Category Archives: Movie Reviews – A

REVIEW: “After Earth”

by

22

AFTER EARTH POSTER

Is “After Earth” a noble attempt at creating a fresh and entertaining science fiction experience or is it a glaring example of Hollywood nepotism hidden under the guise of a $150 million summer movie? I wish I had an answer to that question. To be honest, at times it feels like both. “After Earth” has some good ideas and occasionally shows promise. Unfortunately it also sometimes feels like a shameless promotion of Jaden Smith by his very popular and wealthy family – a debutante ball of sorts set on a uninhabitable and deadly future Earth instead of a posh, stuffy mansion or ballroom.

“After Earth” found its genesis in the mind of Will Smith. He, his wife, and brother-in-law prepared to produce the film and M. Night Shyamalan would sign on to co-write the screenplay and direct the picture (a little detail that didn’t get much press due to the filmmaker’s recent line of box office flops). Will Smith would also use his fading star power to star in the film along his real life son Jaden. Now all of these family connections don’t automatically equal a bad movie. On the other hand poor writing, poor acting, and poor directing usually does and it’s hard to believe that “After Earth” was intending as something other than a starring vehicle for the younger Smith.

The story starts out in a pretty familiar fashion. Through narration we are once again told how we destroyed the Earth eventually making it uninhabitable for humans. Therefore a full evacuation of the planet is ordered (I bet that was an undertaking). 1,000 years pass and humans are enjoying life on the newly settled Nova Prime. But then we get the ominous line “they were not alone”. Aliens are also there and they battle the humans for Nova Prime. Enter the Ranger Corp, a militaristic peacekeeping group who use a goofy technique called ghosting to fight the fear-sensing aliens. Ghosting removes all fear making the Rangers undetectable, blah, blah, blah.

1108146 - After Earth

Cypher (Will Smith) is an accomplished Ranger General but a harsh authoritarian father to his struggling son Kitai (Jaden Smith). Cypher is convinced to carry Kitai with him on his proverbial ‘last mission before retirement’ in hopes the two can get some much needed bonding time. As you can probably guess things don’t go according to plan. An asteroid shower, a wormhole, and a crash-landing on the now deadly and evolved Earth put a damper on things. To make matters worse Cypher is seriously injured and Kitai is the only one who can find a beacon that is in the lost tail section of their ship. Without the rescue beacon they will surely die.

I wish I could say there were some interesting or compelling moments in the buildup to the crash on Earth. Unfortunately I can’t think of any. The entire premise seemed overly familiar and the science fiction itself lacked any sense of ingenuity or awe. An even greater problem is with the family dynamic. The central father-son relationship is only allowed a few brief scenes to develop. Instead of appealing and believable it comes off as
stiff and hollow. Faia (Sophie Okonedo) is tossed in to try and inject some warmth into her husband and son’s relationship and we get some random flashbacks scattered throughout the film which attempt to add a little backstory. Neither attempts are very effective.

But you would think things would liven up once they crash-land, right? This is where the movie’s ideas show some potential yet are never realized. There is some pretty scenery and the depiction of Earth is mildly interesting. But it’s still the same vapid and plodding mess just in a prettier location. I mean how can such a vivid concept be so lifeless and dull? Shyamalan does little to help. He does frame three or four fairly memorable shots but other than that everything is fairly underwhelming.

1108146 - After Earth

And speaking of dull let’s talk a little bit about the performances. I know many people are big fans of Will Smith. I’ve never really got that. Here he gives one of the worst performances I’ve seen this year. The role calls for him to be ultra-serious but I found him to be ultra-annoying. He’s constantly making this weird sullen face and speaking in this low monotone consisting mostly of grunts and grumbles. He’s dull, wooden, and uninteresting. And that’s before he takes the pain pills with the holographic warning label marked “extreme drowsiness”. His performance really flatlines after that. And Jaden isn’t much better. I’m sorry, but he just can’t carry a movie. He shows virtually no acting chops here which only adds to the movies laundry list of problems.

I could talk more about Shyamalan’s lackluster direction, the mediocre CGI, or the predictable ending. Ultimately I think you get the point. “After Earth” is a sleep-inducing bore that hasn’t the material or performances to rise above its faults. In fact, the material and performances ARE some of the bigger faults. In the end “After Earth” will do nothing to reignite Will Smith’s fading light, reinvigorate M. Night Shyamalan’s once promising career, or prove that Jaden Smith is a good actor. It will however frustrate you, bore you, and remind you of a dozen other things you could be spending your time on.

VERDICT – 1.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery”

by

35

Austin powers posterIt was 1997 when the wacky Mike Myers concoction known as Austin Powers hit the big screen. I still remember the large number of people talking about the movie and quoting it’s numerous lines. Yet, for one reason or another, I never took time to check it out even though it was really popular. Well that has changed and now I’ve seen “Austin Powers: International Man of History” but I wouldn’t say my movie watching life is the better for it.

Saturday Night Live alumnus Mike Myers created his Austin Powers character as a spoof of popular spy movies most notably the earlier James Bond pictures. It begins with a brief scene in 1967 of Austin trying to take out his arch nemesis Dr. Evil (also Myers). Dr. Evil escapes by jettisoning into space and placing himself into a cryosleep. For weird reasons unknown, Austin has himself cryogenically frozen only to be brought back if Dr. Evil resurfaces. Wouldn’t you know it, he does return 30 years later and Austin is brought back to hunt him down again.

The movie goofs around with several familiar gimmicks but its main thing is Austin as a man out of time. He was a big player in the days of free love and excess. The problem is, that brand of chauvinistic hedonism doesn’t sit too well in 1997. Dr. Evil also runs into his share of complications due to the changes in the world since his departure. Now there are some funny bits scattered throughout all of this and it’s politically incorrect silliness can be amusing. But it is the film’s bread and butter and quite honestly it grew tiring after a while. The culture shock angle is a big focus and how much you like the film may depend on how long you can stay with that.

AUSTIN POWERS photo

And if course there is Myers’ ludicrous antics and appearance. Sporting ridiculously bad teeth, a flowing mane of chest hair, and outfits that I don’t believe any normal person wore in the late 60’s, Myers clowns around with goofy poses and dialogue loaded with corny lines and overused innuendo. Now to be fair it’s all played as absurd and it certainly is that. But after a small dose it can be a bit taxing. Dr. Evil has some of the film’s funnier moments particular when his genetically created son Scott (Seth Green) appears. But even he grows old after a while. Perhaps the best thing about the film is watching the beautiful Elizabeth Hurley. I’m not saying she or her character is great, but watching her certainly made digesting everything else a little easier.

I know this film has its share of fans. I just can’t be counted among them and I can’t see myself checking out the sequels. Again, the movie does have its moments but most of them are drowned out by repetitious gags that quite frankly grew old. I spent most of the film stone-faced and that’s just not the reaction I’m looking for from a comedy. I certainly don’t begrudge anyone for liking it since comedy is so subjective. But I can think of a ton of other comedies I’ll be checking out before I watch this one again.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

REVIEW: “Alex Cross”

by

19

ALEX POSTER

“Alex Cross” is Tyler Perry’s attempt at starring in a serious movie outside of his normal comfort zone. Now you won’t see him running around in drag sporting his familiar Madea getup, but there are times in “Alex Cross” where that might have made things more interesting. Now to be fair, this movie is nowhere near as unbearable as I was anticipating and there are some pretty good moments. But in the end this is all to familiar material and the movie never does anything to set itself apart. In other words we’ve seen this all before.

Tyler Perry isn’t the first actor to portray Alex Cross, the lead character from James Patterson’s series of novels. Morgan Freeman took on the role in 1997 with “Kiss the Girls” and in 2001 with “Along Came a Spider”. Not only are these two films considerably different than this new vision, but the Alex Cross character undergoes a hefty transformation as well. He’s still a police detective and forensic psychologist but here he’s more open to mixing hand-to-hand combat and his sawed off shotgun to his Sherlock Holmesesque skills of deduction.

ALEX CROSS1

Life is good for Alex. He has a beautiful wife, two lovely children, and one on the way. He’s also been offered a cushiony FBI desks job that pays a lot more money and would allow him to spend more time with his family. But isn’t it just like a sadistic serial killer to make things more complicated. Alex is called to a high-profile crime scene with his partner and lifelong friend Tommy (Edward Burns). They connect the murder to a man they call Picasso. He’s played by an almost emaciated Matthew Fox sporting a shaved head and noticeably fake tattoos. As with all of these movies, Alex and company set out to stop Picasso by picking through clues and getting to the next victim before the killer does. Like I said, it’s pretty familiar material.

“Alex Cross” runs the gamut from a crime drama to a revenge thriller. As the movie continues things get grislier to the point of seriously pushing the bounds of its PG-13 rating. Considering the movie does focus on a brutal serial killer and the hunt to find him, it’s not unreasonable to expect some rather gruesome content. But while “Alex Cross” does stretch the PG-13 rating, it seems shackled by it as well. I kept feeling as if the movie wanted to be darker, grimmer, and a bit more shocking than it was. I don’t think that would transform this into a great film but I can see where it would provide an edge that would help it overall.

But back to one of the bigger questions surrounding the movie. Was Tyler Perry able to pull this off? Let me just say that he was surprisingly adequate but nothing extraordinary or memorable. And while there were no egregious flaws in his performance, there are several times where he overplays a scene and other times where his stale line-reading is a distraction. It’s interesting that Idris Elba was initially cast for the part and I can’t help thinking he would be a better choice. But as for Perry, I was expecting a lot worse.

Alex Cross - Matthew Fox

Edward Burns probably gives the best performance of the movie even though some of the lines he’s given are pretty lame. And then there’s Matthew Fox. His performance is a tough one to peg. There are a few scenes, particularly when he’s wrestling with threatening dialogue, where he’s not that convincing. But overall I do think he pulls it off mainly because he sells ‘crazy’ pretty well through the combination of his unusual appearance and his moral apathy. But perhaps the most jarring performance comes from John McGinley as Alex Cross’ police captain. He’s terribly miscast and every line he says is ridiculously overdone. His performance stands out but for all the wrong reasons.

“Alex Cross” isn’t the worst movie out there. Its biggest problem is that it’s just not memorable enough to overcome its clear flaws. Most of the movie features too much that we’ve seen before and the ending feels like a cheap cop out. And while Tyler Perry may not have been the worst choice, I think it’s obvious he wasn’t the best choice. All of this contributes to “Alex Cross” being pretty forgetful. Some ingredients are there for what could’ve been a good movie. But the ingredients themselves don’t equal a fine dish. That’s certainly the case here.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

“Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy” – 2.5 STARS

by

43

ANCHORMAN posterThere are a lot of people who absolutely love “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy”. I’ve heard so many people talk about its hilarity and give it rave reviews. Yet I have stayed away from it for several reasons, mainly Will Ferrell. I know most people love the guy and find him hysterical, but I can only handle his brand of humor in small doses. Another turnoff for me was seeing that “Anchorman” is a Judd Apatow production. Again, I know Apatow’s movies have a big audience but I’m not into his insistent crass and raunchy style. So the question becomes why would I watch this film? Simply put, I’ve been asked about this movie so many times that I felt I should give it an objective look.

Let me get this out of the way first. “Anchorman” isn’t as bad as I feared. In fact it has several clever gags and some laugh-out-loud funny moments. But it also has the same flat and unfunny “humor” that plagues most of Ferrell’s movies. And of course Apatow’s dull raunchy influence is found at different points throughout the film. It’s really a shame because I like good absurdist comedy and “Anchorman” has a lot of that. But there are also several moments where the movie thinks it’s a lot funnier than it actually is. This roller coaster ride between funny and unfunny scenes can be a little taxing.

Ferrell plays Ron Burgundy, a beloved and legendary anchorman for San Diego’s #1 ranked Channel 4 News. His popularity is citywide and he’s considered the big fish in the San Diego news reporting community. He rolls with his news team consisting of his loud and obnoxious sportscaster “Champ” Kind (David Koechner), his fashion-conscience field reporter Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), and team weatherman Brick Tamland (Steve Carell) who is basically the village idiot and that’s saying something considering the company of clowns he keeps. The four are given a pretty long leash by their boss Ed Harken (Fred Willard) and they spend it partying with newsroom groupies.

Anchorman

The film is set in the 1975 and it spends a lot of time spoofing the male-dominated society of the time. Burgundy and company view women as a lesser species whose main purpose is to serve them and their “needs”. Of course their sexism is so insanely over the top that it’s often times quite funny. That sets up quite a clash when these moronic Neanderthals learn that, in the interest of diversity, the station has hired a beautiful news reporter named Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate). Ron thinks it’s a ridiculous idea and that there’s no room for women in the news room. But he underestimates Veronica’s tenacity and ambition. He also underestimates her irresistible beauty and charm, and his attraction to her jeopardizes his role as a chauvinistic icon.

Ferrell co-wrote the script and I assume he tried to cater his role to his style of comedy. He has his moments where he’s very funny but there are also several times where his character’s gags land with a thud. Some of his jokes are so shallow and poorly written that they resemble material you would hear during a subpar comedy club’s amateur hour. But Ferrell does provide some good laughs especially when he’s swapping lines with his team. But overall I don’t think he’s the funniest character in the film. For me it was Steve Carell. He’s a complete space cadet and he had me laughing nearly every time he spoke. I also thought Applegate was very good as the straight person in the midst of a ton of lunacy. There’s also some really fun scenes with Willard. He’s a guy that can be very funny if given the right material.

Anchorman1

There are several cool touches that make the movie fun. I loved Bill Curtis’ pitch-perfect narration. The hyper-70’s wardrobes and hairstyles are a blast and the whole parody of the 70’s network news scene worked for me. Ferrell and gang play within this period sandbox and they’re clearly having a ton of fun. There are also a host of interesting cameos that pop up along the way. Some work while others are pretty pointless. I also have to tip my hat to Ferrell’s willingness to humiliate himself to get a laugh. It doesn’t always work but more often it does.

“Anchorman” actually attempts to provide some social commentary within its outlandish humor but I don’t think it pulls it off. For me it’s a film better appreciated as an insanely silly and preposterous comedy. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Unfortunately it’s a terribly uneven film and you have to wade through numerous flat and unfunny jokes to get to the good stuff. It seems that for every hilarious gag “Anchorman” gives you two boring and lazy ones. And of course there’s the Apatow signature toilet humor that’s just as cheap and annoying as in Judd’s other pictures. And it’s really a shame. “Anchorman” has a number of great scenes and I found myself laughing out loud numerous times. Unfortunately I found myself rolling my eyes just as much.

REVIEW: “Amour”

by

30

kinopoisk.ru

One of my most eagerly anticipated films to see has been Michael Haneke’s “Amour”. The 70-year-old Haneke is a director I’ve grown to admire even though I leave some of his films frustrated. He can seem infatuated with suffering and misery and his love for ambiguous endings can be testing. For example, after recently watching his 2005 film “Caché” I found myself growling at the open-ended finale. But soon after I found myself thinking more on the movie and what Haneke was going for. That’s when I really began to appreciate the film. Such is the case with several Michael Haneke pictures.

His latest movie is “Amour”, a French language drama that has blown critics away and garnered 6 Academy Award nominations. Haneke is no stranger to critical acclaim but make no mistake, he deserves every ounce of praise he has received for this stirring and often times devastating masterpiece. Like many of his pictures, it’s not a movie you can say you thoroughly enjoy watching. “Amour” deals with some depressing but very real subject matter and Haneke’s ability to express it all is astounding. He was able to get me so emotionally invested that I cared about every single thing I was seeing on the screen.

But the film would never work without its two phenomenal lead performances. Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva play Georges and Anne Laurent, a happily married couple, both in their eighties, living in Paris. We see some beautiful scenes of them together as they enjoy a night out at a concert and share conversations at the breakfast table. I instantly knew that these two people had been in love for a long time. But it’s at that breakfast table where Anne suddenly goes quiet and just stares straight ahead for several minutes. It turns out that she has what appears to be a stroke and after surgery she’s left paralyzed on her right side.

Amour1

Georges brings Anne back home to take care of her and promises that he’ll never take her back to the hospital or send her to a hospice facility. This doesn’t sit well with their daughter Eva (Isabelle Huppert) who has a few clashes with Georges over the decision. Sadly Anne’s condition worsens and Georges has to face the reality that his wife may not get better. This is difficult but reality-based stuff and the film never pulls any punches in dealing with it. We see the simplest of things become increasingly difficult for Anne and we see Georges right by her side through it all. We watch them go through something that so many others have experienced and that ability to relate is one thing that makes this such a powerful picture.

I hinted at the great performances by the two leads. Well with all due respect to every other female performance of 2012, and that includes Oscar front-runners Jennifer Lawrence and Jessica Chastain, no one gave a more stunning and committed performance than Emmanuelle Riva. She took my breath away. She gives this performance everything she has and that’s a key ingredient to making it work. There was never a moment in the film where I didn’t believe in what she was doing. And then there’s Trintignant who has a much different role but an equally essential and compelling one. He offers that same authenticity as Riva and for me watching him handle this material was a huge part of my experience.

I also have to take time to talk about Haneke’s technique. I loved how he opened the movie. We get one brief scene that sets the table for everything to come. In a sense Haneke shows his hand before playing his cards. But the true power of this film is in what follows and the opening scene allows us to put our focus where it should be. There’s also no musical score at all. This frees the movie from any potential emotional manipulation that music can sometimes bring. Haneke brings every ounce of his emotion from the characters. Now personally I would have liked a smart and subtle score but it’s absence does nothing to detract from the film.

Amour2

You’ll also notice that almost the entire movie takes place inside their Paris apartment. With the exception of the early sequence where they go to a concert, we spend the entire time in the apartment with them. During that time I felt I knew their home as well as they did. I know where their living room is. I know how their kitchen is laid out. I know their foyer, their halls, their bathroom, and their bedroom. This did a couple of things for me. It gave me a sense of place but it also relays the confinement they now experience. Anna’s illness has restricted them to the apartment where they even depend on good neighbors to get their groceries for them. Haneke also uses his familiar technique of setting his camera and then watching things unfold. Often times he’ll extend his shots which force us to take in some of the painful moments while at other times enjoying and appreciating the peaceful ones. I found this to be very effective.

And then you have the ending. As I mentioned in the first paragraph, anyone familiar with a Michael Haneke picture has to be prepared for the ending. Sometimes they’re nice and tidy but other times they can be abrupt and ambiguous. In “Amour” he ends it just right, well almost. There’s an incredibly moving moment that felt like the perfect ending to this film and essentially it is. But then he tacks on an extra minute-long scene. Now this brief final moment does carry some weight in itself and it does nothing to undo the previous scene. But it did have me wondering where it fit in chronologically. For me, he could have trimmed this scene and still have a near perfect ending. But it’s such a minor thing considering how incredible this film is as a whole.

Speaking of perfect, “Amour” is the perfect title for this film. This is a story of true love – a love between a husband and wife that only grew stronger through the many years they experienced together. It’s a love that’s taken for granted today and it’s often times treated so flippantly. But Haneke shows how precious it is and even in the face of this particular heartbreak it’s that love which shines brightest. There is an examination of cruelty and of suffering and there may be a bit of trickery going on. But for me it all came back to the deep love between this couple. I’ve thought a lot about this film since seeing it. I’ve thought about my marriage and growing old with my wife. I’ve thought about that cherished relationship that we share. Then I thought about Anne and Georges. They help us understand and appreciate the loyalty and self-sacrifice that comes with such a beautiful relationship. That my friends is amour.

VERDICT – 5 STARS

5 STARSs

5STAR K&M

REVIEW: “A Good Day to Die Hard” (2013)

by

34

DIE HARD POSTER

Going into “A Good Day to Die Hard” (a.k.a. “Die Hard 5”), I knew that I would be the guy that would take a stand against the barrage of negative reviews from critics and fellow movie blogging buddies. I was prepared to respond to those who have berated the film or labeled it a major disappointment. I was ready to let everyone know why the current 16% Rotten Tomatoes score was misguided and wrong. But I ran into a problem. I was ready and prepared to defend this film. Unfortunately I can’t. If it weren’t for the title I would have never known this was a “Die Hard” picture. “A Good Day to Die Hard” is missing almost ever signature feature and clever nuance that has made this franchise great.

There are several things that have set this franchise apart from other action films. You have the fiery personality of its wisecracking lead character. You have strong, well-defined, charismatic villains. You have solid side characters that fit perfectly in John McClane’s chaotic world. You’ll have a hard time finding a trace of any of these things in “A Good Day to Die Hard” and for me the problems all start with the writing and direction. Skip Woods wrote the screenplay which explains a lot. His last two writing credits were for the terrible “X-Men Orgins: Wolverine” and the even bigger train wreck “The A-Team”. John Moore directs and while he’s received some box office success, his resume is filled with forgettable films. Put these two together and apparently this is what we get.

die hard

The story is simple and pretty generic. John McClane (Willis) heads to Moscow after receiving news that his estranged son Jack (Jai Courtney) has been put in prison. John finds out that his son is a CIA field operative and they both find themselves in the middle of a deadly terrorist plot. A lot of the movie is spent with Willis and Courtney bouncing lazy, ham-fisted lines off each other. I grew tired of Jack’s constant whining and John is now a self-reflecting softie. This gets into one of my biggest problems with this movie. This isn’t the John McClane of the other “Die Hard” pictures. We see very little of his signature spunk and in-your-face attitude. I kept waiting for him to go off on one of the bad guys McClane style but it never happened. In fact, the closest we get to seeing that is when he punches out a motorist for getting in his face. Not one of the terrorists – a civilian!

For me, if you take away McClane’s charisma and attitude you’ve already lost a lot. Apparently Moore thought that having Willis yell and scream here and there would be enough. Not even close! But to make matters worse, McClane’s great smart-alecky humor is decimated by Woods’ poor dialogue. So many times the one-liners land with a thud and they feel cheap and artificial. He does deliver a handful of lines that did make me laugh, but nothing close to the number of great quotes from the previous movies.

It also doesn’t help that he lacks a clear and present villain to go back and forth with. Instead of showing us the bad guy and then allowing McClane to fight his way to him, this film tries to play out like a thriller by throwing several twists in along the way. That’s fine except this is “Die Hard” and this is a significant departure from the structure of the other films. The story itself isn’t terrible and they do try and make some pretty cool historical connections. But it all plays out to be pretty basic stuff and doesn’t stick nearly as well as the other movies, even 2007’s “Live Free or Die Hard”.

die hard 2

But what about the action? I mean the action is the franchise’s bread and butter right? Does it manage to save the movie. Well, yes and no. There are a couple of unbelievable action set pieces even though they seem to grow more and more unimpressive as the film moves on. Perhaps the greatest scene in the film involves a huge car chase through the heavy traffic in Moscow. The sequence has some amazing stunts but it also has an unforgivable problem. It features some of the most frustrating camerawork and editing that I have ever seen in an action film. I am not a fan of the herky-jerky handheld camera craze. Here it’s amplified x10! It’s a long scene but the quick edits rarely leave the camera on a shot for more than a second. And the few times the camera does follow a shot it’s constantly shaking or moving from one place to another. Not only does it make things indecipherable but it basically ruined the scene for me.

I know this may be simplistic thinking especially from a pseudo-critic like me, but how can you mess up when you have such a tried and true formula to use? It may not sound like it but I did find some entertainment in “A Good Day to Die Hard”. I did think there were elements to the story that were pretty cool and there were some good action moments. I also can’t help but feel a little nostalgic when it comes to John McClane. But that’s also why this one stings. This film doesn’t do the movie or the character justice. The tag team of bad writing and bad direction sink this ship and it’s a bitter pill to swallow. Some are saying it’s time to bury this franchise. No way! I want McClane to go out right. So I hope they do another movie. Just don’t let Skip Woods and John Moore anywhere near it!

VERDICT – 2 STARS