Cars 2 I don't know if it makes me lame for reviewing this movie here, but I think a good portion of us have children, so why not? I have two little boys, both of whom are obsessed with all things Cars. I've seen the first movie so many times I can probably quote it word for word. When I first saw the preview to the sequel, I was confused. It didn't appear to even follow in the same vein as the first. So, the characters are now spies? WTF? And I was correct. It went off on a totally different tangent. It shouldn't have even really been considered a sequel except that it had the same characters. It was violent and full of explosions. My almost 4 year old was very confused as to why cars kept getting killed left and right. I guess it wasn't all bad. I laughed, and my oldest seemed to still like it... but when it comes to Disney/Pixar this movie was just not up to snuff, and i'm sad about that. Even sadder that i'm positive i'll be forced to buy the DVD when it comes out and have to sit through it a million more times. I still haven't fully processed my thoughts on it, and I saw it weeks ago. I am left confused and scratching my head.
Harry Potter: Deathly Hallows Part 2. Considering this is a movie about witches, wizards and magic, the movie itself had no magic. It had awkward timing, poor acting, and shitty actor interaction. And perhaps worst of all, a shit sense of humor. All the jokes are half told with no one bothering for a punch line. None of the "Magic" from the previous movies is there at all. It's almost as if the director and producers sat down for a brain storm meeting and discussed how to make the movie god awful. When they were presented with a list of ways to screw it up, they decided it wasn't good enough and hired Uwe Boll for more ingenious ways to be boring and bad. The basic plot is there, but nothing is explained. There are quick shots of characters and situations that would have made sense (had you read the book), but are not explained in this movie or in any of the previous movies. A neophyte to this universe would be confused. The final nail in the coffin was the movie's musical score. A good score can build suspense and heighten the moment. This movie's score is absent for most of the movie, leading to long stretches of utter silence as the actors stare at each other and are not sure about what they should be doing. They are not acting that way, but as if they have no direction. Knowing the source material made it worse still. 2/10
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt 2 The best material in the entire HP series is all condensed into the last half of Deathly Hallows, so in short: it's awesome. Pretty good acting across the board, I thought Maggie Grace as McGonagall, Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort (outside shot at a supporting Oscar nod), and Alan Rickman as Snape were particularly good. I saw it opening night with all the Harry Potter nerds, so there was awkward laughing and clapping throughout the whole movie, which was annoying. But otherwise, it fucking rocked, easily my favorite Harry Potter movie out of the eight and the best movie to come out this year so far. 9/10
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 I'm somewhere in between the previous two reviewers. I grew up on the series, but had never read the 7th book (it was senior year of high school and I thought I was "too cool"). It seemed as though when writing the script, they didn't actually read the book, but checked Wiki or something for a plot summary. They had just about all of the general plot points, but haphazardly changed details that really didn't seem like they needed to be changed. Spoiler To name a few: -Stabbing the diadem with the fang -Hagrid randomly being in the woods without explanation -No conversation between Harry and Neville about the snake, so it seemed strange that he just randomly killed it, not knowing that it needed to be done -The confrontation with Snape and the rest of Hogwarts (rather than just the Heads of House) -Specific mention of the Carrow siblings, but then skipping over any scenes with them -The conversation with the Grey Lady seemed really weird And the most annoying to me: snapping the elder wand, and not even fixing his old wand first. They did, however, change some things that I thought were good changes, or at least made sense when going from the book to the movie Spoiler Skipping Dumbledore's background for the most part (not terribly necessary for the main plot), the extended fight sequence with Harry and Voldemort (short and sweet works in the book, but I think would have felt a bit dull in the movie), and not having the random Death Eater meet up with them at the bank vault (he served no purpose in the book to begin with) For me though, the main purpose of this movie was to get a visualization of the Battle of Hogwarts. I went in only hoping to be able to see some cool effects and wizard fighting, and I think they did a pretty great job with that. They always change some stuff between the book and the movie, and I am always accepting of changes between media if it makes sense (a la Watchmen's ending), but in this case, there were more annoying changes than there were good. Perhaps I would have noticed this less had I not just read the book (which, by the way, I would recommend doing so before seeing this movie so you can be sure what the hell is going on). All things considered 7/10 Side note: Saw it at midnight with HerFuzzziness, who made the fantastic comment of "Why is it that 9 times out of 10, girls who dress up like Hermione are morbidly obese". Looking around the theater, I think she was being too kind with that statistic, as there were at least 20 of them, and not a one was in shape (other than "round")
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 2 Lasersailor's post is almost point for point spot on, as well as the things mentioned in Tuzzzy's post that they changed for no apparent reason. Put those two reviews together and you have a very accurate review of what should have been an awesome movie. I'm a huge fan of the series, read all the books many times, and when the final credits popped up I felt let down. It was anti-climactic for me in a way. Yes basic plot points were there but there was indeed no magic. 5/10
Just saw The Trip with Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon. I'm none too privy to some of the great road trip comedies of yore (Lost in America, Local Hero), so I've not much basis for comparison on this, but this one's a keeper. Two guys tour the northern UK on the dime of a British newspaper and review restaurants, simultaneously annoying each other and keeping each other going. And the impressions. Oh, the impressions. Apparently Brydon's quite the character back in the UK (his 'Small man trapped in a Box' routine is worth looking up) and his array of Pacino, Michael Caine, Anthony Hopkins, et al impersonations are routinely brought to the dinner table much to the chagrin of Coogan, who's only on this trip because his American girlfriend backed out (of whom he is currently facing a rough patch). Coogan is certainly done up in being 44 with no stable relationship and an acting career that's on the rocks, all while feeling increasingly lonely each morning after the various liaisons he undergoes with hotel clerks. "Everything's exhausting at our age," he says. And shit, the back drops made you sink in your seat. I didn't get the impression this would be a beautiful movie from watching the trailer, but my God, is it ever. Viewing totally through the scope of these two guys on their journey, Coogan connects with agents, family, and his ex-girlfriend on the outside by roaming the countryside trying to find a signal, and in doing so we get so soak in the expansive, rolling land of northern UK. It is jaw-dropping. Like something out of Braveheart, only no battle scenes or cries of freedom. Really great movie. Not much of a story, just glimpses here and there of deeper elements to these two guys playing fictionalized versions of themselves, but it's really incredible how the bantering and prolonged back-and-forth that the two undergo behind the wheel and over dinner carries the movie so well. Sometimes, a mediocre script with transcendental chemistry can bring a movie to new heights. The Trip does it. I recommend it.
Harry Potter and the blahblahblahblah Hmm. On one hand, it was a pretty cool visualization of everything that happened in the book. On the other... I don't know, there was nothing that really stood out that I was a big fan of. It was rather entertaining, it never felt like it dragged or anything, but as a standalone movie I'm not sure if it holds up great. Worth a trip, but it's not as strong as the 3rd or 5th (or even 6th). Also, be prepared for the worst chapter in book history being brought to life as one of the most terrible scenes in movie history. The epilogue to this thing is... so, so bad. If you've read the books, you know what I mean. If you haven't, well, you'll just have to wait.
Captain America- Pretty meh. Goes through the motions of an action film, villain, hero, love interest*, all pretty uninspiring for someone who never read the comics. Honestly, action movies have basically stagnated in my mind because the action scenes are all everything all the time. They really underused Tommy Lee Jones and the gang of misfits that made up his team. 6/10 * Her titanic breast are inspiring but they hide them under drab military issue garb in all but one scene.
I agree 100% with this review. There were a few funny one liners by Tommy Lee Jones, who was underused by a long shot. More of him making fun of the main characters would have made this movie better. 6/10 works for this standard action movie. Spoiler And that red dress scene was pretty awesome, she disappointed by only being on screen for about 2 min
Captain America I was pleasantly surprised by it. The characters were more compelling than usual comic book-fare and the retro-futuristic setting looked great. My only complaint is they could have fleshed out his powers a bit more as that seemed glossed over a bit. Overall I enjoyed it and it was a great summer flick. 8/10
Captain America - I also thought this was a pretty meh movie. In fact, of all the films leading up to The Avengers (Hulk excluded), this was my least favorite and probably the only one I wouldn't bother watching again. First, it seemed like the pacing was off. I just never fell into a groove with it. Everything was just average. Some funny lines, but then a lot of others that fell flat. Action sequences didn't have me on the edge of my seat. Tommy Lee Jones was about the only worthwhile part of the movie. Verdict: 5/10. See it at a matinee or cheap seat theater if you see it at all. Also, make sure you stay until the VERY end of the credits for a trailer for The Avengers.
I will have to agree with the meh feeling, it wasn't bad. I wasn't mad i did watch it, so i don't feel ripped off. Oh and DO NOT wait until the very end, it was a very very shitty trailer, they really didn't show you anything you didn't know. Not worth the wait.
30 Minutes or Less: Hoping lighting would strike twice with the director of Zombieland and Jesse Eisenberg together again. Another MEH movie. At least Zombieland tried something different. This movie had a standard plot predictable at every turn. Kenny Powers plays Kenny Powers who wants to murder his dad for inheritance money. At least Eisenberg doesn't play a Michael Cera knock off. Half of the laughs are derived from the "oww my god I can't believe you did that with a BOMB strapped to you!" The indian dude from Parks and Rec was pretty funny and I think the Mexican assassin stole every scene he was in, which doesn't speak well with the other comedy "Heavy hitters" in the film. The indian chick in the film give Frieda Pinto a run for the money in the hot department. It has a decent amount of laughs, nothing classic, a rental at most. 6.5/10
Friends With Benefits Better than that other one with Natalie Portman. Mila Kunis didn't get naked though, which was disappointing, and apparently used an ass double, which is LYING. Justin Timberlake reconfirms his abilities to be hilarious, if not his abilities to be an actor. The movie was decently funny, and naturally full of romantic comedy cliches, but enjoyable nonetheless. I predict that there will be a lot of "best friends" attending this movie and then elbowing each other while desperately asking, "Wasn't it great? If only that happened in real life..." 5/10
Crazy, Stupid, Love Carrell plays the quietly desperate everyman perfectly, but it turns out he also plays smooth pretty well. Gosling, it turns out, has comedy chops. Emma Stone is cute as a button, and far less aggressively sarcastic than in other things I've seen her in. Julianne Moore is primarily set dressing, an impetus for plot points without actually being much of a character. There are some really good, surprising plot turns in this movie that, looking back, I should have seen coming, but just didn't. And they make it all the more enjoyable. It's been promoted as a kind of a chick flick, but I think it has more appeal than that. It's better written than that. There was one really cliche moment where something goes terribly wrong for Carrell, and he's left standing in the street while it starts to pour. And then the character says, "How cliche". There are excellent callbacks, a very decent climax, and just enough resolution to leave you satisfied. 9/10 I'll probably end up buying it.
Horrible Bosses This is one of the funnier Hollywood comedies in the last few years, though it plays a different card: we know basically nothing about the main characters, just the situation at hand: kill their bosses, played with comic brio by Spacey, a hysterical coketarded Farrell and a never hotter (ever) or more appealing Aniston as a sewer-mouthed nymphomaniac. Her wardrobe designer for this film gets a special Oscar from me. Jamie Foxx has his funniest role in years as Motherfucker Jones. Not much script, just the characters and their great chemistry. The three leads are all fun and work great together: they really do convince me that they're friends, despite the fact we know nothing about any of them. The movie instead focuses on non-stop momentum and jokes, which often land with surprising deftness. I like how there's no Have To Win My Girlfriend Back cliche, which is is tired bullshit in almost any comedy today. Not quite as hilarious as I predicted (given the hype), but theatre worthy no doubt. A solid, fun comedy. 7.5/10
Hesher Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays an 80s metal head who equal parts terrozies and unifes a familly who have been recently shattered by the death of the mother. The Good: The Hesher character played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. I was really surprised by how complex he managed to make this character who on his face seems like he is very 1 dimensional. His speach at the end is incredible. The father played by Rain Wilson. Conveys a ton of emotion with a very minimal amount of actual diaglogue. It was really quite a touching movie at times. The music was awsome, lots of Metallica. The bad: Focused too much on the kid. He was essentially the main character, but I just wanted him to fuck off after a while. Got a little boring at times with some long drawn scenes that were trying to be all artsy. Rating: 8/10.
30 Minutes or Less - Saw a sneak screening of 30 Minutes or Less tonight. All in all, I thought it was pretty fun. Despite being an odd combination, Eisenberg and Ansari as best friends seemed to work pretty well. Danny McBride pretty much did what Danny McBride does. The plot/driving force behind the film is very absurd, but it's a comedy so I didn't mind suspending my disbelief for that sake. The beginning has a moment between Eisenberg and Ansari that tries to provide their character's background, but comes up short. The jokes run the gamut from witty to vulgar, which I enjoyed. Verdict: 6.5 out of 10. A fun film that, had I paid to see it, I would've been ok with my decision. It's not a riotous comedy that will split your sides, but you'll laugh and be entertained for the evening.
Rise of the Planet of The Apes: Having loved the original movie series I did expect to be very disappointed after being sickened by the Tim Burton remake. It falls a few notches short of a classic but is a solid movie and better than most summer releases. The good: Actually builds a story and doesn't completely blow it's CGI load the entire film before they all go ape shit. Caesar is the main focus of the film and I thought the movie did a pretty good job of creating a semi compelling semi serious story around a CGI ape. There is kind of a Where's Waldo? thing going on with references and homages to the original films. I used to hate that figuring filmakers should try original ideas until I rewatched the original Terminator and realized my favorite action movie of all time, T2, had a shit ton of them. The bad: CGI still not as realistic as it thinks it is. I also hate that fucking CGI shot they use in every film now where the camera does multiple 360's around something that has hundreds of CGI apes or robots or volcano dragons exploding out of it. The "evil" guard is a complete boner and butchered the two best lines from the original, bad. John Lithgow is pretty good but under utilized and just kind of shoveled off. I guess Brian Cox has a bigger role in the next film somehow because he's a big name and great actor and his character is really useless. Maybe not great but OK in my book was that most of the shit in the film sets up for a sequel. 8/10
Fright Night (2011) - I went to a free screening of this last night. I honestly don't know why this movie was made. It's part Rear Window, part Lost Boys and part shit. You can probably figure out the plot just from that. Like the original "Fright Night" movie, this one revolves around a young teenager who suspects his neighbor of being a vampire and tries to convince those around him while preventing him from killing again. Christopher Mintz-Plasse (aka McLovin') plays the friend and David Tennant (aka the Doctor from Doctor Who) plays a Cris Angel type vampire expert, and they provide some decent comic relief. My main problem is that I felt the movie wanted to balance itself between comedy and horror and wound up being neither. Jokes were told, and some were funny, but not enough. There was some action/suspense/horror, but not enough. And I just sat there wondering why I was watching this and why it was made. It wound up being one of those movies where I feel most people greeted a character's death with laughter rather than shock. Also, there was absolutely no reason this movie needed 3D. There were maybe two or three 3D moneyshots and even then I was pretty meh about them. Verdict: 4/10. Like I said, some good in that 120 minutes I sat there, but not enough to really keep me entertained. This is the kind of movie you pay $12 to see on a Friday or Saturday night on a date, and I would not have been pleased had I spent that kind of money on it. The ladyfriend who came along with me enjoyed it more than I did however.