Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[St. Francisco]

 

I personally think Bane was perfect and he was arguably a better villain than Heath Ledgers Joker. He speaks intelligently and has no problem killing anyone, and he shows that throughout the movie.

 

Agreed. I liked the Joker as a better villian, but Bane was the ultimate bad ass. He had an air of being untouchable. I thought it was a thrilling conclusion to a fantastic trilogy.

 

[dell71]

 

To me, Bane never fit the story to begin with. He didn't seem insane, smart, or even involved enough to make it work.

We're supposed to believe that Bane was crazy enough to get kicked from the League of Shadows, but why doesn't he appear to be any worse then Ra's al Ghul? And why would he not seek revenge, but instead dedicate himself to completing the task of the guy who kicked him out to begin with?

I know the plot twists at the end clears this up, but until then you're watching a character who doesn't quite add up. And after, you realize this character really wasn't that important to begin with.

 

Before the twist, I think he adds up just fine and definitely seemed insane. He didn't show it physically in the same way the Joker did, but he was plenty crazy. I'd say he's worse than Ra's for the simple fact he's going to nuke the city after already doing what Ra's set out to. Besides, who would he seek revenge against? Ra's is already dead. Agreed, the twist at the end undermines his importance but before you know this he works just fine.

 

[dell71]

Hugo
<strong>Directed by Martin Scorcese.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated PG, 128 minutes.
Cast:
Asa Butterfield
Ben Kingsley
Chloë Grace Moretz
Sacha Baron Cohen
Jude Law
Ray Winstone
Helen McCrory
Richard Griffiths
Frances de la Tour
Christopher Lee</em>​

Hugo (Butterfield) is a tween-aged boy who lives alone inside the giant clock at the train station. Sort of. He’s supposed to be living there with his uncle Claude (Winstone) who is responsible for keeping the clock wound. However, Claude is a drunk and hasn’t been seen in quite some time. Hugo’s dad was already a widower when he died leaving his son in the care of his not-so-responsible brother. So Hugo keeps the clock running all by himself. He also works feverishly to fix the automaton his father left him, a robot that supposedly writes. Hugo has never seen it work.

Much of our hero’s day is spent scavenging food and parts from the shops in the station while avoiding station cop Inspector Gustave (Cohen). His favorite target is the toy store owned by crotchety old Papa Georges (Kingsley). When Georges catches Hugo, he makes the lad work for him to pay for all the stuff he’s stolen. He also confiscates the kid’s notebook which looks like a manual for the automaton. In an effort to get his notebook back, Hugo recruits Isabelle (Moretz) who lives with Papa Georges and his wife because her own parents have passed away. The two embark on a book retrieving adventure.

Eventually, we find out <em>Hugo</em> isn’t at all about the notebook , the writing robot or even the title character. Like <em>Super 8</em>, which I’ve recently watched, <em>Hugo</em> is actually a movie about movies. In this case, it focuses on the earliest days of filmmaking and how magical moving pictures must have been to people who had never heard of such a thing. By extension, it’s also about when we in the contemporary audience first fell in love with movies ourselves. After all, even the most cynical of us has been awed by a film and transported wholly into its world at some point in our lives. Finally, it makes an eloquent point about the need to step up the effort to preserve old films. If the viewer misses all that stuff about movies and merely focuses on the surface of <em>Hugo</em>, they’ll still get an enjoyable film.

<em>Hugo</em> is also about the visuals. That’s not quite right, the visuals are there to enhance the feeling that watching a movie is akin to witnessing magic. They are an important part of the film. Each shot is beautifully framed and the fluid movement of the camera has the effect of sweeping us away into this world. Unfortunately, I’m ill-qualified to comment any further. My lack of technical expertise aside, it’s a movie designed to be a 3D experience that I watched in 2D on a not-so-wide screen. Though I’m not a huge fan of the medium I would like to see this as it is meant to be seen.

Even without the funny glasses, I still had a good time watching <em>Hugo</em>. The story is thoroughly sweet and touching. Admittedly, that’s not what I’m normally looking for out of my Scorcese, but he makes it engaging. Interestingly enough, my children didn’t enjoy it as much despite the two youthful protagonists. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe you do need to understand a bit about the history of movies. After all, it is an adventure that leads not to a treasure of gold or something they deem tangible, but to an archive of silent films (I’m not spoiling anything). Maybe when I’m old and they’re making one of their obligatory visits I’ll force them to watch it with me just to see if they get it.

<strong>MY SCORE: 8/10</strong>​

 

[Sven Draconian]

Don't want to hijack Dell's thread too much....

 

I think you were a little hard on on the movie overall. I thought the romantic tension between them was alright. Maybe not to the extent of the cannon, which often portray her as the ultimate cock tease, but I did not have any issues with it. I did not mind the little twist with Tate at the end, and I do not feel as though it undermined Bane to the extent others did. Overall I thought Bane was superb and the "mastermind" while he and Tate had more of an older brother/younger sister relationship.

My issues with the movie were some of the silly plot holes. The police get trapped underground going into battle, but when they emerge for the big fight scene they are unarmed. What? They did not feel like grabbing their guns? The fact that Batman actually kills atleast 2 people (Tate and the driver). The utterly silly treatment of the US military and the effects of nuclear radiation (Gordan can be sitting on a bomb that is minutes away from decaying to the point of exploding, but there are no effects. The US military doesn't have the capability of simultaneously snatching 3 trucks off the grounds and flying them over the bay. Silly.

I'm also not a big fan of the amount of wasted time. While the atmosphere and spectacle are a big part of the franchise, they could have pretty easily trimmed out 15-20 minutes from the begging.

It was still a good movie. I still rank Begins #1 (10/10) with TDK at a solid 9.5. This is a definite step back, but I would give it atleast an 8, probably an 8.5. Might even be a 9 if the others had not set the bar so high.

 

[dell71]

Don't want to hijack Dell's thread too much....

 

I think you were a little hard on on the movie overall. I thought the romantic tension between them was alright. Maybe not to the extent of the cannon, which often portray her as the ultimate cock tease, but I did not have any issues with it. I did not mind the little twist with Tate at the end, and I do not feel as though it undermined Bane to the extent others did. Overall I thought Bane was superb and the "mastermind" while he and Tate had more of an older brother/younger sister relationship.

My issues with the movie were some of the silly plot holes. The police get trapped underground going into battle, but when they emerge for the big fight scene they are unarmed. What? They did not feel like grabbing their guns? The fact that Batman actually kills atleast 2 people (Tate and the driver). The utterly silly treatment of the US military and the effects of nuclear radiation (Gordan can be sitting on a bomb that is minutes away from decaying to the point of exploding, but there are no effects. The US military doesn't have the capability of simultaneously snatching 3 trucks off the grounds and flying them over the bay. Silly.

I'm also not a big fan of the amount of wasted time. While the atmosphere and spectacle are a big part of the franchise, they could have pretty easily trimmed out 15-20 minutes from the begging.

It was still a good movie. I still rank Begins #1 (10/10) with TDK at a solid 9.5. This is a definite step back, but I would give it atleast an 8, probably an 8.5. Might even be a 9 if the others had not set the bar so high.

 

For me, a 7.5 is a very good score. I did not go any higher than that mainly because the amount of plotholes piled on top of one another in that third act is rather ridiculous. I never did feel the romantic tension between the bat and the cat. It was their relationship that seemed like brother/sister to me. The runtime was fine with me because Nolan knows how to keep us interested between action scenes. I did enjoy the movie, but it is a step back from the other two movies in the trilogy.

 

[dell71]

Larry Crowne
<strong>Directed by Tom Hanks.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated PG-13, 99 minutes.
Cast:
Tom Hanks
Julia Roberts
Cedric the Entertainer
Bryan Cranston
George Takei
Pam Grier
Taraji P. Henson
Gugu Mbatha-Raw
Wilmer Valderrama
Rob Riggle
Nia Vardalos</em>​

Our story starts with 50-something Larry Crowne (Hanks) losing his job at big-box store U-Mart. It’s an obvious downsizing move but he’s told that since he didn’t go to college he has virtually no chance for advancement within the company and it’s against policy to limit their employees in such a manner. That runs counter to what I’ve seen and experienced. Such people are a gold mine because they become experts at their jobs and the company has a built in excuse for not promoting them. This saves the company money since they don’t have to give that person a raise nor hire and train a new person to take their place, but I digress. With all of his newfound free time since he can’t find a job, Larry does indeed decide to go to college to keep this from happening to him in the future. Once there, he’s encouraged to take Speech 217 because it’s a life-changer. It doesn’t hurt that he’s given a huge hint that the instructor is hot. When he gets there, he agrees she’s hot. She is Mrs. Tainot (Roberts), pronounced Tay-no, she emphasizes. Note the Mrs. Prefix but understand her marriage sucks. We spend a good deal of time in her class.

Lest you go thinking Speech is his only class, we also spend lots of time with Larry in Econ 1, taught by Dr. Matsutani played by George Takei AKA Mr. Sulu. He pimps his book, laughs at his own jokes and confiscates Larry’s cell phone repeatedly. It’s an odd, somewhat creepy but still enjoyable performance. Before he gets to either class, Larry runs into Talia (Raw). She’s young, pretty and vibrant. She’s also capable of overrunning men in mere seconds, bringing to life the term “killing them with kindness.” Almost immediately after meeting Larry she changes everything about him: his wardrobe, his hair, the way his furniture is arranged, even his name. She insists upon calling him Lance because she thinks it fits him better. He’s so smitten, he lets it all happen. We’re told she has this effect on all men.

Most of the movie just trots by without much in the way of joy or pain. When I say trot, I should say prance because it is shamelessly bland. There are some exceptions, of course. We bristle, or at least I did, whenever Talia is busy recreating Larry. It’s like a horror movie with some happy-go-lucky psycho taking over your life. On the other hand, the scenes with Mr. (Cranston) and Mrs. Tainot are much more enjoyable. The story of their deteriorating marriage is an interesting subplot we’re tempted to try and separate from the rest of the movie. Their scenes are funny, melodramatic and infinitely more intriguing than anything else going on. It could possibly have made a nice dark comedy.

Alas, it is not to be. We’re stuck with <em>Larry Crowne</em> as is. It wants to have something deep to say about the economy but doesn’t . It wants to be an enthralling romantic comedy, but isn’t. Larry gets not one, but two “game-winning” moments that are anti-climactic to the point of being boring. Even the plucky neighbor routine is botched. Cedric the Entertainer and Taraji P. Henson play the happily married couple that lives next door to Larry and makes their living by having a yard sale every single day. Seriously. Ced is supposed to dispense sage advice and make us laugh as he haggles price on everything. Instead, he just says a lot and most of it is unfunny. As he’s running off at the mouth, Ms. Henson just hangs out in the background collecting a paycheck for doing nothing. Good for her, managing to get paid while participating in this mess as little as possible.

<strong>MY SCORE: 4.5/10</strong>​

 

[Maynard]

i guess there is a reason i never heard of that movie

 

[dell71]

Battleship
<strong>Directed by Peter Berg.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated PG-13, 131 minutes.
Cast:
Taylor Kitsch
Brooklyn Decker
Rihanna
Alexander Skarsgard
Tadanobu Asano
Hamish Linklater
John Tui
Liam Neeson
Jesse Plemons
Gregory D. Gadson</em>​

I played a lot of board games as a kid. Monopoly and Life were my favorites. I was never big into Battleship, but I had friends that were. I remember the commercials far better than the game itself. They always end when one kid incredulously exclaims “You sank my battleship!” Some version of that iconic scene playing out at the climactic moment is pretty much all I expected the film version. Even those modest hopes proved too lofty.

Toy company Hasbro owns the rights to the game and apparently aren’t too particular about any sort of faithfulness to its properties. As long as whatever is thrown up on the screen brings in goo-gobs of money, all is good. Who could blame them? After all, they also own the rights to Transformers. Whether you love or hate those movies, there is no denying they’re ridiculously successful at the box office.

This brings us back to <em>Battleship</em>, the movie. The game is one of naval strategy, your fleet against your buddy’s. The movie is about an intergalactic alien invasion just off the coast of Hawaii. Wait…what? Okay fine, I’ll roll with it. After finally finding a planet similar enough to Earth to sustain life we send out a signal in an effort to make contact. Never you mind that it’s travelling billions of miles yet appears to get there quicker than most cell phone calls. Just know that whoever is on the other end sends back a military scout team to set up their own communication with their boys back home and commence the takeover.

Before any of this, we meet Alex Hopper (Kitsch), a long-haired hothead with a penchant for trouble. He’s infatuated with Samantha (Decker), the blonde at the bar who very strongly resembles a swimsuit model. By the way, her dad happens to run the local Naval fleet. Fast forward a year or so and now Alex is a short-haired hothead Naval lieutenant who is in love with and dating the swimsuit model from the bar. Her dad still runs the fleet. Oh yeah, Alex might be a captain. Stupid movie has people calling him both. I’m sure this is a joke that I don’t get but that’s kind of a problem, no?

Anyhoo, you write the rest of the script. Make sure the aliens aren’t particularly bright and let an awful lot of obviously military people live after having shown the capacity to kill by the hundreds. Do this to spare our heroes for the sole purpose of making sure this thing stretches to over two hours. Keep your love story mostly centered around Alex being intimidated by his girlfriend’s father. Even though this guy is played by Liam Neeson, don’t use him for anything else. Shoehorn in a few references to the game, including a giant grid, of course. Add in a ton of jokes and one-liners. Pray at least a few of them are funny. In other words, make it exactly like Michael Bay’s <em>Transformers</em> movies, or any of his other movies, for that matter.

Imitating Bay is precisely what director Peter Berg does. However, Joe Q Public isn’t as much a cushion for <em>Battleship</em> to fall back on. Despite the game having been around since World War I, in some form or another, it has nowhere near the nostalgia factor going for it that <em>Transformers</em> does. Dots on a paper or blips on a grid are nowhere near as exciting as giant fighting robots. Besides that, I’m not sure anyone who has played the game couldn’t come up with enough of a storyline to justify a movie being made for it. Sadly, neither could the people actually involved in making it. Second, this doesn’t offer the spectacle of said robots transforming. Sadly, the fact that none of aliens has as much as a personality renders this even more run of the mill. Think about it. We’ve seen scores of alien invasion flicks, but only three <em>Transformers</em> flicks. So far, that is. I hate to sound like I’m defending that franchise because I hate the last two movies it gave us. At least they give us something we’re not really getting anywhere else. Don’t get me wrong. If you’re looking for lots of stuff going boom, there is some enjoyment to be had here. It’s paced quickly enough and the aliens unleash some nasty weaponry. If you want anything deeper than that, move along. Nothing to see here.

<strong>MY SCORE: 4/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

21 Jump Street
<strong>Directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated R, 109 minutes.
Cast:
Channing Tatum
Jonah Hill
Ice Cube
Rob Riggle
Brie Larson
Dave Franco
Ellie Kemper
DeRay Davis
Jake Johnson
Johnny Depp
Holly Robinson Peete</em>​

For lack of better terms , Jenko (Tatum) was a high school jock and Schmidt (Hill), a nerd. As adults, they drag each other through to graduation from the police academy by each helping the other with their weaknesses. As cops, they’re so inept they make Barney Fife look like Columbo. Google it, youngsters. Since immaturity is part of their problem, they are banished to the 21 Jump Street program which uses youthful officers to work undercover in local high schools. Their mission is to take down the supplier of a dangerous new drug. Raunchy, slapstick comedy ensues.

We’re used to Jonah Hill in such movies. After all, he’s returning to his roots after his Oscar nominated turn in <em>Moneyball</em>. He fits comfortably back into his old role as a socially awkward horndog. We find out that he completed high school as a virgin. It’s implied that he still might be, seven years later, and not by choice. Other comedy regulars such as Rob Riggle, Ice Cube and DeRay Davis help out on that front. The pleasant surprise is how funny Channing Tatum is. The movie itself puts the ball in his court by utilizing his fashion model looks for comedic fodder. He responds by having some genuinely hilarious moments as well as doing most of the heavy lifting during the action scenes.

Story-wise, <em>21 Jump Street</em> is a paint-by-numbers affair with only one minor surprise. From that vantage point, it’s a movie we’ve seen multiple times and will see bunch more. However, that’s not this movie’s concern. It simply wants to make you laugh. At that it succeeds, provided you’re into crude sex and drug humor. If you’re not, steer clear. Despite its main topics, <em>21JS</em> is surprisingly smart. It often lampoons action flick conventions like things exploding upon impact that shouldn’t. It even makes fun of its own premise, and by extension, that of the TV series it is based on.

Speaking of the TV series, you might also want to avoid this if you have any reverence for it. For you young’uns, the premise of using youthful looking officers to pose as high school kids is the same, but that’s about it. That was a much more serious treatment of the subject. Most notably, it launched the career of Johnny Depp and, to a lesser degree, Holly Robinson-Peete. Both have cameos in the movie. If you come here looking for something really similar to show, you’re in the wrong place. If you just want to have a laugh at a buddy-cop comedy, you’re in the right one.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Three Stooges
<strong>Directed by The Farrelly Brothers.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated PG, 91 minutes.
Cast:
Chris Diamantopoulos
Sean Hayes
Will Sasso
Jane Lynch
Larry David
Jennifer Hudson
Sofia Vergara
Kate Upton
Stephen Collins
Kirby Heyborne
Brian Doyle Murphy
Dwight Howard</em>​

I had mixed emotions when I found out there was going to be an all-new Three Stooges movie. My hope was that it was going to be a biopic about their long career detailing the relationships between the at least half dozen men who were members at one time or another. I vaguely remember a TV movie to this effect some years ago. Eventually, I discovered it was simply going to be a full-length feature in the grand style of one of their famous shorts. I watched and laughed at plenty of the Stooges’ stuff as a youngster, occasionally as an adult, so I was game.

We meet our heroes shortly after birth when they’re unceremoniously dumped at an orphanage run by nuns. So outrageous is their behavior over the years, finding someone to adopt them is impossible. In fact, the boys are still there as adults. Out of the kindness of the nun’s hearts, I guess, they haven’t been sent packing despite wreaking havoc and being unable to complete even the simplest task. Don’t feel too bad. All of this is played for laughs, of course.

In case you’re somehow unfamiliar, introductions are in order. The Three Stooges are made up of Moe (Diamantopoulos), a nitwit but nonetheless their leader, and two dimmer bulbs, Larry (Hayes) and Curly (Sasso). The orphanage is going broke. Unless they can come up with $830,000 in thirty days, it’s doors will close forever. If you know anything about movies at all then you know the only thing left to do is for the boys to venture off to the big city to try and raise the cash themselves. That’s all you need to know about the plot other than MTV’s “The Jersey Shore” plays an improbably prominent role. To say the story is a weakness is a gross understatement.

If there is magic to be found in a Three Stooges movie, it lies not within the plot, but in the physical humor. Coming into this, I wondered how true this movie would be to its source material. In the old days, Moe would berate the other two for any mishaps, theirs or his, and a round of them slapping each other, hitting one another over the head with a variety of heavy blunt objects and poking one another in the eyes would ensue. The mishaps usually involved accidents that would be bone-breaking at the very least, in real life. Thankfully, the update remains faithful to that formula. It is exactly what most of us imagine a Stooge flick to be. Those of you who found the original trio hilarious, will likely find these guys to be much the same. They do a remarkable job imitating the real Moe, Larry and Curly. It’s refreshing that our beloved Stooges haven’t been sanitized to fit 21st century sensibilities.

On the other hand, the commitment to getting it right is the movie’s biggest problem. It’s a movie aimed at kids. Don’t worry, I’m not going to start moralizing. It’s just that the Stooges’ heyday, and even up through the 1970s when I was watching them, were less enlightened times. Three guys verbally and physically abusing one another or repeatedly having heinous accidents were a legitimate source of comedy. Now everything about the Stooges has been outlawed or incessantly railed against. There are PSAs about much of this stuff. I understand there is a good bit of Stooge influenced stuff going on in children’s programming these days, but it’s easier to digest as a cartoon. Today’s kids are less likely to laugh at a live-action version of the same things. Indeed, I laughed more than my own offspring. Times are a changin’.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Underworld: Awakening
<strong>Directed by Måns Mårlind and Björn Stein.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated R, 88 minutes.
Cast:
Kate Beckinsale
Stephen Rea
Michael Ealy
India Eisley
Theo James
Kris holden-Ried
Charles Dance
Scott Speedman</em>​

The awakening takes place right at the beginning. Well, that’s not quite true. We start this adventure like we normally do, with our vampire, Selene (Beckinsale), giving us a quick history lesson. I’ll be as succinct as possible for those of you who already know the scoop. The vampires have been at war with the lycans (werewolves) for over 600 years. Most of that time, Selene has been a frontline soldier on a unit called The Death Dealers. Recently, as in during the franchise’s first movie, she fell in love with Michael who becomes a hybrid of the two species. Both sides now hunt the couple.

For this installment, there is an added dimension. Humans have discovered the existence of vampires and werewolves and go about exterminating both. Michael and Selene are captured and cryogenically frozen due to his unique condition. She “awakens” twelve years later when another ‘subject’ helps her escape. Of course, she sets out to find her beloved Michael.

Aside from what’s mentioned above, nothing else really happens. Okay, there is one development early involving the subject that freed Selene and one twist late that’s not really surprising. Most of what’s in between is gory but shoddily staged action sequences showing our heroes (Selene, a young girl and a male vampire) fighting cgi lycans. If that’s going to be the bulk of your movie, a better effort should be made to make it somewhat believable. The lycans look better than in <em>Awakening</em>’s woeful predecessor, <em>Rise of the Lycans</em>, but still have no weight to them. A six and a half or seven foot muscled and hairy beast should at least disturb vehicles a little bit when it leaps from one to another. Since this happens early on, it’s hard to shake the feeling we’re looking at anything but a collection of pixels.

This is all the more frustrating because I am actually a big fan of the first movie in the series. I like the way the story develops. I like how the two iconic movie monsters are viewed through the prism of <em>The Matrix</em>. Finally, I like that it introduces us to Selene, one of the most intriguing female vampires in cinematic history. I enjoyed the second movie (<em>Evolution</em>), though quite a bit less. <em>Awakening</em> marks the second straight <em>Underworld</em> movie I think is absolutely horrible. <em>Rise of the Lycans</em> is just another in a long line of poorly executed prequels and didn’t involve the franchise’s main protagonist. This brings her back and gives us some interesting developments early on but does nothing with them. Instead, it’s content to show us a steady stream of scene showing Selene killing lycans. In the nooks and crannies of downtime she does little more than whine about Michael. It’s as if the filmmakers believed that a good idea is good enough on its own and needs no fleshing out.

Admittedly, my expectations were low for a fourth movie in a franchise that seems to peter out about midway through the second installment. Still, it’s a disappointing entry because the potential for an exhilarating tale is there. The first five minutes or so is spectacular movie-making, revealing an intriguing premise with numerous possibilities. In lieu of journeying down any of the possible avenues opened, <em>Awakening</em> simply tries to hide its lazy writing with a succession of not-always-so-nicely-rendered battle scenes. That, my friends, should be punishable by two shots to the chest and one to the head with ultra-violet or silver nitrate rounds, depending on which side of the monster ledger you think we’re dealing with.

<strong>MY SCORE: 4/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Mirror Mirror
<strong>Directed by Tarsem Singh.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated PG, 106 minutes.
Cast:
Julia Roberts
Lily Collins
Armie Hammer
Nathan Lane
Michael Lerner
Jordan Prentice
Danny Woodburn
Mark Povinelli
Martin Klebba
Ronald Lee Clark
Sean Bean</em>​

By now, the only reasons to dig up any of the known fairy tales are to subvert or deconstruct them. <em>Mirror Mirror</em> does neither, opting for yet another pretty straightforward retelling of “Snow White.” Sure, there are minor changes here and there, but nothing that would actually justify its existence. Don’t get me wrong. <em>MM</em> is not necessarily a bad movie. It’s just not necessary.

The main change in this version of the classic is that the proceedings are narrated by the Evil Queen (Roberts) who swears this is her story. She’s taxing the citizens of the kingdom so much and spending that money so fast, both they and she are broke. She inherited the kingdom from her late husband, whom she had killed, of course. Snow White (Collins) is locked away but manages to storm out of her quarters for the occasional temper tantrum. She even manages to sneak into one of the Queen’s balls which is where she meets the handsome Prince Alcott (Hammer). One of the Queen’s minions is tasked to kill the girl. However, he has not the heart. He marches her out to the woods and basically tells her to get lost and stay that way.

All of this leads to the other big change in <em>MM</em>. Snow White eventually runs into The Seven Dwarves. These guys don’t whistle while they work. That’s because bandits have to be quiet before they attack. See, these dwarves run around on stilts and rob anyone who ventures into the woods. Gone are the iconic names like Dopey, Sleepy, etc. and the personalities that come with them. This is a fairly indistinguishable lot. All we really need to know is that Snow White assumes the role of Robin Hood and they, her merry men. To this end, she gets to do most of the saving of her own day. I suppose this could be considered another twist but even that’s old hat, these days.

In other words, <em>MM</em> progresses as a Snow White movie must. Much of our time is spent watching Julia Roberts have a grand time being evil. She chews scenery with boundless verve in both of her roles. She also plays the mirror, by the way. It can either be fun to watch or painfully annoying. I wouldn’t fault anyone who thought it was either. Regardless of which way you lean, you’ll agree the movie is fairly lifeless when she’s not on the screen. Even the kids in the target audience are likely to have a “been there, done that” reaction to it all. I fully expect there are legions of little girls that proclaim this “the bestest movie evar!” I’ve no problem with that. After all, it’s a story about a princess. I’m just not sure they’ve gotten anything different than they’ve already gotten from dozens of other movies.

<strong>MY SCORE: 5.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Martha Marcy May Marlene
<strong>Directed by Sean Durkin.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated R, 102 minutes.
Cast:
Elizabeth Olsen
Sarah Paulson
John Hawkes
Hugh Dancy
Brady Corbet
Maria Dizzia
Julia Garner
Louisa Krause</em>​

After two years of not speaking with anyone in her family, Marlene (Olsen) suddenly calls her sister Lucy (Paulson) from a payphone. Surprised and relieved, Lucy rushes out to pick up her baby sis from two hours away. Her and her husband Ted (Dancy) let Marlene stay with them until she can get back on her feet. They don’t realize how far a climb that is. Marlene is obviously damaged, but they don’t understand why. She won’t tell them what we already know: she’s just escaped from a cult.

We watch Marlene try in vain to make the transition back into “normal” life. She seems to know she’s done the right thing yet she can’t shrug off the off-putting communal habits she’s picked up. Neither can she stop replaying in her head the horrors she’s endured. She’s been psychologically and physically manipulated. It all haunts her.

Elizabeth Olson does an amazing job being haunted. She makes Marlene a study in fragility mixed with ill-timed, hallucination or nightmare driven outbursts. At times, she’s an unapologetically brazen, raving lunatic. At others she’s so timid she seems to be trying to hide within herself. All of it is wrapped in paranoia as she’s never quite sure that the people she’s left behind aren’t coming to get her. It’s a high-wire act balancing a plethora of emotions, each seamlessly inhabiting the character so that none feel false.

As Lucy, Sarah Paulson is also very good. She assumes multiple roles in Marlene’s life. She’s both motherly and sisterly. She even tries her hand as an amateur therapist. She probes for clues, and tries to do so delicately in an effort to keep from upsetting the applecart. This proves to be a task easier said than done.

Wisely, the two parts of Marlene’s life we’re shown run side by side through the use of flashbacks. It the tale had been told in a linear fashion it runs the risk of being less impactful. One part or the other would be too dominant. Told as it is, if provides us with easy reference points in the other half of the story. The pain, or the result of the pain we see as it’s being caused stays fresh in our minds.

Despite subject matter that seems ready-made for a traditional thriller <em>Martha Marcy May Marlene</em> forgoes most genre conventions. Where most movies would build towards a dramatic showdown and/or a daring escape, this movie is only interested in the possibility of the former and totally downplays the latter. In fact, escape is the first thing that happens and it’s never mentioned again. As a result, we get a movie that plays more like a slice-of-life than a dramatization, albeit a very dark slice. Like many such movies, the ending isn’t a climax, but a stopping point. It’s an intensely interesting one that opens up plenty of possibilities forcing us to confront the questions it raises without giving us any of the answers.

<strong>MY SCORE: 9/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
<strong>Directed by Rob Marshall.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated PG-13, 136 minutes.
Cast:
Johnny Depp
Penélope Cruz
Geoffrey Rush
Ian McShane
Kevin McNally
Astrid Bergès-Frisbey
Stephen Graham
Keith Richards
Richard Griffiths
Sam Claflin
Ava Acres</em>​

Cpt. Jack Sparrow (Depp) is back for another adventure on the high seas. This time he is in search of the original fountain of youth. More accurately, he’s a reluctant guide for Blackbeard (McShane) and his daughter Angelica (Cruz) who need to find it for selfish reasons. Cpt. Barbossa (Rush) is hot on their tail. He wants to catch up with Blackbeard to settle an old score. Lots of swashbuckling, wisecracking and Cpt. Sparrow prancing about ensues.

As usual, Depp and his cast mates have a grand time hamming it up. Nearly every role is merely an excuse to mug for the camera. Our performers willingly dive over the top. The movie, even the entire franchise is better for it. Played straight this would likely be a dreadful affair. Played as it is, with a wink and a smile, allows both the viewer and the movie itself to revel in its absurdities. Like the best moments of the series: <em>On Stranger Tides</em> functions as much like a vaguely risqué comedy as it does an adventure film about pirates.

Wisely, this fourth installment in the “PotC” series sticks with a few easy to follow storylines. This is a welcome regression from the hyper-convoluted abyss that is <em>At World’s End</em>. While that movie is an incoherent jumble of parts, <em>On Stranger Tides</em> is a cohesive unit that moves forward at a brisk pace without leaving us behind. For some the entire franchise has lost its luster and will want nothing to do with this movie. For me, it’s a gleeful return to what we love about the PotC world. That said, I wouldn’t mind if they didn’t make any more of these. The time has come for Cpt. Sparrow to flitter away. This would be going out on a solid note.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Happy Feet Two
<strong>Directed by George Miller.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated PG, 100 minutes.
Cast:
Elijah Wood
Robin Williams
Pink
Benjamin Flores Jr.
Hugo Weaving
Brad Pitt
Matt Damon
Common
Sofia Vergara
Hank Azaria
John Goodman
Carlos Alazraqui
Ava Acres
Lombardo Boyar</em>​

Mumble (Wood), along with seemingly every penguin in the world finds themselves trapped when a giant hunk of ice blocks their path out of a frozen valley. Meanwhile, Will and Bill, a pair of krill played by Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, respectively, break loose from their school and venture out into the ocean on their own. Pop song medleys and dancing ensues.

As with its predecessor, the singing and dancing is the strength of the movie. The way songs most of would never think of in the same sentence blend seamlessly is brilliant. The numbers are lively and make time speed pass as we tap our own happy feet and maybe even <gasp> sing along. That is, of couse, as long as the thought of musicals aimed at children doesn’t automatically turn your stomach.

Where the first movie falters is in its sudden twist in tone. After two cheerful acts encouraging kids to be true to themselves, the third is an excruciatingly dark one involving man’s exploitation of animals for financial gain and destruction of the environment on top our hero suffering spells of dementia. Even though we never get anywhere near those depths this time around, we’re only given one fun act before settling in for lots of penguins fretting about their pending doom and worshipping false idols. Sure, there are plenty of attempts at humor but most of them fall flat. To gauge this, I made sure to notice my children who weren’t laughing very often. The truth is the penguins and most of the other creatures fail to engage us unless they’re belting out a tune.

One exception, at least on a minor level, is Mumble’s son Erik (Ares). Like his dad, he’s a bit different than the other penguins. He doesn’t join in on any of the songs they sing. In fact, he doesn’t say much at all and spends as much time as possible hiding. As in almost every other movie ever made that features such an insecure character, this is all leading up to the moment he bursts out of his shell. The pleasant surprise is how effective a moment this is. It’s an absolute showstopper, by far my favorite part of the entire movie.

The of the film proceeds as it must, efficiently but not always joyfully. Everything happens right on time as we’ve been trained by countless other kiddie flicks. The climax is ridiculous, even for a cartoon about singing penguins. All of this would be forgivable if it didn’t commit a cardinal sin. There are large chunks of <em>Happy Feet Two</em> that are just plain boring.

<strong>MY SCORE: 5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
<strong>Directed by Stephen Daldry.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated PG-13, 129 minutes.
Cast:
Thomas Horn
Tom Hanks
Sandra Bullock
Max von Sydow
Viola Davis
John Goodman
Jeffrey Wright
Zoe Caldwell</em>​

Oskar (Horn) is a happy little boy who does everything with his father Thomas (Hanks). Much of their time together is spent on fanciful excursions like looking for New York’s “lost sixth borough.” Dad uses these to bolster the boy’s confidence and develop his social skills since it seems the boy suffers from some form of autism (the movie half-heartedly kinda sorta rules out Asperger’s Syndrome). The two get along swimmingly. However, bliss is not eternal and Thomas dies during the tragic events of 9/11. A year later, he finds a key his father had hidden in a vase. Oskar then embarks on his own expedition all over the Big Apple to find out what it unlocks.

Though we hardly see her, Oskar does have a mother. She’s played by an appropriately worn looking Sandra Bullock. Nearly every word she says is laced with a defeated attitude. Neither she nor her son are taking her husband’s death well. Basically, she lies in bed while he traverses the city trying to dig up remnants of his dad. Eventually he gets some company on his daily treks from the old guy known only as The Renter (von Sydow). The Renter doesn’t talk but rents a room from Oskar’s grandmother who lives across the street.

There are some interesting things going on in <em>Extremely Loud</em>. Oskar encounters some interesting people on his travels. The relationship between he and the old man is endearing. All thanks for this is due to the wonderful Max von Sydow. He expresses so much without ever uttering a sound. His is a remarkable piece of work. A couple other performances also shine in the brief time they’re allotted. I’ll not divulge any further details as this may give too large a hint about the outcome.

As we inch nearer that outcome things fall apart. The movie becomes too transparent in its attempts to manipulate. It tries to play on our inherent sympathy for children and soon has Oskar bursting into tears every so often in hopes that we’ll do the same. Some of us will. For the rest of us, however, Oskar’s proven to be kind of a jerk. We’ve humored him out of sympathy for his quest, but we’re not ready to sob with him. To combat this, we’re next hit with a seriously contrived and overly gooey conclusion that somehow excuses mom’s highly questionable parenting tactics. It’s clearly meant to have us bawling at the notion of sweetness and enveloped by the warmth of closure. Instead, I merely felt violated as it kept trying to touch my sensitive areas without permission.

<strong>MY SCORE: 5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

J. Edgar
<strong>Directed by Clint Eastwood.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated R, 137 minutes.
Cast:
Leonardo DiCaprio
Armie Hammer
Naomi Watts
Judi Dench
Josh Lucas
Lea Thompson
Christopher Shyer
Dermot Mulroney
Ken Howard
Geoff Pierson
Jeffrey Donovan</em>​

The life and times of the famed first director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover (DiCaprio). He’s reciting his memoirs to various bureau agents serving as typists. His recollections start in 1920, or thereabouts, a short while before he would get the job he literally kept for the rest of his life. He tells his story in grand fashion, sure to highlight the bureau’s successes along the way. Of course, he’s also sure to claim credit for them, whether deserved or not. If it were up to him, this movie would be an unabashed puff piece, a love letter to both the organization he loves and to himself.

Alas, it’s up to director Clint Eastwood. Since that’s the case, Hoover’s memories are spliced with flashbacks to things the lawman would likely never speak of. There are two main subjects explored. First is his blatantly Oedipal relationship with his mother, played by the always awesome Judi Dench. Second is the relationship he carried on with Clyde Tolson (Hammer), the man he hired to be the FBI’s assistant director despite dubious qualifications. The two are portrayed as having a friendship with a homosexual slant, if not a full blown romance. That’s because whether or not their interactions are strictly platonic or not is a murkier issue. If we are to believe the film, there is hand-holding and come-hither looks exchanged over the years, but nothing more.

Leonardo DiCaprio does an excellent job showing us a man who strains to repress his nature and masks his insecurities with a rigidly formal persona and shameless bullying of anyone he could, including the various Presidents of the United States he served under. This makes him a bellowing contradiction. He’s a man dedicated to bringing the nation’s criminal to justice yet totally unethical in his efforts to keep his job. He rabidly protects the sanctity of America yet seemed to detest freedom of speech. DiCaprio ably puts these complexities front and center.

Still, the performance isn’t quite what it could be. Part of this is no fault of the actor’s. The makeup betrays him and does the same even more egregiously to Hammer. Whenever either is shown as an old man, which is quite often, they look distractingly bad. The other night I caught a glimpse of what is perhaps Eddie Murphy’s last great comedy, <em>Coming to America</em>. In it, Murphy and buddy Arsenio Hall play something like a dozen characters between them. Even though the movie is over twenty years old, the makeup jobs still look good. In fact, they’re outstanding on several and very good on all but one, the lady in the nightclub that Hall plays. However, if you’ve seen it, you may agree it wasn’t supposed to look believable for that scene. Here, DiCaprio and Hammer are supposed to be believable. They’re supposed to represent the two men getting older. Sadly, they look deformed rather than aged. They are too plainly buried beneath pounds of immobile, seemingly hardened rubber that’s been glued to their facts. It’s hard to buy into the illusion we’re watching gentlemen in their twilight years when they look as if they’re struggling to move their lips beneath the weight of their prosthetics.

Another issue is that the movie seems to dislike its protagonist. Thankfully, this keeps it from being an exercise in hero worship. However, it may go too far in the other direction. The effect is it feels like it is less interested in informing us than it is in embarrassing Hoover. We’re never sure why even the people closest to him like him. It seems a miracle that only one person appears happy when he dies.

As biopics go, <em>J. Edgar</em> is a mixed bag. It wants to expose him, but is frustratingly vague about certain aspects of his life. Good things that he’s done, most notably a centralized finger printing system, are downplayed as mere strokes of his ego. The impact of all the advancements in law enforcement under his watch is hard to gauge. So is the stuff the movie seems to want to tell us. It’s entertaining in spots but never captivates us beyond how bad the characters look.

<strong>MY SCORE: 5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Opposite Day
<strong>Directed by R. Michael Givens.</strong>
<em>2009. Rated G, 88 minutes.
Cast:
Billy Unger
Ariel Winters
Pauly Shore
Colleen Crabtree
French Stewart
Dick Van Patten
Renée Taylor
Nadji Jeter
Kristen Combs
Dylan Cash
George Wendt</em>​

There are hints that we are about to witness an evil that threatens man’s very existence before the movie even starts. The first thing we notice is the DVD cover for <em>Opposite Day</em> proudly displays the image and boldly printed name of Pauly Shore. We remember there was a time when he was inexplicably thought to be funny. We remember how he parlayed our misplaced trust in his comedic ability into multiple, horribly unfunny movie roles. We shudder as a coldness descends our spine; a warning that this may in fact be an actual depiction of the apocalypse masquerading as a benign family comedy.

We know it’s a family comedy because the full cover features Shore and an adult woman on the right wearing youthful looking outfits and goofy “Hey, I’m a kid!” looks on their faces. On the left we see two actual children, a boy and a girl sporting faux-stern visages and more adult clothing. We give them the once-over because they are children and remind us we have some of our own waiting to watch what we’re sure will be crap piled higher than anyone’s ever seen before. We choke back angry tears, lamenting the lengths to which we go to please our offspring. We told them we’ll never break a promise so we curse the Most High that sitting through this is one of the ones we made.

The blurb on the back of the cover informs us this is a zany “switch” movie. In this case a thingamajig operated by a bumbling scientist causes all of the adults and children in a generic town to switch roles. In other words, the children do all of the things adults normally do: parent, hold jobs, drive, etc. while adults play hop scotch, video games and destroy things. We think back to a promise we must break to honor the one to our kids: one made to ourselves. We recall that after suffering through an earlier movie in which children and adults switch identities we vowed to never again subject ourselves to such an experience. We know that they are almost always terrible, painfully so. Yet like Pharoah, with a hardened heart we refuse to heed God’s warnings, Pauly Shore, dippy outfits and the like, and let the show begin.

As expected, <em>Opposite Day</em> is a nightmare of biblical proportions. The plot, dialogue and acting by the almost all child cast is unfathomably bad and punctuated with an exclamation point by that icky scene where the young brother and sister wake up in bed together as if…never mind. The movie is so horrendous, our children aren’t laughing. It’s so loathsome we become riddled with guilt as if this whole thing were our idea. We pray our punishment will be swift and just. We happen a glance out the window. Sure enough, we see an elderly bearded gentleman with a reluctant look on his face waving a staff and hear wind gathering to incomprehensible speeds.

<strong>MY SCORE: 0/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Project X
<strong>Directed by Nima Nourizadeh.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated R, 88 minutes.
Cast:
Thomas Mann
Oliver Cooper
Jonathan Daniel Brown
Kirby Bliss Blanton
Alexis Knapp
Dax Flame
Brady Hender
Nick Nervies
Peter Mackenzie
Martin Klebba
Rick Shapiro</em>​

Thomas (Mann), Costa (Cooper) and JB (Brown) are a trio of friends who’ve had a pretty non-descript high school existence. They plan on changing that tonight. Thomas’ parents are going out of town for the weekend and the boys have already planned to throw a major party in hopes of becoming known as cool and getting laid. After all, it is Thomas’ birthday though he is understandably a bit reluctant. He’s afraid things might get out of hand and then he’ll be in big trouble. Still, he goes along with the program. Costa acts as promoter. Against his buddy’s better wishes, he invites anyone within earshot. It soon becomes apparent he’s invited everyone else, too. JB is mostly just along for the ride and to be insulted by the obnoxious Costa. Dax (Flame) has been hired by the boys to film the whole thing for our viewing pleasure so yes, we see everything through the lens of the video camera he’s holding.

Anything else I might say about the setup is just an unimportant detail. Our boys go around inviting more and more people and try to secure some booze and weed for their “little” get-together. Eventually, we get to the party. During this time we meet the hot chick Thomas lusts after and of course, the girl who’s always been there. No surprise as to which one he’ll wind up with.

Unless you’re at the point in your life where you’ve only recently been allowed to watch rated R movies, nothing about any of the above is new to you. However, <em>Project X</em> makes no pretenses of being about anything other than teenaged testosterone-fueled debauchery. It merely aims to multiply the chaos present in the previous films of its ilk. At this, it succeeds wildy. In fact, the only place <em>Project X</em> differentiates itself
is in scope. The ensuing party is exponentially more massive than anything dreamed up by those other movies. Literally thousands of revelers pack a suburban block while dancing, drinking (or indulging other substances), fighting, breaking things and/or setting them on fire. In this particular movie, spectacle equals substance.

With no purpose other than being “bigger” than other teen sex comedies, <em>Project X</em> progresses as such movies must. The boys worry when no one shows up right at the time the party is supposed to start. After a while, a couple dozen folks arrive all at once. They’re soon followed by waves and waves of drunken humanity. Things quickly get out of hand and keep spiraling further out of control. For us boys of all ages, emphasis on the word ‘boys’, it’s a blast to watch. It’s all aided by an obvious violation of the movie’s own rules that we don’t really mind. Our loan cameraman often seems to be in several places at once and have several different types of cameras even though we only see one. In short, we’re getting nothing other than hyperkinetic visuals and crass humor. Those are the same two elements that make up the <em>Transformers</em> movies. However, this doesn’t wear us down the way those flicks do. Where Mr. Bay’s two and a half hour jackhammers pound us into submission, this doesn’t last much more than an hour and taps into our truer youthful (i.e. immature) fantasies. Smashing robots together as a kid was great but we really wish we could’ve thrown a party like this.

Also like a <em>Transformers</em> movie, I’m not sure how much appeal <em>Project X</em> has for the ladies. It may have even less since the nostalgia of the 80s toy line and cartoon isn’t there and is replaced by children behaving badly. More precisely it’s the little boys behind the camera projecting bad behavior onto the little boys in front of it in order to impress even more little boys. They’re trying to win the biggest pi$$ing contest. It’s about showing they had the most property destruction and naked girls at their party and got away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Simply, it’s a depiction of our wildest lies about sex, drugs and rock-n-roll. It is nothing more. It offers no great insight into the adolescent male mind. It’s story and characters are wholly derivative. Given that now, perhaps more than ever before, some viewers are driven to emulate pop culture and pine to draw attention to themselves, it’s socially irresponsible. If anyone wishes to condemn this movie on these grounds, I can’t argue with them. That said, <em>Project X</em> exists to titillate and does its job.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Eagle
<strong>Directed by Kevin Macdonald</strong>
<em>2011. Rated PG-13, 114 minutes.
Cast:
Channing Tatum
Jamie Bell
Donald Sutherland
Mark Strong
Tahar Rahim
Denis O’Hare
Dakin Matthews
Ned Dennehy
Julian Lewis Jones</em>​

Some years earlier, his father led a group of Roman soldiers into the wilds of 2nd century Great Britain. They were never heard from again. Also lost was the gold eagle each unit takes with them into battle. Now, Marcus Flavius Aquila (Tatum) is himself a garrison commander in the Roman army. He volunteers for a tour of duty in Great Britain in hopes of recovering the eagle and/or his father. As luck would have it, he is severely injured in battle and involuntarily discharged before he even embarks on that mission. After recuperating, he and a British slave who’s life he saved venture out on their own to complete the job he came to do.

<em>The Eagle</em> wants to position our two buddies as having an uneasy relationship. It wants us to think that the lowly slave Esca (Bell) may not be trustworthy. However, the way things play out, we never get that feeling. That’s a major issue for a movie banking on that aspect. It saps the entire production of any tension it might have had if this angle had been better executed. We never feel that our hero is in any serious danger. Even when things seem most bleak we know that his sidekick is merely biding his time.

Our hero is also problematic. Part of this is due to star Channing Tatum and part to the way his part is written. It seems the writers couldn’t make up their mind how great a soldier he is, or isn’t. The same goes for his fluctuating intelligence. He’s smart or dumb depending on what the plot requires at any given moment. It’s much the same for his soldiering skills. For instance, there’s a moment early on where the very faint sound of his enemies wakes him from a dead sleep. Presumably, his quarters are a ways from the fort wall from beyond which the noise is coming. In fact, no one standing guard on the wall itself hears anything. Initially, I’ve no problem with this. It helps establish him as a superior combatant. However, later on he can’t hear or see more enemies only a few feet away when he is on his own with Esca in the middle of the woods and should be at his most alert. It’s a frustrating about face in character. As for Tatum, I just couldn’t buy him as an Ancient Roman commander with a burning passion for recovering a symbolic bird in an effort to clear his family name. I harbor no hatred for Tatum. If you’re movie is set during contemporary times with a suburban/pseudo urban setting and your lead has to be a white guy with a solid street vibe about him, he’s your guy. As a leader of men during the sword and sandal days, not so much.

There are solid and bloody fight scenes so <em>The Eagle</em> isn’t a total loss. However, the dreadfully serious tone combined with a lack of tension means the movie fails to engage us. We’re not particularly enthralled with this man’s quest. Therefore, the movie trudges past on its way to the inevitable ending with precious little in the way of humor or fun.

<strong>MY SCORE: 5/10</strong>​