Tag Archives: movies

5 Phenomenal Movie Vacations Gone Bad

by

37

movie_theatre - Phenom 5

It will be a light week here at Keith & the Movies as I am heading out on vacation with my family. We are keeping it in the States this year and heading to the Great Smoky Mountains. But I can’t leave without dropping a new Phenomenal 5 on you. In light of our travels today I’m going to look at movie vacations but with a darker twist. These five experiences of troubled travelers certainly started with happier intentions but things go terribly wrong. Now throughout film history there have been many movie vacations that have went south so I’m not going to call this the definitive list. But there’s no doubting that these five movie vacations go phenomenally bad.

#5 – “THE EVIL DEAD”

Evil Dead

I may be wrong but I don’t think many people include demon possession, dismemberment, and death in their vacation itinerary. Neither did our five college kids in Sam Raimi’s “The Evil Dead” but that’s exactly what they got. Ash (Bruce Campbell) and company plan on spending their Spring vacation in a small remote mountain cabin but their fun and relaxation is thrown aside after they unleash demonic forces via The Book of the Dead. Things couldn’t possibly go any worse for these friends as one after another meet their grisly end. For me this is a horror movie classic that still creeps me out even though it can seem a little dated. But if there’s one thing I have learned from “The Evil Dead” it’s that if I ever find an old book bound in human flesh while I’m on vacation, I’m leaving it alone!

#4 – “THE IMPOSSIBLE”

Impossible

I don’t often use movies this recent on my Phenomenal 5 lists but this one fit perfectly. Based on the true story of a family’s remarkable survival during the deadly Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, “The Impossible” captures the pain and raw emotion that such a devastating tragedy must bring. Many have harshly judged the film for downplaying the suffering of the locals and for using white actors to tell the story. I don’t buy into either of those criticisms. I think the film is respectful and powerful except when it gets a little too big at the end. This is a much more serious example of a family vacation that goes terribly bad but it’s one that deserves a spot on this list. Despite the popular criticisms, I found this to be a testament of the human spirit and of the bond of family.

#3 – “AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON”

werewolf

I’m sure that college vacationers David Kessler and Jack Goodman had several concerns going into their backpacking trip across England’s North York Moors. I’m sure they weighed everything from sprained ankles to bad weather. But I wonder if they ever factored in a werewolf attack? That’s exactly what happens in this 1981 horror/comedy classic and lets just say the results dance between really funny and really gruesome. Visions of dead friends, graphic transformations, and a big finale in downtown London are things that certainly weren’t part of the vacation planning. But they are great moments for anyone who has seen this film. When it comes to movie vacations gone wrong, it’s hard to leave this one off the list.

#2 – “THE DESCENT”

The Descent

All vacations start off as well intentioned getaways. Some are for spending times with family. Others are for seeing new parts of the world. In “The Descent”, six young women go on a group vacation intended to not only serve as a getaway but also to bring these friends back together after a deadly tragedy. The ladies go spelunking in an uncharted cave and lets just say its a really bad decision. It’s bad enough that the caverns cave in and trap them. That alone is enough to make this list. But throw in carnivorous subterranean creatures and now you understand why it’s #2. Things go really bad here in this survival horror picture that I really appreciate. It’s unique in several ways and its a perfect fit for any bad vacations list.

#1 – “FUNNY GAMES”

Funny Games

“Funny Games” isn’t what I would call a horror picture but it is one of the most frightening and unsettling films you’ll see. It’s also a perfect example of a movie vacation that goes terribly wrong. Michael Haneke, a filmmaker I’ve grown to love, wrote and directed this discomforting story of a German family spending some vacation time at their Austrian lake house. The husband and wife, their young son, and the family dog have their plans turned upside down when two young men appear and take them hostage in their house. They terrorize and psychologically torture the family and Haneke sits us down and makes us watch it all. It’s brutally realistic and genuinely disturbing which is what really sets this film apart. It’s a hard film to watch but it shows Haneke’s great eye for filmmaking.

There they are – five movie vacations that I hope to NEVER experience. What do you think? There are SO many more that come to mind. Please take time to share your thoughts.

Classic Movie Spotlight: “Charade”

by

30

Classic Movie SpotlightAny movie starring the suave Cary Grant and the gorgeous Audrey Hepburn automatically catches my attention. Yet for some inexplicable reason I had not taken time to watch “Charade”. Well now I have and I can say without hesitation that it’s a real treat. Stanley Donen produced and directed this 1963 film that plays in almost every genre. It can be considered a Hitchcockian thriller, a slick romance, or a side-splitting comedy. But more importantly all of these elements fit together nicely in what turns out to be a well conceived and sharply directed picture driven by some wonderful performances. And would you expect anything else when you have this kind of talent involved?

The movie begins with a murder. We see a quick scene of a man being thrown from a train that’s speeding through the French countryside. This turns out to be Charles Lampert and his death is what triggers the mystery component of the film. Hepburn plays his wife Regina who is winding down her skiing trip in the French Alps. It’s here that she first meets an alluring stranger who goes by the name of Peter Joshua (Grant). After returning to Paris and finding everything in her apartment gone, Regina is notified by the police that her husband had been murdered while trying to leave the city. At his funeral three mysterious and shady looking men “pay their respects”. In actuality, the three were past partners with Charles in an elaborate scheme to steal $250,000 worth of gold. They are determined to get the money and think that Regina knows where it is.

It’s this mystery that serves as the main course of the film. Who is it that murdered Charles? Who is it that would do anything to get their hands on the $250,000? Who can Regina trust? Can anyone trust Regina? These are all viable questions and the movie never tips its hand too early. Instead you find yourself suspicious of every character at some point in the film. Peter pops back up but it may not be by accident. Grant nicely creates an aura of suspicion mixed in with his character’s self-assured charm. I loved it every time he showed up. The three men from the funeral, wonderfully played by James Coburn, George Kennedy, and Ned Glass, throw aside the ‘honor among thieves code’ and are as untrustworthy as they come. Regina has to navigate through this cast of questionable characters but does so with the help of the CIA administrator named Hamilton Bartholomew played by Walter Matthau.

Cary Grant & Audrey Hepburn

There are several other things that help make “Charade” a really good film. I’ve mentioned how well the mystery element of the story works. But the movie also has its share of hilarious scenes particularly those featuring Grant and Hepburn’s playful banter. I also felt there was a believable romantic chemistry between the two that I bought into despite the noticeable age differences. And then there’s the great look of the film thanks to the fantastic cinematography of the brilliant Charles Lane as well as carefully chosen locations scattered throughout beautiful Paris. And I just have to talk about the cast again. Hepburn is lovely and you just can’t take your eyes off of her. Grant’s performance is a reminder that he was not only a very polished actor but he could also be very funny. This was one of his final roles, and even though he’s older and grayer, he still masterfully handles each and every scene. And while I’ve never been the biggest Matthau fan, he’s perfect here as is Coburn.

I have no idea why I waited so long to catch up with “Charade”. It’s a highly satisfying mishmash of several movie genres that I love and it’s anchored by two performances from two of Hollywood’s all-time greats. Fantastic direction, beautiful cinematography, and a perfect supporting cast give this movie a familiar yet distinct style that I truly loved and responded to. Now there are a few plot holes that you could nitpick about and there may be a couple of things that are a little too silly to buy into. But I found it to be an entertaining time and it’s a film that shouldn’t fly under any movie fan’s radar. If you haven’t seen it, don’t take as long as I did. It’s definitely worth your time.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “The Cold Light of Day”

by

26

Cold Light posterAbout a quarter of the way through “The Cold Light of Day” I was really wondering why everyone had been so hard on the film. I was already preparing for my defense of the movie and the ribbing I would be getting for it. But then things changed. Bruce Willis disappears, Henry Cavill takes center stage, and the bottom falls out. Now I usually don’t like to dwell too long on a movie’s bad points but sometimes you just can’t avoid it. Especially when the entire movie takes a nose dive right before your very eyes. Things definitely go bad here and the movie erases nearly every bit of promise it offers early on.

The idea of the movie is sound enough. Will Shaw (Cavill) arrives in Spain where he plans to spend the week with his vacationing family. We quickly learn that Will doesn’t have the best relationship with his father (Bruce Willis) and the tension between the two is evident. But Will doesn’t make things easy. He sulks and mopes and spends more time on his cell phone checking on his business in San Francisco. This self-centered immaturity pops up throughout the film. I mean even later, when Will is supposed to be ‘a new man’, his character reminds me of a 14-year old with some of the things he does.

The group takes a sailboat off the coast for a day, but Will and his father have a huge argument leading Will to swim into town to get supplies and cool off. When he gets back to the beach to he notices that the boat is gone. He walks the beaches searching until he finds it in a cove. Nobody is on board and it appears there was a struggle. Neither the police or American Embassy are willing to help and Will begins to find out some interesting things about his father. I don’t want to give away any of the few surprises (and I mean very few) this movie has so let’s just say he ends up with a host of people chasing him through Madrid while he tries to find a way to save his family.

CA.0822.the.cold.light.of.day.

One of the biggest problems with “The Cold Light of Day” is that things get so blasted silly. The film takes so many convenient, out of the blue turns and the characters do some of the most idiotic things. Sigourney Weaver, a talented and accomplished actress, enters the picture and you would think she would be a stabilizing force. Not so! Her character is as cheesy and corny as they come and I often found myself just shaking my head at her flailing attempts at tough guy dialogue. Her character’s angle as well as several other aspects of the story are completely predictable which cuts into any of the suspense the film was hoping for. And any type of plot that happens to catch you by surprise still feels totally contrived.

None of this is helped by Henry Cavill. If I may be unapologetically blunt for a moment, Cavill is absolutely awful here. Now to be fair it doesn’t help that he’s given such boneheaded dialogue. But his performance even sinks below that. Cavill is at his best when he’s sprinting through the streets, jumping over cars, and ducking for cover (and he does a ton of that). But once he’s asked to say a line or show some emotion, well lets just say I’m suddenly a little worried about the upcoming “Man of Steel” movie.

Now this movie features some good camera work and it’s shot in some gorgeous locations. I absolutely loved seeing the sights of Madrid as the movie moves from one part of the city to another. I enjoyed the first third of the film and thought it opened itself up nicely. It also moves at a good crisp pace and at 90 minutes it doesn’t drag things out longer than it should. But the pluses don’t absolve the movie of its clear transgressions and as it moves forward things completely fall apart. I remember when I first saw the trailer for this film. I thought it had a lot of potential. It did. Unfortunately the movie wastes practically all of it.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

REVIEW: “Now You See Me”

by

42

See me poster

I have to admit, the idea behind “Now You See Me” is pretty intriguing. As silly as it may sound, a group of magicians working together in huge elaborate bank heists is loaded with potential. The movie also puts together a pretty impressive cast featuring some fresh young talent, fun and reliable veterans, and a French actress that I’ve become a big fan of. So the ingredients are there for a fun an entertaining little thriller. That’s why it’s so sad that the movie stumbles all over itself and ends up being an unfortunate disappointment.

The story goes something like this – Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Isla Fisher, and Dave Franco are small-time magicians working the streets and house shows. They’re all brought together after being slipped a mysterious tarot card and address by a hooded stranger. We then leap forward to find that they have a fancy new stage show and perform under the name The Four Horsemen. After their first big show in Las Vegas rains down stolen money on the jubilant crowd, the FBI immediately get involved. Agent Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) teams up with a French Interpol Agent Alma Vargas (Mélanie Laurent) to head the case. Their initial interrogation with The Four Horsemen leaves a sour taste in Agent Rhodes’ mouth and he makes in his goal to stop them before their next big show.

SEE ME

Michael Caine shows up as a wealthy insurance man who sponsors The Four Horsemen’s act but who may not be the ultimate brain behind their operation. We also get Morgan Freeman as a former magician who now makes his money debunking and discrediting magic acts. Both are tossed into the mix of what becomes the movie’s big question – who is the person that’s really behind The Four Horseman? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that twists and misdirections are a big part of this film. When the story stays focused on that it can be entertaining. Unfortunately this thing goes all over the place and by the time the twists do finally come, their effects on the convoluted story pack little punch.

There are numerous structural and narrative problems with “Now You See Me”. First, there are so many enormous plot holes many of which you could drive a truck through. There are also hugs gaps in logic that no amount of magic can explain. The pacing is good enough that you can overlook some of these things while watching the film. But if you take even a second to think about some of the things they completely fall apart. The story has holes. The characters have holes. The explanations and revelations have holes. We also get bits of mumbo-jumbo about some mystical magical force called The Eye which honestly I still don’t understand nor do I even care to.

Then there is the magic. With the exception of Eisenburg’s cool card trick during his first scene (a trick which got me), most of the magic and illusions were underwhelming. Most of the time they felt more like movie trickery than actual magic tricks. Also I can’t say I ever fully bought into any of the Horsemen as serious magicians. Some may blame the actors or it may be because we hardly spend any time with them. Most of our time are spent with the FBI trying to piece together what’s going on. That leaves The Four Horsemen feeling pretty flimsy.

SEE me 2

Personally I felt the performances were decent enough. Some where able to overcome the lackluster writing while others were smothered by it. Caine and Freeman were rock solid as always and Eisenberg was also quite good. But it was Laurent, the fine French actress I mentioned above, who gave my favorite performance. Like every other character, she has to deal with some occasionally clunky dialogue but she handles it very well. Not so with Ruffalo. He has his good moments but he also has a few stumbles. But once again, the script does him no favors.

“Now You See Me” is a real toughie for me. I was never bored. I never checked my watch. I enjoyed some of the performances, particularly from Laurent. But there are just too many stinking flaws to give the movie a recommendation. The story is riddled with plot holes. Some characters are so poorly written. The magic, which should be a strong point, won’t blow anyone’s socks off. In the end all of these problems sink the movie and keep it from being the film it should be. That’s a shame because the parts were in place. There just wasn’t a good enough story to work with.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Moulin Rouge!”

by

41

MOILIN ROUGE POSTEROn the surface there’s nothing about the 2001 romantic musical “Moulin Rouge!” that would draw me to it. I’m overly picky and less enthusiastic about musicals than any other movie genre. Baz Luhrmann’s schizophrenic style of filmmaking isn’t something I naturally gravitate towards. Also Nicole Kidman is an actress that I appreciate but who has never really blown me away. So I sat out during the movie’s release and eventual Oscar run. “Moulin Rouge!” would go on to earn 8 Oscar nominations including a Best Actress nod for Kidman. It would win two for Costume Design and Art Direction.

It’s been over 10 years since the release of “Moulin Rouge!” and I’ve finally caught up with it. It’s funny, it wasn’t the music or the popularity or the Oscar recognition that finally got me to sit down and give this film a shot. It was my very real and deep-seated affection for the city of Paris. This proves to be fairly misplaced motivation. The beauty and essence of Paris is never explored or injected into the story and my overall “Moulin Rouge!” experience danced between stimulation and tedium.

I won’t deny that “Moulin Rouge!” has its moments. There’s a visual flare that Luhrmann has that’s undeniable. Here he presents a kaleidoscope of hyperactive visual pageantry. The colors and the pizazz leap off the screen as he moves from one shot to the next at break-neck speed. The problem is he milks it for all its worth, especially in the first half of the film. There’s an almost sensory overload as he bombards us with wild, raucous dance sequences, painted faces, and swirling dresses in a relentless parade of musical debauchery that had me ready to leave Montmartre and head to the more pensive and subdued Latin Quarter.

Moilin 1

Yet, just as I was ready to check out, there would be some little nugget that kept me there. Whenever Luhrmann would dial things back the movie would take a better turn and I could latch on. These are the moments where we get into the actual story. It’s set in 1899 Paris. A young writer named Christian (Ewen McGregor) moves to Montmartre with hopes of experiencing the true Bohemian life of the area. Christian is a wide-eyed idealist who has a special boyish obsession with love, something he has never truly experienced before.

Luhrmann instantly begins to lay out his unusual world. His depiction of Bohemian life opens up on a frantic sugar rush. He quickly baptizes Christian into this weird world through a wacky assortment of characters. He runs into an eccentric group of artists and performers who acquire his help in finishing their musical production. Their ultimate goal is to sell their show to Mr. Zidler (Jim Broadbent), the proprietor of the wild and rowdy Moulin Rouge. The biggest attraction of the Moulin Rouge is the beautiful Satine (Nicole Kidman) and Christian is instantly smitten with her. But Zidler has other plans for his most prized property especially after she catches the eye of a wealthy Duke and potential financier (Richard Roxburgh). If Christian is going to win her love he’s going to have to fight for it.

Listening to that setup of the plot you would think there was a pretty strong story in place but it’s actually a bit anemic. There is an interesting romance in there but it ends up being swallowed up by the injections of peculiar song numbers that feel terribly out of place at times. We get big show versions of everything from Madonna’s “Like a Virgin” to Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit”. Clearly these wild song choices worked for many people but for me they got in the way of something much more interesting – the complicated romance between Christian and Satine. Luhrmann does allow the romance more breathing room in the final act but by that time I felt worn down by the relentless pomp and spectacle. Luhrmann hasn’t an ounce of subtlety and here he flexes his hyper-stylized muscle whenever he can.

moulin 2

Even though the more interesting story is smothered for much of the movie, it still manages to stay interesting thanks to the fantastic performances of the two leads. Ewen McGregor is great and watching his character move from innocent naivity to someone who has the harsh realities of the world revealed to him is great fun. But for me it was Kidman’s performance that not only stole the show but kept the movie going. She was a key reason I wanted to sit through the patented teeth-grinding Luhrmann scenes. Kidman is the one performer who has a lot to do and I found her work to be fascinating. Broadbent was okay but his character was so wacky and it was hard for me to get passed that. John Leguizamo has a fairly nice sized role as Henri Toulouse-Lautrec. Toulouse-Lautrec was a noted French artist but in this film his scenes mirror what I would imagine an acid trip to be like. He’s all over the place and comes off as a clown. Now considering the difficult life Toulouse-Lautrec had, from his childhood struggles to his crippling health problems which resulted in his death at age 36, this portrayal of him could be construed as an insult. Either way it didn’t work for me.

Unfortunately that also sums up my overall reaction to “Moulin Rouge!”. It just didn’t work for me. It’s a shame really because under the heavy coating of Baz Luhrmann’s mind-numbing stylistic excess lies a romantic tale that actually has heart. It’s a romance that’s made all the more interesting by two deeply commited lead performances. But sadly that doesn’t erase the countless times I was rolling my eyes or checking the time. I know “Moulin Rouge!” has a following and if you can connect to this type of schizophrenic storytelling you’ll probably find a lot to like here. But for me it was a case of too much visual insanity, too many poor choices for songs, and not enough of the central romance. That’s enough to keep “Moulin Rouge!” off my rewatch list for quite some time.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

REVIEW: “Fast and Furious 6”

by

24

FAST 6 poster

I’ve tried on a few occasions to watch the earlier movies in the Fast and Furious franchise but I could never get into it. The whole underground street racing scene has never appealed to me and the barrage of Skittles colored cars and bikini-clad women gyrating in slow motion got old quick. Now clearly the series has an ardent following as evident by the four total movies that fit this description. I just couldn’t count myself among them.

But in 2011 the series took a sharp turn in the right direction with the release of “Fast Five”. Gone were the street car racing raves and gratuitous skin shots (with the exception of one obligatory homage of sorts). Instead director Justin Lin and writer Chris Morgan made the film into a full-blown old school action picture only with vehicles as the main weapon of choice. It was a great move and I had a ton of fun with it.

So that brings us to “Fast and Furious 6” (yes, there have actually been six of these films). Lin And Morgan return as does franchise stalwarts Vin Diesel and Paul Walker. After making his franchise debut last time, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson returns as do many other faces that franchise faithfuls are sure to recognize. The good news is “Fast and Furious 6” sticks to the same formula as the last picture. It’s loud, preposterous, and seemingly custom made for the summer popcorn season. I don’t think it’s as good as “Fast Five”, but it’s still a fuel-injected good time.

Fast 6 3

Once again an international location is chosen and our cast is thrown in it. Last time it was Rio. This time it’s London, England. Dom Toretto (Diesel) and Brian O’Conner (Walker) are still wanted men. They’ve both settled down in the Canary Islands with hopes of putting their former lives behind them. But that quickly changes when DSS agent Luke Hobbs (Johnson) appears at Dom’s doorstep with news that an old acquaintance has appeared and is working for a powerful ex-military criminal named Owen Shaw (Luke Evans). Dom is persuaded to get his team back together and help Hobbs stop Shaw and find out about this mysterious person from his past.

There are several things about this film that are a given. Diesel grinds up his handful of lines in his familiar deep and gravelly voice. The Rock is given an endless supply of hammy tough guy one-liners and corny testosterone-laced analogies. And Paul Walker still has that sheepish and boyish vibe going. The rest of Dom’s crew aren’t asked to do any heavy lifting and that’s a good thing. Neither Sung Kang or Chris “Ludacris” Bridges are particularly good actors and Tyrese Gibson’s comic act grew old quick. But none of these performances are why people will go to see this film.

But I do want to talk about the two newcomers to the Fast and Furious world. I’ve just recently noticed him but I quite like Luke Evans. He gives a rock solid performance here as the main baddie. While his character is really nothing more than a thief and his overall motivations are shallow, Evans brings a pretty menacing quality to the role. And then there’s Gina Carano. Can I just go ahead and say I LOVE Gina Carano? Once again she’s tough as nails and she holds her own among the macho types. Just like Steven Soderbergh in the movie “Haywire”, director Justin Lin keeps her within her comfort zone and never stretches her beyond her bounds. She’s one of the high points for me and she gets her scenes to shine.

Fast 6 1

But enough about the acting. “Fast and Furious 6” is a straightforward action picture built upon some ludicrous yet spectacular set pieces and more flipping, jumping, and crashing of cars than you can count. The movie aims to be even more outlandish than the previous film and it succeeds. But it still keeps you glued to the screen as the vehicular mayhem amps up with each big sequence. Sure it’s sometimes dumb and always over the top. Some of the dialogue is high-end cheese at its finest and the jokes often fall flat. But it still delivers the pedal to the metal, “ride or die” adrenaline rush that has made it such a guilty pleasure.

I still say this film isn’t as fluid or as polished (if you can call any of these movies polished) as “Fast Five”. But I appreciate that the movie never pretends to be anything other than what it is. The filmmakers know the type of movie they’re making and there is no pretension or artifice at all. That’s key for the audience as well. If you know what kind of movie this is, you’ll know what to expect. Don’t think you’re getting a film with deeper, thought-provoking themes and top-tier performances. Understand that this film and this series is all about the wild ride and if you’re willing to get into the car, you’re going to have a good time.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS