Category Archives: Movie Reviews – T

“TUCKER AND DALE VS. EVIL” – 3.5 STARS

by

12

It’s automatically hard to take a movie titled “Tucker and Dale vs. Evil” seriously. But to be perfectly honest, that’s a good thing. With a budget of under $5 million dollars and almost no studio support, “Tucker and Dale vs. Evil” made a strong impression at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival. It finally got a very limited theatrical release in September of 2011 and now it’s available on DVD. It’s an unfortunate example of a good film that was shunned by the studios but that deserves an audience.

This is a movie that’s all about parody. It pokes fun at every splatter movie cliché and gimmick you can imagine while also packaging in a load of genuinely funny dialogue and hilarious gags. As I was watching the film, it offered me funny takes on so many movies including “Deliverance”, “Evil Dead”, “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and several others. But while there is certainly a horror element to the movie, this is essentially a comedy and a very funny one. In fact, I would say that it offers more clever and well delivered humor than most of the stuff that comes from Hollywood’s comedy favorites.

The movie’s lead characters (as you probably can guess) are Tucker (Alan Tudyk) and Dale (Tyler Labine), two simple-minded hillbillies heading up in the West Virginia hills to fix up an old rickety cabin (or as they call it, their new summer home). Also in the hills is a group of stereotypical slasher movie college kids who are on a camping trip. You’ve seen them all before. You have the beautiful shapely blonde, the full-of-himself preppie, the nerdy guy, the pot smoker, and your token kids who are mainly there to add to the body count. They act stupid, do ill-advised things, and leave you wondering how they could ever pass a college course. But co-writer and director Eli Craig has a lot of fun with them. He’s clearly spoofing them but he doesn’t overexaggerate. Instead he injects some really funny lines and gags into these basic, cookie cutter characters.

Tucker and Dale first meet the kids at a gas station and through a hilarious misunderstanding they don’t leave a good first impression. The misunderstandings mount up after they cross paths in the mountains and the kids conclude that Tucker and Dale are psychotic hillbilly killers. This results in a bloody and often times rollicking chain of events that’s so cleverly put together. The good-natured back and forth between Tucker and Dale, even in light of the horrific things happening around them, will leave you laughing and Tudyk and Labine are believable from the first moment you see them. They may not be big household names but they are very good here.

This certainly isn’t a movie for everyone. The blood and gore is gratuitous but intentionally so and it sometimes plays a big part in the parody. This may turn some people off but it’s easy to forgive considering how it’s used. The movie does stumble a bit at the end. There’s a big showdown at an old lumber mill that also gives us our big revelatory moment. It was pretty anti-climatic and didn’t work for me. Again, it was soaked in parody but it still felt a little too conventional, something that can’t be said about most of this film. “Tucker and Dale vs. Evil” isn’t a movie you can pigeonhole and that’s a real strong point. It’s bloody and hilarious and you may find yourself grimacing and laughing at the same scene. It’s truly that funny.

“THE 3 STOOGES” – 2 STARS

by

8

I have to admit, I avoided the Farrelly brothers new movie “The 3 Stooges” for a while. It was a prime example of a film that seemed utterly unnecessary and I had no confidence, knowing the state of modern comedy, that any director would be able to capture what made the original Stooges so beloved. After finally catching up with the film, I have to admit that I was pretty surprised at just how well the Farrelly brothers channelled the Stooges unique brand of humor. This is actually a comedy with some pretty good laughs. But it also feels like an imitation and a little of these Stooges goes a long, long way.

“The 3 Stooges” is unabashed slapstick silliness that covers everything from the Stooges’ trademark belly punches, eye pokes, and face slaps to their knuckleheaded way with words. It’s relentlessly rambunctious and completely juvenile, yet this lighthearted story has some success and it’s mainly due to some incredibly committed performances from its three leads. The transformation of Chris Diamantopoulos (Moe), Sean Hayes (Larry), and Will Sasso (Curly) into these three classic comedy characters is nothing short of amazing. And it’s not just their impeccable physical resemblances. Their voices, mannerisms, and of course their slapstick antics are unmistakably Stooge-like. But perhaps what’s best about their performances is that they never stop and wink at the audience. They each play their roles straight and it really helps the film.

The movie is broken into three clever “episodes”. The story itself is about as simple as it gets. The orphanage the Stooges were raised in has fallen on tough economic times and is being forced to shut their doors. That is unless they can get $830,000. Our lovable buffoons, who still live at the orphanage and have been completely sheltered from social interaction and any modernities, take it on themselves to head out into the world and get the money to save their home. Of course their sheltered lives and natural idiocy lead to a series of wacky ‘fish out of water’ scenes and several off-the-wall encounters. Some of the moments work really well and generate some genuine laughs. But as the movie progresses it seems to lose more and more of its energy and interest.

I mentioned above that a little of these Stooges goes a long way and that’s one of the real problems with the movie. Yes, the three leads do an amazing job of portraying the 3 Stooges. But over time their shtick runs headfirst into a wall of repetition. The gags become increasingly generic and less and less funny. And even worse, there were times when it seemed either the movie was running short on material or the Farrelly’s just felt the need to include it, but it resorts to your standard modern-day urine and fart jokes. I just couldn’t help but feel that the movie was running out of gas and that did make it harder to overlook the other more obvious faults with the story.

Even with its faults, “The 3 Stooges” did surprise me. It has some really weak spots in the writing and it may have a hard time holding the attention of anyone over 12 years old. But it certainly has it’s funny moments particularly in the first half of the film. And there’s no way you can discount the really good performances from Diamantopoulos, Hayes, and Sasso. But even with their tremendous efforts this still felt like a really good Elvis impersonator. They look like Elvis. They sound like Elvis. They shake like Elvis. But they aren’t Elvis. But you know, a lot of people like Elvis impersonators and enough is done right in “The 3 Stooges” to earn it an audience. Personally, I just needed a little bit more.

REVIEW: “THEM!” (1954)

by

3

I’ve recently started revisiting some of the 1950’s sci-fi classics. I remember growing up and watching many of these films whenever I had the chance (which wasn’t often in the days of no cable TV and only three watchable local channels). The 50’s and early 60’s sci-fi genre saw mankind up against everything from huge tarantulas, sea monsters, giants, and a large assortment of alien threats, and as a young boy I loved them all. Of all of the 1950’s sci-fi creature features, “THEM!” most certainly ranks among the best of the bunch. “THEM!” was first conceived as a 3-D project from Warner Brothers, at least until a series of on-set technical issues arose. So the production team created the film in glorious black and white and I can’t imagine it any other way.

The movie’s main threats are giant ants which mutated as a result of radiation from a nuclear test detonation over the New Mexico desert in 1945. These massive insects are well over 9 feet long with bone-crushing mandibles and are byproducts of the new atomic age (at least new in 1954 – when the film was made). In fact, it’s Edmund Gwenn’s Dr. Medford character who paints the new nuclear world as a terrifying, unknown, and unpredictable place. That theme plays in the background of the entire movie and while maybe not as effective today, it’s still easy to see how it could create a fear and tension on its own.

The ants are first discovered when New Mexico state trooper Sgt. Peterson (James Whitmore) and his partner come across a little girl wandering aimlessly through the desert. She’s in shock and unable to tell them who she is or what she’s doing. They end up connecting her to a demolished camper of a now missing vacationing family. A string of other mysterious deaths, including Peterson’s partner, leads to F.B.I. Agent Graham (James Arness) being called in to help with the investigation. Dr. Medford (Gween), a leading myrmecologist from the Department of Agriculture also joins the investigation along with his “expert” daughter Pat (Joan Wheldon). They discover the reasons behind the deaths and their main goal becomes killing the bugs while containing them within the desert. But that doesn’t work out so well and before long they have a potential global crisis on their hands.

The story is attributed to a collaborative effort, but combined with Gordon Douglas’ marvelous direction, it is extremely clever and well constructed. The story starts off with a murder mystery feel as the officers, agents, and scientists piece together clues to uncover the mystery behind the deaths. What’s impressive is that it doesn’t feel manufactured or underplayed. The early investigation scenes are very well conceived and helped even more by Douglas’s slick use of his cameras. Smartly, the movie doesn’t reveal the ants right away which builds the suspense and anticipation so that when we finally see them, they have been established as a serious threat. Of course by today’s standards there’s nothing particularly scary of unnerving about them. But I still have no trouble going back to when people first saw the film and I still get a little giddy when I hear the ant’s menacing screeches.

I also love the way that everything in the story is taken seriously. Sure, there are some moments of good humor, but as a whole, the story is told in a very factual, pokerfaced way. One reason this is so good is because it leaves the audience toying with the possibilities that these bizarre and outlandish things could happen. While the writing is essential to this, the performances are equally important. Whitmore, Gwenn, and Arness are perfect fits for their roles. Wheldon is good as well although she isn’t all that convincing as an esteemed entomologist. But there are other small but fun roles to be found. A young Leonard Nimoy has a brief scene as an Air Force communications officer. Fess Parker also has a brief but entertaining part as a boozer stuck in a mental hospital.

“THEM!” has been recognized as an influential movie within the science fiction genre. Many great films that followed featured elements that could be traced back to this movie. For example, I couldn’t help but connect the idea of a queen laying eggs deep underground only to have them destroyed by flamethrowers to one of my favorite sci-fi treats of all time – James Cameron’s 1986 classic “Aliens”. It’s also a movie that helped usher in the new era of horror/sci-fi cinema. From the classic Universal monsters to the age of big bugs and spacemen, “THEM!” was at the forefront of the transition. I don’t doubt that many modern moviegoers will have a hard time digesting not only this movie but the entire genre. But the genre holds a special place in my heart and “THEM!” was the quintessential big bug movie.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Total Recall” (2012)

by

8

I don’t often consider the “is it necessary” question when approaching a movie remake. While too many remakes can become tiresome and many result in terrible movies, a good writer and director can provide a unique and fresh take on older material. That’s what I was hoping for from Len Wiseman’s remake of “Total Recall”, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 1990 sci-fi action flick. Unfortunately, Wiseman’s film isn’t nearly as fun or engaging as the original. It takes away some of the more entertaining elements of the original and replaces them with a nice new glossy coat of paint.

The original “Total Recall” featured some great action and some genuinely funny moments. But it was also a relative to that great 80’s action genre so it had its share of cheese (which I love). This new version has some good action but it loses its punch thanks to its simple and lackluster story. Colin Farrell plays Quaid, an assembly line worker who has grown tired of his mundane life. About the only excitement he finds are in his reoccurring violent dreams. He decides to visit Rekall, a memory implant company who gives people exciting experiences by injecting them with artificial memories. Quaid chooses the secret agent implants but as the process begins Rekall is stormed by armed troops from the corrupt local Chancellor Cohaagen (Bryan Cranston). Quaid shoots his way out revealing a skill he never knew he had. He rushes home and tells his wife Lori (Kate Beckinsale), but she tries to kill him. Confused and no longer sure who he is, Quaid goes on the run chased by an army led by his one-time wife.

Most of the movie consists of one big chase. Quaid jumps from rooftop to rooftop, dangles from ledges, and dodges bullets while every once in a while stopping to get a little information about who he really is. Now I love good action but I eventually began to lose interest due to the lack of any real substance. Quaid does run across Melina (Jessica Biel), a girl who appeared in his nightmares, and you would expect her to add a little more to the story. But for the most part, she’s fairly shallow and basically just joins Quaid in being chased. Her character in the original film had considerable more depth. Beckinsale’s Lori gives the action scenes most of their life. She’s tough, mean, and persistent and she’s a strong female antagonist.  But the writing let’s her down as well and even she is one-dimensional.

One thing that I did like about the story was the sci-fi world it created. A chemical holocaust has ravaged earth and there are only two superpowers remaining, The United Federation of Britain which is essentially Europe and “The Colony” which is Australia. The two are connected by a massive elevator transport than runs through the Earth’s core. There’s a political tension between the two and it’s fueled by a strong resistance movement which Cohaagen is desperate to squash regardless of the cost. The special effects and CGI deliver a visually sharp and creative world. The UFB is a fancy, upscale region while “The Colony” has a dirty, over populated, inner-city look to it. Both locations are distinctly different but futuristic in their own unique ways. There are also several technologies that should make sci-fi geeks drool including a cool  hand phone implant and a wild electronic rope gun. I loved the environment and the visuals are truly impressive.

There’s little else to say about the “Total Recall” remake. Farrell tries to keep things interesting but in the end all he’s asked to do is run, jump, and look confused. I mentioned that Beckinsale was fairly fun but no other character really stands out. Even the always good Bryan Cranston is your typical cookie-cutter villain and he’s nowhere near as devious and evil as Ronny Cox’s Cohaagen in the original film. There are a few other things that keep the movie from being a complete wash-out. The special effects are dazzling, there are some good futuristic action sequences, and there are several fun little salutes to the original movie. But in the end there’s just not enough here to make this a worthwhile remake or anything more than a mediocre movie. And that’s disappointing, especially from a sci-fi fan like me.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

“TO ROME WITH LOVE” – 2 STARS

by

1

I’ve never been a big Woody Allen fan. But my appreciation for his filmmaking grew with last year’s amazing “Midnight in Paris”, a fantastic film that was wonderfully written, genuinely funny, and purely magical. Allen’s European tour continue’s with “To Rome With Love” yet another romantic comedy taking place in one of Europe’s most beautiful cities. “To Rome With Love” is a collage of individual stories about a number of different people and their relationships, their predicaments, and their quirks. It starts by capturing some of that same magic that made “Midnight in Paris” such a strong film but the second half of the movie runs off the rails and the result is an uneven and ultimately disappointing result.

The different unconnected stories battle for screen time and all start on the right track. In one, Haley (Allison Pill), an American tourist visiting Rome meets, falls in love with, and is soon engaged to a local hunk named Michelangelo (Flavio Parenti). After her parents fly over to meet his parents, her father (Woody Allen), who compares his recent retirement to a premature death, thinks his career is rejuvenated after discovering Michelangelo’s shower singing father (Fabio Armiliato). In another story, Roberto Benigni plays a mundane and predictable husband and father who suddenly becomes the object of immense fame and notoriety over nothing more than what type of underwear he wears and how he likes his toast.

In yet another story Alec Baldwin plays John, a middle-aged architect back in Rome visiting the neighborhood where he once lived as a young man. He bumps into Jack (Jesse Eisenberg), a young architect living in Rome with his girlfriend Sally (Greta Gerwig). Their relationship is strained when her best friend Monica (Ellen Paige) flies in to visit from the states. John follows Jack around everywhere sounding off warnings about his budding relationship with the flakey Monica. And then there are the reserved small-town newlyweds (Alessandro Tiberi and Alessandra Mastronardi) who arrive in Rome where the husband hopes to get a job from his wealthy family. Through several off-the-wall events, the two are separated in the city and each find their love for the other challenged by the people they meet including a  prostitute played by Penelope Cruz. This was easily the weakest story of the four.

These four storylines stay within their own individual walls and they never intersect with each other. As I mentioned they each start strong and Allen packs a lot of good laughs particularly the first half of the movie. At first I really thought Allen was doing something clever and crafty with the four stories. The film addresses an interesting array of issues and the characters are actually quite intriguing up to a point. But things begin to slowly turn sour and not only does Allen’s story fly wildly out of control but many of his characters become pretty pathetic individuals who depict the movie’s warped and cynical view of love, devotion, and relationships. Several of the characters are faced with sexual temptations and ultimately fall prey to them, some with almost no meaningful struggle of conscience. Other storylines become preposterous which is ok if you’re going somewhere with it. And while I definitely laughed at some of the over-the-top gags, keeping my loosely attached interest intact  hinged on the idea that Woody was doing more with these self-indulgent characters and outlandish situations than what we were seeing. As it turns out he really wasn’t.

As I’m sure you noticed, Allen still has a knack for attaching great talent to his productions. There’s not a bad performance in the entire film and the actors almost pull it off even when the material goes south. Woody Allen himself delivers some of the film’s biggest laughs while portraying the same neurotic and pessimistic character as in his other roles. Speaking of neurotic, but on a much smaller scale, I also really enjoyed Eisenberg’s performance as well. But the biggest star of the film may be the city of Rome itself. Allen truly has an affection for Rome and he goes to great lengths to show its history, beauty, and romantic charm. While Rome certainly doesn’t take on main character status as Paris did in “Midnight in Paris”, it’s still a key ingredient in giving the movie the romantic vibe its shooting for. In fact, for me the movie loses most of its sense of romance with the exception of the charming city that’s present in almost every scene. Even when I was growing detached from the stories, Allen’s camera would capture a location in Paris that sucked me back in.

“To Rome With Love” is truly a story of two halves. The first half of the movie was an absolute blast even though some of the four stories were more interesting than others. But in the second half of the movie I sat in the theater noticing that I hadn’t laughed in some time. As I slowly lost interest in the characters I began noticing that Allen really wasn’t going anywhere with the film. There’s no clever or memorable twist. It spits and sputters to its finale and by the end I was asking myself how Allen could have made two halves so totally different. I also wasn’t all that interested in Allen’s seemingly loose ideas of love, fidelity, and trustworthiness and in this case it hollowed out his characters with the exception of those in Haley and Michelangelo’s story. For some, the spectacular location and the number of funny moments will be enough to carry the picture. But for me it was terribly uneven and it ends up tearing down everything it itself creates. In fact, “To Rome With Love” feels like a film that needed another year of writing and production. The rushed results were nothing short of disappointing.

REVIEW: “Thor”

by

0

The summer of 2011 was all about superheroes. The summer movie season started with “Thor”, the first of four superhero film’s that were released between May and July of 2011. The idea of a Thor movie changed hands multiple times but Marvel Studios would finally green-light the project after the strong success of the Iron Man film. “Thor” was another movie that led to this week’s much-anticipated Avengers movie.

Of the four big superhero releases that year, I always felt “Thor” had the biggest chance fir failure. While I understood how a great picture could be made considering the wealth of quality source material available, I couldn’t help but question how it would look on-screen. I was thrilled to see that it’s a cleverly crafted film and Marvel Studios did a nice job placing it in the hands of director Kenneth Branagh. Now Branagh wasn’t the first name that I thought of when it comes to directing superhero movies. He’s better known for his Shakespeare movie adaptations but don’t let that scare you away. He does a great job here with some tricky material.

Australian actor Chris Hemsworth plays Thor, the tough but brash god of thunder and heir to the throne of Asgard who is banished to earth after bringing war to his home and losing favor with his father, Odin (Anthony Hopkins). Thor’s banishment opens the door for his brother Loki (wonderfully played by Tom Hiddleston), also known as the god of mischief, to rise to power. Upon crashing down to earth, Thor is found by a group of scientists led by Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) who can’t determine whether Thor is from another “realm” or truly insane. To make things worse, Thor finds himself to be without  Mjolnir, his mystical hammer and ultimate power source, making his ability to return to Asgard virtually impossible.

Perhaps the greatest thing about Thor is that it’s just so much fun. For me personally, it was a fantastic movie theater experience. The cast is having fun and easily passes it on to us. Of course it’s filled with spectacular action sequences and special effects but also the perfect amount of humor that never goes too far. The movie never takes itself too seriously and that’s a key to it’s success. “Thor” sticks close enough to the comic book source material to satisfy any fanboy like me but also has a strong mass appeal that anyone could easily appreciate. I also loved the portrayals of Thor’s great assortment of side characters such as Heimdall, Volstagg, and Sif. Almost everything works well. There are moments that had me wanting to clap and others that had me laughing out loud. It’s that well done.

Hemsworth really brings it with his performance. He proves to be a great casting choice and his bulked up, Norse warrior look combined with a genuinely funny, self-deprecating humor does Thor justice. Portman, fresh off of her Academy Award win, is also very good as Jane Foster. She has a nice, believable chemistry with Hemsworth that’s pretty easy to buy into. Hiddleston’s Loki was one of the trickiest roles (no pun intended) but he pulls it off masterfully and Hopkins is as strong as always. I also enjoyed Jaimie Alexander’s Sif. Unfortunately she isn’t given much to do and I would have loved to have seen more of her in the picture.

There isn’t a lot to say negatively about the film but I do have to mention the 3-D. There are very few scenes that really stand out and at the end of the day the 3-D seems tacked on and pointless. As is the case with many conversions, it adds a darker look to the screen and I could have done without it completely. I also wasn’t really taken Kat Dennings’ Darcy Lewis character. She’s mainly in there for comic relief and honestly some of her lines are pretty funny. But I could think of a few better ways to use that screen time. But these things do nothing to ruin what’s a really good film.

“Thor” was a great start to the summer season and a true accomplishment for fans of the comic book movie genre. It’s strong cast is complimented by a well written story and sharp direction. As I mentioned, it never takes itself too seriously but does have enough drama to draw you in. It trips up in a few small places but as a whole “Thor” was a joy. As a comic book fan it met nearly every expectation I had. It’s an obvious attempt to start yet another Marvel movie franchise and ties in nicely to the upcoming Avengers film. It moves at a perfect pace and maintains a great balance between it’s parallel stories. It a fun, exciting, and often hilarious popcorn picture that I’m ready to see again.

VERDICT – 4 STARS