Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[Palooza]

I think I knew what the "twist" was already, but I totally forgot about it when I watched the movie. I got sucked in.

 

[Houston]

I definitely wasn't expecting to like Kung Fu Panda 2 as much as I did. Gary Oldman did it again, I loved his character's "It's your parting gift" line.

 

[dell71]

Ong-Bak
<strong>Directed by Prachya Pinkaew.</strong>
<em>2003. Rated R, 105 minutes.
Cast:
Tony Jaa
Petchtai Wongkamlao
Pumwaree Yodkamol
Suchao Pongwilai
Chumphorn Thepphithak
Cheathavuth Watcharakhun
Wannakit Sirioput</em>​

A country boy goes to the big city and kicks a whole lotta ass. By the way, I mean that literally. He doesn’t often kick, like with his foot or punch, like with his hand. He’s hitting guys with elbows, knees, even his entire torso. By guys, I mean lots of guys. Make that lots and lots of guys. There’s so many guys that he has to escape from time to time to catch his breath. By escape, I mean flipping over guys, walking on their heads, climbing a wall and hopping a fence without using his hands, etc. Then he gets back to kickin’ ass. When it’s all over I’ve lost track of just how many asses he’s kicked. Yes, I mean that literally.

Um, plot? There is one, I guess. Our hero’s name is Ting (Jaa). He’s from a small village where they worship a Buddha-like figure called Ong-Bak. Heeeyyyyy, I wonder if that’s where they got the idea for the title. Duh. Anyhoo, Ong-Bak is symbolized by a statue they keep in their sanctuary. One of the young guys who left the village, moved to the big city and became a hoodlum steals the statue’s head in hopes of selling it for big bucks. Besides this, two things let us know there’s going to be a lof of fightin’. First, Ting volunteers to bring back Ong-Bak, by himself of course. More importantly, Ting’s master tells him that even though he taught him everything there is to know about Muay Thai, he doesn’t want him to ever use it. Hot diggity dang! As soon as I heard that I knew it was on. I hit pause, went and popped some popcorn, poured myself a tall glass of the beverage of my choice and spilled it all over the place as I ran back to the couch, picked up the remote and pressed play.

I’ve already spent too much time on the plot. Truthfully, the movie does this also. We mosey along at a pace that’s a little too slow as we’re introduced to new characters and the dynamics between them are set up. None of them warrants any mention as particularly interesting. What is interesting is when we get beyond all that and our hero gets down to business. Once he gets going, <em>Ong-Bak</em> becomes a special movie. Tony Jaa makes it so. The things he does are simply amazing. And yes, these are all organic stunts performed by Mr. Jaa himself. By organic I mean it really is all him, no cgi and no wires. It’s a stunning display of athleticism reminiscent of a young Jackie Chan, but without the comedic overtones.

For fans of martial arts flicks, this is a must-see. It’s more than worth the time it takes to wade through the less than thrilling first act to get to the non-stop fighting portion of the movie. Don’t come into this with any notions of a well-crafted scripted, character development, good acting or any other high saditty ideas. This is all about high-flyin’, bone-crunchin’ action. It’s all about amazing feats of human physicality. It’s all about a country boy going to the big city and kickin’ a whole lotta ass. Literally.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6/10</strong>

<strong>MARTIAL ARTS MOVIE SCORE: 9/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Moneyball
<strong>Directed by Bennett Miller.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated PG-13, 133 minutes.
Cast:
Brad Pitt
Jonah Hill
Philip Seymour-Hoffman
Robin Wright
Chris Pratt
Stephen Bishop
Brent Jennings
Jack McGee
Nick Porrazzo</em>​

Billy Beane (Pitt) was a can’t miss baseball prospect that did indeed miss. Now, he’s General Manager of the Oakland Athletics, responsible for acquiring players to put on the field. After a 2001 season in which his team nearly reached the World Series, he’s lost his three best players to the big money contracts they’ve been offered by larger market teams. He has to figure out how to put together a competitive team on a shoestring budget.

Like any self-respecting sports movie, <em>Moneyball</em> isn’t about the sport that makes up the action scenes. It’s about the people involved. In this case, it’s Billy and, to a lesser degree, Peter Brand (Hill). Billy is a man already under pressure. The fact he can only spend a third of what some of his competitors can makes it so. He wants to think outside the box, but the people who’ve been advising him for many years are stuck in their traditional mindset.

This is where Peter comes in. For lack of a better description, Pete is a stat-geek. However, he is of a breed not yet accepted by the establishment. Baseball has always been about numbers to a degree greater than other sports. The question is are the numbers once deemed of supreme importance giving way to a new set of statistics. The old guys already working for Billy can talk doubles, triples, homeruns and runs batted in, endlessly. Pete analyzes players differently. He uses their numbers for raw data, inputs them into mathematical equations and comes up with opinions on players that are often far different that what old school baseball people think.

Though he’s not the protagonist, Pete is the movie’s most important and best written character. He fully embodies a new ideology. In him, we see what Billy is hoping is the wave of the future. He’s the best written because he’s constantly walking a tightrope, teetering on the edge of losing the audience. Anytime he speaks more than a couple sentences at a time, <em>MB</em> risks making people hate the very concept he and Billy so feverently push because it can feel like a steady stream of baseball nerd jargon that many people don’t care or want to hear about. Magically, he speaks just enough that viewers with even minimal understanding of the sport get a vague idea of what he does and why everyone else tells he and Billy that they’re crazy.

Still, Billy’s drama drives the movie. There’s the aforementioned pressure he’s facing which includes probably losing not only his job, but Pete’s as well. We also get to see Billy’s close relationship with his daughter. She lives with his ex and worries about her dad. After all, specualation about whether he should be fired is extremely public. It’s a story arc we’re familiar with. Whatever is lacking in the way of suspense, Brad Pitt makes up for with his sheer magnetism. He’s compelling without being showy. He’s pretty much the difference between <em>MB</em> being a decent sports flick and being an excellent film of any type.

In tone and style <em>MB</em> resembles <em>The Social Network</em>. Of course, we’re replacing Jesse Eisenberg’s sullenness with Pitt’s movie star wattage. Both movies represent changes in our collective thinking. The way <em>Facebook</em> helped revolutionize the way we communicate, so too does the ideals championed by Billy and Pete to the way baseball teams are structured, or so we’re told. Hardcore fans of the sport may bristle at the omission of contributions to the team’s success made by shortstop Miguel Tejada. The fact that he was named the American League’s Most Valuable Player with some very big traditional numbers in 2002 flies in the face of the notion that Beane is working strictly with castoffs and misfits. However, if you don’t know or care who Tejada is you won’t miss him. In fact, that may add to your enjoyment. Whether or not it gets all the particulars of the 2002 Major League Baseball season right isn’t important. What is important is that it symbolizes another triumph for the cyber generation. It’s another nail in the coffin of the 20th century.

<strong>MY SCORE: 8/10</strong>​

 

[NAHSTE]

Still think Moneyball is more enjoyable for non-baseball fans. Fans who know what actually happened know that nothing is really at stake, and for that reason there is no dramatic tension.

I know that in real life Billy Beane was not in any real danger of being fired, and I know that the 2002 A's will never end up winning a climactic series. The dramatic tension is basically wrapped up in whether they could continue with a noteworthy, but ultimately meaningless, 20 game win streak in the regular season.

It's a solid watch, thanks mainly to Hill and Pitt's comedic chemistry IMO, but I felt it lacked any drama or suspense.

 

[dell71]

Zookeeper
<strong>Directed by Frank Coraci.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated PG, 102 minutes.
Cast:
Kevin James
Rosario Dawson
Leslie Bibb
Ken Jeong
Donnie Wahlberg
Joe Rogan
Sylvester Stallone
Nick Nolte
Adam Sandler
Cher
Judd Apatow
Jon Favreau
Maya Rudolph
Faizon Love</em>​

Five years after being dumped by Stephanie (Bibb), the girl he planned on marrying, Griffin (James) still pines for her. When she pops up at his brother’s engagement party, he completely freaks out and desperately tries thinking up ways to get her back. Just so you understand what’s going on here, let’s explain a bit more. Stephanie left Griffin largely due t o the fact that he is indeed just a zookeeper, hence the title. She’s quite high maintenance and is looking for someone to finance the life she wants to lead. He also has an attractive co-worker named Kate (Dawson) whom he’s never thought of in “that way.” Kate’s obviously a more genuine person than Stephanie. So far we’re in pretty familiar rom-com territory and you can probably already figure out how this will end. Trust me, there are no surprises at all.

If you’ve seen any other romantic comedies then you know that our would be Romeo has friends that give him bad advice on how to win Stephanie’s heart. If you’ve seen the trailer then you’ve already guessed the only thing that makes this different from most movies of its kind. The friends are actually the animals at the zoo. Yes, they talk.

All comedies with talking animals can’t be terrible, can they? Let’s give this one a chance. After all, it can’t be that bad if George Clooney decided to lend his voice to it. Oh wait, that’s not Clooney. That’s Sly Stallone as Joe the Lion. That monkey is obviously Adam Sandler. Well, no need in watching the rest of this. Unfortunately, it’s not that easy for me. My youngest daughter has wanted to see this for months. I contemplate jumping up and kicking hole in the screen, then explaining that I saw a bug. That’s too costly. Hey, I think I just heard Cher…and Faizon Love…and Nick Nolte? Yup, that’s Nolte. My daughter chuckles. I’m screwed.

Resigned to my fate, I wade through the muck. Like I said, everything that happens plot-wise is telegraphed from the last thirty rom-coms you watched. There is the occasional laugh. The scene involving Griffin, Bernie the gorilla (Nolte) and a trip to T. G. I. Friday’s is the most amusing scene. Even that’s only worth a few snickers. At least Rosario Dawson is always nice to look at. Still, ogling her whenever she’s on the screen isn’t nearly enough to save this dreck. Skip it if you can. If not, you have my condolences.

<strong>MY SCORE: 2.5/10</strong>​

 

[Maynard]

if you can’t understand the brilliance behind the “pee meter”, you’ll never get this movie.

i did not understand the brilliance behind the pee meter. i was hoping u could provide some insight as to why this was so brilliant?

i didnt love or hate this film. i watched it at 7 am this morning while i am sick...not exactly great movie watching conditions.

 

[spiker]

I like that you added a "martial arts score" to your score for Ong Bak because it's awesome as far as the genre goes, but it is what it is. Nothing deep or anything, just a whole lot of awesome ass kicking. The Protector is another one you should check out if you enjoyed Ong Bak. Don't see Ong Bak 2. LOL

 

[dell71]

i did not understand the brilliance behind the pee meter. i was hoping u could provide some insight as to why this was so brilliant?

i didnt love or hate this film. i watched it at 7 am this morning while i am sick...not exactly great movie watching conditions.

For me, the pee meter is first a great homage to old school video games. Second, the fact Scott has one also speaks to how much video game culture has come to permeate our lives.

I like that you added a "martial arts score" to your score for Ong Bak because it's awesome as far as the genre goes, but it is what it is. Nothing deep or anything, just a whole lot of awesome ass kicking. The Protector is another one you should check out if you enjoyed Ong Bak. Don't see Ong Bak 2. LOL

I've seen "The Protector", lots of epic stuff in there as well. I was thinking about seeing "Ong Bak 2" fairly soon. Might put it off, now.

 

[dell71]

The Smurfs
<strong>Directed by Raja Gosnell.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated PG, 103 minutes.
Cast:
Hank Azaria
Neil Patrick Harris
Jonathan Winters
George Lopez
Katy Perry
Jayma Mays
Sofia Vergara
Fred Armisen
Anton Yelchin
Kenan Thompson
Jeff Foxworthy
Tim Gunn</em>​

There was a time when “The Smurfs” were a part of my Saturday morning routine. This not only included the show, but also Smurfberry Crunch cereal whenever I could get it. Watching Papa Smurf, Smurfette and the other 99 smurfs foil the evil Gargamel week after week was wholesome cheesy 80s fun. If, back then, a movie based on that show and including real-live people were to come out I would’ve been smurfed to see it. I would’ve saved up the twenty bucks to get me and my siblings each a ticket. Wow, $20 for four of us. Remember those days? Anyhoo, we would’ve been first in the smurfing line the day it opened. Now, better than a quarter century later and having seen numerous craptacular movies based on old TV shows, I’m not so smurfed. Regardless, here I am losing to curiosity and fatherhood once again. Of course my daughter wanted to see this. What? I can’t take all the smurfing blame.

As usual, Papa Smurf (Winters) and his clan of little blue people take on the smurf obsessed Gargamel (Azaria). What’s different is the setting. On the show, nearly every episode took place entirely in the area just big enough to include both Smurf Village and Gargamel’s castle. The movie starts us there but very quickly a half-dozen smurfs, Gargamel and his equally evil cat Azriel wind up in New York City through a bit of hocus pocus. Our heroes spend the rest of the movie trying to find whatever magic is necessary to get back home and avoid Gargamel.

While in the Big Apple, Papa and crew wind up crashing at the apartment of a young married couple, Patrick (Harris) and his pregnant wife Grace (Mays). He’s a career driven ad exec smurfing for his relentless boss Odile (Vergara). She seems to mostly stay at home, talking to the baby in her belly. They have two purposes for being in the movie. First, they provide the smurfs with a place to stay and play “Guitar Hero.” More importantly, they will learn an important lesson when our adventure is over.

<em>The Smurfs</em> is one of those movies that doesn’t do anything smurfily bad nor anything esmurfily good, either. It just drones on pretty blandly. Clumsy Smurf does something clumsy and puts the others in danger. They try to rescue him, narrowly escaping Gargamel who then has an aside with the cat and concocts his next plan. Rinse, repeat. In that respect it’s not much different than the old cartoon. That’s probably as good as we can hope for.

If there is one thing that rises above the level of mediocre, it’s the performance of Hank Azaria as Gargamel. He is absolutely smurfect. Not only does he present us with exactly what we thought a live-action version of the villain would be but he’s clearly having a blast at the same time. On the flipside, I was disappointed with George Lopez’s Grouchy Smurf. It’s not necessarily his fault, but the character feels the least true to what they were on the show. That Grouchy didn’t say much and started almost all of his very short sentences with “I hate…” This version talks constantly and is somewhat a grouch, but in a way much more reminiscent of the actor’s character from his own sitcom.

I have to admit, <em>The Smurfs</em> is far better than I thought it would be. Thankfully, it doesn’t induce a pain similar to being repeatedly kicked in the groin like <em>Yogi Bear</em>. It’s still not really a “good” movie. It’s merely a pleasant, if unremarkable time-passer that manages to maintain nostalgia and cuteness. This will likely not be the case going forward. For proof, see the <em>Alvin and the Chipmunks</em> and <em>Transformers</em> franchises. Therefore I hope, probably in vain, that the powers that be don’t shove a smurfing sequel down our smurfing throats. This one is watchable, but I get the feeling I’m all smurfed out.

<strong>MY SCORE: 5.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Paul
<strong>Directed by Greg Mottola.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated R, 104 minutes.
Cast:
Simon Pegg
Nick Frost
Seth Rogen
Kristen Wiig
Jeffrey Tambor
Jane Lynch
Jason Bateman
Sigourney Weaver
Bill Hader
Blythe Danner
John Carroll Lynch</em>​

The writer Graeme Willy (Frost) and his trusty cohort Clive Gollings (Pegg) are a couple of sci-fi geeks from the UK, in the United States to attend Comic-Con, an annual convention for the comic book industry. Afterwards, they tour some of the locations where famous UFO landings have allegedly taken place, like Area 51 and Roswell, New Mexico. Along the way, as luck would have it, they meet Paul (Rogen). Paul is the classic little green man with an enormous head alien. He enlists our less than dynamic duo to help him get home. All the while, the trio is being chased by man in black, Agent Zoil (Bateman). Zoil maintains almost constant contact with “The Big Guy”, whom we find out right away is actually a woman. What she actually looks like isn’t revealed until the end, so I won’t spoil it.

Eventually, the plot becomes reminiscent of <em>E. T.</em> This is fitting given that Pegg and Frost wrote the screenplay. Like their movies <em>Hot Fuzz</em> and <em>Shaun of the Dead</em> before it, we’re treated to a steady stream of references to other movies. They’re done far more skillfully than in any of the “____ movies.” You know the ones: Scary, Date, etc. These references are weaved seamlessly into the tapestry of a story that stands on its own. We can actually enjoy the story we’re watching and enjoy the allusions. By the way, there are enough of them that you’ll probably miss a few, here and there.

References to other movies aren’t the only things that make us laugh. The way relationships are established and carried out are both funny and sweet. Most notably, the contentious nature of things between Graeme and Paul gets the most giggles. As stated by Paul, the two are characters that should be best friends but seem to be missing a connection. Even more of an edge is added when you factor in the lingering question of Graeme’s sexuality. Because of that question, the way he behaves in regards to others give us cause to pause.

In the title role, Seth Rogen acquits himself very well. True, Paul behaves much like most of Rogen’s characters but he’s easier to take when personifying another species. However, there could’ve been more to him. How did he get to be the foul-mouthed, cigarette smoking wise guy we know him to be?

<em>Paul</em> is a fun ride, overall. There are some stretches where it drags a bit. Occasionally, it gets too busy referencing other movies that it doesn’t quite work. Aside from the aforementioned stars, Jason Bateman was also very good as the agent tracking them down. Things are fairly predictable, but we’re not here for mystery. It wants you to laugh and possibly geek out with them on all the allusions you recognize. It does that.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7/10</strong>​

 

[j.hen]

They really bash on Christianity in that movie.

 

[dell71]

They really bash on Christianity in that movie.

True, indeed.

 

[dell71]

Contagion
<strong>Directed by Steven Soderbergh.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated PG-13, 106 minutes.
Cast:
Laurence Fishburne
Kate Winslet
Matt Damon
Jude Law
Gwyneth Paltrow
Marion Cotillard
Sanaa Lathan
Anna Jacoby-Heron
John Hawkes
Stef Tovar
Grace Rex</em>​

Elizabeth (Paltrow) returns home from a business trip to China feeling a bit under the weather. She gets worse over the next few days until she has an apparent seizure and dies. By the way, she infects her six year old son with the same mysterious ailment and he suffers the same fate. Miraculously, her husband Mitch (Damon) deosn’t get sick. Yes, this is explained. Very quickly we find out Elizabeth is one of many such cases occurring around the globe at a rapidly increasing rate. The Center for Disease Control and the World Health Organization spring into action in hopes of creating a vaccine before much to the world’s population is wiped out.

A large part of the movie’s magic is derived from the combination of writing and acting. The dialogue is often clinical, filled with enough medical jargon to make your eyes glaze over. However, the cast still manages to convey both passion and compassion. This comes through most in the performance of Kate Winslet as Dr. Mears. Her character isn’t someone most of us want to hang out with. She’s pragmatic, aloof and occasionally blunt. On the other hand, we can tell that her caring runs deep. Though she may be the uncompromising face of some far away medical group to the other characters, we never see her that way. There’s also an angst-ridden portrayal by Matt Damon and a conflicted turn by Laurence Fishburne. All handle their roles quite well.

The dire tone and unsettling score add mightily to the proceedings. Along with most of the characters, the world itself seems to dread what the next day may bring. This aspect is enhanced by the trusty counter that pops up every now and again to tell us how many days we’re into this situation. By the way, we start on “Day 2,” which happens right before Thanksgiving. Talk about ruining the holidays.

Many so-called horror movies delight and/or disturb us with various methods of mutilating the human body. Others try to scare us with ghosts, goblins and other things that go bump in the night. <em>Contagion</em> does neither. In fact, it will never be found if you click the link to horror movies the next time you’re on Net Flix. However, that’s precisely what it is. And a darned good one. The secret to the frights it gives is we can envision it really happening. At various points in the not-so-distant past many thought the events depicted here were already happening. This is a movie that plays into our collective germophobia, using it to draw us to the edge of our seats.

<strong>MY SCORE: 8.5/10</strong>​

 

[Rivers17ncsu]

im still debating about seeing Contagion, good review though


I didn't really like Paul however

 

[dell71]

Doctor Detroit
<strong>Directed by Michael Pressman.</strong>
<em>1983. Rated R, 91 minutes.
Cast:
Dan Akroyd
Howard Hesseman
Fran Drescher
Lynn Whitfield
Donna Dixon
T. K. Carter
Lydia Lei
Kate Murtagh
George Furth
Nan Martin
James Brown</em>​

In the immortal words of The Geto Boys, my mind’s playing tricks on me. Google it if you must, youngsters. The trick performed was indeed a dastardly deception. I really thought the woman had been sawn in half. You see friends, I found myself in my favorite used book store wandering through aisles and aisles of DVDs someone else no longer wanted. Eventually, I meandered over to the bargain bin. That’s where they keep the movies they really didn’t want to take in and hope some sucker will snatch them up at a buck or two. Knowing there’s an off chance I might find a real gem, I dig in. Shortly, I get my hand on a copy of <em>Doctor Detroit</em>. I immediately recognize as a movie from Dan Akroyd’s heyday, that time between the opening skit of the first episode of Saturday Night Live and the closing credits of <em>Spies Like Us.</em>

Folks, this where the lies begin. I told myself that everything Akroyd did during this period was pure gold. After all, this stretch includes <em>The Blues Brothers, Trading Places</em> and <em>Ghostbusters</em>. I remember seeing hilarious ads for <em>Doctor Detroit</em>. This was one of those iconic movies from my youth that I somehow missed out on. I vividly recall it was a smash hit either shortly before or after <em>Trading Places.</em> Well, as it turns out <em>DD</em> did come out about a month prior to <em>Trading Places</em> However, as evidenced by the fact that it was gone from theaters before that month ran out, it was not a hit in any way. There is a good reason.

It should go without saying that Akroyd plays the title role. He’s by far the biggest name in the cast at the time. His character’s real name is Clifford, and he’s a college professor for a school mired in financial problems. Doctor Detroit is his pimp alter-ego. Let me explain. Doctor Detroit is actually an alter-ego created by someone else for Clifford. Smooth Walker, played by the eternally cool Howard Hesseman, is a real pimp who’s deep in debt to Mom (Murtagh), who runs the local crime world. As a way out, he tells Mom that a big time bad guy named Doctor Detroit has muscled in on his territory and Smooth’s getting out of town for fear of his life. Naturally, Mom and her goons go looking for the Doctor and find only Clifford. Of course, the only thing for the professor to do is don a blonde-wig, yellow jacket, lime green pants, a pair of Elton John shades, a false metal hand, speak like a constipated Edward G. Robinson and pretend to be a big time crimelord from Michigan.

Don’t fret, Smooth left behind some help, sorta. This is where the cast gets interesting. As mentioned, Akroyd has the biggest name but the rest of the troupe is certainly not without merit. Hesseman, of course, is best known as radio DJ Johnny Fever from the legendary sitcom <em>WKRP in Cincinnati.</em> You already know he leaves town. So, to facilitate our hero’s transformation into Doctor Detroit there are five other key players: Smooth’s limo driver and the four girls in his stable. The driver is Daivolo, played by none other than T. K. Carter. If you’ve either forgotten or are too young to remember, Carter made a career out of playing the token jive-talkin’, bug-eyed black guy in movies with predominantly white casts. This is just one of a number of such roles for him. In true 80s fashion, our hookers are a purposefully diverse bunch: an all-American blue eyed blonde, a brunette with a thick New York accent, a sassy black girl and an Asian girl with the classic “me love you long time” accent. The blonde is played by Donna Dixon. At this time, she was suppose to be the next “it” girl. She hung around and did a number of movies, but it never quite worked out for her the way some thought it would. Lydia Lei plays the Asian girl and only has a handful of credits. The brunette and the black girl have the most notable careers. Fran Drescher plays the brunette, Lynn Whitfield, obviously, the black girl. Drescher went on to star in <em>The Nanny</em> a huge sitcom. Whitfield, would go on to critical acclaim in the title role of <em>The Josephine Baker Story</em>. Both have continued to pop up in television and movie roles to this day.

The cast isn’t the problem, here. True, there are no award-worthy performances but the acting was solid. The issue is the lazy and unfunny script. It follows all the machinations of tons of other flicks without much flavor of its own. Aside from Clifford pretending to be a pimp there’s also some academic big-wig trying to make his way to the university with a school-saving donation check. Yes, Clifford is supposed to make sure he gets there. Tired hijinks and shenanigans ensue.

Before you think that I’m jaded by the hundreds of other comedies I’ve watch in the nearly thirty years since this came out, remember this: no one liked it in 1983, either. It managed to make barely more than its budget, but that was likely due to a number of people going to see it simply because of Akroyd. He manages to get a few laughs, but it takes a Herculean effort. Much of his zaniness is in vain. Thank goodness <em>Trading Places</em> came out when it did. This ensures we’d have no time to dwell on how bad this is. However, it’s not totally void of value. It did confirm a lesson many have tried to teach me over the years: even your own memory can’t be trusted.

<strong>MY SCORE: 3/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Real Steel
<strong>Directed by Shawn Levy.</span></strong>
<em>2011. Rated PG-13, 127 minutes.
Cast:
Hugh Jackman
Dakota Goyo
Evangeline Lilly
Anthony Mackie
Kevin Durand
Hope Davis
James Rebhorn
Karl Yune
Olga Fonda</em>​

Charlie (Jackman) is a former prize-fighter who now makes his living in the world of robot boxing. Making a living is overstating things. Generally, he ducks the people he owes money to after whatever robot he’s picked off the scrap heap gets destroyed in a match. Along comes news that an ex-girlfriend, and mother of his child has passed away, leaving behind Max (Goyo), the son he’s abandoned. The kid’s wealthy aunt Debra (Davis) wants custody but needs Charlie to sign over his parental rights. Never one to miss an opportunity, Charlie brokers a deal with Deb’s husband Marvin (Rebhorn) to sell them his rights for a load of cash. One strange caveat to the deal: in order to keep Debra in the dark about the exchange of money, Charlie has to keep Max for a few weeks while his rich soon-to-be guardians are out of the country.

Once Max actually appears we know precisely how it will play out between him and his deadbeat dad. Ditto for Charlie and Bailey (Lilly) and their very PG love affair. The only possible surprise isn’t one if you’ve seen the trailer. It involves Atom, a seemingly inferior fighting robot with a very unique feature. Suffice it to say this part of the story is yet another re-working of <em>Rocky</em>. It comes complete with a physically superior champion and his villainous handlers.

If it isn’t obvious, there is pretty much no effort put into the plot. It’s completely perfunctory, taking no risks, holding no surprises nor posing any challenges. In a brief moment or two of artistic integrity, the filmmakers threaten to throw one wrinkle into things. We get a couple hints that there is more to Atom than meets the eye. Yes, the reference is intended. Anyhoo, they totally drop the ball on that idea to remain in the safety zone, give us more of the cheese borrowed from other cheesy flicks. In short, they want you to like this movie even though you’ve likely seen it quite a few times before.

Predictability be damned, there is only one real question to be answered: is <em>Real Steel</em> fun to watch. The answer is yes, in its own corny way. It moves at a brisk pace despite an unnecessarily bloated runtime of over two hours. It plays cute with the father/son angle and the final act contains lots more of the ‘bot fighting people likely come for. Jackman gives us Wolverine-lite, a less surly than the mutant and sans cigar. It’s a character we know and either somewhat like or somewhat dislike. The same can be said of Max and every other character in the film. By the way, Max is more of an adult than any of the other characters, too. Even my nine year old picked up on that. Max’s maturity aside, all of these people are just bland caricatures. They’re here to fill in the portions between fights not be too much of a distraction from them. The end result is an overwhelmingly OK movie that young boys will love watching with their dads. Boys of my age will wonder how it is possible that this isn’t called <em>Rock’em Sock’em Robots.</em>

<strong>MY SCORE: 5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Conan the Barbarian
<strong>Directed by Marcus Nispel.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated R, 113 minutes.
Cast:
Jason Momoa
Rachel Nichols
Stephen Lang
Rose McGowan
Saïd Taghmaoui
Leo Howard
Ron Perlman
Bob Sapp</em>​

The people involved in making the 2011 version of <em>Conan the Barbarian</em> would like you to know that it has absolutely nothing to do with the 1982 movie which helped Arnold Schwarzenegger become a star. With that in mind, I’ll not mention “The Governator” or that film again. This movie is based more directly on the works of Robert E. Howard who created the character about 80 years ago. If ever there were a movie strictly about swords and sorcery, this is it. Both are responsible for all manner of death and/or dismemberment.

Well, there is a plot cobbled together. It actually starts with the bad guy, Khalar Zym (Lang). His wife had been killed some time ago, I think I heard a thousand years. Hmph. Now, with the help of his sorceress daughter Marique, played by a barely recognizable Rose McGowan, he’s trying to find the one woman of pure Archerion blood so he can use her body to resurrect his bride. Together, they will rule the world! Muwahahahahaahaha! Ahem, sorry. Anyhoo, this twisted father and daughter team don’t just look for the pure blooded girl, they go from village to village killing or enslaving everyon that isn’t who they’re looking for. As fate would have it, they come upon little Conan’s village (the character is played by Howard as a child). They make the tiny warrior watch his father die (Perlman handles the dying, here), then they burn the place to the ground killing the rest of our hero’s people. Fast forward about a decade. The evil dad and his evil-er female spawn are still searching for that special someone and Conan is out for revenge.

Like any other flick, <em>Conan</em> has its strengths and weaknesses. It’s strength is obviously the non-stop bloody violence. Body parts are hacked off or literally beaten to a pulp with great regularity. They fly all over the place, too. After it was over, I had to sweep up some severed heads, arms and legs, several each. I’m having new carpet put in this week, the blood soaked right through.

On the weak side is everything else. For starters, there is no character development. Even as simplistic as the plot is, the story-telling is muddled. The dialogue is a cheesy form of Olde English and almost all of the acting is over the top. Despite a love scene that says otherwise, there is little chemistry between Conan and “it girl” Tamara (Nichols). Finally, for some reason they wasted money and runtime by having none other than Morgan Freeman narrate. Don’t get me wrong, if you need a narrator for your movie, Freeman is an outstanding choice. Just having him read the labels on cereal boxes will probably sound good. The problem is after he gives a long spiel explaining something, we’re given a scene that shows us the exact same thing. Pick one.

With regards to picking, that’s what you will have to do before seeing this. You have to decide, if you don’t know already, what floats your boat. Long review short: <em>Conan</em> is one long gory action scene with a pause for topless wenches (that’s in the credits), another pause for sex and a few brief pauses for talking…er…yelling and grunting. The story is told in a way that makes me believe my 12 year old nephew worked closely with the director. Is it fun to sit through? If you’re looking for wall-to-wall action, then the answer is yes. Is there anything at all here that will leave a lasting impression? No.

<strong>MY SCORE: 4/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Monte Carlo
<strong>Directed by Thomas Bezucha.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated PG, 108 minutes.
Cast:
Selena Gomez
Leighton Meester
Katie Cassidy
Juliette Dumouchel
Pierre Boulanger
Cory Monteith
Andie MacDowell
Luke Bracey
Catherine Tate</em>​

Recently, a waitress bearing a strong resemblance to Oprah Winfrey became a trending topic on the internet. Why? It’s simple. We’re intrigued by the ideat that somewhere out there is a person who looks exactly like us. What would happen if we ever met that person, or were to be so mistaken for them that others actually thrust us into that person’s station in life. These fascinations have been the impetus for countless movies across a number of genres. 2011 gave us two such movies: the kinda, sorta historical <em>The Devil’s Double</em> for action fans and <em>Monte Carlo</em>, a romantic comedy for the Disney crowd.

Speaking of Disney, our protagonist comes straight from the company’s assembly line of young starlets. Her name is Grace and she is played by Selena Gomez, star of the network’s <em>The Wizards of Waverly Place</em>. She just graduated from high school and on her way to Paris, where she’s dreamed of going ever since she can remember. Her best friend Emma (Cassidy) will gladfully accompany her. Not thinking either of them to be too responsible, Grace’s mom and stepdad have forced stepsister Meg (Meester) to go with them, even though the two don’t get along. Once there, the trio manages to get separated from the world’s worst tour guide. Suddenly, it’s discovered that Grace looks exactly like Cordelia Winthrop Scott a spoiled, ungrateful heiress also played by Gomez (duh). One thing leads to another and the girls soon find themselves living it up in Monte Carlo.

Oh, there’s boys. Each girl meets a handsome, charming guy. One of our young ladies already has a beau back home in Texas that she sorta broke up with. Make no mistake, he will suddenly pop up in Paris, and eventually in Monte Carlo, to reclaim his gal. It’s exactly that kind of movie. By that, I mean it wants nothing more that to be cute and grandly romantic despite not always making sense. It shamelessly panders to its target audience which will like it well enough. However, with that in mind there is nothing here to suggest it had to be released to multiplexes around the globe. This would’ve been right at home and likely more widely seen as a Sunday night TV movie on Disney Channel. Disney didn’t actually make this movie but they definitely could’ve. After all, not only is it just another totally bland rom-com, it never once comes close to threatening the boundaries of its PG rating.

<strong>MY SCORE: 4.5/10</strong>​

 

[Houston]

Mary and Max
<strong>Directed by Adam Elliot.</strong>
<em>2009. Rated PG, 80 minutes.
Cast:
Toni Collette
Philip Seymour Hoffman
Eric Bana
Bethany Whitmore
Barry Humphries
Renée Geyer
Ian “Molly” Meldrum</em>​

Mary Daisy Dinkle (Whitmore/Collette) is an eight year old girl living in Australia in the 1970s and is often left to her own devices. She develops lots of hobbies, eats lots of condensed milk straight from the can and watches lots of her favorite show, “The Noblets.” Unfortunately, her mom is drunk most of the time, her dad is usually at working or enjoying his own hobbies in the shed and Mary has no other friends. To change this, she decides to get a pen pal. To decide who the lucky, unsuspecting person will be, she randomly picks a name out of a New York City phone book. That name is Max Horowitz. She eagerly writes the first letter and mails it off.

Max is 44 years old, lives alone in New York and in many ways, is child-like. Like Mary, he spends lots of time eating his favorite food, in his case chocolate, and watching “The Noblets.” He also attends “Overeaters Anonymous” meetings and plays the lottery ever day, always the same number. When he receives Mary’s letter he’s taken aback, at first. Soon, he musters enough courage to return the gesture.

The pair continue to exchange the letters for the next three decades, through all the ups and downs of their lives. This long distance relationship frames their existnces, eventually coming to define them. Through the letters, they get to know each other in ways most people don’t. They truly become friends. The welcome side-effect is that we get to know them intimately, as well. They become our friends. We’re happy when they’re happy. We hurt when they do. A key moment comes when we find out that Max indeed has a diagnosed mental disability. However, this isn’t revealed to draw our sympathy. The real value is showing what effect this has on Mary. The heights and depths of her adult life seem to all stem from knowledge of Max’s affliction.

The question we desperately want answered is will they ever meet face to face? How this plays out is a brilliant and touching piece of film making. It’s not something we arrive upon easily, either. It’s truly a moment many years in the making. If you’re prone to crying at movies, keep the tissue handy. If you’re looking for hyperkinetic action, toilet humor and talking animal sidekicks, you’re in the wrong place. If you want to see two fabulously intertwined character studies, stay.

<strong>MY SCORE: 10/10</strong>​

Just saw this, so beautiful.