Tag Archives: movies

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

The Public Movie Defender – “Terminator Salvation”

by

45

DEFENDER TERMINATOR

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 #2 – “TERMINATOR SALVATION”

TERM SALVFor some reason I’ve had this weird and unexplainable urge to write a review about a movie that I really like but most others don’t. Is it my pointless sense of duty to defend a film largely maligned by critics and my fellow movie fans? Is it some twisted pleasure I’ll take in the heat received from my fellow movie blogging pals? Whatever the reason I’m going to make my case for “Terminator Salvation”.

This 2009 sci-fi action flick was the fourth installment in the widely popular “Terminator” series. It was also a film of many firsts for the franchise. It’s the first “Terminator” picture that didn’t star Arnold Schwarzenegger. It’s the first film in the franchise that received a PG-13 rating. It’s also the first film that takes place in the post-Judgement Day future. I suppose these things played into the disdain some people felt towards this film but it has also received a variety of other criticisms. It has been called soulless, humorless, joyless, and brainless. In fact the overwhelming consensus is that “Terminator Salvation” glaringly fails to capture any of the magic of the previous three movies. Obviously I disagree.

Now let me be clear, “Terminator Salvation” is not a 5 star movie. In fact it’s the third or fourth best film in the franchise. But I still found it to be a fun, action-fueled experience and a worthy installment to the series. The time travel element is gone making the entire ‘future versus present’ dynamic that was a big part of the other movies nonexistent. I have to admit that I missed that. That was one of the coolest things about this series. But that doesn’t mean that “Terminator Salvation” can’t stand on its own merit. It’s a grittier and more militaristic story and the humor, while definitely there, is much more restrained mainly due to the more serious tone of this film.

So the story goes like this, It’s 2018. Skynet has been activated and Judgement Day has wiped out a massive number of earth’s population. Christian Bale plays the third version of John Connor. This time he’s a key member of the human race’s resistance against the machines. Small pockets of the resistance are scattered everywhere including in the ruins of Los Angeles where Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) struggles to survive. Kyle and a young girl named Star (Jadagrace Perry) call themselves the L.A. branch of the resistance but they’re mainly just kids in hiding. They latch onto a mysterious stranger named Marcus (Sam Worthington) who knows nothing about the war with the machines.

Term Salv 2

After hearing a radio message from John Connor, the three set out to find the resistance headquarters – Kyle in hopes of joining the fight and Marcus in hopes of finding answers. But things don’t workout that well and Kyle and Star and captured during an attack by the machines. Marcus makes his way to the resistance base with the help of downed pilot Blair (Moon Bloodgood) but his story takes a crazy turn after John Connor and company find out exactly who he is. This whole twist may not be all that surprising but I really liked what it added to the story and to Marcus’ character. There are some interesting moral questions that are tossed around and some tricky decisions that the characters have to make.

But those things are small pieces in a bigger puzzle put together by director McG (I roll my eyes every time I say his name). This is first and foremost a sci-fi action picture and McG frames some pretty spectacular action sequences. The special effects can be pretty stunning such as during an attack by a giant machine on a small group of survivors hiding at a gas station. It and the wild chase that follows was fantastic. McG also tries to throw in several little things to connect the movie to the previous ones. I admit that they can feel a little forced such as when the cool Guns n’ Roses tune “You Could Be Mine” from T2 pops up. But I also have to admit I responded to the nostalgic bits regardless of how cheap they may have felt. And when a certain familiar CGI face pops up later in the film, I still let out a child-like squeal.

TERM SALV 1

I also like the performances. There’s nothing award worthy from any of the performers but they all feel grounded in the world we see. Bale is as solid as always although he is asked to do a little more shouting than I would have liked. I also liked Yelchin as a young Kyle Reese. He certainly doesn’t look anything like Michael Biehn from the first “Terminator” flick but did Edward Furlong and Nick Stahl resemble at all? But I really liked Sam Worthington here. This is the first film I saw him in and here he’s one tough cookie. I know he hasn’t shown a bit of range since and his acting chops are in question, but I thought he was a perfect fit for this part.

“Terminator Salvation” is a very different movie in the Terminator catalog. It’s not about the future invading our present. It’s about the war the other three movies were trying to prevent. That jolt alone was too much for some people to take. I also understand the absence of Schwarzenegger is a big deal. I mean these were his movies. But for me, those things don’t make this a bad film. The humor is toned down because the times are bad but the action and special effects are mighty good. It has its share of conveniences and head-scratching moments but doesn’t every movie in this franchise? I liked “Terminator Salvation” and while it’s not everyone’s cup of tea, I think it has a place in the series.

VERDICT : “TERMINATOR SALVATION” – 4 STARS

K & M Commentary – The Challenges of the Franchise Reboot

by

32

typewriter-banner 1

Even the most casual moviegoer can recognize that the reboot and remake bug has spread through almost all of Hollywood. Remakes must be the believed remedy for Hollywood’s current bouts with lack of originality and general lack of inspiration. We seem to get loads of them each year. In 2013 alone we get “Lone Ranger”, “Evil Dead”, “Carrie”, “Oldboy”, “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” and more. And there doesn’t seem to be a film that’s exempt from this current craze. I mean regardless of how obviously stupid the idea was, “Footloose” even managed to get a remake.

And then you have franchise reboots which are something different. Through recent years we’ve seen Hollywood attempt to reboot past franchises which hasn’t always been a good idea. Sensing another series of movies and a hefty profit, studios are eager to breath new life into older franchises sometimes at the expense of the property. But reboots bring up a great topic of discussion. How much leniency do you give filmmakers when they’re rebooting or remaking cherished material? How much should be forgiven or overlooked in the name of a fresh new vision?

I’ve heard some people say that only fanboys get worked up over this type of thing. Some are able to completely disassociate the new reboot from the original film or series it’s based on. Those invested find the source material sacred and feel that a serious divergence from it is criminal. I’m somewhere in the middle. I’m all for having a new vision but it has to be tempered with respect for the source material. This is an even bigger deal when you’re attempting to remake a property that has a deep and beloved history as well as a firm following.

Just last week we saw the release of “Star Trek Into Darkness“, the second film since the franchise was rebooted in 2009. The first movie was widely successful and most have really embraced it as a great reboot. Personally I can’t call it great because of its mangling of some key points in the source material and its redefining of some big characters. Yet others, many of them Star Trek fans, have given the movie a pass for this. Am I too attached to the original material? Are they too flippant with it? I think the answer lies in the overall quality of the movie. Even with its flaws, “Star Trek” is still a fun and highly entertaining film. It’s a lot easier to overlook blemishes or freedoms when the overall product is so strong.

But there are examples of reboots (or in this case an attempted reboot) that can’t overcome the altered vision of the filmmakers. 2006’s “Superman Returns” was the vehicle that would get another Surperman franchise up and running. While the film had a good box office showing, infighting and dissatisfaction with the film and the Superman character scratched the planned sequel. That was a good idea because “Superman Returns” was a reboot that didn’t work in large part due to the treatment of the characters. It’s an okay movie up until the end where the source material is flushed and a new more modern twist had me and many others checking out. This “vision” from the filmmakers helped kill this franchise before it got started.

These same liberties have also killed other franchises particularly in the superhero/comic book genre. “X-Men: The Last Stand” was an atrocious trampling of the X-Men’s near 50 year-long history. Killing Cyclops within the first 5 minutes of the film on top of several other lesser but equally uncalled for liberties ended up burying the franchise. “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” was hoped to be the first of several X-Men origin films but the absurd obliteration of these characters and their history proved to be a bad move. In the end it was a bad movie and the “X-Men Origins” idea was canned. Once again the sacrifice of the rich source material for new visions didn’t pay off.

There’s a fine line that a filmmaker must walk when it comes to rebooting new material. For some it just comes down to whether or not it’s a good movie. For others, the film’s appreciation and respect for the source material is part of what makes the movie good. Do I think filmmakers should be stripped of any creativity and vision when rebooting a popular property? Absolutely not. A simple rehash of what’s already been done offers nothing new or fresh. But when you have a beloved series, book, comic book character, etc. the history should always be respected. And if you the filmmakers choose to drastically alter that, don’t be surprised if there aren’t those who take issue with it.

REVIEW: “Safety Not Guaranteed”

by

29

Safety Not poster “Safety Not Guaranteed” is a modest little movie from writer Derek Connolly and director Colin Trevorrow. With a budget well under $1 million, “Safety Not Guaranteed” puts its focus on a smart and witty script and solid performances from its cast. It turns out to be a nice concoction featuring a mixture of drama, romantic comedy, and even a pinch of science fiction. But everything revolves around the characters and that’s where this movie will either sink or swim. Fortunately it does swim.

Supposedly “Safety Not Guaranteed” was inspired by an actual classified ad that was placed in a magazine as a joke. In the movie a writer for a Seattle-based magazine named Jeff (Jake Johnson) and two interns, Darius (Aubrey Plaza), a frustrated college graduate with no real direction for her life, and Arnau (Karan Soni) who is only there to diversify his resume, are sent to the small town of Ocean View to investigate and write a story about this unusual classified ad. The ad was placed by someone seeking a partner to venture with him back in time. Knowing the person is nuts yet smelling a good story, the three trace the ad to a seemingly harmless grocery store worker named Kenneth (Mark Duplass).

Now Darius is really the main character here and I thought Aubrey Plaza was very good. Having only seen her small part in “Damsels in Distress” and a little bit of the underwhelming “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World”, I wasn’t that familiar with Plaza’s work. Her character is very well written but it’s Plaza who brings her to life. Darius is witty and intelligent but she has no sense of place in the world. That’s one reason she can see past Kenneth’s eccentricities and feel genuine sympathy for him. Duplass is also good and I had a hard time figuring him out. Was he certifiably insane? Was he a sad man trying to make up for a sad past? Was he smarter than everyone was giving him credit for? This question is the centerpiece for the entire film.

safety_not_guaranteed 1

There are also some scenes featuring some really good humor. Jake Johnson’s Jeff character is for the most part a detestable jerk. He basically took the assignment so he could hook up with an old girlfriend of his that lives in the community. He’s arrogant and pompous but he can also be pretty funny especially when he’s giving Arnau a hard time. Arnau is your typical socially awkward geek who’s more interested in his tricked out gaming laptop than anything else. His dry and low-key lines probably made me laugh more than any other thing in the film. I’m not familiar with anything else Karan Soni has been in but he cracked me up repeatedly.

“Safety Not Guaranteed” is a small but precise little picture that’s very efficient with what it has. Derek Connolly’s smart script actually has a lot more going on than what’s on the surface. I really appreciated that. Now I won’t say that this is a movie that will leave a sweet, long-lasting taste in your mouth. But it certainly is an entertaining picture wrapped in a tight 86 minute package. And in those 86 minutes you’ll find some good humor and heart and I assure you that after the final scene you’ll be smiling just like me. Short, simple, and sweet.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS