Category Archives: Movie Reviews – E

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.

REVIEW: “Easy Rider” (1969)

by

6

EASYI fully understand that the 1969 motorcycle road film “Easy Rider” is considered a motion picture classic. I also understand that the movie introduced a new style of filmmaking that had a great impact on the industry. But while so many film critics and movie fans hold “Easy Rider” in high regard, I found it to be a flat, muddled, and occasionally annoying picture that hasn’t aged well at all. At the time of its release it was a relevent film examining such things as the hippie movement, the drug culture, and the late 60’s political environment. On the surface it may sound like an intelligent and thought-provoking experience. But it’s banal presentation, clunky storytelling, and overly cynical portrait of America did nothing to draw me in or keep my interest.

“Easy Rider” is a buddy movie about two motorcycle riding potheads named Wyatt (Peter Fonda) and Billy (Dennis Hopper). It sounds like the ingredients for a stoner comedy but they are actually treated seriously. They’re free-spirited counterculturalists who are out to capture their idea of live-by-your-own-rules Americanism. After smuggling some cocaine across the border, the two sell it in Los Angeles for a large amount of money. They then use that money for a road trip across the southwest and eventually to Louisiana where they hope to make it in time for Mardi Gras. They travel from location to location with just their bikes,  a gas tank full of hidden money, and apparently a bushel of marijuana.

Just like any other road movie, “Easy Rider” is more about the journey than the destination. As they travel, Wyatt and Billy see some beautiful sites and encounter a wide assortment of people. They are helped by a rancher who is struggling to make ends meet. They pickup a hitchhiker (Luke Askew) who leads them to a hippie commune filled with people who resemble space aliens more than human beings. They befriend an alcoholic civil liberties lawyer named George played by Jack Nicholson. They are arrested by small town police officers and harassed by intolerant locals. Yet the one constant seems to be their love for pot. It seems like during every stop they take time for a smoke especially at night as they sit around their camp fire rambling while under the influence. The story ultimately becomes about Wyatt and Billy’s search for freedom, freedom that turns out to be much more elusive than they thought.

EASY

“Easy Rider” is basically the hippie movement’s self-portrait and it looks at everything through their eyes. But it comes across as a sanctimonious and often times self-indulgent lecture that doesn’t have near the substance it wants to have. One prominent movie critic who is older than me praised the film saying “Seeing the movie years later is like opening a time capsule.” I guess I can see where the movie would have a stronger impact on you if you were a part of those years or if you’re sympathetic to the hippie culture. But as someone seeing it for the first time it feels incredibly dated and it definitely comes across as a drug-induced hallucination at times. It does dabble in a few interesting themes and the cinematography is impressive especially considering the tiny budget. But I never connected with “Easy Rider” or its characters.

This is a movie that is considered by many to be great. In fact, it’s #84 on AFI’s Top 100 Movies of all time. I don’t see it. Maybe it’s the overwrought counterculture message or maybe it’s just my personal disconnect with this element of that time period (I was born is 1971), but “Easy Rider” became an uninteresting and sometimes tedious undertaking. There are several scenes including a terribly annoying drug high in a cemetery and numerous campfire ramblings that had me desperately wanting to hit the fast-forward button. What little screenplay there is does nothing to help the film and the final few scenes of the movie feel cheaply pasted together. We do get some pretty camera work and a breakout performance from Jack Nicholson. But that’s not enough make me want to watch “Easy Rider” again. No thanks, I’ll pass.

VERDICT – 1.5 STARS