Category Archives: Movie Reviews – E

REVIEW: “Elysium”

by

41

Elysium Poster

Neill Blomkamp surprised a lot of people with his 2009 science fiction thriller “District 9”. While I wasn’t drawn to it, the majority of critics gave it high marks. It would go on to earn four Academy Award nominations including one for Best Picture. His eagerly anticipated follow up comes in the form of “Elysium”, another sci-fi foray soaked in social commentary. It’s a bleak, gritty, and violent film with high ambition and a much bigger budget.

Blomkamp once again writes and directs the movie which starts with a pretty heavy-handed setup. Blatantly obvious political statements on immigration, healthcare, and class warfare are thrown at the audience without an ounce of tact or subtlety. In fact it’s so painfully obvious that I started rolling my eyes and began to dread what was ahead. But to my surprise the film steers away from that and instead of shoving its positions in our face it allows them to simmer underneath the surface which definitely better serves the movie.

Elysium1

The story basically goes like this – in the distant future Earth is an impoverished and overpopulated planet. People struggle against starvation, disease, and a brutish robot police force. But while the poor make up the Earth’s population, the rich upper-class live on a luxurious space station community known as Elysium. This orbital paradise features mansions, lush gardens, and machines able to cure any health problem instantly. But here’s the catch – only the wealthy and powerful are allowed on Elysium and there are strict government and military bodies that enforce that rule. As I said, not an ounce of subtlety.

Enter Max De Costa (Matt Damon), a struggling assembly line worker on Earth who has an accident which exposes him to lethal amounts of radiation. He learns he has only five days to live, but he’s not ready to kick the bucket just yet. He has to get to Elysium for treatment so he makes a deal with an underground smuggler. In exchange for a trip he must steal some important information from a corrupt military contractor. Seeing Max’s failing health, the smuggler has his doctors implant him with a super-strength robotic exoskeleton and cerebral implant to help with the mission. But Elysium’s Defense Secretary Jessica Delacourt (Jodie Foster) also wants that information for her own nefarious reasons and she will do anything to get it.

Oddly enough “Elysium” drastically changes course as the film goes along. It moves from an obvious heavy-handed social critique to a fairly conventional sci-fi action flick. It uses several all too familiar approaches and it’s fairly easy to gain a sense of how things are going to end. That said, Blomkamp’s pacing is spot on. He keeps things moving which keeps the audience attached. He also has wonderful visual senses. The movie looks great whether it’s the big sweeping location shots or the intense and sometimes brutal action (and there is quite a bit of it). I loved the contrasting aesthetics between the dirty, rundown vision of Los Angeles (which was actually filmed in the Mexico City area) and the spotless Eden-like Elysium. Blomkamp has an unquestionable knack for visual filmmaking.

Elysium3

Matt Damon is a solid choice to portray a ‘regular guy’. There’s not a lot of flash or bravado to his performance. He’s not a bold or larger-than-life character. In fact I would call him a very atypical hero and that works well within the story. But then there is Jodie Foster. I have no idea what she’s doing in this movie. Her erratic performance is all over the map and her accent morphs from French to British to something I’ve never heard before. I also thought Sharlto Copley was pretty bad as a ruthless sleeper agent who works for Delacourt. He certainly looks the part but that’s it. I don’t know if it’s his voice or his line delivery but nearly all of his dialogue feels terribly off. But thankfully this is Damon’s movie and he carries most of the load.

There’s no doubt that Neill Blomkamp is a gifted visual storyteller. I loved the overall look of “Elysium” from the futuristic technologies to the locations. I also thought the action scenes popped with intensity and grit. Unfortunately his writing prompts the question mark. Early on he uses a mighty broad brush to paint his social/political landscape and later the movie turns into a fairly conventional action film – two issues that I think keeps “Elysium” from being the really good movie that we get glimpses of. Still it has its moments. and as conventional as it may be, the action and pure visual spectacle keep it from being a total loss.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”

by

42

ETERNALPOSTER

Occasionally I will come across a movie that despite its obvious strengths and critical acclaim never connects with me. Often times it can be traced to a bad initial reaction or maybe to specific themes or performances that I didn’t care for. But there are also occasions where a movie will leave a slight mark in the back of my mind. These are films that deserve to be wrestled with regardless of my initial misgivings. “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” is one of those films. After a fairly tepid first impression I was ready to dismiss the movie, but overwhelmingly positive reviews and a tinge of curiosity convinced me that this film deserved a second viewing.

Acclaimed screenwriter Charlie Kaufman wrote the screenplay which was based on a story he created along with director Michael Gondry and Pierre Bismuth. It cleverly develops itself as a romantic drama but incorporates a subtle bit of science fiction to create a cerebral and multifaceted story. Kaufman and Gondry steer clear of any traditional mode of storytelling and instead engage the audience on an intellectual and emotional level. There’s nothing conventional about “Eternal Sunshine” and at times its lack of clarity may be a little frustrating. But having a firm understanding of the periphery allows you to better understand what is going on inside at the heart of the film.

ETERNAL1

The story starts by introducing us to a morose and withdrawn man named Joel Barish (Jim Carrey). One morning while waiting on the train for his morning commute he takes off on a whim and hops aboard another train heading out of the city. While aimlessly strolling down a Long Island beach he notices a woman named Clementine (Kate Winslet) who appears to be doing the same thing. A couple of chance meetings later and the two are on the same train heading back into the city. Eventually a relationship forms between these two lost souls, but before we get a good taste of it there is a dramatic narrative shift.

The film leaps forward in time which is the first of many transitions in Kaufman’s fractured storytelling. We find out that Clementine has visited a clinic called Lacuna, Inc. which specializes in wiping certain people or things from an individual’s mind. Clementine has had Joel erased. There is a real challenge here for the audience because neither we nor Joel know why she has done it. You have to wade through this information gap until Kaufman is ready to give you more. An angry Joel decides to enact his own form of revenge by visiting Lacuna himself and having Clementine wiped from his mind.

Eternal2

Lacuna, Inc. is the brainchild of Dr. Howard Mierzwiak (Tom Wilkinson). His staff is made up of his peppy receptionist Mary (Kirsten Dunst), his frazzly haired chief technician Stan (Mark Ruffalo), and his technician’s assistant Patrick (Elijah Wood). Each have their own surprising role to play in this absurd but utterly fascinating procedure that Joel undergoes. They also each have their own bits to add to a lightweight but intriguing side story. From there the majority of the film takes place in Joel’s mind as he has a sudden change of heart and tries to cling to and hide away any memory of Clementine before they can be erased.

The movie snaps back and forth between the surreal world inside Joel’s brain and the real world where an assortment of things play out between the Lacuna gang and Clementine. To go any further would be a criminal injustice to those who haven’t seen the picture but suffice it to say it’s some unique and compelling stuff. Also, you can’t simplify what is going on as I did during my first viewing. Kaufman and Gondry aren’t interested in a straight-line narrative or generic over-used tropes. There is a fragmented structure that is made challenging by the playing around with with chronology and order. But there is a method to the messiness that I didn’t appreciate before.

Eternal3

I also didn’t appreciate just how good of a performance that Carrey gives. Over the past couple of years the actor hasn’t help his sputtering career with some rather dopey decisions he has made. But this is a performance that shows a comedic actor embracing something different and really doing it well. Winslet is her usual rock-solid self. It’s an odd and erratic role but she never struggles with it. The supporting cast is also very good at handling what they are asked to do.

I still think “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” is a bit indulgent and I do think there are some moments where it doesn’t hit the emotional note that it is going for. But to say my opinion of the film has changed would be an understatement. I can honestly say that “I got it” during my second viewing and my appreciation for what the movie does is unquestioned. I still feel the need to see it again after the birth of my new feelings towards it, but this time it won’t be for the same reasons.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Evil Dead” (2013)

by

40

EVIL DEAD POSTER

It was 32 years ago that childhood friends Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell introduced a small, low budget horror film that would influence the genre for decades and become one of the biggest cult classics in film history. That movie was “The Evil Dead”. With little money and a cast and crew made up mostly of family and friends, Raimi and Campbell still managed to craft a visceral, gory, and frightening gem that remains one of my very favorite horror pictures of all time.

In keeping with Hollywood’s current remake fetish and creative brain freeze it seems only logical that we would get “Evil Dead”, an update on the 1981 classic. When I first heard about this project red flags went up everywhere. How dare they mess which such a cult favorite and one that I personally hold as sacred. I was instantly skeptical and uninterested. That was until I heard some very interesting details. Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell would be producing the movie. Game on! From that moment on I’ve been anxious to see this film. My anticipation grew after seeing the first trailer and after hearing Campbell and Raimi’s enthusiasm. But I still had a deep burning question – could they even come close to capturing what made the original so great?

They certainly weren’t afraid to set the bar high. The movie poster features the line “The most terrifying film you will ever experience”. While I wouldn’t go that far, “Evil Dead” is still a creepy, gore-soaked, step back in time that’s sure to entertain old-school horror fans and shock newer viewers who are more accustomed to the popular PG-13 ghost stories of today. Raimi and Campbell hand over the directing keys to Fede Alvarez but their bloody fingerprints are all over this picture. And while there are question marks and a few plot holes, I still found this to be satisfying horror ride and a perfectly acceptable reimagining.

EVIL DEAD1

There are several noticeable story changes in this film. Instead of it being five friends taking a fun filled vacation in the Tennessee hills, these five folks come together for a much more serious purpose. Mia (Jane Levy) has struggled with a drug problem and after a serious overdose her friends Olivia (Jessica Lewis) and Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) decide to take her away to her family’s remote rundown cabin to help her quit cold turkey. Mia’s brother David (Shiloh Fernandez) and his girlfriend Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore) meet them there to help. After making a grisly discovery in the basement, the group uncover a book bound in human skin and filled with disturbing text and images.

Now fans of the original know this is the Necronomicon (The Book of the Dead) and that by quoting a specific set of words from the book, you would awaken an evil presence in the woods. Well that’s what happens and quite literally all Hell breaks loose. One demon possession later and the creepiness shoots through the roof and the blood starts to flow. Now you should know this going in but in case you don’t let me emphasize that this is an extremely graphic film. A crowbar, an electric knife, a machete, a box cutter – these are just some of the instruments of defense of death and this film isn’t shy about using them.

The spectacular special effects only makes the eeriness more pronounced and the gore more vivid. This is worth mentioning because Alvarez was emphatic that no CGI be used. What you see is the real deal – old school visual effects with some clever illusions and slick camera tricks. I loved this decision. It’s a clear reminder that great effects can be done without the cheaper and often times more obvious CGI. The visuals work hand-in-hand with the brilliant use of sound. Every creak from the cabin, every flick of a switch, and every chord from the score help in giving the movie an eerie and intense feel. This is a very technically impressive film and I can just see Raimi wanting to play with all the visual toys that weren’t available to him in 1981.

EVIL DEAD2

Now perhaps the biggest question that will be asked by many centers around the horror. Is “Evil Dead” scary? This is almost impossible for me to gauge because movies never really scare me. For me effective horror pictures are one the creep me out, not necessarily scare me. While not on the same level as its inspiration, this film definitely has its creepy and disturbing moments. But it certainly scared some people during my screening so if that’s what your looking for, you should find it here.

But you won’t find the same sly and subtle humor that’s in the original. Everything here is dead serious (pun intended) and I honestly missed those lighter moments. There were also a few minor things that didn’t quite work as the movie intended. There’s an opening scene showing a disturbing past event that had happened in the cabin’s basement. The trouble is the entire scene felt completely disconnected from the rest of the movie. I had so many unanswered questions about it and I just don’t understand why it’s there. Then there is a scene close to the big finale featuring a bit of creative (and utterly preposterous) engineering. I’m not going to give anything away but it and its subsequent scene was just too ridiculous to buy into. Thankfully the movie doesn’t waste any time moving past it and making its way to its entertaining, blood-soaked ending. It too is different from the original but it worked for me.

Even though this is a remake of a true classic horror picture, for me it was important to not judge this movie strictly by the 1981 film or to go to far in comparing them. This movie stands on its own and it does it well. But it never forgets its roots and that’s the main reason I found it to be a success. It follows the pattern set forth by the earlier film and then amps things up 110%. It’s gruesome, it’s gory, it’s relentless, and it all fits perfectly with the films frightening tone. Fans of the classic will love the various tips of the hat to the original and new fans will be rocked by their visceral dose of old-school horror. I see it appealing to both groups. “Evil Dead” worked for me not only as a solid modern-day remake but as one of the better horror pictures to come around in years. It looks like Raimi and Campbell’s tried and true formula still works today.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Elf” (2003)

by

11

ELF

Christmas movies are their own special brand of films. Much of what makes them good is centered on how well they tie into this wonderful holiday season. You can’t separate them from the holiday, and their success depends on that relationship to Christmas. Jon Favreau’s “Elf” is a perfect example. Soaked with Christmas lore, “Elf” captures the sentimental spirit of Christmas within its clever and often times hilarious story. “Elf” is inseparable from Christmas and your perception of the holiday will naturally impact your perception of this movie. That’s probably why I can forgive its few flaws and appreciate it as a true holiday treat.

Will Ferrell stars which can sometimes throw up a few red flags for me. Ferrell and this movies often follow a fairly overused formula where he plays someone in an absurdly out-of-place position (see movies such as “Semi-Pro” and “Blades of Glory”). But unlike those movies, it really works here. He plays Buddy the Elf, a toymaker at Santa’s workshop in the North Pole. How’s that for a wacky fit?

But there are several noticeable differences between Buddy and his fellow elves, none more glaring than the fact that he’s 6’5 and not very good at making toys. His father, Papa Elf (hilariously played by Bob Newhart, fully decked out in a bright elf costume with green tights) decides it’s time to reveal to Buddy that he’s really a human being. Feeling uncertainty about where he truly belongs, Buddy sets out on a journey to find his real father. His quest takes him to the magical world of New York City.

ELF 1
Image Courtesy of New Line Cinema

It’s here that the absurdity really kicks in. Buddy arrives in the Big Apple in full elf garb where his elf mentality immediately clashes with the concrete jungle. He comes face-to-face with many new and exotic things including New York cabbies, coffee shops, and the Lincoln Tunnel. It’s often hysterical watching Buddy’s elf sensibilities smash up against big city life. The fish-out-of-water script provides plenty of funny moments. Of course it gets a little sappy at the end, and the baked-in holiday cheer means the ending is fairly predictable. But that goes hand-in-hand with Christmas movies. You pretty much know what you’re going to get.

Then there’s the terrific and committed supporting performances. I especially love James Caan as Buddy’s real father, Walter Hobbs. He’s a shrewd children’s book publisher who spends more time at work than with his wife (Mary Steenburgen) and his young son (Daniel Tay). Then there’s Zooey Deschanel as Jovie, a Gimbel’s department store worker who catches Buddy’s eye. Much like Walter, she’s in desperate need of some Christmas spirit, something that Buddy has in spades. Ed Asner is a wonderful fit as Santa Claus, and Faizon Love has several great scenes as the Gimbels toy department manager.

“Elf” is utterly absurd and unashamedly silly and I say that as a compliment. Even if you aren’t a Will Ferrell fan, he’s an absolute blast in this fun and festive holiday treat. It may be handcuffed by its Christmas movie boundaries, and it certainly dips into sentimentality at the end. But it’s such a warm and clever film; one with plenty of good gags and family-friendly laughs. It may not be up everyone’s alley. But for many, it’s a film that has become one of the “must watch” movies of the Christmas season. That’s certainly the case at our house.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “THE EAGLE” (2011)

by

4

There have been several movies about Rome’s powerful Ninth Legion and their annihilation in the British territories in the 2nd century. The newest addition is “The Eagle”, adapted from the novel “The Eagle of the Ninth” by Rosemary Sutcliff. Channing Tatum plays Marcus Aquila, a young Roman centurion taking his first command in a dangerous and isolated part of Britain. Aquila seeks to restore the honor of his father who was leader of the powerful Ninth Legion when they mysteriously disappeared along with the sacred golden Eagle of Rome. After their fort is attacked, Aquila gains the trust and admiration of his legion by leading them to victory but is injured in the battle resulting in his honorable discharge. But with his father’s name still held in contempt and the Eagle still missing, he sets out on a quest past the Northern Wall, accompanied only by his newly acquired slave Esca (Jaime Bell), to find the Eagle and redeem his father’s reputation .

While “The Eagle” does start off promising, it’s an inconsistent and uneven film that falls into mediocrity. The first act is encouraging. The attack on the fort features the film’s best action sequences. They are furiously shot and edited and bring reminders of films like “Gladiator”. Later, as we’re introduced to Esca, the relationship between wounded Roman hero and Rome-hating slave offers up potential even though it’s built upon pretty familiar grounds. But it never goes very far. Nonetheless the movie still has some pretty decent moments early on.

But then the picture bogs down in numerous scenes of tedious exposition and a quest that lacks any real sense of urgency or peril. These problems can be traced back to a very lackluster script. Other than a few bits of text in the opening, there’s no real effort to develop the film’s historical setting. There is no real explanation of the importance of the Eagle other than “The Eagle is Rome”. The relationship between Aquila and Esca is underdeveloped and hard to buy into. The ending is flat and lacks any real punch or emotion. These are all issues that could be resolved with better writing.

Channing Tatum does a better acting job than in many of his previous films but the verdict is still out for me. He gives a good effort but he just can’t carry a picture like this. His scenes involving interaction with his soldiers early on are his best but he struggles elsewhere. Then you have Donald Sutherland who is laughably bad and terribly miscast as Marcus’ uncle. He appears to be just going through the motions and he’s impossible to take seriously. Jamie Bell gives the better performance of any but even he is handcuffed by the weak screenplay.

“The Eagle” is a very “ok” movie. It’s best parts are experienced early then the movie falls off considerably. It starts off as a poor man’s “Gladiator” which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But then it loses it’s identity and heads off into a different direction becoming a very mediocre action picture. The characters and the story are underdeveloped and in a movie like this you have to buy into the quest and the stakes must be high. The stakes weren’t that high and I was never sold enough on the story to really invest in it.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

“THE EXPENDABLES 2” – 4 STARS

by

7

Ok, let’s get one thing out of the way first. Anyone who is going into “The Expendables 2” expecting a deep, penetrating narrative and Oscar caliber performances are clearly going for all the wrong reasons. This sequel to Sylvester Stallone’s 2010 film is bigger, louder, and for my money better than the first picture and it’s an unashamed 80’s action movie homage that had me hooked from the first moment. Is this an exercise in challenging and complex filmmaking? Far from it. But it is an honest and unapologetic movie that knows exactly what target it’s aiming for and hits it dead center. Does that mean it’s a perfect movie? Most certainly not. But it’s a ton of fun for those knowing what to expect and I defy fans of these “Who’s Who” of action movie heroes to walk out without a smile on your face.

Sly Stallone co-wrote and stars in “The Expendables 2” but this time he passes the directing duties to Simon West. This contributes to what I think is one of the biggest differences between this and the first film. The first movie had its share of salutes to the classic action pictures but overall its tone was much more serious. The sequel is much lighter with lots of playful camaraderie, intentional cheesy one-liners, and a self-deprecating humor that’s woven from start to finish. What’s really great is that all of this works so well. The movie and it’s actors constantly poke fun at themselves and at many of the things that were commonplace during the 80’s action craze. The old guys constantly makes fun of their age. They spoof each other’s famous one-liners. Even Chuck Norris tells a Chuck Norris joke. And their names are a hoot. Aside from Stallone’s rather tame Barney Ross, you have Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), Booker (Norris), Trench (Arnold Schwarzenegger), Mr. Church (Bruce Willis), Gunner Jensen (Dolph Lundgren), Hale Caesar (Terry Crews), Toll Road (Randy Couture), and Yin Yang (Jet Li). While it sounds like a G.I. Joe roster, it classic 80’s cheese. But could any of the names be better than that of the movie’s antagonist, Jean Vilain (Jean-Claude Van Damme)?

But while there is a lot of humor throughout the film, this is a straight-forward, in your face, action movie filled with bullets, blades, and blood. The movie starts out with a bang – a really, really loud bang. Director Simon West lets the audience know right away what they’re in store for. The team is reintroduced via a thundering rescue mission soaked with gunfire, huge explosions, and machismo. Afterwards, Barney is approached by the shady Mr. Church to carry out a simple retrieval mission. But things go terribly wrong when Barney and company cross paths with Jean Vilain. After Vilain gets away, the team sets out on a revenge-fueled, save the world mission that doesn’t pull a single punch. They shoot, punch, and knife their way through hordes of baddies on their way to the big final showdown that we know from the start is coming.

The movie takes you on a ride from one extravagant action set piece to another so there’s plenty of opportunities for the huge cast to get their moment in the sun. They all kick a lot of butt each with their own unique style of buttkicking. And while the body count is huge and there is plenty of blood, West keeps the extremely graphic violence seen in the first film mostly in check. But action movie junkies get more than their money’s worth. The action sequences are furious and intense and while they do dabble in the absurd, it never goes off the rails enough to lose the audience. In fact, it’s those few moments of absurdity that were for me the most nostalgic. The action scenes are cleverly constructed and edited and they’re clearly the film’s bread and butter.

I’ve mentioned a couple of times already that the cast is having a lot of fun. Everyone fits in nicely and the back and forth banter and old school “I got your back” virility never grows old. The characters each have their own personalities that we get to enjoy despite the almost nonexistent character development. Stallone and Statham are best buddies. Lundgren straddles the line between heroic and insane. Crews and Couture are the muscles of the bunch. Then you have Schwarzenegger, Willis, and Norris who are basically…well…Schwarzenegger, Willis, and Norris. But I don’t think I enjoyed anyone more than Van Damme as the cold-blooded villain. He’s clearly having a blast and he nails his character. I loved every scene he had and yes, he can still do the flying spin kick.

It’s been a lot of fun reading critics guiltily try to explain why they enjoyed “The Expendables 2”. Me, on the other hand, I’m not ashamed to give a movie praise that entertained and excited me. And look, I could easily spend time harping on the plot points that didn’t work, it’s extreme predictability, and some of the sub par performances. But instead, I recognize exactly what “The Expendables 2” intends to be. It clearly won’t be a movie for everyone. Those with no connection to or interest in the 80’s action genre or the actors probably won’t connect or be interested in this picture. But I get back to one key thing – I had a lot of FUN. I grew up on these guys and this movie took me back. I laughed, I was wow’d, but most of all I left the theater knowing I had gotten what I came for. Maybe that’s why the flaws are so easy for me to overlook.