Tag Archives: movies

REVIEW: Seeking a Friend for the End of the World”

by

33

SEEKING POSTER

The film “Seeking a Friend for the End of the Earth” has several interesting things going for it aside from its ridiculously long title. Writer and director Lorene Scafaria takes a very familiar movie subject but looks at through a very unique and compelling lens. She tosses some romance and some humor into her story and allows her two lead performers the room to bring it all to life. These cool nuances are what initially drew me to this picture. It’s such a shame that it didn’t work nearly as well as it should have.

The clever and funny opening scene really got my hopes up and it sets an interesting tone. Dodge Peterson (Steve Carell) and his wife Linda (played in the film by his real life wife Nancy Carell) are sitting in their car listening to a news update on the radio. The DJ tells of a failed last-ditch effort to stop a 70 mile wide asteroid from crashing into Earth and ending the world. The two find out that the asteroid (strangely named Matilda) is expected collide with the planet in only three weeks. The DJ ends the report by saying “For your up to the minute coverage of the countdown to the end of days along with all your classic rock favorites, Q107.2”. A Beach Boys tune follows the devastating news and Nancy opens the car door and leaves Dodge on the spot.

From there Dodge is basically a rudderless ship. He’s a man who looks like he’ll spend the final few days of Earth’s existence alone, that is until he sees his neighbor Penny (Keira Knightley) crying outside his apartment window. She’s an eccentric girl who left her loser boyfriend Owen (Adam Brody) and has just realized she has missed the last of the flights to England where her family lives. Dodge brings her inside which begins a quirky but appealing little relationship. As the apocalypse nears these two lost souls set out together, each after for something different but neither able to see that what they want is right in front of them.

Seeking

The movie begins pretty strong, using its unique perspective in several funny and intriguing ways. Unfortunately the comedy flames out as the movie progresses and I couldn’t help but think that Scafaria played all of her cards in the first half. There are some interesting questions and subtle examinations wrapped up in the movie’s hit and miss humor. We see people’s reaction to the impending end of days range from shameless hedonism to rioting and violence. But the movie also tinkers with smaller questions and in many ways these were the better moments for me. There are also funny little mentions of End of the World awareness concert and opportunistic high premium Armageddon insurance packages. But there aren’t enough of these moments as the movie progresses.

But this film isn’t a total write-off mainly due to the unlikely and offbeat chemistry of the two leads. Carell is in familiar territory and his nerdy, square peg Dodge seems right up his alley. But his performance is more subdued which I found to be more effective. The bigger surprise was Knightley who showed a nice comedic side. These two are asked to move back and forth between comedy and deeper drama which they handle beautifully. The drastic shifts in tone don’t always help the film but the performers nail it. Many have criticized the ending which is soaked in sentimentality. For some it’s popular to treat sentiment in movies like a curse word. I don’t agree with that and while it is a little heavy here, I think it does work in the end.

So what do I make of a movie with tone issues, a draggy middle, and inconsistent humor but that still manages to entertain? “Seeking a Friend for the End of the Earth” has its share if flaws but its also has several things that really sold me on what Scafaria was going for. So this was a mixed bag for me. It’s a film worth checking out but you just may leave with the feeling it could have been so much more. I know I did.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

REVIEW: “Solaris” (2002)

by

27

SolarisI love science fiction and I’ve watched a lot of sci-fi movies over the years. But I’ve been amazed at how many sci-fi flicks have slipped under my radar or that I have unfortunately ignored altogether. Steven Soderbergh’s “Solaris” is a good example. I’ve had several opportunities to see it since it’s 2002 release but have always back-burnered it for some unexplainable reason. Well it took me long enough but I’ve finally sat down and watched “Solaris” and I can honestly say I understand why it’s a movie that’s driven a lot of debate.

Although “Solaris” is often referred to as a remake of Andrei Tarkovsky’s critically adored 1972 film, writer and director Steven Soderbergh stated that he intended it to be a new version of Stanislaw Lem’s original novel from 1961. I haven’t seen Tarkovsky’s film or read Lem’s book so I can’t make any comparable judgement. But I can tell you I enjoyed this version a great deal even though I can see where it would potentially push some movie fans away.

George Clooney stars as Dr. Chris Kelvin, a psychologist who is convinced to visit a space station orbiting a mysterious planet called Solaris. He receives a cryptic message from a friend on the station asking for his help with some troubling psychological events. I’m not sure how the process works, but Kelvin takes a solo flight to the station to investigate the situation on his own. I’m not sure if that was the best idea. What he finds is quite troubling and soon he’s fighting to keep himself from being consumed by the phenomena.

Solaris1

If it sounds like a science-fiction action story it’s not. “Solaris” is a psychological thriller told through the stylistic lens of Soderbergh’s camera. His impressive penchant for angles and shots that relay a feeling of observation is clearly seen here. These unique touches are sprinkled all through the film giving it a slight sense of unease. That’s exactly what Soderbergh is going for and he succeeds. I also love the accentuated use of sound. From the ominous and distinct hums of each of the space station’s rooms or hallways to the strategic use of Cliff Martinez’s simple but menacing score. Through these things the tone of the film is quickly developed and it never once ventures from it. I liked that.

Clooney is also very good in a role that requires him to do more storytelling through expression and body language than dialogue. It’s said that the role was originally written with Daniel Day-Lewis in mind but scheduling conflicts landed the script in Clooney’s lap instead. I’ll be honest, I would love to see what DDL would have done with this role but the film doesn’t suffer one bit by having Clooney onboard. He goes all out, pouring emotion and paranoia into the character. It’s a really good performance.

“Solaris” may be a challenging watch for some but I found it to be quite fascinating. I’ve intentionally stayed away from some pretty important plot points but lets just say things take some interesting turns. Some may struggle with certain aspects if the story but fans of unique science fiction that’s soaked in eerie ambience are going to be intrigued with this one.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

K & M Commentary: The Many Reactions to Superman/Batman

by

21

typewriter-banner 1

One of the biggest bits of news filtering out of this year’s San Diego Comic-Con was that Warner Brothers and DC Comics would be featuring Batman in the Man of Steel sequel slated for 2015. Now you can imagine the plethora of comments and opinions that immediately followed the announcement. They ranged from childlike jubilation to doomsday prophecies! But considering what little information we have so far isn’t it all just speculation at this point? But ya know, we bloggers love to speculate. That’s half the fun.

There are several ways to look at the announcement and several legitimate points of view. Lets look at some of the prominent opinions coming from the news:

1. Some see this as nothing more than a desperate cash grab and an attempt to catch up to Marvel’s bustling movie universe. Now there’s no denying that there is an element of truth to that. Clearly Marvel has taken a huge lead in the comic book to big screen category. With the exception of Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy and to a smaller degree the recent “Man of Steel” film, the DC Comics universe has failed to really flourish on the big screen. But that doesn’t automatically mean that this is desperation or a cash in. It’s not as if a Superman/Batman collaboration is completely unheard of. The two have shared a largely successful comic book with each other for years now. Therefore it wouldn’t be a stretch to see them together on the big screen. As for desperation, while I had never heard a confirmation, I had heard that the idea of bringing these two iconic superheroes together in a movie had been played around with before. With Nolan’s trilogy in the books, this would be as good a time as any to bring along the next vision of Batman.

2. Some have already written this idea off as a disaster. They believe this will ruin and undermine everything that Christopher Nolan accomplished in his Dark Knight trilogy. Many think that shoehorning Batman into the new Superman franchise does a disservice to the character and runs the risk of alienating fans of the one great property that their movie universe possesses. Again, these are some legitimate concerns but very premature ones. With such little information out there about how and how much Batman will be used, it’s really impossible to say anything with certainty. Again, there is a wealth if history between these two characters so it’s reasonable to believe that Batman’s inclusion could be done really well.

3. And then there are those that are bubbling with excitement. I must admit, when I first heard the news I fell into this category. As a long time comic book reader, the thought of these two phenomenal heroes meeting on film as thrilling. The possibilities are endless. This could be the launching point into the new Batman series. This could be the launching point of the Justice League film that has been talked about for years. In my eyes the potential for something great is off the scales. But optimistic fans have reason to be cautious. Again, we don’t know very much. Will Batman be utilized in a way that makes for a good movie AND keeps the character on the same firm footing where Nolan left him? Will his role be weighty enough to feel justified and warranted? These are real concerns but none are bigger than this: Who will play Batman? For me this is a crucial ingredient to making this whole thing work. There’s a lot of complexity and layers to the Bruce Wayne/Batman character and poor casting could derail every bit of potential. This is enough cause to be a little cautious.

So is there reason to be concerned? Absolutely. Is there reason to write it off? Absolutely not. In fact I think the sheer potential of the idea is enough to get fanboys and movie fans excited and curious. But whatever your position one thing is for sure, Warner Brothers has everyone talking about this and that’s a good thing. Now here’s hoping they deliver the goods. After all, in the end that’s all that matters.

superman-batman-2015

The Public Movie Defender : “The Time Machine” (2002)

by

30

TIME DEFEND

The idea behind The Public Movie Defender is to take up the cause of a particular movie that I believe is better than the majority of reviews it has received. These are movies which I feel are worth either a second look or at least a more open examination considering the predominantly negative opinions of them. The films chosen are ones that I like so therefore I’m taking their case and defending them before the court of negative opinion. Let the trial begin…

DEFENDANT #3 – “THE TIME MACHINE” (2002)

TIMEThe 1895 novel “The Time Machine” by H.G. Wells has long established itself as a science fiction classic. While I’ve never read the entire novel, I still remember seeing a film adaptation as a young boy. It was a film from 1960 which was directed and produced by George Pal (Pal had already made a film version of the other Wells science fiction classic “The War of the Worlds” in 1953). There was a made for TV movie in the late 1970s but Pal’s version from 1960 was my first real exposure to this timeless story (pun intended).

Time jump ahead 42 years to 2002 where Simon Wells, the great-grandson of H.G. Wells, made his live-action directorial debut with a fresh look at “The Time Machine”. It’s more of a remake of Pal’s film but it has several unique angles of its own. It’s certainly a movie I feel compelled to defend. It was universally dismissed and its current Rotten Tomatoes score sits at an abysmal 29%. I think this is a much better film than that and many of the criticisms fired its way are a bit unfair. For me Simon Wells puts out a vision with a little more heart and weight than the previous film and John Logan’s sharp screenplay is a crucial part of that.

But for me the biggest selling point for the film was the performance of Guy Pearce. There’s no need to dance around it – I’m a huge Guy Pearce fan. He’s an immensely talented and underrated actor who has shown diverse range throughout his acting career. This was one of the movies that really sold him to me. Some have found his performance “lifeless” while others have claimed he was miscast. I couldn’t disagree more. I think it’s Pearce’s performance and his ability to convey the driving force behind his character’s actions that gives this movie an injection of emotion. I also think he fits perfectly into the socially awkward role that’s called for early on.

Pearce plays Dr. Alexander Hartdegen, a Columbia University professor and part-time inventor. Alexander feels detached from his home in 1899 New York City where everyone are “dinosaurs” and “all alike, all in identical bowler hats”. He’s a nerdy fellow who loves tinkering and he has a hidden interest in the theory of time travel. Sometimes his interests take his focus off of his sweetheart Emma (Sienna Guillory) whom he truly loves. In fact, a horrible tragedy involving Emma is the catalyst for him building his time machine. In other words the romance is a key component to the story. It’s not delved into at great lengths but I do feel that Pearce sells it and the post-tragedy emotions especially well.

TIME 1

“The Time Machine” can really be broken down into two parts, the pre-machine 1899 New York and the unintended future year of 802,701. Yet in between those two main focuses are several scenes featuring different time periods. Alexander’s ‘fish out of water’ status and overloaded curiosity at his futuristic stops was a treat for me, again much due to the performance of Guy Pearce. These brief scenes give some explanation to the bleak future that Alexander ends up in. They also offer a small bit of commentary which I quite liked.

The second half of the film takes place in the aforementioned future of 802,701. Technology and advancement is gone and humanity has basically started over. It’s here that Alexander meets Mara (Samantha Mumba), a young woman who is part of a cliff dwelling tribe called the Eloi. Naturally the clash of a well-dressed future man and an indigenous native tribe is a huge obstacle but fortunately Lara speaks a little English (the stone language). Don’t worry, this isn’t a random thing. The movie does explain it. But Alexander soon learns that even that time period has its own problems, namely a subterranean species known as the Morlocks.

I’ve defended the acting and the story. Now let me talk a little bit about the special effects. I found the movie’s visuals range from the bland to the spectacular. The time traveling scenes are beautifully done and show off the technical rise of society all the way through another Ice Age and the blossoming of a new world after it. I also loved the design of Alexander’s time machine. There is such detail and craft in the way it’s made and you can almost believe in it completely. Now I wasn’t as impressed with the Morlocks once they appear. They’re just a tad too fake. But that doesn’t apply to Jeremy Irons who shows up as the Uber-Morlock – their leader. He is disgustingly eerie. His makeup alone was a big reason the film received an Oscar nomination in that category.

There are several other great touches and key components that make this such a great film. I adore Klaus Badelt’s brilliant and stirring score. Orlando Jones is a blast playing a holographic A.I. librarian. And the touching final scene still pricks my heart every time I watch it. “The Time Machine” is an underappreciated movie anchored by a fine lead performance by Guy Pearce. Simon Wells would suffer from exhaustion and Gore Verbinski would finish up the film. I give them both credit for giving us a delightful science fiction picture that’s far better than what many critics have said. It struck a chord with me the first moment I saw it and in my eyes it’s still an overlooked gem.

VERDICT : “THE TIME MACHINE” – 4.5 STARS

The Keith & the Movies Valhalla Induction : “The Last of the Mohicans”

by

24

MT OLYMPUS

The Keith & the Movies Valhalla is a place of tribute for those movies that I hold in the highest regard. These are films that embody everything that is great about motion pictures. These are the best of the best – movies that I truly love and that stand above the rest. There are many great movies that won’t find their way into these sacred halls. But here you will find those films that I believe personify brilliance in filmmaking, storytelling, and entertainment. These glorious 5 star accomplishments are worthy of special recognition as the very best. Ok, enough of the high drama! In other words, these are my favorite movies of all time, ok?

MohicansThere are a number of movies that have left indelible marks on me. In many instances I still remember the experience I had when I first saw them. Such is the case with Michael Mann’s “The Last of the Mohicans”. This version of James Fenimore Cooper’s classic novel blew me away during its initial theatrical release in 1992 and has held a special place with me since. Personally it’s a near flawless film teeming with gorgeous cinematography, fantastic action, and a strong measured romance set during a perfectly realized 1757 American frontier.

The film is also helped by some top notch acting especially from Daniel Day-Lewis as well as what may be my favorite movie score to ever grace a motion picture. The music from Trevor Jones is both beautiful and appropriate and it even found its way into my wedding. Some have downplayed “The Last of the Mohicans” choosing to dismiss it as “history lite”. Personally I adore the film for its rich cinematic story all the way to its great production. For me its place in the Valhalla was cemented from the start.

“The Last of the Mohicans” is the seventh inductee into the Keith & the Movies Valhalla. But there are more amazing movies to come in the near future so stay tuned. What are your thoughts on this Michael Mann new classic? Is it worth my high praise or is it an overrated picture? What about the performance of Daniel Day-Lewis? You now know my opinion. I’d love to hear yours. Please take time to share your comments below.

REVIEW: “The Lone Ranger”

by

31

Lone Ranger poster

“Pirates of the Caribbean” set in the old west. It’s an unavoidable comparison. It’s also a very accurate description of Gore Verbinski and Jerry Bruckheimer’s “The Lone Ranger”. Johnny Depp again takes center stage and is the ringleader of this wacky and sometimes absurd action adventure. The ingredients are all here. A charismatic and eccentric lead, a fun and action-packed story model, and a filmmaking team who has experienced success before. Maybe that’s why the end result is so disappointing.

As a kid I loved the old television reruns of The Lone Ranger starring Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels. Well let me say that it didn’t take long for me to see the mammoth sized differences between this film and the great original material. I mean to call this film a reimagining would be a gross understatement. There is almost no similarity between these film and the classic story other than the name and some of the basic cosmetics. There is the white hat and white horse. There are silver bullets and the black masks. There are also a few familiar names and familiar plot points. But you’ll be hard pressed to find many other resemblances. Who knows, maybe that’s where the first of the film’s many missteps begins.

Lone Ranger 2

Now I wasn’t expecting this to be an ultra-serious tribute to this classic character. Again this is from the makers of “Pirates of the Caribbean”. But I also didn’t expect it to be so drastically different and so blasted silly. It starts with the Lone Ranger character himself. Armie Hammer seems completely lost at times playing a character who is a bumbling oaf from the first time we see him until the final credits. The character has good intentions but he’s a far cry from the heroic masked administrator of justice I was hoping for. Hammer’s performance doesn’t help. He struggles through a ridiculous and sometimes numbingly lame script that drags him through a plethora of slapstick and oddball humor that admittedly works on occasions. But more often than not it lands with a thud and Hammer just can’t sell it.

The nuttiness isn’t just confined to Hammer and the lead character. Johnny Depp’s Tonto is in many ways a Native American Jack Sparrow. He channels his famed pirate character in a variety of different ways and I found myself laughing out loud on several occasions. But he also has his share of ludicrous, over-the-top moments. And that can be said for the entire film. It has several eye-rolling moments that are so insanely absurd that they’re impossible to digest. But it also sharply turns in other directions. “The Lone Ranger” has some jarring tonal issues. One minute horses are standing up in trees wearing cowboy hats and the next has a character cutting out and eating a human heart. The movie is literally all over the map.

But perhaps it’s biggest sin is that it’s just so boring in the middle. It starts with a some promise and there are hints of a good story throughout the picture. But soon the film bogs down in a mire of drab and pointless plot. There’s an underwritten and poorly serviced romance. There are throwaway characters such as Helena Bonham Carter’s ivory-legged brothel head whose story would better serve on the cutting room floor. Then there is the film’s general snail paced way of telling the main story. It takes way too long and it becomes a test of endurance just to make it through the arduous 2 hours and 30 minute running time.

Lone ranger 1

But I have to say that the big finale saves the film from being a total disaster. The huge set piece is quite the spectacle and I remember perking up the moment that the William Tell Overture suddenly kicked in. The ending almost feels like its own little short film. It doesn’t feel anything like a Lone Ranger sequence and there isn’t a semblance of realism to be found. But it is insanely entertaining if you can accept its cartoonish and exaggerated approach and go with it. For me it was easily the best part of the film even with its absurdities.

There are some beautiful locations and some of the action is really good. There are moments where the wacky humor works very well. I also enjoyed seeing an assortment of my favorite supporting actors (William Fichtner, Tom Wilkinson, Barry Pepper, and James Badge Dale) even if their roles aren’t particularly well written. But in the end “The Lone Ranger” loses itself in its overbearing insanity and bloated, uneven plot. It never feels like a western and it never knows when to end. What really stinks is that this could’ve been a really good summer movie. Instead it’s $250 million dollars worth of mediocrity and a waste of some really good talent. I may be wrong but I would think Disney would want more from such an investment.

VERDICT – 2 STARS