Larry Crowne [2011]

“Larry Crowne” might not be a great movie, but the characters in it have words they actually say, and after the horrible experience I had to endure while watching “Transformers 3”, that is a great relief. When a film covers familiar grounds, as this one, it had better offer an original point of view, or at the very least, interesting characters. “Larry Crowne” doesn’t pretend to be original, and it shows. But it features some interesting and colorful people, which makes it hard to resist. The premise is simple enough: Larry Crowne (Tom Hanks, who also wrote and directed the film) is fired from his worker-bee job at a big-box store on grounds that his lack of a college education has made him unpromotable. So he enrolls in community-college classes, where he meets the always elegant Julia Roberts. Along the way, we learn stuff that doesn’t always pay off: Larry is divorced, has a huge, valuable collection of vinyl records, and he’s carrying a hefty mortgage on his nice suburban home. Do we really need to know all that? Not really. But Hanks and Roberts have charm, and they carry the film perfectly well, which is more than I can say about an awful lot of movies these days (I still can’t over the fact that “Transformers 3” was the worst cinematic experience I had to endure since “Revenge Of The Fallen” two years ago). Anyway, “Larry Crowne” marks Tom Hanks’ first work as a director since his delightful “That Thing You Do” hit theatres some 15 years ago. Hanks has matured, both mentally and physically, but he still demonstrates a clever instinct for calm, well paced scenes. Such class from such a wonderful actor.

In a year of superheroes and robots, “Larry Crowne” will most certainly appeal to a more mature audience. It’s a perfect summer romantic comedy for grown ups looking to escape all the usual crap. Critics may attack the film’s simplicity and optimism, but Hanks are Co are merely interested in making the target audience feel good about themselves. What’s wrong with that, haters?

Rating: 2.5/4

Transformers: Dark Of The Moon [2011]

Just because you’re a fan of those dumb robots, doesn’t mean that “Transformers 3” is any good. I admit: the first movie caught me off guard, with its solid premise and clever use of  CGI. But then came the dreadful part two, which still holds the record for being the worst sequel since “Jason X” (that’s “Friday the 13th Part 11” in case you’re a horror virgin). Even Michael Bay himself admitted that it sucked, but the bastard lied, because here we are again, two years later and nothing has changed. “Dark Of The Moon” is even louder, sillier and  longer than its predecessor. It’s a big budget movie with a brain the size of a nut. In a recent interview, Bay promised his fans that the third installment in the series was a return to form. The bastard lied again, because now that I’ve witnessed this “insult” to the senses, I’m not sure I agree. Back to the first film, which started out as fun, Shia LaBeouf played a high school student who finds out that his car is actually an Autobot sent to earth to kick some Decepticons butt. In the new film, it’s all deadly serious, an apocalyptic tale involving big bad robots Vs. human conspirators Vs. something. There are some few light moments, but they’re irrelevant. The only good thing I can say about this crap is that it deepened my appreciation for James Cameron and his use of 3D.

 See Bay is laughing at us as we speak, all the way to the bank. The bastard doesn’t care whether he makes one decent movie, as long as his pockets are full. Well here’s what you get to see for your overpriced ticket. He even gives his hero a new girl. Megan Fox was fired for comparing Bay to Hitler (that’s the smartest thing she’ll ever say). The couple couldn’t be duller. British model Rosie Huntington Whiteley can’t act, while LaBeouf only gets excited in the presence of Bumblebee…his car. Get ready to puke, big time.

 I know the year is still young, but “Dark Of The Moon” is so bad, it hurts. It lacks imagination, freshness, and a reason to exist. Ultimately, it is almost as bad as every other Michael Bay film. If this is what qualifies as entertainment these days, then I want no part of it.

Fiasco!

Sucker Punch [2011]

Director Zach Snyder has been very successful so far, with movies like “300” and the underrated “Watchmen” on his résumé. Now he has directed and co-written yet another film that takes place in an artificial environment, with characters and story as strange as its title. I’ll go ahead and say that I was terribly disappointed. Emily Browning (“A Series Of Unfortunate Events”, “The Uninvited”) plays the central character, a young woman who has been wrongfully committed to an insane asylum (blame her pervert stepdad). During her stay, she bonds with four other inmates (played by Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, Vanessa Hudgens and Jamie Chung), and plans for an escape. In the meantime, she finds bliss by escaping into her own imagination, where she pictures her and her friends kicking butt in a series of weird action sequences. These scenes are staged in a video game-like manner, and of course this would have been fine if they were interesting. But because they look so unreal and cartoonish, I couldn’t care less about the outcome of the story and its characters. Throughout this mess, I was reminded of how completely uninteresting it is to watch someone else play a certain video game. Now Imagine yourself watching someone play for almost two hours. Nasty sight right? “Sucker Punch” is exactly that; it opens with a bang, then loses its pedigree way too early, until it reaches a very unsatisfying conclusion. In between, its just one lousy ride. Very atypical from visionary director Zach Snyder.

Rating: 2/4

Bad Teacher [2011]

If stupidity is the message, then “Bad Teacher” is a masterpiece. I didn’t expect much going in, as I tend to be whenever a Hollywood movie announces through its advertising how hilarious it’s going to be. The only hilarious thing here is watching Jason Segel make a fool out of himself playing a gym teacher (who could have thought right?). To be fair though, I did have a couple of laughs when the film opened. Sadly, it only took about 20 minutes for Camerion Diaz and Co to wipe that smile off my face. Damn shame. Diaz looks comfortable enough (by comfortable I mean half naked) playing Elizabeth Halsey, a 7th grade school teacher buried in Illinois. On her first day, she runs a DVD of “Stand and Deliver”, and proceeds to sleep off whatever wasted her the night before. Her mission? to find a guy to replace her fiancé , who kicked her out of the house. Bachelor number 1 is pretty boy Justin Timberlake, the new teacher in town. Problem is: Timberlake’s previous lover had enormous breasts (and a big heart aswell), which means Elizabeth will need $ 10,000 for a boob job. WTF? but wait a minute, it gets worse. Diaz takes over a school fund-raising car wash by showing up in mini shorts. All the fathers and local cops stare in wonder and amazement. Then we see one of the male students, equally drooling; the camera moves down to reveal that he has an erection. Obvious? of course. Then it gets much worse: a dry humping scene involving Diaz and ex-hubby Timberlake, and a couple of toilet jokes all fall embarassingly flat. Which leads me to this: How did Diaz ever become a teacher in the first place? Don’t scratch your head too hard, because the movie doesn’t seem to know or care.

Rating: 2/4

Hanna [2011]

Ever since her breakthrough role in “Atonement” four years ago (which earned her an Academy Award nomination), Saoirse Ronan has proven herself to be one of the best actresses of her generation and a world class talent. In “Hanna”, she carries much of the story on her shoulders, playing the daughter of an ex CIA agent (Eric Bana in top form) who was raised in the snowy wilds of Finland to be the perfect soldier spy. However, she has never been exposed to the outside world, with her only book of reference being the brothers Grimm’s Fairy Tales. One day, her father decides it’s time for her to leave their isolated cabin, and cope with a world she doesn’t know, if she can stay one step ahead of the CIA agents who are going to be on her tail, in particular a lethal female veteran, played with perfection by Cate Blanchett. You can bet the rest of the film is as thrilling as its premise; we get share our heroin’s extremely dangerous odyssey as she runs, hides and kills her way through several countries. Along the way, we understand who she really is, where she came from, and what her connection is with the ruthless Blanchett.

With these two women as the heart and soul of the film, there’s always a lot going on, and none of it uninteresting or dull. I found myself rooting for Ronan’s character every step of the way, and that’s always crucial in movies like “Hanna”. And eventhough the film ends on a predictable note, there’s still plenty to enjoy here: the impressive cinematography, the pulse pounding chase scenes, and a perfect score by The Chemical Brothers (which deserves tons of recognition). Without the score, I believe “Hanna” would have been a different, and far less enjoyable experience altogether.

All in all, “Hanna” is a truly fresh, original, and enjoyable thriller. In a season where so many filmmakers are re-imagining things , ultimately in ways we’ve seen so many times before (case in point: “Hangover 2” and “Pirates Of The Caribbean”), this film is a rare, and might I add, welcome treat.

Rating: 3/4

The Ward [2010]

After a few bad films, I realized John Carpenter could fuck up every movie he’d direct for the rest of his career, and I would still admire the man for his work. “Halloween” and “The Thing” were among his best, and even if his career continues to resemble movies like “The Ward”, he will still be considered a legend in my book. One of the main problems with “The Ward” is that it feels astonishingly ineffective. It’s a film that suffers from a bad case of “been there, done that”. Everything is executed poorly, as we follow Kirsten (Amber Heard), a disturbed young girl who ends up in a remote psychiatric hospital against her will. During her stay, she becomes terrorized by a ghost who also happens to be stalking and killing the other patients (how original!). The film borrows heavily from other genre thrillers such as “Identity” and the far more superior “Shutter Island”, whilst failing to capture any of the creepiness that made these films relatively successful. Nothing feels fresh or exciting; the structure, the scares and even the score feel recycled. This is definitely a step back for Carpenter, who obvioulsy deserves better than this terrible “horror” flick. I look forward to his next project, but as far as “The Ward” is concerned, it’s a complete misfire. Beware!

Fiasco!

Mars Needs Moms [2011]

If Mars needs moms, so be it. But I don’t think earth needs this movie at all. The folks at Walt Disney Pictures obviously weren’t thinking on a very high level when they decided to make this film, which is definitely the worst they could come up with in nearly a decade. There is no charm or magic at play here, no sense of discovery upon entering the movie’s universe, no nothing. The story is paper thin; what should have been a 20 minute short goes on for an hour and a half. I fell asleep three times while watching it. That’s always a bad sign. Milo is a whiny brat (and by whiny I mean extremely whiny) who hates taking the trash out. After a long night of misbehavior, he witnesses the abduction of his long suffering mother (voiced by Joan Cusack) by a group of martians. When he tries to follow her, he eventually ends up on the alien spacecraft, where he is reminded just how damn important moms are afterall, and decides to rescue her before her body explodes into nothingness (WTF?). Yes, those martians are pretty ruthless, and they are led by a nazi-like figure that resembles ET’s ugly twin. Together, they have established a plan to abduct the best of earth’s maternal figures in order to suck their life force out, or something. If this sounds confusing, watching this mess will only make it worse. The result is a movie that is too dark for kids, and too lame for adults. In other words, it’s meant to please no one. Martians maybe?

Rating: 1.5/4

Super 8 [2011]

In a season of Superheroes, J.J Abrams (“Lost”, “Cloverfield”, “Star Trek”) gambles on an old school adventure flick, the kind Mr. Steven Spielberg used to make. It isn’t coincidential really, since everything about “Super 8” has Spielberg written all over it. If you’re wondering if it’s any good, I can put your mind at ease by telling you that it’s really good. It doesn’t surprise me one bit that the story takes place in 1979, way before the age of Facebook and Blackberry. That’s also the period in which Spielberg captured the hearts of millions with such films as “Close Encounters Of The Third Kind” and “E.T”. Abrams is obviously trying to match Spielberg here, but “Super 8” never feels like a ripoff. It does feel a bit old school though, and it might be interesting to see how today’s audience would react to such a film. All I can say is that I had a great time watching it, despite a few bumps along the way.

“Super 8” opens during a time when kids embarked on a journey to make home movies without the benefits of a digital camera. The setting is a steel-mill town in Ohio, and our hero is a boy named Joe whose mother recently died in a tragic accident. Filmmaking is his way of escapism, all the more so when his friends invite a girl from school (the talented Elle Fanning) to be their leading lady. The monster subplot kicks off during a shoot at a train station late one night, where the kids bear witness to a horrific train wreck (the best I’ve seen on film in a very long time). Later, you’ll see the same scene as recorded by the boys’s super 8 camera. Can you spot the monster?

I realise that “Super 8” might sound a bit cheesy or deja vu. That’s not entirely true however. Abrams might have put together riffs from genre movies he loves, but damn it, it works. The man’s a skillful storyteller (fans of “Lost” will most certainly agree) who knows how to keep his audience on the edge of their seats. That’s exactly what makes “Super 8” such a good film. And in case the ending fails to leave you entirely satisfied, make sure you stick around for a very funny short film entitled “The Case”. Michael Bay, I hope you’re watching.

Rating: 3/4

Take Me Home Tonight [2011]

Topher Grace ditches the 70’s and joins this moderate comedy set in the 80’s as Matt Franlkin, an MIT graduate working at suncoast video while deciding what to do with his life. The answer? Party hard. In a Mercedes stolen by his best pal Barry (also the biggest doofus you’ll ever meet), Matt decides to go to a party hosted by his sister’s boyfriend, where he will eventually try to impress his highschool crush Tori (Teresa Palmer), now an investment banker, who’s impressed when Matt lies about being a rising star at Goldman Sachs. The movie, directed by Michael Dowse, is nothing more than a collection of vignettes, all taking place in one raucous night, one crazy party. Think “American Graffiti” meets “Dazed And Confused”. Yes it features the clothes, the hair, the music. But the laughs are nowhere to be seen. I can tell you this though: all the characters in “Take Me Home Tonight” are likable. There’s chemistry between them, and it’s crucial to make the relationship beween Matt and Tory work.  And I guess we can all agree that the 80’s were something special. Everyone remembers those days, even if you didn’t actually live through them. But all this charm is no match for the big question: why is this movie laugh free? There are other issues too. Whenever the script feels dull, the director turns to music. Of course it would be fine if it was a great cover…but not here. In “Take Me Home Tonight”, it only signals we’re heading into another one of those lame interludes filled with shots of people dancing and drinking booze. Not surprising really, since this movie has been sitting on the shelf for a while now (2007 to be more specific). Where’s John Hughes when you need him the most?

Rating: 2/4

Henry’s Crime [2010]

Keanu Reeves stars in this so so heist/comedy movie as an everyman who returns from his night job one morning, and agrees to join an acquaintance in a baseball game as a susbsitute for another guy. Tough luck. The game turns out to be nonexistent. Instead, poor Henry ends up the accidental wheelman in a bank robbery that lands him in prison, where he shares a cozy cell with a conman named Max (James Caan in a funny role). After his release three years later, Henry reasons that he might as well go out and rob the bank, tunneling in from the theatre next door. He recruits his former cell mate for help, and they insinuate themselves into the Chekhov production as they try to re-open the tunnel and rob the vault from underneath.

The Good: There’s pleasure to be found in the offbeatness of this comedy. It obviously doesn’t take itself too seriously, and everyone seems to be having a good time (especially Caan who is amusing for really not caring if he goes back to prison or not).

The Bad: Keanu Reeves’s dedicated underplaying of his role is part of a larger problem with the movie. It doesn’t really know when to play it serious and when not to. It sort of bounces back in forth, but never really succeeds in being any of the above. Plus, if the heist portion of the film had been any good, “Henry’s Crime” might have worked. But the whole robbery scenes are so lame and unconvincing, that I found myself bored out of my mind. No offense to the cast, as they give it their best.

The Verdict: James Caan aside (I love that guy), there’s not much to discuss here. It’s not really that bad, but it’s hopelessly mediocre and extremely dull at times. It might not be a bad idea to watch it on TV one night if there’s nothing else playing, but a good movie it is not.

Rating: 2/4

Henry's Crime [2010]

Keanu Reeves stars in this so so heist/comedy movie as an everyman who returns from his night job one morning, and agrees to join an acquaintance in a baseball game as a susbsitute for another guy. Tough luck. The game turns out to be nonexistent. Instead, poor Henry ends up the accidental wheelman in a bank robbery that lands him in prison, where he shares a cozy cell with a conman named Max (James Caan in a funny role). After his release three years later, Henry reasons that he might as well go out and rob the bank, tunneling in from the theatre next door. He recruits his former cell mate for help, and they insinuate themselves into the Chekhov production as they try to re-open the tunnel and rob the vault from underneath.

The Good: There’s pleasure to be found in the offbeatness of this comedy. It obviously doesn’t take itself too seriously, and everyone seems to be having a good time (especially Caan who is amusing for really not caring if he goes back to prison or not).

The Bad: Keanu Reeves’s dedicated underplaying of his role is part of a larger problem with the movie. It doesn’t really know when to play it serious and when not to. It sort of bounces back in forth, but never really succeeds in being any of the above. Plus, if the heist portion of the film had been any good, “Henry’s Crime” might have worked. But the whole robbery scenes are so lame and unconvincing, that I found myself bored out of my mind. No offense to the cast, as they give it their best.

The Verdict: James Caan aside (I love that guy), there’s not much to discuss here. It’s not really that bad, but it’s hopelessly mediocre and extremely dull at times. It might not be a bad idea to watch it on TV one night if there’s nothing else playing, but a good movie it is not.

Rating: 2/4

Kung Fu Panda 2 [2011]

I loved the first “Kung Fu Panda” movie, which introduced the unlikeliest of action heroes-a funny, overweight panda named Po (voiced by a fabulous Jack Black), in a fresh and hilarious underdog tale. Let’s put it this way: I think it’s the best animated film to come out of Dreamworks Studios. Period. With that in mind, I couldn’t wait to watch “Kung Fu Panda 2”, and while it lacks the freshness of its predecessor, it’s still quite good, a particular compliment at this point in the movie season, since most of the films playing right now are either bad or instantly forgettable. I think a big part of the first installment’s appeal was the delightful mentor-student relationship between Po and his Kung Fu master Shifu (a terrrific Dustin Hoffman). And of course there was the novelty of giving our hero the opportunity to fight alongside his favorite warriors, also known as the Furious Five. Unfortunately, Shifu doesn’t appear much in this sequel, with the emphasis this time around being on a power hungry enemy named Lord Shen (voiced with perfection by Gary Oldman), and a parallel story in which Po searches for his real parentage (if you recall, he was raised by a noodle shop owner named Mr. Ping, who also happens to be a goose!).

The result is a movie that is much darker in tone, but I think the folks at Dreamworks managed to pull it off. I, for one, was happy to go along for the ride, and at some point, I was even reminded of “The Empire Strikes Back”, which not only demanded that the audience recalls the events of the first film, but also took its story to a deeper level by involving our hero’s search for his true father. And by the finale, we understand that there’s still at least one more sequel to come. My seat is already reserved.

Rating: 3/4

Beastly [2011]

If you’re a girl and/or ten years old, “Beastly” is the movie event of the year. It’s a lame adaptation of Alex Flinn’s novel that flatters itself by pretending to be a modern day update of the beloved “The Beauty and the Beast”. You wish. Alex Pettyfer (who is not enjoying a good introduction to movie audiences following  his forgettable debut in “I Am Number Four”) and Vanessa Hudgens have charm. But director Daniel Barnz buries them in a lame script, a clichéd story, and dialogue that makes “Twilight” sound like “Gone With The Wind”. Pettyfer plays Manhattan pre-school senior Kyle, a shallow though very popular guy who gets turned into a beast by a witchy fellow student Kendra (a horrible Mary Kate Olsen). She tells him that he has one year to find a girl who will love him, despite his hideous face, or he will be forever beastly. I especially gagged at the sight of his face following his so called transformation, with exotic tattoos and razor cuts all over his bald head and body, looking like a rapper crossed with Denis Rodman. Barnz gives no life to any of his characters, nor does he make their situations the least interesting. Perhaps most disappointing, since this was supposed to be a modern take on “Beauty and the Beast”, is the fact that New York is completely wasted as the city of choice for this disaster. The best thing I could say about it however, is that it’s only 86 minutes long. For that, you must be grateful. My number one contender for worst movie of the year so far. Congratulations!

Fiasco!

Jane Eyre [2011]

I know what you’re thinking: you’re probably up to there with Jane Eyre. Afterall, this 1847 novel about a young governess and her brooding master has been shoved down our throats since school. Not to mention the countless film versions that have been carved out the book, plus nine TV movies. Can anything feel fresh anymore? The answer is yes, and the proof is the new big screen adaptation. Mia Wasikowska, who made such a good impression in last year’s “Alice In Wonderland” and “The Kids Are All Right”, is compelling in the title role and does not disappoint at all. Michael Fassbender’s reputation is also growing, starring in such films as “Inglourious Basterds” and the fascinating  “X-Men: First Class”. He embodies Mr. Rochester with the ideal blend of charisma and sinister brooding, while at the same time allowing glimpses of the wounded depths of his soul. Make no mistake, the man’s a terrific actor. Jamie Bell and Judy Dench round up the principal cast, with Dench terrific as always as housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax. The locations have been carefully chosen aswell, and we owe it all to director Cary Fukunaga, who makes excellent use of Haddon Hall in Derbyshire, one of the oldest houses in England, as Thornfield Hall. The exterior locations (gardens, cliff and endless fields) are beautiful, and make an arresting backdrop for the story. You truly feel as though you were back to the 19th century.

“Jane Eyre” weighs in at two hours, and I can’t help but feel that it could have been slightly better, had the script been trimmed a little bit. But I don’t think fans of the novel are going to object, because the movie’s strengths (interesting characters, eye opening locations, and talented lead actors) ultimately outweighs its faults. Do not miss it.

Rating: 3/4

The Marc Pease Experience [2009]

Extremely unfunny movie starring Jason Schwartzman as Marc Pease, a limo driver with singing aspirations and a bad case of post high school depression. Once upon a time, he flipped out during his school’s production of “The Wiz”, despite every assurance from his drama teacher Mr. Gribble (a wasted Ben Stiller) that he can do it (“You set the bar… so that others can go beyond it!”). Fast forward 8 years, Pease has banked everything on getting his singing group into the studio by trying to persuade Mr. Gribble (who’s now sleeping with Pease’s high school girlfriend) to produce a demo. I can only recall one funny joke, a bathroom set meeting between the members of the singing group that is soon accompanied by off-screen urination. Other than that, there’s absolutely nothing to declare; no set-ups, no punch lines, no nothing. The movie’s just a collection of vignettes and characters that seem only vaguely related to one another. And I think it’s a damn shame,  mostly because Schwartzman’s been funny before (“Rushmore” in particular), as has Stiller (nobody can deny that), as has director Todd Louiso (his credits include supporing roles in “High Fidelity” and “Thank You For Smoking”). Yet if it’s any comfort to the cast and crew, I can offer the following words of advice, uttered by none other than Marc Pease himself: “In eight years  days, none of this will matter.”

Rating: 1.5/4

X-Men: First Class [2011]

Ever wondered how it all began? How Charles Xavier became to be Professor X and Erik Lehnsherr his nemesis Magneto? Of course you have. Now 11 years after the first “X-Men” movie, and 2 years after its spin-off “Wolverine”, “First Class” reinvents the franchise in a refreshingly new way. From the opening scene, the film sends all the good vibes as it begins in 1944’s Poland during WW II, where young Erik (Michael Fassbender) is forced to witness a tragedy and finds he can control metal with his mind, but only when he’s angry. It’s a dark start for a movie based on a Marvel Comics, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, for those who have lost hope in the series, “First Class” might just make you believe in it all over again. Make no mistake, it’s one hell of a ride. Back to our story: At Oxford, we meet the telepath Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) as a young man before he was paralysed. He will eventually operate a school to train mutants, in hope that one day they would be able to help the world. His archenemy here is Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon in a role he was born to play), the same man who tormented Magneto in the nazi camp. But the beating heart of the movie is when Michael Fassbender and McAvoy are on screen. Because let’s face it, “First Class” is ultimately the story about how two friends drift to differing sides of the fence (Obi-Wan and Anakin Skywalker anyone?).

Both actors are terrific too. Fassbender is intense and strong, while McAvoy is wise and smart (he nails his protrayal of Professor X, and he nails it brilliantly). If you had any doubt that McAvoy might be a future oscar winner and Fassbender the next James Bond, let “First Class” dispel it now. Kevin Bacon makes a sinister villain, both creepy and funny (a suitable enemy for our mutants). But the hero here has to be director Matthew Vaughn, who walked out of “The Last Stand” at the last minute, and directed last year’s “Kick Ass”. He certainly managed to revive a franchise many thought was dead and buried. I was impressed big time.

After the huge success of “Thor” earlier this year, 2011 may just go down as a very strong year for superheroes (“Green Lantern” and “Captain America” will be out soon). Meanwhile, there’s no reason for you to miss “X-Men: First Class”; it’s an absorbing, clever and enjoyable piece of big screen entertainment, and best of all, it’s showing in glorious 2D only. Wouhou!

Rating: 3/4

Red Riding Hood [2011]

Unless director Catherine Hardwicke (“Twilight”) is willing to shoulder some of the blame, it’s useless to try and figure out why “Red Riding Hood” is so bad. I stuck with it till the bitter end, but I’m not proud of that achievement and wouldn’t recommend that anyone follow my lead. Amanda Seyfried plays the title character, who lives in a small village at the edge of a deep dark forest. We are told right at the beginning that the villagers live in constant fear of a wolf who claims a sacrificial victim whenever the moon rises (Lon Chaney Jr. must be rolling in his grave). When the wolf kills Riding Hood’s sister, someone hires Father Solomon (a wasted Gary Oldman) to take charge and conduct a witch-hunt that’s almost as vicious as the killings. Oldman convinces the villagers that they are dealing with a werewolf who is so deceptive, he may be living among them undetected. This will eventually lead Riding Hood to suspect everyone around her. Is it her boyfriend? Her father maybe? Or even worse, her grandmother? A better question to be in this case is “who really cares?”.

Seyfried perhaps is well cast as Red. She gives her character just the right look…but everytime she opens her mouth you’ll be begging for that werewolf to put her out of her misery. To be completely fair though, no actor could be expected to excel given the cheesy dialogue and Hardwicke’s terrible direction. Good actors such as Gary Oldman, Virginia Madsen and Julie Christie struggle to make an impression and it shows. It pains me to see talented actors like these wasting their time on such drivel. Billy Burke tries his best to keep things lively, but that’s a small reward considering how bad the rest of the movie is.

 I’d rather watch “Twilight” again than have to sit through another one of these dreadful wannabe horror flicks…but I suppose it’s inevitable, especially since studios make so much money out of these films. In Hollywood these days, that seems to be all that matters.

Fiasco!

The Hangover Part II [2011]

I think we can all agree that the first “Hangover” movie was a huge success, both critically and financially. So I guess it was just a matter of time before a follow-up was to be made. Confession: Im always precautious when it comes to sequels. So I went in with no particular expectations, and what I got in return was an above average comedy. Plot wise, “Hangover 2” is more of the same, only less original than its predecessor. This one has more pervasive language, more sexual content (including graphic nudity), and some violent images (make sure you stick through the end credits for that part). If you saw the first film, there’s no need for me to describe the plot this time. It’s exactly the same story. Director Todd Phillips seems to have taken “The Hangover” screenplay and moved it from Las Vegas to Bangkok. All you need to know however is that instead of a baby, there’s a monkey in the room. Stu has a Mike Tyson style tattoo, Alan’s hair is shaven, there’s a detached finger lying around, and it’s not Doug that’s gone this time around-it’s the adolescent Teddy. As a result, our guys set off their search through the city for people who might be able to help them remember the events of the previous night.

 The finger is the first clue. Someone gets shot by a gang of thugs, while someone else turns out to have had sex with a transvestite. Is that funnier? not really. Shocking? probably. But if you liked the first “Hangover” because of its shock value, then you will definitely enjoy what this one has to offer. And in case you’re looking for something more, I can assure you that the element of surprise is not completely off the table. We’ve got Paul Giamatti as a crime boss, and Ken Jeong returns as the hilarious Mr. Chow who’s still in need of a serious mental treatment. I guess that’s more than enough to hook you up for a while. I just wish the people involved in this had produced a more original story. But hey it is a sequel afetrall; one shouldn’t expect miracles.

Rating: 2.5/4

The Beaver [2011]

I don’t give a crap about Mel Gibson or his personal problems. The man’s a terrific actor, and that’s all that mattered to me when I sat down to watch “The Beaver”. I didn’t want to read any of the negative reviews prior to watching it, so I went in cold, and I’m glad I did. It’s an odd little film about mental illness and broken family, directed with passion by Jodie Foster. The entire cast is excellent, but the centerpiece is a poignant performance by Mel Gibson, quite possibly one of the best of his career so far. I was a bit disappointed with his screen return in last year’s “Edge Of Darkness”, but “The Beaver” offers something completely different and fresh. And that’s always admirable and welcome. He plays Walter Black, a man who has lost his way in life and is dealing with an extreme case of depression. His wife has left him, and his son won’t even speak to him. Just when he is about to call it quits, Walter befriends a hand pupped called  The Beaver, who takes total control of his life. And it is through this puppet that he is able to redeem himself at work and with his family. This unusual story certainly requires an act of trusting on the part of the audience. I was more than willing to trust Jodie Foster and her directing abilities, and though the story doesn’t always ring true, it’s still completely absorbing and thought provoking.

“The Beaver” is one of the nicest surprises of the year so far, and while I don’t think many people would bother to see it, I still hope it finds the audience it deserves. Well done old man.

Rating: 3/4

Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides [2011]

Who needs Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom when you can get Penelope Cruz and Ian McShane? So ballsy. And while this fourth installment lacks the freshness of the first “Pirates” movie, the good news is:  it’s far more superior than “Dead Man’s Chest” and the dreadful “At World’s End”. Director Rob Marshall, in for Gore Verbinski (who misdirected the last two movies) finds his pace, staging one enjoyable sequence after another. Yet plot-wise, “On Stranger Tides” is basically an old fashioned story with a twist. When the film opens, we find Jack Sparrow (once again played by Johny Depp) in search for a ship in London. However, he learns that someone is impersonating him and is busy recruiting a crew in a race against the spaniards to search for the fountain of youth. Sounds like an Indiana Jones episode to me. Anyway, while at the recruiting station, Jack runs into his father, and old flame Angelica (Cruz). After a night of drinking and sword play, our man finds himself on board Blackbeard’s ship (Ian McShane), en route to find the fountain. Throw in Geoffrey Rush’s Barbossa, now a one-legged captain working on behalf of the King of England, and you’ve got something close to a piratical wacky races.

As far as sequels go, it’s rare that third time’s the charm. But to be completely honest here, the “Pirates” franchise definitely gets back on track with “On Stranger Tides”. It plays surprisingly well, and makes clever use of its locations, and predominantly, Johny Depp, who let’s face it, sleepwalked through the last two movies. Rush, McShane, Cruz and newcomer Sam Claffin (as a religious man who falls in love with a mermaid!) seem to know exactly what the audience wants this time. Depp looks a lot more comfortable, and his character is much more interesting.  Rush, though always terrific, seems to be having the time of his life in this installment! The big surprise here though is Cruz, a feisty/deadly woman- a perfect match for Depp.

The film’s biggest downfall however is that it tries too hard to create a bunch of cliffhanger stunts, that it fails to give us a chance to take a deep breath. Not to mention the many unexplained plot elements (blame it on lazy writing); what exactly are blackbeard’s powers? Why are some of his crew zombies? Where did he get that voodoo doll of Jack in the first place? And so on and so forth. Yet despite all of its apparent flaws, “On Stranger Tides” still managed to entertain me; it’s certainly no masterpiece, but as far as escapism goes, it can’t get any better than this. Of course the franchise might seem to be running out of steam by now (seen that, done that), but if a sequel is being cooked, count me in.

Rating: 2.5/4

Priest [2011]

If you’re looking for a solid popcorn flick to sink your teeth in, this ain’t it. I hated “Priest”. Hated, hated, hated it. Hated every single audience insulting moment of it. Hated Director Scott Stewart and his stupid belief that anyone would be entertained by it. Hated the fact that legendary actor Christopher Plummer agreed to star in this terrible mess. Hated Paul Bettany’s annoying character “Priest”, who is trained to kill vampires in the name of the church and God (how clever!). Hated the stupid non-existant 3D (the film was shot in 2D and converted into 3D during post-production). Hated Cam Gigandet and his belief that he can actually act (the dude has already starred in two of the worst movies I’ve seen so far this year: this and the God-awful “The Roommate”). Hated the fact that the ending leaves the doors open for a sequel (one can only wish the filmmakers would have concentrated more on the film they were making rather than eyeing the one they might make next). Hated the fact that this movie makes “Legion” look like “The Godfather” in comparison (yes it is that bad!). But most of all, I hated the thought that this was supposed to be a cross between “The Searchers” and “Blade” (John Wayne must be rolling in his grave as we speak). Oh and did I mention how much I hated this film?

Fiasco! (and that’s me being generous).

For Colored Girls [2010]

Drama Drama Drama. If you’re a black man watching this movie, chances are you will find it highly offensive. Why? because every single one of them is portrayed as verbally, sexually, or physically abusive, aswell as selfish and heartless. This depressive film, courtesy of Mr. Tyler Perry (a.k.a Madea) is not only repetitive, but awfully long aswell. Yes we get it: black women suffer a lot in this world. We’ve seen it all before in “Diary Of A Mad Black Woman”, “I Can Do Bad All By Myself” and “Madea’s Family Reunion”. The same issues are dealt with again in “For Colored Girls”: Violence against women, death, sexual abuse… Did we need another movie to remind us of that? Not really. One of the good things I could say about it though is that the performances are really good (with the exception of Janet Jackson who seems confused to what she’s doing here). But unfortunately, Perry butchers his film with excessive melodrama and silly writing, that it becomes almost unbearable to watch. Oh and I think it would have been much better if every African American man in the film was not portrayed in such a negative light. I’m sure there are plenty of black men in this world who are educated, loving, honest and respectful. All you have to do is look around you, Tyler Perry.

Rating: 2/4

Scream 4 [2011]

I was a kid growing up when the first “Scream” movie hit theaters back in 1996. The suspense became bigger than ever before, and the new age horror began with a clever mix of humor, suspense, blood and gore. Since then, so many movies have been made as a parody to the notorious killer, but only one film will come to mind when we speak of the “Ghostface”: The Scream franchise. But did we really need another sequel? Not really. But we got one anyway, and for fans of the series, you’ll know exactly what to expect from this 4th installment, the first since 2000 (damn has it been that long?). To be honest, I was a bit disappointed. There I said it. Don’t get me wrong though, I still had one hell of a time watching it, but I guess I realised halfway through how tired this franchise must look by now. Between a clever start and a shocking climax, the movie offers nothing new to the table. Can’t blame the writers, since the film’s sole idea was explored to its fullest in the first three movies.

Neve Campbell reprises her role as hometown girl Sidney Prescott, who is back in Woodsboro for a book signing. But Sidney has barely signed one autograph when Ghostface strikes again. Calling in Sheriff Dewey (David Arquette) is no help, since the dude always shows up late to the scene of the crime. His wife and former TV reporter Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox) wants a piece of the action, and boy does she get it. There are plenty of new targets this time around, mostly Highschoolers; Emma Roberts as Sidney’s cousin, Hayden Panettiere, and Marielle Jaffe. But leave it to Rory Culkin and Erik Kudson to deliver the goods as high school movie geeks. Their motto: “The unexpected is the new cliché”. Sadly, there’s nothing truly unexpected here, except of course the revelation of the killer. The rest we’ve seen so many times before, and better. But as a long time fan of the series, I won’t dismiss this sequel easily. Afterall, the cast is ace, and the horror fan in me that craves blood and gore was totally satisfied. But for God’s sake, enough already.

Rating: 2.5/4

Drive Angry [2011]

Overproduced junk starring Nicolas Cage (with long hair and badass attitude left over from “The Bad Lieutenant”) as Milton, a vengeful father who escapes from hell to avenge his daughter’s death and rescue his granddaughter from a Satan worshipping cult, that plans on sacrifying her so as to bring hell on earth, or armageddon, or something. Along the way, he gains the assistance of a hard ass waitress (Amber Heard), while also being chased down by someone called “The Accountant” (William Fichter), who is in charge of bringing him back to the prison he escaped from, Hell. Usually, a movie review should determine whether or not a film succeeded in delivering what it was supposed to deliver. But I don’t think “Drive Angry” was meant to achieve anything to begin with. It’s bad, it’s really bad, but it’s well made. The amount of blood spattered violence and the abundant nudity ensure that it is not for all tastes, nor that it’s a good film. I won’t even mention the terrible performances, with the exception of Fichter (the dude from “Prison Break”) who makes The Accountant intriguing and fun to watch. But make sure you stay tuned for the weirdest, most violent sex scene/shoot-out involving Cage and a bunch of Satan worshippers. And they said the man was too old for this shit. Say it isn’t so dude.

Rating: 2/4

Fast Five [2011]

It isn’t like the old days when you called the box office to see what was playing and the response was “Tootsie” or “The French Connection”. Here, you know exactly what you’re getting, and for those who dreaded the last two installments in the series need to put their predjudices aside. Why? Because “Fast Five” totally kicks ass, and for two hours, I couldn’t wipe the stupid smile off my face (I feel guilty but what the heck). It’s not that the actors got better. In fact, everyone is still the same (Vin Diesel in particular is laughable when it comes to showing emotions), except for one thing: Dwayne Johnson joined the party, and I guess in a way, I enjoyed watching him trying to nail Diesel’s ass to the ground. Fans of the series know the drill. Cars, chicks, and plenty of ass kicking. So why is this one any different from the rest? The answer: Rio. The plan? To steal $100 million from the bad hombre’s vault and turn this whole shit into a heist movie. Not a bad idea. Along the ride are Tyrese Gibson (in a very funny role), Chris “Ludacris” Bridges” and Sung Kan. Justin Lin, who misdirected the previous two installments, finds his pace this time, staging one entertaining action sequence after another around the city of Rio. Best of all, a mano- a -mano fist fight involving Dwayne Johnson and Vin Diesel. It’s a hoot watching these two trying to kick the living daylights out of each other. For an adrenalin pumping action film outing, “Fast Five” certainly delivers. So what if you hate yourself for enjoying it?

Rating: 2.5/4

Incendies [2010]

Sometimes, death is only the beginning of a story. Such is the case with Jeanne and Simon, a twin brother and sister who go to a notary’s office to hear the reading of their mother’s will. Speaking to them from beyond, as it were, she says she will not rest in peace until they locate their father and brother. Since neither one of them knew they had another sibling, and believed their father was dead, this comes as quite a shock. Simon wants nothing to do with this, but Jeanne decides to travel to her ancestral Middle Eastern homeland to learn what she can. Meanwhile, and through carefully crafted flashbacks,  we learn about the mother’s past; her forbidden love (she was born a christian and fell in love with a muslim) and abandonment, which eventually led her to do unthinkable things. And it is only through her story that we understand why she acts as she does, under the horrible circumstances she was forced to inherit.

The movie, which was nominated for an oscar this year as Best Foreign Language film, is nothing less than a triumph. And regardless of the outcome of the Academy Awards, “Incendies” is still a wonderful achievement for Canadian cinema.  But I find it difficult to discuss it without revealing too much of the plot. Suffice to say that it’s a spectacular experience, and one that I’m bound to remember for a long time to come. The film also includes enough emotional power and shocking revelations to keep you absorbed at every turn. It’s meant to hit us right between the eyes, and does. If this isn’t brilliant filmmaking, then I don’t know what it is. “Incendies” is my favorite movie of the year so far (note that it was released in 2010 in some countries), and I highly recommend it.

Rating: 4/4

Man On Wire [2008]

Fantastic documentary film chronicles Philippe Petit’s 1974 high wire walk between the twin towers of New York’s World Trade Center. The film, based on Petit’s book “To Reach The Clouds” is literally breathtaking. To be honest, I’ve never seen anything quite like it before. It could have been easy for director James Marsh to focus only on the incredibly entertaining planning process for the audacious climactic act, but he doesn’t. Instead, he gives us a chance to get to know Petit and his commitment to this dangerous, illegal and courageous act, through interviews and rare unseen footage. But at the same time, the movie questions the sanity of this gutsy artist whose arrest report (he was arrested and taken for psychological evaluation the minute his daredevil act was over) provides the title.  You might think this is troubling, and you might be right, but Petit is also wise, and knows exactly what he’s doing. When asked why he’d done it, he said: “If I see three oranges, I have to juggle. And if I see two towers, I have to walk.” Every day for him was a work of art,” says his girlfriend. And all of this is thought provoking, inspiring even. “Man On Wire” provides thrill after thrill, yet it’s all real, and it’s all fantastic. It’s a work of art.

Rating: 3.5/4

Something Borrowed [2011]

One of the main problems with “Something Borrowed” is that Kate Hudson’s character is very annoying  that it’s hard to sympathize with her.  She plays Darcy, the lifelong best friend of our leading lady Rachel (Ginnifer Goodwin). When we first meet them, Darcy is about to be married to Dex, who Rachel has had a crush on since college. However, after her 30th birthday party, Rachel falls in the arms and in bed with Dex (oops!). Nothing good can come of this I assure you. From then on, it’s cliché after cliché and predictable event after predictable event. As the wedding approaches, Rachel and Dex realise they’re falling for each other. Should they tell Darcy before it’s too late, or keep lying until this whole thing blows up in their faces? Director Luke Greenfield (“The Girl Next Door”) treats Rachel so sympathetically, and lets Hudson’s annoying and self absorbed character come off as the bad guy, that we can’t help wanting to see Rachel granted her wish, eventhough one would normally see her as a “back-stabbing bitch”. Instead, we find ourselves rooting for the cheater rather than for the victim. But halfway through the movie, which runs close to two hours, my mind started to wander. Instead of being pulled into the story, I found myself drifting away from it. And by the time it was over, I couldn’t care less about its outcome. I’m well aware that the film is based on a best selling book by Emily Griffin, but there’s no reason on earth for it to take up almost two hours!

 The best thing I could say about “Something Borrowed” however, is that Ginnifer Goodwin is very likable and believable. Hudson on the other hand struggles a lot with the material  she’s handed, while Egglesfield (as Dex) brings very little to the table. So basically, the whole film is a perfect showcase for Goodwin, but I wish the people involved in this had produced something more original, and more memorable. It’s a missed opportunity in my opinion.

Rating: 2/4

Water For Elephants [2011]

The Circus is a fascinating world. And sadly, there aren’t too many circus related movies these days, with the last being Tim Burton’s “Big Fish”. “Water For Elephants” is based on a best selling novel by Sara Gruen. I’ve never read the book, but the way the people talk about it with passion and affection, one would expect that a big screen adaptation can find a way to translate those feelings. But let’s be frank here: even good translations of popular books tend to fall short (at least in the eyes of the readers). “Water For Elephants” is by no means a bad movie. It’s clever, well cast, and beautifully shot. But at the same time, it lacks emotional depth. When it ended, I took nothing away with me, except admiration for Christoph Waltz (“Inglourious Basterds”), and the circus world. Robert Pattinson plays a young ex-veterinary student in the 30’s named Jacob (which is kind of ironic if you’re familiar with his “Twilight” character) who dropped out of school when his parents were killed. With no money to survive, he hops on a train and meets up with a travelling circus run by a smart, but cruel ringmaster August (Waltz). Jacob impresses him with his education and knowledge, and is immediately given a job as the circus vet. He then meets the beautiful star of the show, Marlena (Reese Witherspoon), who also happens to be August’s wife. And despite warnings that her husband is highly possessive and insane, Jacob does his best to fit in, and fight his feelings towards the woman he desires. And here’s where I thought the romance failed with the pairing of both Witherspoon and Pattinson. One is clearly older than the other, and it made it hard for me to believe that they can be more than just co-workers. Yet we are forced to accept them as lovers, and eventually do. And while I’m not a huge fan of Pattinson, the dude gives it his best here, and it shows.

The best thing one could say about “Water For Elephants” is the fact that it’s easy to lose yourself in this world, as I did at first. Cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto captures the magic of a bygone era in style, and it’s hard not to admire the beautiful sets, costumes, and the wonderful score by James Newton Howard. But as the story moved along, I felt more and more detached from it. It isn’t the actor’s fault, as they give it their best, but rather the unexciting storyline and the absence of emotions. I guess I was looking for a deeper experience, or something much more memorable for that matter, so you can understand why I felt somehow disappointed the minute it was over.

Rating: 2.5/4

Insidious [2011]

Webster dictionary defines Insidious as something harmful but seductive. “Insidious” the movie is exactly that. It will haunt you, it will crush you, it will scare the living daylights out of you, but you will find it hard to resist. I admit: the story is old fashioned, but what the writers managed to do with this traditional ghost story is beyond outsdanding. What we have here is a family of four. The oldest child, Dalton, and after a seemingly minor household accident, slips into a mysterious coma that even medical science cannot explain. When doctors fail to help him, his parents are forced to take him home where he lies in his room completely unresponsive. Special entities are soon haunting the house, or so it seems, but when the family moves to a new home, the haunting…wait for it… continues, hence the tagline: “it’s not the house that’s haunted”. I’ll say no more, except that “Insidious” doesn’t disappoint at all. Call it the dark version of  “Poltergeist”. Creepy atmosphere? Check. Eerie music? Check. Genuine scares? Double check. And so much more. To be completely honest, It’s been a while since I’ve seen a chiller as fresh and terrifying as this one. It’s a fine example of a horror movie done right, and as a long time fan of the genre, I couldn’t ask for more. This is not to say that the film is without flaws. There are some lost opportunities, and towards the end, the carefully crafted eeriness disappears…but only for a moment. The rest is pure genius.

P.S: For a better experience, better watch this one alone.

Rating: 3/4