Reviews

104 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Rogue One, unlike any other Star Wars picture, is just a movie
29 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The release of a new Star Wars film is never just another movie. Through their relative rarity, a Star Wars movie is a major event, taking over the cultural conversation and, of course, the toys and adverts for the season. It worked last year, when the prospect of a new Star Wars lit the world on fire, aided by the fact that is decidedly didn't suck. Disney's decision to slot canon but non-saga films in between Episodes at first seemed promising, a chance to explore the universe in interesting ways. Instead of giving freedom to filmmakers to tell original stories, however, Disney has instead greenlit a young Han Solo movie and Rogue One, the story of the theft of the Death Star plans. While the former really seems like a shameless cash-in with no reason to exist other than an easy couple hundred million, Rogue One had a bit more potential, telling the story of the rebels who didn't quite have a Chosen One status to protect them. While Rogue One mostly works as entertainment and does keep a lot of the necessary Star Wars feel, its indebtedness to its predecessors and lack of focus keep it from ever really popping. For the first time in the franchise, Rogue One really feels like just another movie, something that passes two hours effectively enough but doesn't leave you wanting to explore more or spend more time in its world. Instead, it left me wishing for what it could have been.

There are at least three great ideas within Rogue One that could have been expanded to make their own movie, but instead get stuffed into a planet-jumping escapade. There's a movie about Rebel spies gathering intelligence, and defections from the Empire. There's a movie about extremist factions in the Rebellion, and how they interact with the more moderate yet still militant Alliance (and what extremism even means in these circumstances). And, most prominently in the last act, there's a Star Wars version of Saving Private Ryan, of Rebel soldiers on a doomed mission. The hints towards this last idea make up the best act of the movie, and there does seem to be some juice in making more movies about The Star War itself. Instead, Rogue One tries to keep the bones of a normal Saga film by having the main characters move all over the galaxy, but continually loses focus in the process.

Having the main characters mobile works well for the Saga films, but the central crew of Rogue One isn't developed or interesting enough to pull the same trick. For a movie with such a welcomely diverse cast (although still overwhelmingly male), the actual characters in a Rogue One are pretty bland and inseparable. Most pass without much impact, notably Diego Luna's Rebel captain, while others try to make up for it with hammy performances, notably Forest Whitaker's extremist leader Saw Guerrara. While Felicity Jones' Jyn Erso isn't quite a Chosen One in the vein of Luke, Anakin, and Rey, her familial tie to the Death Star plans makes her feel more like a plot device than a character. Although he does get some of the best lines of the film, droid K-2SO feels like a factory-approved fan favourite rather than an inspired creation, answering the question of what a more homicidal C-3P0 would look like. Riz Ahmed's presence makes up for his character's complete lack of definition, but there's no comparison of this batch to Rey, Finn, and Poe in Episode VII. Poe similarly had little definition, but the little touches the script and Oscar Isaac's performance gave him made him feel complete with relatively little screen time. Outside of K-2S0 and Donnie Yen's force-sensitive preacher, I can't say that any of the characters in Rogue One are half as memorable with twice the screen time.

The biggest issue I have with Rogue One, though, is how enslaved it is to A New Hope (some mild spoilers follow). As the Death Star is an obvious connection, certain characters make sense to bring back, such as Grand Moff Tarkin, Mon Mothma, and even Darth Vader. But Rogue One doesn't stop there, and bringing back the likes of the two Mos Eisley bar thugs serves only to distract from the story at hand. In order to bring back Tarkin, a CGI Peter Cushing wanders around. This might have been convincing as a hologram but is directly at the nadir of uncanny valley among flesh-and-blood actors, robbing him of his authoritative presence. Rogue One's reverence does give it some strength, reinforcing to a more convincing degree than the original saga the connections between the Death Star and the nuclear nightmare. It also nails the run-down aesthetic in the same way that The Force Awakens did (an inner-city ambush is a highlight for this). But its a necessarily lesser picture because of its indebtedness.

The first shot of Rogue One mirrors the first shot of A New Hope almost exactly, but with a fantastic fake-out that announces itself as reverent, but different. Unfortunately, it overloads on the former and underperforms on the latter. Whether the infamous reshoots had anything to do with it or not, Rogue One is more concerned with comforting its audience than being its own thing. That's not to say its without merit, though. Star Wars is a fantastic universe to be comforted in, and the final forty minutes of the film deliver on the promise of a story of forgotten heroes, of sacrifice and slim hope. The audience's knowledge that said hope is fulfilled by a farmboy from Tatooine is the only thing that keeps it from being completely depressing, and I could have done without the constant winks toward that. The finale sequence still stands as both exciting entertainment and a promising launchpad for future side stories in this universe.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Too Late (I) (2015)
6/10
Too Late gets swallowed by its impressive gimmick
11 December 2016
Too Late is halfway decent noir story anchored by a more than decent lead, but it lets itself get swallowed by its gimmicks. The movie is presented as a series of five twenty-odd minute one-take shots, with mixed results. The opening segment has some neat tricks behind it, including getting star John Hawkes from one end of town to another while maintaining action at a fixed point, and the reveals in the last are effective. But not all of the actors are up to the task, and the reliance on the one-take structure don't do them any favours; many of the scenes in the second section, in particular, have a student-play vibe to them, despite the presence of known names like Robert Forster and Jeff Fahey (Dichen Lachman, however, acquits herself well as a twist on the no-nonsense stripper trope). The nonlinear structure also feels like an afterthought to add some unnecessary extra novelty. The sidebars the movie somehow finds time for don't always work, such as a pair of minor drug dealers with no real purpose other than to pad out the takes and the film's annoying insistence on using film itself as a source of dialogue far too often. If it lost its gimmicks and shed a bit of fat, Too Late has the bones of a good gumshoe flick, albeit one a bit too reliant on stuffing women in refrigerators.
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Arrival (II) (2016)
7/10
Arrival's human elements outshine its speculative ones
7 December 2016
Arrival is the kind of major Hollywood movie some sci-fi fans have been eternally asking for. It's a story of alien vessels descending on Earth that doesn't present itself as an excuse to blow up the White House, or immediately turn into a cheap thrill ride. Its main focus is on something technical (linguistics), and it doesn't immediately turn into faux-mathy quantum-this relativity-that technobabble but instead lets it drive the plot. It involves nations colluding and high stakes, yes, but it also is consistently a very personal story that never loses sight of its main character. It leaves plenty of room for imagination while not resorting to magical excuses. But something's still missing for me. Arrival is a sparse, thoughtful, beautiful film that I just can't love, mostly because it's payoff simply didn't entirely work for me. To go on much further would be clearly spoiler territory, but suffice to say that the movie doesn't cheat with any twists nor does it betray its tone. In fact, its payoff is incredibly affecting dramatically. While the viewer in me interested in human stories left satisfied, the world- investigating nerd in me felt a bit let down.

Arrival's sparsity and humanistic elements come to the forefront immediately, starting with flashback's to Dr. Louise Banks' (Amy Adams) daughter dying young, and allowing the landing of the aliens to happen entirely offscreen. We only see what Dr. Banks sees, and only get a full-out effects shot once she's brought in by the military as a linguistics expert. Twelve crafts have landed sporadically around the world, and while Dr. Banks and physicist Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) try to figure out just what they want, they must work with the other eleven nations while also staving off aggression towards the visitors both foreign and on their base. It's timely that international mistrust plays such a large role here, considering the current nationalistic trend in politics, but Arrival mostly shies away from that form of commentary. It has more sympathy for the aliens themselves, and condemns those who see mystery and respond with fear. Alt-right- esque commentators make brief unsavory appearances, panic spreads through a literal game of telephone, and when Renner notes that they're having "Coffee with some aliens", it's possible to mishear as something very politically relevant today.

For all that it has to say about how we treat those deemed "other", Arrival is more interested in it's sci-fi elements than its political ones. And while they don't entirely land for me, they take big swings and hit home emotionally. A lot of it's successes have to do with its score, beautifully subdued and often incredibly sad, and Villeneuve's command of mood, painting the movie in a washed-out blue haze on Earth and surgically cold blacks and whites on the vessel. Its alien design is fairly minimalistic, with the gravity- bending trick seen in the trailers as its lone flashy moment. Otherwise, it's content with its giant black obelisks of vessels, remarkable for their unremarkability. Amy Adams gives a career-best performance in the middle of a fantastic career, important as the movie rests entirely on her shoulders. No amount of disappointment in the end result can erase the fantastic buildup, and if you're able to go with it all the way, the reward is memorable and touching.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Moonlight (I) (2016)
9/10
Moonlight is a gorgeous and compassionate study of identity
7 December 2016
"Who is you" is the repeated refrain of Moonlight, the story of Miami-born Chiron told in three chapters corresponding to three ages (grade school, high school, and mid-20s). The answer is complicated. Chiron is shy. Chiron is black. Chiron is poor. Chiron is the son of an neglectful mother and absent father. Chiron is the target of bullies. Chiron is coming to grips with his homosexuality. Chiron seems to be a laundry list of melodrama and angst, but it's to Moonlight's great credit that it never loses sight of the fact that Chiron is Chiron. Moonlight is, more than anything else, a emotionally resonant and empathetic character study. The fact that is has beautiful cinematography, a tremendous score and soundtrack, and shines a light on a traditionally ignored segment of the population is all gravy.

Each chapter is titled for a moniker of the main character (Little, Chiron, and Black, respectively), and grapples with his self- identity. The three chapters can be roughly broken down into three epiphanies: understanding your world, understanding your self, and understanding how to accept and be honest about your self. Every side character is written solely in terms of their relation to Chiron (I can only think of one scene without the main character), including a drug dealer who becomes his de facto father figure and his friend Kevin, who greatly influences his fortitude and his sexuality. Despite Chiron being a person of few words, director Barry Jenkins' camera and the performances of the three actors playing Chiron give us a complete, intimate picture, transcending the shallow stereotypes that appear on the surface, particularly in its third act. It seems ready to jump into yelling, violence, and melodrama at any point, but opts for restraint in nearly every case while still providing pathos and catharsis.

What pushes Moonlight from effective to extraordinary is its beautiful production. Jenkins' frames are all a piece of art unto themselves, popping with slightly over-saturated colours (the full title of the original play is In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blue, and you better believe they get that shot). There's a lot to dissect in each image, and they paint a vibrant and distinctive world in spite of the often depressing material. The soundtrack is loaded with the kind of old soul and R&B that Kanye West made a career out of sampling, contrasting with the strings of the stunning original score. And the performances are fantastic from top to bottom, with Naomie Harris and Mahershala Ali deserved locks for supporting Oscar nominations.

Moonlight is an utterly absorbing and beautiful film with unfailing empathy for its main character. It avoids the numerous awards-bait pitfalls, standing a singular and triumphant work. As a piece of visual art, Moonlight is worthy of study. As a gripping drama, Moonlight is entirely effective. As a time capsule of an era where identity has taken centre stage, Moonlight is maybe the most important and relevant film of the year.
11 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The Handmaiden is extremely artful pulp
7 December 2016
Non-English movie trailers will sometimes go very far out of their way to hide the fact that their film isn't in English. The trailer for Park Chan-wook's latest film, The Handmaiden, follows this tradition, and is incomprehensible as a result. It is, however, one of the most striking trailers of the year, and promises a pretty visually distinct piece of film. I'm happy to say that, while The Handmaiden is not what I expected based on the trailer alone, it lives up to that promise, marrying arresting film-making with a twisty narrative.

Park Chan-wook's films, in a way, feel like a distant cousin of Quentin Tarantino's (who championed his breakout, Oldboy). The Handmaiden at it's best contains similar stylistic touches, such as denoted act breaks and nonlinear narratives, and it's plot certainly has a lot in common with Western con movies. Effectively, the movie concerns itself with the relationship between three characters in 1930s Japan- occupied Korea: wealthy isolated heiress Hideko, grifter posing-as-noble Fujiwara, and petty thief turned handmaid Sook-hee. Fujiwara enlists Sook-hee to be his eyes and ears as he tries to marry Hideko from under her abusive uncle's nose, but Sook-hee and Hideko soon find themselves drawn more towards each other. It's fun to watch it all unfold, although those expecting a mind-blowing twist in the vein of Oldboy may be let down; while the movie is quite far from traditional, its plot machinations are fairly traditional (although very engaging).

What pushes the film up quite a bit is Park's style. Most of the film takes place in Hideko's mansion, which crosses English and Japanese architecture much like Park wears his English and Asian filmmaking influences on his sleeve. The movie threatens to be a haunted house flick briefly, and many times evokes Park's early Gothic drama Stoker. But Park and production designer Ryu Seong-hee give the film a vibe of its own, selling the oppressive opulence of Hideko's life. Moments of pitch-black humour help to cut the tension effectively, including the best noose gag ever filmed. Where Park's instincts falter a bit is when it seemingly exploits the Sook- hee/Hideko relationship for pure titillation value. To its credit, even the exploitation isn't without thematic relevance; a subset of characters in the movie are connoisseurs of artful smut, and the closing moments cement the idea that Park set out to make exactly that. But the narration and interaction sells the attraction between the two well enough, which leaves the explicit scenes feeling a bit superfluous.

Even if a bit exploitative, The Handmaiden is a sharp, stylistic, and engaging piece of liar's fiction. It successfully creates a universe of its own and fills it with memorable images, characters, and moments. It has plenty of bite, but also an underlying sweetness that's a bit surprising from Park. I can't wait to watch it again.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
True Grit (2010)
8/10
Highly entertaining, wonderfully acted and excellently written, but somehow not satisfying enough to be classic
6 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The western has been a genre in dire need of a comeback as of late. The Coen brothers have always had some love for the setting (No Country for Old Men notably), so if anyone is to be up for the challenge of bringing it back, it would be them. What was unexpected was for them to tread into remake territory, bringing the John Wayne classic back, a film I admittedly have not seen. Viewed as its own beast, True Grit 2010 is a highly entertaining, very well written and very well acted western tale, but didn't fully satisfy my hunger for some good old fashioned retribution.

The film is about young Mattie Ross hunting Tom Chaney, the killer of her father, with the aid of notorious US Marshal Rooster Cogburn and occasional aid of Texas Ranger LaBoeuf, who has been chasing Chaney for some time. Mattie is not satisfied simply letting the two men take care of it and insists to accompany them herself. The three reluctant allies make their way through Indian territory to face Chaney and the gang he has shacked himself up with.

The Coen touch is clearly felt in the side-characters encountered, notably a bear-skin wearing doctor of questionable honesty. These moments give it almost a noirish feel at times, but truth be told this is as close to a straight genre film as the Coens have ever made. Western through and through, True Grit does little to mess with the formula and tone, unlike perhaps more daring films like The Proposition.

Even through it is a genre film, its a damn well made one. The setting feels like a long-lost memory at this point for most audiences, and is represented beautifully. The dialogue rarely if ever feels modernized, but strays from unintelligible archaic babble. Even more importantly, the film can be downright brutal. The old west was, I imagine, a violent place compared to modern society, and the film does not shy away from the blood, racism and cruelty. Those who can't take animals getting hurt should be wary of the film's climax, and those who squeam at the sight of blood should bring a shoulder to bury their eyes into.

The best part of the film is indeed the characters and the performances behind them. The weight of the movie falls on the shoulders of young Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross, who stands with Chloe Moretz as one of the great emerging young actresses of the year. She shows maturity well beyond her years and pulls off some incredibly impressive dialogue believably, especially notable in the first twenty minutes (the bartering scenes are almost the highlight).

Those worried Jeff Bridges wouldn't be able to pull it off can put their worries to rest, as while Steinfeld is the emotional center, Bridges carries the movie as the entertainment. His performance is highly believable, yet this is Mattie's story and not Cogburns. As such, he's an incredibly funny and occasionally cunning major character. Matt Damon pulls off the arrogant asshole LaBoeuf as well as the necessary changes his character undergoes. Josh Brolin gives a perhaps confusingly meekish portrayal of Chaney, but it just makes his character that much more interesting. Barry Pepper makes the most of his small role as the gang leader.

The problem with the characters is that nothing really seems to happen. Mattie is already hard as rock when we meet her, rather than having to build up due to necessity. Rooster only begins to change his stripes at the very end, and does so very quickly. LaBoeuf emerges as almost the most interesting character to watch change, but is relegated to the sideline. Perhaps I'm expecting too much of an old story, but I also felt unsatisfied by the ending, with everything working out a bit too neatly aside from one tripup.

True Grit is not the best film of the year, as many thought it may well be. It is a very well made and entertaining western sure to please fans of the genre and not make its detractors as bleary-eyed as they might expect, but its ending prevents it from reaching classic status. Hopefully its success ushers in a new wave of westerns, for the cinema scene surely needs them.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Easy A (2010)
5/10
A good movie with trouble in the details
6 October 2010
There's a good movie lurking within Easy A, I can say that with great certainty. A film aiming to make Emma Stone the new Molly Ringwald, it succeeds in a few departments. Emma Stone shines, and the movie offers a few instances of great dramatic intrigue. However, one sin it commits brings it down greatly: it does not manage to be consistently funny.

Emma Stone stars Olive Penderghast, a small town high school student who manages to top the gossip chain by creating rumours of her promiscuity. Using it to help the woeful male losers pretend they got action, Olive bathes in both gift cards and infamy. However, once the consequences of her actions become apparent, the spotlight is suddenly less bright.

The plot definitely has some dramatic high points, above all relating to the teacher/guidance counsellor married couple played by Thomas Haden Church and Lisa Kudrow, a story that perhaps would have been better served as the main plot line rather than a sub plot. Olive being solicited for the real deal is also a dramatic high point. Many of the supporting actors not brought in for comedic relief absolutely sell these moments and make them by far the most memorable parts of the film.

Emma Stone is an incredibly charismatic lead and is well positioned to be the teen queen of the generation. It is a testament to her performance that she is incredibly watchable even while given a terribly wish-washy character, who until the end flip-flops between regretful and infamy-loving at an alarming rate. While some of her one-liners are decently amusing, some stand out as particularly horrible, notably the Tom Cruise line from the trailer (how was that line considered good enough to make the promotional material?).

Two major parts of the plot and cast fail miserably though. While a male romantic interest was necessary, Penn Badgely as Todd seems to be something out of a particularly bad John Hughes movie. This is made ten times worse when the film pokes fun at those very same John Hughes movies. Perhaps if the male lead was less of a underwear model, the overall theme of the film would be less muddied.

Also failing epically is Amanda Bynes as the hyper-Catholic Marianne, whose circle ostracizes Olive. Her acting is consistently hammed up and her groups actions and interactions seem far too cartoonish in contrast to the films real dramatic tension. The movie also seems perhaps a little too gung-ho on an anti-religion slant, using religion as a shortcut to indicate people just not minding their own business.

The general kookiness of some of the characters is also somewhat offputting. Olive introduces her best friends parents as very strange people, seemingly only to keep us from noticing how very strange her own parents are. They are clearly portrayed as loving, and Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson clearly have fun, but they aren't as funny or important as they should be.

In all, the film has many issues, but a great film does lie beneath them. Even with those issues, the movie could have been forgiven if it was at least funny. While it has some great moments and will surely be a star-making vehicle for Stone, Easy A doesn't quite make the grade (worst pun ever, I'm aware).
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Unfunny and incoherent, but thats from a non-fan of Ferrell
6 October 2010
I should admit something immediately: I'm not a big Will Ferrell fan. Sure, he was really funny on SNL and for some reason I loved Talladega Nights, but Anchorman and Step Brothers were both very mediocre in my eyes. As such, fans can simply ignore everything I say from here on in, because while they will certainly enjoy it, The Other Guys was a huge disappointment in my eyes.

The film would have worked great if it had ended twenty minutes in, for the first act was indeed hilarious. Featuring Samuel L Jackson and Dwayne Johnson (who really needs to do a real action movie soon) as hotshot cops with Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrell stuck at their desks, laughs come quite fast at the start. Conversations about land tuna do well to contrast the ludicrous action sequences.

However, once Wahlberg and Ferrell hit the streets, the movie loses all momentum. Various one-note jokes are stretched far too thin, such as Ferrell being irresistible to women or Wahlberg being blamed for shooting Derek Jeter, and most of the other laughs are in the trailer. A revelation about Ferrell's past is random enough to get some laughs, but is quickly overused.

The actors do little to lift the material. Jackson and Johnson are great, but limited in screen time. Rob Riggle and Damon Wayans Jr also manage to get the lions share of the second half's laughs despite their small roles. Ferrell's role is too inconsistent, playing up the Ferrell-esquire idiot role to be believable as the functioning member of society the rest of the film expects him to be. Wahlberg starts out as a great straight man, but as he joins the lunacy any barometer of sanity is lost. Michael Keaton never sinks low, but the TLC-oriented jokes around his character grow weak.

I really can't say much more than that I didn't find The Other Guys that funny. It was a mostly laughless experience with a good opening, loose plot and ludicrous ending, but fans of Ferrell-McKay movies will likely enjoy it. I just can't claim to be part of that group.
5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Inception (2010)
8/10
Inception is the best sci-fi movie since The Matrix
16 July 2010
Every so often a movie comes along which completely changes the notion of science-fiction. Avatar did it not too long ago, thanks to its special effects in the same vein as Star Wars. But often times effects have little, if nothing, to do with innovation. Blade Runner and Alien certainly aren't remembered mainly due to their special effects, and while The Matrix may have ushered in a new era of effects and action scenes, perhaps the strongest effect it had was altering the way we think of science fiction in films itself. Inception is one of these movies, transcending genres and becoming more than just a great sci-fi movie, and is the best sci-fi movie since The Matrix eleven years ago.

I went into Inception having avoided every trailer to keep it fresh. I was aware the movie was about dreams and directed by Christopher Nolan and that was already too much information. Having seen it, this doesn't really matter; no trailer will explain this film enough to ruin it. It creates its own universe with a distinct set of rules which are blended into the narrative naturally.

But what is it about anyways? Inception is essentially a heist movie, except instead of stealing anything real, the group we are concerned with steals ideas by infiltrating the subconscious of their dreaming targets. Except this time, they plan to plant an idea in the subconscious to bring down a company at the beckon of the Saito, head of the rival corporation.

The heist crew consists of a bunch of interesting characters, who despite not fitting any kind of "five man band" or any other cliché all feel fairly fleshed out, at least enough to care about the fate of each one. This may partly be due to the very likable cast, ranging from Juno herself Ellen Page to perhaps my favourite actor in the business right now, Joseph Gordon Levitt. Ken Wantanabe also joins in the fun as Saito, perhaps his first truly major role in a Western blockbuster since his Oscar nominated turn in The Last Samurai. Cillian Murphy tones down the creepiness he excels at as the target of the heist, and is actually quite sympathetic.

Of course, the emotional center of the film is Leonardo DiCaprio as Cobb, an expert at the game wracked with guilt over what happened to his wife Mal. In most sci-fi movies, the "past guilt" storyline is ridiculously overplayed and usually a large distraction from the meat of the story. This may be the first time that this part of the story *is* the most intriguing (which is saying something given how damn intriguing the rest of the film really is). DiCaprio gives a great performance, as does Mario Cotillard as the wife, full of both spite and love. I will say no more, for this is the only part where spoilers matter, but its a very organic and touching storyline which will no doubt be widely discussed.

In these dreams, the subconscious presents itself as various persons who can become violent if they feel the dream is tampered with (or if the mind has been trained to defend itself). This is half for the sci-fi aspect and half for the sole purpose of giving us action scenes, but either way it works. Gun fights initially seem out of the place, but when the stakes for living in the dream are later raised (rather arbitrarily might I add, one of the few weakly reasoned plot points) they become rather harrowing. The better action sequences directly take advantage of the dreamscape, notably a zero-gravity sequence.

Effects are not the reason to see the movie (Avatar this ain't, plot structure is much more important), but regardless the movie is stunningly beautiful. Any movie about dreams will have some interesting cinematography and Inception certainly fits the bill. No hippy-esquire backdrops are used, making this much less of a stoner flick than it may well have been and all the better for it. And best of all: it all makes sense in context and never feels like it was done for solely for rule of cool.

Inception may well be Nolan's masterpiece, certainly capable of standing next to The Dark Knight and Memento. In ten years, it may become a classic held to the standards of The Matrix and Blade Runner. Some may find it too intellectual or prententious, but this will be the minority. Anyone with even a vague interest in sci-fi owes it to themselves to see this movie. Its the best science fiction film in years and a strong early contender for the best movie of 2010.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Fun, but not enough Titans
3 April 2010
Clash of the Titans, from the title alone, made many promises. We expect to see many monsters of Ancient Greece, and we expect them to do battle, alongside humans and the Gods. We expect many many epic battles, lots and lots of CGI and appropriately over the top performances to go with them, but mostly, we want the monsters. While Clash delivers on some level for each of these promises, it surprisingly really lacks in the monsters department.

It must be said as fair warning, you do not get to see Kraken VS Hydra or anything like that in Clash of the Titans. The action is centered squarely around demigod Perseus, who for our purposes is basically a man secreting badass. After Hades threatens to unleash the Kraken on the city of Argos, Perseus and a group of soldiers go in search of a way to kill the Kraken, encountering many perils along the way.

The problem is its always Perseus and the soldiers who end up fighting the monsters. I'm sure I'm not the only one who expected the beasts to fight one another at some, mythology be damned (not like its particularly close to the myths anyways). Only four real combat beasts emerge anyways: the Kraken, Medusa, a mutated Acrisius and some random giant scorpions. Not even the Gods get to fight much, despite the much-hinted battle between Zeus and Hades.

The Kraken in particular really should've had a battle with another beast thrown in, and its use seems like a wasted opportunity. The scorpion battle is quite exciting, though is broken up as its really four fights with different scorpions simultaneously. The Medusa sequence is easily the best of the film, as although we know from a plot perspective Perseus can't die, the fate of the group of soldiers is considerably less clear. It all makes for a very tense and rewarding sequence, somewhat hindered by the surprisingly poor CG on the Medusa character model. Shame, as the rest of the monsters are quite good looking.

The cast is quite good on paper, but it doesn't work as well as expected. Worthington is a suitable lead, but I see him heading to Stallone-esquire B-movies quickly if he doesn't find more interesting characters. Liam Neeson is fairly underused, and aside from the "Release the Kraken" line, never gets any moments. Ralph Fiennes is the biggest disappointment as Hades, spending far too much of the time whispering like a bad Sith impersonation than being actually menacing. The standout is easily Mad Mikkelson as the leader of the soldiers. While not a terribly meaty role, he has more than enough charisma to be much more interesting than Perseus himself.

Clash is definitely not a waste of a matinée ticket, and I felt I got almost what I expected. But I know it could've been more, and it seemed to be purposely saving certain creatures for a sequel. Its solid fun, but hardly the must-see some might think from the trailers.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Alice in Wonderland (I) (2010)
4/10
This isn't Alice, this is a fanfic
28 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
First things first, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is a sequel, not a remake. No, its not Through the Looking Glass, its an entirely new sequel with an 18-year old Alice finding her way back to Wonderland (well, Underland, but whatever). Sequel is perhaps not the best word, because really, this is a fanfic with a budget, and as such is plagued with narrative issues. Which might be OK, but its visuals are also somewhat disappointing considering the pedigree, and the 3D effect is eye-straining.

Alice has grown up and assumed her childhood adventures were a figment of her dreams. Then she is distracted by a rabbit with a stopwatch after being proposed to by rich d-bag and falls back down the rabbit hole. Turns out, they need Alice to slay the Red Queen's dragon, the Jabberwock, freeing the people of Underland from her reign of terror. With the assistance of a militant Mad Hatter, a wise smoking caterpillar and a loopy White Queen.

If only Alice could convince herself it wasn't just a dream all over again. Maybe some people have considerably more lucid dreams than I have, however the fact that Alice goes through a solid three-quarters of the movie before finally realizing shes not dreaming. The movie seems to try to treat it the same way, despite it being blatantly obvious Wonderland is a reality. Its enough to make any viewer despise Alice for the entire course of the film.

Not that she's particularly hard to despise, since she's portrayed very flatly. She's not particularly naive or stupid or ditzy, just very flat and boring. In a movie as full of out-there characters as this, it would seem that thats the only way to play it, but it makes it very hard to care for the lead.

As for the rest of the cast, they clearly try to be as out there as possible with scattershot success. The best of the bunch is clearly Helena Bonham Carter as the evil Red Queen, who eats up scenery like a buffet. Even if we hear "off with her head" perhaps once too many times, her performance still comes close to saving the movie. Crispin Glover carries a villainous presence as the Knave of Hearts, a captivating role at first though eventually he amounts to nothing. Anne Hathaway also has some entertaining moments as the Gothic White Queen. While her makeup may not be as strange as for the other characters, her performance certainly is.

The problem is too many characters crowd the film. The problem with a fanfic is that certain characters meant for only one or two segments end up with incredibly inflated roles. In the original Alice, the minor characters took over the movie, but had their segments and then got out of the way. The new film tries to keep the cast continually growing, giving these minor one-dimensional characters enough screen time to make us sick of them.

The biggest instance is clearly the Mad Hatter, a character never meant for a role this big. Sure, he was memorable in the old Alice, but it was a concentrated dose. Here, he's given full lease over the movie, and gets flat out annoying. Johnny Depp does not help, as he seems on his own version of auto-pilot, not doing anything with the character we wouldn't expect of Willy Wonka or Jack Sparrow. Its another eccentric role that unfortunately doesn't feel much different than his others, and one of his most underwhelming performances in general.

Can't get by without mentioning the 3D effects. After seeing Final Destination use them as a crutch and Avatar use them beautifully, my feelings were that the 3D can be used for good if the effort is put into it. With Alice, it was obviously a last-minute add-in, because the effect wears on the eyes very quickly. I eventually just started having fun tilting my head side to side and changing the colour tint. Suffice to say the film is probably better in 2D.

The movie has some Gothic themes for sure, which may frighten kids more than the ads imply. For one example, there is a river of human heads. Cue nightmare fuel. The movie wants to seem grown up with these things, clearly thrown in to appease fans of Nightmare Before Christmas, but the plot is unable to keep up. The movie ends in a gigantic battle, just a lazy excuse for the few who wanted to see the Tweedles do battle. Its a lazy ending, thats for sure.

Tim Burton may have seemed like the perfect choice on paper for Alice, but it just didn't work. Most of the blame lands on the lazy fanfic of a script, and the over-reliance of small characters. It has some nice visuals and the Red Queen is certainly entertaining, but all ye stoners would be better off to keep watching the cartoon.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A sequel to Aces could have been great. This isn't.
28 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I must admit, despite being lukewarm to it at first, Smokin Aces 1 became one of my favourite bad movies. Lots of shooting, random cool characters and kinetic energy, despite the second half not being as awesome as it could have been. Smokin Aces 2 took basically the same concept, a bunch of assassins after a single target, and takes a lot of the life of it. While I didn't like the first much either the first time, I highly doubt 2 will get better if I have the misfortune of seeing it again.

When I say Aces 2 has the same concept, I mean down to the last detail almost. A hit is put out on desk jockey Walter Weed, and a large group of high profile assassins come out of hiding to attempt to score the bounty on his head. A protagonist FBI agent (even with the same goatee) is assigned to protect him, and not all is quite as it seems. Even some of the twists (notably the end scene, which is awesome anyways I must admit) are right out of the book of Aces 1. That being said, I really did like the plot twist at the end regarding who set up the hit, even if the leadup was a bit convoluted. I just wish it was used in a better movie.

But this is straight-to-DVD fare, so who needs that much of a plot? Aces 1 was such a cool concept, trying it again can't hurt. However, that would rely on having new cool assassins, and this bunch falls flat. The sole spot of awesomeness is Tommy Flanagan reprising his role from the first as Lazlow Soot, master of disguise. Vinnie Jones is an amazing actor for a movie like this, but his character is unimpressive (his introcutory scene comes across as Saw-like almost) and his screen time is far too short. A female assassin is brought in as sex appeal, but is otherwise useless.

Then there's the Tremors, who made the first movie for some. Except this time, only one of the originals returns, Maury Sterling (aka the unmemorable one). Gone are Chris Pine's psychotic laments and Kevin Durand's intimidating bullheadedness with a chainsaw. They are replaced with a new brother, a sister and the father. Michael Parks is suitable as Fritz Tremor, although more of him would have been welcomed. Baby Boy Tremor is just annoyingly dull, like something out of a Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon. AK-47 Tremor is possibly the worst movie character ever imagined, an annoying little woman whose sole moment in the film is when she is shot in the head (spoilers anyone?). That and they contribute the most head-shakingly bad weapon ever: exploding clowns.

The direction in the film tries hard to be like the first, involving lots of 24-style splitscreens, which can be cool at times but messy at others. The action scenes are an exercise in getting stuff blown up and minor characters offed quickly. At least the one time someone goes into the fray guns blazing, things end badly, causing me immense laughter at the stupidity.

Aces 2 has its entertaining moments, but overall its a mess of a movie that pales to the original. Aces 1 surely had a concept that could be reused and possibly done better, but Aces 2 just confirms that its not as easy as it looks.

Someone give Tommy Flanagan a better role.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Wolfman (2010)
6/10
A mess of editing, but still campy fun
23 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Its rare these days for a monster movie to go for scares. Most either take the route of becoming action movies, or descend into campiness. The reason for this is simple: old school monster movies have lost their effect due to a desensitized audience. Todays viewers are well aware of the stuff movies can do, so effects alone can't convince. The wolfman, a semi-remake of one of the original classic monster movies, certainly doesn't bring the scares, but it has enough campy fun to be worth watching.

The Wolfman certainly seems to be taking itself seriously at first. After his brother is found mutilated, estranged son Lawrence Talbot returns home to find the best that did it. Of course he finds the beast, and it bit by it, and inherits the curse. The scenes leading up to this are treated relatively seriously, with Lawrence's father waxing sentimental and his brother's fiancée being appreciative enough that we know the two will engage in some kinky inter-species nasty later on (spoilers: doesn't happen, though I'm sure it would have been a great moment for film).

Then it all gets gleefully tossed aside when the werewolf attacks a gypsy camp, full earning its 18A rating in the most ludicrous showering of gibs since, well, Daybreakers. Backs are ripped off, heads are swiped clean, and organs are strewn about in all sorts of pretty ways. Its all well in fun, but its never scary. Indeed, camp is the natural replacement of scares in horror movies. In general, if one cannot frighten, throw in as much gore as humanly possible to get laughter and maybe the odd squick. The Wolfman does this in spades, but if thats the mood you're in it works splendidly.

The editing nearly kills it though. While the camera is always steady and clear, its still difficult to comprehend what is going on because things just seem to happen. Its like the scenes were longer, and then essential bits just got thrown out to make the film shorter. The climactic wolf battle is a particularly egregious example, which resulted in plenty of "wtf's" from me.

The plot is somewhat serviceable, though the lack of a strong villain is glaring. Not that Man VS Himself wouldn't work in this situation, just that they attempt to include a weak villain that never really grabs attention. A lot of the fault is on the characters. Del Toro plays it straight, which may have been the wrong choice for this film. Blunt is plenty ladylike, but forgettable. Hopkins is horribly disappointing as Lawrence's father, spouting off wannabe-epic dialogue that mostly falls flat or seems random. The bad guy (I'll keep it a secret) has one scene where he ineffectly lists off his bad deeds with the calm of someone reading groceries, seeming more lazy than evil. If he had said he kicked puppies and spat on the Pope I wouldn't be surprised. The only good performance comes from Hugo Weaving as Detective Freddy Aberline, inexplicably based on the real-life investigator of the Ripper murders. He has one particular crowning moment of awesome in a bar, but otherwise is underutilized.

The Wolfman is no classic, but there's worse matinees to see. Its a complete and utter mess by some standards, but has enough campy charm to be more than enjoyable to laugh along with. Werewolves may be down and out for scares, but at least they can be relied on to maul things in brutally hilarious ways.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Cera finally breaks the George Michael mold
2 February 2010
Oh Arrested Development, how I loved thee. And yes, I was ecstatic when Michael Cera became a breakout star from the show after his awkward/naive George Michael role. Unfortunately, this had started to wear thin after he more-or-less reprised this role over and over again, with varying degrees of success. So along comes Youth in Revolt, which on the outset looks like Michael Cera playing George Michael again. Lo and behold, not only is Youth in Revolt hilarious, its also by far Cera's most diverse role yet.

Youth in Revolt is about Nick Twisp. His mother has a boorish boyfriend Jerry whom Nick hates, and his father chases bimbos despite his lack of a job. When Jerry is on the run from some Russian sailors, the family goes up to a trailer park to lay low, where Nick meets Sheeni Saunders, who may well be the entire alternative/hipster scene wrapped up. She likes old music, French cinema and strange robot poetry. Eventually, the two start making out and such, but just as love blossoms, its back home for Nick.

Of course, Nick won't let his "true love" get away that easy, and hatches a diabolical scheme to be back with her. To do so, he needs to break his nice-guy frame, doing so by inventing the mental persona Francois Dillinger. Francois is easily the best part of the film, also played by Cera but manifesting himself physically with Nick. Its some kind of Fight Club-ish thing going on, but the way its presented definitely feels fresh.

This extra character is what puts Cera over the top. While Nick may be his standard character for the most part, Francois is a side of Cera not seen yet, very confident and moreover badass. Although part of me doubts Cera was able to grow that moustache himself. The Francois scenes are definitely the best of the film, and worth the price of admission alone.

What would a comedy like this be without wacky supporting characters? This is where the movie is more hit-and-miss. Portia Doubleday is very serviceable as the idol of Nick's affection, and any guy who says he didn't majorly crush on a girl like that is clearly lying. Sure, her character is perhaps written as slightly to hipster to appease the fanbase, but the relation is by all means believable.

Jean Smart stands out among the supporters as Nick's unsympathetic mother, as does Fred Willard as a very sympathetic teacher. Steve Buscemi and Zach Galifinakis get unfortunately little to do as Nick's father and his mother's boyfriend respectively. Ray Liotta is excellently used as an antagonistic cop. However, Justin Long comes across perhaps just a little too creepy as Sheeni's stoner brother, and her sweater-wearing boyfriend is simply far too much of a douche to be anything but a cliché.

But whats important is that the movie is outright hilarious. Sure, there's better coming-of-age stories out there, but this one takes the cake in terms of simply making me laugh. A lot was in the trailer, but there's still more here, and Youth in Revolt is a must-see for fans of the genre.
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
An excellent example of how to make a non-political Iraq War film
21 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
My advice is to see the movie and not read the review if you were planning on seeing it anyways.

Movies based on current events can be a strange breed. They're often preachy and always biased. However, they often get good reviews regardless, so I wasn't putting too much stock into the amazing reviews for The Hurt Locker. I remember when I saw 500 Days of Summer, I had the choice of seeing this instead. Both were only playing in the one theater in Toronto at the time, and it turns out they are both two of the best movies of the year hands down.

The Hurt Locker defies expectations and, instead of being about the war, is a character study. The movie has zero poltical stance. It portrays the bombers as monsters and many other Iraqis as sympathetic. If it had been about the bombers, it would have probably found some sympathy, but this isn't their story.

This is the story of Staff Seargent William James, assigned to a bomb disposal unit in Iraq, replacing their recently blown-up teammate. James is reckless, which pisses off his teammates whose lives are put in danger. This is made explicitly clear during his first job, where he holds up a speeding taxi (and bomber suspect) with a pistol.

James is a static character, and while he learns over the course of the film, he doesn't change per se. The initially unsensible character simply becomes more and more clear to the audience over time. In fact, I would bet his actions early in the film would seem quite natural if seen a second time having gotten to know the character. Renner's performance is absolutely excellent and completely believable and the most realistic and complex badass to cross the screen as of late.

The movie also focuses on his teammates, who do evolve over the course of the film. Veteran soldier Sanborn is the straight man of the film, and at first appears to be the main character. We sympathize with his troubles with James and his position of responsibility. The other member of the squad is Eldridge, representing those who really don't want to be in Iraq. He's not a pansy, but he panics and desperately wants to go home. Both of these characters serve as foils to James, and as such are often sidelined, but nonetheless add to the film.

Aside from those three, few characters are expanded upon. Guy Pearce and Ralph Fiennes are excellent in small roles, the latter as perhaps the closest the movie comes to commentary, singling the issue of military contractors. Lost's Evangeline Lilly and House's David Morse also make cameos.

While not an action movie, The Hurt Locker is chock full of tension. The situations that James puts himself into are pulse-pounding and the outcome never seems certain. There's a sniper battle which is excellently filmed (one odd slow-down shot aside), although some parts of it make little sense (notably the accuracy of the enemy sniper). I've also heard some complaints from people who know their stuff about realism, but these are moot to the average film viewer. This is one of the most suspenseful movies of the year hands down, and whether realistic or not, it certainly FEELS realistic.

The Hurt Locker is an excellent movie that only gets better the more I think about it. A great character portrayed with a clearly Oscar-worthy performance with ridiculous amounts of tension add up to make The Hurt Locker one of the best war movies of the decade and proof that contemporary war movies can work without being political.

War is a drug.
27 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It makes no sense, but I enjoyed it so
14 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Trying to come up with some kind of rating for The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus is quite a challenge indeed. On one hand, the plot goes absolutely nowhere, the ending is nearly incoherent and the point seems lost in an overly symbolical climax. On the other hand, the movie is absolutely beautiful, some characters are beyond excellent and the ideas behind it are tremendously original. And I'm an absolute sucker for originality.

Imaginarium makes no bones about being completely out-of-this-world from the outset, following a troupe of actors and mystics. The leader, Dr. Parnassus, is mostly silent on stage, rumoured to be an immortal who has lived 1000 years. Also following are Parnassus' 15-year-old daughter Valentina, youthful romantic Anton (who is, of course, head-over-heels for Valentina) and wisecracking yet wise midget Percy. They soon run across a mysterious amnesiac stranger, who has new ideas for the show.

Parnassus accepts, because he's made a deal with the devil (given the name Mr. Nick) and needs to collect five souls before the devil does, which he accomplishes by having people enter his Imaginarium, a world inside his/their mind (its difficult to tell just whose mind it is). And so the race is on, and Valentina's life is at stake.

The exact "rules" of this soul-collecting business is never explicitly stated. Some parts near the end involving this simply make little to no sense. In fact, the entire ending is full of mumbo jumbo that probably demands a second viewing. Even with this oddity, the ending is nonetheless exciting.

The middle, however, does drag somewhat. Despite what one might think, the Imaginarium scenes appear in the beginning, then cut out for nearly an hour. The movie doesn't have much steam in the real world, although Ledger's enthusiac salesman performance does give these bits some life to them, as well as any interactions with Percy.

It does, of course, have a very standard love triangle, with Anton and the stranger vying over Valentina's affections. Thankfully, neither suitor is displayed as particularly perfect, but it does feel somewhat by-the-book otherwise. Anton is the sweet, age-appropriate suitor, with a gleam in his eye and jealously in his heart. The stranger (eventually revealed to be named Tony, but I much prefer the early moniker George) is much cooler and more assertive, but there's mysteries in his past. How it all ends up is slightly surprising, but its mostly the same as always for the romantic side of things.

As for the actual imaginarium scenes, if Avatar is a testament to the raw power of CGI, this film is a testament to their artistic value. Likely entirely green-screened, these sequences are quite dazzling, with rivers turning into snakes and sinister Russian mothers. Its like Alice in Wonderland went slightly more over-the-edge, and some while some bits are truly bizarre, its all quite fascinating, especially when it is first re-introduced after the middle.

One of the big buzzes of Parnassus is Ledger's performance, being his last before his untimely death. While he has extraordinary bits as the salesman of the show, the meatier bits in the imaginarium, unfortunately, were not filmed before he passed. In an act of true genius, Gilliam used three other actors to fill in (Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrel), with the explanation being that his appearance changes. Which would have made sense had the other characters had their appearance change as well, although one other exception does occur, giving it somewhat more validity. All three actors pull their weight wonderfully to help the film. Jude Law, in my opinion, was the best of the three, although Farrel was also great with likely the most screen time and dramatic impact. Depp was certainly entertaining, but seemed too much like Johnny Depp, clashing a bit with Ledger's characteristics on the outside. Unfortunately, Ledger's character is last seen as one of these forms, leaving the characters sendoff disconnected.

The supporting cast has some big standouts. Plummer is appropriately wise, but does little more than expected. Lily Cole is a beautiful subject for the role, and perfectly exudes youthful naivete, although the character's age sometimes makes her actions squeamish. Verne Troyer (yeah, that Verne Troyer) is exceptional as the comic relief Percy. The true standout is Tom Waits as Mr. Nick, the trickster devil. A stlish mix of clever and evil, Mr. Nick is one of the best villains of the year, and an excellently entertaining performance.

Imaginarium simply must be seen twice to get a proper opinion of the movie. If originality and style is more important than pure dramatic substance for you, then I would recommend this movie, as few like it exist. If you want more substance, look elsewhere.
21 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Avatar (2009)
8/10
If you are willing to be amazed, Avatar delivers
14 January 2010
There is a definite downside to overhyping. It doesn't matter how good the movie is, if its being touted as the next coming of Christ, anything short of that will be met by with rage from the fanboys. After the first trailer, Avatar seemed to be clearly heading into this territory. A seemingly predictable plot, strange looking blue people and a bunch of unknowns boded poorly for the movies success. I myself was unassured, but knew it had to be seen anyways. I'm glad I did, because Avatar is the best blockbuster experience of the year, although not without its faults.

Avatar skips through the opening pretty quickly, starting off with paraplegic ex-marine Jake Sully (Worthington) awakening after a six year journey to the new world Pandora. Pandora is littered with various dangerous creatures, spirit dandelions and a valuable rock known as Unobtanium, but most importantly for our purposes the hyper-spiritual humanoid race known as the Na'vi. Unfortunately, the Na'vi have settled right on top of the richest Unobtanium reserve on the planet. Industrialist Parker Selfridge (Ribisi, with the least subtle character name ever) wants them off, and ex-Marine mercenary Quatrich (Lang) is more than willing to blow them to hell to get them to move. The science team, led by Dr. Grace Augustine (Weaver) is more interested in studying the Na'vi and their connections to the Earth, and want a diplomatic solution to the mining issue. When Sully's brother on the science team is murdered, he is brought in due to his genetic structure being compatible with his brother's avatar, a Na'vi-human crossbreed body that can be controlled remotely.

Sully's job to infiltrate the Na'vi becomes more complicated when he begins to fall for their culture, their spirituality and Neytiri (Saldana), a warrior princess. The core plot itself unfolds very predictably, and from the trailers alone the basic structure is given completely. The plot moves along at a brisk enough pace though that, even if its coloured within the lines, its a fun journey to take.

My biggest gripe with the movie is the lack of subtlety in the spirituality of the film. The deity Ewya that the Na'vi believe in is invoked far too much, oftentimes unnecessarily. It gives the movie a bit too much of a tree-huggy nature to it at times, and could have been done without.

The plot is clearly meant to parallel Iraq, and as such many of the humans are portrayed as boneheaded violence monkeys (guess which side thats supposed to be). There are a couple characters to offset this thankfully, but enough need to be still violence monkeys to allow for the climactic battle, which is like a ramped up version of the Ewok fight in Return of the Jedi. Its an amazing action setpiece, and if thats the sole reason you wish to see the movie, it will not disappoint.

The effects were one of the most hyped up aspects of the movie, and they do not disappoint at all. The computer effects are some of the best ever seen on screen, and succeed in creating an entire new world. The Na'vi people themselves manage to avoid the "uncanny valley" effect and are entirely believable, rarely seeming robotic or, well, computerized. The environment is completely believable, but not that far above what one sees in modern video games. Some of the landmarks, such as the floating mountains, are a bit excessive. Sci-fi can explain away many things, but gravity should still make the mountains rest on the ground. And what the hell is a flux vortex or whatever, aren't we above making up sci-fi gibberish? The 3D effect is very well done. The only time I'd seen it done well before was in Up, where it was subtle to the point of almost being unnoticeable. In this case, it is noticeable, but never distracts from whats important. There are no pop-out moments to draw attention to it, but the effect works wonders to immerse the viewer in the movie.

Cameron wisely stuck away from A-listers, with B-list recognizable faces mixed with complete unknowns. Sigourney Weaver is by far the biggest star in her movie, but is believable enough in her determination (a very similar performance to her own in Gorillas in the Mist) to not let this get in the way. Worthington, a complete unknown before production on Avatar started, is an excellent lead and can possibly become the next big action star. Saldana brings a very elegant flow to Neytiri, and Ribisi is an excellent pigheaded moneyman.

The true standout in my opinion is Lang as former Colenol Quatrich, the badass mercenary who warns of the low gravity making the marines "soft". Lang, who showed his funny side with a memorable role in The Men Who Stare at Goats, now portrays one of the most convincing and frighteningly badass villains in film. Its one hell of an entertaining performance, and here's hoping creates many an internet fad.

Avatar is an excellent blockbuster, but the predictibility of the story perhaps makes it slightly less than the heights the fanboys had hoped. Still, its an amazingly entertaining movie, and a must-see experience. Just try not to get over-hyped.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
District 9 (2009)
9/10
Original and exciting, avoid if have fear of shrimp
14 January 2010
It happens all too often where aliens invade the Earth violently, with vastly superior technology and intents to harvest, destroy or both. There's very few that humanize these invaders in a non-cliché way. And here's one that humanizes the aliens as blue-collar workers entering our xenophobic lifestyle. By paralleling human discrimination, District 9 is actually one of the best sci-fi movies to come out in a long time.

The plot of District 9 purposely mirrors the Apartheid rule of South Africa. A bunch of aliens crash in Johannesburg, discovered to be blue-collar workers and moved out of their mothership in what initially seems to be a humanitarian move. The settlement they are given, however, quickly becomes a slum known as district 9. A private interest group known as MNU oversees district 9, but appears to have other interests, namely in the advanced weaponary aboard the ship. Nigerian gangsters take advantage of the "prawns", trading cat food (which the aliens love) for weapons, although they are unable to use them. Their solution is to, of course, eat the prawns to gain their power.

Due to the conditions of district 9 (ie being so close to the regular people), MNU decides to move the aliens to district 10, further out of the city. The task is left to Wikus van der Merwe (Copley), a mild-mannered office worker who just happens to be connected through his father-in-law. While serving notices, he finds a suspicious canister in the house of the alien "Christopher Johnson", and is sprayed by it.

What happens next really shouldn't be spoiled, but suffice to say things don't go well for Wikus after this. The exact effect of the spray is almost laughable at first (a fine case of applied phlebotnium, a magical substance that does whatever the plot requires it to do), but it services the plot quite excellently. But really, alien fluid? C'mon.

Wikus himself is a truly excellent character. While never as nasty or fully aware as his superiors, he is far from completely sympathetic. He threatens poor Christopher in an extremely evil way involving his son. He views the aliens as a pest. He aborts a group of alien children by fire without a second thought. He is the definition of asshole protagonist. It is a tribute to Copley's excellent performance that we are completely aware of this yet still sympathize with him at the end.

The true hero of the story is Christopher Johnson, the prawn with the plan. His reaction to discovering the experimentation of MNU is one of justified rage, but usually he is logical and mild-mannered. The same cannot be said of the other prawns. They earn they're reputation often, although not usually unprovoked. I'm glad the aliens weren't glorified as "pure beings", but perhaps they could've standed to have more than two sympathetic characters. Christopher's son CJ is also a little too Hollywood-cute for a shrimp-looking alien.

There are three distinct acts to the movie. The introduction, which has a very well done mockumentary feel to it. The change to traditional narrative by the second act is impressively subtle. The conspiracy of the second act lets way to traditional sci-fi blow-stuff-up by the third act. Its a little intellectually disappointing that this route was chosen, but at the same time, I'll be damned if it isn't awesome on so many levels. Let's just say more heads explode than in any more ever before, and a man is killed by a flying pig carcass. And all on a relatively small budget. Bravo indeed. Unfortunately, the trailer steals away a lot of the suspense from these sequences.

Now for some random thoughts too small for their own paragraph: The bad guys are maybe a little too two-dimensional, showing no real moral dilemma. This is acceptable for badass Colonel Koobus, one of the slimiest sci-fi bad guys ever, but a little more humanity would have been nice. The soldiers also suffer from the stormtrooper effect to a ridiculous degree, getting wasted like candy. The alien weaponary seemed far too advanced for a ship of worker bees, and I feel it should have been more comparable in power to human weaponary. But it was still really cool.

Even though it loses some respect in the last act, that last act IS ridiculously cool. The extremely original and refreshingly low-budget feel of the entire movie warrants a must-see status among sci-fi lovers, and film lovers in general. More exciting than most blockbusters out there right now and more thought-provoking than most dramas, District 9 is highly recommended.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daybreakers (2009)
6/10
"At one point a body spontaneously explodes." sums up the entire movie
14 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I'm sitting in the theater, waiting for the movie to start after the round of previews. The opening credits begin, and then... A BAT FLIES ACROSS SCREEN WITH A HIGH PITCHED NOISE! And that is when I knew for an absolute fact that I would hate Daybreakers, for anything relying on such a cheap trick must surely be awful? Thankfully, the film gets better after that initial misstep. Daybreakers takes place in a world where vampires have taken over the place of the human race. Cars are designed to keep sunlight out, school lets out at 2 AM, the colour red is used in all billboards. Even Uncle Sam is a vampire. Its our world, but with subtle tweaks, using a dimmer palate illuminated by fluorescent bulbs.

The remaining humans are hunted as a source of blood (which is apparently excellent in coffee). With less than 5% of the initial human population left however, foods in short supply. Enter Edward Dalton, a self-loathing vampire attempting to find a blood substitute when another alternative is brought to him by a rag-tag group of humans: a cure for vampirism.

What follows is, as expected, quite a bloody affair. Some vampires don't want to be cured, the ragtag group is constantly hunted, family issues arise with Edward's military brother and his boss's militant (human) daughter.

The vampires in the movie amusingly are not "Twilight vampires" or any kind of special-rules types. These are your classic, stereotypic vamps. They burn in sunlight, they have a penchant for necks, they don't age, they explode when they have a stake driven through them, etc. Even the no-reflection thing is brought back from the grave. Its strange that now it seems quite daring to be standard with vampire rules, but alas, considering its competition, Daybreakers seems almost revolutionary.

There is one big difference though. When the vampire is sufficiently starved of blood, instead of withering away and dying/aging, they instead turn into mutant vampires seemingly much stronger and definitely much more aggressive. How this makes sense, I don't know, one would think they'd be easier to kill than normal vamps. But then it wouldn't be as cool, now would it? In terms of pace, Daybreakers is a little uneven. The action setpieces are there, but the non-action moments can be a touch too sombre for such a movie. At the end of the movie, which I term the "vampire tag segment", the movie seems to all of a sudden shift to a style more in tune with zombie flicks.

The constant: gibs. Lots and lots of gibs. Vampires explode, have their heads cut off, cut other's heads off and suck their sweet sweet juices, etc etc. At one point a body spontaneously explodes. Not that I'm complaining, just lots and lots of gibs.

And of course little of it makes sense. One could go over many things about the movie for a while that, if not plot holes, are certainly at least stupid. The resolution at the end is definitely something pulled out of the screenwriter's ass as a "deus ex machina" (go Latin). But its all a lot of fun, so its forgivable.

It would have been nice if the cast had a bit more fun with the script. Hawke rolls on through the script, either lazily or taking it way to seriously. Willem Dafoe is greatly underused as the resistance leader, needing a little more bad-ass time. Neill gets the best treatment as the vampiric corporation boss, an evil yet mildly sympathetic villain.

Daybreakers is pure B-movie entertainment a la Underworld. These are your daddy's vampires, none of that sparkly merde, and I'm thankful for it. As uneven as it is, I couldn't help but have fun with the various organs flying everywhere. Definitely a popcorn/group movie, but there's worse ways to spend a night. But its gotta stop the cheap tricks.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9 (I) (2009)
8/10
Nightmare fuel unleaded
14 January 2010
Animation does not mean a kids movie. I'm not referring to movies like Wall-E where they can enjoyed by all ages in this group. I'm not referring to South Park where its crude and done for laughs. I'm referring to stuff like Secret of Nimh, where it looks like it might be for kids but in reality will only succeed in giving them horrible nightmares for years to come (those damn rats). 9 can be said to be the Nimh for this generation, giving nightmares of machines and monsters for years to come. And, like Nimh, its a damn good movie, although perhaps not in the right media.

9 opens in some kind of laboratory, where a scientist creates his ninth sack-man robot...thing. It cuts forward, and the scientist is dead on the floor and 9 awakens. As 9 explores the deserts apocalypse that Earth now is, he encounters the other 8 creations as well as the robotic beasts that hunt them.

9 has its greatest strength in its visual style. As 9 wanders around the new world, dead bodies scattered here and there, the sombre visuals recall the wastelands of Wall-E. The machines are scary as all hell at times, and always creative. Some visuals, such as the, erm, "soul-sucking" become repetitive and lose their effect, but regardless, the visuals of the film will stick with you.

The characters are also quite well portrayed. Sure, they can fit into some stereotypes and none are terribly depthy, but a revalation two-thirds of the way through explains this perfectly well. There's 1, the fearful leader, 2, the engineer, 3 & 4, twin cataloguers, 5, 2's loyal apprentice, 6, the artist, 7, the brave heroine, 8, the brawler, and 9, the hero. Some don't get quite the attention they maybe deserved, notably 6, but they each get their moments to shine.

More time to invest in these characters might have been preferably, leading me to my main complaint. 9 is by all means a good movie, but it feels like it would have been better as a comic book series or a video game. As a series, the characters would be more fleshed out in print than on film, and maybe would have made it a better ensemble rather than 9's story.

As for the video game argument, the story structure of 9 feels all too much like a game. The progression is episodic, with "quests" for something usually ending in the theatrical equivalent of a boss fight. If it is adapted to a game, it has a lot of potential, but as a movie, it has an odd feel in that sense.

Despite the problems with the narrative, 9 is a visual wonder, and by that alone is recommended. Maybe its destined to become a cult classic, with fanfics and spinoffs galore to fully flesh out the universe. Just don't scare the kids with it.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
3D film, 1D ideas
14 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Final Destination was one of the smarter horror flicks of its time, backed by an awesomely original concept questioning the meaning of freak accidents. Final Destination 2 took this same concept, upped the gore, and made one of the goriest light-vibe horror movies in recent years. Final Destination 3 made one of the funniest and campiest wide release horror flicks lately. So if 1 is the smart one, 2 is the gory fun one and 3 is the campy fun one, then what does that make 4? The forgettable stupid one with crappy 3D effects.

Final Destination 4 (being called "The Final Destination" for reasons unknown, its certainly not a reboot) starts off with an accident at a racecar track. The theme started with the second of making the accident very involving and gory is continued, although to a ridiculous level. The car crash was believable, and while the roller coaster was a bit silly, at least it wasn't an exercise in stupidity. The racecar scene is just that. Stuff gets sliced and diced good, but it all feels ridiculously fake.

Of course, a random guy sees it happen in advance and causes a scene, causing people to leave early. Sure enough, stuff goes down as he predicted, but soon the people who got out are getting axed one by one. Can death be beat!? Damn straight it can't! Wouldn't make for a good chop-shop movie without it. And oh does stuff get chopped up good. But none of it is really that clever, and when it is, its quite stupid. The sequence of unfortunate events is taken to a new level with a car wash scene, which may be the silliest thing the series has ever done. Then a fence is used as a mincing device, which may be the most illogical. Oddly, some (such as one pool death) which seemed stupid and fake are based on real life occurrences, proving that truth is stranger than fiction.

It doesn't help that at least 80% of the deaths are given away in the trailer, but such is the crutch of this series. So, to make up for it, they threw in some 3D. So far, 3D has been used for kids films and horror flicks in wide release, and this is the first of the latter group I've seen. And its terrible. Rarely does it add to the fun, and mostly cheapens it by reducing the filmmakers to cheap gags.

The characters are broad-strokes as always. The only interesting one is Myketli Williamson's security guard George (yes, thats Bubba), but even he gets more than his share of dumb moments. The main character has little charisma, but hell, his girlfriend's hot, and thats the point of the movie isn't it? We get a token douchebag, a way-over-the-top racist and a milf who should have her kids taken away from her to round out the package, but its been more interesting before.

The movie also toys with mini-premonitions before each death, supposedly to make us guess. Usually they just give red herring, but mostly they're a waste of time. They also lead to the single worst movie ending of the year so far (by which I refer to the entire last half-hour).

FD4 is hardly comparable to the fun gorefests before it. Instead, its a trite and stupid movie with only mild camp factor. Its no wonder the opening credits is a recap of the first three movies, this new one seems to have run out of good ideas. Take a couple years and whip out the old notepad before the next one please.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Honestly better than expected (thats not saying much)
14 January 2010
As a fan of the show in my youth, I once upon a time thought a live-action DragonBall movie would be awesome. I was twelve, please forgive me. Upon seeing the first trailers for this movie, I knew how wrong I was. Fantasy elements such as those in DragonBall just didn't seem to work in a live-action setting. Now that DBE is available for rental, I had to pick it up just to see how bad it came out. I am legitimately astonished. While DBE is certainly a bad movie, it somehow manages to avoid being terrible, which is more credit than I ever thought I'd give it.

DragonBall Evolution is far from faithful to the source material, although nostaligia certainly was evoked. The dark lord Piccolo has managed to break out of his seal, and is hunting for the DragonBall's such that he can wish himself back into power. One of these dragonballs belongs to Goku, a geeky teenager who lives with his grandpa and trains in the martial arts, including some wacky airbending stuff and the word "ki". When Piccolo kills Goku's grandfather, Goku and fellow dragonball holder Bulma go on the run to find Master Roshi and stop Piccolo. Oh, and for Goku to woo hot fighter chick ChiChi.

Certain elements from the old cartoons come across very well with live actors. Bulma's motorcycle-in-a-capsule is certainly quite awesome. But for every plus, there's five problems. Goku in high-school is almost insulting to the fans. The airbending techniques come across as a little too sci-fi since the world is made to look a little more realistic than in the cartoons (we accepted it there in a world where a dog was a police captain).

Some of the biggest problems lie in the characters. Chow Yun Fat ostensibly brings some level of respect to the movie, but its one of his worst performances. In one moment where he celebrates a victory, he acts like Roshi straight out of the cartoon, something that doesn't work in live-action. Emmy Rossum really should be getting better roles than Bulma, and Bulma herself is made more action-oriented to fit in with the boys (although she's the only protagonist to play with guns). Joon Park is annoying as all hell as Yamcha, a Korean thief who talks like a surfer. Jamie Chung is definitely the hotter than anyone would have imagined ChiChi, but since when was ChiChi a fighter? Chatwin is decently likable, although the implications of a white Goku are a little unfortunate.

Action is of course what the movie is about, seeing as the series prided itself on five-episode long fight sequences. The beginning scenes are quite awful, such as Goku's fight with high school bullies, with overuse of slow-mo. After that, the fights are a little more fluid and enjoyable, although far from memorable. But hey, we get to see Chow Yun Fat beat up the kid from War of the Worlds, which almost makes it worth it.

In spite of how easy it is to rip on, DragonBall Evolution was much more enjoyable than I expected. There's a lot of groaners, but less than I expected. Maybe its just low expectations, but I got a lot more out of DBE than I expected. Granted, I expected it to be a zero-star affair, and it managed a whole two. Good for it. But from now on, realise the limitations of adapting cartoons to live action. This movie will be too out-there for non-fans, and the fans will absolutely hate it. Moderate fans looking for nostalgia, such as myself, are really the sole audience for this.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Four Rooms (1995)
6/10
Uneven but has its moments of awesome
14 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Short story anthologies can often suffer from being only as strong as their weakest link. This fact almost destroys Four Rooms, an anthology seemingly organized by Tarantino picking some of his favourite up-and-comers of his generation at the time. Allison Anders and Alexandre Rockwell has since faded into obscurity, but two of the directors on the bill, El Mariachi's Robert Rodriguez and the man himself, Quentin Tarantino, are now two of my personal favourite working directors. Four Rooms has too many weaknesses to fully recommend, but the final two segments almost fully redeem it.

The stories are mostly unconnected, save the presence of Tim Roth's Ted the bellhop character. As such, each segment should be reviewed individually.

The movie opens with Anders' The Missing Ingredient. A coven of witches convene in the honeymoon suite with a cauldron and nudity at their disposal, attempting to revive a fallen comrade. When one of them fails to obtain their sacrifice of semen, she must get it from the only man in sight...the bellhop.

This segment is by all means godawful. The only good thing I can even say about it is that it makes the next one look good in comparison. Ione Sky as the main witch has that girl-next-door look to her essential to her role, and is perhaps the only good thing about the segment. Madonna has a nothing role with an annoying goth daughter, who seems like she should have had a more important role but is instead throwaway. Of the other witches, only Lili Taylor is memorable in any way. The effects used are right out of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and don't fit at all with the rest of the film. If you ignore this segment, the movie is likely all the better for it.

Rockwell's piece, The Wrong Man, has a very interesting setup, but fails to be consistent. Ted is given the wrong room number to deliver ice to, and ends up in the hands a gun-toting jealous husband (an excellent David Proval), who has his wife gagged up and is smoking out the man named Theodore she's been sleeping with.

The segment definitely has its moments, such as Ted yelling for help out of a bathroom window or Proval's gun-waving antics, but it digresses a little too much. A heart attack twist at the end is a major groaner, and Tim Roth hams it up far too much in his role here. The music is also quite horribly used. Not nearly as bad as the first part, but The Wrong Man doesn't add much to the movie.

The saving grace comes in Rodriguez's The Misbehavers, the direct precursor to Spy Kids. A smooth Spanish thug (a hilarious Antonio Banderas) wishes to attend a party with his wife, and pays Ted $500 to keep an eye on his children and make sure they don't misbehave. Through Vapo-Rub and dead bodies, of all things, Ted has his work cut out for him.

The Misbehavers is actually the high point of the entire film. The ending is simply hilarious, the setup is very well detailed. And, unlike the cleaner Spy Kids movies, its pretty damn dark. Banderas is absolutely excellent, as are the children.

This leads to the final story, Tarantino's The Man from Hollywood. Fed up with the crazy night, Ted calls his boss and complains that he's quitting. A call comes in from the penthouse, and he is convinced by her that he must fill their request, as an important customer from Hollywood is staying there. Ted caves and finds himself in the middle of one of the most eccentric bets straight out of Hitchcock.

While not as memorable as The Misbehavors, Tarantino's bit is very entertaining. It has that traditional Tarantino swagger. Tarantino himself plays the man from Hollywood, making the dialogue a little more annoying but at the same time all the more stylish. Marisa Tomei is excellent in her short role. And Bruce Willis has a cameo. Whats not the love? The ending is simply amazing as well.

The only thing left to address is Tim Roth, the most uneven part of the whole picture. As the only character in all stories, being under four different directors must be difficult to maintain consistency. As such, Tim Roth gives us two horrible performances (The Missing Ingredient and The Wrong Man), one brilliant one (The Misbehavors) and one very strong one (Man from Hollywood). While his 50s-sitcom performance in Missing Ingredient fits in with the general badness of that segment, his performance is arguably the worst part of The Wrong Man. His timing in The Misbehavors is the stuff of legend, as is his role at the end of Man from Hollywood.

If you switch on halfway through, Four Rooms is a delightful little hodgepodge movie. Its a shame two poor segments distract from that. For simplicity, here's all four rated individually:

The Missing Ingredient: 10% The Wrong Man: 30% The Misbehavors: 90% The Man from Hollywood: 85%

At least you leave it feeling good, despite sitting through some drudge at first.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tell No One (2006)
6/10
Don't let the hype get to you
14 January 2010
I think I was victim of overhyping with this one. Tell No One has had an incredibly warm reception in America. While its not entirely undue, Tell No One is simply a well-made mystery flick, and nothing more.

Alexandre Beck has just graduated medical school, and along with his lovely wife and childhood friend Margot, is finally ready to start his life. Tragedy strikes, and his wife is brutally murdered while he is left as a suspect. Eight years later, his name has been long cleared but the discovery of two more bodies has re-opened the investigation, with Beck as the prime suspect. When he receives an email showing real-time video of his wife, alive and well, he must uncover the truth about what happened eight years ago.

While Beck is clearly the main character, Tell No One is almost an ensemble mystery. There's an abundance of characters, although few are colorful. There's Margot's police captain father. There's a shady operative who never really gets much of a payoff. There's a sympathethic detective with OCD. There's Beck's sister and her lesbian lover. There's a street thug who loves his son. And there's a senator who maintains a somewhat ominous presence over the movie.

The mystery itself is rather involving and complicated. Clues are definitely dropped throughout if you pay attention, although its by no means obvious. The ending is nice, but can't help but feel a little soap-operatic. Some of the chase scenes have real energy, especially one involving crossing a highway. There are times where it seems overly complicated, and it sometimes approaches boredom at the beginning. The main villain is almost out of left-field though, which is the biggest problem.

Cluzet is an excellent lead, channeling Dustin Hoffman in Marathon Man (not to mention looking exactly like him). He is always sympathetic in the very classic way, something we don't see too often in modern mysteries. Dussollier is also excellent as Margot's father, who bookends the film.

Tell No One is a very effective mystery film, but it is at heart a genre film. Why it is so hyped up, I don't know, but it is definitely a solid genre film. The language barrier may cause some viewers who are impatient to give up on the film halfway through, as it requires attention to detail. If you speak French, can stand dubs (unlike me, I'm subtitles all the way) or just like a good mystery, you'll like Tell No One.

Oh, and the soundtrack is very awkward. I almost thought that it was changed over for the English release, but nope, even the French were subjected to these overly-obvious English songs. Granted, maybe in French, keeping the soundtrack in a foreign language made it more mysterious, the same way a song that seems heavy-handed yet is in French would suit an English film. Either way, it doesn't work well for the English audience.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Another summer wasteland romcom
14 January 2010
If Apatow and Meg Ryan movies had a child, it might be The Ugly Truth. Its a cookie-cutter romance filled with lots of cuss words and scatology to make it seem "edgy". As much as the actors want there to be more involved with the movie, the bones just aren't there, and after a few early giggles, The Ugly Truth is exposed as a poor effort.

The Ugly Truth opens with Heigl's character Abby as a depended-on news producer who's love life is in shambles due to her obsessive need for control (she has a checklist of ten things she expects in a man). This is only made all the more clear when she calls into a male romance show led by the a scruffled Mike Chadway (Butler), who chews her out and calls her fat. Of course, Mike is soon hired by her network as a correspondent to increase ratings. Cue shenanigans.

When Abby meets her new 8-packed doctor neighbour (I think he may have extra abs), she falls head over heels and is absolutely clueless how to proceed. Mike finds out and teaches Abby to treat the good doctor as a man, and no one knows men like Mike, who becomes Abby's Mr. Miyagi of men in order to get her to stop complaining about his show.

There is some basic truth to what Mike says. Yes, men don't like being controlled. Yes, men don't fall for personality at first sight. However, the movie works in broad strokes, and as such ends up as both male AND female chauvinistic. Mike's a pig and Abby's a bitch. Somehow through each other they get a little closer to the middle.

Of course, that's because the genre demands it. The movie follows the flow of rom-coms to a ridiculous extent. There really isn't much original at all going on in this plot. The ending is particularly terrible, the character shifts being far too sudden.

The movie has some funny bits at the beginning, with Butler playing the over-the-top pig. Unfortunately, once we get over the fact that there's some particularly nasty cuss words in a rom-com, most of the rest seems pretty stale. A half-hour of mildly-funny does not make up for a very unfunny next hour. Admittedly, there were a few unintentional laughs towards the end.

The actors do their best. Heigl is cute and annoying, as she should be, and has a future in these kind of movies. Butler shouldn't be wasting his time, but does what the script demands quite well. Eric Winter seems to be fit enough for the dreamy doc role, even if his face is a little creepy. Cheryl Hines and John Michael Higgins are the saving grace of the first third as the husband-and-wife co-anchors, but they quickly fall to the background after their time is up.

The Ugly Truth is just another entry in the wasteland of summer rom-coms, even if its one that earns an R-rating. No amount of dick jokes can make up for that.
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed