Buddy comedies with two well-known leads are usually a safe bet when it comes to going to the theater, but I must admit that I was highly skeptical, almost apprehensive, concerning Dinner for Schmucks. While I am, at best, a casual fan of The Office, I do appreciate the comedic talent of Steve Carell, and he has more than proven this talent as a leading man on the silver screen, The 40 Year-Old Virgin and Get Smart being two obvious examples. Paul Rudd has also been skyrocketing in popularity in the last few years, appearing in an impressive amount of now-classic Hollywood comedies. Carell and Rudd have worked together before on both Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy and The 40 Year-Old Virgin, and while I would normally not have hesitated to see the pairing of these two yet again, the reality was that with every new trailer, Dinner for Schmucks only looked worse and worse. Despite the résumés of the two leads and the novel concept of the script, Dinner for Schmucks looked so mind-numbingly idiotic that it had the potential to be a comedic disaster; as I walked into the theater, I was preparing myself for the worse.
I am happy to report that my initial perceptions of Dinner for Schmucks couldn’t have been farther from the truth. True, some of the main characters make the cast of Jersey Shore look like Nobel laureates, but the level of idiocy on screen provides for a shockingly high level of comedy. I cannot recall the last movie I saw that was as consistently funny as Dinner for Schmucks…even The Hangover took pauses to let the audience stop laughing and catch their breath. The one warning I must give concerning Dinner for Schmucks involves Steve Carell; if you are a fan of his and delight in his idiotic antics over at Dunder Mifflin, his work in Dinner for Schmucks is nothing short of comedic genius. However, if you don’t like Steve Carell and don’t appreciate the subtleties of idiotic humor, I doubt you’ll enjoy this latest entry. Despite this warning, given Steve Carell’s shockingly high level of popularity, I have no problem declaring Dinner for Schmucks a comedic must-see.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: High
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Dinner for Schmucks: Full Review
Dinner for Schmucks: (July 30th, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $23,527,839
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $58,785,547
Gross Revenue: $58,785,547
Budget: $62.7 million
Director: Jay Roach
In addition to the laundry list of successful comedies that both Steve Carell and Paul Rudd bring to the table, Dinner for Schmucks also gained significant comedic potential through its director, Jay Roach. Having directed both the Austin Powers and the Meet the Parents franchises, Jay Roach has proven himself more than capable in guiding comedic talent. From a marketing standpoint, Paramount launched a surprisingly aggressive marketing campaign, releasing numerous trailers, scheduling promotional appearances on Comedy Central, and even starting a sweepstakes through the CW network where winners would be able to dine on the Paramount Studios back-lot. Fans of Carell and Rudd would no doubt be pleased with this newest project, but even though I would normally count myself amongst this group, I have to confess that the film trailers made Dinner for Schmucks look a little too stupid. I do normally find idiotic humor enjoyable, but only in small doses…if Dinner for Schmucks wasn’t careful, I feared that it could potentially miss the mark and only serve to infuriate audiences that were looking for a good laugh.
As a remake of the 1998 French dark-comedy, The Dinner Game, Dinner for Schmucks follows a very simple premise. Paul Rudd plays Tim, a rising executive in a financial firm who is invited by his boss to a very exclusive event. Each month, the top executives of Tim’s company host a dinner where each worker brings a guest that everyone else can make fun of…at the end of the evening, the most outrageous guest is presented a trophy and declared the top idiot. Though he is initially apprehensive of the idea, Tim does appreciate how his participation in the dinner could advance his career, and when he meets Barry (Carell), he realizes that he has come across an individual who could potentially be a legendary participant in the monthly dinner…should Barry win “top idiot,” Tim’s career could skyrocket. Tim pitches the idea of the dinner to Barry as being for “extraordinary” people, and what makes Barry so “extraordinary” is that his primary hobby involves creating artistic portraits with taxidermy mice…let me run that by you again, he poses dead mice for artistic value…no wonder he was invited. Unfortunately for Tim, having the well-meaning Barry around turns out to be nothing short of a tornado of destruction, wreaking absolute havoc on Tim’s personal life…by the time the film’s climactic dinner arrives, the audience is left wondering whether Barry presence at the dinner could possibly rectify any of the misfortune he has caused.
Though I was initially apprehensive of the level of idiocy present in Dinner for Schmucks, I was pleasantly surprised by the level of comedy generated by that same idiocy. Based on the characters within this film, “Dinner for Schmucks” might be the most contextually accurate title in Hollywood history; Steve Carell is an absolute riot as the shockingly idiotic Barry, and the situations he helps create and the lines he ends up delivering are so ridiculously funny that I nearly fell out of my seat laughing at the sheer level of chaos unfolding in front of my eyes. Beginning with the opening frame, Dinner for Schmucks is almost instantaneously funny, and the near-consistent stream of comedy doesn’t relent until the closing credits begin to roll. Steve Carell and Paul Rudd make a surprisingly convincing team, Rudd’s character acting as the anchor that prevents Carell from going completely off the deep-end, and even though the interaction between these two makes the film pleasing enough, the dinner itself actually doesn’t begin until the last quarter of the film, and the insanity present turns out to be an amazing way to conclude the story. Carell’s dead mice are surprisingly entertaining, but some of the other guests truly steal the show, whether it is the lady who can talk to dead animals, the blind swordsman, the guy married to a puppet (a nice cameo by comedian Jeff Dunham), or Zach Galifianakis’ character, the mind-controlling IRS agent. Despite being a remake, Dinner for Schmucks has some truly original comedy, a talented cast, and enough hilarious jokes that you will be tempted to go see it again simply so you will be able to remember more quotes.
Regardless of how much I enjoyed Dinner for Schmucks, I can appreciate that this brand of comedy isn’t for everyone. Steve Carell is the type of actor that you either love or hate…if you are not a fan of his, most of the humor present in the film will probably just serve to infuriate and alienate you further. Even though I have no problem with Steve Carell’s performance being the main comedic draw of a film, given the rest of the comedic talent present in the cast, I was disappointed with how some members of the cast were underused. Paul Rudd was definitely the stable member of this new odd-couple, but he really wasn’t that funny, and after his performance in The Hangover, I expected Zach Galifianakis to be a little bit more of a scene-stealer. Jermaine Clement (of HBO’s Flight of the Conchords fame) also has a few funny lines while playing the eccentric artist, but his character reminds me so much of Russell Brand that I can’t help but question why Paramount didn’t cast Brand in the first place…I can only imagine how funny he would have been interacting with Carell, talk about a missed opportunity. Despite the potentially limited appeal of such idiotic humor, I still believe that Carell has a broad enough level of popularity (think of how many people watch The Office) that I suspect most audiences will simply delight in the lovable buffoon that he has brought to life.
From a box-office perspective, Paramount pushed back the release date of Dinner for Schmucks a week to avoid competition with Salt and Inception, and given the popularity of Inception, I cannot fault Paramount’s decision. However, with the other films that were released on July 30th and the fact that Dinner for Schmucks is the sole live-action comedy currently in theaters, I still expected it to do quite well. I expected the box-office race this weekend to be very close, and though Inception's third week at the top of the pyramid is impressive, Dinner for Schmucks still had a very respectable second place finish. In the end, though the film isn’t perfect and definitely missed a few opportunities, if you enjoy silly comedy, Dinner for Schmucks is nothing short of a masterpiece, and it is sure to continue generating positive buzz. As a movie-goer, your only obligation is to sit back and enjoy.
Overall Recommendation: High
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $23,527,839
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $58,785,547
Gross Revenue: $58,785,547
Budget: $62.7 million
Director: Jay Roach
In addition to the laundry list of successful comedies that both Steve Carell and Paul Rudd bring to the table, Dinner for Schmucks also gained significant comedic potential through its director, Jay Roach. Having directed both the Austin Powers and the Meet the Parents franchises, Jay Roach has proven himself more than capable in guiding comedic talent. From a marketing standpoint, Paramount launched a surprisingly aggressive marketing campaign, releasing numerous trailers, scheduling promotional appearances on Comedy Central, and even starting a sweepstakes through the CW network where winners would be able to dine on the Paramount Studios back-lot. Fans of Carell and Rudd would no doubt be pleased with this newest project, but even though I would normally count myself amongst this group, I have to confess that the film trailers made Dinner for Schmucks look a little too stupid. I do normally find idiotic humor enjoyable, but only in small doses…if Dinner for Schmucks wasn’t careful, I feared that it could potentially miss the mark and only serve to infuriate audiences that were looking for a good laugh.
As a remake of the 1998 French dark-comedy, The Dinner Game, Dinner for Schmucks follows a very simple premise. Paul Rudd plays Tim, a rising executive in a financial firm who is invited by his boss to a very exclusive event. Each month, the top executives of Tim’s company host a dinner where each worker brings a guest that everyone else can make fun of…at the end of the evening, the most outrageous guest is presented a trophy and declared the top idiot. Though he is initially apprehensive of the idea, Tim does appreciate how his participation in the dinner could advance his career, and when he meets Barry (Carell), he realizes that he has come across an individual who could potentially be a legendary participant in the monthly dinner…should Barry win “top idiot,” Tim’s career could skyrocket. Tim pitches the idea of the dinner to Barry as being for “extraordinary” people, and what makes Barry so “extraordinary” is that his primary hobby involves creating artistic portraits with taxidermy mice…let me run that by you again, he poses dead mice for artistic value…no wonder he was invited. Unfortunately for Tim, having the well-meaning Barry around turns out to be nothing short of a tornado of destruction, wreaking absolute havoc on Tim’s personal life…by the time the film’s climactic dinner arrives, the audience is left wondering whether Barry presence at the dinner could possibly rectify any of the misfortune he has caused.
Though I was initially apprehensive of the level of idiocy present in Dinner for Schmucks, I was pleasantly surprised by the level of comedy generated by that same idiocy. Based on the characters within this film, “Dinner for Schmucks” might be the most contextually accurate title in Hollywood history; Steve Carell is an absolute riot as the shockingly idiotic Barry, and the situations he helps create and the lines he ends up delivering are so ridiculously funny that I nearly fell out of my seat laughing at the sheer level of chaos unfolding in front of my eyes. Beginning with the opening frame, Dinner for Schmucks is almost instantaneously funny, and the near-consistent stream of comedy doesn’t relent until the closing credits begin to roll. Steve Carell and Paul Rudd make a surprisingly convincing team, Rudd’s character acting as the anchor that prevents Carell from going completely off the deep-end, and even though the interaction between these two makes the film pleasing enough, the dinner itself actually doesn’t begin until the last quarter of the film, and the insanity present turns out to be an amazing way to conclude the story. Carell’s dead mice are surprisingly entertaining, but some of the other guests truly steal the show, whether it is the lady who can talk to dead animals, the blind swordsman, the guy married to a puppet (a nice cameo by comedian Jeff Dunham), or Zach Galifianakis’ character, the mind-controlling IRS agent. Despite being a remake, Dinner for Schmucks has some truly original comedy, a talented cast, and enough hilarious jokes that you will be tempted to go see it again simply so you will be able to remember more quotes.
Regardless of how much I enjoyed Dinner for Schmucks, I can appreciate that this brand of comedy isn’t for everyone. Steve Carell is the type of actor that you either love or hate…if you are not a fan of his, most of the humor present in the film will probably just serve to infuriate and alienate you further. Even though I have no problem with Steve Carell’s performance being the main comedic draw of a film, given the rest of the comedic talent present in the cast, I was disappointed with how some members of the cast were underused. Paul Rudd was definitely the stable member of this new odd-couple, but he really wasn’t that funny, and after his performance in The Hangover, I expected Zach Galifianakis to be a little bit more of a scene-stealer. Jermaine Clement (of HBO’s Flight of the Conchords fame) also has a few funny lines while playing the eccentric artist, but his character reminds me so much of Russell Brand that I can’t help but question why Paramount didn’t cast Brand in the first place…I can only imagine how funny he would have been interacting with Carell, talk about a missed opportunity. Despite the potentially limited appeal of such idiotic humor, I still believe that Carell has a broad enough level of popularity (think of how many people watch The Office) that I suspect most audiences will simply delight in the lovable buffoon that he has brought to life.
From a box-office perspective, Paramount pushed back the release date of Dinner for Schmucks a week to avoid competition with Salt and Inception, and given the popularity of Inception, I cannot fault Paramount’s decision. However, with the other films that were released on July 30th and the fact that Dinner for Schmucks is the sole live-action comedy currently in theaters, I still expected it to do quite well. I expected the box-office race this weekend to be very close, and though Inception's third week at the top of the pyramid is impressive, Dinner for Schmucks still had a very respectable second place finish. In the end, though the film isn’t perfect and definitely missed a few opportunities, if you enjoy silly comedy, Dinner for Schmucks is nothing short of a masterpiece, and it is sure to continue generating positive buzz. As a movie-goer, your only obligation is to sit back and enjoy.
Overall Recommendation: High
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Salt: Short and Sweet
Leading up to its release, Salt seemed to possess a near-perfect formula for success. Angelina Jolie is easily one of the most gorgeous women to walk this planet, and she is well-known for taking action-oriented roles that seek to dazzle movie-goers; her work in Tomb Raider, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and Wanted being the most obvious examples. Now Sony Pictures Entertainment (Columbia Pictures’ parent company) was going to give Jolie a title role in a spy-thriller that had the potential to turn her into the female Jason Bourne of Hollywood. Early trailers teased a mix of action and mystery as viewers watched Jolie engage in some high-risk stunts, but were left questioning exactly where her character’s loyalties were truly aligned. There seemed to be enough here to please fans of the action and spy genres, along with any red-blooded male who finds Angelina Jolie the least bit attractive, so I was understandably excited to see Salt.
Unfortunately, despite its massive potential, Salt almost completely misses the mark, resulting in a ludicrous entry in the spy genre that few will ever be able to take seriously. The plot itself stretches logic, but several specific plot elements are simply too unbelievable. As for the action scenes and stunts, some are downright absurd; sure, they would have been fine if Jolie’s character was supposed to be superhuman, but sadly the laws of physics still apply to the film’s human characters. Several critics have forgiven the unrealistic nature of Salt, encouraging audiences to suspend disbelief; I would agree with these critics if Salt was meant to be a spoof or a comic-book film, but nothing about the film suggests that audiences were ever meant to regard Salt as anything less than a legitimate and serious spy-thriller. As a leading lady, Angelina Jolie is the only saving grace of Salt, as she is entertaining and thoroughly enjoyable to watch on-screen; but had any other actress been cast as the lead, I feel that Salt would have been nothing short of an epic failure. For those expecting a new Jason Bourne franchise, I regret telling you that Salt will be a thoroughly disappointing experience; Angelina Jolie fans will love watching her for just over an hour-and-a-half, but that single positive aspect cannot forgive the laundry list of errors in this summer film.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Unfortunately, despite its massive potential, Salt almost completely misses the mark, resulting in a ludicrous entry in the spy genre that few will ever be able to take seriously. The plot itself stretches logic, but several specific plot elements are simply too unbelievable. As for the action scenes and stunts, some are downright absurd; sure, they would have been fine if Jolie’s character was supposed to be superhuman, but sadly the laws of physics still apply to the film’s human characters. Several critics have forgiven the unrealistic nature of Salt, encouraging audiences to suspend disbelief; I would agree with these critics if Salt was meant to be a spoof or a comic-book film, but nothing about the film suggests that audiences were ever meant to regard Salt as anything less than a legitimate and serious spy-thriller. As a leading lady, Angelina Jolie is the only saving grace of Salt, as she is entertaining and thoroughly enjoyable to watch on-screen; but had any other actress been cast as the lead, I feel that Salt would have been nothing short of an epic failure. For those expecting a new Jason Bourne franchise, I regret telling you that Salt will be a thoroughly disappointing experience; Angelina Jolie fans will love watching her for just over an hour-and-a-half, but that single positive aspect cannot forgive the laundry list of errors in this summer film.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Salt: Full Review
Salt: (July 23rd, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Columbia Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $36,011,243
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $103,438,273
Gross Revenue: $188,202,762
Budget: $110 million
Director: Phillip Noyce
Having Angelina Jolie as the female lead of a summer spy-thriller is practically a gift from the movie-marketing gods; her sex-appeal alone was sure to entice male viewers to head to the theater, but when word-of-mouth started portraying her as the female Jason Bourne (who had his own ridiculously successful franchise), resounding success was easily within reach. Buzz for the film was also increased by the main tagline: “Who is Salt?” Trailers showed audiences that Jolie’s character (Salt) was accused of being a Russian spy, and a certain amount of intrigue was generated when it was implied that Salt’s true loyalties may be unknown. I cannot help but find a little humor in the current environment into which Salt is being released; one of the top news stories of late June and early July involved the 10 Russian spies that were discovered living in suburban America, and now Columbia Pictures is releasing a film about Jolie being a Russian sleeper-agent. That could have either intrigued or offended potential audiences, but apparently this didn’t bother Jolie, seeing as how she invited convicted Russian spy Anna Chapman (the one with all the tabloid pictures) to Salt’s premiere. Needless to say, Salt’s run at the box-office was going to be interesting.
Here’s the basic plot: Angelina Jolie plays Evelyn Salt, a well-respected CIA agent who is accused of being a highly-trained Russian spy. Salt’s accuser says that she will supposedly murder the Russian president while he attends the funeral of the recently deceased Vice President of the United States. Salt quickly escapes and evades her pursuers to try and clear her name, but it soon becomes apparent that Salt’s true loyalties are unclear, and that she is mixed up with a plot that is far more sinister than a political assassination. As disaster approaches, it is up to the audience to decide if Evelyn Salt is a hero or villain.
Though the plot seems like it has the potential to be a truly great spy-thriller, the reality is that many of core elements of the story are simply too ridiculous to pass as believable. Forgetting the fact that I called the film’s twist ending almost ten minutes in, I was more insulted by how shockingly incompetent Salt portrayed the CIA and the United States Secret Service. The actual Russian agents who were collecting information in suburban America a month ago, though disappointing, was believable; but in Salt, the amount of highly-trained KGB assassins that have supposedly infiltrated the government seems to suggest that the screening process to get a job at the CIA is easier to bypass than the background check at Wal-Mart. There is also a sequence where Salt is arrested, and though she is considered a highly-dangerous Russian agent, rather than being placed in maximum security, she is taken into custody by a small group of NYPD officers…no wonder she escapes ten seconds later. By far the most insulting part of the movie comes when Salt infiltrates the White House and makes it past security posing as a male NATO officer; that’s right, they tried to pass Angelina Jolie off as a man…at this point in the story Salt is at the top of the FBI’s Most Wanted List, and I’m supposed to believe that she could make it into the White House posing as a male? So not only does the CIA background check suck, but apparently the White House security and the Secret Service could care less who or what enters the White House during a time of heightened security. Sadly, these are only a few of the laughably unbelievable elements present in Salt.
I’ll admit that movie super-agents are supposed to execute some pretty impressive stuff, but even Jason Bourne and James Bond wouldn’t be stupid enough to try some of the stunts that Salt pulls off. At one point in the film, Salt jumps down an elevator shaft and hops from level to level without breaking a sweat…a physical feat that would make Spider-Man jealous. The stunts are a disappointing factor when you consider that some of them are very impressive and fully believable, while others have you rolling your eyes and wondering whether Salt somehow gained superpowers over the course of the film. As I said before, some have forgiven the absurd nature of the story and stunts present in Salt, but I cannot look past such negative elements when, by all accounts, Salt is meant to be received as a legitimate spy thriller.
The one saving grace of Salt is Angelina Jolie. I cannot decide whether Jolie actually had a strong acting performance, or if she was just entertaining and pleasing to watch on-screen. I’m not trying to be critical of Jolie’ acting, I consider her to be a very talented actress, I just do not think that she had much to work with in Salt. Her sex-appeal is clearly present within the film (though not on the level implied in the trailers), and her talent as an action star is obvious when you consider that she performed a majority of her own stunts. However, when Angelina Jolie as the lead is the strongest and solely positive aspect of a film, that’s a bit of warning sign; had any other actress been cast as the lead in Salt (Tom Cruise was actually the first choice for the role before it was rewritten to fit Jolie), the film would have been universally disappointing. Liev Schreiber does what he can playing Salt’s colleague, but I feel that his acting talent was severely underused (audiences last remember Schreiber from his role as Sabretooth in last summer’s X-men Origins: Wolverine). Despite the audience’s preferences for the actors on-screen, any positive aspects are buried by the gaping faults present within Salt.
I’ll admit that I was surprised at how well Salt performed against Inception its opening weekend, debuting at #2 with a solid $36 million. I was also shocked to learn that not only was 53% of the weekend audience female, but also that 59% of the audience was over 25 years old. I would have thought Salt’s main draw would have included the male demographic between 18 and 25, but I guess that shows that not everything about a weekend box-office can be fully predicted. With a budget of $110 million and mediocre reviews, Salt might have a bit of a fight to regain its production budget, but given that it doesn’t open in the international market until August 20th, I think the future added revenue means that it will be able to survive. Angelina Jolie fans have a pretty strong reason to see Salt, but the plot and action sequences are far too ridiculous to garner a high review from this movie fan. I think most of my readers will be more than happy to wait for Salt to show up on Netflix or Redbox.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Distributor: Columbia Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $36,011,243
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $103,438,273
Gross Revenue: $188,202,762
Budget: $110 million
Director: Phillip Noyce
Having Angelina Jolie as the female lead of a summer spy-thriller is practically a gift from the movie-marketing gods; her sex-appeal alone was sure to entice male viewers to head to the theater, but when word-of-mouth started portraying her as the female Jason Bourne (who had his own ridiculously successful franchise), resounding success was easily within reach. Buzz for the film was also increased by the main tagline: “Who is Salt?” Trailers showed audiences that Jolie’s character (Salt) was accused of being a Russian spy, and a certain amount of intrigue was generated when it was implied that Salt’s true loyalties may be unknown. I cannot help but find a little humor in the current environment into which Salt is being released; one of the top news stories of late June and early July involved the 10 Russian spies that were discovered living in suburban America, and now Columbia Pictures is releasing a film about Jolie being a Russian sleeper-agent. That could have either intrigued or offended potential audiences, but apparently this didn’t bother Jolie, seeing as how she invited convicted Russian spy Anna Chapman (the one with all the tabloid pictures) to Salt’s premiere. Needless to say, Salt’s run at the box-office was going to be interesting.
Here’s the basic plot: Angelina Jolie plays Evelyn Salt, a well-respected CIA agent who is accused of being a highly-trained Russian spy. Salt’s accuser says that she will supposedly murder the Russian president while he attends the funeral of the recently deceased Vice President of the United States. Salt quickly escapes and evades her pursuers to try and clear her name, but it soon becomes apparent that Salt’s true loyalties are unclear, and that she is mixed up with a plot that is far more sinister than a political assassination. As disaster approaches, it is up to the audience to decide if Evelyn Salt is a hero or villain.
Though the plot seems like it has the potential to be a truly great spy-thriller, the reality is that many of core elements of the story are simply too ridiculous to pass as believable. Forgetting the fact that I called the film’s twist ending almost ten minutes in, I was more insulted by how shockingly incompetent Salt portrayed the CIA and the United States Secret Service. The actual Russian agents who were collecting information in suburban America a month ago, though disappointing, was believable; but in Salt, the amount of highly-trained KGB assassins that have supposedly infiltrated the government seems to suggest that the screening process to get a job at the CIA is easier to bypass than the background check at Wal-Mart. There is also a sequence where Salt is arrested, and though she is considered a highly-dangerous Russian agent, rather than being placed in maximum security, she is taken into custody by a small group of NYPD officers…no wonder she escapes ten seconds later. By far the most insulting part of the movie comes when Salt infiltrates the White House and makes it past security posing as a male NATO officer; that’s right, they tried to pass Angelina Jolie off as a man…at this point in the story Salt is at the top of the FBI’s Most Wanted List, and I’m supposed to believe that she could make it into the White House posing as a male? So not only does the CIA background check suck, but apparently the White House security and the Secret Service could care less who or what enters the White House during a time of heightened security. Sadly, these are only a few of the laughably unbelievable elements present in Salt.
I’ll admit that movie super-agents are supposed to execute some pretty impressive stuff, but even Jason Bourne and James Bond wouldn’t be stupid enough to try some of the stunts that Salt pulls off. At one point in the film, Salt jumps down an elevator shaft and hops from level to level without breaking a sweat…a physical feat that would make Spider-Man jealous. The stunts are a disappointing factor when you consider that some of them are very impressive and fully believable, while others have you rolling your eyes and wondering whether Salt somehow gained superpowers over the course of the film. As I said before, some have forgiven the absurd nature of the story and stunts present in Salt, but I cannot look past such negative elements when, by all accounts, Salt is meant to be received as a legitimate spy thriller.
The one saving grace of Salt is Angelina Jolie. I cannot decide whether Jolie actually had a strong acting performance, or if she was just entertaining and pleasing to watch on-screen. I’m not trying to be critical of Jolie’ acting, I consider her to be a very talented actress, I just do not think that she had much to work with in Salt. Her sex-appeal is clearly present within the film (though not on the level implied in the trailers), and her talent as an action star is obvious when you consider that she performed a majority of her own stunts. However, when Angelina Jolie as the lead is the strongest and solely positive aspect of a film, that’s a bit of warning sign; had any other actress been cast as the lead in Salt (Tom Cruise was actually the first choice for the role before it was rewritten to fit Jolie), the film would have been universally disappointing. Liev Schreiber does what he can playing Salt’s colleague, but I feel that his acting talent was severely underused (audiences last remember Schreiber from his role as Sabretooth in last summer’s X-men Origins: Wolverine). Despite the audience’s preferences for the actors on-screen, any positive aspects are buried by the gaping faults present within Salt.
I’ll admit that I was surprised at how well Salt performed against Inception its opening weekend, debuting at #2 with a solid $36 million. I was also shocked to learn that not only was 53% of the weekend audience female, but also that 59% of the audience was over 25 years old. I would have thought Salt’s main draw would have included the male demographic between 18 and 25, but I guess that shows that not everything about a weekend box-office can be fully predicted. With a budget of $110 million and mediocre reviews, Salt might have a bit of a fight to regain its production budget, but given that it doesn’t open in the international market until August 20th, I think the future added revenue means that it will be able to survive. Angelina Jolie fans have a pretty strong reason to see Salt, but the plot and action sequences are far too ridiculous to garner a high review from this movie fan. I think most of my readers will be more than happy to wait for Salt to show up on Netflix or Redbox.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Monday, July 26, 2010
Inception: Short and Sweet
I don’t think any film released during this 2010 Summer Movie Season was shrouded in as much mystery prior to release as Christopher Nolan’s Inception. Nolan has been quickly establishing himself as one of the top directors in Hollywood, and with his previous films garnering enormous critical and financial success (Batman Begins, The Prestige, and The Dark Knight…just to name a few), he has more than proven to studios that he can draw a crowd. Yet, in the weeks leading up to its release, there was still a great deal of confusion concerning what Inception would actually be about; when it was finally revealed that the plot would involve dream manipulation, rumors swirled that Inception would be the most revolutionary film to hit Hollywood since 1999’s The Matrix. With Christopher Nolan guiding an all-star cast led by Leonardo DiCaprio, and the immensely positive early reviews, I knew that Inception could not be missed.
After seeing Inception, I honestly do not have one negative thing to say about the film…it is by far the best and most awe-inspiring movie that I have seen in years. I had to see Inception twice before I could even begin to write a review. Be warned, the plot is immensely complex and thoroughly confusing, but it is confusing in the best way, because you find yourself only further motivated to try and understand what is happening on-screen, and by the closing credits you feel like you have a pretty good grasp on the reality of the film. The plot combines elements from the spy, heist, and alternate reality genres, but the end result is a staggeringly unique and thrilling experience that will motivate you to see the film again the second it is over. The cast is thoroughly pleasing, but the main draw (aside from the plot) involves the jaw-dropping special effects and surprisingly elegant direction and cinematography. Not only is Inception the best movie of the summer, it is by far the best movie of the year…plain and simple, do not hesitate to go and see Christopher Nolan’s masterpiece, Inception.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
After seeing Inception, I honestly do not have one negative thing to say about the film…it is by far the best and most awe-inspiring movie that I have seen in years. I had to see Inception twice before I could even begin to write a review. Be warned, the plot is immensely complex and thoroughly confusing, but it is confusing in the best way, because you find yourself only further motivated to try and understand what is happening on-screen, and by the closing credits you feel like you have a pretty good grasp on the reality of the film. The plot combines elements from the spy, heist, and alternate reality genres, but the end result is a staggeringly unique and thrilling experience that will motivate you to see the film again the second it is over. The cast is thoroughly pleasing, but the main draw (aside from the plot) involves the jaw-dropping special effects and surprisingly elegant direction and cinematography. Not only is Inception the best movie of the summer, it is by far the best movie of the year…plain and simple, do not hesitate to go and see Christopher Nolan’s masterpiece, Inception.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Inception: Full Review
Inception: (July 16th, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $62,785,337
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $248,469,482
Gross Revenue: $565,401,841
Budget: $160 million
Director: Christopher Nolan
As should be painfully obvious at this point in my blog, I thoroughly enjoy knowing everything I can about a summer movie before it is released, but rather than be frustrated by the lack of information made available about Inception, I was actually impressed by Christopher Nolan’s ability to keep everything hush-hush prior to release. Other than what I could learn from a confusing viral marketing campaign released this past spring, the only thing I could tell you about Inception before the summer started was that it starred Leonardo DiCaprio and that it was considered Christopher Nolan’s ultimate pet-project. Eventually, the rest of the impressive cast was announced, and it was revealed that the core plot element would involve dream manipulation. Given Christopher Nolan’s impressive Hollywood track-record, I must admit that the second I heard “dream,” I saw Inception as being the next Matrix (replicating the success of the original, not the sequels…thank god). Pretty soon, trailers surfaced showing impressive special effects, while mobile games through Verizon and Facebook started introducing the concept of “mind-crime.” Warner Bros. apparently had a budget of $100 million to promote Inception, and given the amount of anticipation they subsequently generated, it appears that they spent the money very, very wisely; I knew I had to see Inception opening night.
I hinted in my “Short and Sweet” review that the plot for Inception is complicated and confusing, so if I were to try and explain the plot in full, you would be reading for a very long time. So, I’ve opted for a bare-bones synopsis. Inception takes place in a reality where it is possible to enter and explore the dreams of others through a process known as “dream-sharing.” Leonardo DiCaprio plays Dominic “Dom” Cobb, a thief-for-hire who has the ability to enter a person’s mind during a dream and remove valuable information without the subject being aware of his actions, a process called “extraction.” The rest of Dom’s team includes Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who is responsible for researching the team’s targets, Ariadne (Ellen Page), who acts as an architect by constructing the world of the dream that the team will enter, and Eames (Tom Hardy), a forger who can impersonate other identities within a dream and thereby fool the target into revealing hidden information. Dom is considered the best “extractor” in the world for his ability to remove information, but thanks to a new client (Ken Watanabe), Dom and his team have been hired to perform “inception.” The polar opposite of “extraction”, “inception” involves planting an idea in the mind, but the trick is that the idea must be planted deep enough within a subject’s mind so that the subject believes they formed the idea themselves, rather than realizing that the idea came from an outside influence; the process is notoriously difficult and Dom is the only person known to have ever successfully completed the process. Though Dom himself is haunted by his past and the death of his wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard), he must regain his focus to complete the job. With their target (Cillian Murphy) in place, Dom and his team must enter several different dream levels to plant the idea, continuously struggling to distinguish dream from reality.
Though my explanation of the plot may seem a little confusing, I’ve barely scratched the surface of the story. Throughout the film, I was thoroughly confused, but it was in the best way possible; any confusion isn’t the least bit frustrating, because the viewer actually wants to figure out what is going on during the smart and engaging narrative. The film is also littered with many exposition segments that explain plot elements, thereby helping the viewer gain a clearer picture of the story. As I said before, critical response to Inception has been almost universally positive; the only criticism I have heard has involved the perceived lack of emotional depth of the cast, but I could not disagree more. First off, I’ll admit that I love the fact that a number of the cast has worked with Nolan before on Batman Begins (Michael Caine, Ken Watanabe, and a superb Cillian Murphy), but beyond that, the ensemble cast works really well together. Leonardo DiCaprio once again proves his worth as a leading man, and he plays his role as the tortured soul really well, reminding the audience of his gripping performance in Shutter Island earlier this year. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is surprising likable as the second-in-command and Tom Hardy adds considerable humor to some of the more serious situations throughout the film, all while Ellen Page shows how far her acting credentials have come since Juno. The real surprise of the cast is Marion Cotillard as Dom’s deceased wife Mal; because Dom is haunted by her death, Mal’s presence in his subconscious hinders the ability of the team to operate within dreams, making her the film’s primary antagonist (“Mal” is Latin for “evil”…get it?). Marion Cotillard (who we last saw in 2009’s Public Enemies) played her role flawlessly, bringing her character to life with an excellent blend of menace and mystery...making her a truly creepy villain.
The plot and cast are enough to make Inception a must-see, but Nolan’s direction and the special effects present are what make it a truly awe-inspiring film. Apparently, Inception has been Nolan’s dream project (see what I did there?) for the last decade, but before he could get the funding for it, he had to prove to studios that he could deliver a blockbuster film, so he decided to take on the Batman series first...safe to say he proved his worth there. Martin Scorsese will always be my favorite director, but Christopher Nolan is rapidly becoming number 2. Inception has many elements that are characteristically Nolan, from a non-linear narrative to a brilliantly unclear ending, and the best part of this project is that Nolan also wrote and produced this film (without royally screwing it up like M. Night Shyamalan did with Airbender). Slow-motion cinematography and vibrant establishing shots help the viewer really feel like they are watching a living dream, and if that isn’t enough, the special effects more than compensate. Watching Ellen Page bend the Paris cityscape or Joseph Gordon-Levitt kick-ass in a zero-gravity hallway fight are enough to keep anyone on the edge of their seat. Any small criticisms that could be found within the film are all but obliterated but the positive aspects. Even casual movie fans owe it to themselves to see Inception.
From a box-office perspective, Inception’s performance has been impressive on a number of levels. An opening weekend of nearly $63 million for a film that is neither a sequel nor part of any known franchise and runs nearly two-and-a-half hours long is impressive enough, but when you consider that Inception held on to the top spot for a second weekend with only a 30% drop in revenue (summer blockbusters can drop as much as 50% between first and second weekends), you can see that positive word-of-mouth is spreading like wildfire. Looks like Sorcerer’s Apprentice made a wise decision not to go head-to-head with Inception opening weekend (or else it might have done even worse). Another factor working in Inception’s favor involves the fact that the film demands multiple viewings…I had no hesitation in seeing it twice, and many I have spoken to have similarly stated that they cannot wait to see it again. Christopher Nolan will not only get his production budget back, he’s going to help Warner Bros. make one hell of a profit. Inception is an intelligent and engaging thriller that will test your perceptions; you will be challenged mentally, but don’t give up, you will be rewarded with a truly unforgettable movie experience…do not miss this masterpiece
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $62,785,337
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $248,469,482
Gross Revenue: $565,401,841
Budget: $160 million
Director: Christopher Nolan
As should be painfully obvious at this point in my blog, I thoroughly enjoy knowing everything I can about a summer movie before it is released, but rather than be frustrated by the lack of information made available about Inception, I was actually impressed by Christopher Nolan’s ability to keep everything hush-hush prior to release. Other than what I could learn from a confusing viral marketing campaign released this past spring, the only thing I could tell you about Inception before the summer started was that it starred Leonardo DiCaprio and that it was considered Christopher Nolan’s ultimate pet-project. Eventually, the rest of the impressive cast was announced, and it was revealed that the core plot element would involve dream manipulation. Given Christopher Nolan’s impressive Hollywood track-record, I must admit that the second I heard “dream,” I saw Inception as being the next Matrix (replicating the success of the original, not the sequels…thank god). Pretty soon, trailers surfaced showing impressive special effects, while mobile games through Verizon and Facebook started introducing the concept of “mind-crime.” Warner Bros. apparently had a budget of $100 million to promote Inception, and given the amount of anticipation they subsequently generated, it appears that they spent the money very, very wisely; I knew I had to see Inception opening night.
I hinted in my “Short and Sweet” review that the plot for Inception is complicated and confusing, so if I were to try and explain the plot in full, you would be reading for a very long time. So, I’ve opted for a bare-bones synopsis. Inception takes place in a reality where it is possible to enter and explore the dreams of others through a process known as “dream-sharing.” Leonardo DiCaprio plays Dominic “Dom” Cobb, a thief-for-hire who has the ability to enter a person’s mind during a dream and remove valuable information without the subject being aware of his actions, a process called “extraction.” The rest of Dom’s team includes Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who is responsible for researching the team’s targets, Ariadne (Ellen Page), who acts as an architect by constructing the world of the dream that the team will enter, and Eames (Tom Hardy), a forger who can impersonate other identities within a dream and thereby fool the target into revealing hidden information. Dom is considered the best “extractor” in the world for his ability to remove information, but thanks to a new client (Ken Watanabe), Dom and his team have been hired to perform “inception.” The polar opposite of “extraction”, “inception” involves planting an idea in the mind, but the trick is that the idea must be planted deep enough within a subject’s mind so that the subject believes they formed the idea themselves, rather than realizing that the idea came from an outside influence; the process is notoriously difficult and Dom is the only person known to have ever successfully completed the process. Though Dom himself is haunted by his past and the death of his wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard), he must regain his focus to complete the job. With their target (Cillian Murphy) in place, Dom and his team must enter several different dream levels to plant the idea, continuously struggling to distinguish dream from reality.
Though my explanation of the plot may seem a little confusing, I’ve barely scratched the surface of the story. Throughout the film, I was thoroughly confused, but it was in the best way possible; any confusion isn’t the least bit frustrating, because the viewer actually wants to figure out what is going on during the smart and engaging narrative. The film is also littered with many exposition segments that explain plot elements, thereby helping the viewer gain a clearer picture of the story. As I said before, critical response to Inception has been almost universally positive; the only criticism I have heard has involved the perceived lack of emotional depth of the cast, but I could not disagree more. First off, I’ll admit that I love the fact that a number of the cast has worked with Nolan before on Batman Begins (Michael Caine, Ken Watanabe, and a superb Cillian Murphy), but beyond that, the ensemble cast works really well together. Leonardo DiCaprio once again proves his worth as a leading man, and he plays his role as the tortured soul really well, reminding the audience of his gripping performance in Shutter Island earlier this year. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is surprising likable as the second-in-command and Tom Hardy adds considerable humor to some of the more serious situations throughout the film, all while Ellen Page shows how far her acting credentials have come since Juno. The real surprise of the cast is Marion Cotillard as Dom’s deceased wife Mal; because Dom is haunted by her death, Mal’s presence in his subconscious hinders the ability of the team to operate within dreams, making her the film’s primary antagonist (“Mal” is Latin for “evil”…get it?). Marion Cotillard (who we last saw in 2009’s Public Enemies) played her role flawlessly, bringing her character to life with an excellent blend of menace and mystery...making her a truly creepy villain.
The plot and cast are enough to make Inception a must-see, but Nolan’s direction and the special effects present are what make it a truly awe-inspiring film. Apparently, Inception has been Nolan’s dream project (see what I did there?) for the last decade, but before he could get the funding for it, he had to prove to studios that he could deliver a blockbuster film, so he decided to take on the Batman series first...safe to say he proved his worth there. Martin Scorsese will always be my favorite director, but Christopher Nolan is rapidly becoming number 2. Inception has many elements that are characteristically Nolan, from a non-linear narrative to a brilliantly unclear ending, and the best part of this project is that Nolan also wrote and produced this film (without royally screwing it up like M. Night Shyamalan did with Airbender). Slow-motion cinematography and vibrant establishing shots help the viewer really feel like they are watching a living dream, and if that isn’t enough, the special effects more than compensate. Watching Ellen Page bend the Paris cityscape or Joseph Gordon-Levitt kick-ass in a zero-gravity hallway fight are enough to keep anyone on the edge of their seat. Any small criticisms that could be found within the film are all but obliterated but the positive aspects. Even casual movie fans owe it to themselves to see Inception.
From a box-office perspective, Inception’s performance has been impressive on a number of levels. An opening weekend of nearly $63 million for a film that is neither a sequel nor part of any known franchise and runs nearly two-and-a-half hours long is impressive enough, but when you consider that Inception held on to the top spot for a second weekend with only a 30% drop in revenue (summer blockbusters can drop as much as 50% between first and second weekends), you can see that positive word-of-mouth is spreading like wildfire. Looks like Sorcerer’s Apprentice made a wise decision not to go head-to-head with Inception opening weekend (or else it might have done even worse). Another factor working in Inception’s favor involves the fact that the film demands multiple viewings…I had no hesitation in seeing it twice, and many I have spoken to have similarly stated that they cannot wait to see it again. Christopher Nolan will not only get his production budget back, he’s going to help Warner Bros. make one hell of a profit. Inception is an intelligent and engaging thriller that will test your perceptions; you will be challenged mentally, but don’t give up, you will be rewarded with a truly unforgettable movie experience…do not miss this masterpiece
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Sorcerer's Apprentice: Short and Sweet
This has been a busy summer for Jerry Bruckheimer, first producing Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time in May and now putting forward a big July release with The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. Given that Nicolas Cage is my favorite actor and that he and Bruckheimer have previously collaborated on some of my favorite films (Con Air, The Rock, and Gone in Sixty Seconds), I was understandably excited for this newest entry. In terms of the larger potential audience, there was a considerable amount of curiosity generated about an entire film built around the famous segment from the Disney classic Fantasia, but when one considers that Cage, Bruckheimer, director Jon Turteltaub, and distributor Walt Disney Pictures have all successfully teamed together before with the National Treasure franchise, the potential for this summer blockbuster seemed nearly limitless.
After seeing The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, even though the film is a fun entry during this summer movie season, in its entirety, I was still a little disappointed. The acting is solid with very impressive special effects and action sequences, but the film is marred by a jumpy story that places a little too much of an obligation on the audience to blindly accept what they see on screen. To clarify, I’m not trying to argue that the core plot element of sorcery is inherently logical, but when plot elements don’t adhere to rules that have already been established within the film itself, far too many questions arise. Looking past the story itself, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice still provokes the viewer’s imagination to the point that it’s simply enjoyable to sit back and follow the adventure.
On a personal note, I will be traveling next week, so new posts will be put on hold, but I’ll return with reviews for Inception and Salt when I get back…enjoy.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
After seeing The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, even though the film is a fun entry during this summer movie season, in its entirety, I was still a little disappointed. The acting is solid with very impressive special effects and action sequences, but the film is marred by a jumpy story that places a little too much of an obligation on the audience to blindly accept what they see on screen. To clarify, I’m not trying to argue that the core plot element of sorcery is inherently logical, but when plot elements don’t adhere to rules that have already been established within the film itself, far too many questions arise. Looking past the story itself, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice still provokes the viewer’s imagination to the point that it’s simply enjoyable to sit back and follow the adventure.
On a personal note, I will be traveling next week, so new posts will be put on hold, but I’ll return with reviews for Inception and Salt when I get back…enjoy.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
The Sorcerer's Apprentice: Full Review
The Sorcerer’s Apprentice: (July 14th, 2010): PG
Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #3 with $17,619,622
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $59,538,764
Gross Revenue: $132,038,764
Budget: $150 million
Director: Jon Turteltaub
Producer: Jerry Bruckheimer
As I said in the “Short and Sweet” review, the potential for The Sorcerer’s Apprentice was nearly limitless, and from a marketing standpoint, it was nothing short of a dream. Different combinations of this particular film’s actor, director, producer, and production studio have produced some of the most popular movies in history. I’ve already talked about the collaborations between Bruckheimer and Cage and the team behind the National Treasure franchise, but let’s not forget that Bruckheimer and Disney are also behind the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, a fact that generated significant momentum for the theatrical run of Prince of Persia earlier this summer. Regardless of his well-publicized financial troubles and some weak entries on his acting résumé, Nicolas Cage is still a veteran A-list actor who almost always delivers on big-budget films. On a side note, Nic Cage is also an avid comic-book fan and fantasy junkie (he named his son “Kal-El” for crying out loud…for those readers that don’t speak nerd, “Kal-El” is Superman’s Kryptonian name), and he apparently jumped at the chance to play a sorcerer from one of his favorite films, virtually guaranteeing a dedicated performance. As the second lead, Jay Baruchel has been growing in popularity since his appearance in 2007’s Knocked Up and subsequent work in popular films such as Tropic Thunder, She’s Out of My League, and How to Train Your Dragon, so he was sure to act as another draw for this summer adventure. Given all this potential, the marketing campaign relied primarily on teaser trailers and the tag-line “It’s the coolest job ever”; with the blend of fantasy and action generated from source material in Disney’s legendary Fantasia, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice was sure to draw viewers from all age brackets and be considerably successful.
Given the title, it should come as no surprise that The Sorcerer’s Apprentice has to do with, SPOILER ALERT…sorcery! The film starts off in the year 700, where legendary sorcerer Merlin is working with three apprentices, Balthazar Blake (Nicolas Cage), Maxim Horvath (Alfred Molina), and Veronica (Monica Bellucci). During a battle with evil sorceress Morgan le Fay, Horvath betrays his friends by switching his loyalties to le Fay and mortally wounding Merlin. Though Balthazar and Veronica are able to imprison both Morgan le Fay and Horvath, with his dying breath, Merlin instructs Balthazar than le Fay cannot be destroyed until a worthy successor to his (Merlin’s) powers is found. Balthazar spends the next 1000 years searching for a new apprentice that he can train as Merlin successor in order to destroy le Fay, and he finds him in modern-day Manhattan in the form of average-yet-awkward college student Dave (Jay Baruchel). As Dave begins his training, he must contend with the newly released Horvath, who is hell-bent on releasing le Fay so that she can destroy humanity. Together, Dave and Balthazar embark on an adventure that is sure to engage and delight the audience’s imagination.
Considering my own proclivities for comic-books and fantasy, I thoroughly enjoyed the magical aspects of The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, and they were executed in a nearly flawless way with impressive special effects. Take notes M. Night Shyamalan, that’s how you impress an audience. Some spells cast were violent, some were funny, and all were downright cool. Watching Nic Cage cast lightning bolts or morph his antique car into a Ferrari mid-chase is just awesome, hands down. ..I agree with the film’s tag-line, it would be the “coolest job ever.” From an acting standpoint, Nic Cage is the perfect actor to bring the eccentric character of Balthazar to life, while Baruchel adds considerable humor as a neurotic and nervous magic student. As for supporting cast, I have a huge crush on Monica Bellucci, so even though she’s not actually on screen for all that long, I still gave the film points for having sexy love interest for Balthazar…sue me. Though Morgan la Fey is the over-arching antagonist of the story, Alfred Molina’s character, Horvath, is the primary villain for the film, and Molina was delightfully menacing as he battled Nic Cage on-screen.
Another positive aspect of The Sorcerer’s Apprentice has to do with the film’s references to the original segment in the 1940’s classic Fantasia. Though the original scene of Mickey controlling brooms was made over 70 years ago and may not be terribly familiar to younger audience members, it still remains one of the most famous and beloved scenes in cinematic history. When Dave starts bewitching the brooms in the cleaning scene and the old music form Fantasia starts playing, it’s sure to bring a smile to your face. Even Mickey’s blue hat makes an appearance in a post-credits scene, so The Sorcerer’s Apprentice more than pays a respectful homage to its source material.
Though I have plenty of positive things to say about The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, there is still one very large criticism that significantly weakens this potential blockbuster, and that is the film’s narrative. Magic has been covered countless times in film, so I was understandably surprised when Balthazar started to try and explain magic from a scientific perspective…it was believable at first, but when Dave ends up building a machine in the film’s climax to counter Horvath’s spells, any explanation just seemed idiotic. The script is also unforgivably jumpy at times, the primary example involving Dave’s struggling with simple spells for the first hour-and-a-half of the film. As much can be expected for an apprentice, but in the film’s climax, he almost instantaneously becomes a master sorcerer, defeating other practitioners who have had literally hundreds of years to practice, and that is hard to swallow. And as far as endings go, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice concludes so rapidly that I was shocked when the end credits started rolling, leaving way too many questions and key plot elements unresolved. I can forgive some level of uneven storytelling in a fantasy film, but with the potential surrounding The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, the errors in the narrative end up being a huge let-down…it could have been so much better.
Given the indisputable draw of this summer film for audiences both young and old, I expected The Sorcerer’s Apprentice to do quite well, so I was understandably disappointed in the sub-par opening weekend. The Sorcerer’s Apprentice was initially slated for release on July 16, but it was moved up two days, so I can only speculate that Walt Disney was weary of contending with Inception for the top spot in the opening weekend box-office. Reviews have been fair, so maybe audiences have been marred by Nic Cage's personal financial troubles. At this pace, the film will have considerable trouble recovering it's production budget. Nevertheless, if you can look past the shoddy story-telling and just enjoy the fun and imagination present, this newest release is worth seeing.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #3 with $17,619,622
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $59,538,764
Gross Revenue: $132,038,764
Budget: $150 million
Director: Jon Turteltaub
Producer: Jerry Bruckheimer
As I said in the “Short and Sweet” review, the potential for The Sorcerer’s Apprentice was nearly limitless, and from a marketing standpoint, it was nothing short of a dream. Different combinations of this particular film’s actor, director, producer, and production studio have produced some of the most popular movies in history. I’ve already talked about the collaborations between Bruckheimer and Cage and the team behind the National Treasure franchise, but let’s not forget that Bruckheimer and Disney are also behind the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, a fact that generated significant momentum for the theatrical run of Prince of Persia earlier this summer. Regardless of his well-publicized financial troubles and some weak entries on his acting résumé, Nicolas Cage is still a veteran A-list actor who almost always delivers on big-budget films. On a side note, Nic Cage is also an avid comic-book fan and fantasy junkie (he named his son “Kal-El” for crying out loud…for those readers that don’t speak nerd, “Kal-El” is Superman’s Kryptonian name), and he apparently jumped at the chance to play a sorcerer from one of his favorite films, virtually guaranteeing a dedicated performance. As the second lead, Jay Baruchel has been growing in popularity since his appearance in 2007’s Knocked Up and subsequent work in popular films such as Tropic Thunder, She’s Out of My League, and How to Train Your Dragon, so he was sure to act as another draw for this summer adventure. Given all this potential, the marketing campaign relied primarily on teaser trailers and the tag-line “It’s the coolest job ever”; with the blend of fantasy and action generated from source material in Disney’s legendary Fantasia, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice was sure to draw viewers from all age brackets and be considerably successful.
Given the title, it should come as no surprise that The Sorcerer’s Apprentice has to do with, SPOILER ALERT…sorcery! The film starts off in the year 700, where legendary sorcerer Merlin is working with three apprentices, Balthazar Blake (Nicolas Cage), Maxim Horvath (Alfred Molina), and Veronica (Monica Bellucci). During a battle with evil sorceress Morgan le Fay, Horvath betrays his friends by switching his loyalties to le Fay and mortally wounding Merlin. Though Balthazar and Veronica are able to imprison both Morgan le Fay and Horvath, with his dying breath, Merlin instructs Balthazar than le Fay cannot be destroyed until a worthy successor to his (Merlin’s) powers is found. Balthazar spends the next 1000 years searching for a new apprentice that he can train as Merlin successor in order to destroy le Fay, and he finds him in modern-day Manhattan in the form of average-yet-awkward college student Dave (Jay Baruchel). As Dave begins his training, he must contend with the newly released Horvath, who is hell-bent on releasing le Fay so that she can destroy humanity. Together, Dave and Balthazar embark on an adventure that is sure to engage and delight the audience’s imagination.
Considering my own proclivities for comic-books and fantasy, I thoroughly enjoyed the magical aspects of The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, and they were executed in a nearly flawless way with impressive special effects. Take notes M. Night Shyamalan, that’s how you impress an audience. Some spells cast were violent, some were funny, and all were downright cool. Watching Nic Cage cast lightning bolts or morph his antique car into a Ferrari mid-chase is just awesome, hands down. ..I agree with the film’s tag-line, it would be the “coolest job ever.” From an acting standpoint, Nic Cage is the perfect actor to bring the eccentric character of Balthazar to life, while Baruchel adds considerable humor as a neurotic and nervous magic student. As for supporting cast, I have a huge crush on Monica Bellucci, so even though she’s not actually on screen for all that long, I still gave the film points for having sexy love interest for Balthazar…sue me. Though Morgan la Fey is the over-arching antagonist of the story, Alfred Molina’s character, Horvath, is the primary villain for the film, and Molina was delightfully menacing as he battled Nic Cage on-screen.
Another positive aspect of The Sorcerer’s Apprentice has to do with the film’s references to the original segment in the 1940’s classic Fantasia. Though the original scene of Mickey controlling brooms was made over 70 years ago and may not be terribly familiar to younger audience members, it still remains one of the most famous and beloved scenes in cinematic history. When Dave starts bewitching the brooms in the cleaning scene and the old music form Fantasia starts playing, it’s sure to bring a smile to your face. Even Mickey’s blue hat makes an appearance in a post-credits scene, so The Sorcerer’s Apprentice more than pays a respectful homage to its source material.
Though I have plenty of positive things to say about The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, there is still one very large criticism that significantly weakens this potential blockbuster, and that is the film’s narrative. Magic has been covered countless times in film, so I was understandably surprised when Balthazar started to try and explain magic from a scientific perspective…it was believable at first, but when Dave ends up building a machine in the film’s climax to counter Horvath’s spells, any explanation just seemed idiotic. The script is also unforgivably jumpy at times, the primary example involving Dave’s struggling with simple spells for the first hour-and-a-half of the film. As much can be expected for an apprentice, but in the film’s climax, he almost instantaneously becomes a master sorcerer, defeating other practitioners who have had literally hundreds of years to practice, and that is hard to swallow. And as far as endings go, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice concludes so rapidly that I was shocked when the end credits started rolling, leaving way too many questions and key plot elements unresolved. I can forgive some level of uneven storytelling in a fantasy film, but with the potential surrounding The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, the errors in the narrative end up being a huge let-down…it could have been so much better.
Given the indisputable draw of this summer film for audiences both young and old, I expected The Sorcerer’s Apprentice to do quite well, so I was understandably disappointed in the sub-par opening weekend. The Sorcerer’s Apprentice was initially slated for release on July 16, but it was moved up two days, so I can only speculate that Walt Disney was weary of contending with Inception for the top spot in the opening weekend box-office. Reviews have been fair, so maybe audiences have been marred by Nic Cage's personal financial troubles. At this pace, the film will have considerable trouble recovering it's production budget. Nevertheless, if you can look past the shoddy story-telling and just enjoy the fun and imagination present, this newest release is worth seeing.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Predators: Short and Sweet
I always enjoy surveying all of the upcoming movies for a given summer movie season before the season actually begins, and when I eventually come across a film that I had not been aware of months before its release, I usually write it off as not worth my time. Predators only came onto my radar when I saw a trailer during Prince of Persia, and even though I am a big fan of the 1987 original, 1990’s Predator 2 and the subsequent two Alien vs. Predator spin-offs had me convinced that this franchise was dead. Casting Adrien Brody as the “tough-guy” male lead also seemed like a bit of a gamble, but early reviews were surprisingly positive, so I figured that I would give Predators a try.
Thankfully, Predators ignores the complicated plot elements that plagued most of the series and returns to the grit and suspense of the original. Adrien Brody is a surprisingly convincing action star, and his supporting cast, though not exactly A-list, help bring a diverse group of characters to life that truly engage the audience. For fans of the original, Predators is an enjoyable summer film that is very reminiscent of the Schwarzenegger classic, and for those new to the series, the mix of action and suspense is a unique offering among the other action movies released this summer. Predators isn’t perfect, as the story leaves a few too many questions unanswered, but the film’s positive aspect far outweigh any minor criticisms.
For more information, please read full review.
Overall Recommendation: High
Thankfully, Predators ignores the complicated plot elements that plagued most of the series and returns to the grit and suspense of the original. Adrien Brody is a surprisingly convincing action star, and his supporting cast, though not exactly A-list, help bring a diverse group of characters to life that truly engage the audience. For fans of the original, Predators is an enjoyable summer film that is very reminiscent of the Schwarzenegger classic, and for those new to the series, the mix of action and suspense is a unique offering among the other action movies released this summer. Predators isn’t perfect, as the story leaves a few too many questions unanswered, but the film’s positive aspect far outweigh any minor criticisms.
For more information, please read full review.
Overall Recommendation: High
Predators: Full Review
Predators: (July 9th, 2010): R
Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #3 with $25,300,000
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $51,061,829
Gross Revenue: $112,188,000
Budget: $40 million
Director: Nimród Antal
From a marketing perspective, 20th Century Fox’s campaign for Predators was actually pretty weak when weighed against other summer offerings. Given that the original Predator was released 23 years ago, film trailers couldn’t guarantee that younger audience members would appreciate the iconic Predator warrior. Promotion seemed to rely on associating the film with producer Robert Rodriguez, whose work on action flicks such as Grindhouse, Sin City, and Once Upon a Time in Mexico, has helped generate him a pretty significant fan-base. Apple’s App Store released a mobile game to promote the film, while Dark Horse Comics released a four issue tie-in in June, so even though promotion wasn’t shockingly strong, 20th Century Fox still seemed to have faith in this latest release. As a huge fan of the 1987 original (try and say “Get to the choppa” in Schwarzenegger’s voice without laughing), I decided to give Predators a chance.
The film starts with American mercenary Royce (Adrien Brody) being air-dropped into a mysterious jungle, and soon enough, he comes across other equally-dangerous individuals, such as an Israeli Defense Force sniper (Alice Braga), a Russian Spetsnaz commando, a Japanese Yakuza, and an American death-row inmate. Almost immediately, it becomes apparent that these dangerous individuals are being hunted by something far more lethal and that they are actually stranded on an alien jungle that serves as a game preserve and training-ground for Predator warriors. They must now work together and fight to survive against three vicious Predators who are armed with far-more advanced weaponry than their own, and all while trying to find a way home.
As a fan of the original, I thoroughly enjoyed this sequel. Adrien Brody is surprisingly convincing as the action-hero, and the rest of the supporting cast bring an engaging and diverse cast to life that adds some variety to the Predators’ prey; especially with Topher Grace (Spider-Man 3’s Venom) and Laurence Fishburne (Morpheus from The Matrix Trilogy) as twisted surprise additions. For any violence or suspense junkies, the Predators brutally dispatch the cast, one-by-one, and though the human targets are well-trained and fully-armed (delivering plenty of explosions and spent ammunition in the process), the Predators are simply better. There are also several scenes that are nearly identical to the original, and that actually brings a nice bit of nostalgia to the plot. Given the established Predator franchise, this sequel can hardly be considered ground-breaking or fully original, but given this summer movie season, it’s a pretty refreshing offering.
Putting aside my enjoyment of the film, there are a few criticisms that I have for Predators. First off, though watching the cast being hunted is pretty entertaining, this sequel isn’t quite able to capture the same level of suspense that was present in the original. When we first followed Schwarzenegger’s team through the jungle, we had no clue what was hunting them, all we knew is that it was invisible, had powerful weapons, and used thermal-vision. This time around, we are fully familiar with the Predator warriors, so rather than trying to identify the villain, we simply know that the cast is screwed and try to predict in what order they will be killed. Second, there are a few too many unanswered questions and plot holes within the script; for instance, I would love to have known how exactly the humans ended up on this alien planet or how Topher Grace’s character was able to identify any of the plant or animal-life present. Finally, though Adrien Brody was a strong protagonist, there were times where he came off a little too hokey…he identifies and explains away the predicament that he and the others are in a little too quickly, and it was difficult not to laugh when he showed up covered in mud to confront the final Predator in the film’s climax (just like Schwarzenegger did in the original). These criticisms are apparent, but they are not enough to outweigh the positive aspects of the film.
For an R-rated film, Predators is performing surprisingly well at the box-office, bringing in over $25 million its opening weekend and recovering more than half of its production budget. When you consider the audience limitations inherent in a rated-R film and the fact that Predators opened against family film Despicable Me and still had to contend with Twilight: Eclipse, it’s pretty impressive. For an old-fashioned action-thriller, Predators is sure to please audiences this summer, be sure to check it out.
Overall Recommendation: High
Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #3 with $25,300,000
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $51,061,829
Gross Revenue: $112,188,000
Budget: $40 million
Director: Nimród Antal
From a marketing perspective, 20th Century Fox’s campaign for Predators was actually pretty weak when weighed against other summer offerings. Given that the original Predator was released 23 years ago, film trailers couldn’t guarantee that younger audience members would appreciate the iconic Predator warrior. Promotion seemed to rely on associating the film with producer Robert Rodriguez, whose work on action flicks such as Grindhouse, Sin City, and Once Upon a Time in Mexico, has helped generate him a pretty significant fan-base. Apple’s App Store released a mobile game to promote the film, while Dark Horse Comics released a four issue tie-in in June, so even though promotion wasn’t shockingly strong, 20th Century Fox still seemed to have faith in this latest release. As a huge fan of the 1987 original (try and say “Get to the choppa” in Schwarzenegger’s voice without laughing), I decided to give Predators a chance.
The film starts with American mercenary Royce (Adrien Brody) being air-dropped into a mysterious jungle, and soon enough, he comes across other equally-dangerous individuals, such as an Israeli Defense Force sniper (Alice Braga), a Russian Spetsnaz commando, a Japanese Yakuza, and an American death-row inmate. Almost immediately, it becomes apparent that these dangerous individuals are being hunted by something far more lethal and that they are actually stranded on an alien jungle that serves as a game preserve and training-ground for Predator warriors. They must now work together and fight to survive against three vicious Predators who are armed with far-more advanced weaponry than their own, and all while trying to find a way home.
As a fan of the original, I thoroughly enjoyed this sequel. Adrien Brody is surprisingly convincing as the action-hero, and the rest of the supporting cast bring an engaging and diverse cast to life that adds some variety to the Predators’ prey; especially with Topher Grace (Spider-Man 3’s Venom) and Laurence Fishburne (Morpheus from The Matrix Trilogy) as twisted surprise additions. For any violence or suspense junkies, the Predators brutally dispatch the cast, one-by-one, and though the human targets are well-trained and fully-armed (delivering plenty of explosions and spent ammunition in the process), the Predators are simply better. There are also several scenes that are nearly identical to the original, and that actually brings a nice bit of nostalgia to the plot. Given the established Predator franchise, this sequel can hardly be considered ground-breaking or fully original, but given this summer movie season, it’s a pretty refreshing offering.
Putting aside my enjoyment of the film, there are a few criticisms that I have for Predators. First off, though watching the cast being hunted is pretty entertaining, this sequel isn’t quite able to capture the same level of suspense that was present in the original. When we first followed Schwarzenegger’s team through the jungle, we had no clue what was hunting them, all we knew is that it was invisible, had powerful weapons, and used thermal-vision. This time around, we are fully familiar with the Predator warriors, so rather than trying to identify the villain, we simply know that the cast is screwed and try to predict in what order they will be killed. Second, there are a few too many unanswered questions and plot holes within the script; for instance, I would love to have known how exactly the humans ended up on this alien planet or how Topher Grace’s character was able to identify any of the plant or animal-life present. Finally, though Adrien Brody was a strong protagonist, there were times where he came off a little too hokey…he identifies and explains away the predicament that he and the others are in a little too quickly, and it was difficult not to laugh when he showed up covered in mud to confront the final Predator in the film’s climax (just like Schwarzenegger did in the original). These criticisms are apparent, but they are not enough to outweigh the positive aspects of the film.
For an R-rated film, Predators is performing surprisingly well at the box-office, bringing in over $25 million its opening weekend and recovering more than half of its production budget. When you consider the audience limitations inherent in a rated-R film and the fact that Predators opened against family film Despicable Me and still had to contend with Twilight: Eclipse, it’s pretty impressive. For an old-fashioned action-thriller, Predators is sure to please audiences this summer, be sure to check it out.
Overall Recommendation: High
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Despicable Me: Short and Sweet
This has been one hell of a summer for animated films. After Shrek Forever After and Toy Story 3, Despicable Me sure had a lot to live up to in order to keep audiences pleased. With a dizzying amount of promotion, NBC Universal was working hard to establish itself as a formidable force in the realm of computer animation. Despite critically acclaimed animated features such as Coraline and The Tale of Despereaux, NBC Universal is still not known for animation on the same level as Dreamworks or Disney/Pixar. I am glad to report that Despicable Me more than delivers for audiences and helps fortify NBC Universal as a force to be reckoned with when it comes to computer-animated 3-D films.
Steve Carell is absolutely delightful as the main character Gru, while the script more than delivers on clever humor and a surprising level of emotion. The film’s iconic Minions might also be my new favorite animated characters, so silly and inherently likable that they are nothing short of instant crowd-pleasers. A talented voice cast brings life to the other humorous characters, and the script’s use of supper-villain clichés is more than entertaining for anyone who has ever read a comic-book or watched a Saturday-morning cartoon. For a surprisingly and consistently funny film that will please both children and parents, Despicable Me is an absolute must-see.
For more information, please read full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Steve Carell is absolutely delightful as the main character Gru, while the script more than delivers on clever humor and a surprising level of emotion. The film’s iconic Minions might also be my new favorite animated characters, so silly and inherently likable that they are nothing short of instant crowd-pleasers. A talented voice cast brings life to the other humorous characters, and the script’s use of supper-villain clichés is more than entertaining for anyone who has ever read a comic-book or watched a Saturday-morning cartoon. For a surprisingly and consistently funny film that will please both children and parents, Despicable Me is an absolute must-see.
For more information, please read full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Despicable Me: Full Review
Despicable Me: (July 9th, 2010): PG
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: $60,117,000
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $222,197,390
Gross Revenue: $278,193,000
Budget: $110 million
Director: Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud
As I have said time and again over the course of this blog, animated movies are an almost-sure money-maker over the summer season, but when it comes to promotion, with the exception of Iron Man 2, I don’t think I’ve seen such an aggressive marketing program this summer as the one that NBC Universal launched for Despicable Me. The key ingredient of this campaign can be summarized in one word: Minion. From the moment that those little yellow grunt-workers appeared in the first teaser trailer, the Minions have been almost everywhere. Promotion on NBC shows such as Last Comic Standing, The Biggest Loser, and America’s Got Talent can be expected, but I was shocked when I noticed promotions on Deadliest Catch and tie-ins at both IHOP and Best Buy. On a side note, Best Buy launched a “Movie Mode” app that will translate the Minion’s gibberish during the end credits…it’s free and an absolute riot, download it…apparently the Minions have opinions on everything from the Twilight series to male-pattern baldness. With such an aggressive marketing campaign and Carell’s previous success in animated voice-work (Over the Hedge and Horton Hears a Who!), Despicable Me was sure to be a box-office success.
Steve Carell plays Gru, a super-villain who has lost his edge over the years but has recently decided that he can regain some notoriety by planning a big heist. With the help of an army of gibberish-speaking Minions and aging assistant Dr. Nefario (played by a nearly unrecognizable Russell Brand), Gru plans to shrink and steal the moon. Unfortunately, Gru’s plans are halted by another super-villain, the amusingly arrogant Vector (Jason Segel). As it turns out, Gru needs a cover to outsmart Vector, and when he notices his nemesis’ fondness for cookies; he decides to adopt the three young orphans who previously tried to sell him cookies, so that he may use them to infiltrate Vector’s fortress. Over time, Gru becomes fond of the orphans, but when they begin to distract him and threaten the success of his heist, he must decide what is more important to him, his new family or his evil plan. The super-villain twist was an interesting perspective to take on an animated film, and it was a surprisingly effective formula for success.
To say that Despicable Me is funny is an absolute understatement; it’s nothing short of hysterical. I might have laughed or chuckled lightly at the jokes of Shrek Forever After or Toy Story 3, but I was nearly crying I was laughing so hard during Despicable Me. Beyond humorous super-villain clichés such as Gru using a freeze-ray to squeeze past a long line at a coffee shop or Vector’s “squid-gun,” Despicable Me has some shockingly clever jokes that adults will delight in. With references to such things like The Godfather or the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, I couldn’t stop laughing. In terms of the supporting cast, Vector and Dr. Nefario are pretty hysterical, and Gru’s adopted daughters are adorable, melting the heart of their grumpy adopted father but the real show-stealers are the Minions. These guys are just awesome, running around performing whatever task Gru assigns them, adding their own blend of sly, subtle, and silly, humor along the way through their facial expressions and spoken gibberish. For instance, in one scene the Minions are helping Gru navigate an air duct, and when one Minion walks into a wall, the other Minion picks him up, cracks his back, and shakes him so that he begins to glow like a glow-stick in order to light the way. I fully enjoyed the entire film and would gladly go and see it again, and I really do not have any criticisms; if anything, it doesn’t quite achieve the same level of emotion as Toy Story 3 through its adopted family arc, but whatever the film lacks in emotion it more than makes up for it in terms of humor.
Making over $21 million its opening day, Despicable Me would easily go on to take the top spot of the weekend box-office with just over $60 million, and given this momentum, it looks like it will easily be able to earn back its production budget. Impressive animation is a given, and with a talented voice cast, a heart-warming and hysterical story, Despicable Me should not be missed. As a new film, it is more than able to hold its own against the established franchises of Shrek and Toy Story. You’ve been seeing the Minions all summer, so now it’s time to go see them in action and truly appreciate these likable characters…enjoy.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: $60,117,000
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $222,197,390
Gross Revenue: $278,193,000
Budget: $110 million
Director: Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud
As I have said time and again over the course of this blog, animated movies are an almost-sure money-maker over the summer season, but when it comes to promotion, with the exception of Iron Man 2, I don’t think I’ve seen such an aggressive marketing program this summer as the one that NBC Universal launched for Despicable Me. The key ingredient of this campaign can be summarized in one word: Minion. From the moment that those little yellow grunt-workers appeared in the first teaser trailer, the Minions have been almost everywhere. Promotion on NBC shows such as Last Comic Standing, The Biggest Loser, and America’s Got Talent can be expected, but I was shocked when I noticed promotions on Deadliest Catch and tie-ins at both IHOP and Best Buy. On a side note, Best Buy launched a “Movie Mode” app that will translate the Minion’s gibberish during the end credits…it’s free and an absolute riot, download it…apparently the Minions have opinions on everything from the Twilight series to male-pattern baldness. With such an aggressive marketing campaign and Carell’s previous success in animated voice-work (Over the Hedge and Horton Hears a Who!), Despicable Me was sure to be a box-office success.
Steve Carell plays Gru, a super-villain who has lost his edge over the years but has recently decided that he can regain some notoriety by planning a big heist. With the help of an army of gibberish-speaking Minions and aging assistant Dr. Nefario (played by a nearly unrecognizable Russell Brand), Gru plans to shrink and steal the moon. Unfortunately, Gru’s plans are halted by another super-villain, the amusingly arrogant Vector (Jason Segel). As it turns out, Gru needs a cover to outsmart Vector, and when he notices his nemesis’ fondness for cookies; he decides to adopt the three young orphans who previously tried to sell him cookies, so that he may use them to infiltrate Vector’s fortress. Over time, Gru becomes fond of the orphans, but when they begin to distract him and threaten the success of his heist, he must decide what is more important to him, his new family or his evil plan. The super-villain twist was an interesting perspective to take on an animated film, and it was a surprisingly effective formula for success.
To say that Despicable Me is funny is an absolute understatement; it’s nothing short of hysterical. I might have laughed or chuckled lightly at the jokes of Shrek Forever After or Toy Story 3, but I was nearly crying I was laughing so hard during Despicable Me. Beyond humorous super-villain clichés such as Gru using a freeze-ray to squeeze past a long line at a coffee shop or Vector’s “squid-gun,” Despicable Me has some shockingly clever jokes that adults will delight in. With references to such things like The Godfather or the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, I couldn’t stop laughing. In terms of the supporting cast, Vector and Dr. Nefario are pretty hysterical, and Gru’s adopted daughters are adorable, melting the heart of their grumpy adopted father but the real show-stealers are the Minions. These guys are just awesome, running around performing whatever task Gru assigns them, adding their own blend of sly, subtle, and silly, humor along the way through their facial expressions and spoken gibberish. For instance, in one scene the Minions are helping Gru navigate an air duct, and when one Minion walks into a wall, the other Minion picks him up, cracks his back, and shakes him so that he begins to glow like a glow-stick in order to light the way. I fully enjoyed the entire film and would gladly go and see it again, and I really do not have any criticisms; if anything, it doesn’t quite achieve the same level of emotion as Toy Story 3 through its adopted family arc, but whatever the film lacks in emotion it more than makes up for it in terms of humor.
Making over $21 million its opening day, Despicable Me would easily go on to take the top spot of the weekend box-office with just over $60 million, and given this momentum, it looks like it will easily be able to earn back its production budget. Impressive animation is a given, and with a talented voice cast, a heart-warming and hysterical story, Despicable Me should not be missed. As a new film, it is more than able to hold its own against the established franchises of Shrek and Toy Story. You’ve been seeing the Minions all summer, so now it’s time to go see them in action and truly appreciate these likable characters…enjoy.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
The Last Airbender: Short and Sweet
Memo to M. Night Shyamalan: STOP making horrible movies!!! Though I was initially unaware that The Last Airbender is actually based on the popular cartoon Avatar: The Last Airbender, which ran on Nickelodeon from 2005 to 2008, I though that as a summer movie, the concept for this film still seemed pretty cool and had definite potential. Making a film about warring factions with the ability to manipulate the four elements of fire, water, earth, and air, all based on source material with dedicated fan-base? Pretty hard to mess that up. Unfortunately, the task of bringing this cartoon to life was left to M. Night Shyamalan, who, with the exception of The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs, has almost consistently delivered critical and financial disappointments to the movie-going public. Though it is not all that surprising, Airbender might actually be Shyamalan’s worst film, and if I hadn’t made the resolve to review the full movie, I might have walked out of the theater a half-hour into the film.
Again, Airbender was based on an established and successful cartoon, but rather than produce a faithful adaptation, Shyamalan (who also wrote and produced the film) mars the source material with painfully-bad acting, laughable dialogue, and sub-par special effects. Sometimes a director can be forgiven when one considers that he was working with a bad script, only problem is that, in this case, Shyamalan has no one to blame but himself. Such a script might have worked for a cartoon, but when it comes to the standards of film, Airbender insults the audience’s intelligence with a barely coherent narrative. Apparently Shyamalan planned Airbender as the first of a trilogy, and I will be shocked if he is able to find anyone willing to back him financially after word of this train-wreck spreads. Bottom line, don’t sacrifice your time or dignity by seeing this piece of trash, it is the worst film I have seen this summer.
For more information, please read full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Again, Airbender was based on an established and successful cartoon, but rather than produce a faithful adaptation, Shyamalan (who also wrote and produced the film) mars the source material with painfully-bad acting, laughable dialogue, and sub-par special effects. Sometimes a director can be forgiven when one considers that he was working with a bad script, only problem is that, in this case, Shyamalan has no one to blame but himself. Such a script might have worked for a cartoon, but when it comes to the standards of film, Airbender insults the audience’s intelligence with a barely coherent narrative. Apparently Shyamalan planned Airbender as the first of a trilogy, and I will be shocked if he is able to find anyone willing to back him financially after word of this train-wreck spreads. Bottom line, don’t sacrifice your time or dignity by seeing this piece of trash, it is the worst film I have seen this summer.
For more information, please read full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
The Last Airbender: Full Review
The Last Airbender: (July 1st, 2010): PG
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $51,804, 232
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $129,703,603
Gross Revenue: $198,764,525
Budget: $150 million
Director: M. Night Shyamalan
When it comes to adapting television cartoons into live-action movies, Hollywood has had an interesting mix of successes and failures. The Transformers films make up one of the most successful franchises in cinema history, but Speed Racer was panned by both critics and audiences…so, at the very least, there is some level of risk when trying to translate this type of source material to the silver screen. From a marketing perspective, Paramount had been releasing teaser trailers for Airbender as far back as June 2009, and with subsequent trailers attached to Percy Jackson and How to Train Your Dragon, it was clear that the studio was targeting children who were the most likely to be familiar with the cartoon series. If that’s not enough to convince you, consider the sheer volume of Airbender toys that were peddled through McDonald’s Happy Meals or the tie-in Nintendo DS videogame. The concept for the cartoon seemed cool enough, but a potentially big warning flag came from the fact that Airbender was written, directed, and produced by M. Night Shyamalan, who has been messing up films since 2004’s The Village.
Here’s the basic plot: the story of The Last Airbender exists in a universe consisting of Four Kingdoms, each who have the ability to manipulate (“bend”) one of the four natural elements of fire, water, earth, and air. Each generation, a person is reincarnated as “The Avatar,” an individual who is able to bend each of the four elements and therefore maintain peace between the kingdoms. The current Avatar is Aang (Noah Ringer), a member of the Air Nation who disappeared years ago; in his absence, the Fire Nation declared war on the rest of the Kingdoms. Now that Aang has returned, he is a prime target for the Fire Nation. Though he is feared by the Fire Nation as the Avatar, the problem is that Aang disappeared before he could complete his training, and as a result, he is only able to bend air. In this film (the first of a planned trilogy), Aang travels to the Water Nation to begin his training and hopefully master another element and defend his newfound friends against the Fire Nation. While this concept sounds like it could produce an exciting and special-effects filled adventure, sadly M. Night Shyamalan completely misses the mark.
Anyone familiar with me knows that I’m fairly easy to please in the adventure fantasy realm, but even I cannot forgive the insultingly bad film that was presented to the audience. I was expecting a somewhat weak narrative given the source material, but the plot jumps around so much that it’s difficult to follow what exactly is going on for most of the film; here’s an example, at one point a Fire Nation general weakens the Waterbenders by killing their moon god, whose spirit is revealed to reside in a fish that this general ultimately stabs...even by cartoon standards that’s idiotic. I’ll also grant that acting probably won’t be the strongest point of a film when a majority of the cast is comprised of children, but the main character Aang is so devoid of a personality that it’s hard for the audience to relate to or even care about him. And let’s not forget the adult actors in the film, many of whom are villains; for instance, Dev Patel (from 2008’s Slumdog Millionaire) plays the prince of the Fire Nation, and the only acting that I can credit him for is being able to keep a straight face while he delivers laughable dialogue and tries to intimidate others.
Another big criticism involves the film’s special effects. Warriors that can manipulate fire, water, earth, and air, should be nothing short of source-material gold for visual-effects artists when it comes to wowing audiences, but with the exception of one scene where Aang dispatches assailants using ice (bending it as a form of water…duh), the martial arts and elemental manipulation are almost yawn-inducing. You can tell that Shyamalan was trying to be artistic with some of the choreography, but after watching some of the “warriors” flail around just to cause water to bubble or some rubble to shake is nothing short of embarrassing. I watched an episode of the cartoon to try and make sense of the film and make sure I wasn’t being too critical, and even though I can see how the original show was entertaining and developed a following, my criticisms were confirmed when I spoke to fans of the series, all of whom hated Airbender. I could go on-and-on with criticism, but that would be one hell of a long read for everyone…simply put, once again, M. Night Shyamalan had given audiences a reason to petition for his retirement.
Surprisingly, The Last Airbender has been performing moderately well at the box office, opening with just over $51 million its opening weekend, but I’m hoping that just had to do with the holiday weekend, and that negative word-of-mouth will do its job soon. Shyamalan planned Airbender as the first of a trilogy, with the second and third films showing Aang learning how to bend earth and fire respectively, but I am praying that Airbender loses enough money in this round to force Paramount to put the brakes on any future sequels. With a budget of $150 million and the near-universal hatred spewing from critics and audiences alike, it looks like Airbender will lose money and that audiences will be spared from another Shyamalan disgrace. Don’t waste your time or money moviegoers; you have better things to do with your day.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $51,804, 232
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $129,703,603
Gross Revenue: $198,764,525
Budget: $150 million
Director: M. Night Shyamalan
When it comes to adapting television cartoons into live-action movies, Hollywood has had an interesting mix of successes and failures. The Transformers films make up one of the most successful franchises in cinema history, but Speed Racer was panned by both critics and audiences…so, at the very least, there is some level of risk when trying to translate this type of source material to the silver screen. From a marketing perspective, Paramount had been releasing teaser trailers for Airbender as far back as June 2009, and with subsequent trailers attached to Percy Jackson and How to Train Your Dragon, it was clear that the studio was targeting children who were the most likely to be familiar with the cartoon series. If that’s not enough to convince you, consider the sheer volume of Airbender toys that were peddled through McDonald’s Happy Meals or the tie-in Nintendo DS videogame. The concept for the cartoon seemed cool enough, but a potentially big warning flag came from the fact that Airbender was written, directed, and produced by M. Night Shyamalan, who has been messing up films since 2004’s The Village.
Here’s the basic plot: the story of The Last Airbender exists in a universe consisting of Four Kingdoms, each who have the ability to manipulate (“bend”) one of the four natural elements of fire, water, earth, and air. Each generation, a person is reincarnated as “The Avatar,” an individual who is able to bend each of the four elements and therefore maintain peace between the kingdoms. The current Avatar is Aang (Noah Ringer), a member of the Air Nation who disappeared years ago; in his absence, the Fire Nation declared war on the rest of the Kingdoms. Now that Aang has returned, he is a prime target for the Fire Nation. Though he is feared by the Fire Nation as the Avatar, the problem is that Aang disappeared before he could complete his training, and as a result, he is only able to bend air. In this film (the first of a planned trilogy), Aang travels to the Water Nation to begin his training and hopefully master another element and defend his newfound friends against the Fire Nation. While this concept sounds like it could produce an exciting and special-effects filled adventure, sadly M. Night Shyamalan completely misses the mark.
Anyone familiar with me knows that I’m fairly easy to please in the adventure fantasy realm, but even I cannot forgive the insultingly bad film that was presented to the audience. I was expecting a somewhat weak narrative given the source material, but the plot jumps around so much that it’s difficult to follow what exactly is going on for most of the film; here’s an example, at one point a Fire Nation general weakens the Waterbenders by killing their moon god, whose spirit is revealed to reside in a fish that this general ultimately stabs...even by cartoon standards that’s idiotic. I’ll also grant that acting probably won’t be the strongest point of a film when a majority of the cast is comprised of children, but the main character Aang is so devoid of a personality that it’s hard for the audience to relate to or even care about him. And let’s not forget the adult actors in the film, many of whom are villains; for instance, Dev Patel (from 2008’s Slumdog Millionaire) plays the prince of the Fire Nation, and the only acting that I can credit him for is being able to keep a straight face while he delivers laughable dialogue and tries to intimidate others.
Another big criticism involves the film’s special effects. Warriors that can manipulate fire, water, earth, and air, should be nothing short of source-material gold for visual-effects artists when it comes to wowing audiences, but with the exception of one scene where Aang dispatches assailants using ice (bending it as a form of water…duh), the martial arts and elemental manipulation are almost yawn-inducing. You can tell that Shyamalan was trying to be artistic with some of the choreography, but after watching some of the “warriors” flail around just to cause water to bubble or some rubble to shake is nothing short of embarrassing. I watched an episode of the cartoon to try and make sense of the film and make sure I wasn’t being too critical, and even though I can see how the original show was entertaining and developed a following, my criticisms were confirmed when I spoke to fans of the series, all of whom hated Airbender. I could go on-and-on with criticism, but that would be one hell of a long read for everyone…simply put, once again, M. Night Shyamalan had given audiences a reason to petition for his retirement.
Surprisingly, The Last Airbender has been performing moderately well at the box office, opening with just over $51 million its opening weekend, but I’m hoping that just had to do with the holiday weekend, and that negative word-of-mouth will do its job soon. Shyamalan planned Airbender as the first of a trilogy, with the second and third films showing Aang learning how to bend earth and fire respectively, but I am praying that Airbender loses enough money in this round to force Paramount to put the brakes on any future sequels. With a budget of $150 million and the near-universal hatred spewing from critics and audiences alike, it looks like Airbender will lose money and that audiences will be spared from another Shyamalan disgrace. Don’t waste your time or money moviegoers; you have better things to do with your day.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (Short and Sweet)
First off, before any of you decide to question my movie taste or sign-off my blog for having seen Eclipse, relax. I had little, if any desire to see this film, and the only reason I decided to see it was because I had predicted it to be the box-office champion of the summer. Aggressive marketing wasn’t really necessary for Eclipse, primarily because hardcore fans had been tracking this release for months, so a large debut was a given. As a hardcore Harry Potter fan, I’ve been sickened by the Twilight series for a while now, but I promised myself that I would approach this review as objectively as possible, that’s how dedicated I am to my passion for film.
It’s nothing ground-breaking to say that Eclipse was made for fans of the book and a largely female audience, but compared to the other entries in the Twilight series, I must admit that director David Slade seemed to recognize the need to broaden the appeal of this film a little bit. As a huge fan of vampire and werewolf mythology, I actually enjoyed the film’s portrayal of these legendary creatures (aside from the idiotic notion that vampires would sparkle when exposed to sunlight), and the ending battle between the two is actually surprisingly entertaining. Eclipse also brings significant character development to both the werewolf clan and the Cullen family, and that’s a welcome distraction from the film’s incredibly frustrating human characters. I can’t decide if Kristen Stewart is a horrible actress or if she’s just doing what she can with a crappy character, but her presence in this movie is just irritating…you know its bad when the thought crosses that this film would be better if they just removed the main character. Bottom line, fans of the Twilight series and a large percentage of the female population will adore Eclipse. Guys, if you have to be dragged to a chick flick, there’s actually enough action and violence to make the experience bearable, so don’t worry.
For a more in-depth analysis, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
It’s nothing ground-breaking to say that Eclipse was made for fans of the book and a largely female audience, but compared to the other entries in the Twilight series, I must admit that director David Slade seemed to recognize the need to broaden the appeal of this film a little bit. As a huge fan of vampire and werewolf mythology, I actually enjoyed the film’s portrayal of these legendary creatures (aside from the idiotic notion that vampires would sparkle when exposed to sunlight), and the ending battle between the two is actually surprisingly entertaining. Eclipse also brings significant character development to both the werewolf clan and the Cullen family, and that’s a welcome distraction from the film’s incredibly frustrating human characters. I can’t decide if Kristen Stewart is a horrible actress or if she’s just doing what she can with a crappy character, but her presence in this movie is just irritating…you know its bad when the thought crosses that this film would be better if they just removed the main character. Bottom line, fans of the Twilight series and a large percentage of the female population will adore Eclipse. Guys, if you have to be dragged to a chick flick, there’s actually enough action and violence to make the experience bearable, so don’t worry.
For a more in-depth analysis, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (Full Review)
The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (June 30, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Summit Entertainment
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $83,637,242
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $295,842,444
Gross Revenue: $676,442,444
Budget: $68 million
Director: David Slade
As I said in the “Short and Sweet” review, given the Twilight series’ status as a successfully established franchise and the enormously dedicated fan-base, aggressive marketing really was not necessary, but that did not stop Summit Entertainment. Beyond a first-look peak in the recently released New Moon DVD/Blu-ray and guest appearances on The Oprah Winfrey Show and the 2010 MTV Movie Awards (where New Moon took nearly every awards), Summit Entertainment actually hosted screenings of the first two Twilight films to coincide with the lunar eclipse on June 26. Nordstrom even released a fashion collection based on the film while Burger King promoted a contest highlighting the “Team Edward” vs. “Team Jacob” aspect of the film, so Eclipse was going to be hard to top at the box-office.
Despite my natural aversion to the Twilight series, given the magnitude of the film, I knew I had to see Eclipse. So, I did my research and went and rented the first two entries of the series. On a side note, thank God for Red Box, because there was no way in hell I was going to spend more than $1 to see these movies or foul up my Netflix list. Either way, I was ready to see Eclipse as a moviegoer who had never read the books but was familiar with the basic storyline.
For those completely unfamiliar with the series storyline, except for overhearing the screaming fanatics ready to kill each other over whether they support a sparkly vampire or a perpetually-shirtless werewolf, the Twilight saga revolves around Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart), a moody seventeen-year-old who is caught up in a love triangle between vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) and werewolf Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner). Vampires and werewolves are natural enemies; so needless to say, there is some significant tension between to the two male leads. In Eclipse, Bella is struggling with her recent decision to become a vampire (so that she may be with Edward forever) and her feelings for Jacob. But the larger issue involves an emerging vampire army led by the series antagonist Victoria (Bryce Dallas Howard); the army is targeting Bella because she was indirectly responsible for the death of Victoria’s lover in the first Twilight film. So now it is up to the combined forces of Edward’s family of vampires and Jacob’s tribe of werewolves to battle this threat and protect Bella.
At its core, the Twilight series is a love story that was made for female fans, and that fact is painfully obvious throughout the film. I am so glad I waited a week to see this and didn’t have to endure hundreds of female fans screaming their heads off every time one character proclaims their love for another or one of the werewolves takes their shirt off.... trust me, if that was the case I would have gone deaf within the first hour. Still, I was prepared to endure quite a bit of all the drama that would come from a fantasy romance series. But no amount of tolerance forgives the series protagonist, Bella Swan. Though I can admit that Eclipse is the strongest entry of the Twilight series (I’ll explain why soon), Bella’s character has consistently been the weakest link within each film. I can’t decide if Kristen Stewart is a horrible actress or if she’s just doing what she can with a crappy character, but her presence in this film is just as irritating as ever. Bella is so indecisive and moody that it’s hard to believe she’d have so many characters fighting over her…you almost want to tell her to take an anti-depressant, get her shit together, and move on. The way she treats her dad makes her even more unlikable, but it’s hard to sympathize with a guy that is so helpless that he has no clue that both a vampire and werewolf are chasing his nearly-emo daughter. It’s sad to think that the Twilight films could be better if they just got a better and more likable leading character.
Despite the high level of romantic drama that will have many male moviegoers rolling their eyes, there are a few elements of the Twilight series that I have enjoyed in the past, and those elements, are shifted into overdrive in Eclipse. I am a big fan of vampire and werewolf mythology, and though there are a few weak elements to this mythos within the series (vampires do not sparkle in sunlight, they suffer a fiery death), there’s enough in the film to boost a cool factor. Though Edward can be pretty insufferable at times, I actually enjoy the Cullen family (Ashley Greene is pretty hot as Alice Cullen) and all their different back-stories, and Eclipse highlights more character elements of the family than in past entries(Rosalie’s back-story was awesome). The evil vampires within the film also pay respect to the mythos with their demeanor and brutal behavior (Dakota Fanning is just plain scary as elder vampire Jane). And though the constantly-shirtless werewolves can be a little ridiculous, there’s still something cool about being able to morph into a big, badass wolf. The climactic battle between the werewolves and vampires is surprisingly brutal and entertaining, and it’s sure to provide some level of enjoyment to the male audience. And as much as it pains me to say, the scenes between Edward and Jacob (when they aren’t complaining about Bella) are actually pretty humorous, and Pattinson and Lautner actually make a pretty convincing team. So, despite my inherent prejudice, I was pleased with the more enjoyable elements of Eclipse.
From a box-office perspective, Eclipse made $68.5 million dollars its opening day…that is the biggest Wednesday premiere in cinema history and the second biggest opening day of all time (no surprise…number one was New Moon). As pissed as I am that vampires beat Batman, I have to give credit where credit is due…Twilight can draw an audience. With a gross revenue just under $300 million in under a week, Eclipse is well on its way to being crowned king of the summer box-office, sorry Iron Man 2.
Yes, I know many of you were expecting a far more negative review from me, but like I said in the “Short and Sweet” excerpt, Eclipse blended just enough fantasy and action to broaden the film’s appeal. The first Twilight was just awful, and though New Moon tried to bring some more action to the table, Eclipse is the first of the series to execute such an idea successfully. Is it the best movie of the summer?...hardly. Would I have waited in line for hours to see it?…hell no. Eclipse is like the Holy Grail for female fans, but for the rest of us, things could have been far worse. If you’re not a fan, don’t rush to see it, but don’t freak out if you are dragged to it either.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Summit Entertainment
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $83,637,242
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $295,842,444
Gross Revenue: $676,442,444
Budget: $68 million
Director: David Slade
As I said in the “Short and Sweet” review, given the Twilight series’ status as a successfully established franchise and the enormously dedicated fan-base, aggressive marketing really was not necessary, but that did not stop Summit Entertainment. Beyond a first-look peak in the recently released New Moon DVD/Blu-ray and guest appearances on The Oprah Winfrey Show and the 2010 MTV Movie Awards (where New Moon took nearly every awards), Summit Entertainment actually hosted screenings of the first two Twilight films to coincide with the lunar eclipse on June 26. Nordstrom even released a fashion collection based on the film while Burger King promoted a contest highlighting the “Team Edward” vs. “Team Jacob” aspect of the film, so Eclipse was going to be hard to top at the box-office.
Despite my natural aversion to the Twilight series, given the magnitude of the film, I knew I had to see Eclipse. So, I did my research and went and rented the first two entries of the series. On a side note, thank God for Red Box, because there was no way in hell I was going to spend more than $1 to see these movies or foul up my Netflix list. Either way, I was ready to see Eclipse as a moviegoer who had never read the books but was familiar with the basic storyline.
For those completely unfamiliar with the series storyline, except for overhearing the screaming fanatics ready to kill each other over whether they support a sparkly vampire or a perpetually-shirtless werewolf, the Twilight saga revolves around Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart), a moody seventeen-year-old who is caught up in a love triangle between vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) and werewolf Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner). Vampires and werewolves are natural enemies; so needless to say, there is some significant tension between to the two male leads. In Eclipse, Bella is struggling with her recent decision to become a vampire (so that she may be with Edward forever) and her feelings for Jacob. But the larger issue involves an emerging vampire army led by the series antagonist Victoria (Bryce Dallas Howard); the army is targeting Bella because she was indirectly responsible for the death of Victoria’s lover in the first Twilight film. So now it is up to the combined forces of Edward’s family of vampires and Jacob’s tribe of werewolves to battle this threat and protect Bella.
At its core, the Twilight series is a love story that was made for female fans, and that fact is painfully obvious throughout the film. I am so glad I waited a week to see this and didn’t have to endure hundreds of female fans screaming their heads off every time one character proclaims their love for another or one of the werewolves takes their shirt off.... trust me, if that was the case I would have gone deaf within the first hour. Still, I was prepared to endure quite a bit of all the drama that would come from a fantasy romance series. But no amount of tolerance forgives the series protagonist, Bella Swan. Though I can admit that Eclipse is the strongest entry of the Twilight series (I’ll explain why soon), Bella’s character has consistently been the weakest link within each film. I can’t decide if Kristen Stewart is a horrible actress or if she’s just doing what she can with a crappy character, but her presence in this film is just as irritating as ever. Bella is so indecisive and moody that it’s hard to believe she’d have so many characters fighting over her…you almost want to tell her to take an anti-depressant, get her shit together, and move on. The way she treats her dad makes her even more unlikable, but it’s hard to sympathize with a guy that is so helpless that he has no clue that both a vampire and werewolf are chasing his nearly-emo daughter. It’s sad to think that the Twilight films could be better if they just got a better and more likable leading character.
Despite the high level of romantic drama that will have many male moviegoers rolling their eyes, there are a few elements of the Twilight series that I have enjoyed in the past, and those elements, are shifted into overdrive in Eclipse. I am a big fan of vampire and werewolf mythology, and though there are a few weak elements to this mythos within the series (vampires do not sparkle in sunlight, they suffer a fiery death), there’s enough in the film to boost a cool factor. Though Edward can be pretty insufferable at times, I actually enjoy the Cullen family (Ashley Greene is pretty hot as Alice Cullen) and all their different back-stories, and Eclipse highlights more character elements of the family than in past entries(Rosalie’s back-story was awesome). The evil vampires within the film also pay respect to the mythos with their demeanor and brutal behavior (Dakota Fanning is just plain scary as elder vampire Jane). And though the constantly-shirtless werewolves can be a little ridiculous, there’s still something cool about being able to morph into a big, badass wolf. The climactic battle between the werewolves and vampires is surprisingly brutal and entertaining, and it’s sure to provide some level of enjoyment to the male audience. And as much as it pains me to say, the scenes between Edward and Jacob (when they aren’t complaining about Bella) are actually pretty humorous, and Pattinson and Lautner actually make a pretty convincing team. So, despite my inherent prejudice, I was pleased with the more enjoyable elements of Eclipse.
From a box-office perspective, Eclipse made $68.5 million dollars its opening day…that is the biggest Wednesday premiere in cinema history and the second biggest opening day of all time (no surprise…number one was New Moon). As pissed as I am that vampires beat Batman, I have to give credit where credit is due…Twilight can draw an audience. With a gross revenue just under $300 million in under a week, Eclipse is well on its way to being crowned king of the summer box-office, sorry Iron Man 2.
Yes, I know many of you were expecting a far more negative review from me, but like I said in the “Short and Sweet” excerpt, Eclipse blended just enough fantasy and action to broaden the film’s appeal. The first Twilight was just awful, and though New Moon tried to bring some more action to the table, Eclipse is the first of the series to execute such an idea successfully. Is it the best movie of the summer?...hardly. Would I have waited in line for hours to see it?…hell no. Eclipse is like the Holy Grail for female fans, but for the rest of us, things could have been far worse. If you’re not a fan, don’t rush to see it, but don’t freak out if you are dragged to it either.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Grown Ups: Short and Sweet
Though some of his earliest films have earned a rightful place in the comedy movie Hall of Fame, most of Adam Sandler’s recent offerings have been hit-or-miss. For instance, few would argue against ranking Happy Gilmore or Billy Madison as comedy classics, but the same can’t be said for Bedtime Stories, Funny People, or You Don’t Mess with the Zohan (good lord, that one was shockingly bad and offensive). I have to admit that I was intrigued with the pairing of this particular cast; each has found success in an individual movie career, and a majority of the cast has worked together in the past (Rock, Schneider, Spade, and Sandler, all joined the cast of Saturday Night Live during the 1990-1991 season). Needless to say, there was potential for significant comedy in Grown Ups.
In retrospect, I must say that Grown Ups was better than expected, but at the same time, it really didn’t live up to its potential. The quality of the jokes was really 50-50; that is, there were some scenes that were downright hysterical, while at times the cast kept running around trying to bring life to a joke that simply wasn’t funny. The true appeal of Grown Ups comes from the surprisingly strong level of heart in the film…watching Adam Sandler play “Dad” was actually a nice way to reflect his comedic progression over the years. He’s no longer just that same screwball who used to deface miniature golf courses (“You’re gonna die CLOWN!”); his characters have reached a new level of maturity. The film takes a little while to get off the grown, but Adam Sandler fans should be pleased with this latest offering.
In retrospect, I must say that Grown Ups was better than expected, but at the same time, it really didn’t live up to its potential. The quality of the jokes was really 50-50; that is, there were some scenes that were downright hysterical, while at times the cast kept running around trying to bring life to a joke that simply wasn’t funny. The true appeal of Grown Ups comes from the surprisingly strong level of heart in the film…watching Adam Sandler play “Dad” was actually a nice way to reflect his comedic progression over the years. He’s no longer just that same screwball who used to deface miniature golf courses (“You’re gonna die CLOWN!”); his characters have reached a new level of maturity. The film takes a little while to get off the grown, but Adam Sandler fans should be pleased with this latest offering.
Grown Ups: Full Review
Grown Ups: (June 25, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Columbia Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $40,506,562
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $158,054,590
Gross Revenue: $207,977,749
Budget: $80 million
Director: Dennis Dugan
Being the second big release from Columbia Pictures (a division of Sony Pictures Entertainment) this summer, Grown Ups followed a very similar marketing strategy to The Karate Kid, making strong use of social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter to promote the film. Adam Sandler is also known for using a recurring set of actors in a large majority of his films, so to see a bunch of his former SNL cast-mates and previous co-stars (such as Kevin James in 2007’s I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry) paired together as main characters afforded the film considerable marketability. Another element that was sure to help box-office receipts involves the fact that Grown Ups is a true family comedy made for the summer. With 4th of July weekend right around the corner, what could audiences relate to better than an old group of friends coming together to spend a weekend at a lake house? Despite Adam Sandler’s recent track record, Grown Ups had considerable potential.
The premise is simple enough…Sandler, James, Rock, Spade, and Schneider, all play former basketball teammates who come together after the death of their beloved childhood basketball coach and spend 4th of July weekend at a lake house they all frequented as children. With the exception of Spade’s character, each of the former teammates has married and raised a family, so the differing personalities of the wives and children come together for some amusing interaction. Though some of the family members come on pretty strong and start off the film incredibly annoying, within the first half of the film they tone it down a bit and there opens up some pleasant interaction between the families. Each father is trying to get their kids to step away from cell phones and video games and enjoy some of the simple fun that their parents had in the past, such as when Kevin James tries to demonstrate a rope swing and fails horribly, or when Adam Sandler teaches all the kids how to use cup-and-string phones, and that adds some considerable heart and comedy to the plot
Watching Sandler, James, Rock, and Schneider, all play the “Dad” role was disarmingly heartwarming, and Selma Hayek was surprisingly effective in her role as Sandler’s wife, blending just the right amount of comedy and sass. As with almost every other Sandler movie, a large number of his recurring supporting actors make an appearance, and once again, they are pretty entertaining (though Steve Buscemi was by far my favorite). Even Rob Schneider did well; anyone who read my preview knows that I was the most skeptical about Rob Schneider as opposed to any other actor in Grown Ups. He’s made some pretty awful movies (with the exception of The Hot Chick…stop lying to yourself, you know that one was funny) and usually seems like a poor-man’s Adam Sandler, and even though his first few scenes in Grown Ups actually made me toy with the notion of leaving the theater, he calms down eventually and adds some pretty funny moments to the film. Most of the leads in this film are old friends off-screen, and that is a fact that is pleasantly obvious as you watch them all interact on-screen, and that’s more than enough to please fans.
Though Grown Ups was funny, it was far from consistently funny. The film has an incredibly slow start, and it seems like for every funny scene or joke present, there were also a number of decidedly unfunny moments…though the writers clearly thought differently. For instance, in one scene James and Sandler deliver a shockingly clever joke, but within five minutes, someone attempts a one-liner that all but kills the comedic high. I was also disappointed in the surprising underuse of Chris Rock in this script. I consider Chris Rock to be one of the best stand-up comedians ever, and though he hasn’t had a flawless movie career, he can hold his own. Unfortunately, Chris Rock’s character brought nothing really uniquely funny to the film, and it felt like you could have had any actor in his role. I’ll admit that a consistently funny movie is a tall order, but with the amount of comedic talent present in the cast, Grown Ups should have been more than able to deliver.
From a box-office perspective, though Grown Ups was unable to take the top spot from Toy Story 3, it still had a surprisingly strong performance. Though it probably won’t be able to take the top spot from another film over the 4th of July weekend (yes…I know Twilight is kicking ass), I do expect that the summer appeal will lead to a jump in revenue. Columbia Pictures should have no problem recovering its production budget. Grown Ups isn’t perfect, but it does not deserve all the negative reviews it has been getting; if you are a fan of any of the cast members or want a simple laugh, its worth seeing.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Columbia Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $40,506,562
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $158,054,590
Gross Revenue: $207,977,749
Budget: $80 million
Director: Dennis Dugan
Being the second big release from Columbia Pictures (a division of Sony Pictures Entertainment) this summer, Grown Ups followed a very similar marketing strategy to The Karate Kid, making strong use of social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter to promote the film. Adam Sandler is also known for using a recurring set of actors in a large majority of his films, so to see a bunch of his former SNL cast-mates and previous co-stars (such as Kevin James in 2007’s I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry) paired together as main characters afforded the film considerable marketability. Another element that was sure to help box-office receipts involves the fact that Grown Ups is a true family comedy made for the summer. With 4th of July weekend right around the corner, what could audiences relate to better than an old group of friends coming together to spend a weekend at a lake house? Despite Adam Sandler’s recent track record, Grown Ups had considerable potential.
The premise is simple enough…Sandler, James, Rock, Spade, and Schneider, all play former basketball teammates who come together after the death of their beloved childhood basketball coach and spend 4th of July weekend at a lake house they all frequented as children. With the exception of Spade’s character, each of the former teammates has married and raised a family, so the differing personalities of the wives and children come together for some amusing interaction. Though some of the family members come on pretty strong and start off the film incredibly annoying, within the first half of the film they tone it down a bit and there opens up some pleasant interaction between the families. Each father is trying to get their kids to step away from cell phones and video games and enjoy some of the simple fun that their parents had in the past, such as when Kevin James tries to demonstrate a rope swing and fails horribly, or when Adam Sandler teaches all the kids how to use cup-and-string phones, and that adds some considerable heart and comedy to the plot
Watching Sandler, James, Rock, and Schneider, all play the “Dad” role was disarmingly heartwarming, and Selma Hayek was surprisingly effective in her role as Sandler’s wife, blending just the right amount of comedy and sass. As with almost every other Sandler movie, a large number of his recurring supporting actors make an appearance, and once again, they are pretty entertaining (though Steve Buscemi was by far my favorite). Even Rob Schneider did well; anyone who read my preview knows that I was the most skeptical about Rob Schneider as opposed to any other actor in Grown Ups. He’s made some pretty awful movies (with the exception of The Hot Chick…stop lying to yourself, you know that one was funny) and usually seems like a poor-man’s Adam Sandler, and even though his first few scenes in Grown Ups actually made me toy with the notion of leaving the theater, he calms down eventually and adds some pretty funny moments to the film. Most of the leads in this film are old friends off-screen, and that is a fact that is pleasantly obvious as you watch them all interact on-screen, and that’s more than enough to please fans.
Though Grown Ups was funny, it was far from consistently funny. The film has an incredibly slow start, and it seems like for every funny scene or joke present, there were also a number of decidedly unfunny moments…though the writers clearly thought differently. For instance, in one scene James and Sandler deliver a shockingly clever joke, but within five minutes, someone attempts a one-liner that all but kills the comedic high. I was also disappointed in the surprising underuse of Chris Rock in this script. I consider Chris Rock to be one of the best stand-up comedians ever, and though he hasn’t had a flawless movie career, he can hold his own. Unfortunately, Chris Rock’s character brought nothing really uniquely funny to the film, and it felt like you could have had any actor in his role. I’ll admit that a consistently funny movie is a tall order, but with the amount of comedic talent present in the cast, Grown Ups should have been more than able to deliver.
From a box-office perspective, though Grown Ups was unable to take the top spot from Toy Story 3, it still had a surprisingly strong performance. Though it probably won’t be able to take the top spot from another film over the 4th of July weekend (yes…I know Twilight is kicking ass), I do expect that the summer appeal will lead to a jump in revenue. Columbia Pictures should have no problem recovering its production budget. Grown Ups isn’t perfect, but it does not deserve all the negative reviews it has been getting; if you are a fan of any of the cast members or want a simple laugh, its worth seeing.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)