We all love Matt Damon for his work in the Ocean’s trilogy, the Bourne series, and many other critical successes and box office blockbusters, so it seems that he will always be able to draw a strong crowd regardless of whatever film role he chooses. The science fiction edge to The Adjustment Bureau may represent a certain departure from Damon’s comfort zone, but the premise of this romantic thriller was more than enough to generate curiosity among potential audiences. Emily Blunt’s addition to the cast as a love interest was definitely interesting, as she has been growing in popularity ever since her breakout role in 2006’s The Devil Wears Prada, and early reports indicated that the chemistry between Damon and Blunt alone was enough to make the film worth seeing. Now, The Adjustment Bureau represents George Nolfi’s directorial debut, but given his work as a writer on such blockbusters like Ocean’s Twelve and The Bourne Ultimatum, there was little reason to think that he and Damon wouldn’t be able to produce another quality film.
Looking back on The Adjustment Bureau, I did enjoy the film, but at the same time, I couldn’t help but feel that more could have been done with the unique premise. Damon, as always, is likable, and the chemistry he shares with Blunt makes the two a very believable couple, but the romantic edge ultimately hampers the deeper implications of the plot. The Adjustment Bureau brings some very deep philosophical implications related to free will and choice to light, and it almost seems like the film was too timid to fully delve into these issues. To put it simply, The Adjustment Bureau generates more questions than it ultimately answers, leaving the audience wanting more than just a story about the love that develops between two strangers. So, while the combination of romance, action, and philosophy is entertaining, don’t walk into Damon’s newest film expecting anything groundbreaking or revolutionary.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Friday, March 25, 2011
The Adjustment Bureau: Full Review
The Adjustment Bureau - (March 4, 2011): PG-13
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $21,157,730
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $50,148,575
Gross Revenue: $81,157,363
Budget: $62 million
Director: George Nolfi
Ever since he first charmed audiences as a troubled mathematics savant in 2007’s Good Will Hunting, Matt Damon has been nothing short of a Hollywood everyman, playing everything from an amateur thief (Ocean’s series), psychotic con-artist (The Talented Mr. Ripley), and fallen angel (Dogma, a personal favorite) to amnesiac super agent (Bourne trilogy), army private (Saving Private Ryan), and dirty cop (The Departed). To put it simply, Damon has earned the right to play whatever character he wants, and his new role as a senatorial candidate fighting for free will was sure generating a high level of audience interest. Yet, despite the high level of buzz and curiosity surrounding The Adjustment Bureau, Universal Pictures’ marketing campaign was surprisingly subdued; sure, you saw the trailer and a few billboards, but beyond that there didn’t seem to be many creative promotional techniques. Instead, the studio believed that the chief draw of The Adjustment Bureau (the unique premise), would be more than enough to fill theaters, especially since early critics were comparing the science fiction edge of the film to everyone’s favorite mindbender, Inception. With a supporting cast that included the always beautiful and charming Emily Blunt and the subtly sinister Terrence Stamp, I couldn’t wait for The Adjustment Bureau.
Based on the science fiction short story “Adjustment Team” by Philip K. Dick, The Adjustment Bureau introduces a reality in which a group of supernatural overseers work behind-the-scenes to control every aspect of our lives, making small adjustments and changes that are perceived as random occurrence to ensure that we all follow a pre-determined plan. Apparently, these beings have been around through all of history, and every time they have stepped back and granted humanity free will, disasters such as the Dark Ages, The Great Depression, or the Holocaust have occurred. The film starts as senatorial candidate David Norris (Damon) stumbles across this “adjustment bureau,” and in addition to threatening to “reset” (lobotomize) him should he reveal their existence to the world; they inform him that he can no longer pursue a relationship with the free-spirited dancer Elise (Blunt), as the pairing is not part of his “plan.” Convinced of his love for Elise, David decides to fight for the relationship; even though he is informed that he is potentially ruining both of their futures by senior bureau agent Thompson (Stamp). Convinced of the value of free will, both David and Emily must work to defy the “adjustment bureau” and forge a new life plan together.
As expected, the best part of The Adjustment Bureau involved Matt Damon, as he brings the right blend of humor and sincerity to his character, so much so that audiences immediately begin rooting for David, whether we want him to win an election or defy fate. Emily Blunt is also the perfect free spirit, and together the two develop a very believable chemistry that makes for some genuinely romantic scenarios that are a welcome change from some of the plastic interactions that plague romantic comedies. Aside for the romance, the supernatural and science fiction edge of The Adjustment Bureau is quickly engrossing, forcing audiences to ponder the deeper implications of choice. I doubt anyone will be looking for bureau agents the next time they misplace their car keys, but it is still and interesting premise to consider. Unfortunately, though the separate elements of romance and philosophy make The Adjustment Bureau a smart film, quality begins to take a dive when the story tries to integrate the two.
The Adjustment Bureau goes out of its way to make some truly foundation-shaking implications regarding free will and choice, but then doesn’t bother to fully explore the subject matter. Trying to introduce an entity like the “adjustment bureau,” explain their operations, and then superimpose their existence onto a love story feels largely rushed given the film’s running time. During one particular scene, David reveals the existence of the bureau to Elise, and she accepts it so quickly and without question that you cannot help but shake your head in disbelief. I liked the relationship between David and Elise, but it felt like the wrong vehicle to use to explore the subtleties of choice…for as much effort as was put forth to introduce a unique philosophical edge to film, it seems like The Adjustment Bureau could have done far more than just tell a tale of romance. In the end, I left the theater feeling disappointed, as I felt that far too many of the questions raised by the film went unanswered.
From a box office perspective, The Adjustment Bureau has slightly underperformed, opening up behind Rango with just over $20 million its first weekend. Critical reaction has been strong, but with the sheer volume of films dropping in March, it is unlikely that the film will see any large jump in revenue beyond its first few weeks. But even though The Adjustment Bureau may not fully live up to expectations, neither Universal nor Damon has much to worry about, as production budgets have been covered and fans have been pleased. Though far from perfect, if you are looking for either a genuine romantic tale or a mind-bending adventure, then The Adjustment Bureau is definitely worth seeing.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $21,157,730
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $50,148,575
Gross Revenue: $81,157,363
Budget: $62 million
Director: George Nolfi
Ever since he first charmed audiences as a troubled mathematics savant in 2007’s Good Will Hunting, Matt Damon has been nothing short of a Hollywood everyman, playing everything from an amateur thief (Ocean’s series), psychotic con-artist (The Talented Mr. Ripley), and fallen angel (Dogma, a personal favorite) to amnesiac super agent (Bourne trilogy), army private (Saving Private Ryan), and dirty cop (The Departed). To put it simply, Damon has earned the right to play whatever character he wants, and his new role as a senatorial candidate fighting for free will was sure generating a high level of audience interest. Yet, despite the high level of buzz and curiosity surrounding The Adjustment Bureau, Universal Pictures’ marketing campaign was surprisingly subdued; sure, you saw the trailer and a few billboards, but beyond that there didn’t seem to be many creative promotional techniques. Instead, the studio believed that the chief draw of The Adjustment Bureau (the unique premise), would be more than enough to fill theaters, especially since early critics were comparing the science fiction edge of the film to everyone’s favorite mindbender, Inception. With a supporting cast that included the always beautiful and charming Emily Blunt and the subtly sinister Terrence Stamp, I couldn’t wait for The Adjustment Bureau.
Based on the science fiction short story “Adjustment Team” by Philip K. Dick, The Adjustment Bureau introduces a reality in which a group of supernatural overseers work behind-the-scenes to control every aspect of our lives, making small adjustments and changes that are perceived as random occurrence to ensure that we all follow a pre-determined plan. Apparently, these beings have been around through all of history, and every time they have stepped back and granted humanity free will, disasters such as the Dark Ages, The Great Depression, or the Holocaust have occurred. The film starts as senatorial candidate David Norris (Damon) stumbles across this “adjustment bureau,” and in addition to threatening to “reset” (lobotomize) him should he reveal their existence to the world; they inform him that he can no longer pursue a relationship with the free-spirited dancer Elise (Blunt), as the pairing is not part of his “plan.” Convinced of his love for Elise, David decides to fight for the relationship; even though he is informed that he is potentially ruining both of their futures by senior bureau agent Thompson (Stamp). Convinced of the value of free will, both David and Emily must work to defy the “adjustment bureau” and forge a new life plan together.
As expected, the best part of The Adjustment Bureau involved Matt Damon, as he brings the right blend of humor and sincerity to his character, so much so that audiences immediately begin rooting for David, whether we want him to win an election or defy fate. Emily Blunt is also the perfect free spirit, and together the two develop a very believable chemistry that makes for some genuinely romantic scenarios that are a welcome change from some of the plastic interactions that plague romantic comedies. Aside for the romance, the supernatural and science fiction edge of The Adjustment Bureau is quickly engrossing, forcing audiences to ponder the deeper implications of choice. I doubt anyone will be looking for bureau agents the next time they misplace their car keys, but it is still and interesting premise to consider. Unfortunately, though the separate elements of romance and philosophy make The Adjustment Bureau a smart film, quality begins to take a dive when the story tries to integrate the two.
The Adjustment Bureau goes out of its way to make some truly foundation-shaking implications regarding free will and choice, but then doesn’t bother to fully explore the subject matter. Trying to introduce an entity like the “adjustment bureau,” explain their operations, and then superimpose their existence onto a love story feels largely rushed given the film’s running time. During one particular scene, David reveals the existence of the bureau to Elise, and she accepts it so quickly and without question that you cannot help but shake your head in disbelief. I liked the relationship between David and Elise, but it felt like the wrong vehicle to use to explore the subtleties of choice…for as much effort as was put forth to introduce a unique philosophical edge to film, it seems like The Adjustment Bureau could have done far more than just tell a tale of romance. In the end, I left the theater feeling disappointed, as I felt that far too many of the questions raised by the film went unanswered.
From a box office perspective, The Adjustment Bureau has slightly underperformed, opening up behind Rango with just over $20 million its first weekend. Critical reaction has been strong, but with the sheer volume of films dropping in March, it is unlikely that the film will see any large jump in revenue beyond its first few weeks. But even though The Adjustment Bureau may not fully live up to expectations, neither Universal nor Damon has much to worry about, as production budgets have been covered and fans have been pleased. Though far from perfect, if you are looking for either a genuine romantic tale or a mind-bending adventure, then The Adjustment Bureau is definitely worth seeing.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Rango: Short and Sweet
Anyone who has read my reviews before knows how much I appreciate the humor and creativity of today’s animated films, but when it comes to Rango, I was understandably skeptical of a few elements. First off, while Disney-Pixar is the reigning king of computer-animation and family fun, it has been a while since Nickelodeon Movies has offered anything memorable in this area. Second, while director Gore Verbinski and Johnny Depp have struck gold with the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, Rango represents Verbinski’s first venture into animated film-making. Still, leading up to the release, the trailer for the film was everywhere, and after having seen it nearly a dozen times, I could appreciate that it at least looked mildly amusing. Depp may have had a misstep with December’s awful “romantic thriller” The Tourist, but he has nevertheless charmed audiences time and again, so even a turn as an odd-looking chameleon was sure to please fans.
Now, every reviewer has been singing the praises of Rango, comparing it to the likes of Toy Story 3, and I couldn’t be more confused, as I found it to be one of the most bitterly disappointing films I have ever seen. Depp is entertaining as the smooth-talking titular character, but that is where the appeal of Rango ends, as there is little humor, heart, or story to keep audiences involved. Forgetting the downright ugly character models, I think the biggest problem with Rango is that the film couldn’t decide if it was trying to please an adult or child audience. Some silly moments are sure to please younger moviegoers, but attempts at clever humor or references to classic westerns are clearly geared towards an older demographic; recent animated films have been able to successfully blend these elements, but Rango barely tried and clearly failed. Who knows, maybe I am missing some hidden appeal to Rango, but no matter how hard I reflect on the film for a redeeming quality, I remain thoroughly unimpressed by the whole venture.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Now, every reviewer has been singing the praises of Rango, comparing it to the likes of Toy Story 3, and I couldn’t be more confused, as I found it to be one of the most bitterly disappointing films I have ever seen. Depp is entertaining as the smooth-talking titular character, but that is where the appeal of Rango ends, as there is little humor, heart, or story to keep audiences involved. Forgetting the downright ugly character models, I think the biggest problem with Rango is that the film couldn’t decide if it was trying to please an adult or child audience. Some silly moments are sure to please younger moviegoers, but attempts at clever humor or references to classic westerns are clearly geared towards an older demographic; recent animated films have been able to successfully blend these elements, but Rango barely tried and clearly failed. Who knows, maybe I am missing some hidden appeal to Rango, but no matter how hard I reflect on the film for a redeeming quality, I remain thoroughly unimpressed by the whole venture.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Rango: Full Review
Rango - (March 4, 2011): PG
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office (wide-release): #1 with $38,079,323
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $97,517,310
Gross Revenue: $168,976,961
Budget: $135 million
Director: Gore Verbinski
Nickelodeon Movies used to be a very safe bet for family films, but in the past few years my faith has been shaken considerably; I’m sure no one had high hopes for yet another one of Eddie Murphy’s disasters in 2009’s Imagine That, but last summer’s The Last Airbender was just plain insulting. Still, Johnny Depp is an unquestionable crowd-pleaser, and he proved his appeal as a voice actor in 2005’s Corpse Bride, so there was a definite curiosity to see him bring life to another animated character. The teaser trailer for Rango first dropped in June, and though there wasn’t much revealed about the story; viewers were still treated to some impressive animation and clever humor. Promotions for Rango were everywhere leading up to the film’s release, playing off not only the inherent appeal of yet another computer-animated film but also the fact that director Gore Verbinski and Depp were teaming up outside the exploits of Captain Jack Sparrow. With the impressively large amount of positive buzz surrounding Rango, I had some high expectations for the film, but in retrospect I was shockingly unprepared for the overall quality of the end result.
Rango introduces audiences to an eccentric pet chameleon (Depp) who becomes accidentally stranded in the Nevada desert and stumbles across an Old West town populated by desert animals. A combination of fast-talking bravado and dumb luck lead the townspeople to quickly label the chameleon (who has presented himself as a famous adventurer known as “Rango”) a hero and appoint him sheriff, charging him with solving the increasingly precarious drought threatening the town (which is appropriately named “Dirt”). With the help of the iguana Beans (the unrecognizable Isla Fisher) and a few other eccentric supporting characters, Rango uncovers a plot between Mayor Tortoise John (Ned Beatty) and local outlaw Rattlesnake Jake (Bill Nighy) to steal the town’s water. Before Rango can expose the plot, he is driven out of town by the townspeople who have discovered his deception and label him a fraud. Struggling to define his own identity, the chameleon must now find a way to save the people whose faith he had previously betrayed.
As the credits began to roll, I sat in my seat utterly horrified; shocked that Depp would allow his name to be attached to such a mediocre and surprisingly un-entertaining film. Admittedly, Depp himself is likable and brings some much needed life to the film as the protagonist, but there is little else to help heighten the appeal of Rango. The animation itself is impressive, but the high quality graphics are wasted on shamefully unattractive character models that are sure to make younger audience members uncomfortable (not only does one character have an arrow permanently impaled in his eye, but I also guarantee that Rattlesnake Jake will reduce some children to tears…good luck parents). I cannot fathom how these characters tracked well with test audiences. And let’s not forget the story of Rango, which is at times overly complicated and at others just complete nonsense, adding little heart or emotion to keep audiences invested. About an hour into the story, I just didn’t care anymore whether or not Rango actually found the water he was tasked to locate.
By far the biggest problem with Rango is that it is clear that neither Verbinski nor the writers could decide whether the film was intended to be a children’s adventure or a satire for the entire Western genre. Rango tries for some genuinely clever humor, but the attempts are lost in the uneven pacing of the film, as audiences have zero time to react to, recognize, or even appreciate a joke when it comes along. Once again, tragically, the funniest parts of Rango were revealed prematurely in the early trailers. Another blatant waste involves Rango’s numerous references to classical western films, which are not only sure to sail over the heads of children, but may also be too obscure for even older fans of the western genre to fully appreciate. Another disappointment involves some of the voice acting…aside from Depp himself, a number of the other famous voices were largely unrecognizable, thus wasting a chief element of the appeal that top animated films often share. In the end, Rango had all the elements necessary for success, but tragically just could not execute.
As I said in the “Short and Sweet” review, I cannot fathom how critics can sleep at night after singing the praises of Rango…I, on the other hand, have no problem telling readers that I absolutely hated the film. After his similarly disappointing partnership with Angelina Jolie in The Tourist, Rango definitely represents a “strike two” for Johnny Depp…good lord I hope Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is good! Paramount sure spent a large sum of money promoting Rango, but for as much as it cost to actually produce the film; a gross revenue of just under $170 million (barely covering the production budget) has to be disappointing. With the sub-par box office receipts and the low quality (of which I appear to be one of the only reviewers to point out) attached to Rango, it is clear Disney-Pixar has nothing to fear from Nickelodeon Movies. Bottom line, you may think you want to see Rango, but trust me; you have better things to do with your time.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office (wide-release): #1 with $38,079,323
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $97,517,310
Gross Revenue: $168,976,961
Budget: $135 million
Director: Gore Verbinski
Nickelodeon Movies used to be a very safe bet for family films, but in the past few years my faith has been shaken considerably; I’m sure no one had high hopes for yet another one of Eddie Murphy’s disasters in 2009’s Imagine That, but last summer’s The Last Airbender was just plain insulting. Still, Johnny Depp is an unquestionable crowd-pleaser, and he proved his appeal as a voice actor in 2005’s Corpse Bride, so there was a definite curiosity to see him bring life to another animated character. The teaser trailer for Rango first dropped in June, and though there wasn’t much revealed about the story; viewers were still treated to some impressive animation and clever humor. Promotions for Rango were everywhere leading up to the film’s release, playing off not only the inherent appeal of yet another computer-animated film but also the fact that director Gore Verbinski and Depp were teaming up outside the exploits of Captain Jack Sparrow. With the impressively large amount of positive buzz surrounding Rango, I had some high expectations for the film, but in retrospect I was shockingly unprepared for the overall quality of the end result.
Rango introduces audiences to an eccentric pet chameleon (Depp) who becomes accidentally stranded in the Nevada desert and stumbles across an Old West town populated by desert animals. A combination of fast-talking bravado and dumb luck lead the townspeople to quickly label the chameleon (who has presented himself as a famous adventurer known as “Rango”) a hero and appoint him sheriff, charging him with solving the increasingly precarious drought threatening the town (which is appropriately named “Dirt”). With the help of the iguana Beans (the unrecognizable Isla Fisher) and a few other eccentric supporting characters, Rango uncovers a plot between Mayor Tortoise John (Ned Beatty) and local outlaw Rattlesnake Jake (Bill Nighy) to steal the town’s water. Before Rango can expose the plot, he is driven out of town by the townspeople who have discovered his deception and label him a fraud. Struggling to define his own identity, the chameleon must now find a way to save the people whose faith he had previously betrayed.
As the credits began to roll, I sat in my seat utterly horrified; shocked that Depp would allow his name to be attached to such a mediocre and surprisingly un-entertaining film. Admittedly, Depp himself is likable and brings some much needed life to the film as the protagonist, but there is little else to help heighten the appeal of Rango. The animation itself is impressive, but the high quality graphics are wasted on shamefully unattractive character models that are sure to make younger audience members uncomfortable (not only does one character have an arrow permanently impaled in his eye, but I also guarantee that Rattlesnake Jake will reduce some children to tears…good luck parents). I cannot fathom how these characters tracked well with test audiences. And let’s not forget the story of Rango, which is at times overly complicated and at others just complete nonsense, adding little heart or emotion to keep audiences invested. About an hour into the story, I just didn’t care anymore whether or not Rango actually found the water he was tasked to locate.
By far the biggest problem with Rango is that it is clear that neither Verbinski nor the writers could decide whether the film was intended to be a children’s adventure or a satire for the entire Western genre. Rango tries for some genuinely clever humor, but the attempts are lost in the uneven pacing of the film, as audiences have zero time to react to, recognize, or even appreciate a joke when it comes along. Once again, tragically, the funniest parts of Rango were revealed prematurely in the early trailers. Another blatant waste involves Rango’s numerous references to classical western films, which are not only sure to sail over the heads of children, but may also be too obscure for even older fans of the western genre to fully appreciate. Another disappointment involves some of the voice acting…aside from Depp himself, a number of the other famous voices were largely unrecognizable, thus wasting a chief element of the appeal that top animated films often share. In the end, Rango had all the elements necessary for success, but tragically just could not execute.
As I said in the “Short and Sweet” review, I cannot fathom how critics can sleep at night after singing the praises of Rango…I, on the other hand, have no problem telling readers that I absolutely hated the film. After his similarly disappointing partnership with Angelina Jolie in The Tourist, Rango definitely represents a “strike two” for Johnny Depp…good lord I hope Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is good! Paramount sure spent a large sum of money promoting Rango, but for as much as it cost to actually produce the film; a gross revenue of just under $170 million (barely covering the production budget) has to be disappointing. With the sub-par box office receipts and the low quality (of which I appear to be one of the only reviewers to point out) attached to Rango, it is clear Disney-Pixar has nothing to fear from Nickelodeon Movies. Bottom line, you may think you want to see Rango, but trust me; you have better things to do with your time.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Unknown: Short and Sweet
Whether he defends the galaxy as a Jedi, trains Bruce Wayne to overcome his fear of bats, or tears through Paris trying to locate his kidnapped daughter, few would deny that Liam Neeson is an absolute crowd-pleaser. 2008’s Taken was an undeniable hit, solidifying Neeson as a surprisingly adept action hero, and when early previews for Unknown first hit theaters, it was clear that audiences were expecting a similarly successful film. In fact, it seemed pretty clear that Warner Bros. was positioning Unknown as a mix between Taken and The Bourne Identity, which was more than enough to generate a high level of audience interest. To be clear, regardless of his popular roles referenced above, Liam Neeson remains one of my favorite and most respected actors (primarily due to his Oscar-nominated work in 1993’s Schindler’s List), so I would happily see any film in which he features. While I was fairly sure that this newest thriller wouldn’t be identical to Taken, I was nevertheless excited to see Neeson tear through Europe yet again in Unknown.
In retrospect, even though Unknown is entertaining enough, I was still slightly disappointed in the finished product of the film. Neeson once again aptly proves his competence as an action star, chasing down the truth and dodging mysterious assailants with undeniable tenacity, but the overall story just borrows too heavily from past films. A strong supporting cast that includes Diane Kruger, January Jones, and Frank Langella helps add mystery and excitement to the plot, but as the film unfolds everything just starts feeling a little too familiar. With the unique premise initially promised to audiences, being able to associate so many story elements present in Unknown with past thriller films is especially disappointing. Fans of the conspiracy and spy genre will find plenty to enjoy in Unknown between the car chases and instances of mistaken identity, and Neeson once again delivers another strong and crowd-pleasing performance, but in the end audiences should not go into this film expecting anything terribly unique.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
In retrospect, even though Unknown is entertaining enough, I was still slightly disappointed in the finished product of the film. Neeson once again aptly proves his competence as an action star, chasing down the truth and dodging mysterious assailants with undeniable tenacity, but the overall story just borrows too heavily from past films. A strong supporting cast that includes Diane Kruger, January Jones, and Frank Langella helps add mystery and excitement to the plot, but as the film unfolds everything just starts feeling a little too familiar. With the unique premise initially promised to audiences, being able to associate so many story elements present in Unknown with past thriller films is especially disappointing. Fans of the conspiracy and spy genre will find plenty to enjoy in Unknown between the car chases and instances of mistaken identity, and Neeson once again delivers another strong and crowd-pleasing performance, but in the end audiences should not go into this film expecting anything terribly unique.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Unknown: Full Review
Unknown - (February 18, 2011): PG-13
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $25,453,015
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $44,866,537
Gross Revenue: $57,566,537
Budget: $30 million
Directors: Jaume Collet-Serra
Though he was undeniably famous beforehand, Liam Neeson has been on an absolute hot streak ever since he signed on to play Jedi Qui-Gon Jinn in the Star Wars prequels, taking on everything from historical drama (Kinsey) and romantic comedy (Love Actually) to children’s fantasy (Chronicles of Narnia series) and comic book adaptation (Batman Begins). After his unforgettable turn as action star in 2008’s Taken, it was clear that audiences were eager to see Neeson again take a turn in the thriller genre, and even though Taken II was recently given the green-light by 20th Century Fox, Unknown seemed like a very appropriate way to currently placate audiences. The amnesia twist alluded to in early previews was more than enough to evoke memories of The Bourne Identity, while watching Neeson tear through a European City maintained a clear link to Taken…from a positioning standpoint, it wouldn’t be very difficult for Warner Bros. to sell Unknown to today’s audiences. In terms of supporting cast, I was particularly excited about the inclusion of Diane Kruger, who last charmed audiences as Bridget von Hammersmark in 2009’s Inglorious Basterds; together, she and Neeson would undoubtedly make a lethal combination. Walking into the theater, I tried not to get my hopes too high, as I knew that this wouldn’t be an exact replica of Taken, but I was still expecting considerable entertainment from this newest thriller.
Based on the 2003 French novel Out of My Head by Didier van Cauwelaert, Unknown starts as Dr. Martin Harris (Neeson) and his wife Liz (January Jones) arrive in Berlin for a biotechnology summit. Realizing that he has forgotten his passport at the airport, Martin leaves Liz at the hotel and grabs a cab. On the way to the airport, the cab crashes off a bridge and Martin is knocked unconscious; though he is saved by the driver, Gina (Kruger), she quickly flees. Martin awakes four days later in the hospital and returns to the hotel, only to find that Liz has no memory of him and another man (Aidan Quinn) has assumed the identity of “Dr. Martin Harris.” After several failed attempts to prove his identity, Martin reaches out to an old colleague (Frank Langella) and searches for Gina in order to corroborate his story with Berlin authorities, only to find that he is now being chased by mysterious assassins. Between fighting for his life and questioning his own sanity, Martin slowly begins to uncover the truth, which unveils a far more sinister plan than anyone would have previously believed.
By far the most entertaining aspect of Unknown is watching Liam Neeson solidify his reputation as an action star, slyly dodging his assailants and fighting to prove his identity at all costs. He may not be playing the exact same super-spy from Taken, but Neeson is still capable of providing a thrilling car chase or desperate fistfight to satisfy fans. As far as the story goes, the unique premise provides enough twists and turns to keep audiences guessing and genuinely invested in the final outcome, in the end providing for a fully entertaining experience. Another pleasant element of Unknown involves Diane Kruger, whose streetwise and sarcastic character perfectly balances Liam Neeson’s troubled hero; beyond the effective character pairing the chemistry between the two is also surprisingly convincing, injecting a much needed, if subtle, romantic dynamic into the film. The effective mix of action and characters ultimately makes Unknown a worthy entry in the thriller genre.
Unfortunately, for as promising a setup as was promised to audiences in both the trailers and the first half of the film, the end-result of Unknown is surprisingly disappointing. As the story unfolds, plot elements not only begin to stretch the bounds of logic, but they also borrow heavily from past thrillers, making the overall film a little too familiar for audiences to ignore or forgive. By the time the end credits begin to roll, you cannot help but feel that something better could have produced from the premise, and that you have seen all of these elements executed in a better manner in the past. Entertaining as the film may be, audiences should not be expecting anything wholly original with Unknown. Though this criticism is unlikely to deter fans of the cast or genre, it is still worth noting.
Just like the plot elements of Unknown borrow heavily from Taken and The Bourne Identity, the box office performance of this thriller also echoes the success of those Hollywood juggernauts. At 58, Neeson impressively took the top spot as the nation’s number one action star his opening weekend, taking in just in under $26 million. Despite some mixed critical reaction, audiences have been very receptive to Unknown, once again illustrating the crowd-pleasing tendencies of Liam Neeson. The combination of domestic and international box office receipts has helped Warner Bros. recover its production budget, but with the notoriously busy and successful month of March bringing many new offerings, it is unlikely that Unknown will see any impressive jumps in revenue. Forgetting that the film is far from perfect, fans of Neeson will be more than pleased with Unknown, at least until Taken II hits theaters.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $25,453,015
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $44,866,537
Gross Revenue: $57,566,537
Budget: $30 million
Directors: Jaume Collet-Serra
Though he was undeniably famous beforehand, Liam Neeson has been on an absolute hot streak ever since he signed on to play Jedi Qui-Gon Jinn in the Star Wars prequels, taking on everything from historical drama (Kinsey) and romantic comedy (Love Actually) to children’s fantasy (Chronicles of Narnia series) and comic book adaptation (Batman Begins). After his unforgettable turn as action star in 2008’s Taken, it was clear that audiences were eager to see Neeson again take a turn in the thriller genre, and even though Taken II was recently given the green-light by 20th Century Fox, Unknown seemed like a very appropriate way to currently placate audiences. The amnesia twist alluded to in early previews was more than enough to evoke memories of The Bourne Identity, while watching Neeson tear through a European City maintained a clear link to Taken…from a positioning standpoint, it wouldn’t be very difficult for Warner Bros. to sell Unknown to today’s audiences. In terms of supporting cast, I was particularly excited about the inclusion of Diane Kruger, who last charmed audiences as Bridget von Hammersmark in 2009’s Inglorious Basterds; together, she and Neeson would undoubtedly make a lethal combination. Walking into the theater, I tried not to get my hopes too high, as I knew that this wouldn’t be an exact replica of Taken, but I was still expecting considerable entertainment from this newest thriller.
Based on the 2003 French novel Out of My Head by Didier van Cauwelaert, Unknown starts as Dr. Martin Harris (Neeson) and his wife Liz (January Jones) arrive in Berlin for a biotechnology summit. Realizing that he has forgotten his passport at the airport, Martin leaves Liz at the hotel and grabs a cab. On the way to the airport, the cab crashes off a bridge and Martin is knocked unconscious; though he is saved by the driver, Gina (Kruger), she quickly flees. Martin awakes four days later in the hospital and returns to the hotel, only to find that Liz has no memory of him and another man (Aidan Quinn) has assumed the identity of “Dr. Martin Harris.” After several failed attempts to prove his identity, Martin reaches out to an old colleague (Frank Langella) and searches for Gina in order to corroborate his story with Berlin authorities, only to find that he is now being chased by mysterious assassins. Between fighting for his life and questioning his own sanity, Martin slowly begins to uncover the truth, which unveils a far more sinister plan than anyone would have previously believed.
By far the most entertaining aspect of Unknown is watching Liam Neeson solidify his reputation as an action star, slyly dodging his assailants and fighting to prove his identity at all costs. He may not be playing the exact same super-spy from Taken, but Neeson is still capable of providing a thrilling car chase or desperate fistfight to satisfy fans. As far as the story goes, the unique premise provides enough twists and turns to keep audiences guessing and genuinely invested in the final outcome, in the end providing for a fully entertaining experience. Another pleasant element of Unknown involves Diane Kruger, whose streetwise and sarcastic character perfectly balances Liam Neeson’s troubled hero; beyond the effective character pairing the chemistry between the two is also surprisingly convincing, injecting a much needed, if subtle, romantic dynamic into the film. The effective mix of action and characters ultimately makes Unknown a worthy entry in the thriller genre.
Unfortunately, for as promising a setup as was promised to audiences in both the trailers and the first half of the film, the end-result of Unknown is surprisingly disappointing. As the story unfolds, plot elements not only begin to stretch the bounds of logic, but they also borrow heavily from past thrillers, making the overall film a little too familiar for audiences to ignore or forgive. By the time the end credits begin to roll, you cannot help but feel that something better could have produced from the premise, and that you have seen all of these elements executed in a better manner in the past. Entertaining as the film may be, audiences should not be expecting anything wholly original with Unknown. Though this criticism is unlikely to deter fans of the cast or genre, it is still worth noting.
Just like the plot elements of Unknown borrow heavily from Taken and The Bourne Identity, the box office performance of this thriller also echoes the success of those Hollywood juggernauts. At 58, Neeson impressively took the top spot as the nation’s number one action star his opening weekend, taking in just in under $26 million. Despite some mixed critical reaction, audiences have been very receptive to Unknown, once again illustrating the crowd-pleasing tendencies of Liam Neeson. The combination of domestic and international box office receipts has helped Warner Bros. recover its production budget, but with the notoriously busy and successful month of March bringing many new offerings, it is unlikely that Unknown will see any impressive jumps in revenue. Forgetting that the film is far from perfect, fans of Neeson will be more than pleased with Unknown, at least until Taken II hits theaters.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Just Go With It: Short and Sweet
Say what you will about some of his more recent films, after gifting audiences with such memorable characters as Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison, Adam Sandler has more than proven his talent as a comedic actor over the years. However, even as a Sandler fan, I was still a little skeptical concerning Just Go With It, which not only looked like it had an absurd plot, but also seemed like little more than an excuse to showcase Brooklyn Decker in a swimsuit. Forgetting the fact that there seems to be an increasing age gap between Sandler and his romantic interests (in this case Sandler is 21 years Decker’s senior…more than a little creepy), Columbia Pictures’ promotional activities indicated that they believed no one would question this strange romantic comedy. The inclusion of Jennifer Aniston in the cast was definitely interesting, as even though some of her most recent films have failed to live up to expectations, she still has a strong background in comedy, so I was curious to see what she could do alongside Sandler. While it was clear that I wouldn’t be reviewing a profoundly deep display of humor, I was still willing to see if Just Go With It could provide at least a few stupid laughs.
Well, even though I can’t say I was too surprised, even by Adam Sandler standards, Just Go With It is shockingly bad. In the nearly two-hour running time, there are maybe two passably funny jokes, thanks largely to a ridiculous, razor-thin script, and shamefully lazy writing and acting. Adam Sandler had made a career of bringing wildly unstable characters to life, but in recent years it almost seems like he is content to sit-back and rely on his own fame to create success rather than actually work for it. In terms of the supporting cast, Jennifer Aniston is the one shining light in the film, doing her best to bring some affectionate humor to the story while Brooklyn Decker bounces around and Nick Swardson undermines his own talent with a mind-numbingly high level of zaniness that I hope someone on set thought was funny (even Rob Schneider was never this bad). Previously, I would have labeled You Don’t Mess with the Zohan as Sandler’s worst film, but I think that dubious title now belongs to Just Go With It. Bottom line: I don’t care how big a fan of Adam Sandler you think you are…you have better things to do with your time than watch this train wreck.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Well, even though I can’t say I was too surprised, even by Adam Sandler standards, Just Go With It is shockingly bad. In the nearly two-hour running time, there are maybe two passably funny jokes, thanks largely to a ridiculous, razor-thin script, and shamefully lazy writing and acting. Adam Sandler had made a career of bringing wildly unstable characters to life, but in recent years it almost seems like he is content to sit-back and rely on his own fame to create success rather than actually work for it. In terms of the supporting cast, Jennifer Aniston is the one shining light in the film, doing her best to bring some affectionate humor to the story while Brooklyn Decker bounces around and Nick Swardson undermines his own talent with a mind-numbingly high level of zaniness that I hope someone on set thought was funny (even Rob Schneider was never this bad). Previously, I would have labeled You Don’t Mess with the Zohan as Sandler’s worst film, but I think that dubious title now belongs to Just Go With It. Bottom line: I don’t care how big a fan of Adam Sandler you think you are…you have better things to do with your time than watch this train wreck.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Just Go With It: Full Review
Just Go With It - (February 11, 2011): PG-13
Distributor: Columbia Pictures (subsidiary of Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $30,514,732
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $79,457,522
Gross Revenue: $104,455,000
Budget: $80 million
Directors: Dennis Dugan
Regardless of whether audiences would realize that Just Go with It is actually a loose remake of Walter Matthau and Goldie Hawn’s 1969 comedy Cactus Flower, easily one of the biggest selling points for this newest comedy is that it represents yet another collaboration between Adam Sandler and director Dennis Dugan. Sandler and Dugan have previously partnered together on five films, including the comedy classics Happy Gilmore and Big Daddy, so there was a definite precedent with this comedic team that could be exploited to boost ticket sales. Just Go With It also represents the first collaboration between Sandler and Jennifer Aniston, who, despite some box office disappointments, has had definite success in working alongside Hollywood funnymen (think Bruce Almighty, Along Came Polly, and Marley & Me). Still, perhaps the biggest question mark surrounding Just Go With It involved the inclusion of 23-year-old Sports Illustrated swimsuit model Brooklyn Decker, who would be making her feature film debut as Sandler’s love interest. As shameless as it may sound, regardless of whether or not she had the acting talent to hold her own on the silver screen, having the cover model of the 2010 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue in a film primarily set in Hawaii (guaranteeing multiple bikini wardrobes) was sure to appeal to teenage and young adult male moviegoers. Tropical setting, attractive female cast members, and a supposedly guaranteed level of humor…Just Go With It had all the makings of a successful comedy.
Just Go With It introduces audiences to Dr. Danny Maccabee (Sandler), a successful Los Angeles plastic surgeon who pretends to lead an unhappy married life to pick up sympathetic women for no-strings-attached romantic flings. One day, Danny meets sixth grade math teacher Palmer (Decker), and even though he decides to not run his marriage scam on her, she eventually discovers his fake wedding ring and ends the relationship. Realizing his feelings for Palmer, Danny enlists his office manager Katherine (Aniston) to pose as his ex-wife, so that she can meet Palmer and give her blessings to the new relationship. Unfortunately, the lies begin to pile up and Palmer soon believes that Katherine and Danny have children together (in reality Katherine’s children from a previous marriage); after deciding to include the children in the lie, Danny is eventually forced to take the entire group on a Hawaiian vacation in order to keep up appearances. With the help of his zany cousin Eddie (Nick Swardson), who is posing as Katherine’s new husband, Danny must deal with his increasing web of lies and confront his feelings regarding his past behavior and his growing companionship with his fictional “family.”
The normal progression of my reviews usually starts with the positive aspects of the film in question, but because there are so few within Just Go With It, I feel compelled to break tradition. If the above plot sounds a little ridiculous and unnecessary, then your instincts are dead-on, as the core story offers little more than numerous examples of illogical progression and bad lying. Not only does Dr. Danny (who supposedly is a veteran womanizer) quickly lose control of his lies with increasingly stupid explanations, but his “intelligent” love interest instantaneously accepts everything his says at face-value…about twenty minutes of this and even the most optimistic audience member will start rolling their eyes. As far as the supporting cast goes, even after accepting the gullibility of Decker’s character, she still does little more than bounce around on the beach; yet the biggest annoyances come from Katherine’s kids (who may be the two most irritating and instantaneously unlikable child actors in Hollywood) and the bizarre additions of Nicole Kidman and Dave Matthews to the cast (yes, that Dave Matthews), whose character appearances feel unnecessary and only further weaken the film. Even Nick Swardson, who I thoroughly enjoy as a stand-up comedian, inexplicably sports a bad German accent the entire film and only comes up with one or two passably funny jokes. Even after looking past all these low points, Adam Sandler remains the biggest disappointment, as he seems to believe that his star-power justifies no effort to bring genuine humor into the film; in place of one of the memorable characters that made him famous, Sandler seems content to simply play himself on-screen, which may be okay in some instances, but this time was not only unfunny, but also downright lazy.
The only element of the film that prevents Just Go With It from being an absolute disaster is Jennifer Aniston, as her sweet and sarcastic performance echoes many of the love interests from some of Sandler’s vastly superior previous films. Where everyone else in the cast relies on infantile jokes about facial hair and spontaneous songs in idiotic voices, Aniston tries her best to inject some credibility into the story. It doesn’t hurt at all that Aniston is also drop-dead gorgeous, even going so far as to rival Brooklyn Decker for best bikini-body in the film. I was also pleasantly surprised by the amount of chemistry generated between Aniston and Sandler; even though it helps audiences see the ending coming a mile away when weighed against the razor-thin plot, it still indicates that Just Go With It could have been a much better film had more effort been put forth.
Regardless of how much I disliked Just Go With It, the film still aptly demonstrated the undeniable box office draw of Adam Sandler, bringing in over $30 million its opening weekend, an impressive number for a February release. Of course, maybe the 30% drop-off in revenue between the first and second weekend indicates that word of mouth may not be as positive as some media outlets may have led potential moviegoers to believe. Still, Columbia Pictures has more than recovered its production budget between domestic and international box office receipts, so even subpar reviews will do little damage at this point. Regardless, I don’t care how famous Adam Sandler is or how successful his past movies have been, nothing excuses the lazy and disappointing quality of Just Go With It…both fans and general audiences deserve far better.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Distributor: Columbia Pictures (subsidiary of Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $30,514,732
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $79,457,522
Gross Revenue: $104,455,000
Budget: $80 million
Directors: Dennis Dugan
Regardless of whether audiences would realize that Just Go with It is actually a loose remake of Walter Matthau and Goldie Hawn’s 1969 comedy Cactus Flower, easily one of the biggest selling points for this newest comedy is that it represents yet another collaboration between Adam Sandler and director Dennis Dugan. Sandler and Dugan have previously partnered together on five films, including the comedy classics Happy Gilmore and Big Daddy, so there was a definite precedent with this comedic team that could be exploited to boost ticket sales. Just Go With It also represents the first collaboration between Sandler and Jennifer Aniston, who, despite some box office disappointments, has had definite success in working alongside Hollywood funnymen (think Bruce Almighty, Along Came Polly, and Marley & Me). Still, perhaps the biggest question mark surrounding Just Go With It involved the inclusion of 23-year-old Sports Illustrated swimsuit model Brooklyn Decker, who would be making her feature film debut as Sandler’s love interest. As shameless as it may sound, regardless of whether or not she had the acting talent to hold her own on the silver screen, having the cover model of the 2010 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue in a film primarily set in Hawaii (guaranteeing multiple bikini wardrobes) was sure to appeal to teenage and young adult male moviegoers. Tropical setting, attractive female cast members, and a supposedly guaranteed level of humor…Just Go With It had all the makings of a successful comedy.
Just Go With It introduces audiences to Dr. Danny Maccabee (Sandler), a successful Los Angeles plastic surgeon who pretends to lead an unhappy married life to pick up sympathetic women for no-strings-attached romantic flings. One day, Danny meets sixth grade math teacher Palmer (Decker), and even though he decides to not run his marriage scam on her, she eventually discovers his fake wedding ring and ends the relationship. Realizing his feelings for Palmer, Danny enlists his office manager Katherine (Aniston) to pose as his ex-wife, so that she can meet Palmer and give her blessings to the new relationship. Unfortunately, the lies begin to pile up and Palmer soon believes that Katherine and Danny have children together (in reality Katherine’s children from a previous marriage); after deciding to include the children in the lie, Danny is eventually forced to take the entire group on a Hawaiian vacation in order to keep up appearances. With the help of his zany cousin Eddie (Nick Swardson), who is posing as Katherine’s new husband, Danny must deal with his increasing web of lies and confront his feelings regarding his past behavior and his growing companionship with his fictional “family.”
The normal progression of my reviews usually starts with the positive aspects of the film in question, but because there are so few within Just Go With It, I feel compelled to break tradition. If the above plot sounds a little ridiculous and unnecessary, then your instincts are dead-on, as the core story offers little more than numerous examples of illogical progression and bad lying. Not only does Dr. Danny (who supposedly is a veteran womanizer) quickly lose control of his lies with increasingly stupid explanations, but his “intelligent” love interest instantaneously accepts everything his says at face-value…about twenty minutes of this and even the most optimistic audience member will start rolling their eyes. As far as the supporting cast goes, even after accepting the gullibility of Decker’s character, she still does little more than bounce around on the beach; yet the biggest annoyances come from Katherine’s kids (who may be the two most irritating and instantaneously unlikable child actors in Hollywood) and the bizarre additions of Nicole Kidman and Dave Matthews to the cast (yes, that Dave Matthews), whose character appearances feel unnecessary and only further weaken the film. Even Nick Swardson, who I thoroughly enjoy as a stand-up comedian, inexplicably sports a bad German accent the entire film and only comes up with one or two passably funny jokes. Even after looking past all these low points, Adam Sandler remains the biggest disappointment, as he seems to believe that his star-power justifies no effort to bring genuine humor into the film; in place of one of the memorable characters that made him famous, Sandler seems content to simply play himself on-screen, which may be okay in some instances, but this time was not only unfunny, but also downright lazy.
The only element of the film that prevents Just Go With It from being an absolute disaster is Jennifer Aniston, as her sweet and sarcastic performance echoes many of the love interests from some of Sandler’s vastly superior previous films. Where everyone else in the cast relies on infantile jokes about facial hair and spontaneous songs in idiotic voices, Aniston tries her best to inject some credibility into the story. It doesn’t hurt at all that Aniston is also drop-dead gorgeous, even going so far as to rival Brooklyn Decker for best bikini-body in the film. I was also pleasantly surprised by the amount of chemistry generated between Aniston and Sandler; even though it helps audiences see the ending coming a mile away when weighed against the razor-thin plot, it still indicates that Just Go With It could have been a much better film had more effort been put forth.
Regardless of how much I disliked Just Go With It, the film still aptly demonstrated the undeniable box office draw of Adam Sandler, bringing in over $30 million its opening weekend, an impressive number for a February release. Of course, maybe the 30% drop-off in revenue between the first and second weekend indicates that word of mouth may not be as positive as some media outlets may have led potential moviegoers to believe. Still, Columbia Pictures has more than recovered its production budget between domestic and international box office receipts, so even subpar reviews will do little damage at this point. Regardless, I don’t care how famous Adam Sandler is or how successful his past movies have been, nothing excuses the lazy and disappointing quality of Just Go With It…both fans and general audiences deserve far better.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)