Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

The1TheOnlyJP's movie tags

Advertisement
  • JP Paxton and the Review That Wasn't Suppose to be Written

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]

    The wind blows northeast failing miserably in its attempt to offer even the slightest relief from the scorching sun above. The sweat drips profusely from my hurting head here as I remain in the confines of almost deafening silence for what has now been 159 days. Too long some have said; too long. As much as I would like to voice my hatred of this I'm afraid I ashamedly cannot. It was my decision after all, but perhaps the wrong one. It is now though I make another. It is now as I hold in my hand a particular perforated souvenir I know it is time. Ah yes, time indeed. Ladies and gentleman, I present to you this ever so special piece: JP Paxton and the Review That Wasn't Suppose to be Written.

    It was the summer of 1981 and one of the most recognizable characters in film had been introduced to the world sporting a fedora, leather jacket, pistol, & of course a ten foot bullwhip. His name: Henry Walton Jones, Jr. better known as Indiana Jones. Played then by a thirty-eight year old Harrison Ford, the brave adventurer would forever be remembered as being apart of what many claim to be the greatest adventure film of all time, 'Raiders of the Lost Ark.' Who would've known then we'd still be seeing him up on the big screen here twenty-seven years later? (Please put your hands down.) In 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' Harrison Ford returns for yet another installment of the now classic series proving (not that he had to) he's still got it. Though it may have taken quite a while for him, Steven Speilberg, & George Lucas to arrive at an agreement after seemingly ending the series in '89, it doesn't appear to make any difference to those thousands who flocked to midnight showings just a couple of days ago.

    Taking place in 1957 'Crystal Skull' picks up nineteen years after Jones' last escapade 'The Last Crusade.' Once captured by a group of Reds lead by Irina Spalko played by the super talented Cate Blanchett Indy and his friend Mac are forced to aid in their mission to find a lost crystal skull. Along for the ride is star of the moment, Shia LeBeouf as greaser Mutt, Jon Broadbent as a former colleague of Jones' Harold Oxley, & returning to reprise her role as Indy's old flame from 'Raiders' Karen Allen playing the not-so-fiesty-anymore Marion Ravenwood.

    Going into this I was absolutely ecstatic. I love the first two and 'Crusade' was okay (please don't kill me) so I was really looking forward to what Speilberg and Lucas had in store hoping to impress us all yet again. Sadly I have to tell you, I was disappointed. It's not horrible by any means though. The initial problem lies within the writing and everything else just goes from there beginning with three character mishaps all the while Harrison as Indy remaining great. Here we had Cate Blanchett, one of my favorite actresses for once as a villain. It wasn't her cheesy accent that got me, it was the fact I couldn't get away from the fact that it was fucking Cate Blanchett. In my eyes, just too big for the role. Also, she wasn't all that dangerous. I mean yeah, she could swordfight and was able to throw a few punches here and there, but I didn't find her to be that evil. Next there's Karen Allen back as Marion Ravenwood. Any good writer would've used her and Indy's reunion as more of a way to make the story more dramatic, while in true Jones style equally humorous. Instead all we end up getting is Karen smiling as wide as she can no matter what as if she's just thrilled to have even been invited back. Then finally there's LeBeouf a.k.a. Mr. Hey I Can Have Three Hit Movies In One Summer But Not Really Have Any Talent. Did anyone actually take him seriously in this? I'm sorry, but I just don't see him as the knife-wielding badass type. To me he came off like a pretty boy with a cool cycle.

    The other issue I had regarding this shameful screenplay was the overall inclusion of over-the-top action scene after over-the-top action scene set to an overall flat storyline. This is pretty much how the film flows: death defying stunt, another defying stunt, one more death defying stunt, little bit of story, repeat. With that said, it can't go without saying that there were in fact some really fun and enjoyable moments throughout. The cycle chase, fight atop the cars, as well as the ants attack were all spectacular. I just would've preferred a more well paced approach as was seen in 'Raiders.'

    The thing about 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' though is that there are so many fans out there that will just be pleased another Jones movie has been made that nothing will be able to tarnish their opinion of it. I completely understand that. However, although it's not what they want to hear, the sad truth is, 'Crystal Skull' skull is just okay. Not awful, not fantastic, just okay. If you're looking to pass a couple of hours with some mindless fun, this is the way to do it.


  • Entertainment Weekly Is Funny

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]

    Ladies and gentlemen, we're but a mere seven days from the official start of the 2008 summer movie season.  Hollywood is hoping the current box office slump will take a turn for the better and begin to rise with releases such as 'Speed Racer', the next trip to Narnia 'Prince Caspian' and Indiana Jones' highly anticipated adventure 'Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' all in the coming weeks.  This past week Entertainment Weekly put out their summer preview issue which includes projections for what they believe will be the top ten grossing films of the summer.  That list is as follows:

    $355.9 mil    01 - 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull'
    $310.8 mil    02 - 'The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian'
    $280.4 mil    03 - 'Hancock'
    $280.3 mil    04 - 'Wall-E'
    $267.7 mil    05 - 'Iron Man'
    $255 mil       06 - 'The Dark Knight'
    $244.6 mil    07 - 'Kung Fu Panda'
    $176.5 mil    08 - 'The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor'
    $147.2 mil    09 - 'The Incredible Hulk'
    $146.6 mil    10 - 'Tropic Thunder'

    Expectations are high all across the board.  The cumulative total of those estimates comes to $2.465 billion, just $20 million behind the overall top ten of last year.  I'm sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but there is no way in hell the box office is going to bring in those kind of numbers this year.  2007 was the biggest year in history and to say it'll be close here in 2008 is ignorant.

    Even being the goldenboy at the moment won't generate $280 million for Will Smith in 'Hancock.'  While promotion online may be plentiful this is one film people aren't talking about.  As far as super heroes go this summer, it's all about Iron Man and Batman; not some medicore made-up comedian that can fly.  A projected total of $176 million for 'Tomb of the Dragon Emperor?'  Smack dab in the middle of the release weeks for 'X-Files: I Want to Believe' and 'Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D' (which also stars Fraser...) will no doubt put a crimp in it's style and overall revenue.  Also, most of the general public at the moment haven't a clue that this is even coming out in August.  (Yeah, that means start sending out the posters to the theaters now Universal.)  The fact is its been seven years too long since anyone cared about encino man fighting off a CGI monster.  Probably the most shocking of the predictions though is the amusingly ambitious $310 million for 'Narnia.'  This time the buzz isn't as loud and the idea this installment promises to be darker  will in my opinion deter many parents from flocking to see it.  'Wall-E'  will in fact be Disney's bread and butter this year.  

    The following list is my take on what I assume the actual top ten films and their total grosses will be.

    $350 mil    01 - 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull'
    $280 mil    02 - 'The Dark Knight'
    $250 mil    03 - 'Wall-E'
    $235 mil    04 - 'Iron Man'
    $225 mil    05 - 'The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian'
    $208 mil    06 - 'Kung Fu Panda'
    $183 mil    07 - 'Hancock'
    $145 mil    08 - 'Tropic Thunder'
    $142 mil    09 - 'The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor'
    $130 mil    10 - 'Get Smart'

    The combined total of my list ends up as $2.127, which is far more plausible then Entertainment Weekly's hilarious estimates.  Now there are also a few films that could possibly prove to be surprisers when it's all said and done.  (I didn't include them in the above list because I find them each to be too big of a wildcard.)  Depending on just how many hardcore fans of the once popular show of the same name get out and see it, 'Sex and the City' could bring in anywhere from $95-$130 million.  The option to do two sequels wasn't included in the leading ladies' contracts for nothing.  Then of course there's the re-start to the Hulk series which is getting more and more attention as the weeks pass.  A sum of $130-$149 doesn't seem to impossible to me if all goes well for it.  Most importantly though is the quite colorful adaptation from the Wachowski brothers: 'Speed Racer.'  A hefty promotion deal with Mattel, McDonald's, Target, General Mills, Esurance, Lego and others could drive the film to finish as high as $185 million (no, I'm not kidding) depending how well audiences respond.  The only sure things about this summer are 'Indiana Jones' will not live up to it's hype, 'Dark Knight' will positively rock and 'Wall-E' will be Pixar's finest animated feature to date.


  • Oscar Picks (WOOOOOO!!!)

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    No lengthy explanations as to why, just short and sweet; here are my picks for tonight's 80th Annual Academy Awards.


    - Best Visual Effects: Diana Miao for 'Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End'

    - Best Sound Mixing: Alan Meyerson for 'Transformers'

    - Best Sound Editing: Skip Lievsay and Joel Dougherty for 'No Country for Old Men'

    - Best Original Song: 'Falling Slowly' from 'Once' written and performed by Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova

    - Best Original Score: Dario Marianelli for 'Atonement'

    - Best Makeup: Liz Dann for 'Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End'

    - Best Costume Design: Colleen Atwood for 'Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street'

    - Best Film Editing: Tatiana S. Riegel for 'There Will Be Blood'

    - Best Art Direction: Gary Freeman for 'Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street'

    - Best Cinematography: Seamus McGarvey for 'Atonement'

    - Best Documentary: 'Sicko'

    - Best Animated Picture: 'Ratatouille'

    - Best Foreign Language Film: 'The Counterfeiters'

    - Best Adapted Screenplay: Ronald Harwood for 'The Diving Bell and the Butterfly'

    - Best Original Screenplay: Diablo Cody for 'Juno'

    - Supporting Actress: Cate Blanchett as Jude Quinn in 'I'm Not There'

    - Supporting Actor: Casey Affleck as Robert Ford in 'The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford'

    - Leading Actress: Ellen Page as Juno MacGuff in 'Juno'

    - Leading Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview in 'There Will Be Blood'

    - Best Director: Paul Thomas Anderson for 'There Will Be Blood'

    - Best Picture: 'No Country for Old Men'

  • Top 10 Favorite Films of 2007

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Grindhouse  (2007)

    Hairspray  (2007)

    Black Snake Moan  (2007)

    Ratatouille  (2007)

    La Vie en Rose  (2007)

    Atonement  (2007)

    Juno  (2007)

    Bratz  (2007)

    Here it is, one final post relating to the movies of 2007.  This in my opinion is really the only list that counts.  Here I'm not talking about the supposed best films of the year (although some certainly are) but rather which ones I personally loved most.  This time I'm actually going to place them in order though.  So sit back and relax as I unveil my top ten favorite films of 2007.  (Sadly, 'Bratz' is not one of them.)


     [10] 'Black Snake Moan'
    I love Samuel L. Jackson.  He's the only reason I'm even interested in the upcoming action-flick 'Jumper.'  His role in 'Black Snake Moan' as the bluesman Lazarus was something completely different for him.  This was a movie which basically boils down to being about a black man reaching out to a lust driven white girl in an attempt at helping her with her sickness.  Sounds a little dirty when in fact their relationship in the film is anything but.  The sad thing is this turned out to be a defining role for Jackson and most people have never even heard of the film.  Kudos to Craig Brewer for creating such a different story for us to experience.


     [09] 'Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End'
    After the disgusting fiasco in 2006 better known as 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest' I must say I was taken back by the fact I actually enjoyed 'At World's End.'  This guilty pleasure not only is one of my favorite films of 2007, but is also my greatest theater-going experience of the year.  For me there has always been something about being at large showings that just gets me excited.  The sold out premiere that took place on Thursday May 24 did just that.  Seeing this surprisingly fun flick with my dad in a theater packed to the brim with lovers, haters & newcomers to the 'Pirates' franchise was fantastic.


     [08] 'Across the Universe'
    'Across the Universe' was definitely the film I anticipated most of all in 2007.  After months and months of waiting I was rewarded with an additional three weeks of waiting due to the ridiculous snobs at Revolution Studios.  I bet they sure had their share of laughs once the film failed at the box office.  To them I say, **** you.  Even though it turned out to not quite be as amazing as I had envisioned it still remains to be among my favorites.  From the creative army induction scene to Mr. Kite's whimsical circus almost every moment of it is pure gold.  Plus, now every time my ears are filled with Joe Anderson and Salma Hayeks rendition of "Happiness Is a Warm Gun" I'm instantly transported to another place located somewhere between joy and delight.

     [07] 'Atonement'
    'Atonement' is an interesting movie.  I liked how it was artsy enough to be considered among the Oscar front-runners and mainstream enough to feature an ending that only had me reminiscing about 'Titanic' despite very large differences.  I also liked how it was able maintain a balance of almost every genre.  It had its funny moments, anger streaks, thrilling sequences, dramatic tone, & of course romance.  Honestly, I liked it so much I'm anxious to read the novel it's based on which I'll begin once I finish with 'The Mist.'



     [06] 'Hairspray'
    Never would I have guessed that a movie starring Zac Efron would end up as being one of my favorites of the past year.  I have to admit though, it was just so much fun to watch.  And watch I did; five times while it played in theaters to be exact.  One of those viewings was even at 10:40 in the evening after a storm had knocked out the power at my house during mid-August.  There I was all alone in that big auditorium seeing John Travolta shimmy and shaking on screen to his hearts content as "You Can't Stop the Beat" played.  Scarier things can't even be seen within the darkest of nightmares I guarantee.


     [05] 'Ratatouille'
    Going into 'Ratatouille' I wasn't really sure what to expect.  Yes, it was directed by Brad Bird who created another highly acclaimed Disney-Pixar film titled 'The Incredibles' a few years prior so it had that going for it.  But one has to question just how good a film about a rat who aspires to cook in Paris could be.  Once it was all over and I had seen it, my only question from then on which I pondered many times was will any other film top that this year?  The answer remains the same to this day: no.  It was a perfect example of Disney at it's finest and I've yet to see a film released in 2007 that managed to be better than it in terms of movie making.


     [04] 'Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street'
    Another Tim Burton movie, another time Johnny Depp is cast as its lead.  We've been down this road before except this time it was truly great.  Since the ending wasn't a jaw-dropper it would only be necessary for there to be other reasons why it turned out to be so.  Hence why such emphasis and recognition is required regarding the flair and style exhibited by the cast.  Burton's wife Helena Bonham Carter as Mrs. Lovett proved to hold her own with her not-so-smooth but rather rough vocals required to pull off the performance.  Depp who wasn't exactly awe-inspiring in the singing department but not dreadful either per say was equally impressive.  The only real problem I had with 'Sweeney Todd:' was the CGI-heavy opening credits.  I've always loved how Burton takes the audience on a ride through the world in which his film takes place.  Here though I just didn't understand why it was needed to feature so much CGI in the sequence when the remainder had little to none.  No biggie though, like I said I thought it was great.

     [03] 'Juno'
    This movie which was inspired by Jamie Lynn Spears' recent headlines (ha, ha, ha) was for me the funniest of the year.  The dialogue in it is so smart and so honest I had a smile so wide I was poking the people sitting beside me in their each of their cheeks.  The fact the little thirteen year-olds that were behind me on the way out after it was finished were spouting aloud how they liked 'Knocked Up' better filled me with complete and uncontrollable rage.  Thus I was not at fault when I spun around and pummeled them to the floor leaving them drenched in a lukewarm puddle of Coke from their half-drank sixty-four ounce cups they bought at the concession stand earlier.  Well, not really, but I would have immensely enjoyed doing so.

     [02] 'La Vie en Rose'
    No actress was more on point or convincing in 2007 than Marion Cotillard in this bio-pic.  She was beyond beautiful to watch.  Then there was the scenery which was almost as mesmerizing as she was.  I'm a sucker for backgrounds and such, and boy let me tell you 'La Vie en Rose' delivered.  The city of Paris was fascinatingly smutty and grungy (in a good way) while New York was alluring and gorgeous.  The way the lights sparkled behind Cotillard and Martin before they depart for the first time at the hotels entrance was lovely.  Anyone who has any interest in the life of Edith Piaf should absolutely see this movie.


     [01] 'Grindhouse'
    Amazing.  Kickass.  Awesome.  Mind-blowing.  Incredible.  Marvelous.  Wahootastic.  Are there any other words that more perfectly describe my favorite film of the year?  It really sucks that people just didn't get this great piece of cinema.  I mean seriously how hard is to understand that Rose McGown sporting a machine-gun leg plus Kurt Russell killing people with a car equals three hours and twelve minutes of crazy cool?  OH, POOR LITTLE TONY!!!  MOMMY TOLD YOU TO BE CAREFUL WITH THAT GUN!!!  Just great.  Now I've  gone and confused people who haven't seen it even more because they're not going to know what the hell that last bit even referred to.  Oh well, here's to my involuntary continuing of the problem.

     

    Okay, I'm done.  No more posts about 2007 I promise.  All posts about movies from here on out will only pertain to that of releases of 2008.  Once again, thank you to those that took the time to read.  I love you all.

     

    Dedicated to all of my friends: those very special people who put up with my non-stop jabbering about movies.


  • The 10 Best Films of 2007

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Zodiac  (2007)

    Bee Movie  (2007)

    Michael Clayton  (2007)

    Grindhouse  (2007)

    Underdog  (2007)

    I'm Not There  (2007)

    Ratatouille  (2007)

    Gone Baby Gone  (2007)

    La Vie en Rose  (2007)

    Sicko  (2007)

    Atonement  (2007)

    Superbad  (2007)

    Away From Her  (2007)

    Juno  (2007)

    Once  (2007)

    The Kite Runner  (2007)

    Hello, my name is JP Paxton and I love movies.  What began in mid 2004 has since became my uncontrollable obsession that can now be considered nothing less than an incurable sickness.  Seriously, I probably think of a movie or something movie-related once every ten seconds.  Because of this, I am propelled to constantly see, write & talk about movies.  Those of you who are my friends or at least know of me already know this.  For the ones that don't, now you know.  Here it is New Year's Eve which means that yet another year has passed.  Of course though that also means I'm here to let you all know what films I consider the best of 2007.  This year certainly had its share of disappointments including but not limited to 'Bee Movie', 'Underdog' & 'Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium.'  I still can't recall what made me even think 'Underdog' might have possibly had a shot at being even half-decent.  With the bad though there's always some good.  For example 'Once'; the independent musical starring actual musical artists as the films two leads instead of actors resulting in real on-screen emotion.  Also this year featured the thrilling crime-drama 'Zodiac' depicting the merciless murderers that started in the 60's by the infamous serial killer of the same name.  Then there was the film that would inevitably become my favorite of 2007: 'Grindhouse.'  The throwback to the gritty, low-budget exploitation double features of the 70's caused confusion among audiences nationwide due to marketing that didn't quite reveal its true nature.  For those of that did understand it though we were able to appreciate it's kick-ass style and utter awesomeness.  However, not one of the films I just mentioned are included in the list that follows and neither are 'Michael Clayton', 'Away From Her', 'Before the Devil Knows You're Dead' or 'Gone Baby Gone.'  They all had some great qualities but just fell short in the end. With that, here they are in all their glory in no particular order, the ten films deemed by yours truly as the best of 2007.

    The passionate and troubled life of Paris singer Edith Piaf features one of if not the most captivating performances of the year.  Written with her in mind by director Olivier Dahan, Marion Cotillard is flawless.  I imagine she'll be a shoe-in for a nomination of best actress at this years Oscars.

    Tim Burton and Johnny Depp's sixth collaboration together is a "bloody" good Gothic feast for the eyes.  It's true, it is repetitious of Burton's previous works in terms of  style but it's also a smooth and elegant telling of the macabre brought to life by its great music.

    This was actually the final film I saw this year and how glad I am that ended up getting the chance to do so.  It is an immensely funny, clever & sweet comedy starring the fantastic Ellen Page.  Its greatest strength resides in the smart screenplay written by Diablo Codybest known for memoir titled "Candy Girl: A Year in The Life of an Unlikely Stripper."

    One of three book adaptations featured in this best of list 'The Kite Runner' brings to the big screen Khaled Hossenini's gripping novel of friendship and betrayal.  While many will argue the exact opposite, I found it to be an amazing story that will touch your heart.

    Take one ambitious rat named Remy, an array of astounding visuals that could only be created by Pixar studios and then mix them with the delightful storytelling and directing skills of Brad Bird.  Let it simmer for a few years and what do you get?  A delicious film that reinforces the fact that even after all these years magic has yet to leave the imaginative Walt Disney Pictures.

    Oh, how patriotic Michael Moore is.  He returned this year with his documentary voicing the horrors of the healthcare system in America.  The surprisingly interesting and entertaining two hours and three minutes and will make you cringe and leave you in complete awe.

    The opening film at this year's Venice Film Festival and adaptation of Ian McEwan's novel brought to the table a wondrous tale of longing which featured magnificent cinematography and an equally lovely score composed by Dario Marianelli.  It's such a shame it's not playing in more theaters here in the U.S.

    Written by Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg when they were just thirteen years old 'Superbad' turned out to be super good.  The Judd Apatow produced comedy is hands down one the years funniest films that offers a truthful glimpse of teenage anxiety and has a groovy soundtrack to boot including cuts from composer Lyle Workman as well as tracks from The Bar-Kays and Rick James.

    The bio-pic formed and executed in a way that resembled one of its subjects own songs 'I'm Not There' gave an interesting look at the life of Bob Dylan.  While it wasn't quite what I had envisioned beforehand it still is probably the best put together and creative film of 2007.

    The most compelling film of the year is brought to us by The Coen brothers.  It gives us a front row seat to the violent game of cat and mouse portrayed by Josh Brolin and a extraordinarily crafty Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh from the bestseller by Cormac McCarthy.  There is no doubt in my mind a best picture nomination in store for this flick.


    So there you have it.  You may agree or disagree with my choices, it doesn't really matter to me.  Just be aware that if you don't agree with me you are wrong.  DEAD WRONG.  Right now I'm typing this as my face sports a disturbingly angry expression...  Seriously though, I wish you all a safe and happy new year.  Thanks for reading.

  • Irrefutable

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    After almost fifty years thereafter their debut in 1958 Alvin and his chipmunk brothers Simon and Theodore have returned and are starring in their very own live-action/CGI feature film.  The five-time Grammy award winning trio has remained pretty much the same.  Simon is still the smart one, Theodore is still the chubby one & Alvin is still...well Alvin.  Let me make it perfectly clear though, I certainly didn't have high expectations for this film from the get-go but I can't refute the fact there was something that definitely surprised me about it.  (This is part where you assume the cute little critters' re-telling of their rise to fame turned out to be pretty good.)

    There's no denying they're cute.  Especially Theodore (voiced by one-hit-wonder Jesse McCartney) who was the actual leading munk as opposed to Alvin.  The chunky little, green hoodie-wearing guy who's obviously short a few acorns steals most of the spotlight with his adorable innocence.  Also, as far cuteness goes there was no scene more touching than the opening of the Christmas gifts with their manager and friend Dave played by Jason Lee.  Even the most cynical person would be unable to prevent themselves from smiling during each of their unveilings.  However, no matter how cute they may be it doesn't make up for the overall mess of a movie this turned out to be.  (This is the part where you question just exactly where I am going with this.)

    Jason Lee who earlier this year voiced the lead character in an atrocious movie by the name of Underdog was absolutely lousy as Dave.  From his facial expressions to the familiar yell of "AAAALLLLVVIINNNNNN!!!" it all was ridiculously and horrendously forced.  Nothing about his character was believable because of this.  Oh, but then there's David Cross (who's not even a half-decent actor to begin with) as the money-hungry record executive Ian Hawk.  However, for the most part I can honestly say it wasn't all his fault.  The feeble screenplay is mainly to blame.  Never was there one inkling of cleverness written for him.  Also, there's Cameron Richardson as the love interest of Dave who delivered her lines with as much depth as that of an empty childs swimming pool.  Ugh, but at this point I'm just beating a dead squirrel thus I shall not continue.  (This is the part where the true chipmunk fans are ready to stop reading.  However, I urge them not to.)

    So poor acting, writing & a few other things I didn't even mention.  Let me just put that all aside here and get to my point.  The thing that surprised me about 'Alvin and the Chipmunks' was it's ability to end up as an amazing oxymoron.  Yes, it's one of the year's worst attempts at a movie.  Some might even go as far to say a wasted opportunity to revive the Chipmunks' popularity.  However, it's also the best movie of the year for kids.  I kid not.  After all I am JP Paxton, would I kid you?...  OKAY, so there was that misleading (but hilarious) review for 'Bratz', but hey, my reasoning was justified.  Anyways, before I get anymore off track, it's true, The Chipmunks will entertain the kiddies more than any other movie released this year.  Let's face it, 'The Golden Compass' isn't for everyone, 'Bee Movie' was utterly dumb & 'Shrek the Third' was just plain bad.  I guarantee that 'Alvin and the Chipmunks' will ignite uncontrollable laughing from any kid ten years old or younger.  The silly jokes, catchy songs & lovable trio are all enough to make this THE movie to take the kids to this holiday season.  (This is the part where you stop hating me.)

  • A Must-See

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    "There's nothing you can know that can't be known.  There's nothing you can see that isn't shown".  Fantastic words originally sung by the Beatles back in 1967 and now being heard again in director Julie Taymor's original musical 'Across the Universe'.  Filled with more than thirty songs by the famous group from Liverpool, it tells the tale of two star crossed lovers living in the ever changing 1960's.  Of all the films to be released here in 2007 this was the one I was waiting for.  It was first brought to my attention at the very start of the year by an uncanny Mr. Scott Yuken.  I didn't invest much into his mentioning then seeing as how I hadn't heard of even seen a trailer for the film.  Then on January 19th right before my viewing of 'The Last King of Scotland' that all changed.  A guy on a beach appeared on the screen and began to sing 'Girl'.  Before it was over and the title was revealed I knew this was the film Scott had been talking about.  From that day on I'd been waiting and dieing to it see it.  After a three week release schedule delay due to a revenge motivated Revolution Studios it happened.  I finally got to see it this past Friday.

    It's not done in the showy stage style like 'Chicago' and this year's 'Hairspray', nor is it any less entertaining.  It sort of feels like it mimics the essence of 'Moulin Rouge' but takes itself seriously and goes one step further creatively and visually.  From an interesting army induction number to a melodic underwater scene Taymor has brought to us one of the most stunningly illustrative films in years.  I can't even remember how many times I caught myself with my mouth wide open in total awe.  To boot, the music arrangements and new renditions of classic Beatles songs are just plain great.  Some of the tunes will sound pleasingly familiar as they have been kept true to the originals like 'Hold Me Tight' and 'All My Loving'.  Others like 'I Want to Hold Your Hand' have been transformed into completely new forms with equally different meanings.  Personally I loved how the actors had to sing most of the songs live during filming adding a realistic emotional tone instead of lip syncing.  Still, there's no doubt that some of the hardcore fans of the Beatles will voice their hatred of the re-workings to their beloved favorites even if deep down they can't admit even to themselves they love them.

    Most surprising to me though were the stellar performances from this cast of mostly unknowns.  Jim Sturgees impresses as the young dock worker from Liverpool with his undeniable charm.  Evan Rachel Wood who many will remember from TV's 'Once and Again' where she played Jessie Sammler is superb as the idealist Lucy.  Together their romance is although highly cliqued, in my eyes on the best on-screen relationships to date.  Many of the other memorable actors are those who aren't seen but for a short amount of time such as Eddie Izzard as the fascinating ringmaster Mr. Kite.  Then of course T.V. Carpio as soul-seeking lesbian Prudence who is for sure someone who should have been included more in the film.  Her version of 'I Want to Hold Your Hand' is both haunting and moving.

    Sadly enough, there are a few flaws in this wonderful spectacle of a film.  I wanted to give 'Across the Universe' five stars, I really did.  Nonetheless I can't escape the fact it didn't begin as extraordinary as the rest of it turned out to be.  Starting out as if it wasn't quite sure it was going to be a run of the mill musical or one of the greats, everything just didn't take off.  Maybe I seen the beach scene too many times in the trailer or I felt the switching back and forth between Lucy and Jude was a cheap way to cut the runtime.  Either way, worry did wash over me along with the newspaper waves seen at the start.  The only other thing I can see as a problem is something most people are going to hate me for saying.  Yes, the songs were redone great, but perhaps there was just a bit too many of them.  Thirty-one songs with vocals is awful lot you must admit.  (Most movies musicals have nowhere near that many.)  It pains me to stamp this review with but four stars.  However, it's still one of my favorite films and I still urge everyone to see it because there's also no escaping the fact that 'Across the Universe' is one of the few must-see films of 2007.

  • 'Halloween'

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Halloween  (2007)

    The idea of the highly acclaimed 1978 horror-classic 'Halloween' from John Carpenter being redone is one that has sparked much debate since its mentioning last year. Many hardcore fans of it stuck their noses up at the thought where just as many modern day horror lovers began to anticipate it. I find the first film nothing truly special. It's okay and all, but there's nothing distinguishing about it except for the wonderful music it featured. So when it was announced a remake, I'm sorry a "revision" was being made only one thing drew me in: the fact Rob Zombie was going to be directing. His previous works 'House of 1,000 Corpses' and its follow-up 'The Devil's Rejects' are both personal favorites of mine. The rawness and unique level of energy injected into those was exactly what I had expected to see present in 'Halloween' Sadly enough, it didn't pan out quite as I had hoped.

    For me the best part of the entire film is its beginning. Instead of just a mere six or seven minutes of vague back story, Zombie stretches that time to about fifty as he explains in depth the origins of the infamous Michael Myers. Everything we could possibly want to know as far as his past is finally revealed here. The original actually could have used a maybe not so lengthy, but informative intro. Daeg Faerch portrays a troubled young Michael whose childhood "hobbies" inevitably transform him into the silent killer we all know him to be. Sheri Moon Zombie's wife and Baby Firefly from his first two films plays Michael's loving mother. Both give equally mediocre performances coming off as sorely one dimension. The only time they have any flare is when their characters aren't talking. (Michael beating a bully to death and Deborah swinging on a stripper pole.) All the others introduced in the beginning are forgettable except for William Forsythe as Ronnie White and Malcolm McDowell. The only reasons we remember them is because Forsythe's role in 'Devil's Rejects' and McDowell we see consistently throughout the rest of this film.

    After the introduction there isn't much new to be seen. Most of what made the original halfway decent has been trashed or traded for traits far less worthy praise. Laurie played by Scout Taylor-Compton and her friends' personalities are non-existent. No longer is there any sense of mystery or suspense either. As soon as Michael sees his victim he kills them right then and there as the scene beings to shake as if an earthquake is occurring at the same time. We hardly get to know any of the characters which makes it a little difficult to care about their death. Probably the worst part of it all is Zombie claimed that in his "revision" he'd make Michael scary again. However, there are no scares to be had whatsoever. The fright factor has been traded out for the popular gross out gore takes. The original was never about the spilling of blood, but rather the sense of uncertainty of if, when and where the masked killer would strike next.

    Having said that, 'Halloween' is nowhere near as bad nor the embarrassment fanboys and critics are making it out to be. Like I said, for the highlight of the film was indeed the beginning. The keywords there are "for me". I think that ever though Zombie may have lost some of the bite the original had the overall product is still acceptable for what most young horror fanatics of today expect in their movies. They essentially want two things: boobs and blood. Here they get exactly what they pay for. The difference between 'Halloween' and other recent horror flicks is that Zombie has style.


  • omg!

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Bratz  (2007)

     This past Friday audiences around the globe were invited to enter the fabulous world of the popular Bratz line of toys at their local movie theater.  For the first time, the four friends Cloe, Jade, Sasha, & Yasmin broke out of their boxes and stepped onto the silver screen hoping to get across the following meaningful message: being true to yourself is just as important as the color of the heels you are wearing.  Unfortunately not many people accepted the invite and the film entered the U.S. box office at number ten with a devastating opening gross of only $4.2 million. The disappointing total backed up bad reviews written by most critics.  I myself have now the seen film and am here to set the record straight: ‘Bratz’ is not the atrocity people are claiming it be at all.  It’s actually more fun than the other toy movie adaptation released just last month; ‘Transformers’.

    The fun begins with the girls awakening to their first day of high school helping each other decide what to wear via webcam.  Upon arrival they take the school by storm climbing to the heights popularity with ease.  It’s then that Meredith, the principals daughter, played by the talented Chelsea Staub intervenes letting the foursome know they each must hang out only with their corresponding clique.  Shortly afterwards they are separated from each other even after attempting to remain together.  Fast forward two years where they are now juniors.   It appears the evil Meredith has gotten her way seeing as how the girls don’t even say hello to each other when passing one another in the halls.  With the former best friends forever permanently apart all looks to be hopeless.  Their only chance to be friends and rule the school once again is to realize what’s really important before time runs out.

    I bet you didn’t expect the movie was going to have that level of reality did you?  Probably more shocking was the chemistry and performances from the girls.  In the trailers they seem just as hollow and plastic as the dolls their characters are based on.  Oh, how they showed they were certainly nothing even close.  The best of the four is hands down Nathalia Ramos as Yasmin.  Initially I thought since Yasmin is Hispanic and Ramos doesn’t exactly look so it would be an issue.  After only about three minutes into the film it was obvious why casting directors Dorothy Koster and Joey Paul chose the young lady for the role.  I’m telling you now, definitely watch for her in the future because big things are going to happen for her.

    Aside from the acting, the addition of serious issues like Ian Nelson’s character Dylan being def and the heartbreaking on-screen aftereffects of Sasha’s parents divorce really established a solid and emotional tone for the film.  Screenwriter Susan Jansen took what could’ve been but a mindless, teenybopper drama with no backbone whatsoever and made it a worthwhile delight guaranteed to make you laugh and cry.  I honestly was surprised just how good the storyline was.

    However, if I had to mention one thing that did disappoint me about ‘Bratz’ it would be Avril Lavigne’s song ‘Girlfriend’ (which is featured in its trailer) not being included in the film itself.  It really would have fit perfectly too in one of the many scenes involving Cloe and Cameron.  (Meredith’s boyfriend)  This isn’t too big of a deal though.  There are after all twenty-one other great tracks by artists like Ashlee Simpson, NLT, & of course the Bratz.

     So there you have it, a real review of what is no doubt one of this year’s most underrated films.  ...A review about as real as the bloated head, noseless, slut-looking dolls themselves...  I didn’t think any film would fall lower than Lindsay’s Lohan mind numbing “thriller“ ‘I Know Who Killed Me‘, but I’ll be damned, ‘Bratz’ did it.  Congratulations to Lionsgate and Sean McNamara for correctly demonstrating why making movies for profit is such a bad idea.  Sadly, this will not serve as a warning to other studios.  The same thing has happened many times and will continue in the future.  The only thing that will change are the ways trailers for such awful films are edited as the studios try to edit them more cleverly attempting to lure unsuspecting moviegoers into wasting another $10.

     
    OVERALL RATING:  0.5 Stars


  • Q & A: 'The Simpsons Movie'

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

     Howdy, folks.  It's me, the one, the only JP Paxton back from my greatly enjoyed vacation.  I've actually been anticipating today.  As much as I liked not having to worry about producing a review each and every week, that same feeling of emptiness came over me I experienced earlier this year during the gap between my reviews for 'Grindhouse' and 'Spider-Man 3'.  A lot has happened since my last review.  Shia LaBeouf "transformed" himself from annoying twit to respectful actor in the rock 'em, sock 'em CGI delight 'Transformers', the fifth installment of the 'Harry Potter' franchise failed to work its magic on me as it turned out to be quite disappointing, & just last week the musical remake of John Water's cult classic of the late 80's 'Hairspray' burst into theaters bringing to the summer a much needed dose of fun and lightheartedness.  Wait though, who cares about those films?  Not you my readers apparently seeing as how all of them were outvoted by that movie about the oh so familiar family of yellow last month to be the one and only review I write during the month of July.

    Yes, that's right, the much anticipated, the much talked about, the much Spider-Pig filled... 'The Simpsons Movie'.  Now since this review was after all chosen by you (well, most of you) I thought it would be a change of pace to further involve you in the review process.  Instead of just writing out my own analysis or that dreaded good, bad, bottom line format, earlier in the week I asked you all to send me questions via a bulletin on MySpace asking what you'd like to know about the movie.  I chose five questions out of the lot and have answered them the best I can.  So without further adieu, here are your answers.

    Q: Just how funny is it really?
    A: On a scale of one to ten (one being yawn inducing and ten being death from laughter hilarious) it's a solid eight.  I never did laugh uncontrollably, but there were definitely some instances of true comedy here.  The best gags much like in the television series are the spur of the moment ones that catch you off guard.  Also, for the first time in quite a while, not all of the funniest jokes are featured in the trailer.  I do however think Spider-Pig's astonishing ceiling walk should have been saved to be seen at the theater, but oh well.

    Q: Is it as good as the show?
    A: It's not great, but I think it's good enough to satisfy most fans.  There are a few episodes that I'd consider better than it, but overall it remains on par with the recent seasons.  Pretty much, the film is the equivalent of two great episodes and then one mediocre one.

    Q: What was your favorite part?
    A: My favorite part of the entire film isn't a joke or scene.  It's the fact Groening and his talented team of writers didn't try to change or reinvent the Simpsons for their big screen debut.  I was a little worried beforehand they'd make it over the top and ridiculous.  It was great to see everything was kept in tact and stayed true to the series while at the same time giving a few surprises along the way.

    Q: What did you like least about it?
    A: Plain and simple, the hype.  No, it didn't have anywhere near as much as 'Spider-Man 3' or 'At World's End', but it still a tremendous amount of it.  Sorry, it didn't live up to it.  I love the Simpsons and have watched them ever since I can even remember doing so.  Even so, I was just a little disappointed when the film was over.  I'm not saying I didn't like it, but as a whole it failed to reach its full potential.

    Q: If you could change one thing about the movie, what would it be?
    A: Two words: Sideshow Bob.  He is undeniably one of the best characters in the whole series, and he wasn't even in the movie.  Somehow, some way I would add him.  One can only hope the next time around he makes an appearance.


  • Results

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Transformers  (2007)

    After a fierce (yeah right) voting process that began on June 21 and ended this past Saturday it is now official.  The answer and results of which film I will be reviewing this month are depicted below.  Thanks to all who voted.



    Close but no cigar for Michael Bay and his beloved 'Transformers'.

  • Bravo

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Ratatouille  (2007)

    Outstanding, sensational, & exquisite: not words normally used by most people when describing rats.  In the case of 'Ratatouille' which stars one of the widely reviled creatures as its main character there are no words more fitting.  Together Pixar and director Brad Bird have cooked up quite the delectable piece of cinema.  Using a recipe consisting of brilliant animation, superior storytelling, & just a touch of good ole' Disney magic they've created a tale about a little rat with big dreams that's possibly one of the best animated pictures to ever appear on the silver screen.

    The film introduces to us foodie Remy, voiced by Patton Oswalt.  Unlike the other members of his family he has specific tastes which he experiments with on a daily basis.  Taking to heart the title of the book 'Anyone Can Cook' written by his favorite chef Gusteau, Remy aspires to one day do just that in a five-star restaurant of his own.  Unfortunately, being a rat limits the little guy from achieving his goal.  That is until one day after being separated from his family and ending up right outside the late Gusteau's restaurant.  Once inside the magic begins and Remy starts to get a taste of his dream.

    I'd actually consider Remy among the top characters to ever be created by Disney.  Not since Mickey Mouse himself has there been a more lovable rodent.  I find it a little surprising actually that Remy ended up as such seeing as how his rattyness I guess we could say wasn't really compromised.   Both cartoon looking and authentic at the same time, he's just as funny as he is charming.  Even more shocking is he carries more realistic traits that most characters seen in a lot of this summer's other releases.  Oswalt was a great choice to bring him to life with his sustainable balance of excitement and distress.

    Now since this is after all a Pixar release one can only expect great animation.  Proving what I said earlier this month in my review for 'Surf's Up', the studio again shows there's no limit to just how far it can go.  If there's one thing they're able to do it's create a terrific visual experience.  When food that isn't even real looks delicious it's pretty damn amazing.  Then of course here there's the city of Paris (although not entirely made to scale) which features awe worthy detailing and remarkable backdrops.  Like I said, it's Pixar so it's no surprise they would only excel and continue to present us with high quality.

    This film isn't just a showcase of superb visuals though.  Bird shows us yet again he can not only direct well, but that he can tell a great story.  Throughout he takes you on a ever turning wheel of emotions.  You'll be happy as you're caught up in the enjoyment of seeing Remy create his dishes with comedic poise one minute and sad the next when all seems hopeless for his human pal Linguini, voiced by Lou Romano.  The key to telling a great story is having the ability to not only entertain, but to also make your audience care about what they're seeing.  Bird succeeds in doing both with 'Ratatouille'.

    Yes, it appears that the team of Pixar and Bird is a lethal combination in the world of animated films.  The last time they got together back in 2004 they spawned the most critically acclaimed of all the Pixar films, 'The Incredibles' and now only three years later they've brought us this tasty treat.  It's certainly refreshing to see such an original and fantastic film rise in this summer of sequels and adaptations.  Bravo Disney, bravo.

  • VOTE

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Transformers  (2007)

    Hairspray  (2007)

    If you've read my recent blogs on MySpace or notes on Facebook you know I am currently taking a break from reviews. However I have decided I will in fact write one during the month of July. The twist is I won't be choosing which film it will be for; you will. So click here or on the posters below and vote for your pick. You have until next Saturday (June 30th) to choose. Thanks for voting!

    The choices are the films shown below: 'Hairspray', 'Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix', 'The Simpsons Movie', & 'Transformers'

     


  • Not Just Another Penguin Movie

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Surf's Up  (2007)

    First they marched, then they danced, & now they surf!  In the latest film to feature penguins as its stars 'Surf's Up' takes us on a fun and wild ride alongside the headstrong teen Cody Maverick, voiced by Shia LaBeouf.  Don't let the fact that this is yet another movie with the flightless birds deter you from giving it a chance.  Where as 'Happy Feet' relied on song and dance to carry itself, 'Surf's Up' focuses more so on story and laughs while it makes a huge splash in the vast ocean of recent CGI family flicks.

    Everything begins with an interview with Cody in his hometown of Shiverpool, Antarctica.  For the next hour and twenty-five minutes the same camera filming him in the interview will follow him on his journey to and on Pen Gu Island for the tenth annual Big Z Memorial Surf Off.  For those of you not familiar with penguin culture, it's a surfing competition held in the honor of legendary pro surfer, Big Z.  By winning the surf off Cody believes he'll gain the respect of his fellow family members and local residents back in Shiverpool.  Once he meets Geek; a penguin hiding away in Pen Gu's forest he begins to learn that being first doesn't always make you a true winner.

    'Surf's Up' may not be filled to the brim with musical numbers by vocally and rhythmically talented penguins, but it has enough great characters (some of which aren't even the black and white birds) to blow 'Happy Feet' out of the water.  The standout favorite is Cody's best bud, the aloof Chicken Joe, voiced by Jon Heder.  He's so fried, he could be put into a KFC bucket and be ready to serve as is.  The crazy clucker is nothing but a walking, talking load of laughs.  The other notable favorites are three children penguins named Katey, Smudge, & Arnold.  Every time the funny little guys start talking you can't help but love them.  Most of the other characters are pretty likable, but none compare to the comedic poultry or wee ones.

    Most of the humor actually comes from the setup of the film.  With it being in cinéma vérite style we see the good, bad, & side-splitting aspect of all the characters.  The only sequences I never really found funny save for one were those with business-driven beaver?  No, maybe it's an otter.  Whatever the hell that damn furry thing was voiced by James Woods, was pretty annoying.  Why he is even congregating with the birds is still a mystery to me.

    Now for the part I pretty much bring up in every review of a digitally animated film: the visuals.  It appears like there's just no limit to the level of progress that animation continues to have.  Last month 'Shrek the Third' raised the bar again with stunning facial expressions and detail.  Here 'Surf's Up' raises that same bar even higher with its amazingly realistic backgrounds and settings.  From the smallest leaf in the forest, to the drops of water dripping off Cody's forehead after a wave washes over him, the realism is unbelievable.  Two big thumbs up to Sony Pictures Animation on this one.

    I think anyone who sees this will get more than they went in expecting.  It's not just another penguin movie and it's certainly not only about surfing such as many were complaining.  It's plot may slightly be similar to 'Cars' but it does its own thing telling it's story with continuing hilarity and heartfelt throughout.  I can't deny that this fun, cutesy family film had me smiling almost the entire time.  I'm sorry Mumble, but there's a new penguin in town and his name is Cody.

  • The Good, The Bad, & The Bottom Line of 'Hostel: Part II'

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Hostel Part II  (2007)

    Oh, the horror!  No, I can't believe it either, but here I am doing another review for a sequel.  Up this week is the follow-up to last year's much hyped, only mediocre "stomach churning" splatter-fest 'Hostel'.  In 'Part II' the roles have been reversed (in more ways than one as you'll see after viewing it) as the victims this time are young women.  Upon changing plans the three ladies end up traveling to Slovakia after persuaded by the gorgeous model from their art class.  One by one they are kidnapped and taken to the oh so familiar place visited last year where a world of torture and pain awaits.

     

    The Good
    - The victims whom are played by Lauren German, Heather Matarazzo, & Bijou Phillips each do a great job with their roles.  Even though the three characters have similar traits seen in various other horror films, all three personalize them making each their own and more realistic.

    - Instead of primarily getting to know only the women, we get a better understanding of the those paying to torture via Todd and Stuart played by Richard Burgi and Roger Bart; both from ABC's 'Desperate Housewives'.

    - 'Hannibal Holocaust' director Ruggero Deodato makes a cameo as one of the twisted torturers who is what else, a cannibal!


    The Bad
    - The most shocking scene in the entire film isn't even one of the torturings.  It's actually one that's quite questionable as being necessary or not.

    - The switch from wimp to bad-ass by Stuart isn't believable at all.  It's 50% Bart's fault and 50% Roth's reason for the sudden change.

    - The ending quoted as being "one of the most shocking endings people have ever seen" by Roth himself isn't anything new.  The same thing was done better in 1978 by Meir Zarchi in 'I Spit On Your Grave'.  Even though I knew it was coming when I saw it, it still had me feeling uneasy.  Here it just wasn't executed well.


    The Bottom Line
    It's easy to see Roth did try to show some growth here.  Unlike many sequels, it doesn't appear like he made this solely for profit.  There actually was more to be told; that being the more in-depth look at the view held by the torturers.  Unfortunately, like the first, this one didn't measure up to the hype.  It started out pretty good at the start, but fell flat in the last thirty minutes.  He hasn't shown any interest in doing a 'Part III'.  I may be a little crazy for saying this, but I hope he does.  There's one last thing to be explained and that's the creation of the whole "business".  So I say, go for it.


  • Spread the word.

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Fantastic Four  (2005)

    The follow-up to 2005's 'Fantastic Four' has officially been rated PG. All intense actions sequences have been removed and replaced with an ultimate battle royale of words between the four heroes and their new enemy, the Silver Surfer. So on June 15, be sure to go check out 'Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer' only in theaters! It's sure to enhance your vocabulary and absolutely suck.





    (click the small posters to see their full-size versions)

  • Entertaining Despite Its Flaws

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Happy Feet  (2006)

    2006 has turned out to be the year for digital animation. From talking cars to suburban turned forest animals it seems like we've almost seen it all…or so we thought. The fresh and upbeat penguin-filled musical 'Happy Feet' is the thirteenth digitally animated film to be released this year. And as expected, people are eating it up. Some have gone as far to say it's the year's best. There was better this year, but 'Happy Feet' is okay.

    In 'Happy Feet' we are given front row seats to the birth and growth of a penguin by the name of Mumble who is voiced by Elijah Wood. He's different from all the other penguins. In a world where finding your "heartsong" is crucial, poor Mumble isn't able to keep a tune at all. Interestingly enough though, he can dance up a storm. Unfortunately this is frowned upon and ends up causing him great distress. Eventually the elder penguin Noah, who is voiced by Hugo Weaving, accuses Mumble of bringing on the famine that is currently afflicting the penguins. Mumble attempts to explain that he believes "aliens" are the real cause. Noah doesn't take him seriously at all and banishes him, claiming that once he is gone, the famine will end. Mumbles then promises that he will return, and when he does he will bring proof that the alleged "aliens" are to blame. He then embarks on his journey where along the way he makes some new friends and learns the world outside his own is much different than he could have ever thought possible.

    Visually, 'Happy Feet' is amazing. Almost every landscape down to the smallest icicle look so very real. Even the penguins themselves are highly detailed, but obviously aren't real. Aside from that and the direction from Greg Miller, everything presented in 'Happy Feet' is just okay. Nothing in it evokes a wholehearted wow. The plot itself takes what seems forever to be revealed. There's a forty five minute wait before anything about a famine is even mentioned. Watching the film is a lot like riding a roller coaster. No, I don't mean its a thrill ride. The way the story is set up, it goes up and down. Each time it begins to drag, something comes along to get it going again. And when the ending finally comes, it appears forced. The whole addition of an environmental issue still has me wondering. I guess because without it there would be nothing for Mumble to do on his journey of discovery.

    The main issue I have with 'Happy Feet' though revolves around the music. Yes, I know it's a musical, but the music seemed to really exceed the film itself. I'm not sure if this was intentional or not. The reason being is because the film suggests that there actually is a real story behind it all. Either way, it doesn't really matter because it's the singing and dancing that will have people returning to see it all again. So despite having some assuredly bad qualities 'Happy Feet' does indeed have its moments. It does what it was supposed to, and that's entertain.
     
    - originally written on Nov. 18 '06 

  • Awful, Bland, & Moronic

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Return  (2006)

    I think a round of applause is in order for whoever pieced together the trailer for Rogue Pictures' latest release, 'The Return'. I myself, along with everyone else have been duped into believing it is in fact a horror film. On the contrary though, its actually a supernatural thriller. Too bad it is not the least bit thrilling.

    'The Return' stars Sarah Michelle Gellar as Joanna Mills, a young woman who has had personal problems since the age of eleven. It was at that age that she began having haunting visions depicting the murder of a woman whom she has never met. While in Texas on a business trip, she is led by these visions to the murdered woman's hometown, La Salle. There she comes face to face with another person who has frequently appeared in her visions. A man by the name of Terry Stahl, who is played by Peter O'Brien. Joanna is now on a desperate search for answers. A search that could in the end result in her very own murder.

    I really don't know where to begin here folks. Which should I mention first? The atrocious acting, hideous directing, or the terribly bland story? No matter which one I choose my point behind each is the same: they simply suck. Adam Sussman's screenplay is downright moronic. It's not interesting. It's not compelling. It's just plain unpleasant. I kept waiting for something to jump-start the "film" (I've placed quotations around film because I don't believe 'The Return' deserves to be called an actual film due to its foulness.) and at least give it some slight chance of hope, but nothing ever happened. I was left out in an unbearable cold to freeze. Not even stellar performances from the actors themselves could have saved this disaster. Of course they probably knew this having read the script then agreeing to do the "film". I assume this is why the acting was so awful. At least that's what I'm choosing to believe. I really hope the cast doesn't pride themselves on their performances. They need immediate medical attention if they do.

    Now the directing was unmistakably bad, but I can't quite crucify Asif Kapadia entirely. (Well I could, but I won't since I'm such a nice guy.) I look at 'The Return' as a test for Kapadia because for all of you that don't know, this is his first full-length feature "film". He's just getting his foot in the door and still learning. Next time around, well if there is a next time, hopefully he will have improved vastly. The only thing he was able to accomplish here was almost completely duplicating the visual style of Marcus Nispel's 2003 remake of 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. Now that's nice the "film" was given that, but unfortunately he still won't be receiving any kudos from me for that. Copying someone else's work isn't something I consider to be praise worthy. (Even if it is from a film I very much enjoyed.)

    I think Jim Sonzero's American re-make of 'Pulse' will now have to fork over the title of Worst Film of the Year to 'The Return'. It beyond question is deserving of the title in almost every imaginable way. Now I don't doubt this will make a small, and I mean very small, profit. No matter what though, it won't surpass or even parallel the fluke success of Gellar's previous acting effort, 'The Grudge'. On that note, there's one last thing I'd like to add. I can honestly say I had never been embarrassed to have been seen leaving a theater auditorium until seeing 'The Return'. That is something I never wish to experience again, along with the "film" itself.

     

    - originally written on Nov. 11 '06 


  • Postively Entertaining Beyond Belief

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Borat  (2006)

    First off, I must warn you that 'Borat:' is not for everyone. If you can't take a joke or completely have no sense of humor, stop reading this review right now. Please then proceed to kill yourself. Okay, don't actually commit suicide, but at least hurt yourself in some way.

    Now, having said that, it must be known that 'Borat:' is hands down, without a doubt, no matter what, the funniest film of the year. Prior to seeing it I knew it would be hilarious. I figured though that once settled in and it ran for a little while the jokes would become annoying. Then of course there'd be a few cases here and there that were laugh-out-loud funny, but nothing major. How wrong I was. Wrong indeed. From beginning to end its outrageously hysterical. Each time you think it couldn't get any better, it proves you wrong over and over. Cohen deserves much praise for being able to keep a straight face through each scene.

    Despite being positively entertaining beyond belief though, there will still be those who insist on disagreeing. It's true, a lot of people probably will be offended by some of the things shown in 'Borat:', but don't let them deter you from seeing it. They're simply too busy trying to get the three foot stick they have up lodged up their ass out, that they can't possibly see its humor. My friend Clay put it best yesterday when he said, "I think its too smart for Americans". For the most part, that's correct. The irony presented won't be noticed by hardly any American because they'll be too busy laughing themselves to death over how they think Borat "doesn't get it". I'm not trying to say everyone in America that sees it is a dumb-ass either, but that's just the truth.

    Well I guess its about time I wrapped this review up. Indeed it was short, but really, there's only three things you need to know about 'Borat:'. One, it's side-splitting, two, it's brilliant, and finally three, Jews can't really turn transform themselves into cockroaches. Or can they?…

     

    - originally written on Nov. 5 '06 


  • All Hype, No Substance

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Back in the company of Captain Jack Sparrow, (Johnny Depp) we are again taken on an escapade of the melancholy and mischievous sort. This time Jack is on a search for the Dead Man's Chest. For once he possesses it he will be able to control the one who he owes a debt to. The ruler of the sea, Davy Jones. (Bill Nighy) But what would this quest be without the assistance of his fellow chum Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and his bride-to-be Elizabeth Swann? (Keira Knightly) They too are inevitably drug into this whirlwind of non-stop "comedy" and various mishaps. All the while is Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander) also yearning to get the chest as well so he can single-handedly rid the seas of pirates everywhere.

    Usually sequels don't surpass the greatness and originality their predecessors establish. 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest' doesn't fail to follow suit. From the trailers it appears to be an exciting thrill ride loaded with tons of merriment. But in reality its a two hour and thirty five minute foreseeable film filled with humdrum antics and sleep inducing banter.

    The first 'Pirates' was absolutely one hundred percent far more delightful. Before it, a character with humor and essence such as Captain Jack Sparrow hadn't been seen in cinema. A once amusing and engaging Jack is now just plain annoying. Here in 'Dead Man's Chest' his foolhardy, joker demeanor only halts the story as it attempts to progress. In addition, average acting and direction are dishearteningly unveiled. The only pleasing aspects presented are the outstanding visuals and devilishly good villain Davy Jones. I'm afraid neither of these ingredients are able to save this mess of a film from sinking though.

    The bottom line is, 'Dead Man's Chest' is nothing more than a film built on hype and in the end has no real substance. "I think the second movie is strong and clever and has a lot going on", said director Gore Verbinski in an October interview last year when speaking about 'Pirates'. Apparently this version of the film didn't make the final cut. Even so, 'Dead Man's Chest' will without a doubt continue to dominate at the movies and make other summer releases walk the plank at the box office. I don't think even Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx's big screen adaptation of 'Miami Vice' will be able to decimate it when released this Friday. I guess I can give Verbinski some credit though. It's pretty amazing to see a film with video-game logic that's created from zip do so tremendous.

     

    - originally written on Jul. 21 '06 


  • Sit Back and Enjoy the Ride

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Cars  (2006)

    What do Richard Petty, Owen Wilson, & Paul Newman have in common? They're all in Walt Disney and Pixar's latest film 'Cars'. The story revolves around a rookie race car learning that life isn't about where you're going, but how you get there. Now I'll admit, last fall when I first heard about this movie I completely wrote it off as being utterly preposterous. Why? Simply because the idea of talking cars didn't seem entertaining in the least. It actually wasn't until the day before its release I said, wow, I think Disney's got something here. (Which only proved to be true after seeing it the next day.)

    John Lassester, the man who took us into the world of toys in 'Toy Story' and on a search for a young clown fish in 'Finding Nemo' has done it once again. First off, there's Lightning McQueen's (Owen Wilson) funny and irresistibly lovable new best friend, Mater. (Larry the Cable Guy) He adds to 'Cars' what Scrat the squirrel does in the 'Ice Age' films. Now don't get me wrong, many of the other characters featured in the film are plenty likable, but Mater is the glue that brings it all together. Also in 'Cars' the animation is superb. It doesn't have the same style or look the other Pixar films have. I don't really know how to describe it, but it's certainly something.

    But, as almost all movies, 'Cars' does have a drawback. It's missing something. That special something only Disney and Pixar can add that made 'Toy Story' what it is, a great movie. I'm not sure why, but it's just not there. I imagine in the end 'Cars' will just fall short of having the longevity and memorability films like 'Finding Nemo', 'Monsters, Inc.' & 'Toy Story' will. Despite this, 'Cars' is still a winner and manages to be excellent. Not a classic, but excellent. I highly recommend seeing it at least once to give it a test drive.

     

    - originally written on Jun. 26 '06 


  • Sandler Doesn’t Click, Only Stumbles

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Click  (2006)

    Michael Newman (Adam Sandler) is a workaholic architect who lately, has been putting his career before his family. While at a Bed Bath & Beyond one night shopping for a universal remote he meets a man by the name of Morty. (Christopher Walken) It's Morty that ends up changing Michael's life with the gift of a remote that not only controls the TV and other household appliances, but his own universe. Upon discovering the abilities the remote has Michael begins to use it to fast-forward through what he considers unpleasant and annoying. Such as fights with his wife and foreplay. As he does this the remote begins creating its own memory and eventually starts to automatically choose what to fast-forward through. Michael unremittingly goes further and further through his life as the remote continues to fast-forward. In turn, he realizes the importance of spending time with his family.

    'Click' seemingly starts out will with its cutesy family wisecracks. And the first couple instances where Michael uses the remote for his own personal kicks is somewhat funny. After that, there really are no laughs to be had. It's just the same joke exhibited over and over again with different alterations. Even the dog Sundance's incessant humping of a stuffed duck gets old real quick as the film advances. This is tragic because 'Click' is being passed off as a comedy but unmistakably isn't funny.

    Another fault the film bears is the main character Micheal is nowhere as entertaining as Morty. Not only did Walken do a better job of acting, he is overall more enjoyable to watch. Truth be told, Morty is actually the only thing that holds this mess together. And only slightly better than average direction by Frank Caraci who also did two of Sandler's other films ('The Waterboy' and 'The Wedding Singer') only contributes dullness to this already colorless movie.

    There are however a few heartfelt moments displayed throughout the extent of the film. But in the final scenes there's supposed to be a big profound moment when Michael desperately tries to tell his son how family comes first with his last breaths but Sandler just doesn't deliver. Who honestly expected splendid acting from him though? But despite all the downsides 'Click' presents, many people will still enjoy it. What can I say, fart and sex jokes sell.

     

    - originally written on Jul. 26 '06 


  • Stolen Spotlight

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Brothers Dean (Taylor Handley) and Eric Hill (Matthew Bomer), along with their girlfriends are on a trip across Texas, which will end with Eric getting Dean to enlist in the Marine Corps. This plan is put a stop when the group is confronted and followed by a ruthless biker named Alex (Cyia Batten). She causes the gang of friends to get into an accident which throws Chrisse (Jordana Brewster) from the vehicle and into nearby brush. Just as Alex attempts to rob them, Sheriff Hoyt (R. Lee Ermey) shows up and kills her. As Chrisse watches from the brush Hoyt orders her friends into his patrol car. He then takes them to the Hewitt family's house where Thomas (Andrew Bryniarski), who inevitably becomes Leatherface, is. Now it's all left up to Chrisse to save her friends from the horror waiting.

    No question goes unanswered in Johnathan Liebesman's 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning'. We find out how Hoyt got the title of sheriff, how Monty lost his legs, & of course how Thomas Hewitt becomes Leatherface. Unfortunately though, Thomas' transition to Leatherface is overshadowed by Hoyt. Unlike the 2003 remake by Marcus Nispel, he doesn't share the spotlight with Leatherface, He steals almost, if not all of it and deservedly so.

    R. Lee Ermey's character, although one of the villains, is the most likable featured. I don't think that for even a second during the film did I find myself rooting for the group of friends. With good one-liners and natural heinousness Hoyt proves to be the best part of the revival of the 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' series.

    Story wise this prequel is okay. It basically tells everything needed to be known about Thomas in the end becomes Leatherface. (Even though it might not be quite as interesting as hoped.) The biggest complaint I hear though regarding the story is that his childhood isn't brought to life. Beforehand I was expecting to see that included in the film. After seeing it though, I realized something. It's actually for the better that it wasn't shown because seeing him at age nine and being ridiculed for his deformities would only make the viewer either pity or laugh at him. This in the end would only undermine Leatherface and get rid of the terror that he supposedly evokes from the audience.

    The bottom line is, the movie sets out was it was made to do, tell Leatherface's origin. It's too bad the Hoyt's side story outshines that. And the film's not bad, it just pales in comparison to the 2003 remake. I will say this though. For whoever makes the next one in the series, I have a suggestion: give Hoyt a chainsaw. It'd be far more interesting to watch.

     

    - originally written on Oct. 24 '06 


  • Not Quite up to Par, but Still Watchable

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Based on the 1946 Pulitzer Prize winning book written by Robert Penn Warren and a remake of the 1949 film of the same title, 'All the King's Men' tells the story of southern politician Willie Stark (Sean Penn). Jack Burden (Jude Law) is a newspaper columnist in New Orleans who after a deadly school tragedy convinces Stark to take his, at the time small following, and attempt to become governor. It's not long though until Stark realizes his running is but a ploy to "split the cracker" vote so the current governor can be re-elected. He then holds no punches as he takes his own path and wins over every person considered to be a hick. He accomplishes this by repeatedly enforcing the fact that he too is a hick and if elected will do his mightiest to serve them well. This in the end gets him his seat in the governor's mansion. As time passes though, Stark himself begins to travel down the road those he initially spoke against when he starts to take what are thought to be means that are inappropriate to get his way.

    Zaillian's reconstruction of 'All the King's Men' starts out decidedly strong with its nicely written script and marvelous acting by Penn. Shortly after the election of Stark as governor though the film quickly loses it's drive and becomes a bit glum with only, sparse but nonetheless sharp moments. No one except for Penn is able to pull off a believable Louisiana accent. (Hopkins, who plays Judge Irwin, doesn't even try.) It's too bad they aren't able to because the script is actually really good. Of course what else could we expect from Zaillian? He is after all the same person who wrote the screenplays for 'Gangs of New York' and 'Schindler's List'.

    It's not entirely the actor's fault that the movie isn't up to par. Where Zaillian's brilliant writing ends, his mediocre directing begins. When a movie is only two hours of length, yet feels to be three, you know something went wrong. The most awful moment would have to be just before the closing scenes, that being the assassination of Stark and death of his killer. It was horribly long, and painfully boring. Once they're dead, they're dead. There's no need for five minutes of aerial spinning around two dead bodies with close-ups here and there of their blood flowing into one stream.

    'All the King's Men' isn't totally bad though. As I stated, Penn is great. The screen lights up with intensity and passion when he's speaking to the people. And although the other actors weren't capable of delivering stunning performances, the well written script makes the film good enough to sit and watch. The bottom line is, yes there was much more that could've been done to improve the film, but despite the weak direction and overall acting, 'All the King's Men' is highly underrated and is worth viewing at least once.

     

    - originally written on Oct. 9 '06 


  • All Glitz, No Glamour

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Hollywoodland  (2006)

    The evening of June 16, 1959 would prove to be a memorable one for millions of adoring fans of the popular TV show 'The Adventures of Superman' as it's star actor, George Reeves (Ben Affleck), is found dead in his home. Reeves' death is said to be suicide and is quickly closed by the Los Angeles Police Department. But is there more to it than that? Private detective Louis Simo (Adrien Brody) believes so. He seeks out Reeves' mother, Helen Bessolo (Lois Smith), who is also not completely convinced that her son's end isn't simply suicide. After meeting her, Simo is then hired by her to investigate the questionable circumstances. He explores all possibilities of murder and as a result comes up with various suspects. There's the woman Reeves was once obliged to, Toni Mannix (Diane Lane) the wife of Eddie Mannix (Bob Hoskins), the executive of MGM Studios, who also appears on the list, and finally Reeves' finance-to-be, Leonore Lemmon (Robin Tunney). High and low Simo searches trying to uncover the truth in the Hollywood who done it mystery, all the while discovering unsettling similarities between Reeves' life and his own.

    At first glance, the trailers for 'Hollywoodland' make the film out to be a seemingly compelling murder story. Upon actually seeing it though you'll soon realize, after about the first twenty minutes, it's merely a sub par one. Once it begins you're in for an almost dismal ride that ends up going nowhere. One of its issues is that all the "likely" murder scenarios lack any evidence. The only thing that even holds each person as a suspect is some sort of motive, which only adds to the film's already stagnant disposition.

    Next you have the ghastly performance given by Affleck. The fact he plays Reeves is ironic in a sad way. Here we have a mediocre actor playing a mediocre actor who hates himself because he's viewed by the public as a joke. The only difference is Affleck has yet to come to the realization that he himself is also a joke. Yes, I will give him some credit, there are a couple of split seconds where he actually does really well, but its nothing really worth mentioning. As for Brody, all I'll say is he's okay. He's not great, he's not lousy, just plainly okay. It's Lane that truly shines here. She does an absolutely amazing job with her role as the emotionally unstable Toni Mannix. I hope when Oscar time comes around she gets a nod. Sadly, all the other members of the cast present only ordinary performances.

    I'm disappointed in the way 'Hollywoodland' turned out. I believed it was going to be really good, and all it ended up being was just fair. I suppose I shouldn't have had such high expectations for a film that's director, Allen Coulter, had only done TV shows up until this point. I will admit, it's not all bad. The style and retro visuals were nice, but all in all, the only thing offered is an outstanding performance from Diane Lane. Much like the story told in the film, 'Hollywoodland' is nothing more than a film filled with all glitz and no glamour.

     

    - originally written on Sep. 25 '06 


  • An Absolute Winner

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Olive (Abigail Breslin), Richard (Greg Kinnear), Sheryl (Toni Collette), Dwayne (Paul Dano), Frank (Steve Carell), & someone simply known as Grandpa (Alan Arkin) all make up the Hoover family. Together they are traveling in a run-down yellow VW bus from Albuquerque to Redondo Beach in order to get 7-year-old Olive to the Little Miss Sunshine pageant, where she will hopefully be crowned the winner. As simple a task that may seem, the trip proves to be a difficult, yet enriching one. On their journey the family must deal with heartbreak, shattered dreams, & even death, all the while learning to support and trust one another no matter what life throws their way.

    First time directors, Faris and Dayton, have created a remarkably and genuinely excellent film. From the amazing cast and their splendid performances to the hilarious screenplay written by Michael Arndt, 'Little Miss Sunshine' is hands down one best films of the year.

    The great thing about each character that is apart of the Hoover family and featured in the movie, is that they're all so very realistic. The most distinctive and memorable members of the family would have to be Olive's older brother, Dwayne and Grandpa. Dwayne presents the characteristics of what many kids today consider themselves today as "emo". As the film advances, we learn he is actually just your average teenager that's simply misunderstood and not "emo" at all. Then there's Grandpa; wisecracking, heroin snorting, kicked out of the retirement home for sleeping around Grandpa. Arkin does a terrific job with this role. He brings not only the character's written personality to life, but adds his own flare as well with his great facial expressions that only fuels the entertaining hoopla presented in 'Little Miss Sunshine'.

    The hilarity doesn't seem to stop even when death tries to darken the movie's comedic stance. Grandpa's rantings alone make the movie worth seeing. The irony that Olive's dad, Richard, is a motivational speaker who day in, day out informs people about how to achieve their goals, yet he himself can't accomplish anything is just of the several added bonuses.

    After changing my mind three times; first deciding to see 'The Illusionist', then again to 'The Black Dahlia', and finally agreeing upon 'Little Miss Sunshine' I'm really glad I did. There's not a funnier or better cast film out right now. The bottom line is 'Little Miss Sunshine' is an absolute winner and one of the few must-see films of the year. The only reason not to see it would be because it's no longer playing at your theater. In which case you then find another theater in your area that is.

     

    - originally written on Oct. 8 '06 


  • Heed the Review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Omen  (2006)

    Five years ago senior American diplomat Robert Thorne's (Liev Schreiber) wife Katherine (Julia Stiles) had a delivery that resulted in the death of their newborn child. The thing is, she doesn't know anything about it. The hospital priest, Father Spiletto (Giovanni Lambardo Radice) convinced Robert to take and raise another child born that same night whose mother died during delivery. The child's name, Damien. (Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick) Years pass and Damien is happy as well as healthy. Everything appears perfect. That is until now, beginning at his birthday party where his nanny commits suicide. The occurrences continue with warnings from a strange priest, Father Brennan (Pete Poslethwaite) claiming Robert must defeat the son of the Devil. As the story progresses and more out of the normal events take place, Robert slowly begins to piece together the puzzle and realize the horrid truth. Damien is no ordinary child, he is none other than the Anti-Christ. It is then he learns that in order to stop the dreadful catastrophe yet to occur he must kill his own son. Or so who he believed to be his own.

    Sounds interesting doesn't it? Perhaps it might be if the exact story hadn't been told in theaters thirty years ago. There lies one of the problems with this extremely unnecessary remake of 'The Omen'. It is so similar in almost every way it's disappointingly scary. Aside from a few death scenes and an added sixteen second dream sequence, the only real difference here is the characters have cell phones, digital cameras, & the internet.

    The other problem, the acting. It was so close to grisly it just barely slides by as mediocre. Julia Stiles certainly did not amaze by any means. It isn't until shortly before we last see her that she almost manages to get a hold of her character and begin to come through. Possibly her next role as Glenna in 'Edmond' being released next week in select theaters will suit her better and give her a chance to shine.

    I really wanted this remake to surpass its predetermined God-awfulness, but it didn't. Director John Moore tried to go a good job here but was unable to succeed. What he couldn't seem to grasp is when you re-make a film, you're supposed to bring and present the same feeling and likeness the initial movie contained, while still making it your own and adding your own print to it. Not rehash the same one and wrap it in a new package. He wanted to bring back a classic horror film and make it great all over again, but it didn't just happen. The fact it's practically scene for scene the same as the original is mindlessly idiotic. Heed my words, see the original 1976 'Omen', not this lousy remake. In it you'll find far better acting and an overall more enjoyable viewing experience.

     

    - originally written on Jul. 8 '06 


  • Go on, Take a Peek

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Over the Hedge  (2006)

    Who would've thought Bruce Willis would be playing a troubled NYPD officer and a mischievous raccoon both in the same year? Well he has, and done both quite well. Bruce Willis, along with Eugene Levy, Nick Nolte, Wanda Sykes, & many others appear in the all-new Dreamworks animation, 'Over the Hedge'. Which is brought to us by the director of 1998's 'Antz', Tim Johnson, and the producer of last year's hit 'Madagascar' and the writer of the upcoming 'Charlotte's Web', Karey Kirkpatrick.

    In 'Over the Hedge' we are taken into what is left of some woodland creature's home, now invaded by suburban life and surrounded by an encompassing hedge. They now have a dilemma. Where are they going to find food? That's where Bruce Willis' character, RJ the raccoon comes in. He explains to them on the other side of the hedge that there are plenty of delicious varieties of food. Including Hammy the squirrel's (Steve Carell) new favorite, nacho cheese flavored chips. While Verne the turtle (Garry Shandling) is skeptical and warns the others that it isn't safe over the hedge they all go along with RJ anyways in hopes of retrieving tasty treats. What they are unaware of is that RJ only wants to gather food for a hungry bear (Nick Nolte) so he himself doesn't get killed.

    'Over the Hedge' is nowhere near other animated films like 'Shrek' and 'Toy Story' in terms of greatness. It lacks a certain quality that is inexplicable. But its still highly enjoyable. The animation itself is very good, there's lots of funny moments for both children and adults to enjoy, and the story is good. (Although there are a few flaws in it, but nothing major.) The good thing is 'Over the Hedge' isn't being made out to be what those other films were. From being based on a comic strip it sure turned out to be pretty good. If you haven't seen it already, I suggest you take some time and go see what's over the hedge. You might just see something you like.

     

    - originally written on Jul 5 '06 


  • Let the Games Begin

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Saw III  (2006)

    Lately Dr. Lynn Denoln (Bahar Soomekh) has been going through some marital problems and the anxiety is beginning to affect her work. Late one night after finishing her shift at the hospital she is kidnapped and taken to an abandoned warehouse. Shortly after waking up, she soon meets the notorious Jigsaw (Tobin Bell). He is currently dying slowly as the minutes pass and Amanda (Shawnne Smith), Jigsaw's sidekick, tells Lynn she has been kidnapped in order to keep him alive. Alive long enough for someone else that's also been kidnapped named Jeff (Angus MacFadyen), to complete his very own game. While telling Lynn this, Amanda places a collar around Lynn's neck that is connected to Jigsaw's heart rate. If his heart rate drops below zero before Jeff completes his game, the shotgun shells on the collar will all simultaneously go off at the same time. Amanda then preps Lynn as Jigsaw explains, "it's a test of will. It's a test to see just how willing you are to keep someone alive". Lynn realizes she has no choice, and so the game begins. Jeff must now navigate through a series of tasks where he is promised his chance to get revenge on the man responsible for his son's death. Something he has wanted every day for the last three years. Both Lynn and Jeff are now each tangled in a horrid game of survival. What they don't know is their games are merely stepping stones to the true reason they are involved with Jigsaw's latest puzzle.

    First off, I have to admit I was a little turned off to 'Saw III' earlier this week after months of having much anticipation, when I heard it was guaranteed that there would be a 'Saw 4' if 'III' did well opening weekend. I feared then, and still do slightly, that the 'Saw' franchise will become what 'Friday the 13th' did: a series of films where only the first few were considered good. Once I was sitting in my seat at the theater though, and the film began I was vastly interested far more than I imagined I would be. This 'Saw' has so much story in it than the previous two had, and really more than most horror films today do. Much of it is told generally with various flashbacks. Even by following the story closely, the final twist probably won't be known to you until its unveiling. It's in the twist that a tiny smidgen of a problem exists.

    It's obvious that the twist was meant to shock the audience in a big way. Maybe it does catch most people by surprise, but for me didn't. Not that it isn't good, it just didn't come across the way it should have. It gave me a, oh...okay feeling rather than a, holy sh*t reaction. This minor flaw doesn't hinder the film's poise at all though. It still remains interesting to the very last minute.

    The only real letdown in the film are some of the traps. In all there is a total of six physical ones. These devices of torture and terror are what many of people who love the 'Saw' series look forward to most. Out of the six, only two were what I'd say good. Yes, all of them can kill, but four of them seemed boring and livid. I'm not sure what happened here. Although, this doesn't destroy the movie, in a small way it does take away from it. Even so, the two good traps almost make up for the others.

    So basically, 'Saw III' is somewhat better than I expected. It borders very closely to the feel of the first, which is a definite plus. Most satisfying though is that it wasn't the least bit dismal. Never was there a dull moment, even with the few shoddy traps. Now that 'Saw III' is done and over with though, it only makes me question what '4' have in store for us. Yes, Tobin Bell was contracted for five films permitting each is considered a success, but now that director Bousman and writer Whannell have decided to step aside and leave the series alone, I can only wonder two things. Will 'Saw' become a victim of its own game? Just how long can the series go on before it suffers the fate Jason Voorhees did?

     

    - originally written on Oct. 28 '06 


  • Sssssoooo Good

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The time: around noon it seems. The place: a deserted area under a bridge in Hawaii. Gangster Eddie Kim (Byron Lawson) and his band of thugs are carrying out a gruesome execution. Too bad Sean Jones (Nathan Phillips) happened to be there crouching in nearby bushes watching the whole thing in disbelief. Now Kim wants him dead as well. Sean now must fly to Los Angelos with FBI agent Neville Flynn (Samuel L. Jackson) and testify against Kim in order to lock him up for good. Since the first rub out failed, Kim must now find another way to stop Sean from arriving in Los Angeles. So, what does he do? He has his thugs smuggle a crate filled with tons of poisonous snakes that's set to burst open only once the plane is halfway to Sean's destination. In order to make the snakes aggressive, the leis handed to passengers as they board the plane have been sprayed with pheromones. Now the snakes are slithering their way around the plane attacking anything and everything in their sight. Everyone on board's only chance for survival is to join together and fight for their lives.

    'Snakes On A Plane' ('SoaP') is without a doubt the most talked about film of the year. It all started last year when many bloggers from MySpace to YouTube began chattering about it. Yes, 'SoaP' was heard far and wide. I myself first found out about the movie whose title explains it all while coming across an article entitled, 'Samuel and Snakes'. I was oddly and instantly intrigued upon finishing it. (Despite finding out Samuel L. Jackson opted to do the film without even reading the script.) Months passed with more and more buzz generating. And by the looks of it, it didn't look as if it were going to stop anytime soon. 'SoaP' was given the title 'Best Worst Movie of the Year' by 'Wired' magazine in their January issue. New Line and TagWorld held a contest that gave artists a chance for their music to be heard in the film. And various spoof trailers were created by fans including ones with the titles, 'Teletubbies on a Plane' and 'Snakes on Claire Danes'. Within the past year 'SoaP' has been seen everywhere imaginable. You're probably wondering why I'm telling you all this since it has nothing to do with what I thought about the film though. Well I'll tell you why.

    'SoaP' isn't like other films. It's something completely different. Almost an entity if you will. The buzz and media are both a part of it's ingeniousness. It can't be judged simply by normal standards solely on things like acting and visuals. There's so much more to it. Over the past two days I've read and heard people say how horrible and downright awful 'SoaP' is. Its not either of those things. The fact is those people just don't get it. I even tried to break it down into the usual categories you'd normally judge a film on. But it conflicted with how well I actually liked the film. Yes, there's some bad dialogue in a couple of the early scenes. Yes, the snakes didn't always look real. And yes, at times the movie is far more comedic than horrifying. None of this matters though. I had so much fun watching 'SoaP' I didn't care.

    The bottom line is 'SoaP' has a greatness that's essentially inexplicable. But not everyone is going to see that. I think Michael Phillips, reviewer for the Chicago Tribune, proves to be a prime example of the ignorance being exhibited when he says in his review, "I liked 'Anaconda' better". All I'll say to that is he needs a new job. Possibly a janitor in some dank office building wasting his life mopping floors, mumbling inaudible things to himself. Nevertheless, I'm not suggesting you see 'Snakes on a Plane'. I'm telling you to go see those motherfucking snakes on that motherfucking plane!

     

    - originally written on Aug. 9 '06 


  • Filled With Mediocrity Through and Through

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Over ten years ago Tim Allen starred in a instant holiday classic known as 'The Santa Clause'. Many years later it was followed-up by an okay sequel. Now just four years later, that sequel has led to what will hopefully be the end of 'The Santa Clause' series, 'The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause'.

    In 'The Escape Clause' it is Christmas time again (obviously) and Carol a.k.a. Mrs. Clause, played by Elizabeth Mitchell, is not only pregnant, but is feeling a bit homesick. In order to help comfort her Santa a.k.a. Scott brings her parents Bud and Lucy to the North Pole. Since they don't know Scott is Santa, they of course are put to sleep and wake up believing the sleigh ride was a plane flight. He also decides to just go ahead and make a family affair and take along his son Charlie, ex-wife Laura, her husband Neil as well as their daughter Lucy. All the while Jack Frost is going about the North Pole silently scheming a way to get Scott to use the Escape Clause so he may then become Santa, which he inevitably does. Frost ends up turning the North Pole into a theme park where only those who can afford to pay the price are able to have a "merry Christmas". Now it is all up to Scott to get back to the North Pole and reverse everything and save Christmas.

    'The Escape Clause' actually has a pretty good premise. This is the first film in 'The Santa Clause' series to have a villain, which I thought was interesting. The bad thing is, Martin Short is not all that great at playing Jack Frost. He's doesn't portray the maliciousness I would have thought Jack Frost has. In addition, he only gets to take over and be Santa for less than ten minutes. Which really isn't all that exciting once seen to begin with.

    A big letdown here is that Bernard, the head elf played by David Krumholtz previously in the first two films, is not present. He has been replaced by a new elf, Curtis, who is played by a familiar face seen in two other movies released this year starring Tim Allen, Spencer Breslin. He is downright annoying and just plain dense as head elf. I guess Krumholtz was happy enough with his role on the TV show 'Numb3rs' that he didn't feel the need to return here.

    Although it is filled mediocrity through and through 'The Escape Clause' is actually okay for kids. It has simple (but not funny) jokes and enough "action" to keep them well entertained. For adults and parents though, it will mostly likely be a living nightmare to watch. There is no uncertainty that it would have been much better suited as a direct-to-DVD release though.
     
    - originally written on Nov. 29 '06

  • A Fair Adaptation

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Charlotte's Web  (2006)

    What do you get when you combine the acting talents of young Dakota Fanning with an all-star cast and mix it with the classic tale of a pig named Wilbur and his spider friend, Charlotte? The answer is easy. You get what appears to be a great film at first look, but really is only a fair adaptation which pales in comparison to the book in which it is based on.

    Gary Winick's take on E.B. White's 1952 novel 'Charlotte's Web' tells the tale of a young pig named Wilbur, who here is voiced by Dominic Scott Kay. Late one night just as he is about to be slaughtered for being a runt, he is saved by a young girl. Fern, played by Dakota Fanning, rushes in and promises to care for him and in doing so, inevitably ends up spending all her free time with him. Soon though Wilbur grows to be a bit too big to remain in the house. Fern's mother then decides it is time for him to go and live across the road in her uncle's barn. Reluctantly, Fern agrees. Once there Wilbur, befriends what is considered to be a hideous creature residing within the corner of the barn's entrance. This creature would be the spider named Charlotte A. Cavatica, who is voiced by Julia Roberts. As time passes Wilbur eventually learns of the fate all spring pigs such as himself meet in the winter. It is then that Charlotte promises Wilbur she will not let him meet that fate and he will indeed see the first snow of winter. Now it's all up to Charlotte to find a way to get the message across to Fern's uncle and everyone else that Wilbur is anything but ordinary.

    'Charlotte's Web' was one of the few films I was really looking forward to this year. I honestly don't know what it was, but there was something about the trailer that when I first saw it made me go, wow. Now that I've finally seen the film, I look back at that trailer and say, wow. Only this time it's not the original wow of awe I had. It is a wow of realization that not only is the book better than the film, but so is the trailer. I was hoping for excellence. The only thing excellent I saw was Julia Robert's voice performance, which is boosted by the interesting CGI character design created for, Charlotte.

    Even though the story is great, the film does not manage to pull its weight. Ninety percent of the film is done with the camera remaining still. This makes the scenes seem one dimensional and dull. The all-star cast is a bit of a problem as well. Since I knew and recognized every person playing each character, it was hard to not focus on that aspect. The irony of Oprah Winfrey playing a chatty goose is just too funny to not snicker at over and over again.

    Despite those things though, we have to remember who this film was made for: kids. I don't believe they are going to even know who most of the people playing the characters are, much less care how the film was shot. The constant jokes will be enough the keep them happy and entertained. So even though it falls flat by normal standards, the fact that it can be enjoyed by children makes it okay in my book.

     

    - originally written on Dec. 16 '06


  • History Has Never Been So Exciting

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Following in the footsteps of 'Charlotte's Web', which opened last weekend, 'Night at the Museum' brings to life another book on the silver screen. Only this time, the result is nothing short of great. Where 'Charlotte's Web' fell short, 'Museum' succeeds in more ways than one.

    Based on Milan Trenc's book of the same name, 'Night at the Museum' takes us into the life of Larry Daley, played by Ben Stiller, which ends up being turned upside down when he becomes the night watchman at the Museum of Natural History. A playful Tyrannosaurus, mischievous monkey, & the wild Attila the Hun are just a few of the things he encounters while on duty during his first night. The next day Larry decides the job is a bit too much for him to handle, and says farewell. He then changes his mind only moments later, so that he may prove to his son that he is able to keep a job. Following some advice from one of the previous watchman, he reads up on some things in history. What he learns, ends up helping him maintain order at night in the museum. Just as everything appears to be going well, the very object that gives life to the museum is stolen. This leaves everything within it cold and inanimate. Larry must now retrieve the item from the thieves and restore the wonder which it brings to the museum.

    'Night at the Museum' is definitely the best family film of 2006. I knew it was going to do well at the box office, but I never would have predicted it to be so good. I mean come on, the book it's based on is intended for children aged four to eight. The first eight minutes, I admit, are quite dull. I was even a little worried at first. My doubt was quickly washed away though once the Tyrannosaurus came to life. From that moment on, it was sheer fun all the way until the end.

    The only weak point here is the quality of acting. Aside from Van Dyke, everyone was pretty much just okay. That heartfelt speech Larry gives to his son at the beginning really doesn't come off as it should have. Luckily though, that doesn't take away from the all the other great things the film offers. The rip-roaring chase scenes, intriguing graphics, & loony shenanigans are more than enough to make up for what it lacks in the actor's performances.

    I had no expectations for 'Museum'. It turned out to be completely refreshing. Levy's adaptation is not only creative, but imaginative as well. If you go to see one movie this weekend, make sure it's 'Night at the Museum'. Until now, history has never been so exciting.

     

    - originally written on Dec. 22 '06


  • Filmmaking at Its Best

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Pan's Labyrinth  (2006)

    Of all the films released in 2006, none is more intriguing than Guillermo del Toro's 'Pan's Labyrinth'. Illustrating a refined tale wrapped in drama, filled with fantasy, & sprinkled with just a hint of horror, it proves to be film-making at its best.

    Set in the year 1944 during postwar regression in Spain, 'Pan's Labyrinth' centers around a young girl named Ofelia. In order to escape her daunting and misery-filled everyday life, she creates a fictitious world containing diverse creatures and total wonderment. It's in this place she must follow the path she herself paves that will free her from the troubles of the real world.

    It's not very often we see a film such as 'Pan's Labyrinth'. It combines the innocence of 'Alice in Wonderland' with the essence of 'Donnie Darko'. The end result is a fairytale simple enough for children to grasp, yet riveting enough for adults to thoroughly enjoy. Not once during it did I come to find myself weary or uninterested. The story told here tickles the mind with its genuinely captivating aura almost to the point of mesmerism.

    Although the fantastic imagery and guidance from del Toro aid in its greatness, the biggest disappointment 'Pan's Labyrinth' bears is one it shares with many of this years other films. Once again the acting comes up short. Most notably with Maribel Verdu who plays Mercedes, the woman who tries to shelter and protect Ofelia. It's obvious she's trying her hardest, but unfortunately she just isn't able to deliver a sincere and overall convincing performance. However, this setback barely, if at all, takes away appeal from this stunning film.

    I must warn parents though, this isn't a film I would recommend taking the kids to see. Yes, it is indeed a fairytale, but it's not suited for children. It is after all rated R for a reason, that being for violence and a bit of language. I do though highly recommend it to any adult looking for an original and worthwhile film. So go ahead and enter Pan's Labyrinth. You'll be glad you did.

     

     - originally written on Dec. 30 '06 


  • Decent Film, Flawless Hayek

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Lonely Hearts  (2007)

    When a film features a cast with names like John Travolta, Laura Dern, Salma Hayek, & James Gandolfini you would expect it to be excellent wouldn't you?  Unfortunately, this is not the case with Todd Robinson's, 'Lonely Hearts'.  While it is decent, it's a shame to see so much potential wasted.

    'Lonely Hearts' depicts the story of Martha Beck, played by Salma Hayek, and Raymond Fernandez, played by Jared Leto.  The duo are more commonly known as the Lonely Hearts Killers.  They travel across the country scheming widows and spinsters out of their money.  Once the two have their grasp on the unsuspecting women's fortune, they murder them and proceed onto the next target.  As the duo start to become a bit sloppy on thier route, detectives Robinson and Hildebrandt, played by Travolta and Gandolfini, begin to get closer to capturing them.  As time passes it appears thier killing spree just may be over.

    The cast named here is really good, at least on paper.  I don't know what happened, but something went wrong here.  There is absolutely no chemistry between Travolta and Dern.  Its almost like they hate each other.  Nicole Kidman would have been much more fitting choice to play the role of Rene.  Her candidness could have added just the right element needed to make the on screen relationship work.  The best acting exhibited here though is by the beautiful Salma Hayek.  She is flawless as she exudes complete acrimoniousness and madness in her role as Martha Beck.  It'll be no surprise to me if this time next year we hear her name among the buzz for an Oscar nod for best supporting actress.

    In addition to the mismatch of Travolta and Dern, director and writer Robinson further screws up what could have been with a partly repulsive script.  Most of Ganfolfini's narratives are stagnant and repetitive.  Of course, not much can be expected from Robinson taking into consideration his poor track record.  Neither of his first two films, both documentaries, were successful.

    Never fear, all is not lost.  Where Robinson fails in his screenplay, he makes up for it with his lovely directing.  I would even go as far to say it's right on par with Alfonso Cuaron's amazing achievement, 'Children of Men'.  So even despite it having a few weak points, I still recommend seeing 'Lonely Hearts' upon it's release to theaters this March.

     

    - originally written on Jan. 5 '07 


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go