned earlier, Frank is being mistaken for a high-profile criminal and is being chased by both the police and ruthless gangsters, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen such potentially thrilling elements presented in such an un-engaging manner. For instance, at one point there is a boat chase through the Venice canals that is shockingly boring as Depp and Jolie try to escape embarrassingly incompetent henchmen. The film’s primary antagonist, gangster Reginald Shaw, tries to be as threatening as possible, but even when he’s holding a knife to Jolie’s throat or a gun to Depp’s head, the audience still feels no sense of danger or urgency. The Tourist also tries to throw in a few twists to keep the audience interested, but they are so predictable and lazy that anyone who has seen a spy or action film can see them coming a mile away. In the end, even the combined star power of Depp and Jolie can’t save a film as flawed as The Tourist.
Well, early critical reviews were decidedly unkind to The Tourist, and judging from the opening weekend box-office numbers, audiences weren’t much more sympathetic. In light of the early negative feedback, Columbia had actually dampened its projections for The Tourist’s first weekend in theaters; studio execs were hoping for $20 million, which is low considering the two film leads, so a performance of under $17 million is undoubtedly embarrassing. Admittedly, The Tourist opened up against the new entry in the Narnia series, but the combined performance for both films was still weak, signaling a poor start to the Holiday Movie Season. Even though Jolie was easily the best part of this film, The Tourist still represents the worst start for both of the high-profile stars in years, and with so many new films coming in the next few weeks, most accompanied by buzz of Oscar-worthy performances, it is unlikely that Columbia Pictures will recover it’s $100 million production budget. Regardless of how you feel about Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp, it’s a better use of your time and money to wait for The Tourist to hit Red Box or Netflix.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Burlesque: Short and Sweet
Though many would have you believe that musical films have a limited appeal, the reality is that the genre has been growing in popularity over the years, blending songs with everything from sex, action, and horror to produce both critically and commercially successful films. Yes, we all know how popular the High School Musical franchise is, but regardless of varying public opinion of Zac Efron’s acting talent, few can deny the quality or success of such titles as Moulin Rouge!, Chicago, Dreamgirls, or Sweeney Todd. Screen Gems clearly wanted to play-off the strong draw of a good musical with its newest release, Burlesque, and in pairing musical icons like Cher and Christina Aguilera, its obvious that the studio was swinging for the fence. Given that this would be Aguilera’s first venture into feature film, marketing efforts clearly tried to position Burlesque as a “passing of the torch” moment between a screen legend and a popular newcomer. As a fan of both women, I knew at the very least, I could expect some spectacular musical performances in Burlesque.
In terms of song quality and performance, Burlesque is absolutely phenomenal, but unfortunately, with the absence of a strong story, this newest entry in the musical genre is little more than an extended music video. Christina more than showcases her vocal talent, and Cher once again proves why she is both an award-winning actress and the unquestioned “Goddess of Pop.” Watching the interaction between these two is easily one of the most entertaining aspects of Burlesque, and audiences will appreciate the significance of Cher coaching an up-and-coming performer. Aside from the strong music though, the story of Burlesque is still painfully formulaic and predictable, to the point where I simply found myself wishing the characters would stop talking and start singing again. If you are a fan of Cher or Christina, or if you are simply looking some entertaining musical performances, then Burlesque is definitely worth seeing, but if you’re looking for anything beyond just music, then this film will clearly fall short.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
In terms of song quality and performance, Burlesque is absolutely phenomenal, but unfortunately, with the absence of a strong story, this newest entry in the musical genre is little more than an extended music video. Christina more than showcases her vocal talent, and Cher once again proves why she is both an award-winning actress and the unquestioned “Goddess of Pop.” Watching the interaction between these two is easily one of the most entertaining aspects of Burlesque, and audiences will appreciate the significance of Cher coaching an up-and-coming performer. Aside from the strong music though, the story of Burlesque is still painfully formulaic and predictable, to the point where I simply found myself wishing the characters would stop talking and start singing again. If you are a fan of Cher or Christina, or if you are simply looking some entertaining musical performances, then Burlesque is definitely worth seeing, but if you’re looking for anything beyond just music, then this film will clearly fall short.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Burlesque: Full Review
Burlesque - (November 24th, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Screen Gems (subsidiary of Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #4 with $11,947,744
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $28,221,258
Gross Revenue: $28,221,258
Budget: $55 million
Director: Steven Antin
When I first saw the trailer for Burlesque, I admit that I was cautiously optimistic; musical films have been growing in both popularity and quality over the years, but there were still some elements working against the potential of this newest entry. Cher is an Academy Award-winning actress and Grammy Award-winning performer, but she hadn’t been on the silver screen since 2003’s forgettable Stuck on You, so this prolonged absence from the spotlight meant that her appeal was likely going to be limited to older audiences and dedicated fans. As for Christina Aguilera, I’ve always considered her one of the best singers in the music industry, but the fact that this was her first film brought up echoes of other pop stars who had ventured into acting in the past with disastrous results…seriously, I’m sure we’d all like to forget (and most indeed have forgotten) Britney Spears in Crossroads and Mariah Carey in Glitter. Still, early trailers promised movie-goers strong musical performances, and Screen Gems clearly focused its marketing efforts towards an appropriate target audience. Leading up to the film’s release, Aguilera was performing music from the soundtrack on everything from The Ellen DeGeneres Show to the American Music Awards and the finale of Dancing with the Stars. At the very least, the film’s tag-line of “It takes a Legend to make a Star,” highlighted the main draw of Burlesque for music fans: industry icons Cher and Christina Aguilera would be interacting and performing music together for the first time. Though I’m clearly not in the target audience, as a fan of both performers, I decided to give Burlesque a chance.
Burlesque tells the story of small-town waitress Ali Rose (Aguilera), who decides to follow her dreams of performing as a dancer in Los Angeles. Though initially unsuccessful in her pursuits, Ali stumbles across The Burlesque Lounge, a popular musical performing theater and club run by proprietor Tess (Cher) and sassy stage manager Sean (Stanley Tucci, best known for The Devil Wears Prada). Though she is initially dismissed, Ali eventually earns a place in the production, striking a friendship with club bartender and musician Jack (Cam Gigandet, of Twilight fame) and building a rivalry with troubled performer Nikki (Kristen Bell, from Forgetting Sarah Marshall). Ali quickly realizes that all the dancers lip-sync their performances, but once Tess discovers her powerful singing voice, the former waitress becomes a headlining sensation. Unfortunately, the newfound success and increased popularity of the club are not enough to remedy its long-standing financial troubles, and Tess fears she may soon be forced to sell her legacy to entrepreneur Marcus Gerber (Eric Dane from Grey’s Anatomy). Ali and Tess must work together in order to help save the establishment that they both cherish.
Well, it should come as no surprise that the strongest part of Burlesque was the music, as both Cher and Christina showcase their immense talent with powerful songs and energetic performances. Christina’s trademark vocal power comes through on every performance, and Cher delivers one song that will likely earn a nomination at this year’s Academy Awards. From an acting perspective, I really enjoyed the attitude that Christina brought to her character, which helped prove that she can hold her own as an actress; but the real strength of Burlesque has to do with the interaction between Cher and Christina, which has a unique energy to it, in effect helping audiences to look past the characters and just appreciate the significance of these two icons being on-screen together. I also feel that I should mention that Burlesque definitely makes efforts to appeal beyond the female demographic; guys usually roll their eyes at the thought of going to a musical film, but they should remember that, by definition, burlesque performances are supposed to be suggestive and sexy, and this film offers more than just music to keep male moviegoers happy. In the end, Burlesque delivered to audiences exactly what it promised, and fans of both Cher and Christina will delight in this newest musical film.
Unfortunately, although I enjoyed the music of Burlesque, the reality is that the film focuses so strongly on the music that the end result is little more than an extended music video promoting Christina Aguilera. The first few performances showcase the different burlesque dancers and their unique style of performance (which was highly enjoyable), but by the time Christina takes center stage, the other dancers are completely ignored, and it feels like we are simply watching one of Aguilera’s concerts. I was also supremely disappointed that Cher only performed two songs the entire film, a clear underuse of her talent. Aside from the focus of the music, another blatant weak point in Burlesque has to do with the story, which is so formulaic and predictable that it is hard for the audience to get invested at all. A small town singer making it big, struggling with newfound fame, and building a relationship with a fellow artist is nothing new, but even some of the attempted unique elements fell flat. Burlesque tries to paint Eric Dane’s character as sinister because he tries to buy the struggling club, but he just doesn’t come across as a villain, and Tess and Ali’s final solution to save the club is so obvious and uncreative that I doubt anyone cared that they actually solved the film’s central conflict. The presence of actors Alan Cummings and Peter Gallagher also felt wasted; Burlesque had the necessary acting talent to be a much better film, it just didn’t capitalize on its potential.
Even though Burlesque had the benefit of opening during the five-day Thanksgiving holiday weekend, it still faced significant competition from three other new releases and Harry Potter’s second weekend at the box-office. With romantic comedies, action adventures, epic fantasies, and children’s animations all vying for audience attention, Burlesque was still able to pull in nearly $12 million as a musical film, which is very respectable. Unfortunately, Burlesque represents Screen Gems’ second most expensive film behind the Resident Evil franchise, and with audience numbers dropping, it is likely that the studio will lose money on this newest release. Though I probably enjoyed Burlesque more than I should have, the fact remains that there are some pretty big weaknesses in this film, which cannot be ignored when you consider the high quality of some of the other more recent entries in the musical genre. Despite my criticisms, if all you’re looking for is some good music from Cher and Christina Aguilera, then I’m sure you will enjoy Burlesque.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Screen Gems (subsidiary of Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #4 with $11,947,744
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $28,221,258
Gross Revenue: $28,221,258
Budget: $55 million
Director: Steven Antin
When I first saw the trailer for Burlesque, I admit that I was cautiously optimistic; musical films have been growing in both popularity and quality over the years, but there were still some elements working against the potential of this newest entry. Cher is an Academy Award-winning actress and Grammy Award-winning performer, but she hadn’t been on the silver screen since 2003’s forgettable Stuck on You, so this prolonged absence from the spotlight meant that her appeal was likely going to be limited to older audiences and dedicated fans. As for Christina Aguilera, I’ve always considered her one of the best singers in the music industry, but the fact that this was her first film brought up echoes of other pop stars who had ventured into acting in the past with disastrous results…seriously, I’m sure we’d all like to forget (and most indeed have forgotten) Britney Spears in Crossroads and Mariah Carey in Glitter. Still, early trailers promised movie-goers strong musical performances, and Screen Gems clearly focused its marketing efforts towards an appropriate target audience. Leading up to the film’s release, Aguilera was performing music from the soundtrack on everything from The Ellen DeGeneres Show to the American Music Awards and the finale of Dancing with the Stars. At the very least, the film’s tag-line of “It takes a Legend to make a Star,” highlighted the main draw of Burlesque for music fans: industry icons Cher and Christina Aguilera would be interacting and performing music together for the first time. Though I’m clearly not in the target audience, as a fan of both performers, I decided to give Burlesque a chance.
Burlesque tells the story of small-town waitress Ali Rose (Aguilera), who decides to follow her dreams of performing as a dancer in Los Angeles. Though initially unsuccessful in her pursuits, Ali stumbles across The Burlesque Lounge, a popular musical performing theater and club run by proprietor Tess (Cher) and sassy stage manager Sean (Stanley Tucci, best known for The Devil Wears Prada). Though she is initially dismissed, Ali eventually earns a place in the production, striking a friendship with club bartender and musician Jack (Cam Gigandet, of Twilight fame) and building a rivalry with troubled performer Nikki (Kristen Bell, from Forgetting Sarah Marshall). Ali quickly realizes that all the dancers lip-sync their performances, but once Tess discovers her powerful singing voice, the former waitress becomes a headlining sensation. Unfortunately, the newfound success and increased popularity of the club are not enough to remedy its long-standing financial troubles, and Tess fears she may soon be forced to sell her legacy to entrepreneur Marcus Gerber (Eric Dane from Grey’s Anatomy). Ali and Tess must work together in order to help save the establishment that they both cherish.
Well, it should come as no surprise that the strongest part of Burlesque was the music, as both Cher and Christina showcase their immense talent with powerful songs and energetic performances. Christina’s trademark vocal power comes through on every performance, and Cher delivers one song that will likely earn a nomination at this year’s Academy Awards. From an acting perspective, I really enjoyed the attitude that Christina brought to her character, which helped prove that she can hold her own as an actress; but the real strength of Burlesque has to do with the interaction between Cher and Christina, which has a unique energy to it, in effect helping audiences to look past the characters and just appreciate the significance of these two icons being on-screen together. I also feel that I should mention that Burlesque definitely makes efforts to appeal beyond the female demographic; guys usually roll their eyes at the thought of going to a musical film, but they should remember that, by definition, burlesque performances are supposed to be suggestive and sexy, and this film offers more than just music to keep male moviegoers happy. In the end, Burlesque delivered to audiences exactly what it promised, and fans of both Cher and Christina will delight in this newest musical film.
Unfortunately, although I enjoyed the music of Burlesque, the reality is that the film focuses so strongly on the music that the end result is little more than an extended music video promoting Christina Aguilera. The first few performances showcase the different burlesque dancers and their unique style of performance (which was highly enjoyable), but by the time Christina takes center stage, the other dancers are completely ignored, and it feels like we are simply watching one of Aguilera’s concerts. I was also supremely disappointed that Cher only performed two songs the entire film, a clear underuse of her talent. Aside from the focus of the music, another blatant weak point in Burlesque has to do with the story, which is so formulaic and predictable that it is hard for the audience to get invested at all. A small town singer making it big, struggling with newfound fame, and building a relationship with a fellow artist is nothing new, but even some of the attempted unique elements fell flat. Burlesque tries to paint Eric Dane’s character as sinister because he tries to buy the struggling club, but he just doesn’t come across as a villain, and Tess and Ali’s final solution to save the club is so obvious and uncreative that I doubt anyone cared that they actually solved the film’s central conflict. The presence of actors Alan Cummings and Peter Gallagher also felt wasted; Burlesque had the necessary acting talent to be a much better film, it just didn’t capitalize on its potential.
Even though Burlesque had the benefit of opening during the five-day Thanksgiving holiday weekend, it still faced significant competition from three other new releases and Harry Potter’s second weekend at the box-office. With romantic comedies, action adventures, epic fantasies, and children’s animations all vying for audience attention, Burlesque was still able to pull in nearly $12 million as a musical film, which is very respectable. Unfortunately, Burlesque represents Screen Gems’ second most expensive film behind the Resident Evil franchise, and with audience numbers dropping, it is likely that the studio will lose money on this newest release. Though I probably enjoyed Burlesque more than I should have, the fact remains that there are some pretty big weaknesses in this film, which cannot be ignored when you consider the high quality of some of the other more recent entries in the musical genre. Despite my criticisms, if all you’re looking for is some good music from Cher and Christina Aguilera, then I’m sure you will enjoy Burlesque.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1: Short and Sweet
Ever since J.K. Rowling first introduced the world to a young wizard with a lightning-shaped scar on his forehead in 1997, the Harry Potter series has been nothing short of a global phenomenon. Devoted readers of the series were ecstatic when it was announced that Chris Columbus would be bringing Hogwarts to the silver screen in 2001, and for the past decade, the Harry Potter film series has been dominating the box-office, poised to overtake Star Wars as the most successful film franchise of all time. The films have been getting progressively darker since David Yates first took control of the franchise with 2007’s Order of the Phoenix, and many fans were curious to see if he could do true justice to Deathly Hallows, the epic and notoriously dark finale to Harry, Ron, and Hermione’s adventures. Given the enormous fan-base, marketing was simple, as all Warner Bros. had to do was progressively release more pictures and scenes from the film to get people excited, and as someone who grew up reading the books and watching the movies, I could not wait for Deathly Hallows, Part 1.
Of course, as an absolute Harry Potter fanatic, I loved Deathly Hallows, Part 1, as it was an incredibly loyal adaptation to Rowling’s book. Beyond that fact, the film still offers impressive special effects and a surprisingly strong level of acting, mixing humor and fear as these young wizards finally step outside the safety of Hogwarts castle. For those who have not read the book, I must warn that Deathly Hallows is drastically different from the previous films, toning down the innocent charm to make way for some considerably stronger adult themes, but the film handles the transition brilliantly. If I have one criticism, it is that the film clearly panders to those who have read the book; in fact, if you have not closely followed the book series, there are definite parts of Deathly Hallows, Part 1 that will be very confusing. Despite this small shortcoming, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 is still an immensely entertaining adventure that respects its source material and serves as a perfect way to say goodbye to the beloved series…the worst part of the whole experience is that I now have to wait until July for Part 2.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Of course, as an absolute Harry Potter fanatic, I loved Deathly Hallows, Part 1, as it was an incredibly loyal adaptation to Rowling’s book. Beyond that fact, the film still offers impressive special effects and a surprisingly strong level of acting, mixing humor and fear as these young wizards finally step outside the safety of Hogwarts castle. For those who have not read the book, I must warn that Deathly Hallows is drastically different from the previous films, toning down the innocent charm to make way for some considerably stronger adult themes, but the film handles the transition brilliantly. If I have one criticism, it is that the film clearly panders to those who have read the book; in fact, if you have not closely followed the book series, there are definite parts of Deathly Hallows, Part 1 that will be very confusing. Despite this small shortcoming, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 is still an immensely entertaining adventure that respects its source material and serves as a perfect way to say goodbye to the beloved series…the worst part of the whole experience is that I now have to wait until July for Part 2.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1: Full Review
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 - (November 19th, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Warner Bros.
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $125,017,372
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $144,067,185
Gross Revenue: $349,067,185
Budget: Between approx. $200 and. $250 million
Director: David Yates
For the past decade, one series has dominated the fantasy film genre, drawing countless fans and generating billions of dollars in revenue, all by simply recreating the wizarding world that J.K. Rowling first introduced in 1997. Since 2001, and on almost a yearly basis, fans have eagerly awaited to see the next adventure that young wizards Harry, Ron, and Hermione would encounter as they continued their education at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Leading up to each new release, Warner Bros. followed a relatively simple marketing formula: gradually reveal different trailers, posters, and promotional images to build hype; show the previous films during a “Harry Potter” weekend on ABC Family to remind audiences of why they love the films in the first place; and finally, guarantee midnight showings for opening day so that diehard fans can prove their loyalty and dress in their favorite wizard costumes. The reality is that the Harry Potter franchise enjoys such an immense level of popularity that fans track the release months ahead of time and don’t really need to be convinced to go to the theater; as soon as fans are aware that the newest adventure is on its way, marketers can essentially let the film sell itself. The one common criticism of the film series among fans is that they (understandably) omit some material from the books, and even though fans normally can forgive this shortcoming, it was clear that this final chapter of the series could not be faithfully compressed into just one film. In order to fully tell the story (and generate even more revenue), Warner Bros. decided to split Deathly Hallows into 2 parts, and when you consider that early predictions for Part 1’s opening weekend box-office were as high as $120 million, it looked like fans were grateful that Hollywood decided to give the beloved series a proper send-off.
I’m going to assume that most of my readers have at least a basic understanding of the Harry Potter universe to avoid writing pages trying to set up the seventh movie. During the previous chapter in the series (Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince), it was established that Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), the evil wizard hell-bent on killing Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), has obtained immortality by creating 7 Horcruxes (dark objects containing pieces of Voldemort’s fragmented soul). In order to defeat his enemy and protect the wizarding world, Harry must locate and destroy these 7 Horcruxes, and of course, he is aided by his loyal friends, Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson). Though this task in itself is daunting, the situation is complicated by the fact that all-out war has broken out in the wizarding world, with Voldemort’s forces taking over the Ministry of Magic (the wizarding world’s form of government) and starting a ruthless hunt for Harry. Now fugitives outside the protection of their beloved school, (Hogwarts) Harry, Ron, and Hermione must work together to find and destroy these Horcruxes while facing untold dangers at every turn. Though the final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort won’t occur until Part 2, it’s clear that the series is building up to one epic finale.
As a hardcore fan of both the book and film series, I absolutely loved seeing my favorite scenes from the book adapted to the big screen, but looking beyond that aspect, I still appreciate the strong special effects and surprisingly strong acting that make Deathly Hallows, Part 1 a great film rather than just a faithful adaptation of the book. Considering the violent nature of the final book, fans are treated to numerous action sequences with stunning special effects, whether Harry and friends are trying to escape an attack by Death Eaters (Voldemort’s followers) or trying to infiltrate the Ministry of Magic. In another instance, Hermione reads the story pertaining to the mysterious objects known as the “Deathly Hallows,” and the narration is complimented by a unique form of animation, which adds another element of variety to the film. As far as acting goes, we have watched Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson grow up on-screen for years, and it is apparent just how comfortable these young actors are with each other, as audiences truly feel the fear, uncertainty, and brief moments of levity that these friends encounter on their darkest journey. In one notable scene, Harry seeks to raise Hermione’s spirits by engaging in a light-hearted dance, and this heartwarming reminder of the friendship between the two is a genuine and welcome break from the darker themes present. Another example of strong acting comes when Harry, Ron, and Hermione decide to infiltrate the Ministry of Magic with the help of Polyjuice potion (a formula that allows one to assume the physical appearance of someone else); in essence, different actors portray Harry, Ron, and Hermione, and they do such a good job of mimicking the mannerisms and facial expressions of the original three that the audience forgets that they are not really watching Radcliffe, Grint, or Watson on-screen. Even if you are not an overly dedicated advocate of Pottermania, these strong elements should be more than enough to make Deathly Hallows, Part 1, worth seeing in theaters.
As much as I would love to say that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 is flawless; I do have one criticism for potential moviegoers. Even though producers broke the final book into two parts in order to cover and properly explain the series finale in its entirety, this film still assumes that viewers have not only read the book, but that they also remember minute details in their entirety. There were moments where one of the characters would make a claim or reference a plot element that I only understood because I have read the book several times; if you’re a casual fan, then there are definite elements of Deathly Hallows, Part 1 that I could see being very confusing. Though only a small portion of the fan-base will be susceptible to this confusion, it does limit the appeal of the film and I can’t help but feel it could have been easily solved with just a few more minutes of explanation. Another warning I have for audiences involves the dark nature of Deathly Hallows, Part 1; if you are expecting a cheery adventure in the halls of Hogwarts with a happy ending, at this point in the story you are going to be horrified. Characters die, others are maimed, and our heroes are fully exposed to the very real dangers present in the wizarding world…be prepared.
Based on the film’s opening weekend, it actually looks like analysts underestimated Harry Potter’s financial power at the box-office. Thanks to midnight showings alone, Deathly Hallows, Part 1 grossed $24 million, going on to bring in $61.2 million its first day and $125 million over the first weekend. As heart-broken and infuriated I am that this impressive performance did not outshine the recent Twilight sequels, Deathly Hallows, Part 1 can still claim other accomplishments, including the strongest opening of all the films in the series, the sixth highest domestic opening ever, and the top-grossing foreign opening for a film released outside the Summer Movie Season. Even considering the film’s high budget, I believe that with strong reviews, an impressive foreign performance, and the natural appeal for fans to see the film more than once, its’ clear that Warner Bros. will turn a nice profit and that Deathly Hallows, Part 1 will enjoy a long stay at the top of the box-office. Even with a darker theme and some confusing elements, Deathly Hallows, Part 1 is still a wonderful film that will please fans and set high expectations for Part 2, set to hit theaters in July.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Distributor: Warner Bros.
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $125,017,372
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $144,067,185
Gross Revenue: $349,067,185
Budget: Between approx. $200 and. $250 million
Director: David Yates
For the past decade, one series has dominated the fantasy film genre, drawing countless fans and generating billions of dollars in revenue, all by simply recreating the wizarding world that J.K. Rowling first introduced in 1997. Since 2001, and on almost a yearly basis, fans have eagerly awaited to see the next adventure that young wizards Harry, Ron, and Hermione would encounter as they continued their education at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Leading up to each new release, Warner Bros. followed a relatively simple marketing formula: gradually reveal different trailers, posters, and promotional images to build hype; show the previous films during a “Harry Potter” weekend on ABC Family to remind audiences of why they love the films in the first place; and finally, guarantee midnight showings for opening day so that diehard fans can prove their loyalty and dress in their favorite wizard costumes. The reality is that the Harry Potter franchise enjoys such an immense level of popularity that fans track the release months ahead of time and don’t really need to be convinced to go to the theater; as soon as fans are aware that the newest adventure is on its way, marketers can essentially let the film sell itself. The one common criticism of the film series among fans is that they (understandably) omit some material from the books, and even though fans normally can forgive this shortcoming, it was clear that this final chapter of the series could not be faithfully compressed into just one film. In order to fully tell the story (and generate even more revenue), Warner Bros. decided to split Deathly Hallows into 2 parts, and when you consider that early predictions for Part 1’s opening weekend box-office were as high as $120 million, it looked like fans were grateful that Hollywood decided to give the beloved series a proper send-off.
I’m going to assume that most of my readers have at least a basic understanding of the Harry Potter universe to avoid writing pages trying to set up the seventh movie. During the previous chapter in the series (Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince), it was established that Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), the evil wizard hell-bent on killing Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), has obtained immortality by creating 7 Horcruxes (dark objects containing pieces of Voldemort’s fragmented soul). In order to defeat his enemy and protect the wizarding world, Harry must locate and destroy these 7 Horcruxes, and of course, he is aided by his loyal friends, Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson). Though this task in itself is daunting, the situation is complicated by the fact that all-out war has broken out in the wizarding world, with Voldemort’s forces taking over the Ministry of Magic (the wizarding world’s form of government) and starting a ruthless hunt for Harry. Now fugitives outside the protection of their beloved school, (Hogwarts) Harry, Ron, and Hermione must work together to find and destroy these Horcruxes while facing untold dangers at every turn. Though the final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort won’t occur until Part 2, it’s clear that the series is building up to one epic finale.
As a hardcore fan of both the book and film series, I absolutely loved seeing my favorite scenes from the book adapted to the big screen, but looking beyond that aspect, I still appreciate the strong special effects and surprisingly strong acting that make Deathly Hallows, Part 1 a great film rather than just a faithful adaptation of the book. Considering the violent nature of the final book, fans are treated to numerous action sequences with stunning special effects, whether Harry and friends are trying to escape an attack by Death Eaters (Voldemort’s followers) or trying to infiltrate the Ministry of Magic. In another instance, Hermione reads the story pertaining to the mysterious objects known as the “Deathly Hallows,” and the narration is complimented by a unique form of animation, which adds another element of variety to the film. As far as acting goes, we have watched Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson grow up on-screen for years, and it is apparent just how comfortable these young actors are with each other, as audiences truly feel the fear, uncertainty, and brief moments of levity that these friends encounter on their darkest journey. In one notable scene, Harry seeks to raise Hermione’s spirits by engaging in a light-hearted dance, and this heartwarming reminder of the friendship between the two is a genuine and welcome break from the darker themes present. Another example of strong acting comes when Harry, Ron, and Hermione decide to infiltrate the Ministry of Magic with the help of Polyjuice potion (a formula that allows one to assume the physical appearance of someone else); in essence, different actors portray Harry, Ron, and Hermione, and they do such a good job of mimicking the mannerisms and facial expressions of the original three that the audience forgets that they are not really watching Radcliffe, Grint, or Watson on-screen. Even if you are not an overly dedicated advocate of Pottermania, these strong elements should be more than enough to make Deathly Hallows, Part 1, worth seeing in theaters.
As much as I would love to say that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 is flawless; I do have one criticism for potential moviegoers. Even though producers broke the final book into two parts in order to cover and properly explain the series finale in its entirety, this film still assumes that viewers have not only read the book, but that they also remember minute details in their entirety. There were moments where one of the characters would make a claim or reference a plot element that I only understood because I have read the book several times; if you’re a casual fan, then there are definite elements of Deathly Hallows, Part 1 that I could see being very confusing. Though only a small portion of the fan-base will be susceptible to this confusion, it does limit the appeal of the film and I can’t help but feel it could have been easily solved with just a few more minutes of explanation. Another warning I have for audiences involves the dark nature of Deathly Hallows, Part 1; if you are expecting a cheery adventure in the halls of Hogwarts with a happy ending, at this point in the story you are going to be horrified. Characters die, others are maimed, and our heroes are fully exposed to the very real dangers present in the wizarding world…be prepared.
Based on the film’s opening weekend, it actually looks like analysts underestimated Harry Potter’s financial power at the box-office. Thanks to midnight showings alone, Deathly Hallows, Part 1 grossed $24 million, going on to bring in $61.2 million its first day and $125 million over the first weekend. As heart-broken and infuriated I am that this impressive performance did not outshine the recent Twilight sequels, Deathly Hallows, Part 1 can still claim other accomplishments, including the strongest opening of all the films in the series, the sixth highest domestic opening ever, and the top-grossing foreign opening for a film released outside the Summer Movie Season. Even considering the film’s high budget, I believe that with strong reviews, an impressive foreign performance, and the natural appeal for fans to see the film more than once, its’ clear that Warner Bros. will turn a nice profit and that Deathly Hallows, Part 1 will enjoy a long stay at the top of the box-office. Even with a darker theme and some confusing elements, Deathly Hallows, Part 1 is still a wonderful film that will please fans and set high expectations for Part 2, set to hit theaters in July.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Due Date: Short and Sweet
As I said in my review for Megamind, the first weekend of November sets the tone for the Holiday Movie Season, and while Megamind clearly catered to children, Due Date made sure that older audiences had something to enjoy at the theater. Given the popularity of the two lead actors and the natural appeal of a road comedy, studio expectations were very high. Robert Downey Jr.’s career has been skyrocketing with the Iron Man franchise and other box-office hits like Tropic Thunder and Sherlock Holmes, and Zach Galifianakis has been charming audiences since his breakout performance in 2009’s The Hangover; putting these two together seemed like a recipe for comedic gold. The road film genre always has a relatively simple formula, finding characters traveling from point A and point B while encountering various obstacles…while it didn’t seem like there would be anything terribly unique about the plot of Due Date, marketers clearly tried to convince audiences that the interaction between Downey and Galifianakis would be enough to “drive” the film. As a big fan of both actors, I could have cared less if the plot was unique or emotionally deep, I was just expecting a good laugh with Due Date.
I am pleased to report that I was not disappointed with Due Date; I found it absolutely hysterical and completely agree with critics who have dubbed it a new comedy classic. Though the film started a little slow, once Downey’s aggravated sarcasm and Galifianakis’ childish ignorance start to conflict, audiences are treated to one of the funniest and most quotable films I have seen in a while. As can be expected, Downey is at his funniest when his character loses his temper, while Galifianakis essentially plays the same character that made him famous in The Hangover, and this gloriously mismatched odd couple spells some big laughs. However, I will admit that if you are not a fan of Galifianakis’ brand of humor, his buffoonish behavior could get pretty aggravating pretty fast. If you’re looking for a deep emotional journey or a wholly original plot, then Due Date will clearly fall short, but if all you want is a good laugh, then sit back and enjoy.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: High
I am pleased to report that I was not disappointed with Due Date; I found it absolutely hysterical and completely agree with critics who have dubbed it a new comedy classic. Though the film started a little slow, once Downey’s aggravated sarcasm and Galifianakis’ childish ignorance start to conflict, audiences are treated to one of the funniest and most quotable films I have seen in a while. As can be expected, Downey is at his funniest when his character loses his temper, while Galifianakis essentially plays the same character that made him famous in The Hangover, and this gloriously mismatched odd couple spells some big laughs. However, I will admit that if you are not a fan of Galifianakis’ brand of humor, his buffoonish behavior could get pretty aggravating pretty fast. If you’re looking for a deep emotional journey or a wholly original plot, then Due Date will clearly fall short, but if all you want is a good laugh, then sit back and enjoy.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: High
Due Date: Full Review
Due Date - (November 5th, 2010): R
Distributor: Warner Bros.
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $32,689,406
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $72,431,594
Gross Revenue: $134,631,594
Budget: $65 million
Director: Todd Phillips
Towards the end of the summer I had commented on how reliable heist films are to satisfy audiences looking for action or suspense; to draw a similar comparison, history has increasingly shown that road films are a sure-fire way to deliver a successful comedy. Classics like Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, Tommy Boy, and Road Trip show that there is something inherently funny about conflicting personalities traveling together, and early marketing efforts made it clear that Due Date sought to repeat this formula. In fact, the marketing campaign for Due Date was remarkably simple; as a member of the road film genre, Due Date’s plot was not intended to be shockingly original or surprisingly…the chief appeal of this film was positioned to be the interactions of the two actors that would be traveling together. One of the more well-known trailers used a clever method to highlight the mismatch by playing-off the success of The Social Network and showing an over-eager Galifianakis trying to persuade a hesitant Downey to join him on the trip by claiming how many friends he had on Facebook. Whether he’s playing a superhero or detective, Robert Downey Jr. possesses a dry sarcasm and narcissism that paves the way for considerable humor, while Galifianakis has charmed audiences as a child-like doofus since he came to mainstream attention in 2009’s The Hangover; putting these two conflicting personalities in a car and sending them across the country together was sure to produce comedic gold.
Due Date starts by introducing audiences to the cynical Peter Highman (Robert Downey Jr.), who is just finishing a business trip in Atlanta and ready to return to Los Angeles to be present for the birth of his first child. While at the airport, Peter meets aspiring actor Ethan Tremblay (Zach Galifianakis), who happens to be heading to Hollywood, and through a series of misunderstandings, both are placed on the No Fly List. Ethan rents a car, and Peter (who discovers that he has lost his wallet), begrudgingly accepts the offer to join Ethan on a cross-country road trip. It quickly becomes apparent that the two men are polar opposites, and the on-edge Peter must contend with the outlandish Ethan, who engages in increasingly odd behavior, such as transporting his recently-deceased father’s ashes in a coffee can, continually falling asleep behind the wheel, or accidently driving across the border because he believed that the border station read “Texaco.” As the trip spirals more and more out of control, the audience is treated to some big laughs as they question whether these two men will even be able to survive the trip.
As far as comedies go, Due Date is absolutely hysterical, presenting one outrageous situation after another complemented by clever dialogue; I was tempted to go and see the movie again just so I could remember more of the quotes. Robert Downey Jr. more than proves his comedic talent; anytime he loses his temper, the audience knows that they can expect a big laugh. Galifianakis also steals the show as a well-meaning but wholly-destructive buffoon, often optimistically making an observation or suggestion that is so idiotic that the audience can only laugh in disbelief. Based solely on the interactions between these two fan-favorite actors, I can confidently say that Due Date is sure to become a comedy classic.
Despite the big laughs present, Due Date still has some weak points, the most apparent being that Zach Galifianakis plays almost the exact same character that he did in The Hangover, and if you found that character the least bit irritating, you are going to get tired of Due Date very, very fast. I also have to agree when critics say that the story itself is pretty unoriginal…it follows the formula of a road film so closely that if audiences weren’t fans of the actors, then Due Date would have absolutely nothing new or interesting to add. There are also a few unnecessary plot elements that slow the flow of the film, such as whenever Peter and Ethan try to have a genuine heartfelt conversation…with jokes flying off the screen, it just felt awkward that the narrative would try to interrupt the levity with brief moments of seriousness. I was also slightly disappointed in Jamie Foxx’s role in the film, as his presence as Peter’s best friend is so quick and out-of-place that Foxx’s talent as an actor feels under-used. In the end, despite these criticisms, I feel like audiences will appreciate the humor enough to forgive any shortcomings.
From a box-office perspective, Due Date has been performing very well, taking the number two spot its opening weekend behind Megamind with just under $33 million. When you consider that Due Date is an R-rated comedy that opened up against an animated family film, such a high opening weekend is incredibly impressive. Despite critics complaining about the unoriginal nature of the film, positive word-of-mouth has helped generate a strong audience. When you combine domestic and international box-office receipts, Due Date has already more than doubled its production budget, so Warner Bros. has set the bar very high for holiday comedies. At the very least, though the film isn’t perfect, Due Date is still a strong comedy that audiences shouldn’t miss.
Overall Recommendation: High
Distributor: Warner Bros.
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $32,689,406
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $72,431,594
Gross Revenue: $134,631,594
Budget: $65 million
Director: Todd Phillips
Towards the end of the summer I had commented on how reliable heist films are to satisfy audiences looking for action or suspense; to draw a similar comparison, history has increasingly shown that road films are a sure-fire way to deliver a successful comedy. Classics like Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, Tommy Boy, and Road Trip show that there is something inherently funny about conflicting personalities traveling together, and early marketing efforts made it clear that Due Date sought to repeat this formula. In fact, the marketing campaign for Due Date was remarkably simple; as a member of the road film genre, Due Date’s plot was not intended to be shockingly original or surprisingly…the chief appeal of this film was positioned to be the interactions of the two actors that would be traveling together. One of the more well-known trailers used a clever method to highlight the mismatch by playing-off the success of The Social Network and showing an over-eager Galifianakis trying to persuade a hesitant Downey to join him on the trip by claiming how many friends he had on Facebook. Whether he’s playing a superhero or detective, Robert Downey Jr. possesses a dry sarcasm and narcissism that paves the way for considerable humor, while Galifianakis has charmed audiences as a child-like doofus since he came to mainstream attention in 2009’s The Hangover; putting these two conflicting personalities in a car and sending them across the country together was sure to produce comedic gold.
Due Date starts by introducing audiences to the cynical Peter Highman (Robert Downey Jr.), who is just finishing a business trip in Atlanta and ready to return to Los Angeles to be present for the birth of his first child. While at the airport, Peter meets aspiring actor Ethan Tremblay (Zach Galifianakis), who happens to be heading to Hollywood, and through a series of misunderstandings, both are placed on the No Fly List. Ethan rents a car, and Peter (who discovers that he has lost his wallet), begrudgingly accepts the offer to join Ethan on a cross-country road trip. It quickly becomes apparent that the two men are polar opposites, and the on-edge Peter must contend with the outlandish Ethan, who engages in increasingly odd behavior, such as transporting his recently-deceased father’s ashes in a coffee can, continually falling asleep behind the wheel, or accidently driving across the border because he believed that the border station read “Texaco.” As the trip spirals more and more out of control, the audience is treated to some big laughs as they question whether these two men will even be able to survive the trip.
As far as comedies go, Due Date is absolutely hysterical, presenting one outrageous situation after another complemented by clever dialogue; I was tempted to go and see the movie again just so I could remember more of the quotes. Robert Downey Jr. more than proves his comedic talent; anytime he loses his temper, the audience knows that they can expect a big laugh. Galifianakis also steals the show as a well-meaning but wholly-destructive buffoon, often optimistically making an observation or suggestion that is so idiotic that the audience can only laugh in disbelief. Based solely on the interactions between these two fan-favorite actors, I can confidently say that Due Date is sure to become a comedy classic.
Despite the big laughs present, Due Date still has some weak points, the most apparent being that Zach Galifianakis plays almost the exact same character that he did in The Hangover, and if you found that character the least bit irritating, you are going to get tired of Due Date very, very fast. I also have to agree when critics say that the story itself is pretty unoriginal…it follows the formula of a road film so closely that if audiences weren’t fans of the actors, then Due Date would have absolutely nothing new or interesting to add. There are also a few unnecessary plot elements that slow the flow of the film, such as whenever Peter and Ethan try to have a genuine heartfelt conversation…with jokes flying off the screen, it just felt awkward that the narrative would try to interrupt the levity with brief moments of seriousness. I was also slightly disappointed in Jamie Foxx’s role in the film, as his presence as Peter’s best friend is so quick and out-of-place that Foxx’s talent as an actor feels under-used. In the end, despite these criticisms, I feel like audiences will appreciate the humor enough to forgive any shortcomings.
From a box-office perspective, Due Date has been performing very well, taking the number two spot its opening weekend behind Megamind with just under $33 million. When you consider that Due Date is an R-rated comedy that opened up against an animated family film, such a high opening weekend is incredibly impressive. Despite critics complaining about the unoriginal nature of the film, positive word-of-mouth has helped generate a strong audience. When you combine domestic and international box-office receipts, Due Date has already more than doubled its production budget, so Warner Bros. has set the bar very high for holiday comedies. At the very least, though the film isn’t perfect, Due Date is still a strong comedy that audiences shouldn’t miss.
Overall Recommendation: High
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Megamind: Short and Sweet
Anyone who has read my previous reviews is aware of the depth of respect that I have for animated films, and after the level of success that both Toy Story 3 and Despicable Me achieved this past summer, Megamind had some high expectations to fulfill. Unfortunately, Will Ferrell’s recent projects have been hit-or-miss, but given his undeniable comedic talent, many were excited to see what he could do lending his voice to a titular character. I have said repeatedly that animated films have been getting funnier and funnier over the years, and with Will Ferrell’s supporting cast including comedic heavyweights Tina Fey, Jonah Hill, and David Cross, it looked like Megamind was going to be absolutely hysterical. Disney-Pixar is widely considered the infallible animation heavyweight, but over the years DreamWorks Animation has been getting stronger and stronger, more than proving its competence with established franchises such as Shrek and Madagascar, and with promising future franchises in the form of both Kung Fu Panda and How to Train Your Dragon; early buzz clearly believed that Megamind would push DreamWorks even closer to animation supremacy.
Given the buildup surrounding the release, the talented voice cast, and the creativity inherent in subject material, I confess that I was slightly disappointed in the finished product of Megamind. Spoofing the superhero and super-villain dynamic with the help of Will Ferrell and Tina Fey should have been comedic gold, but the sad reality is that I didn’t find Megamind all that funny or engaging. It almost seems like the film couldn’t decide if it was targeting children or an older audience, and as a result, a large amount of the film’s overall potential was lost. Another common characteristic of animated films is their strong blend of comedic and heartwarming plot elements (Wall-E and Toy Story 3 being easy examples), but again, this felt like another dynamic that Megamind attempted but just couldn’t fully achieve. In the end, Megamind is a solid film with impressive animation and some clever elements, but it still falls short of the standard that other animated films have established over the years.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Given the buildup surrounding the release, the talented voice cast, and the creativity inherent in subject material, I confess that I was slightly disappointed in the finished product of Megamind. Spoofing the superhero and super-villain dynamic with the help of Will Ferrell and Tina Fey should have been comedic gold, but the sad reality is that I didn’t find Megamind all that funny or engaging. It almost seems like the film couldn’t decide if it was targeting children or an older audience, and as a result, a large amount of the film’s overall potential was lost. Another common characteristic of animated films is their strong blend of comedic and heartwarming plot elements (Wall-E and Toy Story 3 being easy examples), but again, this felt like another dynamic that Megamind attempted but just couldn’t fully achieve. In the end, Megamind is a solid film with impressive animation and some clever elements, but it still falls short of the standard that other animated films have established over the years.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Megamind: Full Review
Megamind - (November 5th, 2010): PG
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $46,016,833
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $88,822,635
Gross Revenue: $116,916,163
Budget: $130 million
Director: Tom McGrath
If the first weekend of May represents the beginning of the Summer Movie Season, then the first weekend of November clearly represents the beginning of the Holiday Movie Season, and interestingly enough, Paramount was able to lead both these weekends in with a movie involving the superhero genre. But where Iron Man 2 was focused on replicating the success of the original and faithfully adapting the superhero’s source material, Megamind sought to bring a comedic twist to traditional perceptions of a super-villain. From a marketing perspective, animated films always have a strong draw for audiences of all ages, especially when they come from a studio with DreamWorks’ impressive track record, but that didn’t stop Paramount and DreamWorks for pursuing an aggressive campaign. Trailers for Megamind were understandably attached to numerous family films, but leading up to its release, potential audiences spotted the titular character on everything from a billboard to a Happy Meal. Perhaps the most unique experiential marketing tool that the studios used to promote Megamind involved a rally that encouraged fans to dress up and join Will Ferrell in an attempt to set a world record for Largest Gathering of Superheroes. With over 1,500 hundred participants gathering on October 2nd, the rally not only grabbed national headlines, but it also set off “Megamonth,” a month-long promotion that included regional contests, marathons, and festivals…the overall effect brilliantly targeted fans of both animation and superheroes (two immensely large and loyal segments). As a member of both segments, I was understandably excited for Megamind.
Turning the traditional comic-book dynamic on its head, the central protagonist of Megamind actually identifies himself as a villain. Megamind (Will Ferrell) is a super-intelligent alien who relishes trying to take over the fictional Metro City and defeating his nemesis, the Superman-inspired hero Metro Man (Brad Pitt). Despite his intelligence, Megamind routinely fails in his attempted conquests, but one day, to his shock, Megamind actually manages to destroy his nemesis, and with the help of his trusty sidekick, Minion (David Cross), the villain begins wreaking havoc on Metro City. Though initially reveling in his success, Megamind quickly finds himself bored without a hero to fight, so he takes it upon himself to create a new nemesis, wrongly electing lonely cameraman Hal Stewart (Jonah Hill) to be a hero. Unfortunately, Hal decides to uses his new powers for evil, so, with the help of Lois Lane-inspired reporter Roxanne Ritchi (Tina Fey). Megamind finds himself obligated to step into a new role, that of a hero.
In my opinion, a strong voice cast adds considerably to the quality of an animated film, and I truly enjoyed how the actors in this case helped bring life to the characters of Megamind. Tina Fey brought the perfect amount of sarcasm to her skeptical reporter, while David Cross’ exasperated loyalty as a second-in-command added an enjoyable dynamic, but the true standout performance was Will Ferrell, whose silliness and energy fully embodied the manic humor of Megamind himself…in my opinion, no other actor could have successfully played the character. I will admit that Brad Pitt felt a little underused in the film, but as his character does not play that large of a part in the narrative, this shortcoming is pretty easy to forgive. In addition to the voice cast, the biggest positive aspect of Megamind is its impressive animation, which is especially emphasized during some of the more complicated action sequences within the film. Of course, the film was released in 3D, and like many recent entries, the technology was underused…the tragedy is in the fact that it was largely unnecessary, because the visual effects were stunning enough on their own that it didn’t really matter if they jumped off the screen. With the solid voice work and the showcasing of the ever-improving quality of animation, Megamind had plenty of positive reasons to draw a strong audience.
However, despite these positive aspects, the biggest criticism that I have for Megamind is that the film itself should have been much better, and I largely blame this unfulfilled potential on the film-makers’ confusion over whether Megamind was intended for younger or older audiences. Let me clarify, one of the main reasons that current animated films are popular with a wide range of audiences is that they balance silly humor for children with the occasional clever joke that older movie-goers can chuckle at, but some of the best humor within Megamind is so complicated that I doubt most audiences will get the joke. When audiences have to work that hard for a laugh, the overall level of humor remains low, and when you consider the comedic talent of the voice cast, it’s pretty disappointing that I sat in the theater constantly waiting to laugh. Another example of the unclear positioning of Megamind had to do with the film’s soundtrack, which clearly catered to older movie-goers…I understand that Megamind himself is a villain, but it still felt a little inappropriate that the artists featured included AC/DC, Ozzy Osbourne, and Guns N’ Roses, especially when a majority of the audience is children. When it is this unclear whether Megamind is supposed to be silly or serious, it is difficult to know how to react to the film’s attempts as emotion; for instance, the protagonist’s attempts at romance with Roxanne seem so out of place that it just ends up coming across as awkward. Besides this unclear positioning, the fact remains that with the sheer volume of material available concerning the superhero and super-villain mythos, Megamind should have been more creative and engaging.
From a box-office perspective, Megamind has been performing incredibly well, taking the top spot its opening weekend with just over $46 million, outperforming the other big weekend release (Due Date) and setting the impressive tone for the Holiday Movie Season. While I don’t necessarily agree with all of the glowing reviews that critics have for this newest animated comedy, I don’t think that Paramount will have any trouble recovering the production budget. If DreamWorks plans to turn Megamind into a franchise, I hope that they will tweak future installments to make them funnier and more heartwarming. Megamind isn’t a bad movie, and Will Ferrell did provide some good laughs, but when you consider the quality of some of the more recent animated films, I still don’t think that there are enough elements that necessitate rushing to the theater for this film.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $46,016,833
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $88,822,635
Gross Revenue: $116,916,163
Budget: $130 million
Director: Tom McGrath
If the first weekend of May represents the beginning of the Summer Movie Season, then the first weekend of November clearly represents the beginning of the Holiday Movie Season, and interestingly enough, Paramount was able to lead both these weekends in with a movie involving the superhero genre. But where Iron Man 2 was focused on replicating the success of the original and faithfully adapting the superhero’s source material, Megamind sought to bring a comedic twist to traditional perceptions of a super-villain. From a marketing perspective, animated films always have a strong draw for audiences of all ages, especially when they come from a studio with DreamWorks’ impressive track record, but that didn’t stop Paramount and DreamWorks for pursuing an aggressive campaign. Trailers for Megamind were understandably attached to numerous family films, but leading up to its release, potential audiences spotted the titular character on everything from a billboard to a Happy Meal. Perhaps the most unique experiential marketing tool that the studios used to promote Megamind involved a rally that encouraged fans to dress up and join Will Ferrell in an attempt to set a world record for Largest Gathering of Superheroes. With over 1,500 hundred participants gathering on October 2nd, the rally not only grabbed national headlines, but it also set off “Megamonth,” a month-long promotion that included regional contests, marathons, and festivals…the overall effect brilliantly targeted fans of both animation and superheroes (two immensely large and loyal segments). As a member of both segments, I was understandably excited for Megamind.
Turning the traditional comic-book dynamic on its head, the central protagonist of Megamind actually identifies himself as a villain. Megamind (Will Ferrell) is a super-intelligent alien who relishes trying to take over the fictional Metro City and defeating his nemesis, the Superman-inspired hero Metro Man (Brad Pitt). Despite his intelligence, Megamind routinely fails in his attempted conquests, but one day, to his shock, Megamind actually manages to destroy his nemesis, and with the help of his trusty sidekick, Minion (David Cross), the villain begins wreaking havoc on Metro City. Though initially reveling in his success, Megamind quickly finds himself bored without a hero to fight, so he takes it upon himself to create a new nemesis, wrongly electing lonely cameraman Hal Stewart (Jonah Hill) to be a hero. Unfortunately, Hal decides to uses his new powers for evil, so, with the help of Lois Lane-inspired reporter Roxanne Ritchi (Tina Fey). Megamind finds himself obligated to step into a new role, that of a hero.
In my opinion, a strong voice cast adds considerably to the quality of an animated film, and I truly enjoyed how the actors in this case helped bring life to the characters of Megamind. Tina Fey brought the perfect amount of sarcasm to her skeptical reporter, while David Cross’ exasperated loyalty as a second-in-command added an enjoyable dynamic, but the true standout performance was Will Ferrell, whose silliness and energy fully embodied the manic humor of Megamind himself…in my opinion, no other actor could have successfully played the character. I will admit that Brad Pitt felt a little underused in the film, but as his character does not play that large of a part in the narrative, this shortcoming is pretty easy to forgive. In addition to the voice cast, the biggest positive aspect of Megamind is its impressive animation, which is especially emphasized during some of the more complicated action sequences within the film. Of course, the film was released in 3D, and like many recent entries, the technology was underused…the tragedy is in the fact that it was largely unnecessary, because the visual effects were stunning enough on their own that it didn’t really matter if they jumped off the screen. With the solid voice work and the showcasing of the ever-improving quality of animation, Megamind had plenty of positive reasons to draw a strong audience.
However, despite these positive aspects, the biggest criticism that I have for Megamind is that the film itself should have been much better, and I largely blame this unfulfilled potential on the film-makers’ confusion over whether Megamind was intended for younger or older audiences. Let me clarify, one of the main reasons that current animated films are popular with a wide range of audiences is that they balance silly humor for children with the occasional clever joke that older movie-goers can chuckle at, but some of the best humor within Megamind is so complicated that I doubt most audiences will get the joke. When audiences have to work that hard for a laugh, the overall level of humor remains low, and when you consider the comedic talent of the voice cast, it’s pretty disappointing that I sat in the theater constantly waiting to laugh. Another example of the unclear positioning of Megamind had to do with the film’s soundtrack, which clearly catered to older movie-goers…I understand that Megamind himself is a villain, but it still felt a little inappropriate that the artists featured included AC/DC, Ozzy Osbourne, and Guns N’ Roses, especially when a majority of the audience is children. When it is this unclear whether Megamind is supposed to be silly or serious, it is difficult to know how to react to the film’s attempts as emotion; for instance, the protagonist’s attempts at romance with Roxanne seem so out of place that it just ends up coming across as awkward. Besides this unclear positioning, the fact remains that with the sheer volume of material available concerning the superhero and super-villain mythos, Megamind should have been more creative and engaging.
From a box-office perspective, Megamind has been performing incredibly well, taking the top spot its opening weekend with just over $46 million, outperforming the other big weekend release (Due Date) and setting the impressive tone for the Holiday Movie Season. While I don’t necessarily agree with all of the glowing reviews that critics have for this newest animated comedy, I don’t think that Paramount will have any trouble recovering the production budget. If DreamWorks plans to turn Megamind into a franchise, I hope that they will tweak future installments to make them funnier and more heartwarming. Megamind isn’t a bad movie, and Will Ferrell did provide some good laughs, but when you consider the quality of some of the more recent animated films, I still don’t think that there are enough elements that necessitate rushing to the theater for this film.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Jackass 3D: Short and Sweet
With the expanded use of 3D technology, was anyone really that surprised that MTV Films would push a third Jackass movie so that audiences could see their favorite stunts jump off the screen? The Jackass franchise itself has had a particularly intriguing impact on pop culture over the years, building a dedicated fan-base while also generating controversy as teenagers tried to replicate the stunts they had seen performed on television. Luckily, MTV took the appropriate steps to warn viewers against such dangerous behavior and the first two films in the franchise ended up being highly successful with minimal amounts of backlash. Now, it almost seems appropriate that Jackass 3D marks the 10th anniversary of when audiences were first introduced to the antics of Johnny Knoxville, Steve-O, and Bam Margera. While I was not a huge fan of the original television series, I had seen the earlier films and could appreciate their comedic value, and I was curious to see how the newest stunts would look in 3D.
The tone of Jackass 3D is set very quickly as the classic MTV characters Beavis and Butt-head explain the technology behind the movie to the audience and promise plenty of laughs and gross-out antics. With essentially no plot, I was still surprised by the level of nostalgia introduced as a majority of the cast mainstays returned to work together and entertain the audience…I didn’t realize how much I had missed watching Knoxville, Steve-O, or Wee Man hurt themselves in as stupid a way as possible. Admittedly, the Jackass franchise is not for everyone, so if you are expecting any level of sophisticated humor, you will assuredly be disappointed; however, if you would enjoy seeing two guys play tether-ball with a beehive or use superglue to remove chest-hair, sit back and enjoy. Still, even if you like this low-brow humor, be warned, your gag-reflex will be pushed to the limit with some of the grosser stunts. In the end, even though I was slightly disappointed by the lack of stunts actually utilizing the 3D technology, I still thoroughly enjoyed Jackass 3D and declare it an absolute must-see for fans of the franchise.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: High
The tone of Jackass 3D is set very quickly as the classic MTV characters Beavis and Butt-head explain the technology behind the movie to the audience and promise plenty of laughs and gross-out antics. With essentially no plot, I was still surprised by the level of nostalgia introduced as a majority of the cast mainstays returned to work together and entertain the audience…I didn’t realize how much I had missed watching Knoxville, Steve-O, or Wee Man hurt themselves in as stupid a way as possible. Admittedly, the Jackass franchise is not for everyone, so if you are expecting any level of sophisticated humor, you will assuredly be disappointed; however, if you would enjoy seeing two guys play tether-ball with a beehive or use superglue to remove chest-hair, sit back and enjoy. Still, even if you like this low-brow humor, be warned, your gag-reflex will be pushed to the limit with some of the grosser stunts. In the end, even though I was slightly disappointed by the lack of stunts actually utilizing the 3D technology, I still thoroughly enjoyed Jackass 3D and declare it an absolute must-see for fans of the franchise.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: High
Jackass 3D: Full Review
Jackass 3D - (October 15th, 2010): R
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $50,353,641
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $86,861,041
Gross Revenue: $90,362,464
Budget: $20 million
Director: Jeff Tremaine
From a marketing standpoint, the promotional tactics used by Paramount for Jackass 3D were surprisingly creative and aggressive, seeking to remind audiences that they actually enjoy the now-historic Jackass franchise. The first official image of this sequel actually surfaced on the Jackass Facebook page in late July, while Paramount and MTV films screened footage at a special event at San Diego’s Comic-Con 2010, allowing fans to meet the crew and start building positive buzz. As can be expected, the trailer premiered on channels frequented by the target audience (MTV, VH1, and Spike TV) and was attached to films like The Other Guys, The Expendables, or Machete, bringing wider recognition to the upcoming release. Individual members of the cast also made separate appearances on WWE Monday Night RAW, Late Night With Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel Live, and even the Howard Stern Show; while MTV aired a marathon of the original series and making-off documentaries, all geared to play-off the nostalgia and fond memories fans of the franchise might hold. Given the franchise’s consistent warnings to audiences not to try and replicate any of the stunts featured, I was a little surprised when Knoxville launched the Jackass 3D Prank Contest with the video guide website WonderHowTo, prompting fans to submit prank ideas for a chance to win a trip to Hollywood to shoot the prank with the cast; yet, there was no negative backlash from this promotion, and audiences seemed primed to see this familiar film series in a new format. Early critical and fan reception was very positive, and though I had been warned that one scene in particular was especially nauseating, I was still excited to purchase my 3D glasses and see what the Jackass crew had cooked up this time around.
At this point in my reviews I usually go over the plot of a given film, but in this case, a plot is nonexistent for Jackass 3D. Suffice to say, audiences simply watch the Jackass crew (Johnny Knoxville, Steve-O, Bam Margera, and Wee Man being the most famous), engage in various rude pranks and utterly idiotic stunts. My personal favorite was “Electric Avenue,” where, dressed as prisoners, the crew navigates down a hallway filled with active Tasers, cattle-prods, and various other stun-guns set to maximum voltage. Over the course of the film, we see Knoxville tackled by buffalo; Steve-O launched a hundred feet into the air while strapped into a full port-a-potty; and Wee Man attached to other cast members with superglue. If you have fond memories of the franchise, I’m sure you will enjoy the nostalgic value of watching this newest set of stunts and be reminded of why you like the franchise in the first place.
In the absence of acting or a plot, the humor of Jackass 3D is the biggest positive for fans of the franchise, but there are still some weak elements worth mentioning. In terms of the 3D technology, Phantom high speed cameras enabled the production crew to produce a number of scenes in hyper-slow motion, though the effects were largely confined to the opening and closing sequences and such pranks like “The Rocky,” where you sneak up behind someone, throw a glass of water in their face with one hand, and hit them as hard as you can with a boxing glove on the other hand. Though these scenes were impressive, I must admit though that I was expecting a few more of the stunts to actually jump out at the audience, so there were times that the technology felt underused. Now, there are considerable laughs in watching these guys hurt themselves, but the Jackass franchise is also known for gross-out humor, so I feel obligated to warn readers that there are scenes that will test your gag-reflex. I’ll put it to you this way, being a Resident Assistant for a year in college made me near-immune to the effects of vomit or nausea, but one scene in particular had me gagging in the theater. Yet, despite some of the grosser scenes and the perceived underuse of the available technology, Jackass 3D still delivered exactly what it promised audiences and did the franchise justice in this latest offering.
From a box-office perspective, Jackass 3D has been absolutely record-setting, bringing in just over $50 million its opening weekend and claiming the title for the most successful Fall opening ever, a distinction originally held by 2003’s Scary Movie 3. It seems that Paramount’s promotional tactics more than paid-off, essentially more-than doubling the production budget in one weekend and taking in an additional $21 million in its second weekend. As it turns out, the Jackass crew shot enough stunts to produce another film (Jackass 3.5) that was planned for a DVD release in January, but given the success of the original, this newest film may be granted a theatrical release. Even though Jackass 3D lost the top spot at the box-office to Paranormal Activity 2, I still expect word-of-mouth and critical reception to translate into a highly lucrative box-office run as audiences look for a humorous alternative during this Halloween season. Still, I must emphasize that this type of humor is not for everyone and that Jackass 3D more than earns its R-rating…if you like this kind of stuff, knock yourself out, but if you’re looking more family-friendly humor, you had better wait for Megamind next weekend.
Overall Recommendation: High
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $50,353,641
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $86,861,041
Gross Revenue: $90,362,464
Budget: $20 million
Director: Jeff Tremaine
From a marketing standpoint, the promotional tactics used by Paramount for Jackass 3D were surprisingly creative and aggressive, seeking to remind audiences that they actually enjoy the now-historic Jackass franchise. The first official image of this sequel actually surfaced on the Jackass Facebook page in late July, while Paramount and MTV films screened footage at a special event at San Diego’s Comic-Con 2010, allowing fans to meet the crew and start building positive buzz. As can be expected, the trailer premiered on channels frequented by the target audience (MTV, VH1, and Spike TV) and was attached to films like The Other Guys, The Expendables, or Machete, bringing wider recognition to the upcoming release. Individual members of the cast also made separate appearances on WWE Monday Night RAW, Late Night With Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel Live, and even the Howard Stern Show; while MTV aired a marathon of the original series and making-off documentaries, all geared to play-off the nostalgia and fond memories fans of the franchise might hold. Given the franchise’s consistent warnings to audiences not to try and replicate any of the stunts featured, I was a little surprised when Knoxville launched the Jackass 3D Prank Contest with the video guide website WonderHowTo, prompting fans to submit prank ideas for a chance to win a trip to Hollywood to shoot the prank with the cast; yet, there was no negative backlash from this promotion, and audiences seemed primed to see this familiar film series in a new format. Early critical and fan reception was very positive, and though I had been warned that one scene in particular was especially nauseating, I was still excited to purchase my 3D glasses and see what the Jackass crew had cooked up this time around.
At this point in my reviews I usually go over the plot of a given film, but in this case, a plot is nonexistent for Jackass 3D. Suffice to say, audiences simply watch the Jackass crew (Johnny Knoxville, Steve-O, Bam Margera, and Wee Man being the most famous), engage in various rude pranks and utterly idiotic stunts. My personal favorite was “Electric Avenue,” where, dressed as prisoners, the crew navigates down a hallway filled with active Tasers, cattle-prods, and various other stun-guns set to maximum voltage. Over the course of the film, we see Knoxville tackled by buffalo; Steve-O launched a hundred feet into the air while strapped into a full port-a-potty; and Wee Man attached to other cast members with superglue. If you have fond memories of the franchise, I’m sure you will enjoy the nostalgic value of watching this newest set of stunts and be reminded of why you like the franchise in the first place.
In the absence of acting or a plot, the humor of Jackass 3D is the biggest positive for fans of the franchise, but there are still some weak elements worth mentioning. In terms of the 3D technology, Phantom high speed cameras enabled the production crew to produce a number of scenes in hyper-slow motion, though the effects were largely confined to the opening and closing sequences and such pranks like “The Rocky,” where you sneak up behind someone, throw a glass of water in their face with one hand, and hit them as hard as you can with a boxing glove on the other hand. Though these scenes were impressive, I must admit though that I was expecting a few more of the stunts to actually jump out at the audience, so there were times that the technology felt underused. Now, there are considerable laughs in watching these guys hurt themselves, but the Jackass franchise is also known for gross-out humor, so I feel obligated to warn readers that there are scenes that will test your gag-reflex. I’ll put it to you this way, being a Resident Assistant for a year in college made me near-immune to the effects of vomit or nausea, but one scene in particular had me gagging in the theater. Yet, despite some of the grosser scenes and the perceived underuse of the available technology, Jackass 3D still delivered exactly what it promised audiences and did the franchise justice in this latest offering.
From a box-office perspective, Jackass 3D has been absolutely record-setting, bringing in just over $50 million its opening weekend and claiming the title for the most successful Fall opening ever, a distinction originally held by 2003’s Scary Movie 3. It seems that Paramount’s promotional tactics more than paid-off, essentially more-than doubling the production budget in one weekend and taking in an additional $21 million in its second weekend. As it turns out, the Jackass crew shot enough stunts to produce another film (Jackass 3.5) that was planned for a DVD release in January, but given the success of the original, this newest film may be granted a theatrical release. Even though Jackass 3D lost the top spot at the box-office to Paranormal Activity 2, I still expect word-of-mouth and critical reception to translate into a highly lucrative box-office run as audiences look for a humorous alternative during this Halloween season. Still, I must emphasize that this type of humor is not for everyone and that Jackass 3D more than earns its R-rating…if you like this kind of stuff, knock yourself out, but if you’re looking more family-friendly humor, you had better wait for Megamind next weekend.
Overall Recommendation: High
Red: Short and Sweet
Perhaps the most interesting and unknown fact about Red is that it is actually based on a comic book series from DC Comics, and after the unholy failure of Jonah Hex this past summer, it was clear that DC needed Red to be a successful adaptation. While a story about aging superspies may not have the fan appeal of other comic book mainstays like Spider-Man or Batman, what Red lacked in fan-following it more than made up for with strong casting. With audience favorites such as Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, and John Malkovich, Red was sure to generate considerable draw as it showcased these actors with a blend of action and humor. Marketing for the film was fairly straightforward as the first full trailer debuted at July’s Comic-Con and started to build buzz among both comic fans and followers of the ensemble cast. Being a huge comic book fan myself, I confess that I was not familiar with Red’s source material, but regardless, I was still excited to see an action-comedy with some of my favorite actors.
Unfortunately, for all the appeal that Red had as a possible blockbuster, the actual film was thoroughly disappointing, with weak character development and a surprisingly confusing plot coming together to produce a boring action-comedy. With the combined acting talent of award-winners like Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, and Helen Mirren, the reality is that Red should have been much better, but tragically, their efforts were hampered by predictable and clichéd characters. In fact, it feels like Bruce Willis was the only one whose character was given any kind of background or development that the audience could relate to or sympathize with as the film progressed. I was also expecting a high level of action and comedy, but tragically, the funniest jokes and coolest action scenes had already been revealed in the previews, so there wasn’t much that other plot elements could add to keep audiences engaged without the efforts coming across as forced. Don’t get me wrong, Red is not a bad film, but given all of its potential, the mediocre nature of the end result is pretty hard to forgive.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Unfortunately, for all the appeal that Red had as a possible blockbuster, the actual film was thoroughly disappointing, with weak character development and a surprisingly confusing plot coming together to produce a boring action-comedy. With the combined acting talent of award-winners like Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, and Helen Mirren, the reality is that Red should have been much better, but tragically, their efforts were hampered by predictable and clichéd characters. In fact, it feels like Bruce Willis was the only one whose character was given any kind of background or development that the audience could relate to or sympathize with as the film progressed. I was also expecting a high level of action and comedy, but tragically, the funniest jokes and coolest action scenes had already been revealed in the previews, so there wasn’t much that other plot elements could add to keep audiences engaged without the efforts coming across as forced. Don’t get me wrong, Red is not a bad film, but given all of its potential, the mediocre nature of the end result is pretty hard to forgive.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Red: Full Review
Red - (October 15th, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Summit Entertainment
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $21,761,408
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $43,518,185
Gross Revenue: $43,518,185
Budget: $58 million
Director: Robert Schwentke
It has been refreshing to see comic book adaptations branch out from the traditional superhero flick, but after disappointing entries like The Losers and Jonah Hex, DC Comics has had a pretty hard time convincing audiences that they can handle anything beyond the Batman series or Watchmen. The idea of highlighting post-retirement superspies (classified as Retired and Extremely Dangerous) was intriguing enough, but some critics were concerned that audiences had seen these types of characters before in some of the cast’s previous work. Sure, Helen Mirren was stepping out of her comfort zone to play a ruthless assassin, but John Malkovich has definitely played crazy and paranoid before (just think of Con Air and Burn After Reading), while Morgan Freeman proved that he could pull-off an aging assassin when he curved bullets in 2008’s Wanted. Still, if these formulas worked with audiences before, there was little reason to believe that Red wouldn’t be able to replicate a similar level of success by playing to the actor’s strengths. Either way, trailers and promotional materials clearly tried to evoke positive feelings by highlighting the popularity of the individual cast members and pointing out the appeal that they would have appearing together in a film filled with humor and violence. Regardless of having never read the original comic, I was still excited to see some of my favorite actors in Red.
Red begins by introducing the audience to Frank Moses (Willis) a retired black ops CIA agent who fights boredom by speaking with a lonely representative from his pension office, the sassy yet naive Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker from Showtime’s Weeds). After an unexpected attempt on his life, Frank realizes he is being hunted and takes measures to protect Sarah by bringing her along, as the assassins would be aware that she and Frank are in regular contact and therefore target her as well. With the help of his former black ops team, which includes Frank’s mentor Joe (Freeman), thoroughly insane conspiracy theorist Marvin (Malkovich), and ruthless wetwork agent Victoria (Mirren), Frank tries to identify those who are trying to kill him. As it turns out, Frank and his team stumble across a conspiracy that not only involves the CIA, but also reaches all the way up to the White House. In the end, these retired agents end up fighting for survival with both style and humor, fully illustrating why they are still the best in the business.
While Red was nowhere near as good as it could have been, there were still some pretty enjoyable elements. Among the star-studded cast, Bruce Willis’ character stood out as the deepest and most sympathetic, as the audience is quickly able to empathize with the loneliness and boredom that Frank experiences as a retired agent. There is also a considerable amount of chemistry between Willis and Parker, with the offbeat romance shared by these characters coming across as surprisingly sweet. And though his presence in the cast was slightly overshadowed by his costars, Karl Urban is pretty convincing as conflicted CIA agent William Cooper, who is assigned to hunt Frank and his team; and I have to point out that the fight scene between Frank and Cooper is easily the most energetic and enjoyable action sequence in the film. Unfortunately, these positive elements were not enough to make Red anything more than a mediocre entry in the action-comedy genre.
Now, critics have been absolutely raving about Red, and some may think me overly critical, but as hard as I try, I do not understand how some of the weak elements within the film have been overlooked. My single biggest problem with Red is that the best parts of the film were revealed to audiences in the previews; that is, beyond the scenes that were used to provoke audiences to go to the theater in the first place, the rest of the film just was not that entertaining. I liked Bruce Willis’ performance, but I think that the rest of the acting talent of the cast was considerably wasted on weak characters, as none of Frank’s team is given any kind of back-story or character development…Marvin’s crazy, Victoria kills people, and Joe is old, that’s it, take or leave it without explanation. Hollywood heavyweight Richard Dreyfuss also appears as a villain, but his character comes off a sleazy rather than menacing, so you’re not exactly sure how to react to him. Finally, the overall conspiracy of the film is so vague and confusing that it’s really easy to lose interest as the plot drags its feet explaining the conflict; by the time you figure out why Frank and his team are being hunted, you’re not really sure that you care anymore. Sadly these elements combine to make Red a fairly-weak and forgettable action-comedy that was neither very exciting nor very funny.
Despite the disappointing execution of this highly touted blockbuster, Red has been performing surprisingly well at the box-office, placing second its opening weekend with just under $23 million. Again, I want to emphasize that Red is not a bad movie; it’s just not that good, and a mediocre entry is especially disappointing when you consider the combined acting talent of the ensemble cast. If you are a fan of any one of these aging actors, I’m sure you’ll find something to enjoy in Red, but if you’ve seen any of the previews, don’t expect anything surprising. As I said, critical reviews for Red have been strong, so I expect the film to continue to perform well at the box-office and regain some credibility for DC Comics film adaptations, but I wouldn’t recommend that anyone rush to the theater to see this one.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Distributor: Summit Entertainment
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $21,761,408
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $43,518,185
Gross Revenue: $43,518,185
Budget: $58 million
Director: Robert Schwentke
It has been refreshing to see comic book adaptations branch out from the traditional superhero flick, but after disappointing entries like The Losers and Jonah Hex, DC Comics has had a pretty hard time convincing audiences that they can handle anything beyond the Batman series or Watchmen. The idea of highlighting post-retirement superspies (classified as Retired and Extremely Dangerous) was intriguing enough, but some critics were concerned that audiences had seen these types of characters before in some of the cast’s previous work. Sure, Helen Mirren was stepping out of her comfort zone to play a ruthless assassin, but John Malkovich has definitely played crazy and paranoid before (just think of Con Air and Burn After Reading), while Morgan Freeman proved that he could pull-off an aging assassin when he curved bullets in 2008’s Wanted. Still, if these formulas worked with audiences before, there was little reason to believe that Red wouldn’t be able to replicate a similar level of success by playing to the actor’s strengths. Either way, trailers and promotional materials clearly tried to evoke positive feelings by highlighting the popularity of the individual cast members and pointing out the appeal that they would have appearing together in a film filled with humor and violence. Regardless of having never read the original comic, I was still excited to see some of my favorite actors in Red.
Red begins by introducing the audience to Frank Moses (Willis) a retired black ops CIA agent who fights boredom by speaking with a lonely representative from his pension office, the sassy yet naive Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker from Showtime’s Weeds). After an unexpected attempt on his life, Frank realizes he is being hunted and takes measures to protect Sarah by bringing her along, as the assassins would be aware that she and Frank are in regular contact and therefore target her as well. With the help of his former black ops team, which includes Frank’s mentor Joe (Freeman), thoroughly insane conspiracy theorist Marvin (Malkovich), and ruthless wetwork agent Victoria (Mirren), Frank tries to identify those who are trying to kill him. As it turns out, Frank and his team stumble across a conspiracy that not only involves the CIA, but also reaches all the way up to the White House. In the end, these retired agents end up fighting for survival with both style and humor, fully illustrating why they are still the best in the business.
While Red was nowhere near as good as it could have been, there were still some pretty enjoyable elements. Among the star-studded cast, Bruce Willis’ character stood out as the deepest and most sympathetic, as the audience is quickly able to empathize with the loneliness and boredom that Frank experiences as a retired agent. There is also a considerable amount of chemistry between Willis and Parker, with the offbeat romance shared by these characters coming across as surprisingly sweet. And though his presence in the cast was slightly overshadowed by his costars, Karl Urban is pretty convincing as conflicted CIA agent William Cooper, who is assigned to hunt Frank and his team; and I have to point out that the fight scene between Frank and Cooper is easily the most energetic and enjoyable action sequence in the film. Unfortunately, these positive elements were not enough to make Red anything more than a mediocre entry in the action-comedy genre.
Now, critics have been absolutely raving about Red, and some may think me overly critical, but as hard as I try, I do not understand how some of the weak elements within the film have been overlooked. My single biggest problem with Red is that the best parts of the film were revealed to audiences in the previews; that is, beyond the scenes that were used to provoke audiences to go to the theater in the first place, the rest of the film just was not that entertaining. I liked Bruce Willis’ performance, but I think that the rest of the acting talent of the cast was considerably wasted on weak characters, as none of Frank’s team is given any kind of back-story or character development…Marvin’s crazy, Victoria kills people, and Joe is old, that’s it, take or leave it without explanation. Hollywood heavyweight Richard Dreyfuss also appears as a villain, but his character comes off a sleazy rather than menacing, so you’re not exactly sure how to react to him. Finally, the overall conspiracy of the film is so vague and confusing that it’s really easy to lose interest as the plot drags its feet explaining the conflict; by the time you figure out why Frank and his team are being hunted, you’re not really sure that you care anymore. Sadly these elements combine to make Red a fairly-weak and forgettable action-comedy that was neither very exciting nor very funny.
Despite the disappointing execution of this highly touted blockbuster, Red has been performing surprisingly well at the box-office, placing second its opening weekend with just under $23 million. Again, I want to emphasize that Red is not a bad movie; it’s just not that good, and a mediocre entry is especially disappointing when you consider the combined acting talent of the ensemble cast. If you are a fan of any one of these aging actors, I’m sure you’ll find something to enjoy in Red, but if you’ve seen any of the previews, don’t expect anything surprising. As I said, critical reviews for Red have been strong, so I expect the film to continue to perform well at the box-office and regain some credibility for DC Comics film adaptations, but I wouldn’t recommend that anyone rush to the theater to see this one.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)