Category Archives: Movie Reviews – J

“Jack the Giant Slayer” – 3 STARS

by

18

JACK-THE-GIANT-SLAYER poster

Hollywood is all about the fairy tales these days. Much like the superhero craze, we’ve seen a load of fairy tale features covering everything from Snow White to Hansel and Gretel. The latest is a variation of the familiar Jack and the Beanstalk story titled “Jack the Giant Slayer”. It comes from director Bryan Singer and to call it a slight deviation from the classic story would be misleading. This CGI laden fantasy picture takes a few of the ingredients from the fairy tale but basically builds its own original story.

I find Bryan Singer to be a very hit or miss director so I wasn’t exactly sure what to expect from this picture. What I got was an above average and sometimes surprisingly fun fantasy film that can be entertaining as long as you’re able to overlook its flaws. I know some who have struggled with doing that, but for me and my tempered expectations I actually came out of the theater a bit surprised. Unfortunately there are a few hiccups and for that I just can’t let the movie off the hook.

Jack2

It almost feels like they took parts from several other fantasy films, threw them in a pot, and mixed them together to get the story of “Jack and the Giant Slayer”. I have no doubt that throughout the film you’ll be saying “yep, I’ve seen that before” repeatedly. We get the blind and bull-headed king who insists on an arranged marriage between his daughter and a devious lord. We get the poor commoner who falls in love with the princess. And we have a huge event that allows the commoner to prove his worth. Throw in a silly sidekick and a trusted protector and you’re into some pretty familiar territory. And while all of these characters play out pretty much as you would expect, I still think the story does enough fun things with them to entertain.

Nicholas Hoult (you may remember him from this years “Warm Bodies”) plays Jack, a poor farm boy who goofs up one day by trading his uncle’s horse to a monk for a handful of mystical beans. Of course you know the story, these are magical beans but Jack’s irate uncle doesn’t buy it and he flings them across the room with one falling through a crack in their floor. In a slightly similar story of frustrated youth, Princess Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson) pleads with her stubborn father King Brahmwell (Ian McShane) not to sanction her marriage to the slimy Lord Roderick (Stanley Tucci). As usual the King is blind to Roderick’s scheme to take over his kingdom even though we recognize it before he says a line of dialogue. Then again if some of these characters were smart we wouldn’t have much of the story left.

Repelled by the arranged marriage to a man she doesn’t love, the princess disguises herself and sneaks out of the city on horseback. But after ending up lost in the middle of a late night deluge she comes across Jack’s house where she seeks shelter. The two make starry-eyes at each other but are interrupted when the rainwater soaked bean under the house sprouts. And boy does it sprout! Jack is knocked out of the house and Isabelle is taken through the clouds by the humongous beanstalk. Soon the King and his men arrive and Jack informs them about the princess. A rescue team of Guardians led by Elmont (Ewan McGregor) and including Jack and Roderick head up the beanstalk to find the princess. But waiting above is a sky world inhabited by giants with a special appetite for human flesh.

Jack1

Now even though this movie features some pretty standard characters I can honestly say I was interested in some of them. Hoult is quite good and believable as the unexpected hero. I also thought Tomlinson was solid and very princessy. Sadly she isn’t given anything to do outside of the typical damsel in distress routine. That’s unfortunate. I would love to see her character have more depth. I also didn’t mind Stanley Tucci, a very good actor who’s clearly having a lot of fun as the antagonist. And as always Ewan McGregor is very good giving a variation of the knight in shining armor. McShane on the other hand seems dry and by the numbers. That could be because his character was probably the most poorly written in the film.

But where the movie spends most of its money is on the visuals. “Jack the Giant Slayer” is a virtual feast of tantalizing eye candy. The beanstalks are incredibly well conceived. The scenery with its green meadows, huge waterfalls, and lush forests are nothing short of gorgeous. But the giants are the real treat, each designed with amazing detail. I was really surprised at just how well done they are particularly in some big action sequences in the second half of the film. But in spite of all of these great special effects I did at time feel a bit disconnected due to the massive amounts of CGI. It wasn’t the quality of CGI but the volume. And it wasn’t helped by the 3-D. Like so many films the 3-D offered nothing for me and it felt pointless. I also have to say some of the costume designs were pretty dreadful, specifically the royalty garb. I couldn’t help but laugh at McShane in his gold-plated monstrosity.

“Jack the Giant Slayer” is a mixed bag but overall I found it to be an entertaining mixed bag. If you can shake off the cookie cutter characters, the occasional cheap and lazy writing, and the overload of CGI there’s some fun to be had here. I can honestly say I had a good time with this picture and I would really like to praise it more. Unfortunately its shortcomings keep me from doing that and instead I’m left feeling that this could have been something really special. Instead we’re left with a good but not great film that left a lot of potential behind. Still, you could do a lot worse at the theater.

“Jack Reacher” – 3 STARS

by

20

Jack Reacher

You wouldn’t know it by looking at his string of recent films, but Tom cruise is still a bona-fide movie star. His newest effort is “Jack Reacher”, a crime thriller that’s based on the popular series of novels by Lee Child. Released in the shadow of the box office juggernaut “The Hobbit”, “Jack Reacher” has received little fanfare. That’s a shame because compared to much of the stuff that passed for movies this year, this is a good, solid film and a perfect vehicle for Tom Cruise. It’s a sleek and snappy movie that features a bit of everything even though it doesn’t go far enough to really state its own identity. It’s also sure to leave you scratching your head at some of the things you’re seeing. Nevertheless, I had fun with this picture.

On the surface “Jack Reacher” resembles something pulled right out of the late 1980s. Reacher is a hard-as-nails, ex-military type turned drifter and ghost. He has the deductive skills of Sherlock Holmes and the butt kicking ability of Jason Bourne. I’ve never read any of the books so I’m uncertain of who Jack Reacher is beyond that. The movie never clearly says. Instead it plays up the character shrouded in mystery. Is he a vigilante? Is he a hired gun? Is he an off the grid cop? Well, maybe a little bit of “yes” to all. Cruise does a nice job handling the character. One of the biggest concerns about this movie with some folks was his height. Fans of the books quickly noted that Cruise’s build doesn’t match with the picture that Child creates in the series. I can’t speak to that, but I had no problems with what Cruise was doing on screen.

REACHER1

“Jack Reacher” isn’t a title-to-credit, nonstop, action movie. That may be one reason why Cruise worked out so well. Most of the film centers around the investigation of a brutal mass sniper shooting of five random people at a Pittsburgh promenade during broad daylight. While not graphic, the opening sequence depicting the shooting was incredibly intense and even more sobering in light of current events. It’s brilliantly shot and sets the table well. Reacher pops up and enters the investigation due to a past connection with the chief suspect. He works alongside an idealistic defense attorney (Rosamund Pike) who agrees to take the case against the better judgment of her district attorney father (Richard Jenkins). As with any decent movie mystery there are several twists and turns that keep this from being the clear-cut, open and shut case that it first appears to be.

The story moves at a snappy pace and never bogs down even though it may not have needed all of its 2 hour plus running time. As mentioned above, it never develops its own real identity. At one point it feels like a crime drama with elements taken from the 1940s. But at other times it seems to want to be an action picture, a revenge movie, or even a comedy. Luckily none of these changes in tone and direction jars the movie too far off course. It kept me interested and involved even when things begin to get a little preposterous.

Christopher McQuarrie, who worked with Cruise on “Valkyrie”, wrote the screenplay and directed the film. He’s a very capable writer as evidenced by his work on “The Usual Suspects”. But even though I was never bored with his script or his pacing, there were a few things that seemed surprisingly off, specifically the characters played by the great filmmaker Werner Herzog and Robert DuVall. Herzog plays a shadowy Russian mobster who is more of a cartoon character than a real menace. Both he and his intentions and motivations feel terribly underwritten. DuVall is a lot of fun when we first see him as a blustery gun range owner. But he turns into Reacher’s gun-toting sidekick during the big bullet-ridden action finale, a move that felt about as conventional as you’ll find.

REACHER2

There are also several instances of cheesy dialogue that Cruise actually handles well. Whether some of them were intentionally or unintentionally cheesy I can’t answer, but it reminded me of many of the movies I grew up watching. These few scenes left one critic saying that “Jack Reacher” belongs in a bygone era of movies. I disagree. For me, the cheese worked. I also have to praise the slick and stylish action sequences. Caleb Deschanel’s camera work is often times stunning. In fact, he stages and shoots one of the best car chase sequences I have seen in a long, long time. The movie is worth seeing just for this amazing chase.

In the end, “Jack Reacher” is a tough movie to review. It’s an engaging and entertaining movie but a slightly flawed one. It’s also a film destined to be lost in the crowd of December movies and awards season entries. I liked this picture and I liked Cruise’s performance. But the movie doesn’t end up being the one it starts as. The intense opening sequence sets the movie up as a serious and gritty crime thriller. It evolves into sheer Hollywood escapism. That certainly doesn’t kill the movie, but I would be interested to see how the other “Jack Reacher” would have played out. Still, I have to commend the movie for engaging me and giving me a good time at the theater. I would have no problem seeing this again, but I still can’t help but feel that it wasted some of its potential.

“JOHN CARTER” – 4 STARS

by

3

After seeing the mixed reviews for Disney’s $250 million “John Carter”, I wasn’t sure what to expect. It’s the kind of movie that you automatically expect to receive some unfavorable reviews. It’s a large-scaled science fiction epic and they simply don’t appeal to a certain group of people. I’m a pretty big sci-fi fan but even I had concerns going in to “John Carter”. Being someone completely unfamiliar with the source material, could the movie pull me into its enormous, sprawling world? Could Taylor Kitsch headline such a huge, ambitious project? Let me just say I was thoroughly drawn in right from the start of the film and Kitsch, while certainly not profound, does enough to get the job done.

“John Carter” is based on of the Edgar Rice Burroughs novel “A Princess of Mars”, the first book of the 11-volume “Barsoom” series. The movie starts with Edgar Burroughs (Daryl Sabara) arriving in Richmond, Virginia after inheriting the estate of his recently deceased uncle, John Carter (Kitsch). Edgar hasn’t seen his uncle in years but he’s always cherished the wonderful stories he used to tell. Edgar is given a private journal that John Carter said was to only be read by his nephew. It’s through Edgar’s reading of the journal that we’re whisked away on the interplanetary journey that makes up the majority of the story.

In the journal John Carter writes of his time prospecting for gold in the Arizona Territory after the Civil War. He’s taken into custody by a U.S. Calvary officer (Bryan Cranston) who wants to recruit him to join their fight against the Apache. Carter finds himself caught in the middle of a shootout between the Calvary and the Apache. He takes shelter in a cave where he finds not only gold but a mysterious medallion that ends up transporting him to what he later finds out to be Mars. He quickly finds that the planet is inhabited by a race of four-armed aliens called Tharks. Their leader, Tars Tarkas (Willem DaFoe) takes a liking to him and is especially intrigued by Carter’s newfound gravity-manipulating leaping abilities. We also learn that two humanoid cities, Helium and Zodanga, are at war with each other. At the center of the conflict is the beautiful Princess Dejah (Lynn Collins). Her father and Helium leader (Ciaran Hinds) is pressured into giving his daughter in marriage to an evil Zodanga general (Dominic West) in hopes that it will bring peace between the two groups. Dejah wants no part of it and of course John Carter finds himself right in the middle of it.

The movie puts together a solid supporting cast of quality actors. In addition to DaFoe, Hinds, West, and Cranston we also get Mark Strong  as the leader of the god-like Holy Therns, a sinister group of shape-shifting eternals who have been manipulating historical events on several planets. Strong is good here and he adds yet another solid “bad guy” performance to his resume. Thomas Haden Church has a lot of fun playing an evil Thark who desperately wants to overthrow Tarkas and gain power over the Alien tribe. But the main focus is on Taylor Kitsch. The first thing you notice is that he has all the physical attributes needed to play John Carter. He’s quite believable and he certainly knows how to handle a sword. The one thing I noticed is that he didn’t have a very wide range of emotions. The character is intended to be cold and reserved. But there are scenes that call for more emotion and Kitsch doesn’t add much to them. He’s not bad, but he doesn’t have a lot of charisma. I did buy into the chemistry between him and the lovely Lynn Collins. While her character is given a few pretty cheesy lines, she’s still pretty good and she shares some really fun scenes with Kitsch.

While Kitsch may not necessarily stand out, the special effects certainly do. “John Carter’s” assortment of creatures look impressive and its alien technologies are a cool cross between futuristic and archaic. I was blown away by the detailed structure of the solar-powered air ships. I also really liked the CGI design of the Thark creatures. Director and co-writer Andrew Stanton, better known for his work at Pixar Animation, creates a planet that’s full of life yet that looks barren and on the verge of death. And while the landscapes do look fitting, they resemble an Arizona desert far more than what you would expect Mars, The Red Planet, to look like.

Stanton’s Mars is also a place of a strained but structured social order. There are a lot of politics at work between the two humanoid cities and we even get a bit of rather corny social commentary along the way. Mars also has its system of theology that ends up helping Carter and Dejah along the way but I would be lying if I said I understood exactly how. But together, the politics and theology of the planet do make it more than just a wasteland full of monsters and little green men. It makes it’s inhabitation feel more structured and complex and I actually bought into it (with a slight bit of suspension of disbelief).

“John Carter” is the first big blockbuster of 2011 and it’s already been viewed as a “flop”. It’s mediocre opening weekend at the box office did little to cover the film’s $250 million price tag. But I have to say that I had a lot of fun with the film. I enjoy good science fiction and I feel this qualifies. “John Carter” isn’t without its faults but it overcomes them by creating a huge new world that I had never experienced. I’ve never read Wright’s books but I think I could, and I certainly wouldn’t mind seeing “John Carter” become the full trilogy it was intended to be. I’m certainly not calling this the best movie of the year. But I’m also not calling it the terrible movie that some are. For me it was a creative and entertaining motion picture experience – the type of thing that makes the movies fun.

REVIEW: “Jack and Jill” (2011)

by

4

Adam Sandler has become a machine that produces what seems like an endless number of garbage comedies. Whether he’s the lead actor, writer, or producer, his movies feel like retreads that hit many of the same notes and feature the same sloppy filmmaking. In “Jack and Jill” his one attempt at originality has him playing dual roles as brother and sister. Then again it’s hard to call it original when everyone from Tyler Perry to Jean-Claude Van Damme have done it. But here Sandler manages to create one of the most obnoxious and unfunny characters to go with this obnoxious and unfunny film.

Sandler plays Jack, a Los Angeles advertising executive who has made a good life for himself. He’s married to Erin (Katie Holmes) and has two eccentric children. Each year at Thanksgiving his compulsive, neurotic twin sister Jill (also played by Sandler) comes to visit from New York. Jill drives Jack (and the audience) crazy with her quirkiness and bizarre behavior even though his wife and kids are crazy about her. Al Pacino plays himself in what could be defined as the low point of his career. He’s completely unhinged and over-the-top as evident by his infatuation with Jill. There’s also a host of cameos ranging from Regis Philbin to Shaquille O’Neal. None of them add much to the movie with the exception of Johnny Depp who provides a couple of the film’s few laughs.

“Jack and Jill” bombards us with overused sight gags, pathetically lame dialogue, and tons of boring comedic clichés. Apparently farts, diarrhea, and armpits are still funny in Sandler’s world and he’s so kind to give us so many of them. But in many ways he has to rely on that nonsense since there is nothing redeeming about the script. It’s pure laziness and there isn’t enough here to even make for a satisfying SNL skit much less a full length movie. There’s also a shamelessly large amount of product placements in this film that did more to make this movie feel like one big cash grab by everyone involved.

Then there’s Jill, a character that is so cartoonish it’s impossible to find a real human quality in her. She’s so outlandish that once the movie tries for sympathy and sentiment it feels like a complete fabrication. And I never saw Jill as anything more than Adam Sandler in drag. She’s certainly not interesting or convincing and she has absolutely no charm whatsoever. She’s like fingernails on a chalkboard and I found myself just wishing she would shut up. And since the biggest joke of the movie is Sandler dressed as a woman, it’s complete and utter ineffectiveness is the ultimate death knell.

I can only remember two scenes that got any kind of laugh out of me. Everything else in “Jack and Jill” is mind-numbingly bad. This is one of those movies that should have been an automatic bomb at the theaters but somehow made almost $150 million. Is this what we’ve grown to call comedy? I understand that comedy and humor is subjective. But how can such poor conception and shoddy filmmaking get a pass? And what on earth is Al Pacino doing here? Does he need money this bad? Early in his career, Adam Sandler made some pretty funny films. But now he’s a one-trick pony who seems more interested in dollar signs than the quality of the movie. Even worse, “Jack and Jill” may be the worst movie on his resume and that’s saying a lot.

VERDICT – 1 STAR

“JANE EYRE” – 4 STARS

by

0

Despite the semi-misleading trailers and studio promotions, Cary Fukunaga’s new adaptation of Charlotte Bronte’s classic “Jane Eyre” isn’t a horror picture. At it’s core it’s a period love story but with just the right amount of reimagining to make it feel new and fresh. It hits all the right notes whether it be romance, humor, or mystery. And even though it’s far from being the central tone of the film, there is a bit of creepiness mainly conveyed through the dark, more Gothic setting and a couple of routine yet spooky haunted house styled scenes. The most important thing is that most of this works. It gels together to give some familiar material a slightly new and energetic appeal.

Moira Buffini’s screenplay branches out into several different directions but the centerpiece of the story is still the romance between Jane (Mia Wasikowska) and her wealthy yet mysterious employer Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender). It doesn’t spend as much time developing the rags-to-riches component of Jane’s life as I would have liked instead jumping headfirst into the obvious attraction between the two leads. But once Fassbender and Wasikowska are together on-screen for the first time, I didn’t care. I was immediately drawn in.

The story is anchored by some wonderful performances, great costume and set design, and it’s moody yet captivating cinematography. Fassbender’s Rochester is sophisticated but abstruse. Even if you’re familiar with the source material, Fassbender will have you questioning his every intent and motivation. Wasikowska gives a very reserved and controlled performance that captures her character perfectly. She’s quiet and solemn early on but we also see an unfeigned spunkiness that shows itself in some of the film’s best scenes.

“Jane Eyre” isn’t an old English horror picture regardless of what the trailer may have you believe. But it does use some of those spooky elements to create a perfect environment for this story. The movie teems with bridled passion and haunting secrets. It’s heartfelt and emotional but not without those perfect moments of humor that gives the movie life. Even though it touches on it, the film underplays the class-based challenges that Jane faces and the pacing is a bit erratic in the third act. But it’s hard not to enjoy this film and to appreciate the craftsmanship and artistry that goes into making this type of picture. I really enjoyed it.

REVIEW: “J. EDGAR”

by

0

 

At first glance, “J. Edgar” has Oscar nomination written all over it. It’s a period biopic directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Leonardo DiCaprio. It looks just like the kind of film you would expect to hear mentioned a lot on Oscar night. While the movie does several things right, it ultimately falls victim to some flat direction and an unfocused script. The movie starts strong and the first half of the picture seems to have a good sense of direction despite it’s lack of any real emotion. But the film seems to lose it’s identity and in the second half we end up with a hodgepodge of disjointed historical and personal vignettes.

The story unfolds through numerous reflections from Hoover to his typist as he prepares his autobiography. We jump back in forth through time and get a look at everything from Hoover’s work with Mitchell Palmer to his rise to acting director of the Bureau of Investigation. We get small glimpses of the Palmer Raids, the Bureau’s war against the likes of John Dillinger and Machine Gun Kelly, the Lindbergh kidnapping, the JFK assassination, and more. And even though we never stay long, the film is strongest when moving from one historical moment to the next, particularly in the first half of the film.

 

“J. Edgar” paints Hoover as the complex individual he really was. We see Edgar as a well-intentioned man who truly loves his country and believes in what he’s doing. But we also see him become a man more concerned with his legacy and with maintaining power regardless of the laws he may break. We see his contributions to forensic investigation but also his willingness to blackmail various presidents to get what he wants. He can be pitiful and sympathetic but at other times despicable and the movie does a good job conveying this to the audience.

While the first half of the picture had the look and feel of a well-crafted historical biopic, it felt dry and emotionless. The second half of the film tries to make up for that by spending more time looking at Hoover’s personal life. But this is where the movie loses it’s focus and ventures from fact into speculation. It was rumored that Hoover was a closet homosexual with strong feelings for his second in command Clyde Tolson. But the rumors were never proven. Eastwood stated that the film would address the relationship but leave it open for the audience’s interpretation. I think that approach would have worked much better. Instead, Eastwood’s picture leaves little for interpretation and the result is a cut and paste relationship that never feels genuine or natural. It does more to bog down the film than add to it.

DiCaprio gives a strong and committed performance that’s only held back by the occasionally clumsy script. He fleshes out his character’s insecurities, quirks, and unpleasantries without becoming a simple caricature. DiCaprio never loses his character even while playing him as young and old. It’s hard to take your eyes off of him even when he’s working through some occasionally stilted dialogue. While this isn’t my favorite work of his, it’s a well-rounded and controlled performance that could get some serious Oscar consideration. Armie Hammer as Clyde Tolson starts off strong but ends up giving a rather uneven performance. Hammer is subtle and effective as the younger Tolson but doesn’t quite sell him in his later years. And unlike DiCaprio, Hammer just isn’t able to overcome the material when it stumbles.

 

Visually “J. Edgar” does a nice job capturing the different decades. Careful attention is given to wardrobes, furnishings, and automobiles. It’s hard not to be impressed with the look of the film and Tom Stern’s cinematography really draws out the detail. One big topic of discussion has been the makeup used to age Hoover and Tolson. DiCaprio’s makeup is a bit jarring at first but I quickly grew used to it. Hammer’s makeup never looked natural and at times was pretty distracting.  There’s one scene outside in the sunlight where Hammer’s makeup was extremely pasty and looked more like a mummy that a human being. I was really taken back by how fake it looked.

“J. Edgar” could he been a classic picture. Instead it’s a good movie that never reaches it’s potential. It’s Dustin Lance Black’s script that leads to many of the film’s bigger problems. While it starts strong it eventually loses it’s cohesion and Black’s liberties in the second half of the film fall flat. But there are times where it really feels like an important picture and I did enjoy jumping back in time to see some of the bigger events in American history through Hoover’s eyes. “J. Edgar” is also worth seeing for DiCaprio’s solid performance. This isn’t a terrible film and it does manage to be entertaining despite it’s flaws. But at the end of the day I can’t help but be disappointed at what could have been a great picture.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

3-stars