When in Rome starts out as so many romantic comedies before. A successful pretty girl too busy working to care about love. The only reason it actually works, and it actually does, is Kristen Bell. I've said it before, and I'll probably do it for a while. I love that girl. Still, Serious Moonlight proved I'll come down with a fury fist also on her movies if I'm not satisfied.
So. When in Rome actually kept my attention for a while. Bell dancing with the unfamiliar, to me, Josh Duhamel in her sisters wedding gave me hope of a pleasant movie. Of course they strayed off trying to stand out, adding a fantasy tag to the movie and a spell to the plot. Bad move. From there the only thing keeping my interest is Bell, and even in my book that doesn't come close to be enough. I just wish Kristen stopped trying so hard to stand out. Doing a couple of regular romantic comedies isn't the career killer it maybe once was. Serious Moonlight and When in Rome is much worse than even Forgetting Sarah Marshall, as Jason Segel and Russell Brand won't ever help anybody's careers.
Alexis Dziena and Danny DeVito does well in their small roles, and Duhamel was a pleasant enough new actor for me. Director Mark Steven Johnson on the other hand, is a guy making anything he directs into crap. I haven't yet reviewed Ghost Rider here, but I can mention there's another rotten tomato coming. Also Daredevil didn't turn out half the movie it could have been, so I guess I'll stay far away from his debut Simon Birch. Stick to writing Mark. Even there you don't impress, but at least other directors can come in and save the pieces.
And Kristen: Call me! You should sack your agent and I'll help you read scripts. This crap isn't worth your time.
Monday, May 31, 2010
From Paris with Love (2010)
From Paris with Love is the third movie director Pierre Morel makes and it's also the third based on Luc Besson's story work. I really enjoyed their last work Taken, but this one is more straight forward typical 90's action movie with heavy allusions to other familiar movies.
To begin with the easiest recognizable, the title reminds us of James Bond going to Russia with love back in the 60's. An early scene here reminds a lot of an early scene from the John Woo Hong Kong movie The Killers, which I recently reviewed. There's also the not so subtle homage to Quentin Tarantino as the John Travolta character again has a Royal with cheese thing going, much like in Pulp Fiction. I could go on, but you get the picture.
The acting isn't half bad. Travolta has a fun time with his killing machine special operations character 'Charlie Wax', and while I could imagine better he delivers enough to pull it off. Jonathan Rhys Meyers is the agent wannabee 'James Reece' doing low grade work in Paris, now paired up to help 'Wax' on his Paris mission. Rhys Meyers is highly believable in his role, but I'm still far from in love with the cast. He really doesn't give us a lot, and as such fails were other young actors have portrayed these kind of rookies before.
The story is the main reason From Paris with Love doesn't manage to elevate to the fun movie Morel and Besson intended. It's just a little to straight forward story-wise to make it when the acting ain't driving the characters better. Truth being told. If you're surprised by anything in this movie, you haven't seen many movies in this genre. It doesn't pull a rabbit out of the hat even once, and if you don't you really need some other excellent aspects in it to make it worth the runtime. There's about three minutes worth of gunfights really well done and about eight seconds of car driving the same. That's not enough, but it's better than a lot of other writers and directors ever manage to get into their b-action movies. At least that's something. I'm sure we'll see more to both Besson and Morel in the years to come, and hopefully they'll again elevate to the level they had in Taken.
To begin with the easiest recognizable, the title reminds us of James Bond going to Russia with love back in the 60's. An early scene here reminds a lot of an early scene from the John Woo Hong Kong movie The Killers, which I recently reviewed. There's also the not so subtle homage to Quentin Tarantino as the John Travolta character again has a Royal with cheese thing going, much like in Pulp Fiction. I could go on, but you get the picture.
The acting isn't half bad. Travolta has a fun time with his killing machine special operations character 'Charlie Wax', and while I could imagine better he delivers enough to pull it off. Jonathan Rhys Meyers is the agent wannabee 'James Reece' doing low grade work in Paris, now paired up to help 'Wax' on his Paris mission. Rhys Meyers is highly believable in his role, but I'm still far from in love with the cast. He really doesn't give us a lot, and as such fails were other young actors have portrayed these kind of rookies before.
The story is the main reason From Paris with Love doesn't manage to elevate to the fun movie Morel and Besson intended. It's just a little to straight forward story-wise to make it when the acting ain't driving the characters better. Truth being told. If you're surprised by anything in this movie, you haven't seen many movies in this genre. It doesn't pull a rabbit out of the hat even once, and if you don't you really need some other excellent aspects in it to make it worth the runtime. There's about three minutes worth of gunfights really well done and about eight seconds of car driving the same. That's not enough, but it's better than a lot of other writers and directors ever manage to get into their b-action movies. At least that's something. I'm sure we'll see more to both Besson and Morel in the years to come, and hopefully they'll again elevate to the level they had in Taken.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Runaway Jury (2003)
Today I revisited Runaway Jury. A movie I haven't seen since it came out on DVD back in the days. Being another John Cusack movie it was just a matter of time I guess, and much like on my first visit Runaway Jury is a solid court room drama thriller in John Grisham's usual way. Because this is a movie based on a John Grisham novel, like The Firm, The Client, The Pelican Brief, The Rainmaker and a several others both before and later. Grisham is the attorney author with credibility, authenticity and nerve.
When you add actors like Cusack, Rachel Weisz, Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman to a script based on a Grisham novel, you're in for the best the genre has to offer. This time his focus is on the jury advisors, a hi-jacked jury and in the background the gun industry as the big money issue like tobacco companies have been used before in others.
This movie won't blow your mind. It never really picks up pace. It's not filled with twists and turns. Still it holds your interest for more than two hours, and it does so because it gives a little twist on the way it looks at the American jury system. It gives some insight into the research on potential jurors in big money cases, the manipulations behind the scene and there's a lot of interesting stuff worth doing on that focus.
The lack of twists, action and such makes this a movie you need the ability to lean back and enjoy for the other stuff. You must enjoy good character acting, the subtle ways of the court room and the masterminding of the puppet show. If you're that kind of a viewer, Runaway Jury is a treat. Of course because of the limitations within this genre, it'll never be made a movie scoring higher than 12 Angry Men. It's just not possible to elevate this kind of movie beyond it, but this is a good attempt.
When you add actors like Cusack, Rachel Weisz, Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman to a script based on a Grisham novel, you're in for the best the genre has to offer. This time his focus is on the jury advisors, a hi-jacked jury and in the background the gun industry as the big money issue like tobacco companies have been used before in others.
This movie won't blow your mind. It never really picks up pace. It's not filled with twists and turns. Still it holds your interest for more than two hours, and it does so because it gives a little twist on the way it looks at the American jury system. It gives some insight into the research on potential jurors in big money cases, the manipulations behind the scene and there's a lot of interesting stuff worth doing on that focus.
The lack of twists, action and such makes this a movie you need the ability to lean back and enjoy for the other stuff. You must enjoy good character acting, the subtle ways of the court room and the masterminding of the puppet show. If you're that kind of a viewer, Runaway Jury is a treat. Of course because of the limitations within this genre, it'll never be made a movie scoring higher than 12 Angry Men. It's just not possible to elevate this kind of movie beyond it, but this is a good attempt.
Dare (2009)
Dare is a teen drama on sexual awakening, or at least that's what it tries to be. The sad fact is Dare only dares to hide the fact the script is weak, the acting worse and the story holds no interest. With daring I'm thinking about the attempts to shock. Sadly those really doesn't shock anybody at least a bit familiar with teen behavior, adolescent sex and the other.
Zach Gilford raised to fame with his good guy role at teen TV drama series Friday Night Light. The feeling you get from his role in this movie as 'Johnny', is an attempt to establish himself as versatile. He does not succeed. His 'Johnny Drake' is the most unbelievable part of the movie, and it says something in such a poorly acted piece.
At the end of the day I don't care about 'Johnny', 'Alexa', 'Ben' or either of the others. Their stories aren't special, their lives doesn't touch me in any way and I only feel robbed for a hour and a half because there's nothing here worth portraying.
Zach Gilford raised to fame with his good guy role at teen TV drama series Friday Night Light. The feeling you get from his role in this movie as 'Johnny', is an attempt to establish himself as versatile. He does not succeed. His 'Johnny Drake' is the most unbelievable part of the movie, and it says something in such a poorly acted piece.
At the end of the day I don't care about 'Johnny', 'Alexa', 'Ben' or either of the others. Their stories aren't special, their lives doesn't touch me in any way and I only feel robbed for a hour and a half because there's nothing here worth portraying.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
The Maiden Heist (2009)
The Maiden Heist is just another of those movies throwing around good actors and forgettable scripts. It's neither funny, interesting or important in any way. Christopher Walken, Morgan Freeman, William H. Macy and Marcia Gay Harden. You really expect so many good actors to not come together unless the script holds a better standard.
Then again it might be good satire, as I time and again prove that's something I'll never get the hang on.
Then again it might be good satire, as I time and again prove that's something I'll never get the hang on.
The Messenger (2009)
The Messenger is a strange little movie. Mostly because it's got several quality signs, but no end product. Ben Foster and Woody Harrelson acts well, the story is a somewhat interesting human piece, but the movie lacks the nerve to make me take much interest in it. I might be too far from the wars fought, the American look at their own soldiers and such, but keep in mind I did enjoy Taking Chance even if I haven't come around to review it here yet.
There's really not a lot I can say about this movie, without coming across as a jack-ass that is. It's one of those movies I would have liked to like, but quite honestly just can't because it's not good enough. All stories aren't supposed to be taken to the big screen, even if the story itself might be worth telling. It's something about the time spent able to entertain you, to challenge you, enlighten you or something. When it comes to this I'm quite indifferent. That's never a good thing.
There's really not a lot I can say about this movie, without coming across as a jack-ass that is. It's one of those movies I would have liked to like, but quite honestly just can't because it's not good enough. All stories aren't supposed to be taken to the big screen, even if the story itself might be worth telling. It's something about the time spent able to entertain you, to challenge you, enlighten you or something. When it comes to this I'm quite indifferent. That's never a good thing.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Greta (2009)
I'm sorry Greta. You probably had a story down there you wanted to tell, but you failed on so many levels. Hillary Duff is awful in this. A complex rebellious and suicidal character, with brain, beauty and edge? Come on. Ms. Duff can't portray half of it, and not even that half especially realistic. I noticed she was also given executive producer credits, so I guess there was too few people actually trying to direct her acting because I've seen her better. Not that much would be needed to outdo this piece of garbage acting.
The supporting cast struggles as well. You can see those decent or better of them, struggle to act of Duff. It's not easy having scenes with such a leading actress. Are you going to outshine her completely? Are you going to try and help her catch the essence of the scene? It seems like half the time the other actors and actresses is having an internal struggle on how to interact.
The story has some layers underneath, but it's all just a little too teen-movie. We'll see her issues, touch on her problems, note the girl underneath all that rebellious drama and feel something, but the story is so unbalanced that when you combine it with the acting you wish you could help the original author in some way, cause this couldn't have started out this bad.
Ms. Duff: Sing more, take acting lessons and next time: Stay only in front of the camera with tougher people behind the scene telling you what to do and especially telling you when you don't act at all.
The supporting cast struggles as well. You can see those decent or better of them, struggle to act of Duff. It's not easy having scenes with such a leading actress. Are you going to outshine her completely? Are you going to try and help her catch the essence of the scene? It seems like half the time the other actors and actresses is having an internal struggle on how to interact.
The story has some layers underneath, but it's all just a little too teen-movie. We'll see her issues, touch on her problems, note the girl underneath all that rebellious drama and feel something, but the story is so unbalanced that when you combine it with the acting you wish you could help the original author in some way, cause this couldn't have started out this bad.
Ms. Duff: Sing more, take acting lessons and next time: Stay only in front of the camera with tougher people behind the scene telling you what to do and especially telling you when you don't act at all.
Avatar (2009)
Avatar is James Cameron's CGI created world, and sadly those CGI creations is also the lone real strength of the movie. Cameron tries to tell a story both more epic and grand than he got runtime for, but he also downplay too much of the smaller pieces needed to make an epic tale.
The overall story is both grand and decent. Grand because he pitch a new world, a future where we interact with other species and creative technological impacts. But also only decent because the story ain't original when you get past the the new world creations and the avatars. He hides a lame ass story in a CGI creation hoping to impress enough moviegoers to make up for all funds going into it, and there he succeeds. He doesn't succeed on the movie though, and after finally watching it I'm really happy it didn't get any of the big Oscars. It just doesn't deserve them.
Still. It's well worth watching. There's some really creative pitches on the locals, their customs and interactions with animals. And there's some great scenery, much thanks to the imagination behind the special places of Pandora. This is a simple entertainment tale told in the same mold as simple CGI action movies does their thing. It's not epic, but it's spectacular. And sometimes that's all you need from your time at the cinema.
The overall story is both grand and decent. Grand because he pitch a new world, a future where we interact with other species and creative technological impacts. But also only decent because the story ain't original when you get past the the new world creations and the avatars. He hides a lame ass story in a CGI creation hoping to impress enough moviegoers to make up for all funds going into it, and there he succeeds. He doesn't succeed on the movie though, and after finally watching it I'm really happy it didn't get any of the big Oscars. It just doesn't deserve them.
Still. It's well worth watching. There's some really creative pitches on the locals, their customs and interactions with animals. And there's some great scenery, much thanks to the imagination behind the special places of Pandora. This is a simple entertainment tale told in the same mold as simple CGI action movies does their thing. It's not epic, but it's spectacular. And sometimes that's all you need from your time at the cinema.
The Book of Eli (2010)
The Book of Eli is a post-apocalyptic western tale about a lone man and his book, in a world even tougher than that pioneers had to conquer centuries ago. Denzel Washington is playing the lead in this movie directed by the Hughes Brothers, and Denzel does well.
He's not got a lot to work with, but he's believable in the role of the lone wolf martial art stylistic warrior. Some rough fight scenes add to the value of the movie, as they don't try to make them neither too long and unrealistic annoying as he's a single man, but neither do they make the mistake of not spilling enough blood. Bloodshed is a must in such a tale, and they don't fall short.
I enjoyed as usual Gary Oldman in another of his bad guy portraits, but also Mila Kunis did well as the young sidekick of the lone wolf. Not as convincing in everything, but she's learning the trade. She's doing a lot better now than just a couple of years ago.
The action is okay, the acting is okay+, but it's at the storyboard this movie falls short. The religious relic with rivers of blood in its shadow, post-apocalyptic world where water is rare and clean clothes, lighters and such trading merchandises and obviously the lone good against the collective of evil. It's not a lot original, not a lot of a story at all really.
He's not got a lot to work with, but he's believable in the role of the lone wolf martial art stylistic warrior. Some rough fight scenes add to the value of the movie, as they don't try to make them neither too long and unrealistic annoying as he's a single man, but neither do they make the mistake of not spilling enough blood. Bloodshed is a must in such a tale, and they don't fall short.
I enjoyed as usual Gary Oldman in another of his bad guy portraits, but also Mila Kunis did well as the young sidekick of the lone wolf. Not as convincing in everything, but she's learning the trade. She's doing a lot better now than just a couple of years ago.
The action is okay, the acting is okay+, but it's at the storyboard this movie falls short. The religious relic with rivers of blood in its shadow, post-apocalyptic world where water is rare and clean clothes, lighters and such trading merchandises and obviously the lone good against the collective of evil. It's not a lot original, not a lot of a story at all really.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Lucky Number Slevin (2006)
Lucky Number Slevin is worked with great craft. It's a lot of good acting, it's a great plot and it's all pretty much wrapped up nicely. After deciding on my rating, I went by my IMDB page to discover it's exactly the same as I gave the first time I watched it. Whenever an eight or better holds up the second time around they've done a lot correct.
The first third of the movie have minor issues. It's about how they present the entire story, the angle they pitch it from and the feeling you get watching. It's like an obvious tease. You can spot the direction it'll take, you can guess well on what's about to happen and there's some minor scenes were the entire balance between the movie's intentions and the feel you get, is a bit off. As it turns out they're just getting warmed up. In the final two thirds it's a lot more focused on what they're trying to tell, which scenes should be shot and such. You can forgive the first part, but in the end when you reflect on the movie it's still the same parts being half the reason you can't speak of it amongst the all time greats.
There's another reason as well, but then we'll be far into the plot, and I don't think it's wise to go spoilerish in reviews. Let's just rather focus on something completely different. It's a big surprise to me Jason Smilovic, who wrote this movie, haven't turned up with another movie. He's created several TV-shows without much success so far as no-one have got a second season yet, but the debut movie should hopefully bring him back into the big screen genre sooner rather than later. While the movie borrows and steals from classics, it's still done classy within its own universe. There's nothing wrong being inspired by the greats, as long as you find your own way delivering in the end.
Overall it's a highly enjoyable movie, even the second time around. It was a whisper of bigger things to come from Josh Hartnett, whom I for a long time only though of as just another pretty boy. Bruce Willis is doing a crossover between his characters from Die Hard, Last Man Standing and a couple of others, but it's these kind of characters Willis has made a career on. Freeman, Kingsley, Liu and Tucci are mostly all in there delivering. It's not Freeman's finest hour, but to be honest few have to compete with them self as difficult while talking about their own finest hours. The other three was doing very well. And the director and actors had a great script to work from. It's the biggest thing about this movie. After watching it you know it went a lot of work into the script. The balance of the story isn't 100 %, but it's close enough you salute the writer.
The first third of the movie have minor issues. It's about how they present the entire story, the angle they pitch it from and the feeling you get watching. It's like an obvious tease. You can spot the direction it'll take, you can guess well on what's about to happen and there's some minor scenes were the entire balance between the movie's intentions and the feel you get, is a bit off. As it turns out they're just getting warmed up. In the final two thirds it's a lot more focused on what they're trying to tell, which scenes should be shot and such. You can forgive the first part, but in the end when you reflect on the movie it's still the same parts being half the reason you can't speak of it amongst the all time greats.
There's another reason as well, but then we'll be far into the plot, and I don't think it's wise to go spoilerish in reviews. Let's just rather focus on something completely different. It's a big surprise to me Jason Smilovic, who wrote this movie, haven't turned up with another movie. He's created several TV-shows without much success so far as no-one have got a second season yet, but the debut movie should hopefully bring him back into the big screen genre sooner rather than later. While the movie borrows and steals from classics, it's still done classy within its own universe. There's nothing wrong being inspired by the greats, as long as you find your own way delivering in the end.
Overall it's a highly enjoyable movie, even the second time around. It was a whisper of bigger things to come from Josh Hartnett, whom I for a long time only though of as just another pretty boy. Bruce Willis is doing a crossover between his characters from Die Hard, Last Man Standing and a couple of others, but it's these kind of characters Willis has made a career on. Freeman, Kingsley, Liu and Tucci are mostly all in there delivering. It's not Freeman's finest hour, but to be honest few have to compete with them self as difficult while talking about their own finest hours. The other three was doing very well. And the director and actors had a great script to work from. It's the biggest thing about this movie. After watching it you know it went a lot of work into the script. The balance of the story isn't 100 %, but it's close enough you salute the writer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)