As I’ve mentioned in some earlier reviews, late August represents the end of the summer movie season, and with Piranha 3D, it looked like Hollywood chose a very interesting way to bid farewell to summer moviegoers. It’s been quite a while since audiences last saw a decent creature horror film, memorable entries like Jaws, Arachnophobia, Anaconda, and Lake Placid recently overshadowed by a near-endless stream of B-movie embarrassments that are often relegated to the Syfy channel. Piranha 3D is actually the second remake of the 1978 original, and though many might have rolled their eyes at the premise, the presence of an ensemble cast and 3D technology seemed to promise a pretty high level of entertainment. The previews weren’t promising anything emotionally deep or award-winning…Piranha 3D was going to be a summer thriller designed to engage and startle audiences, and for that reason I knew I had to see it.
Despite the fact that Piranha 3D will have me second-guessing ever swimming in a lake or river again, I still loved the film. This horror film is entertaining in the most shameless way, delivering the most gratuitous nudity and violence I have ever seen, all while being genuinely scary. If you thought you were afraid of sharks after Jaws, that’s nothing compared to what Piranha 3D will do to your opinion of small carnivorous fish…anytime you see any of the characters go near the water, you’re questioning why they ever left dry land. The ensemble cast is made up of diverse and likable characters that the audience easily connects with, so that you’re genuinely disappointed when one of them falls into the piranha-infested waters. All of these positives are enhanced by the use of 3D technology, so that you jump when these fish start swarming. Though a creature horror film with ridiculous amounts of nudity and violence may not be for everyone, if you’re looking for an entertaining thriller, then Piranha 3D should not be missed.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: High
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Piranha 3D: Full Review
Piranha 3D: (August 20th, 2010): R
Distributor: Dimension Films
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #6 with $10,106,872
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $11,196,265
Gross Revenue: $11,196,265
Budget: $24 million
Director: Alexandre Aja
Marketing for a creature horror flick has always been relatively simple, and ever since the first trailer debuted with Avatar, buzz began generating about what seemed to be a movie about pretty people in swimsuits being savagely murdered by swarming piranha…in 3D. Fortunately, no one seemed to remember the original Piranha or its first remake, so marketers were free to try and remind audiences that creature horror films could be hugely successful…Jaws ring a bell? The presence of an ensemble cast also increased the appeal of Piranha 3D, with the presence of familiar names like Christopher Lloyd, Jerry O’Connell, Adam Scott, Elisabeth Shue, and Ving Rhames, being genuinely surprising. Early reviews for Piranha 3D were very strong, and many critics noted that, despite the ridiculous premise, the film was genuinely scary; filming took place at Lake Havasu City, Arizona, and city officials were genuinely worried that their revenue from tourism would plummet after audiences saw spring-breakers torn apart. Though I’m not a big horror fan, I do enjoy creature flicks, so I had no problem going to see Piranha 3D.
Piranha 3D starts when a freak earthquake hits the fictional Lake Victoria, AZ, splitting the lake floor and releasing hundreds of prehistoric piranha. Unfortunately, it happens to be Spring Break at Lake Victoria, so there are plenty of swimsuit-clad college students for the piranha to feed on. As soon as the piranha come to the attention of the authorities, its up to sheriff Julie Forester (Elisabeth Shue) and her deputy Fallon (Ving Rhames) to clear the water and save as many as they can. With the help of aquatic expert Mr. Goodman (Christopher Lloyd) and seismologist Novak Radzinsky (Adam Scott, best remembered from Step Brothers), Sheriff Forester must also race to save her son (Steven R. McQueen), who happens to be partying on a yacht with a Girls Gone Wild-type director (Jerry O’ Connell) and several of his bikini-clad “actors.” Needless to say, there’s plenty of room for suspense and violence as all of these characters fight to survive.
By far the biggest surprise of Piranha 3D came from its opening scene, where a lone fisherman is the first poor soul to encounter the piranha…the fisherman was played by Richard Dreyfuss, who starred in the original Jaws; based on this lone cameo, I knew I was in store for a good horror film. Though the idea of piranha killing drunken college students sounds a little ludicrous, those swarming death-machines are genuinely scary, to the point where I doubt I’ll be swimming at my family’s river place anytime soon. The ensemble cast is almost instantaneously likable, so that you find yourself genuinely hoping that most of them survive and get out of the water quickly. Piranha 3D is also unique in the sense that it was shot in 2D and later converted to 3D; though many films do this, Piranha 3D is the first to have critics praise the post-conversion process. The 3D effects only enhance the suspense as the piranha swarm towards the audience, so I would say that even though it has been released in the 2D format, Piranha 3D must be seen in…you guessed it, 3D.
Rather than comment on acting and dialogue, which are never that strong in a creature horror film, my only negative comments for Piranha 3D have to do with its extremely limited appeal. I cannot stress enough how Piranha 3D more than earned its R-rating, with so much violence and nudity I’m surprised it wasn’t rated as an NC-17 feature. The setting is a college spring break party, so gratuitous nudity was expected, but even I wasn’t expecting such a strong level of violence. It’s not like a swimmer submerges, the water turns red, and that’s it; people are pulling half-eaten corpses out of the water with stripped bones and missing eyes, and once the camera goes underwater, these piranhas shred and devour everything in the most graphic way possible. I’m by no means squeamish, nor am I going to object to a wet t-shirt contest, but I understand how these elements could put-off a large number of movie goers. I’ll put it to you this way, if you think it’s okay to take small children to Piranha 3D because an adult is with them, good luck getting them to sleep or swim ever again; and guys, if you plan on taking your girlfriend, chances are that you’re going to be in trouble about fifteen minutes in.
From a box-office perspective, Piranhas 3D placed a disappointing sixth in its opening weekend, but with four other movies opening the same week, it’s a little unfair to judge a R-rated horror film. That being said, a $10 million opening is still respectable, and reviews have been so positive that the studios have already green-lit a sequel. Admittedly, I’m not the best person to critique a horror film, but almost everyone has acknowledged Piranha 3D as a legitimate entry in the horror genre; even horror heavyweight Eli Roth (who directed the Hostel series) made a brief cameo before he was devoured. Even though its high level of R-rated material limits its appeal, Piranha 3D is still an genuinely scary thriller that is hugely entertaining, so if you enjoy this type of movie, do not miss it.
Overall Recommendation: High
Distributor: Dimension Films
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #6 with $10,106,872
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $11,196,265
Gross Revenue: $11,196,265
Budget: $24 million
Director: Alexandre Aja
Marketing for a creature horror flick has always been relatively simple, and ever since the first trailer debuted with Avatar, buzz began generating about what seemed to be a movie about pretty people in swimsuits being savagely murdered by swarming piranha…in 3D. Fortunately, no one seemed to remember the original Piranha or its first remake, so marketers were free to try and remind audiences that creature horror films could be hugely successful…Jaws ring a bell? The presence of an ensemble cast also increased the appeal of Piranha 3D, with the presence of familiar names like Christopher Lloyd, Jerry O’Connell, Adam Scott, Elisabeth Shue, and Ving Rhames, being genuinely surprising. Early reviews for Piranha 3D were very strong, and many critics noted that, despite the ridiculous premise, the film was genuinely scary; filming took place at Lake Havasu City, Arizona, and city officials were genuinely worried that their revenue from tourism would plummet after audiences saw spring-breakers torn apart. Though I’m not a big horror fan, I do enjoy creature flicks, so I had no problem going to see Piranha 3D.
Piranha 3D starts when a freak earthquake hits the fictional Lake Victoria, AZ, splitting the lake floor and releasing hundreds of prehistoric piranha. Unfortunately, it happens to be Spring Break at Lake Victoria, so there are plenty of swimsuit-clad college students for the piranha to feed on. As soon as the piranha come to the attention of the authorities, its up to sheriff Julie Forester (Elisabeth Shue) and her deputy Fallon (Ving Rhames) to clear the water and save as many as they can. With the help of aquatic expert Mr. Goodman (Christopher Lloyd) and seismologist Novak Radzinsky (Adam Scott, best remembered from Step Brothers), Sheriff Forester must also race to save her son (Steven R. McQueen), who happens to be partying on a yacht with a Girls Gone Wild-type director (Jerry O’ Connell) and several of his bikini-clad “actors.” Needless to say, there’s plenty of room for suspense and violence as all of these characters fight to survive.
By far the biggest surprise of Piranha 3D came from its opening scene, where a lone fisherman is the first poor soul to encounter the piranha…the fisherman was played by Richard Dreyfuss, who starred in the original Jaws; based on this lone cameo, I knew I was in store for a good horror film. Though the idea of piranha killing drunken college students sounds a little ludicrous, those swarming death-machines are genuinely scary, to the point where I doubt I’ll be swimming at my family’s river place anytime soon. The ensemble cast is almost instantaneously likable, so that you find yourself genuinely hoping that most of them survive and get out of the water quickly. Piranha 3D is also unique in the sense that it was shot in 2D and later converted to 3D; though many films do this, Piranha 3D is the first to have critics praise the post-conversion process. The 3D effects only enhance the suspense as the piranha swarm towards the audience, so I would say that even though it has been released in the 2D format, Piranha 3D must be seen in…you guessed it, 3D.
Rather than comment on acting and dialogue, which are never that strong in a creature horror film, my only negative comments for Piranha 3D have to do with its extremely limited appeal. I cannot stress enough how Piranha 3D more than earned its R-rating, with so much violence and nudity I’m surprised it wasn’t rated as an NC-17 feature. The setting is a college spring break party, so gratuitous nudity was expected, but even I wasn’t expecting such a strong level of violence. It’s not like a swimmer submerges, the water turns red, and that’s it; people are pulling half-eaten corpses out of the water with stripped bones and missing eyes, and once the camera goes underwater, these piranhas shred and devour everything in the most graphic way possible. I’m by no means squeamish, nor am I going to object to a wet t-shirt contest, but I understand how these elements could put-off a large number of movie goers. I’ll put it to you this way, if you think it’s okay to take small children to Piranha 3D because an adult is with them, good luck getting them to sleep or swim ever again; and guys, if you plan on taking your girlfriend, chances are that you’re going to be in trouble about fifteen minutes in.
From a box-office perspective, Piranhas 3D placed a disappointing sixth in its opening weekend, but with four other movies opening the same week, it’s a little unfair to judge a R-rated horror film. That being said, a $10 million opening is still respectable, and reviews have been so positive that the studios have already green-lit a sequel. Admittedly, I’m not the best person to critique a horror film, but almost everyone has acknowledged Piranha 3D as a legitimate entry in the horror genre; even horror heavyweight Eli Roth (who directed the Hostel series) made a brief cameo before he was devoured. Even though its high level of R-rated material limits its appeal, Piranha 3D is still an genuinely scary thriller that is hugely entertaining, so if you enjoy this type of movie, do not miss it.
Overall Recommendation: High
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Vampires Suck: Short and Sweet
Some of my more regular followers had previously complained about my review for Twilight: Eclipse, claiming that I’m far too critical of the entire series. Fortunately, this newest summer release helps justify some of my cynicism towards Stephanie Meyer’s novels…you know that you cannot take a franchise too seriously when it’s best entry and a spoof solely dedicated to mocking the series are released less than two months apart from each other. Unfortunately, the potential success and quality of Vampires Suck is immediately weakened by two major hindrances, the first being the fact that the spoof genre hasn’t had a decent entry in years, and the second being that the film itself is written and directed by the same duo responsible for the terrible spoof films that weakened the genre in the first place. Friedberg and Seltzer originally worked as screenwriters for the disappointing Spy Hard and the hugely successful Scary Movie (one of the last decent spoof films), but once they were given the reins as co-directors, they’ve produced nothing but a steady stream of insultingly bad films (Date Movie, Epic Movie, Meet the Spartans, and Disaster Movie), each of which has less than a 7% approval rate on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. Admittedly, I wasn’t expecting anything award- winning about Vampires Suck, but I’ve been making fun of the Twilight series so long, it seemed to make sense for me to see this newest parody.
Surprisingly, Vampires Suck actually represents a step forward in quality for Friedberg and Seltzer as directors, but given their track record, that’s really not saying much. The humor in the film isn’t shockingly clever, but it does highlight many of the ridiculous elements of the Twilight series, so if you’ve ever mocked anyone belonging to Team Edward or Team Jacob, you’re sure to enjoy a cheap laugh or two. That being said, I’m sure that any fans of the Twilight series will defend their obsession at any cost, so they are sure to absolutely hate Vampires Suck. Yet, this gap between those who would enjoy and those who would hate Vampires Suck represents a pretty big problem, as many of the funniest jokes within the film require that audience members have seen the parts of the Twilight movies that the jokes reference. So if you’ve never seen a Twilight movie, which I suspect is true of many of this parody’s target audience, you’re going to miss most of the humor present in the film. I enjoyed it, but I can’t in good conscience recommend that anyone go to the theater to see Vampires Suck…trust me, you can wait until it shows up on basic cable in a year or two.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Surprisingly, Vampires Suck actually represents a step forward in quality for Friedberg and Seltzer as directors, but given their track record, that’s really not saying much. The humor in the film isn’t shockingly clever, but it does highlight many of the ridiculous elements of the Twilight series, so if you’ve ever mocked anyone belonging to Team Edward or Team Jacob, you’re sure to enjoy a cheap laugh or two. That being said, I’m sure that any fans of the Twilight series will defend their obsession at any cost, so they are sure to absolutely hate Vampires Suck. Yet, this gap between those who would enjoy and those who would hate Vampires Suck represents a pretty big problem, as many of the funniest jokes within the film require that audience members have seen the parts of the Twilight movies that the jokes reference. So if you’ve never seen a Twilight movie, which I suspect is true of many of this parody’s target audience, you’re going to miss most of the humor present in the film. I enjoyed it, but I can’t in good conscience recommend that anyone go to the theater to see Vampires Suck…trust me, you can wait until it shows up on basic cable in a year or two.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Vampires Suck: Full Review
Vampires Suck: (August 18th, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $12,202,831
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $18,566,733
Gross Revenue: $18,566,733
Budget: $20 million
Director: Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer
There’s not much to say about marketing for Vampires Suck, as it only came to the public’s attention a few weeks before release. Directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer have a pretty pathetic track record when it comes to making parody films, but because Vampires Suck’s main target was the immensely popular Twilight franchise, buzz was building pretty quickly. Though Friedberg and Seltzer usually have some pretty recognizable faces in their films, the cast of Vampires Suck is largely made up of unknowns, but despite this shortcoming, the Twilight franchise has almost as many people who hate it as those who love it, so the potential audience was actually rather large. As someone who has sat through every film in the series, I can attest that the story and acting provide more than enough material for a parody, so even though I wasn’t expecting a fantastic comedy, I was still curious to see how many jokes could be made at the expense of sparkly vampires.
Because Vampires Suck primarily parodies the first Twilight and its sequel, New Moon, the plot is pretty self explanatory. The moody Becca Crane (Jenn Proske) moves to a new town and comes across the mysterious Sullen family. After meeting Edward Sullen (Matt Lanter) and discovering his identity as a vampire (though she at first assumes he is a Jonas brother), Becca falls madly in love and also forms a friendship with Jacob White (Chris Riggi), a local youth with a tail who is prone to chasing cats. Once Edward leaves for her safety, Becca becomes a thrill-seeker in an attempt to draw him back, but when he mistakenly assumes that she has been killed, Becca must now race to prevent Edward from revealing himself to the general public at the high school’s vampire-themed prom. As I said in the “Short and Sweet” review, if you’ve seen the films that this parody is based on, then there is nothing new here in terms of plot…you just have to sit back and watch the cast expand on some of the more ridiculous plot elements that die-hard members of Team Edward or Team Jacob have prayed no one would ever acknowledge.
I’ll be honest, I laughed way more during Vampires Suck than I thought I would, but maybe I was just glad to see that others had acknowledged that there are enough ridiculous elements present in the Twilight movies to fuel a feature-length parody. Among the cast, Jenn Proske is by far the funniest as Becca, whether she is acknowledging the mystery of how every guy is attracted to her despite the fact that her personality is horrible and she’s not that attractive, or fighting off crazed members of Team Jacob. The other two big surprises are Diedrich Bader as Becca’s clueless father and Ken Jeong as the head of the evil vampire council, though I was surprised to see someone as talented and well-known as Jeong (The Hangover) in a weak parody. Another positive aspect of Vampires Suck is that it represents a step forward for directors Friedberg and Seltzer in the parody franchise. Past films such as Epic Movie and Disaster Movie are famous for trying to shove as many film and pop-culture references into the narrative as possible, regardless of whether they make sense or are even funny; Vampires Suck corrects this shortcoming by simply focusing on making fun of the Twilight series.
Regardless of how much I enjoyed watching the cast take cheap shots at Twilight, I still have to acknowledge that the humor is still pretty weak and silly, not to mention non-existent if you haven’t seen any of the Twilight films. The plot of this parody follows the original so closely that some of the best jokes present are only funny if you fully understand the reference, and that is a pretty tall order when you consider that the fans of Twilight who would understand the jokes are unlikely to see a film that trashes their beloved vampire-werewolf love-triangle. I did say that Vampires Suck represents a step forward for the Friedberg and Seltzer parodies, but looking back at the other garbage they have introduced to Hollywood, that’s not saying much at all. You can’t expect the acting to be that strong in a parody, but with the amount of material present in the Twilight series, I still thought that Vampires Suck could have been funnier and used a lot more clever humor.
Given the weak nature of this parody whose appeal rests solely on mocking a far more popular and successful franchise, I was shocked when reports came in that Vampires Suck had taken second place at the weekend box-office. Combined with its earnings from a Wednesday opening, Vampires Suck took in an impressive $12 million, out-performing four other releases and nipping at the heels of The Expendables. Maybe I’m not alone in wanting to see someone tear into the Twilight franchise. Yet, even though it has some pretty funny moments, I still don’t think there’s enough to make Vampires Suck a must-see at theaters. I’m sure there are those who will enjoy it, but they should have no problem waiting to see this parody on Netflix or even basic cable.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $12,202,831
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $18,566,733
Gross Revenue: $18,566,733
Budget: $20 million
Director: Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer
There’s not much to say about marketing for Vampires Suck, as it only came to the public’s attention a few weeks before release. Directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer have a pretty pathetic track record when it comes to making parody films, but because Vampires Suck’s main target was the immensely popular Twilight franchise, buzz was building pretty quickly. Though Friedberg and Seltzer usually have some pretty recognizable faces in their films, the cast of Vampires Suck is largely made up of unknowns, but despite this shortcoming, the Twilight franchise has almost as many people who hate it as those who love it, so the potential audience was actually rather large. As someone who has sat through every film in the series, I can attest that the story and acting provide more than enough material for a parody, so even though I wasn’t expecting a fantastic comedy, I was still curious to see how many jokes could be made at the expense of sparkly vampires.
Because Vampires Suck primarily parodies the first Twilight and its sequel, New Moon, the plot is pretty self explanatory. The moody Becca Crane (Jenn Proske) moves to a new town and comes across the mysterious Sullen family. After meeting Edward Sullen (Matt Lanter) and discovering his identity as a vampire (though she at first assumes he is a Jonas brother), Becca falls madly in love and also forms a friendship with Jacob White (Chris Riggi), a local youth with a tail who is prone to chasing cats. Once Edward leaves for her safety, Becca becomes a thrill-seeker in an attempt to draw him back, but when he mistakenly assumes that she has been killed, Becca must now race to prevent Edward from revealing himself to the general public at the high school’s vampire-themed prom. As I said in the “Short and Sweet” review, if you’ve seen the films that this parody is based on, then there is nothing new here in terms of plot…you just have to sit back and watch the cast expand on some of the more ridiculous plot elements that die-hard members of Team Edward or Team Jacob have prayed no one would ever acknowledge.
I’ll be honest, I laughed way more during Vampires Suck than I thought I would, but maybe I was just glad to see that others had acknowledged that there are enough ridiculous elements present in the Twilight movies to fuel a feature-length parody. Among the cast, Jenn Proske is by far the funniest as Becca, whether she is acknowledging the mystery of how every guy is attracted to her despite the fact that her personality is horrible and she’s not that attractive, or fighting off crazed members of Team Jacob. The other two big surprises are Diedrich Bader as Becca’s clueless father and Ken Jeong as the head of the evil vampire council, though I was surprised to see someone as talented and well-known as Jeong (The Hangover) in a weak parody. Another positive aspect of Vampires Suck is that it represents a step forward for directors Friedberg and Seltzer in the parody franchise. Past films such as Epic Movie and Disaster Movie are famous for trying to shove as many film and pop-culture references into the narrative as possible, regardless of whether they make sense or are even funny; Vampires Suck corrects this shortcoming by simply focusing on making fun of the Twilight series.
Regardless of how much I enjoyed watching the cast take cheap shots at Twilight, I still have to acknowledge that the humor is still pretty weak and silly, not to mention non-existent if you haven’t seen any of the Twilight films. The plot of this parody follows the original so closely that some of the best jokes present are only funny if you fully understand the reference, and that is a pretty tall order when you consider that the fans of Twilight who would understand the jokes are unlikely to see a film that trashes their beloved vampire-werewolf love-triangle. I did say that Vampires Suck represents a step forward for the Friedberg and Seltzer parodies, but looking back at the other garbage they have introduced to Hollywood, that’s not saying much at all. You can’t expect the acting to be that strong in a parody, but with the amount of material present in the Twilight series, I still thought that Vampires Suck could have been funnier and used a lot more clever humor.
Given the weak nature of this parody whose appeal rests solely on mocking a far more popular and successful franchise, I was shocked when reports came in that Vampires Suck had taken second place at the weekend box-office. Combined with its earnings from a Wednesday opening, Vampires Suck took in an impressive $12 million, out-performing four other releases and nipping at the heels of The Expendables. Maybe I’m not alone in wanting to see someone tear into the Twilight franchise. Yet, even though it has some pretty funny moments, I still don’t think there’s enough to make Vampires Suck a must-see at theaters. I’m sure there are those who will enjoy it, but they should have no problem waiting to see this parody on Netflix or even basic cable.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World: Short and Sweet
When I first saw a preview for Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, I couldn’t believe that a studio would let Michael Cera headline a summer blockbuster, especially one that looked like nothing more than a prolonged acid trip. I never watched Michael Cera in Arrested Development, and even though I enjoyed him in Superbad and tolerated him in Juno, I still don’t understand how he is so popular. I find him incredibly irritating, so I wasn’t thrilled about the prospect of watching him in another film, but I was intrigued by how Scott Pilgrim vs. the World seemed to fully integrate both its comic book source material and video game inspiration into the story. It’s no secret that I am a hardcore comic and video game fan, so the more and more I learned about Scott Pilgrim, the more and more I was willing to forgive Cera’s presence on screen in the name of enjoying this uniquely integrative fantasy film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s presence was a definite bonus, as she has been growing increasingly popular over the years, first establishing herself as a scream queen for her work in the horror genre (The Ring 2, Final Destination 3, and Death Proof) before branching out to a variety of other popular films (Sky High, Bobby, and Live Free or Die Hard). Perhaps my curiosity outweighed some of my better judgment, but I decided to give Scott Pilgrim vs. the World the benefit of the doubt and see it anyway.
In a previous review, I compared watching The Expendables to taking an injection of adrenaline and testosterone, but if I were to use a comparable simile for this review, then watching Scott Pilgrim vs. the World can only be described like taking an injection of something psychedelic and illegal. The concept for the film was intriguing enough, but the execution was just too weird to be enjoyable; by the time the end credits began to roll, my head hurt from trying to process what had just occurred on screen. Michael Cera is as annoying and snarky as ever, and watching him morph into a warrior to battle the evil-exes is just too awkward. There is also zero chemistry or believability in the pairing of Cera and Winstead, which is a pretty big error when you consider that their supposed relationship is the basis for the entire film. The strongest positive note is that the cinematic devices and special effects used for Scott Pilgrim vs. the World are unlike anything audiences have ever seen, but I can’t help but wonder if they could have been presented in a far less confusing way. Despite the hype surrounding the film, I think most of my readers can go without seeing this cinematic fantasy.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Low
In a previous review, I compared watching The Expendables to taking an injection of adrenaline and testosterone, but if I were to use a comparable simile for this review, then watching Scott Pilgrim vs. the World can only be described like taking an injection of something psychedelic and illegal. The concept for the film was intriguing enough, but the execution was just too weird to be enjoyable; by the time the end credits began to roll, my head hurt from trying to process what had just occurred on screen. Michael Cera is as annoying and snarky as ever, and watching him morph into a warrior to battle the evil-exes is just too awkward. There is also zero chemistry or believability in the pairing of Cera and Winstead, which is a pretty big error when you consider that their supposed relationship is the basis for the entire film. The strongest positive note is that the cinematic devices and special effects used for Scott Pilgrim vs. the World are unlike anything audiences have ever seen, but I can’t help but wonder if they could have been presented in a far less confusing way. Despite the hype surrounding the film, I think most of my readers can go without seeing this cinematic fantasy.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World: Full Review
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World: (August 13th, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #5 with $10,609,795
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $10,609,795
Gross Revenue: $11,609,795
Budget: $60 million
Director: Edgar Wright
Given the unique nature of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, the marketing campaign for this summer blockbuster targeted both video game and comic book fans, which represent a staggeringly large potential audience. Director Edgar Wright has had significant success with some off-beat films (Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz being his most famous), so this newest project seemed like a perfect fit. The Scott Pilgrim comic book series is relatively obscure compared to everyone’s favorite superheroes, but when trailers showed visual effects-laden battles with a clear video game inspiration, that’s enough to motivate even the most casual fan to go to the theater. In addition to these factors, even though I’m not a fan, Michael Cera still has a pretty big following, and when you add the increasingly popular Mary Elizabeth Winstead as a love interest and a diverse group of antagonists comprised of some well known Hollywood actors (Chris Evans, Brandon Routh, and Jason Schwartzman), the appeal for Scott Pilgrim vs. the World just keeps increasing. Though I was initially hesitant when I saw the first trailer, as I considered all the elements of the film and the hype building from early reviews, my prejudice against Michael Cera began to soften; by the time the release date rolled around, I was intrigued enough to see all that Scott Pilgrim vs. the World had to offer.
Set in Toronto, this summer adventure follows 22-year-old Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) as he and his band, “Sex Bob-omb” compete in several battle of the bands competitions in the hopes of winning a recording contract with the mysterious high-end label executive G-Man. As the film begins, Scott is dating high-school student Knives Chau (Ellen Wong), but he soon meets Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), becoming so enamored that he soon dumps Knives and relentlessly pursues Ramona. As soon as Scott and Ramona begin dating, Scott is confronted by The League of Evil Exes, seven of Ramona’s ex-flames who engage Scott in battle in an attempt to control Ramona’s love life. Each of the battles takes on a video game setting similar to old-school arcade machines, evoking audience memories of Mortal Kombat or Street Fighter, and since each of the evil-exes has a special power or ability, Scott has his work cut out for him. With the help of his band and his eccentric roommate Wallace (Kieran Culkin), Scott must endure all of these unique opponents, and if he hopes to continue dating Ramona, he has to find a way to defeat each member of the League of Evil Exes.
Though the plot can at best be described as off-beat, it is brought to life with some truly unique cinematography and visual effects. Borrowing from both the comic book and video game universes, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World makes strong use of diegetic and non-diegetic inserts throughout the narrative, which are devices that appear on screen that the characters of the film are not necessarily aware of. Some examples of the devices that the characters are unaware of include the profile boxes that appear next to characters when they are first introduced and provide necessary information to the audience, or the onomatopoeia text that appears to describe some of the sounds that occur during the battles (think of the BOOM or POW text that is prevalent in comic books and re-runs of Adam West’s Batman movies). However, there are some of these unique devices that the characters are fully aware of, such as when Scott grabs a 1-up mushroom to gain an extra life during a battle. It would be much easier to describe these effects if my readers actually see the film, but suffice to say that I haven’t ever seen anything like this on screen, and it’s so uniquely absurd that it’s brilliant. Other positives include the evil exes themselves, each of whom have diverse and humorous personalities (Brandon Routh is easily the funniest, way to go Superman) that provide for enjoyable battles, though I was disappointed by how easily Chris Evans was defeated…hopefully he’s tougher as Captain America. Aside from the exes themselves, the strongest performance from the main cast comes from Scott’s roommate, Wallace; Kieran Culkin more than steps out from his Home Alone older brother’s shadow with a thoroughly humorous performance. Unfortunately, despite these positive aspects, there are still plenty of things wrong with Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.
Though the cinematic devices are unique enough, I feel like their execution was a little overdone, which resulted in a confusing film that abandons any form of logic and actually over-stimulates the audience. I’ll put it to you this way: I didn’t find Inception this hard to process. Given my strong preference for video games and comic books, I should have loved Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, but in the end it was just too weird, whether it was when the exes burst into coins when defeated or Scott instantaneously transforms from wimp to master ninja whenever confronted. As expected, I absolutely hated Michael Cera’s performance, as he was at his whiny and neurotic worst, only making his martial arts battles all the more awkward. As for the relationship between Scott and Ramona, there was an obvious lack of chemistry, making the pairing insultingly unbelievable, especially when their romance is supposed to be the motivator for the entire film; Mary Elizabeth Winstead gave an entertaining performance, she just doesn’t fit with Michael Cera. Overall, I am shocked by the amount of praise that Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is receiving…it had potential and is visually one-of-a-kind, but by the time the end credits roll, the entire experience feels like a missed opportunity of an off-beat story that is just too unconventional to appeal to anyone but hardcore fans of the original series.
Forgetting that I was disappointed in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, I still expected it to perform better at the box-office. Given the hype that surrounded the film and its dual appeal to comic book and video game fans, opening in 5th place with just over $10 million is insulting. Universal has had an up-and-down summer season; successes include Despicable Me and Get Him to the Greek, but I think that Scott Pilgrim vs. the World more aptly fits with disappointments like Macgruber and Charlie St. Cloud. There are positive aspects to this most recent summer film, and its worth seeing if you want to witness the unique cinematic devices employed, but the negatives are simply too strong to ignore or forgive.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #5 with $10,609,795
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $10,609,795
Gross Revenue: $11,609,795
Budget: $60 million
Director: Edgar Wright
Given the unique nature of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, the marketing campaign for this summer blockbuster targeted both video game and comic book fans, which represent a staggeringly large potential audience. Director Edgar Wright has had significant success with some off-beat films (Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz being his most famous), so this newest project seemed like a perfect fit. The Scott Pilgrim comic book series is relatively obscure compared to everyone’s favorite superheroes, but when trailers showed visual effects-laden battles with a clear video game inspiration, that’s enough to motivate even the most casual fan to go to the theater. In addition to these factors, even though I’m not a fan, Michael Cera still has a pretty big following, and when you add the increasingly popular Mary Elizabeth Winstead as a love interest and a diverse group of antagonists comprised of some well known Hollywood actors (Chris Evans, Brandon Routh, and Jason Schwartzman), the appeal for Scott Pilgrim vs. the World just keeps increasing. Though I was initially hesitant when I saw the first trailer, as I considered all the elements of the film and the hype building from early reviews, my prejudice against Michael Cera began to soften; by the time the release date rolled around, I was intrigued enough to see all that Scott Pilgrim vs. the World had to offer.
Set in Toronto, this summer adventure follows 22-year-old Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) as he and his band, “Sex Bob-omb” compete in several battle of the bands competitions in the hopes of winning a recording contract with the mysterious high-end label executive G-Man. As the film begins, Scott is dating high-school student Knives Chau (Ellen Wong), but he soon meets Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), becoming so enamored that he soon dumps Knives and relentlessly pursues Ramona. As soon as Scott and Ramona begin dating, Scott is confronted by The League of Evil Exes, seven of Ramona’s ex-flames who engage Scott in battle in an attempt to control Ramona’s love life. Each of the battles takes on a video game setting similar to old-school arcade machines, evoking audience memories of Mortal Kombat or Street Fighter, and since each of the evil-exes has a special power or ability, Scott has his work cut out for him. With the help of his band and his eccentric roommate Wallace (Kieran Culkin), Scott must endure all of these unique opponents, and if he hopes to continue dating Ramona, he has to find a way to defeat each member of the League of Evil Exes.
Though the plot can at best be described as off-beat, it is brought to life with some truly unique cinematography and visual effects. Borrowing from both the comic book and video game universes, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World makes strong use of diegetic and non-diegetic inserts throughout the narrative, which are devices that appear on screen that the characters of the film are not necessarily aware of. Some examples of the devices that the characters are unaware of include the profile boxes that appear next to characters when they are first introduced and provide necessary information to the audience, or the onomatopoeia text that appears to describe some of the sounds that occur during the battles (think of the BOOM or POW text that is prevalent in comic books and re-runs of Adam West’s Batman movies). However, there are some of these unique devices that the characters are fully aware of, such as when Scott grabs a 1-up mushroom to gain an extra life during a battle. It would be much easier to describe these effects if my readers actually see the film, but suffice to say that I haven’t ever seen anything like this on screen, and it’s so uniquely absurd that it’s brilliant. Other positives include the evil exes themselves, each of whom have diverse and humorous personalities (Brandon Routh is easily the funniest, way to go Superman) that provide for enjoyable battles, though I was disappointed by how easily Chris Evans was defeated…hopefully he’s tougher as Captain America. Aside from the exes themselves, the strongest performance from the main cast comes from Scott’s roommate, Wallace; Kieran Culkin more than steps out from his Home Alone older brother’s shadow with a thoroughly humorous performance. Unfortunately, despite these positive aspects, there are still plenty of things wrong with Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.
Though the cinematic devices are unique enough, I feel like their execution was a little overdone, which resulted in a confusing film that abandons any form of logic and actually over-stimulates the audience. I’ll put it to you this way: I didn’t find Inception this hard to process. Given my strong preference for video games and comic books, I should have loved Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, but in the end it was just too weird, whether it was when the exes burst into coins when defeated or Scott instantaneously transforms from wimp to master ninja whenever confronted. As expected, I absolutely hated Michael Cera’s performance, as he was at his whiny and neurotic worst, only making his martial arts battles all the more awkward. As for the relationship between Scott and Ramona, there was an obvious lack of chemistry, making the pairing insultingly unbelievable, especially when their romance is supposed to be the motivator for the entire film; Mary Elizabeth Winstead gave an entertaining performance, she just doesn’t fit with Michael Cera. Overall, I am shocked by the amount of praise that Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is receiving…it had potential and is visually one-of-a-kind, but by the time the end credits roll, the entire experience feels like a missed opportunity of an off-beat story that is just too unconventional to appeal to anyone but hardcore fans of the original series.
Forgetting that I was disappointed in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, I still expected it to perform better at the box-office. Given the hype that surrounded the film and its dual appeal to comic book and video game fans, opening in 5th place with just over $10 million is insulting. Universal has had an up-and-down summer season; successes include Despicable Me and Get Him to the Greek, but I think that Scott Pilgrim vs. the World more aptly fits with disappointments like Macgruber and Charlie St. Cloud. There are positive aspects to this most recent summer film, and its worth seeing if you want to witness the unique cinematic devices employed, but the negatives are simply too strong to ignore or forgive.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Saturday, August 14, 2010
The Expendables: Short and Sweet
Mid-August is a notoriously tricky time to release a film, given that it usually signals the end of the always-strong summer movie season, and if a studio wants to recover a budget, they had better make damn sure that they end on a high note. Quentin Tarantino was able to do it with Inglorious Basterds last summer, but could Stallone achieve similar success with an ensemble action film? To be fair, Stallone has had considerable success as a director, so I was excited to see what he could do with such a complicated project; but saying that The Expendables has an ensemble cast is a shocking understatement, since Stallone was able to put together some of the biggest action stars that Hollywood has seen in the past three decades. When I first saw the trailer for The Expendables, the cast listing and some of the action scenes depicted were enough to pique my interest, but the one element that really sold me was the promise of a scene that brought together Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, and the “Governator” himself, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The box-office success of these three iconic action stars is measured in billions, and they each lay claim to some of the most famous characters in cinema, so I knew that I couldn’t miss seeing this historic scene.
As the final explosions settled, I sat in the theater feeling like I had just been given a needle of adrenaline and testosterone straight through the heart. Watching all of these high-end action personalities interact and kick the living shit out of everything on-screen was just plain awesome. The story isn’t the best and the boundaries of logic are stretched a few times, but the action is so entertaining that you find it hard to care. One word of caution to my readers of the fairer sex, The Expendables is completely and utterly a guy movie, and I can see how there would be little appeal for female movie-goers. However ladies, if you dragged your guy to Sex and the City 2, Twilight: Eclipse, or Charlie St. Cloud, and he was decent enough to sit through those chick flicks, you owe it to him to go see The Expendables. Bottom line, The Expendables boasts an entertaining and historic cast that cannot be missed; if you have ever enjoyed an action movie, you need to see this epic on the big-screen.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
As the final explosions settled, I sat in the theater feeling like I had just been given a needle of adrenaline and testosterone straight through the heart. Watching all of these high-end action personalities interact and kick the living shit out of everything on-screen was just plain awesome. The story isn’t the best and the boundaries of logic are stretched a few times, but the action is so entertaining that you find it hard to care. One word of caution to my readers of the fairer sex, The Expendables is completely and utterly a guy movie, and I can see how there would be little appeal for female movie-goers. However ladies, if you dragged your guy to Sex and the City 2, Twilight: Eclipse, or Charlie St. Cloud, and he was decent enough to sit through those chick flicks, you owe it to him to go see The Expendables. Bottom line, The Expendables boasts an entertaining and historic cast that cannot be missed; if you have ever enjoyed an action movie, you need to see this epic on the big-screen.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
The Expendables: Full Review
The Expendables: (August 13th, 2010): R
Distributor: Lionsgate Entertainment
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $34,825,135
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $34,825,135
Gross Revenue: $38,765,746
Budget: $82 million
Director: Sylvester Stallone
If it wasn’t painfully obvious from Comic-Con appearances, and endless array of trailers, and print advertisements on nearly every billboard and bus stop within eye-range, the marketability for The Expendables laid solely within the action-star power of its cast. Names like Stallone, Willis, Li, and Schwarzenegger were a given, but some of the other casting choices were a little strange and obscure. Jason Statham has made a name for himself with his work in the Transporter franchise, and Dolph Lundgren was huge name in the 80’s and early 90’s, whether he beat the snot out of Stallone as Ivan Drago in Rocky IV or wiped the floor with Jean-Claude Van Dam in Universal Soldier, but to call the last few members of cast “action stars” was a little bit of a stretch. Randy Couture is an icon in the world of mixed-martial arts and Steve Austin is a legend in the WWE, but neither of them are actors; Terry Crews used to play in the NFL, but his film career has largely been confined to the comedy genre (White Chicks, The Longest Yard, and Get Smart being some of his best), and Mickey Rourke only recently broke into the action genre with his work in The Wrestler and Iron Man 2. Though some might think that Stallone missed a few casting opportunities, he worked very hard to put together an all-star cast; though they declined or were unavailable, apparently Stallone talked with Jean-Claude Van Dam, Steven Seagal, Wesley Snipes, and the demi-god himself, Mr. Chuck Norris…though let’s be honest, I don’t think movie-goers could have handled the intensity of seeing Chuck Norris on screen. Maybe some of the no-shows this time around will find their way into the sequel. Needless to say, I could have cared less of whether The Expendables had a decent story or strong acting; I just wanted to see what all these action stars could accomplish together.
This latest action film follows the highly-elite team of mercenaries known as the Expendables, led by veteran soldier Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) and his second-in-command Lee Christmas (Jason Statham). With expert fighter Yin Yang (Jet Li), explosives expert Toll Road (Randy Couture), sniper Gunnar Jensen (Dolph Lundgren), heavy weapons specialist Hale Ceaser (Terry Crews), and information broker and mechanic Tool (Mickey Rourke), the Expendables are an unbeatable force. After a brief introduction to the team, the audience is introduced to the Expendables’ next mission as Ross is approached by the mysterious Mr. Church (Bruce Willis) and hired to overthrow a South American dictator who traffics drugs with the help of ex-CIA agent James Monroe (Eric Roberts) and his personal bodyguard, Dan Paine (Steve Austin). Needless to say, the Expendables have their work cut out for them, and the audience is guaranteed a gratuitous amount of violence and a record-breaking body count.
I’m not going to tip-toe through my review in any way; I absolutely loved The Expendables, primarily because of the nearly-constant level of over-the-top action and violence. I remember fighting the strong urge to go work out or stab something after I saw 300, and I had a very similar reaction to The Expendables, whether that was due to Jason Statham and Jet Li breaking necks left and right, Terry Crews dispatching dozens of guards with an automatic shotgun, or Stallone decapitating a guy with a bowie knife. With enough explosions to make Michael Bay jealous and a body-count that I lost count of half-way through the film, The Expendables is a straight shot of adrenaline that more than satisfies anyone’s propensity for violence as this group of mercenaries kill anything that moves in a variety of different ways. All of the differing action personalities click surprisingly well throughout the film, fighting together of making fun of each other, but I would have paid full admission just for the scene with Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzenneger. Words cannot express how historic this scene really was…between Die Hard, Rocky, Rambo, and The Terminator, the number of action franchises represented in this scene is enough to make any hardcore action fan giggle, and I just kept praying that Bruce Willis would finish the scene by saying “Yippie-ki Yay…”well, you know how the rest of it goes. With the base simplicity of these positive aspects of the film, I was more than willing to forgive any of the weaker elements.
As I take a more critical eye to The Expendables, I have to admit that the story elements were a little clichéd and weak. Nearly all of the mercenaries depicted have some sort of personal demon they are battling, and they try and find a path to redemption through this latest mission. But just by looking at the character’s names, you can tell that The Expendables wasn’t meant to be taken too seriously…c’mon, how many badasses do you know named Barney? And given the age of some of these action stars (most of whom have aged very badly), some of the stunts are a little ridiculous, such as when the now 64-year-old Stallone pulls himself onto a moving airplane in the midst of gunfire…though he’s brought back to reality when Steve Austin kicks his ass later in the movie (Stallone actually broke his neck filming the scene). When it comes to the interactions between the cast, as I said before, all of these action stars work surprisingly well together, but there is very little character development beyond Stallone and Statham…the rest of the team is notable absent for a large portion of the movie. The Expendables is far from the best action movie ever made, and the story is pretty weak, but when you consider the history behind the film and the no-nonsense action delivered, you find it really hard to care if the plot was believable or if the acting was good.
Apparently Stallone was nervous about opening against Julia Roberts' Eat Pray Love, but The Expendables proved to be the best opening of his career (as both actor and director) topping the box-office its opening weekend, generating over $13 million the first day and continuing on to a very strong weekend haul of just over $35 million. Critical reaction has been mixed, but as I said before, I enjoyed the action far too much to be swayed into a negative opinion by those expecting a deep emotional journey in this summer blockbuster. Again, I warn readers that The Expendables is purely a guy film, so female movie-goers might be happier seeing something else. Either way, I would go and see The Expendables again in a second and I cannot wait for the sequel; if you enjoy action and violence on any level or are a fan of any of the action stars in the cast, you need to go see Stallone’s tribute to the action genre.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Distributor: Lionsgate Entertainment
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $34,825,135
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $34,825,135
Gross Revenue: $38,765,746
Budget: $82 million
Director: Sylvester Stallone
If it wasn’t painfully obvious from Comic-Con appearances, and endless array of trailers, and print advertisements on nearly every billboard and bus stop within eye-range, the marketability for The Expendables laid solely within the action-star power of its cast. Names like Stallone, Willis, Li, and Schwarzenegger were a given, but some of the other casting choices were a little strange and obscure. Jason Statham has made a name for himself with his work in the Transporter franchise, and Dolph Lundgren was huge name in the 80’s and early 90’s, whether he beat the snot out of Stallone as Ivan Drago in Rocky IV or wiped the floor with Jean-Claude Van Dam in Universal Soldier, but to call the last few members of cast “action stars” was a little bit of a stretch. Randy Couture is an icon in the world of mixed-martial arts and Steve Austin is a legend in the WWE, but neither of them are actors; Terry Crews used to play in the NFL, but his film career has largely been confined to the comedy genre (White Chicks, The Longest Yard, and Get Smart being some of his best), and Mickey Rourke only recently broke into the action genre with his work in The Wrestler and Iron Man 2. Though some might think that Stallone missed a few casting opportunities, he worked very hard to put together an all-star cast; though they declined or were unavailable, apparently Stallone talked with Jean-Claude Van Dam, Steven Seagal, Wesley Snipes, and the demi-god himself, Mr. Chuck Norris…though let’s be honest, I don’t think movie-goers could have handled the intensity of seeing Chuck Norris on screen. Maybe some of the no-shows this time around will find their way into the sequel. Needless to say, I could have cared less of whether The Expendables had a decent story or strong acting; I just wanted to see what all these action stars could accomplish together.
This latest action film follows the highly-elite team of mercenaries known as the Expendables, led by veteran soldier Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) and his second-in-command Lee Christmas (Jason Statham). With expert fighter Yin Yang (Jet Li), explosives expert Toll Road (Randy Couture), sniper Gunnar Jensen (Dolph Lundgren), heavy weapons specialist Hale Ceaser (Terry Crews), and information broker and mechanic Tool (Mickey Rourke), the Expendables are an unbeatable force. After a brief introduction to the team, the audience is introduced to the Expendables’ next mission as Ross is approached by the mysterious Mr. Church (Bruce Willis) and hired to overthrow a South American dictator who traffics drugs with the help of ex-CIA agent James Monroe (Eric Roberts) and his personal bodyguard, Dan Paine (Steve Austin). Needless to say, the Expendables have their work cut out for them, and the audience is guaranteed a gratuitous amount of violence and a record-breaking body count.
I’m not going to tip-toe through my review in any way; I absolutely loved The Expendables, primarily because of the nearly-constant level of over-the-top action and violence. I remember fighting the strong urge to go work out or stab something after I saw 300, and I had a very similar reaction to The Expendables, whether that was due to Jason Statham and Jet Li breaking necks left and right, Terry Crews dispatching dozens of guards with an automatic shotgun, or Stallone decapitating a guy with a bowie knife. With enough explosions to make Michael Bay jealous and a body-count that I lost count of half-way through the film, The Expendables is a straight shot of adrenaline that more than satisfies anyone’s propensity for violence as this group of mercenaries kill anything that moves in a variety of different ways. All of the differing action personalities click surprisingly well throughout the film, fighting together of making fun of each other, but I would have paid full admission just for the scene with Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzenneger. Words cannot express how historic this scene really was…between Die Hard, Rocky, Rambo, and The Terminator, the number of action franchises represented in this scene is enough to make any hardcore action fan giggle, and I just kept praying that Bruce Willis would finish the scene by saying “Yippie-ki Yay…”well, you know how the rest of it goes. With the base simplicity of these positive aspects of the film, I was more than willing to forgive any of the weaker elements.
As I take a more critical eye to The Expendables, I have to admit that the story elements were a little clichéd and weak. Nearly all of the mercenaries depicted have some sort of personal demon they are battling, and they try and find a path to redemption through this latest mission. But just by looking at the character’s names, you can tell that The Expendables wasn’t meant to be taken too seriously…c’mon, how many badasses do you know named Barney? And given the age of some of these action stars (most of whom have aged very badly), some of the stunts are a little ridiculous, such as when the now 64-year-old Stallone pulls himself onto a moving airplane in the midst of gunfire…though he’s brought back to reality when Steve Austin kicks his ass later in the movie (Stallone actually broke his neck filming the scene). When it comes to the interactions between the cast, as I said before, all of these action stars work surprisingly well together, but there is very little character development beyond Stallone and Statham…the rest of the team is notable absent for a large portion of the movie. The Expendables is far from the best action movie ever made, and the story is pretty weak, but when you consider the history behind the film and the no-nonsense action delivered, you find it really hard to care if the plot was believable or if the acting was good.
Apparently Stallone was nervous about opening against Julia Roberts' Eat Pray Love, but The Expendables proved to be the best opening of his career (as both actor and director) topping the box-office its opening weekend, generating over $13 million the first day and continuing on to a very strong weekend haul of just over $35 million. Critical reaction has been mixed, but as I said before, I enjoyed the action far too much to be swayed into a negative opinion by those expecting a deep emotional journey in this summer blockbuster. Again, I warn readers that The Expendables is purely a guy film, so female movie-goers might be happier seeing something else. Either way, I would go and see The Expendables again in a second and I cannot wait for the sequel; if you enjoy action and violence on any level or are a fan of any of the action stars in the cast, you need to go see Stallone’s tribute to the action genre.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Friday, August 13, 2010
Step Up 3-D: Short and Sweet
Amongst this incredibly hectic summer movie season, one theme has become increasingly obvious, and that is the prevalence of the 3-D format for most releases. When I first saw the trailer for Step Up 3-D, I thought that Hollywood had sunk to a new low; agreed, the Step Up franchise has a pretty decent following, but this newest entry just seemed like a lame attempt to squeeze a few extra dollars from movie-goers. The dance genre has been spreading like wildfire recently, thanks largely to the original Step Up, and with the popularity of such shows as So You Think You Can Dance? and America’s Best Dance Crew, I had to admit that this newest sequel had a legitimate claim to compete in this summer movie season. While I am by no means a fan of the Step Up franchise, I can appreciate the talent and energy required to execute a complicated dance routine. Maybe if they attached a strong soundtrack to impressive routines that made innovative use of 3-D technology, this latest dance flick could be entertaining.
As the end credits began to roll, I was actually surprised by how much I enjoyed Step Up 3-D. To clarify, the acting and dialogue were absolutely terrible, and the story was weak at best, but my expectations for these criteria were pretty low to begin with. I also found myself laughing quite a bit during the film, but this wasn’t due to any clever jokes or any genuine humor; I think it was just a natural expression of my subtle cynicism and sarcasm. Yet, despite these weak points, Step Up 3-D delivers exactly what audiences were promised, a dance movie. While some of the characters would break into dance as spontaneously as the cast of High School Musical breaks into song, the featured dance battles have a very complicated and visually stunning choreography, making impressive use of the 3-D technology and feeding off the energy of the accompanying music. So, in spite of my best efforts to hate the film, I found myself rooting for the main characters in the final dance battle, not because I respected their acting skill or I was able to relate to them on any level, but simply because there was something likable about a group of friends competing in an increasingly popular form of expression. Fans of 3-D and flashy routines, along with anyone who has a background in dance, will love Step Up 3-D, but to enjoy it on any level, you cannot expect anything more than a simple dance film.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
On a side note, I’m in the middle of moving, so please bear with me on the timing of these reviews. The Expendables and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World coming soon!
As the end credits began to roll, I was actually surprised by how much I enjoyed Step Up 3-D. To clarify, the acting and dialogue were absolutely terrible, and the story was weak at best, but my expectations for these criteria were pretty low to begin with. I also found myself laughing quite a bit during the film, but this wasn’t due to any clever jokes or any genuine humor; I think it was just a natural expression of my subtle cynicism and sarcasm. Yet, despite these weak points, Step Up 3-D delivers exactly what audiences were promised, a dance movie. While some of the characters would break into dance as spontaneously as the cast of High School Musical breaks into song, the featured dance battles have a very complicated and visually stunning choreography, making impressive use of the 3-D technology and feeding off the energy of the accompanying music. So, in spite of my best efforts to hate the film, I found myself rooting for the main characters in the final dance battle, not because I respected their acting skill or I was able to relate to them on any level, but simply because there was something likable about a group of friends competing in an increasingly popular form of expression. Fans of 3-D and flashy routines, along with anyone who has a background in dance, will love Step Up 3-D, but to enjoy it on any level, you cannot expect anything more than a simple dance film.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
On a side note, I’m in the middle of moving, so please bear with me on the timing of these reviews. The Expendables and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World coming soon!
Step Up 3-D: Full Review
Step Up 3-D: (August 6th, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Summit Entertainment
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #3 with $15,812,311
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $29,844,422
Gross Revenue: $43,265,000
Budget: $30 million
Director: Jon Chu
From a marketing perspective, it was painfully obvious that the chief appeal for this latest entry in the Step Up franchise was the use of 3-D technology. Sure, the franchise had a decent enough following with its two previous offerings and the dance genre has been growing in popularity on the small screen, with several million viewers tuning in every week to watch Dancing with the Stars, So You Think You Can Dance?, and America’s Best Dance Crew, but if you’re not a fan of dance, this film had very little appeal. With a cast full of unknowns, the studio could not bank on star power to draw an audience, and that is why I think so much of the marketing campaign was geared towards the fact that the dance sequences would be presented in 3-D. Needless to say, I wasn’t going to be waiting in line to see Step Up 3-D, but I can appreciate a decent dance sequence, and I was intrigued to see how some of the more complicated maneuvers would appear in the 3-D format.
Set in the world of competitive dance, Step Up 3-D follows franchise characters Moose (Adam Sevani) and Camille Gage (Alyson Stoner) as they prepare to start college at New York University. Fans of the franchise will recognize Moose as a main character from Step Up 2: The Streets, while Camille featured in the first Step Up as the younger sister of Channing Tatum’s character. Almost as soon as he arrives on campus, Moose runs into Luke Katcher (Rick Malambri), a young filmmaker who leads a close-knit dance crew known as the House of Pirates. Luke and his crew are preparing for the annual World Jam dance contest that has a first prize of $100,000, which is more than enough to help all members of the crew settle their financial worries. As they train, Luke discovers the mysterious Natalie (the gorgeous Sharni Vinson), a talented dancer who soon evolves into a genuine love interest, all while contending with their main competition for the contest, the well-financed and arrogant House of Samurai. As these characters train and adapt to each other, they treat the audience to some truly astounding dance routines.
In attempt to justify why I enjoyed Step Up 3-D so much, I’m going to break from my traditional blog format and present the negative aspects of the film first, the biggest of which include the acting, dialogue, and narrative. Admittedly, my expectation for these criteria wasn’t very high to begin with, but the planning and execution of certain plot elements is so bad that I couldn’t help but laugh. I can accept the central plot of the importance of the main crew winning the big competition, but the level of intensity placed on dance is just a little too high to be taken seriously. Its one thing to be passionate about dance, but you can’t help but roll your eyes when Moose comes to the grand epiphany that “dance can change things” and subsequently approaches the college dean to declare a double major in engineering and dance, or when the House of Samurai corners him in a bathroom for a dance battle with the help of a guy who has a boom-box wired into his jacket. When it comes to acting, there’s enough chemistry between Luke and Natalie to make their romance believable, and the members of the House of Pirates are unique enough to become likable (despite a low level of character development), but the real problem comes whenever Moose begins to speak or the House of Pirates try and trash talk the House of Samurai. Adam Sevani is so unbelievably annoying as Moose that you can’t help but wish some sort of misfortune to befall him while he’s on screen; thank God he’s a good dancer, but it’s a genuine disappointment throughout the film when you realize that he’s going to stop dancing and start talking again. As for the competition between the Pirates and Samurai, the intensity and hatred these two factions and their leaders show towards each other often makes the audience feel like a gang war might erupt instead of a dance routine. Overall, what I have presented here is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of weak elements present in Step Up 3-D; the film might have been better served by just looping the dance routines together and editing out attempts to build characters or a story.
Now it’s time for parts of Step Up 3-D that I actually enjoyed, and understandably they all involved the dance routines that utilized 3-D effects. There were some simple dance sequences, but they were a little too spontaneous to be believable; the chief appeal involves the main three dance battles that comprise the World Jam dance competition. With some impressive acrobatics and complicated dance moves, each of the dance battles exploits a unique element for the benefit of 3-D, whether the dance floor is flooded so that the crews can incorporate splashing water into the routine, or each crew member wears a suit made of neon lights that change color continuously. Add these dance moves to a very modern and popular soundtrack (“Beggin” by Madcon might be my new favorite song), and Step Up 3-D builds an energy that audience can’t help but feed off of. In the end, this summer sequel more than delivered on exactly what it promised movie-goers, impressive 3-D dances, and though the execution wasn’t perfect, it was done with enough style to be enjoyable.
Opening up at #3 with just under $16 million, Step Up 3-D has performed surprisingly well, even in the face of significant competition at the box-office. Since it has already recovered more than half of its production budget in its opening weekend, I don’t think Summit Entertainment will have any trouble turning a profit, even with The Expendables and Scott Pilgrim opening this weekend. Though I doubt any of the actors within this sequel can expect a lucrative or sustainable career in Hollywood, Step Up 3-D is still an entertaining dance film that effective utilizes the 3-D format, but you have to approach it without any lofty expectations. And let’s face it; Hollywood has presented the movie-going public with far bigger disappointments during this summer season.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Summit Entertainment
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #3 with $15,812,311
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $29,844,422
Gross Revenue: $43,265,000
Budget: $30 million
Director: Jon Chu
From a marketing perspective, it was painfully obvious that the chief appeal for this latest entry in the Step Up franchise was the use of 3-D technology. Sure, the franchise had a decent enough following with its two previous offerings and the dance genre has been growing in popularity on the small screen, with several million viewers tuning in every week to watch Dancing with the Stars, So You Think You Can Dance?, and America’s Best Dance Crew, but if you’re not a fan of dance, this film had very little appeal. With a cast full of unknowns, the studio could not bank on star power to draw an audience, and that is why I think so much of the marketing campaign was geared towards the fact that the dance sequences would be presented in 3-D. Needless to say, I wasn’t going to be waiting in line to see Step Up 3-D, but I can appreciate a decent dance sequence, and I was intrigued to see how some of the more complicated maneuvers would appear in the 3-D format.
Set in the world of competitive dance, Step Up 3-D follows franchise characters Moose (Adam Sevani) and Camille Gage (Alyson Stoner) as they prepare to start college at New York University. Fans of the franchise will recognize Moose as a main character from Step Up 2: The Streets, while Camille featured in the first Step Up as the younger sister of Channing Tatum’s character. Almost as soon as he arrives on campus, Moose runs into Luke Katcher (Rick Malambri), a young filmmaker who leads a close-knit dance crew known as the House of Pirates. Luke and his crew are preparing for the annual World Jam dance contest that has a first prize of $100,000, which is more than enough to help all members of the crew settle their financial worries. As they train, Luke discovers the mysterious Natalie (the gorgeous Sharni Vinson), a talented dancer who soon evolves into a genuine love interest, all while contending with their main competition for the contest, the well-financed and arrogant House of Samurai. As these characters train and adapt to each other, they treat the audience to some truly astounding dance routines.
In attempt to justify why I enjoyed Step Up 3-D so much, I’m going to break from my traditional blog format and present the negative aspects of the film first, the biggest of which include the acting, dialogue, and narrative. Admittedly, my expectation for these criteria wasn’t very high to begin with, but the planning and execution of certain plot elements is so bad that I couldn’t help but laugh. I can accept the central plot of the importance of the main crew winning the big competition, but the level of intensity placed on dance is just a little too high to be taken seriously. Its one thing to be passionate about dance, but you can’t help but roll your eyes when Moose comes to the grand epiphany that “dance can change things” and subsequently approaches the college dean to declare a double major in engineering and dance, or when the House of Samurai corners him in a bathroom for a dance battle with the help of a guy who has a boom-box wired into his jacket. When it comes to acting, there’s enough chemistry between Luke and Natalie to make their romance believable, and the members of the House of Pirates are unique enough to become likable (despite a low level of character development), but the real problem comes whenever Moose begins to speak or the House of Pirates try and trash talk the House of Samurai. Adam Sevani is so unbelievably annoying as Moose that you can’t help but wish some sort of misfortune to befall him while he’s on screen; thank God he’s a good dancer, but it’s a genuine disappointment throughout the film when you realize that he’s going to stop dancing and start talking again. As for the competition between the Pirates and Samurai, the intensity and hatred these two factions and their leaders show towards each other often makes the audience feel like a gang war might erupt instead of a dance routine. Overall, what I have presented here is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of weak elements present in Step Up 3-D; the film might have been better served by just looping the dance routines together and editing out attempts to build characters or a story.
Now it’s time for parts of Step Up 3-D that I actually enjoyed, and understandably they all involved the dance routines that utilized 3-D effects. There were some simple dance sequences, but they were a little too spontaneous to be believable; the chief appeal involves the main three dance battles that comprise the World Jam dance competition. With some impressive acrobatics and complicated dance moves, each of the dance battles exploits a unique element for the benefit of 3-D, whether the dance floor is flooded so that the crews can incorporate splashing water into the routine, or each crew member wears a suit made of neon lights that change color continuously. Add these dance moves to a very modern and popular soundtrack (“Beggin” by Madcon might be my new favorite song), and Step Up 3-D builds an energy that audience can’t help but feed off of. In the end, this summer sequel more than delivered on exactly what it promised movie-goers, impressive 3-D dances, and though the execution wasn’t perfect, it was done with enough style to be enjoyable.
Opening up at #3 with just under $16 million, Step Up 3-D has performed surprisingly well, even in the face of significant competition at the box-office. Since it has already recovered more than half of its production budget in its opening weekend, I don’t think Summit Entertainment will have any trouble turning a profit, even with The Expendables and Scott Pilgrim opening this weekend. Though I doubt any of the actors within this sequel can expect a lucrative or sustainable career in Hollywood, Step Up 3-D is still an entertaining dance film that effective utilizes the 3-D format, but you have to approach it without any lofty expectations. And let’s face it; Hollywood has presented the movie-going public with far bigger disappointments during this summer season.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The Other Guys: Short and Sweet
This has been a surprisingly strong summer for comedies, with the equally impressive crowd-pleasers Get Him to the Greek and Dinner for Schmucks generating strong revenue and positive critical reception. Prior to its release, I’ll admit that I was initially hesitant to see The Other Guys, solely because I thought that Will Ferrell had been losing steam recently, especially since his last summer film, the disastrous Land of the Lost, led many critics to declare him the most overpaid actor in Hollywood. Don’t get me wrong, I am a big fan of Will Ferrell’s iconic comedy films, but I was worried that he may have passed his prime. Luckily, The Other Guys was another collaboration between Will Ferrell and writer/director Adam McKay, whose accomplishments in comedy mirror Disney/Pixar’s accomplishments in animation. With the reputation of its creative team and the backing of an aggressive marketing campaign, The Other Guys had all the makings of a summer blockbuster; add Mark Wahlberg, Eva Mendes, Samuel L. Jackson, and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson to the mix, and The Other Guys turns into an absolute must-see.
In retrospect, The Other Guys is one of Will Ferrell’s more unique comedic offerings, as many times it seems like the film had trouble deciphering whether it wanted to be a serious cop film or a complete spoof. Granted, The Other Guys more than delivers on comedy, with numerous scenes that you will be quoting for years, but the story switches between complex and simple or between serious and ridiculous one too many times for audiences to completely ignore the contradiction. Will Ferrell’s most recent character may not have the same flair as a scotch-drinking news anchor or an eccentric racecar driver who trains with a live cougar, but Ferrell has still more than proven his comedic talent and successfully navigated past some recent failures. Mark Wahlberg also demonstrates an impressive capability for humor, helping Ferrell create a comedic team that could give Steve Carell and Paul Rudd a run for their money. The Other Guys is definitely not Will Ferrell’s best comedy and has some significant weak points, but in the end, the high level of comedy and enjoyable performances generates the kind of appeal that defines a successful summer comedy.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: High
In retrospect, The Other Guys is one of Will Ferrell’s more unique comedic offerings, as many times it seems like the film had trouble deciphering whether it wanted to be a serious cop film or a complete spoof. Granted, The Other Guys more than delivers on comedy, with numerous scenes that you will be quoting for years, but the story switches between complex and simple or between serious and ridiculous one too many times for audiences to completely ignore the contradiction. Will Ferrell’s most recent character may not have the same flair as a scotch-drinking news anchor or an eccentric racecar driver who trains with a live cougar, but Ferrell has still more than proven his comedic talent and successfully navigated past some recent failures. Mark Wahlberg also demonstrates an impressive capability for humor, helping Ferrell create a comedic team that could give Steve Carell and Paul Rudd a run for their money. The Other Guys is definitely not Will Ferrell’s best comedy and has some significant weak points, but in the end, the high level of comedy and enjoyable performances generates the kind of appeal that defines a successful summer comedy.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: High
The Other Guys: Full Review
The Other Guys: (August 6th, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Columbia Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $35,600,000
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $69,951,822
Gross Revenue: $70,543,000
Budget: $100 million
Director: Adam McKay
Perhaps the definitive launching pad for The Other Guys marketing campaign occurred at the 2010 MTV Movie Awards, where Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg bickered as they were lowered into the audience on stunt harnesses. From that point on, the trailer was everywhere, and both leads made appearances across all kinds of different networks, from the expected Comedy Central weekend marathons to the surprising advanced screenings featured on NBC’s America’s Got Talent and CBS’ Big Brother. To be honest, both Ferrell and Wahlberg needed The Other Guys to be a success; Ferrell was still recovering from the backlash of last summer’s ill-advised Land of the Lost, while Wahlberg has suffered from a recent string of disappointments, such as The Happening, Max Payne, and The Lovely Bones. Apparently, Wahlberg consults a family priest for guidance before he takes any role, so even though he’s been in some great movies (The Departed, Shooter, Four Brothers, Invincible, The Italian Job…etc.), it seems like some of his recent guidance has been pretty weak. Fortunately, The Other Guys reunites Will Ferrell with writer/director/producer Adam McKay, the team behind Ferrell’s classics Anchorman, Talladega Nights, and Step Brothers (McKay was only a producer on Land of the Lost), so it seems like this buddy-cop comedy was more than enough to get both actors back on track.
Ferrell and Wahlberg play NYPD Detectives and partners Allen Gamble and Terry Hoitz; Gamble is a timid paper-pusher who was recently promoted from forensic accounting, while Hoitz is a hot-headed action junky whose career was sidelined by an unfortunate incident with Yankee Derek Jeter. Gamble and Hoitz are constantly over-shadowed by star cops Highsmith (Samuel L. Jackson) and Danson (Dwayne Johnson), but after this team’s abrupt departure from the force, Hoitz sees his opportunity to climb up from the bottom of the barrel. In his words: “I’m a peacock, you gotta let me fly!” Through sheer luck, Gamble and Hoitz stumble upon financial fraud and white-collar criminal David Ershon (the always funny Steve Coogan), so these two dramatically different personalities must work together to solve this crime without turning on each other. The end-result is nothing short of comedic gold.
To call The Other Guys funny would be a dramatic understatement…it’s nothing short of hysterical. Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg are an excellent comedic team, as their opposing personalities pave the way for some awkward situations (Hoitz’s reaction to Gamble’s attractive wife, played by Eva Mendes, is priceless) and some awesome arguments…who exactly would win in a fight between a lion and a tuna? Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson’s appearance in the film, though brief, is instantly memorable, and the large number of celebrity cameos is more than welcome, whether it involves Ice-T as the narrator (who, of course, plays a detective on Law and Order: SVU), or the celebs that Gamble and Hoitz rub elbows with at a Knicks game…watching Brooke Shields hit on Will Ferrell is way funnier than you think it would be. Between the ridiculously absurd conversations riddled with ad-libbed dialogue and the over-the-top freak outs that are classic Will Ferrell, there are plenty of humorous situations that audiences will remember for quite some time. Where the appeal for Dinner for Schmucks was limited to fans of Steve Carell, I believe that a far larger audience will find something to enjoy in The Other Guys.
My positive review for The Other Guys is a sharp contrast from my initial reaction to the film, as I left the theater far more confused than I thought was necessary for a comedy. The actual white-collar crime depicted in the film is so complicated that I doubt most audiences could follow it; thank god I saw the movie with a CPA student. And though white-collar crime isn’t the main point of the film, the ending credits are so blatantly political that you can’t help but question whether The Other Guys was trying to be a serious film. Now, ridiculous situations are a given for any Ferrell/McKay collaboration, but if this was meant to be a semi-serious cop film on any level, some of these situations and dialogue just seem unnecessary and insulting to story development; if you want to spoof the buddy-cop genre, you can’t try and deliver political commentary or overly-complicated plot elements. Another criticism has to do with Ferrell himself, as the timid Allen Gamble is by far the weakest of any of Ferrell’s characters; the equally aggressive Ron Burgundy (Anchorman), Ricky Bobby (Talladega), and Brennan Huff (Step Brothers) all helped make Ferrell a superstar, so why would he abandon a formula that has proved so successful in the past? Only when Gamble becomes irritated or over-reacts is he funny, so any departure from this demeanor in the narrative is disappointing. Beyond this criticism, some of the jokes and acting come off as more stupid than clever, but when weighed against the overall level of comedy and the combined appeal of Ferrell and Wahlberg, any weakness present is easily forgiven.
With $35.6 million its opening weekend, The Other Guys has the distinction of being the film to dethrone Inception from the top of the box-office. Given the positive reaction from both critics and audiences alike, I expect The Other Guys to continue to perform strongly against its surprisingly large budget of $100 million, but with both The Expendables and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World coming out next weekend, it might be a little much to expect this comedy to stay on top for a second weekend. With the high level of star power and memorable humor present, The Other Guys’ appeal is through the roof, and though it isn’t perfect (the weak and confusing story is hard to look past), fans of Ferrell and Wahlberg still owe it to themselves to see this film.
Overall Recommendation: High
Distributor: Columbia Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $35,600,000
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $69,951,822
Gross Revenue: $70,543,000
Budget: $100 million
Director: Adam McKay
Perhaps the definitive launching pad for The Other Guys marketing campaign occurred at the 2010 MTV Movie Awards, where Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg bickered as they were lowered into the audience on stunt harnesses. From that point on, the trailer was everywhere, and both leads made appearances across all kinds of different networks, from the expected Comedy Central weekend marathons to the surprising advanced screenings featured on NBC’s America’s Got Talent and CBS’ Big Brother. To be honest, both Ferrell and Wahlberg needed The Other Guys to be a success; Ferrell was still recovering from the backlash of last summer’s ill-advised Land of the Lost, while Wahlberg has suffered from a recent string of disappointments, such as The Happening, Max Payne, and The Lovely Bones. Apparently, Wahlberg consults a family priest for guidance before he takes any role, so even though he’s been in some great movies (The Departed, Shooter, Four Brothers, Invincible, The Italian Job…etc.), it seems like some of his recent guidance has been pretty weak. Fortunately, The Other Guys reunites Will Ferrell with writer/director/producer Adam McKay, the team behind Ferrell’s classics Anchorman, Talladega Nights, and Step Brothers (McKay was only a producer on Land of the Lost), so it seems like this buddy-cop comedy was more than enough to get both actors back on track.
Ferrell and Wahlberg play NYPD Detectives and partners Allen Gamble and Terry Hoitz; Gamble is a timid paper-pusher who was recently promoted from forensic accounting, while Hoitz is a hot-headed action junky whose career was sidelined by an unfortunate incident with Yankee Derek Jeter. Gamble and Hoitz are constantly over-shadowed by star cops Highsmith (Samuel L. Jackson) and Danson (Dwayne Johnson), but after this team’s abrupt departure from the force, Hoitz sees his opportunity to climb up from the bottom of the barrel. In his words: “I’m a peacock, you gotta let me fly!” Through sheer luck, Gamble and Hoitz stumble upon financial fraud and white-collar criminal David Ershon (the always funny Steve Coogan), so these two dramatically different personalities must work together to solve this crime without turning on each other. The end-result is nothing short of comedic gold.
To call The Other Guys funny would be a dramatic understatement…it’s nothing short of hysterical. Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg are an excellent comedic team, as their opposing personalities pave the way for some awkward situations (Hoitz’s reaction to Gamble’s attractive wife, played by Eva Mendes, is priceless) and some awesome arguments…who exactly would win in a fight between a lion and a tuna? Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson’s appearance in the film, though brief, is instantly memorable, and the large number of celebrity cameos is more than welcome, whether it involves Ice-T as the narrator (who, of course, plays a detective on Law and Order: SVU), or the celebs that Gamble and Hoitz rub elbows with at a Knicks game…watching Brooke Shields hit on Will Ferrell is way funnier than you think it would be. Between the ridiculously absurd conversations riddled with ad-libbed dialogue and the over-the-top freak outs that are classic Will Ferrell, there are plenty of humorous situations that audiences will remember for quite some time. Where the appeal for Dinner for Schmucks was limited to fans of Steve Carell, I believe that a far larger audience will find something to enjoy in The Other Guys.
My positive review for The Other Guys is a sharp contrast from my initial reaction to the film, as I left the theater far more confused than I thought was necessary for a comedy. The actual white-collar crime depicted in the film is so complicated that I doubt most audiences could follow it; thank god I saw the movie with a CPA student. And though white-collar crime isn’t the main point of the film, the ending credits are so blatantly political that you can’t help but question whether The Other Guys was trying to be a serious film. Now, ridiculous situations are a given for any Ferrell/McKay collaboration, but if this was meant to be a semi-serious cop film on any level, some of these situations and dialogue just seem unnecessary and insulting to story development; if you want to spoof the buddy-cop genre, you can’t try and deliver political commentary or overly-complicated plot elements. Another criticism has to do with Ferrell himself, as the timid Allen Gamble is by far the weakest of any of Ferrell’s characters; the equally aggressive Ron Burgundy (Anchorman), Ricky Bobby (Talladega), and Brennan Huff (Step Brothers) all helped make Ferrell a superstar, so why would he abandon a formula that has proved so successful in the past? Only when Gamble becomes irritated or over-reacts is he funny, so any departure from this demeanor in the narrative is disappointing. Beyond this criticism, some of the jokes and acting come off as more stupid than clever, but when weighed against the overall level of comedy and the combined appeal of Ferrell and Wahlberg, any weakness present is easily forgiven.
With $35.6 million its opening weekend, The Other Guys has the distinction of being the film to dethrone Inception from the top of the box-office. Given the positive reaction from both critics and audiences alike, I expect The Other Guys to continue to perform strongly against its surprisingly large budget of $100 million, but with both The Expendables and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World coming out next weekend, it might be a little much to expect this comedy to stay on top for a second weekend. With the high level of star power and memorable humor present, The Other Guys’ appeal is through the roof, and though it isn’t perfect (the weak and confusing story is hard to look past), fans of Ferrell and Wahlberg still owe it to themselves to see this film.
Overall Recommendation: High
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore - Short and Sweet
Though I’m usually a sucker for children’s films, Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore wasn’t exactly at the top of my must-see list. Given the high-caliber of other children’s offerings that audiences, young and old alike, have been treated to all summer (with the exception of Marmaduke of course), I thought that a Cats & Dogs sequel was an exceptionally risky choice among Warner Bros.’ summer line-up. The first Cats & Dogs was released in 2001, meaning that a majority of this film’s target audience wasn’t even born yet when the concept of canine spies was originally introduced; plus, those children who loved the original would probably rather go see Dinner for Schmucks at this point in their lives. I’m totally a dog person, but even I have my limits; my attendance at this film was solely for the good of the blog.
Admittedly, my expectations weren’t that high, and I never saw all of the original Cats & Dogs, but this sequel was a disappointment nevertheless. To be fair, Revenge of Kitty Galore is clearly a film that panders to small children, as they will delight in watching the animals on-screen and the silly jokes that are thrown together with just enough imagination that it’s easy to see why kids would go nuts. Unfortunately, unlike Despicable Me or Toy Story 3, there is little to enjoy for audience members who are no longer in elementary school. Hoping for a strong story may have been a little much, but given Hollywood’s latest capabilities with computer technology, I was severely disappointed by the low quality of animation effects presented. Revenge of Kitty Galore definitely missed the mark on humor and heart, and though I’m sure kids will love it, anyone taking these kids to the theater can preserve a little dignity by choosing a different family film.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Admittedly, my expectations weren’t that high, and I never saw all of the original Cats & Dogs, but this sequel was a disappointment nevertheless. To be fair, Revenge of Kitty Galore is clearly a film that panders to small children, as they will delight in watching the animals on-screen and the silly jokes that are thrown together with just enough imagination that it’s easy to see why kids would go nuts. Unfortunately, unlike Despicable Me or Toy Story 3, there is little to enjoy for audience members who are no longer in elementary school. Hoping for a strong story may have been a little much, but given Hollywood’s latest capabilities with computer technology, I was severely disappointed by the low quality of animation effects presented. Revenge of Kitty Galore definitely missed the mark on humor and heart, and though I’m sure kids will love it, anyone taking these kids to the theater can preserve a little dignity by choosing a different family film.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore - Full Review
Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore: (July 30th, 2010): PG
Distributor: Warner Bros.
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #6 with $12,279,363
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $35,218,937
Gross Revenue: $58,628,969
Budget: $85 million
Director: Brad Peyton
You can usually expect marketing for a children’s film to be aggressive, though promotions for Revenge of Kitty Galore were no where near as prevalent as the campaigns launched for Shrek Forever After, Toy Story 3, or Despicable Me. Sure, promotions for this sequel were all over the social networking websites and a mainstay on the children’s television channels, but the biggest brand tie-ins I noticed were all geared towards the film’s UK release. This lack of prevalence might have to do with the fact that there are nine years separating sequel from original, and trying to draw fans of an originally sub-par kid’s film back for a sequel is notoriously difficult. The original Toy Story is a legendary childhood film turned successful franchise backed by a studio with a flawless track record, so it’s no surprise that Toy Story 3 is on its way to being declared the most successful film of the summer. Yet, the pedigree for Cats & Dogs is nowhere near as impressive, as it was largely forgotten until a sequel was announced; when one considers the high caliber of animated children’s films already released this summer, an obscure sequel cannot be expected to perform that strongly. But since it has been my goal this summer to see as many films as possible, a little adventure with everybody’s favorite pets seemed tolerable.
Here’s a basic breakdown of the plot: the central dog is a German Shepherd named Diggs (James Marsden), who is recruited into a top-secret agency of dogs dedicated to protecting mankind. Diggs is assigned to locate hairless cat Kitty Galore (Bette Midler), who is threatening to release a signal that will drive all canines on earth insane, thereby leaving humanity unprotected and at Kitty’s mercy. When other cats recognize just how big of a threat Kitty Galore poses, they form a truce with dogs and resolve to work together to stop this rogue feline. With the help of informant pigeon Seamus (Katt Williams) and top feline agent Catherine (Cristina Applegate), Diggs must work to prove his worth as an agent and save the day.
At first glance, it might seem that despite some terribly clichéd plot elements, Revenge of Kitty Galore might have enough humor or voice talent to soften criticism, but such is not the case. When it comes to humor, dog and cat owners might get a chuckle from some of the jokes presented, but nearly all of the potential laughter is catered to young children, who will giggle at every silly and immature line or situation. However, older audience members will roll their eyes at the noticeable lack of clever humor that has characterized the recent success of animated film. As for the voices behind the fur, voice actors have always been my favorite part of animation, but despite a laundry list of recognizable voice roles, very few of the performances brought anything unique or memorable to the four-legged adventures. The two notable exceptions were comedian Katt Williams and legendary actress Bette Midler; Katt’s performance as the simple pigeon Seamus was the only consistently funny element of the entire movie, and Bette seemed to truly delight in bringing an over-the-top villain to life. When it comes to the human cast, Chris O’Donnell tries his best to bring some heart to the film as Diggs’ owner, and Jack McBrayer (of 30 Rock and Talladega Nights fame) is funny enough as Kitty Galore’s clueless owner, but their efforts are simply overshadowed by the rest of the film’s mediocrity.
Another element of criticism comes from the visual-effects and animation used on the animals to make it appear like they are actually talking to each other. Hollywood has been super-imposing facial effects on real animals for years with surprising success, but there are far too many times throughout Revenge of Kitty Galore that this trick is overdone, often making the animals appear completely computer-generated. Halfway through the story, the film also inexplicably switches over to animatronics for one of its characters, but the change is so apparent and mediocre in execution that I was shocked that the visual-effects artists had the guts to present it on-screen. I understand that some elements of the film required that the animals be computer-generated, but with today’s computer technology, I expected even some of the simplest effects to be more believable. The most impressive animation comes from the hysterical short attached to the beginning of the film, a 3-D Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner cartoon; as a lifelong Looney Tunes fan, this was by far the most enjoyable element of my ninety minutes spent at the theater, and I would have much preferred to continue watching them instead of this stupid sequel.
It looks like the box-office had a very similar reaction to this newest children’s film. Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore opened up in sixth place with just over $12 million, and the future isn’t looking any brighter. Even the small percentage of critics who liked the original film have completely torn apart this sequel for destroying what little potential the Cats & Dogs franchise could have generated. I’m sure kids will continue flocking to the theater, but with little draw for older audiences, recovering $85 million is a bit of a tall order. There are a few small laughs and memorable performances, but Cats & Dogs: The Revenge for Kitty Galore was made solely for children, so there is little motivation for the rest of the movie-going demographic to purchase a ticket.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Distributor: Warner Bros.
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #6 with $12,279,363
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $35,218,937
Gross Revenue: $58,628,969
Budget: $85 million
Director: Brad Peyton
You can usually expect marketing for a children’s film to be aggressive, though promotions for Revenge of Kitty Galore were no where near as prevalent as the campaigns launched for Shrek Forever After, Toy Story 3, or Despicable Me. Sure, promotions for this sequel were all over the social networking websites and a mainstay on the children’s television channels, but the biggest brand tie-ins I noticed were all geared towards the film’s UK release. This lack of prevalence might have to do with the fact that there are nine years separating sequel from original, and trying to draw fans of an originally sub-par kid’s film back for a sequel is notoriously difficult. The original Toy Story is a legendary childhood film turned successful franchise backed by a studio with a flawless track record, so it’s no surprise that Toy Story 3 is on its way to being declared the most successful film of the summer. Yet, the pedigree for Cats & Dogs is nowhere near as impressive, as it was largely forgotten until a sequel was announced; when one considers the high caliber of animated children’s films already released this summer, an obscure sequel cannot be expected to perform that strongly. But since it has been my goal this summer to see as many films as possible, a little adventure with everybody’s favorite pets seemed tolerable.
Here’s a basic breakdown of the plot: the central dog is a German Shepherd named Diggs (James Marsden), who is recruited into a top-secret agency of dogs dedicated to protecting mankind. Diggs is assigned to locate hairless cat Kitty Galore (Bette Midler), who is threatening to release a signal that will drive all canines on earth insane, thereby leaving humanity unprotected and at Kitty’s mercy. When other cats recognize just how big of a threat Kitty Galore poses, they form a truce with dogs and resolve to work together to stop this rogue feline. With the help of informant pigeon Seamus (Katt Williams) and top feline agent Catherine (Cristina Applegate), Diggs must work to prove his worth as an agent and save the day.
At first glance, it might seem that despite some terribly clichéd plot elements, Revenge of Kitty Galore might have enough humor or voice talent to soften criticism, but such is not the case. When it comes to humor, dog and cat owners might get a chuckle from some of the jokes presented, but nearly all of the potential laughter is catered to young children, who will giggle at every silly and immature line or situation. However, older audience members will roll their eyes at the noticeable lack of clever humor that has characterized the recent success of animated film. As for the voices behind the fur, voice actors have always been my favorite part of animation, but despite a laundry list of recognizable voice roles, very few of the performances brought anything unique or memorable to the four-legged adventures. The two notable exceptions were comedian Katt Williams and legendary actress Bette Midler; Katt’s performance as the simple pigeon Seamus was the only consistently funny element of the entire movie, and Bette seemed to truly delight in bringing an over-the-top villain to life. When it comes to the human cast, Chris O’Donnell tries his best to bring some heart to the film as Diggs’ owner, and Jack McBrayer (of 30 Rock and Talladega Nights fame) is funny enough as Kitty Galore’s clueless owner, but their efforts are simply overshadowed by the rest of the film’s mediocrity.
Another element of criticism comes from the visual-effects and animation used on the animals to make it appear like they are actually talking to each other. Hollywood has been super-imposing facial effects on real animals for years with surprising success, but there are far too many times throughout Revenge of Kitty Galore that this trick is overdone, often making the animals appear completely computer-generated. Halfway through the story, the film also inexplicably switches over to animatronics for one of its characters, but the change is so apparent and mediocre in execution that I was shocked that the visual-effects artists had the guts to present it on-screen. I understand that some elements of the film required that the animals be computer-generated, but with today’s computer technology, I expected even some of the simplest effects to be more believable. The most impressive animation comes from the hysterical short attached to the beginning of the film, a 3-D Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner cartoon; as a lifelong Looney Tunes fan, this was by far the most enjoyable element of my ninety minutes spent at the theater, and I would have much preferred to continue watching them instead of this stupid sequel.
It looks like the box-office had a very similar reaction to this newest children’s film. Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore opened up in sixth place with just over $12 million, and the future isn’t looking any brighter. Even the small percentage of critics who liked the original film have completely torn apart this sequel for destroying what little potential the Cats & Dogs franchise could have generated. I’m sure kids will continue flocking to the theater, but with little draw for older audiences, recovering $85 million is a bit of a tall order. There are a few small laughs and memorable performances, but Cats & Dogs: The Revenge for Kitty Galore was made solely for children, so there is little motivation for the rest of the movie-going demographic to purchase a ticket.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
The Kids Are All Right: Short and Sweet
It’s really no secret that The Kids Are All Right remains a relatively obscure entry in this highly competitive summer movie season, but considering that it is an independent film that was initially released in only seven theaters, the amount of buzz generated has been truly awe-inspiring. I’ve always been a bit of a fan of indy-films, because more often than not, audiences are treated to an engaging story and a surprisingly high level of acting, even in the absence of a substantial production budget. And let’s face it; Hollywood has witnessed several films of humble origins skyrocket to staggering financial success and near-universal acclaim, do such titles as Little Miss Sunshine or My Big Fat Greek Wedding ring a bell? Given the high level of acting talent present in the cast and early reviews claiming that Annette Bening and Julianne Moore both gave Oscar-worthy performances, I was understandably pleased when The Kids Are All Right was granted a wide-release this past weekend.
I am happy to report that my high expectations for The Kids Are All Right were more than surpassed, as I have not seen such an impressive level of acting in quite some time. I will admit that the modern subject matter might not take with some of the more traditional audiences, but at its core, The Kids Are All Right flawlessly guides the viewer through highly relatable themes such as family values and transition. Annette Bening and Julianne Moore more than deserve Oscar nominations for their performances, but the rest of the cast has earned recognition as well, engaging the audience with significant character development and a surprisingly high level of empathy. Despite some complex dynamics between this “non-traditional” family, The Kids Are All Right still tells a simple story with plenty of drama and humor, which is sure to please countless movie-goers.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
I am happy to report that my high expectations for The Kids Are All Right were more than surpassed, as I have not seen such an impressive level of acting in quite some time. I will admit that the modern subject matter might not take with some of the more traditional audiences, but at its core, The Kids Are All Right flawlessly guides the viewer through highly relatable themes such as family values and transition. Annette Bening and Julianne Moore more than deserve Oscar nominations for their performances, but the rest of the cast has earned recognition as well, engaging the audience with significant character development and a surprisingly high level of empathy. Despite some complex dynamics between this “non-traditional” family, The Kids Are All Right still tells a simple story with plenty of drama and humor, which is sure to please countless movie-goers.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
The Kids Are All Right: Full Review
The Kids Are All Right: (July 30th, 2010): R
Distributor: Focus Features
Opening Weekend Box-Office: $491,971 with limited release
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $16,721,391
Gross Revenue: $16,731,000
Budget: $4,000,000
Director: Lisa Cholodenko
Despite its extremely limited release in early July, this humble independent film is the perfect example of how word-of-mouth can spread like wildfire. Once critics caught wind of the high-caliber acting talent present in the cast of The Kids Are All Right, led by none other than two of Hollywood’s most respected actresses, all that was left for marketers to do was attach a few quotes to some trailers and sit back. Now, I’m not trying to imply that marketers were swinging for the fences in terms of box-office returns, but given a small budget and a limited release, I’m still impressed with the level of exposure achieved. Granted, I didn’t think that movie-goers were about to be hit by the next My Big Fat Greek Wedding, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for both Annette Bening and Julianne Moore, so I was excited to see what they could accomplish together. Bottom line, the inherent simplicity of this already well-received indy-flick seemed to promise a nice change of pace from some of the bigger-budget popcorn-flicks that I’ve been writing about all summer.
The plot of The Kids Are All Right involves an in-depth look at a very non-traditional family. Annette Bening and Julianne Moore play lesbian couple Nic and Jules, who both gave birth to a child with the help of the same anonymous sperm donor. The children are now teenagers, and older sister Joni (Mia Wasikowska) works with her brother Laser (Josh Hutcherson) to seek out their biological father, who turns out to be the very free-spirited Paul (Mark Ruffalo). Nic and Jules are very traditional parents who are already preparing to send Joni to college, and they can’t help but feel threatened when their children begin spending more and more time with their biological father, who delights in the new family he has been granted. When all these diverse elements start to mingle, certain relationships are tested and this very non-traditional family must work through this very important time of transition.
As I look back over some of the earlier reviews for The Kids Are All Right, I could not agree more that the performances given by the cast are nothing short of superb. Annette Bening and Julianne Moore bring humor and depth to the characters; Bening’s straight-laced Nic and Moore’s easy-going Jules are a fully believable couple, and watching their interactions on-screen is simple and enjoyable. It’s going to be a hard call if both end up being nominated for a Best Actress Oscar, because they both more than deserve the honor. Mark Ruffalo is perfect as the thorn that threatens the stability of Nic and Jules’ family, and between this and his other strong performances is some of my personal favorites such as Zodiac and Shutter Island, he more than demonstrates his talent as an actor. Though I was against the casting change, I can’t help but be curious to see how he handles the superhero genre when we see him as Bruce Banner/The Hulk in 2012’s The Avengers. When it comes to the kids referred to in the title, Josh Hutcherson does well as the conflicted teenage son, but the real surprise is Mia Wasikowska, (who audiences will recognize from her trip down the rabbit hole this past spring in Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland), who is clearly torn between her loyalty to her mothers and her inherent desire to get to know the father who has been a mystery her entire life. It is indeed rare to have unanimously strong performances among an entire cast, but if a film is lucky enough to pull it off, the result is a welcome treat for movie-goers.
In writing this review, I am having a considerably difficult time trying to find anything negative to say about The Kids Are All Right. If anything, I can see how this film might have a limited appeal; gay marriage is a pretty contentious issue, and I feel like some of the more traditional audiences could be uncomfortable with some of the displays of affection depicted, but this is a trivial criticism at best. What makes The Kid Are All Right work so well is its brilliant simplicity; we are watching an engaging family navigate conflicts that are both familiar and relatable. I’m not saying that we all know a lesbian couple who has a tenuous relationship with their children’s sperm-donor father, but almost everyone can empathize with a parent’s difficulty in sending their child to college or a child’s desire to learn more about a parent. Few would think that watching a family work through issues would be so engrossing, but the formula works surprisingly well.
Given a limited release of only seven theaters, an opening weekend of just under half-a-million is damn impressive, giving it the highest opening weekend average gross of any film this year. The beauty of such a strong movie with a small budget is that it isn’t too hard to recover production expenses…some might scoff at a revenue of just over $10 million, but that’s still two-and-a-half times what it cost to make the film. I don’t expect this early Oscar contender to go anywhere but up. With an excellent blend of humor and drama brought to life by a superbly talented cast, The Kids Are All Right is a film that you cannot afford to miss.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Distributor: Focus Features
Opening Weekend Box-Office: $491,971 with limited release
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $16,721,391
Gross Revenue: $16,731,000
Budget: $4,000,000
Director: Lisa Cholodenko
Despite its extremely limited release in early July, this humble independent film is the perfect example of how word-of-mouth can spread like wildfire. Once critics caught wind of the high-caliber acting talent present in the cast of The Kids Are All Right, led by none other than two of Hollywood’s most respected actresses, all that was left for marketers to do was attach a few quotes to some trailers and sit back. Now, I’m not trying to imply that marketers were swinging for the fences in terms of box-office returns, but given a small budget and a limited release, I’m still impressed with the level of exposure achieved. Granted, I didn’t think that movie-goers were about to be hit by the next My Big Fat Greek Wedding, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for both Annette Bening and Julianne Moore, so I was excited to see what they could accomplish together. Bottom line, the inherent simplicity of this already well-received indy-flick seemed to promise a nice change of pace from some of the bigger-budget popcorn-flicks that I’ve been writing about all summer.
The plot of The Kids Are All Right involves an in-depth look at a very non-traditional family. Annette Bening and Julianne Moore play lesbian couple Nic and Jules, who both gave birth to a child with the help of the same anonymous sperm donor. The children are now teenagers, and older sister Joni (Mia Wasikowska) works with her brother Laser (Josh Hutcherson) to seek out their biological father, who turns out to be the very free-spirited Paul (Mark Ruffalo). Nic and Jules are very traditional parents who are already preparing to send Joni to college, and they can’t help but feel threatened when their children begin spending more and more time with their biological father, who delights in the new family he has been granted. When all these diverse elements start to mingle, certain relationships are tested and this very non-traditional family must work through this very important time of transition.
As I look back over some of the earlier reviews for The Kids Are All Right, I could not agree more that the performances given by the cast are nothing short of superb. Annette Bening and Julianne Moore bring humor and depth to the characters; Bening’s straight-laced Nic and Moore’s easy-going Jules are a fully believable couple, and watching their interactions on-screen is simple and enjoyable. It’s going to be a hard call if both end up being nominated for a Best Actress Oscar, because they both more than deserve the honor. Mark Ruffalo is perfect as the thorn that threatens the stability of Nic and Jules’ family, and between this and his other strong performances is some of my personal favorites such as Zodiac and Shutter Island, he more than demonstrates his talent as an actor. Though I was against the casting change, I can’t help but be curious to see how he handles the superhero genre when we see him as Bruce Banner/The Hulk in 2012’s The Avengers. When it comes to the kids referred to in the title, Josh Hutcherson does well as the conflicted teenage son, but the real surprise is Mia Wasikowska, (who audiences will recognize from her trip down the rabbit hole this past spring in Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland), who is clearly torn between her loyalty to her mothers and her inherent desire to get to know the father who has been a mystery her entire life. It is indeed rare to have unanimously strong performances among an entire cast, but if a film is lucky enough to pull it off, the result is a welcome treat for movie-goers.
In writing this review, I am having a considerably difficult time trying to find anything negative to say about The Kids Are All Right. If anything, I can see how this film might have a limited appeal; gay marriage is a pretty contentious issue, and I feel like some of the more traditional audiences could be uncomfortable with some of the displays of affection depicted, but this is a trivial criticism at best. What makes The Kid Are All Right work so well is its brilliant simplicity; we are watching an engaging family navigate conflicts that are both familiar and relatable. I’m not saying that we all know a lesbian couple who has a tenuous relationship with their children’s sperm-donor father, but almost everyone can empathize with a parent’s difficulty in sending their child to college or a child’s desire to learn more about a parent. Few would think that watching a family work through issues would be so engrossing, but the formula works surprisingly well.
Given a limited release of only seven theaters, an opening weekend of just under half-a-million is damn impressive, giving it the highest opening weekend average gross of any film this year. The beauty of such a strong movie with a small budget is that it isn’t too hard to recover production expenses…some might scoff at a revenue of just over $10 million, but that’s still two-and-a-half times what it cost to make the film. I don’t expect this early Oscar contender to go anywhere but up. With an excellent blend of humor and drama brought to life by a superbly talented cast, The Kids Are All Right is a film that you cannot afford to miss.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Monday, August 2, 2010
Charlie St. Cloud: Short and Sweet
Before any of my followers threaten to burn me at the stake for having seen a movie that stars Zac Efron, please consider that I am trying to review a diverse amount of summer movies. I’ll admit that I was initially hesitant to see a film whose lead actor was made famous by Disney’s High School Musical franchise, but early reviews of Efron’s performance were surprisingly positive. Based on previews, Charlie St. Cloud seemed to be a pretty emotional drama, and since it didn’t look like Efron was going to start singing or dancing spontaneously, I figured that Charlie St. Cloud could at least be bearable on some level.
In retrospect, Zac Efron’s performance was actually the strongest part of Charlie St. Cloud. He was more than capable as the haunted protagonist, bringing a pleasant amount of charm and humor to the serious role…unfortunately the rest of the film isn’t as praiseworthy. The plot was an interesting concept, but I feel like the writers completely fumbled the execution. Charlie St. Cloud was sold to audiences as the story of a grief-stricken young man who is granted the ability to communicate with his recently-deceased brother, a relationship that is threatened when he finds an engaging new love interest; it seemed like it was going to be an interesting blend of fantasy and romance. Unfortunately, by it’s conclusion, Charlie St. Cloud comes off more like a supernatural film, with a plot twist that reeks of The Sixth Sense and is a little too confusing and creepy for audiences to ignore. To clarify, I would have been more forgiving of the story if Charlie St. Cloud had been promoted as more of a fantasy, but I feel that the script sacrificed more of the expected drama and romance, all in the name of fantasy, than was really necessary. Fans of Zac Efron will enjoy his performance, and I have seen far worse chick-flicks over the years, but I was still disappointed by the poor execution of a potentially strong summer drama.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Low
In retrospect, Zac Efron’s performance was actually the strongest part of Charlie St. Cloud. He was more than capable as the haunted protagonist, bringing a pleasant amount of charm and humor to the serious role…unfortunately the rest of the film isn’t as praiseworthy. The plot was an interesting concept, but I feel like the writers completely fumbled the execution. Charlie St. Cloud was sold to audiences as the story of a grief-stricken young man who is granted the ability to communicate with his recently-deceased brother, a relationship that is threatened when he finds an engaging new love interest; it seemed like it was going to be an interesting blend of fantasy and romance. Unfortunately, by it’s conclusion, Charlie St. Cloud comes off more like a supernatural film, with a plot twist that reeks of The Sixth Sense and is a little too confusing and creepy for audiences to ignore. To clarify, I would have been more forgiving of the story if Charlie St. Cloud had been promoted as more of a fantasy, but I feel that the script sacrificed more of the expected drama and romance, all in the name of fantasy, than was really necessary. Fans of Zac Efron will enjoy his performance, and I have seen far worse chick-flicks over the years, but I was still disappointed by the poor execution of a potentially strong summer drama.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Charlie St. Cloud: Full Review
Charlie St. Cloud: (July 30th, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #5 with $12,381,585
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $28,758,460
Gross Revenue: $29,114,892
Budget: $44 million
Director: Burr Steers
In terms of potential summer blockbusters, Charlie St. Cloud falls into the category of films that I was completely unaware of before the summer season began. The film is actually based on the 2004 novel, The Death and Life of Charlie St. Cloud, but given that this source material is not as well known as a certain other novel about sparkly vampires, I was expecting a more aggressive marketing campaign. Aside from the trailers, I really didn’t notice any additional marketing, which is pretty risky when you consider that Charlie St. Cloud is not part of an established series, has a lead actor who really only appeals to the female demographic, and is facing significant competition from other summer movies. Despite this potential shortcoming, I have to admit that the previews for Charlie St. Cloud seemed to promise a pretty unique drama with both heart and romance, so in looking for something different at the theaters this summer, I decided to ignore my initial apprehension towards Zac Efron and give his latest film attempt a try.
Zac Efron plays Charlie St. Cloud, a recent high school graduate and sailing champion who has just been given a full sailing scholarship to Stanford University. Charlie promises his beloved younger brother Sam (Charlie Tahan) that he will practice baseball with him up until he leaves for college, but almost as soon as this promise is made, tragedy strikes and Charlie and Sam are caught in a car crash with a drunk-driver. Though EMTs are able to revive Charlie, Sam is killed; amidst his grief, Charlie makes an amazing discovery…he is able to see and communicate with Sam, and so he decides to put his life on hold in order to honor the agreement he made with his brother. Fast forward five years and Charlie is now working as a cemetery caretaker, isolating himself from others but never faltering to play catch with Sam every day at sundown. This routine is threatened when Charlie meets engaging female sailor Tess (Amanda Crew); as Charlie and Tess grow closer, Charlie finds himself having to choose between spending time with his brother and with his love interest. When Tess is involved in a sailing accident and Charlie ends up being the only one able to save her, Charlie is faced with the possibility of breaking his promise to his brother in the hopes of saving the one person who can help him move on with his life.
On a positive note, Zac Efron’s acting is surprisingly strong in this dramatic role, helping most audiences forget that he was made famous by singing songs in a basketball jersey, and illustrating that he can be a likable leading man. At times Efron lays on the emotion a little thick, but he still plays a very convincing older brother, so the audience is easily able to empathize with his loss. And though you wouldn’t expect him to be funny, Efron also brings a surprising amount of humor to his role…on a side note, if you want an example of Efron’s comedic talent, check out his SNL skit where he spoofs his character from High School Musical, it’s hysterical. Given his popularity with female audiences, its no surprise that Efron can turn on the charm, and his chemistry with co-star Amanda Crew blends for a very believable romance. Though I was initially disappointed in how some of the veteran acting talent in the film was underused (Hollywood legends Kim Basinger and Ray Liotta are only on-screen for a combined ten minutes), it was refreshing to see some of Hollywood’s younger actors more than ably lead a summer film. Despite my newfound respect for the acting ability of this High School Musical alumnus, there are still plenty of weak elements present in Charlie St. Cloud.
Taking a more critical stance, one problem present has to do with the character of Charlie’s brother Sam; we haven’t seen young actor Charlie Tahan featured so prominently on-screen since Will Smith quoted Shrek’s conversation with Donkey to him in 2007’s I Am Legend, and it seems that there was a good reason. There are times where Sam comes off as a little too annoying, and whereas you feel Charlie St. Cloud’s emotion towards a younger brother throughout, you just don’t sense that Sam has the same feelings towards the older brother who has put his life on hold to honor a promise. I’ll admit that this is a small criticism, but it is just so apparent when put next to Zac Efron’s strong performance.
Aside from acting criticisms, as I said in the “Short and Sweet” review, the weakest part of Charlie St. Cloud has to do with its story; though I understand that the film is very faithful to its source material, I still think that most audience will share my apprehension towards certain plot elements…maybe the book shouldn’t have been turned into a movie. It is explained that because Charlie temporarily flat-lined during the accident, he shares a small link with the afterlife, and that is why he is able to communicate with his brother. Though this bit of fantasy is necessary for the plot of the film, I can’t help but feel that the writers went a little too far with this concept, resulting in a completely unnecessary plot twist that interrupts the flow of the narrative and distracts the audience as they attempt to process the confusing and uncomfortable implications that this twist has for the rest of the story. Though this twist isn’t as big of a deal breaker as the thoroughly idiotic shift in direction during 2008’s Hancock, I still wish that trailers had prepared me better…I just wasn’t expecting such a strong supernatural presence in a film that had been sold to me as primarily a drama and romance complemented by a few elements of fantasy.
Looking at the box-office numbers, Charlie St. Cloud debuted at a thoroughly unimpressive fifth place, drawing just over $12 million. Given its limited appeal and the other choices available to movie-goers, I cannot say that I am all that surprised. I guess you can at least appreciate that Charlie St. Cloud does at least represent a step forward in Zac Efron’s acting career…let’s see what his future holds. In the end, Charlie St. Cloud is a unique drama with some pleasing acting, but the confusing and unexpected plot was just a little too big of a problem for me. As a dramatic chick-flick, its acceptable, but I wouldn’t recommend that anyone wait in line for this one.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #5 with $12,381,585
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $28,758,460
Gross Revenue: $29,114,892
Budget: $44 million
Director: Burr Steers
In terms of potential summer blockbusters, Charlie St. Cloud falls into the category of films that I was completely unaware of before the summer season began. The film is actually based on the 2004 novel, The Death and Life of Charlie St. Cloud, but given that this source material is not as well known as a certain other novel about sparkly vampires, I was expecting a more aggressive marketing campaign. Aside from the trailers, I really didn’t notice any additional marketing, which is pretty risky when you consider that Charlie St. Cloud is not part of an established series, has a lead actor who really only appeals to the female demographic, and is facing significant competition from other summer movies. Despite this potential shortcoming, I have to admit that the previews for Charlie St. Cloud seemed to promise a pretty unique drama with both heart and romance, so in looking for something different at the theaters this summer, I decided to ignore my initial apprehension towards Zac Efron and give his latest film attempt a try.
Zac Efron plays Charlie St. Cloud, a recent high school graduate and sailing champion who has just been given a full sailing scholarship to Stanford University. Charlie promises his beloved younger brother Sam (Charlie Tahan) that he will practice baseball with him up until he leaves for college, but almost as soon as this promise is made, tragedy strikes and Charlie and Sam are caught in a car crash with a drunk-driver. Though EMTs are able to revive Charlie, Sam is killed; amidst his grief, Charlie makes an amazing discovery…he is able to see and communicate with Sam, and so he decides to put his life on hold in order to honor the agreement he made with his brother. Fast forward five years and Charlie is now working as a cemetery caretaker, isolating himself from others but never faltering to play catch with Sam every day at sundown. This routine is threatened when Charlie meets engaging female sailor Tess (Amanda Crew); as Charlie and Tess grow closer, Charlie finds himself having to choose between spending time with his brother and with his love interest. When Tess is involved in a sailing accident and Charlie ends up being the only one able to save her, Charlie is faced with the possibility of breaking his promise to his brother in the hopes of saving the one person who can help him move on with his life.
On a positive note, Zac Efron’s acting is surprisingly strong in this dramatic role, helping most audiences forget that he was made famous by singing songs in a basketball jersey, and illustrating that he can be a likable leading man. At times Efron lays on the emotion a little thick, but he still plays a very convincing older brother, so the audience is easily able to empathize with his loss. And though you wouldn’t expect him to be funny, Efron also brings a surprising amount of humor to his role…on a side note, if you want an example of Efron’s comedic talent, check out his SNL skit where he spoofs his character from High School Musical, it’s hysterical. Given his popularity with female audiences, its no surprise that Efron can turn on the charm, and his chemistry with co-star Amanda Crew blends for a very believable romance. Though I was initially disappointed in how some of the veteran acting talent in the film was underused (Hollywood legends Kim Basinger and Ray Liotta are only on-screen for a combined ten minutes), it was refreshing to see some of Hollywood’s younger actors more than ably lead a summer film. Despite my newfound respect for the acting ability of this High School Musical alumnus, there are still plenty of weak elements present in Charlie St. Cloud.
Taking a more critical stance, one problem present has to do with the character of Charlie’s brother Sam; we haven’t seen young actor Charlie Tahan featured so prominently on-screen since Will Smith quoted Shrek’s conversation with Donkey to him in 2007’s I Am Legend, and it seems that there was a good reason. There are times where Sam comes off as a little too annoying, and whereas you feel Charlie St. Cloud’s emotion towards a younger brother throughout, you just don’t sense that Sam has the same feelings towards the older brother who has put his life on hold to honor a promise. I’ll admit that this is a small criticism, but it is just so apparent when put next to Zac Efron’s strong performance.
Aside from acting criticisms, as I said in the “Short and Sweet” review, the weakest part of Charlie St. Cloud has to do with its story; though I understand that the film is very faithful to its source material, I still think that most audience will share my apprehension towards certain plot elements…maybe the book shouldn’t have been turned into a movie. It is explained that because Charlie temporarily flat-lined during the accident, he shares a small link with the afterlife, and that is why he is able to communicate with his brother. Though this bit of fantasy is necessary for the plot of the film, I can’t help but feel that the writers went a little too far with this concept, resulting in a completely unnecessary plot twist that interrupts the flow of the narrative and distracts the audience as they attempt to process the confusing and uncomfortable implications that this twist has for the rest of the story. Though this twist isn’t as big of a deal breaker as the thoroughly idiotic shift in direction during 2008’s Hancock, I still wish that trailers had prepared me better…I just wasn’t expecting such a strong supernatural presence in a film that had been sold to me as primarily a drama and romance complemented by a few elements of fantasy.
Looking at the box-office numbers, Charlie St. Cloud debuted at a thoroughly unimpressive fifth place, drawing just over $12 million. Given its limited appeal and the other choices available to movie-goers, I cannot say that I am all that surprised. I guess you can at least appreciate that Charlie St. Cloud does at least represent a step forward in Zac Efron’s acting career…let’s see what his future holds. In the end, Charlie St. Cloud is a unique drama with some pleasing acting, but the confusing and unexpected plot was just a little too big of a problem for me. As a dramatic chick-flick, its acceptable, but I wouldn’t recommend that anyone wait in line for this one.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)