Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • dell71
    Enter Sandman
    • Mar 2009
    • 23919


    The Sessions
    Directed by Ben Lewin.
    2012. Rated R, 95 minutes.
    Cast:
    John Hawkes
    Helen Hunt
    William H. Macy
    Moon Bloodgood
    Annika Marks
    Adam Arkin
    Rhea Perlman
    W. Earl Brown
    Robin Weigert
    Jennifer Kumiyama
    Blake Lindsley
    Rusty Schwimmer

    Numerous movies are made every year about getting laid. Excluding porn, the mechanics of the actual act are often left out or only briefly touched upon with the focus on the romance that will culminate in love-making. In The Sessions, how sex is actually performed is a major plot point. The issue is that our protagonist, Mark (Hawkes), was stricken with polio at a very young age. He cannot move anything except his head and is a virgin. Now, at age 38 and after being contacted for a story about sex and the disabled, he finds himself really wanting to gain some experience in that area. Of course, finding a partner is no small feat. Eventually, he begins seeing Cheryl (Hunt), a sex surrogate who agrees to work with him. Together during their weekly sessions, they try to figure out the physicality of the doing the wild thing when one of the participants is immobile.

    Needless to say, Mark, who has only experienced rejection by those he’s interested in, becomes emotionally involved. This is where the movie really grabs hold of you. We wind up badly wanting two things for him. First, he’s so sweet and innocent we wish we could shield him from the seemingly inevitable crushing blow that will come. Second, we want to see him fulfilled. After all, shouldn’t everyone feel the joy of sex at least once in their life? Our two motivations don’t always work with one another. Through an astoundingly charming performance by John Hawkes, Mark is worthy of both our sympathy and empathy. Even though he literally lies still throughout the movie, he still manages an impressive range of emotion. Incidentally, given the graphic nature of the film, I imagine lying still wasn’t such an easy task. He’s becoming one of my favorite actors, having quietly built an impressive resume filled with powerful portrayals.


    The flip side of Hawkes’ restraint is the unshakeable bravery of the work done by Helen Hunt. Not least of the reasons it has to considered courageous is because most of her screen-time is spent naked. Lesser movies use nudity as a tool to keep our attention, or to objectify. Even here, her character’s job description is pretty much being a sex object. The genius of the directing, the writing, and finally, Hunt herself, is they all refuse to let that be all there is to her. She’s a fully formed being grown from the Hollywood archetype of the hooker with a heart of gold, but is so much more.

    Before sitting down to watch this, I had a vague idea of the subject matter and that Hunt was often in her birthday suit. Only a few days prior, I watched 50/50 so I was somewhat ready for a heavy drama about sex and illness. What I was totally unprepared for was just how funny this movie is. Though I’d not heard that it was a comedy, I laughed as hard at this as any 2012 movie I’ve seen, so far (I know it’s now 2013, but I’m still working on it). The possible exceptions being The Man with the Iron Fists and The Expendables 2. However, I laughed at those for entirely different reasons. Much of the credit for the hilarity goes to two people: William H. Macy and Moon Bloodgood. Macy plays the priest who befriends Mark and listens to his confessions. This has to be done out in the open because the gurney Mark travels on obviously won’t fit in the confessional booth. As you might imagine, there is much talk of sex which leads to some uncomfortable moments for both the priest and parishioners who happen to overhear. Macy’s timing is impeccable and his reactions are priceless. Bloodgood plays one of Mark’s attendants. In contrast to Macy, she performs her role in a perfectly understated manner. Her matter-of-factness about everything is the stuff deadpan comics dream of. All of this fits easily into the narrative. Humor and drama combine to make The Sessions a poignantly human experience.

    MY SCORE: 9/10

    Comment

    • dell71
      Enter Sandman
      • Mar 2009
      • 23919


      Tyler Perry’s Madea’s Witness Protection
      Directed by Tyler Perry.
      2012. Rated PG-13, 114 minutes.
      Cast:
      Tyler Perry
      Eugene Levy
      Denise Richards
      Doris Roberts
      Romeo Miller
      John Amos
      Marla Gibbs
      Tom Arnold
      Danielle Campbell
      Devan Leos
      Frank Brennan
      Nelson Bonilla

      Tyler Perry is back in drag, yet again. This time around, Madea’s FBI agent nephew Brian (also Perry) talks her into hiding an entire family while its patriarch George (Levy) is waiting to testify against the mob. His brood is made up of his wife Kate (Richards), their two teenaged children Cindy (Campbell) and Howie (Leos) and George’s senile mother Barbara (Roberts). Already living with her is her brother Joe (Perry the third). Finally, Jake (Miller) is always around trying to figure out how we will get the money to pay off his church’s mortgage after losing it through bad investments. Trite jokes about race and class plus an admittedly rehashed plotline from a Whoopi Goldberg movie ensues.

      By now, I’m 99% immune to the character Madea. I didn’t find her all that funny all those years ago when she first took over the black theater circuit in the plays that served as a springboard to fame and fortune for her performer and creator, Tyler Perry. Now, with each installment in the canon, I find her incrementally less humorous. That’s a problem in a movie where she does lots more talking than anyone else. Obviously, since these pictures keep raking in the dough, it’s a “me” problem, but whatever. More of an issue is that no one else is particularly funny, either. Perry does have some chuckle-worthy moments as Joe, mostly because of the reactions than anything he actually says. Eugene Levy also manages a couple. In a cameo right at the beginning, Tom Arnold is really good. Wily vet Doris Roberts has the most success. She steals all of her scenes though the material she’s working with is hardly groundbreaking. Her moments with Joe are the most entertaining. Unfortunately, the jokes are all paint-by-numbers. Madea or Joe does something “black” and the family has a “white” reaction or vice-versa.

      The story is similarly conventional. The next point in the arc is always easy to sniff out, especially since there is nothing that even threatens to throw us off the scent. So the movie never generates any palpable sense of danger. The one element that may have helped, the people George is protesting against are pretty much absent from the movie. This makes it impossible to see what everyone’s so afraid of. No effort is put into making me give a flip about these people. Without any real heart, Madea’s Witness Protection is just a string of jokes, almost all of which we’ve heard before.

      MY SCORE: 2/10

      Comment

      • dell71
        Enter Sandman
        • Mar 2009
        • 23919


        Side Effects
        Directed by Steven Soderbergh.
        2013. Rated R, 106 minutes.
        Cast:
        Rooney Mara
        Jude Law
        Catherine Zeta-Jones
        Channing Tatum
        Vinessa Shaw
        Ann Dowd
        Polly Draper
        David Costabile
        Mamie Gummer

        Having most recently tackled the super secret agent flick (Haywire) and the stripper movie (Magic Mike), director Steven Soderbergh now wrestles with the psychological/medical thriller. That means someone ends up dead fairly early. We know who did it. We just have to figure out the how, the why and if the person who did it is ultimately responsible. That who is Emily (Mara). She has been holding down the fort while waiting for her husband Martin (Tatum) to come home from prison after being convicted of insider trading. For her, this is even tougher than it is most in a similar situation because she suffers from severe depression. As one person puts it, she’s been putting on a brave face. However, shortly after Martin gets out she starts having dangerous episodes. The first of which, purposely ramming her car into a brick wall, puts her under the care of Dr. Jonathan Banks (Law). He prescribes her some medication and that’s when all the fun begins: more suicide attempts, some hardcore sleepwalking and, ultimately, murder.

        The good doctor seems most affected by all the goings on. Since the case involves a brand spanking new and very high profile drug, he’s constantly hounded by the media. He loses his practice and is in the midst of losing his family as some very ugly things about his past begin to surface. Maintaining they’re not true, he sets out to expose the truth. Jude Law handles the role solidly, if unspectacularly. Of similar caliber in performance is Catherine Zeta-Jones as Dr. Victoria Siebert, Emily’s former shrink. She lets her ‘look at me, I’m smart’ glasses and vividly painted lips do most of the heavy lifting. Tatum, now a Soderbergh regular, doesn’t have much to do until it’s decided he can’t have anything to do at all. Hint.


        The shining star is leading lady Rooney Mara. As with her outstanding turn in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, she gives us a thoroughly damaged young woman. Like the people in the movie, it takes a long while to figure out if she’s a victim or creator of her circumstances. Is she possibly both? Mara wrings every ounce of emotion she can from the character keeping us on our toes.

        Of course, Mara is greatly aided by Soderbergh. The man simply makes beautiful looking movies. Side Effects is no exception. It’s filled with both subtle and bold touches that congeal into exquisite frames. Unfortunately, the story eventually reveals itself to be too generic for him to elevate to greatness. We figure things out too soon because it feels like any number of Basic Instinct clones. The two things that might be considered twists are hardly unexpected. Still, the director’s craftsmanship and the star turn by Mara make for a good first hour or so. After that it devolves into too familiar territory.

        MY SCORE: 7/10

        Comment

        • dell71
          Enter Sandman
          • Mar 2009
          • 23919


          Rock of Ages
          Directed by Adam Shankman.
          2012. Rated PG-13, 123 minutes.
          Cast:
          Tom Cruise
          Julianne Hough
          Diego Boneta
          Alec Baldwin
          Catherine Zeta-Jones
          Russell Brand
          Paul Giamatti
          Bryan Cranston
          Malin Akerman
          Mary J. Blige
          Will Forte
          Kevin Nash

          It is 1987 and The Bourbon Room is a legendary rock-n-roll club on Hollywood’s famed Sunset Strip. It’s where aspiring singers like Sherrie (Hough) come for a job when they’re fresh off the bus from their small hometowns. After all, rock god Stacee Jax (Cruise) got his start there and is coming back for his last show with his band, Arsenal, before embarking on a solo career. It’s where Drew (Boneta) already works. He fancies two things: Sherrie and being the next Stacee Jax. The Bourbon is also in the cross hairs of Mayor Whitmore (Cranston) and his high-profile and overzealous wife Patricia (Zeta-Jones). They are looking to clean up the strip, starting with its most famous den of sin. The Bourbon is run by Dennis (Baldwin) and his right hand man Lonny (Brand) and it is going broke. These storylines swirl about as now classic, pop infused rock songs blare through the speakers.

          Rock of Ages is a musical in the most traditional sense of the word. Anytime and any place, people break into song while whoever is around dutifully provides background vocals and perform choreographed dance routines. Some are better than others, but all of them are cheesy. Regardless, they’re often saved by the sheer power of the songs they’re singing. You pretty much can’t help singing along if you’ve ever heard any of them before which is to say you’ve probably heard them a thousand times. However, after each song is done, we realize that what we just ate is not particularly filling. On the other hand, this changes a bit when there are actual stage performances. Most of them have more genuine emotion and edge to them thanks, in large part, to Tom Cruise. He seems to be channeling Axl Rose, both on and off the stage. It’s a mesmerizing turn by Cruise that, in a better movie, might have earned him some love during awards season.

          The rest of the cast delivers mixed results and are not aided by the hackneyed writing. Paul Giamatti is great because that’s what he always is. Thankfully, he only sings a couple of bars in the whole movie. Bryan Cranston is mostly just there cheering on his wife, or sneaking out of the room to cheat on her. Russell Brand does his best Russell Brand impersonation, take it or leave it. Alec Baldwin is not as good as he is in those Capitol One commercials, except for when he gets to sing. He’s obviously thrilled someone was willing to pay him to croon. Now, he’s not the X factor or anything, but he appears to be having so much fun belting out tunes it’s infectious. That writing let him and Brand down in a major way, though. Musicals are, by nature, contrived. However, the turn their relationship takes feels so forced it’s beyond absurd. It only becomes what it is in order to wedge in the song they sing together. In contrast to Baldwin, we have Catherine Zeta-Jones. She is very good for most of the movie but terribly botches her big number. Her singing is okay, I guess, but watching her stiffly mimic old Michael Jackson moves is painful.


          Speaking of painful, that’s precisely the way to describe the work turned in by our two young lovebirds. Julianne Hough is pretty, but hardly compelling and seems to be replaceable by any number of twenty-something Hollywood blondes. Ditto for Malin Akerman as Rolling Stone reporter Constance Sack. Believe it, or not, Diego Boneta fares even worse as Drew. His character struggles with being true to himself, and be a rocker, or do what his manager wants and front a boy band. Sadly, he’s not believable in either case. And more bad writing hurts him further. Early on, his character suffers from stage-fright. I get that even more suspension of belief is required to watch musicals than most other genres. Still, I’m hard pressed to accept that a guy whom I just saw give a rendition of “I Love Rock ‘n Roll” in a crowded record store, while dancing in the aisles no less, is afraid to sing once someone puts a microphone in front of him.

          The better movie takes place when the two youngsters are not on the screen. It has considerable charm, again, much of which is due to Tom Cruise’s eccentric rock star. The rest is because of the familiar and still catchy songs. These tunes are fun no matter what, but a little less so when performed by Hough and Boneta who come off like a pair of posers. Perhaps, it’s because there is noticeably less grunge to either of them than anyone else in the movie. So, in addition to their blank acting, they’re both just way too glossy. Finally, that writing is just flat lazy as things are resolved suddenly without the end result feeling earned. In summation: see Rock of Ages for the music and Tom Cruise, skip it if you don’t think that will be enough.

          MY SCORE: 5.5/10

          Comment

          • wingsfan77
            Junior Member
            • Aug 2009
            • 3000

            The girlfriend and I hated 'Rock Of Ages' soooooooooo much. We saw it at the $2 theater so it wasn't a huge waste, five minutes in my girlfriend said "we can leave if you want" but I was no because I thought she wanted to stay....turns out she REALLY wanted to walk out haha.

            Comment

            • dell71
              Enter Sandman
              • Mar 2009
              • 23919

              lol. I probably would've been more pissed about it if I had paid to see it at all (local library had a copy).

              Comment

              • dell71
                Enter Sandman
                • Mar 2009
                • 23919


                Identity Thief
                Directed by Seth Gordon.
                2013. Rated R, 111 minutes.
                Cast:
                Melissa McCarthy
                Jason Bateman
                Amanda Peet
                Morris Chestnut
                John Cho
                Jon Favreau
                Génesis Rodríguez
                T.I.
                Robert Patrick
                Eric Stonestreet

                Things are looking up for Sandy Bigelow Patterson (Bateman). He lives in Denver with his lovely wife Trish (Peet) and their two lovely kids and is about to start a new job paying him two hundred fifty thousand dollars per year. In the midst of all this joy, his credit cards start getting declined and he’s arrested for skipping a court date in Florida. Thing is, he’s never even been to Florida. He finds out what we already know: a woman who lives there has stolen his identity. Faced with not only the trhreat of going to jail, but losing his new job even if he doesn’t, Sandy heads to the Sunshine State to clear his feminine, ahem, unisex name. His plan is to bring the perp back to Denver and get her to confess. In case you were somehow wondering, that woman is Diana, played by Melissa McCarthy.

                Thus far in her acting career, McCarthy has proven to be a force of nature. As the identity thief, she is again a ball of boundless comic energy. Bateman is a wonderful straight-man, seemingly a perfect foil for McCarthy’s off the wall antics. On paper, it’s a match made in heaven. On screen, things even start off well. The first half hour or so is entertaining despite being a violent, mean-spirited brand of humor. Bateman chases her down, she chops him in the throat, or does some other heinous thing to him, and scampers off. He chases her down again and the cycle continues. This is precisely the problem. After a funny sex scene, and the inclusion of some gangsters that never fully makes sense, we arrive at the point where we’ve heard all the jokes and seen all the gags this movie has to offer. That joke I cracked about Sandy’s name being feminine? We only hear it about half a million times during the movie. Identity Thief just keeps repeating itself until it mercifully decides to end.

                To their credit, McCarthy and Bateman give it their all. There is a very nice ebb and flow to their scenes together which comprise most of the film. Unfortunately, even the best comedy routines lose their luster after we’ve seen them umpteen times. However, we can sense the spark they have. I think they could make a thoroughly hilarious movie if given better material. What they’re working with here is lazy writing content to let our stars do all the work on their own.

                MY SCORE: 4/10

                Comment

                • dell71
                  Enter Sandman
                  • Mar 2009
                  • 23919


                  Total Recall
                  Directed by Paul Verhoeven.
                  1990. Rated R, 113 minutes.
                  Cast:
                  Arnold Schwarzenegger
                  Rachel Ticotin
                  Sharon Stone
                  Ronny Cox
                  Michael Ironside
                  Marshall Bell
                  Mel Johnson Jr.
                  Michael Champion
                  Ray Baker
                  Rosemary Dunsmore
                  Roy Brocksmith

                  Douglas Quaid (Schwarzenegger) is a construction worker who shares his life with Lori (Stone), his beautiful wife. Things are going great except for one thing: every night he has dreams of being on Mars that include some violent adventures and a lovely brunette. He then spends much of his day thinking of going to the red planet. Soon, he decides to go to Rekall. They’re a company specializing in the fabrication of vacations by injecting you with stuff that makes you believe you’ve actually been wherever it is you want to go without you ever leaving their offices. Of course, things don’t go so smoothly for our hero and what they give him doesn’t seen to take. Nevertheless, his co-worker from the construction job and even his wife are suddenly trying to kill him. Sure enough, the authorities are trying to do the same. He gets some help from a stranger who advises him to get to Mars ASAP. Still not sure of what’s going on, he does. When he gets there he discovers the authorities there are also after him and even the locals hate him. They all think he’s some guy named Hauser. Lots of mayhem ensues while Doug tries to figure out what’s going on and we try to figure out if what we’re seeing is real or part of Doug’s Rekall experience.

                  Total Recall weaves a tale complex enough for thinking viewers yet still simple enough for the shoot ‘em up crowd. The action scenes come at fairly quick intervals while the plot between them twists and folds back on itself. It is of labryinthine design and precise execution. The maze we travel is fun, not frustrating even if we’re not always positive of what we’re watching. It is that rare popcorn flick that manages to both entertain the masses and screw with their heads.


                  Never known as a master thespian, star Arnold Schwarzenegger gives what is arguably his best performance. For a change, he goes beyond grunts and one-liners to give us something resembling a real human being. It’s also the only one of his better portrayals from before he became a parody of himself. Of course, the action sequences come natural to him so no worries there. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting he should’ve been recognized by the Academy, or anything. I’m simply saying he’s better than usual.

                  As with any older sci-fi flicks, how well the fx have held up is a concern. The mutants are all marvels of the grotesque. Occasionally, it is too apparent that something is a prosthetic or is just a bit hokey looking. Thankfully, this doesn’t happen too often. In fact, I’d say there are just as many occurrences of things that still look really good.

                  Looking back through Arnie’s filmography hindsight makes it clear this is one of his most ambitious movies. It is not content to simply let him beat up a bunch of people and crack lame jokes. There are a couple of corny moments, but TR actually challenges us. The trick is that it does so without going over our heads, but still giving us enough to keep us locked in. For my money, it’s his best aside from the original Terminator.

                  MY SCORE: 8.5/10

                  Comment

                  • dell71
                    Enter Sandman
                    • Mar 2009
                    • 23919


                    Total Recall
                    Directed by Len Wiseman.
                    2012. Rated PG-13, 118 minutes.
                    Cast:
                    Colin Farrell
                    Kate Beckinsale
                    Jessica Biel
                    Bryan Cranston
                    Bokeem Woodbine
                    Bill Nighy
                    John Cho
                    Will Yun Lee
                    Mishael Morgan
                    Natalie Lisinska

                    In this version of the future, there are only two inhabitable places left on our great planet. To oversimplify, the more affluent folks live in Britain, also where the good jobs are, while poor people live in Australia, known as The Colony. In true dystopian fashion, the government is engaged in a bloody war with rebels from The Colony. Our focus is on Douglas Quaid (Farrell). He’s a regular joe from The Colony who works in Britain assembling automated police officers. Yes, it’s one helluva commute. He’s married to Lori (Beckinsale), a real-live cop. Despite all the chaos of the world around him, Doug’s biggest concern is the recurring nightmare he has and what it means. He decides to do something about it and finds himself at Rekall. They inject you with memories of whatever it is you want. Just about the time he gets strapped into the chair, the law bursts in shooting. Much to his own surprise, Doug manages to kill a bunch of flesh and blood cops plus some synthetic ones and escapes. Now, he really has to find out what’s going on. Yup, it’s a remake of the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie of the same name. Both are based on the Phillip K. Dick short story We’ll Remember It For You, Wholesale.

                    For those of us old enough to remember, or with a hankering for old sci-fi and/or Governator flicks, the muscle-bound Austrian in the room is that original. This one keeps the action here on Earth as opposed to Mars, does away with mutants with one three-boobed exception (one of a few homages to the first movie) and the limited oxygen supply. Vibrant and varied colors are traded in for a fairly monochromatic look. It also combines a few different characters into one and ramps up the action. In fact, there are times when it feels like one continuous chase scene. While this is fun, it’s not always filling. For starters, our hero’s motivation for going to Rekall in the first place is misguided. In Arnold’s version, it was clear. Doug dreams about Mars all the time and wants to go, but can’t afford it, so he goes to Rekall for the next best thing. Farrell’s Quaid should be walking into a psychiatrist’s office, not a place where reality is manufactured. Nonetheless, that’s where he goes. Okay, fine.


                    From there, thankfully, much is the same between the two films. Most of the plot points from the original are hit, sometimes in a different order, but they are there. Farrell gives us a wild-eyed, bewildered performance that serves the film well. He gets plenty of help from some pretty awesome special fx, the hyperkinetic pacing and he two ladies fighting over him. Kate Beckinsale is in her cold-blooded Selene mode, sans vampire teeth and tight black leather. Biel is her more compassionate, but equal, opposite. The two provide more than their fair share of the action including some knock-down drag-outs with Farrell and each other. If there is a clear advantage for this movie over its predecessor they are it. Together, they dwarf what Sharon Stone and Rachel Ticotin were able to accomplish in the original.

                    That said, Total Recall still falls well short of Arnie’s film. It forsakes storytelling in favor of being bigger and brawnier. The result is a movie that’s fun to sit through but seems to be lacking all the little touches that make the first movie special. Of course, if you haven’t seen the original, this is irrelevant to you and this version will probably work just fine. In fact, if you go back and watch the older movie after seeing this one, you might find it dated and think I’m crazy. Still, I’m not quite on the bandwagon with all those folks calling this a horrible picture. True, it lacks the nuance of its predecessor making it feel emptier. However, I don’t think it is a bad movie. It’s just not my Total Recall.

                    MY SCORE: 6/10

                    Comment

                    • JimLeavy59
                      War Hero
                      • May 2012
                      • 7199

                      The remake was too boring and to me it just dragged on felt like a two and half hour movie.

                      Comment

                      • dell71
                        Enter Sandman
                        • Mar 2009
                        • 23919

                        Honestly, I thought it went by pretty quickly since it was almost all action scenes. It probably helps that I was watching with my wife & son who were both really enjoying it.

                        Comment

                        • Pitty
                          Death, Taxes, Jeff Capel
                          • Feb 2009
                          • 7541

                          Originally posted by dell71

                          Lawless
                          Directed by John Hillcoat.
                          2012. Rated R, 116 minutes
                          Cast:
                          Shia LaBeouf
                          Tom Hardy
                          Jessica Chastain
                          Guy Pearce
                          Gary Oldman
                          Mia Wasikowska
                          Jason Clarke
                          Dane DeHaan
                          Chris McGarry
                          Tim Tolan
                          Noah Taylor

                          In Prohibition Era Franklin, Virginia legend has it that local moonshiners, The Bondurant brothers are indestructible. This is said to be especially true of Forrest (Hardy), the eldest and leader of the trio. Calling him the strong, silent type is an understatement on both counts. He’s usually flanked by Howard (Clarke), the largest of the bunch, and worried about Jack (LaBeouf), the runt of the litter. Just about everyone else in town is also in the moonshine business and business is good. It’s good enough that they’ve attracted the attention of their counterparts from the big city who send some corrupt lawmakers down to muscle in on the backwoods action. The whole town gives up without a fight, except Forrest and his brethren. Forrest not running ensues.

                          The main strength of Lawless is its characters. As Forrest, Tom Hardy is ridiculously good, again proving he’s among the very best actors woking today. Without mugging for the camera, his face says everything it needs to. His Forrest is clearly a man that measures his words whenever he can and has supreme confidence in himself. He actually believes that bit about being indestructible. Still, he’s very smart and doesn’t let his ego make him entirely wreckless, usually. On the other hand, baby brother Jack is pretty much the opposite: a big talker who likes to show off with fancy suits and cars. It’s a surprisingly good performance from Shia LaBeouf. Jessica Chastain, as Maggie, is also solid, as usual. So is Gary Oldman who gets way too little time on screen. However, it’s Forrest’s rival, Special Agent Rakes that steals the show. A bizarrely made up Guy Pearce does the honors. You will love to hate him.

                          Lawless also maintains an excellent pace. The action is often brutal and the stretches between action scenes are filled with tension and, surprisingly, humor. These attributes, combined with the wonderful cast, make this a very entertaining movie. A time, or two, ti does stretch the idea of Forrest’s invincibility incredibly thin. Other times, Howard and Maggie blend in with the furniture, not give quite enough to do. That said, it is still an incredibly watchable film that absorbs us into its fabric.

                          MY SCORE: 8/10
                          The acting was great, but when isn't Tom Hardy amazing?

                          The problem I had with this movie is

                           
                          Everyone keeps surviving injuries that in the 1930's would easily result in death 100% of the time. Either West Virginia has the best surgeon of the 1930's or they were 20 years ahead of the country in medical technology.


                          Also the remake of Total Recall was complete trash, an awful adaptation of a great Philip K. Dick story that puts all notions of social tension in the most generic, irrelevant form I've ever watched. Like when Chairman Cohagen is launching his assault the people in the Colony are just like "Uh what is happening here?"

                          Comment

                          • dell71
                            Enter Sandman
                            • Mar 2009
                            • 23919

                            Originally posted by Pitty
                            The acting was great, but when isn't Tom Hardy amazing?

                            The problem I had with this movie is

                             
                            Everyone keeps surviving injuries that in the 1930's would easily result in death 100% of the time. Either West Virginia has the best surgeon of the 1930's or they were 20 years ahead of the country in medical technology.


                            Also the remake of Total Recall was complete trash, an awful adaptation of a great Philip K. Dick story that puts all notions of social tension in the most generic, irrelevant form I've ever watched. Like when Chairman Cohagen is launching his assault the people in the Colony are just like "Uh what is happening here?"
                            For me, the Total Recall remake is just 'meh'. I enjoyed but thought it fell way short of the original. And I've never read the story so I don't have that angle.

                            As for 'Lawless'

                             
                            You're right about the injuries people sustained but, particularly in the case of Forrest and Jack, it was a way to show why people in town thought they were invincible.

                            Comment

                            • dell71
                              Enter Sandman
                              • Mar 2009
                              • 23919


                              The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975
                              Directed by Göran Olsson.
                              2011. Not Rated, 100 minutes.
                              Cast:
                              Angela Davis
                              Stokely Carmichael
                              Bobby Seale
                              Abiodun Oyewole
                              Danny Glover
                              Harry Belafonte
                              Talib Kweli
                              Ahmir-Khalib “?uestlove” Thompson
                              Erykah Badu
                              Kathleen Cleaver
                              Robin Kelley

                              America’s tumultuous 1960s have been well documented. As you should know, this includes the Civil Rights Movement. Though large portions of what went on, particularly things not directly involving Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. or a Kennedy, are still obscure to the masses there is plenty of footage out there for one to begin to educate oneself. Of course, almost all of what has been available was shot and reported on by the American media or various civilians. The is where The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975 differs. It was shot by Swedish media for their own news reports. This is footage most of us have never seen and with a point of view never heard. It’s also commented on by a number of famous African-Americans, seeing it for the first time themselves. Some of them lived through the era while others belong to a younger generation of entertainers and speak more to the lasting effects of the movement.

                              Much of our time is spent on three aspects: the work of Stokely Carmichael, the trial of Angela Davis and the rise and fall of the Black Panther Party. There are plenty of old interviews with those involved and commentary by the Swedes doing the reporting. It crystallizes the way at least one nation besides our own viewed what was going on. In a few instances we hear from Americans who actually went to Sweden during this time and reacted to the way things were being portrayed. Often, it’s eerily similar to the way we depict certain foreign situations. Imagine a country in which America is sympathetic to the rebels organizing against a corrupt government and “60 Minutes” or “Nightline” doing an exposé on this. That’s effectively what we’re shown. The difference is there is never any threat of Swedish intervention. They’re just curious to see how we will sort our mess.

                              The film moves forward in sections marked by the changing of each year in the title to the next, ending with ’75. This tactic provides a compressed, but eye-opening look at how much America changed, and some of the reasons why, in less than a decade. Still, this isn’t a comprehensive history. We aren’t inundated with details on the inner-workings of all things Civil Rights. As our timeline suggests, it’s more interested in what happened post-MLK, the more neglected portion of the movement. The title also tells us it is a mixtape. To oversimplify for those unaware, a mixtape is generally not a homogenized effort by the artist(s). It’s often music made between albums or a collection of the music of various performers mixed and edited in news ways. This is fitting for the movie because what we see was not originally shot with the intended purpose of making a documentary. It’s a collection of footage we’re not familiar with crafted into a poignant storyline. Because of this, it has a freshness unexpected of a documentary highlighting events from roughly forty years ago.

                              MY SCORE: 8.5/10

                              Comment

                              • dell71
                                Enter Sandman
                                • Mar 2009
                                • 23919


                                Judge Dredd
                                Directed by Danny Cannon.
                                1995. Rated R, 96 minutes.
                                Cast:
                                Sylvester Stallone
                                Armand Assante
                                Diane Lane
                                Max von Sydow
                                Rob Schneider
                                Jürgen Prochnow
                                Joanna Miles
                                Joan Chen

                                Now that the world has finally gone to hell in a hand-basket, the powers that be have done away with the little nuisance known as due process. The police, now known as judges, are that plus jury and sometimes executioners. In lieu of trials, judges sentence people on the spot. The only people above them are the chief judges. Think of them as the Supreme Court. The most feared of the judges is the emotionless Judge Dredd (Stallone). In true Sly fashion, he shows up and bad guys die.

                                Two important things happen to set our story in motion. First, really bad guy Rico (Assante) escapes from prison. Second, Dredd is charged with the murder of one of the chief judges. Lucky for him, he is afforded a trial since he is an officer of the law. In the absence of actual lawyers, society has no use for them, he’s represented by his partner Judge Hershey (Lane). All of this is a fine setup and holds together pretty well. There are some nice narrative touches along the way in regards to Dredd’s two main relationships: the one with his partner that’s built on mutual respect but underlined by sexual tension and a father-son type bond between our hero and Chief Judge Fargo (von Sydow).


                                From a technical standpoint, the special fx are still solid after almost twenty years. The only real issue, visually, is that shots of the characters interacting on the ground, within city limits have a small feel to them. Rather than seeming to take place in a sprawling, decaying metropolis, it’s pretty clearly a studio lot. Even so, this isn’t a deal-breaker.

                                Rest assured, there is a deal-breaker. The problem is in the execution. Everything is slathered in cheese. It’s all way over the top merely because it’s a comic book movie, but without respect to the tone of its source material. Having Stallone play the titular role doesn’t exactly help. His performance is exceedingly hokey, even by his standards. He literally poses for the camera, struts along in an effected manner and barks all his lines. Of course, action scenes start with his prerequisite battle cry. The sum of his efforts equal a six year old with a towel tied around his neck for a cape screaming “Look at me! I’m a superhero!” Actually, the whole movie says this. That’s because despite having a decent story, the dialogue is cliché riddled from the opening credits on. Sadly, the one exception is the comic relief Rob Schneider provides. Most of it feels ad-libbed and is occasionally funny.

                                In 1995, superhero flicks were still in their infancy as big budget blockbusters. Released only a couple weeks after Joel Schumacher began his assault on the Batman franchise with Batman Forever, Judge Dredd was one of the first comic book movies, aside from The Caped Crusader and the then defunct Superman franchise, to have a lot of money behind it. However, once the rights were purchased to this and a number of such characters over the next few years, the people who made the comics were hardly involved, if at all. The filmmakers were on their own to figure the proper balance of what would work for mainstream audiences and what fanboys wanted. Not surprisingly, they often erred on the side of what they thought would create the biggest box office. It was a relentless drilling down the to the lowest common denominator leaving soulless actioneers that geeks like me saw as egregious misreadings of the source material, if not flat out disrespectful of it. They usually made money but didn’t leave anyone clamoring for sequels. Unfortunately, JD is no exception. If nothing else, it misses the easy chance for social commentary that may have elevated it beyond being carried by a couple of exciting sequences. The character and his story is ripe for it. We never get it.

                                MY SCORE: 5/10

                                Comment

                                Working...