Movie Review: Alice in Wonderland (March 5, 2010)

Director: Tim Burton
Screenplay: Linda Woolverton
Release Date: March 5, 2010
Actors: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway, Crispin Glover, Stephen Fry, Alan Rickman, Michael Sheen

Having just returned from vacation, and with two drafts still in my queue, I’ve decided to go ahead and just write up my review on Alice in Wonderland, so that it is fresh in my memory, and I don’t get any further behind!

I went into this movie expecting very little, as I’m not normally a huge fan of Tim Burton’s works, as it gets too strange or too quirky (which is what I thought of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory which was one of my favorite childhood books). But the quirkiness really works for Alice in Wonderland here. How ridiculous can it get with the Queen of Hearts running around, a vanishing cat with a grossly huge grin, a mad hatter with his rabbit friends holding a tea party? This is what Tim Burton can only dream of. He took crazy characters and made them more wild, with the Queen of Hearts (played by the ever talented Helen Bonham Carter) and gave her a huge bobble like head. She is absolutely a riot with perhaps the only thing she ever consistently says is “Off with [her/his/their] head[s]!”

The White Queen (played by Anne Hathaway) walks around seemingly on air, in the most ‘queen’ like manner. Watching her movements are laughable but delightful at the same time. Her castle was all white, and pure, with her lips a dark black. Her character is almost that of an angel, where she has taken a vow never to hurt a living thing.

And of course, Johnny Depp as the quirky Mad Hatter is almost second nature to him, as he has done far too many absurd roles as of late. I have to say though, I wasn’t very fond of his Mad Hatter, and found myself wanting to see more of the Queen of Hearts or the White Queen. I’d like to see Johnny Depp stretch and actually do something serious for a change. It gets tiring to see him in the same role over and over again. He could have been Jack Sparrow, or Willy Wonka, who could have tell the difference? Makeup doesn’t mean you’re a different character. I was half expecting Helena Bonham Carter’s Queen of Hearts to be the same evil mess she always portrays,but I was delighted to see differently.

Mia Wasikowska was at times, wonderful as an older Alice (who is currently unrecognizable with her new pixie cut), yet I felt she seemed flat other times, with absolutely no expression. I don’t remember Alice being so … plain. Curious, yes. She was perhaps the weakest link in the movie, but it was not enough to deter oneself to enjoy the adventure that she was on.

The other actors - Michael Sheen, Alan Rickman (whom I absolutely love), and Stephen Fry were highlights playing the White Rabbit, Chesire Cat, and the Blue Caterpillar. Unfortunately, they had hardly any screen time.

Anyone who goes into the movie expecting Lewis Carroll’s books should head straight out of the movie theatre. It is neither Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass. The screenplay is not terribly creative either, but given my expectations of probably disliking the movie, and finding that I quite enjoyed myself in the end might skew my thoughts to be more positive than the movie really was. I do think the best parts were the visuals (and the castle and grounds of which the White Queen lives is absolutely breathtaking) and the lines that all the characters that lived in Wonderland had to say. They were all just so witty and quirky. Perhaps that is why Alice seems so plain, as she just stood out as a sore thumb of being so — normal.

The film fails to find its core or center, its purpose, but it’s a fun and colorful adventure as one rides with Alice on her ups and downs, in her journey to find who she is, what she’s capable of, and her inner strength. At times, it felt a bit rushed when it switched from one scene to the next, but other times, it felt a bit slow. I guess it all averaged out in the end.

The 3D effect was average, as I find most 3D movies these days, and it was nice that it wasn’t the traditional ‘let’s see what we can throw at the audience to make then jump’ 3D, and more of a viewing window into the world of Wonderland. On average, I would say that Alice in Wonderland was definitely enjoyable. Burton is heavy on style than substance, and so long as one can accept that before entering the movie, it’s safe to say that you can put aside your predispositions and sit back and enjoy the fun and quirky characters.

I give it a solid 2.5 Mad Hatters / 5 Mad Hatters.

Links:
IMDB
Official Trailer via Youtube

Movie Review: Valentine’s Day (February, 2010)

Director: Garry Marshall
Screenplay: Katherine Fugate
Release Date: February 12, 2010
Actors: Jennifer Garner, Ashton Kutcher, Jessica Biel, Eric Dane, Bradley Cooper, George Lopez, Queen Latifah, Julia Roberts, Emma Roberts, Taylor Lautner, Taylor Swift, Patrick Dempsey, Hector Elizondo, Shirley Maclaine, Topher Grace, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Alba, Kathy Bates, Jamie Foxx, Carter Jenkins

I am not usually a fan of ensemble movies, especially as of late as most of them has failed miserably. Last year’s He’s Just Not That Into You was not high on my list of likes, and actually fell deep into my list of dislikes. Burn After Reading was also a disappointment (though many might disagree.)

I suppose I should have had more faith given Garry Marshall’s history of directing, with films I absolutely loved - Pretty Woman, Runaway Bride, The Princess Diaries - movies that guys of course don’t like very much. This movie has a list of popular actors that everyone will be able to name and that in itself made me turn off towards the film in the beginning, so I wasn’t sure what to expect. It is the kind of movie that would receive a whole bunch of rotten tomatoes given that most movie critics love to hate thee ensemble movies.

Well, surprise surprise, I really enjoyed the movie and liked it more than I had thought I would. I knew going into the movie that I should look for a romantic comedy, and a romantic comedy is what I got. It is USA’s Love Actually (though Love Actually in quality, is 10 times better than Valentine’s Day — how can it not be with Colin Firth?) and it is a funny, quirky and light hearted comedy. It garnered lots of laughter from the audience, and lots of laugh from this girl.

Valentine’s Day takes place .. on Valentine’s Day. Surprise! Ashton Kutcher plays florist Reed Bennett, who has just proposed to girlfriend Morley Clarkson (Jessica Alba). Reed goes about his day delivering and preparing flower arrangements with the help of his neighbour and best friends (Jennifer Garner and George Lopez). We are introduced to a character one by one and they are all related to each other in some way or another (as in most ensemble movies). Taylor Lautner and Taylor Swift do a hilarious job playing the high school couple. It even gave me pause wondering if Taylor Swift really was the airhead that she played. (I’m guessing not). I’m not a fan of either Taylor, so that’s saying a lot, coming from me. Standouts for me was Anne Hathaway’s character as an Adult Phone Entertainer, and Jessica Biel’s character as the one girl that hates Valentine’s Day was really amusing and adorable.

If I were going to outline the plot for the movie it would take forever. Like Love Actually, it deals with different themes of love, from a child standpoint, to seniors, the normal romantic love, and of course, friendship. There were plenty of laughs, due to the quirky funny nature of the characters. Though mostly predictable, Marshall and Fugate managed to throw in a few surprises as well.

All in all, an evening well spent laughing and getting some warm fuzzies. Many people are going to hate the film, as is evidenced from browsing the IMDB Valentine’s Day page. People have an indie movie complex (if it’s not an indie, it ain’t a good movie), and it makes me wonder if people can no longer sit back, laugh and just enjoy a film anymore. This movie is directed at girls, as this is mostly a romantic chick flick, not to say guys won’t enjoy it (yhe two guys I went with including my boyfriend sure did). And as I’ve mentioned before, I love chick flicks. I’m glad this one didn’t disappoint as I had expected it would.

If you like quirky comedies, go see it. If you have a thing for romantic comedies, go see it. You will undoubtedly enjoy it. Anyone else, stay home.

For this romantic comedy addict, it’s a solid 3 hearts / 5 hearts for me.

Links:
IMDB
Trailer via Youtube

Movie Review: From Paris with Love (February, 2009)

Director: Pierre Morel
Screenplay: Adi Hasak, story by Luc Besson
Release Date: February 5, 2010
Actors: John Travolta, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Kasia Smutniak

Explosions, wit, guns, action, car chases, love story, great characters, what more could you ask for? From Paris with Love is simply a fun and highly entertaining ride. John Travolta plays Charlie Wax, a top special operative that is specifically flown into Paris to handle a situation of national security. His role as Wax is certainly very different from his last role in Old Dogs, as a kid-sitting, over the hill company leader. Instead, Wax is edgy, and uses unorthodox means to get the job done. Jonathan Rhys Meyers on the other hand, also plays a role that is quite a departure from his well known King Henry XIII from Showtime’s The Tudors. As the US Ambassador’s Assistant, Jonathan Rhys Meyers plays the brainy thinker of James Reese, so smart and seemingly ahead a few steps of everyone, he can win chess games easily against the ambassador. Hoping he can eventually move up to special ops, his contact hands him a huge assignment that will either make or break his promotion. His only problem: he has to partner up with Wax.

The chemistry between Travolta and Meyers is what really makes this film so entertaining. Travolta, playing rough and infallible, delivers the best lines. Meyers plays the straight guy, who has a hard time grasping the idea of shooting everyone and everything in order to clean everything related to their assignment. Usually, a match up such as these two kind of characters are so overdone, but Meyers is not over-the-top timid, shy or dorky. Reese is not comedic through his character, but instead by the actions of which Wax puts him through. This makes Reese’s character more believable (though Wax’s surviving skills is very unbelievable).

Filmed in France, we actually don’t see much of the beauty that makes France France, and at times, I felt the movie could have been filmed anywhere.

I enjoyed this more than Edge of Darkness, and Law Abiding Citizen mainly due to the comedic element and the amount of wit and attention to detail (believe it or not). I compare From Paris with Love with those films mainly due to the thriller, shoot ‘em up, blow ‘em up aspect of each. One of my favorite lines, in reference to shooting up Chinese, Reese: ‘Is that all of them?‘ Wax: ‘About 1 billion more, according to the latest census‘. Regarding detail, I liked how when Reese and Wax entered the Chinese restaurant, there is a woman singing a very famous Chinese song, but after the shoot ‘em up starts happening (early on the film), everyone screams and runs away, yet, that song still continues in the background, telling the audience that no, that woman wasn’t really singing any song. Just small little moments such as the one described that add to the overall humor of the film. Also, for Pulp Fiction fans, there is a fun reference that Travolta makes that should tickle your funny bone and fans should immediately recognize.

I love witty films as they are my favorite type of comedy (think Little Miss Sunshine), and with the added action and two terrific lead actors, I think for a film that aims to entertain, From Paris with Love does not fail. If you like action films, this surely will not disappoint. Some may ask, what’s with the ‘Love’ being in the title? Well, there is a love story in the underlying plot, and because of it, I like how the phrase ‘Love’ gets tied in. Though the screenplay is written by Adi Hasak, Luc Besson wrote the story. Luc Besson has written countless of other stories, including The Transporter series, the wonderful Taken and District 13. The story is not very complicated, but simplicity works for this short running film. Besson has worked with the director Pierre Morel on Taken and District 13, both of which were well liked by most, especially Taken. The combination of Besson and Morel produces another hit, this time on a less serious note.

Yes! Recommended! Fun and entertaining, though violent (but less so in comparision to Edge of Darkness, Book of Eli, and Law Abiding Citizen, which was downright bloody…) 3.5 Checkmates / 5 Checkmates

Links:
Trailer
IMDB

Movie Review: Edge of Darkness (January, 2010)

Director: Martin Campbell
Screenplay: William Monahan, Andrew Bovall
Release Date: January 29, 2010
Actors: Mel Gibson, Ray Winstone, Danny Hustone

It’s been a long time since we’ve seen Mel Gibson back in the action thriller game. His last action movie was the war film We Were Soldiers. Having seen a few trailers for Edge of Darkness, it was nice to see Mel back in the game of action in what seemed like your standard thriller.

Surprisingly however, Edge of Darkness does not exactly play like your average conspiracy thriller. Mel Gibson plays Thomas Craven, a Boston detective who has just picked up his daughter Emma, from the train station. Something seems to be amiss however, when Emma is seen throwing up, not feeling well, and getting a bloody nose once she gets home. Before we can find out what is bothering her as Thomas Craven is about to run out and take her to see the doctor, Emma is (in a very shocking manner) killed.

Tom, now seeking answers, wants to know why Emma is dead. At first, it is believed that the killers were aiming for him, but as soon as he starts investigating, he finds out that this is not the case. Seeking revenge, he begins a hunt to find those responsible for Emma’s death.

If you’re thinking that this is a typical thriller where the parent seeks revenge against their child’s death, it’s not. Not that I don’t enjoy the typical thriller, but Edge of Darkness approaches this in a bit of a different manner. A few notes of interest - the pacing for this movie is near perfect. This allows the viewer to learn a little about Tom and his connection with his daughter. It’s not in your face, but it is presented in a very effective manner. You can feel him grieving and his constant desire to speak and see his daughter. I think Edge of Darkness really succeeds with this, whereas so many revenge movies don’t really allow the viewers see the connection that the lead has to the victim.

There are a few things I find fault with. In some places, the acting is a bit cheesy, and I’m not sure if it’s on purpose. Without revealing anything, Danny Hustone’s character interactions with Craven are at times, cheesy. There did not seem to be too much background music in the movie, that when an explosion or a there is a change of scenes with a sound effect that would be noisy, it causes you to jolt from your seat. This is an interesting method and I think it adds to the film instead of detracting from the story. One thing I found weird was they never once mentioned her mother. Ah well, I can understand they did not want to focus on that side of the story at all. Not really a fault, just strange. Another note that is strange. What does Edge of Darkness mean? I don’t think the phrase describes the movie too well.

What I really love about the film is the ending. Instead of a Hollywood type ending, we are given a very Asian type ending. What that means is something you can discover yourself when you go and see this movie. I definitely wouldn’t suggest bringing your children into this thriller. Lots of violence and blood. Someone had brought their child to the theatre and I really had a hard time understanding why, as the girl was having difficulty watching several bloody and violent scenes.

I love thrillers. This one is no exception. In comparison to the earlier Law Abiding Citizen which is the other revenge film that has been released soon, I think this one equals that in thrill. Edge of Darkness is a lot less bloody and violent, which is not to say it’s not bloody or violent, just that Law Abiding Citizen was truly over the top. Of course, this isn’t going to win any acting awards or be nominated for best picture, but it is definitely worthy of watching

I would most definitely recommend it. 3.5 shots / 5 shots

Links:
IMDB
Trailer

Countdown to 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, BC

My posts tend to be filled with movie reviews these days, so much so that I’ve been thinking of moving them to a dedicated domain. It’s come to the point where I’m tentative to write anything else but movie/entertainment related topics! If any of you guys have any good catchy domain names — let me know, as I think most are probably taken.

The Winter Olympics are coming up, starting February 12, for those who may not know (especially if you haven’t been buried by NBC’s commercials for the event.)

I’m preparing to get ready for my Vancouver travels. There’s a lot to do, to write down, in preparation for my trip to Vancouver. Luckily it’s going to be the second week of the Olympics, so I will have some time to do my research to see what to do during the Olympics.

I am kind of disappointed by the constant negative news surrounding the Olympics, and it makes me disappointed in Vancouver in general. There are the arguments over the clothing/marketing line from VANOC and Roots/Lululemon, as well as the arguments with First Nation, the growing costs the Olympics have imposed on the city, and the latest article I’ve just read regarding how the Canadian Pavilion is one ugly building and is shameful to the city. Wow, that sure bodes well. Reading the countless of Canadian news on the Olympics, all I’ve read are complaints from those who live in Vancouver.

Regardless, as I see the dressings going up for Vancouver, and look at all the gear that people have gotten, including friends, I’m starting to become excited to get to Vancouver. I’ve been enjoying a few Vancouver 2010 travel blogs such as We Are All MukMuks and Journey to Vancouver 2010 - Diary of a Fan, both that have been absolutely fun to read.

I’m about to get ready to get geared up dressed in Canadian colors and Canadian gear. Living in California means that Vancouver, though the warmest in Canada, will still be way too cold for this now adjusted for warmth Canadian-American. Just received my boots today, and am now waffling on the rest of my wardrobe, to make sure I am dressed for warmth. But I’ve now realized I need to get some straight or skinny jeans otherwise I will be walking the streets of Canada looking like a dork. H&M, Aeropostale, American Eagle, here I come. The last few things to complete my wardrobe is Roots gear.

Too many things, not enough time! I’ve just started researching now…and Valentine’s Days, birthdays are coming up. So I’m getting a bit batty! More updates later! Hopefully I won’t be as disoriented as I am now.

So Vancouver, I’m not yet ready, but hopefully, by the time the Olympics roll around, before I even leave, I’ll be all packed and ready to go!

Movie Review: The Book of Eli (January, 2010)

Directors: Albert Hughes, Allen Hughes
Screenplay: Gary Whitta
Release Date: January 15, 2010
Actors: Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, Mila Kunis, Jennifer Beals, Michael Gambon, Frances de la Tour

It’s a post apocalyptic world, and Eli Walker has been walking for many years. Thirty years after the end of days, after a huge war and ‘the flash’, in which the sun turned the world into ash, Eli is in the middle of his quest to protect and deliver the book that he carries to the west. It is his calling and he intends to see it through. The world however, has turned to hell, or so it seems. There are savages riding on motorcycles that rape women and kill other men for their supplies. Water is a hot commodity, and people kill for it. The sun is so strong, people have to wear sunglasses to protect their eyes from going blind.

I wasn’t sure what to expect going into the theatre for this one. I had seen previews and clips of it on talk shows and at the Warner Brothers panel at last year’s Comic-con. They even showed an animation surrounding the book at the convention last year that left me slightly confused.

As I had suspected though, Eli has the bible in his possession. (Don’t worry, this isn’t too much of a spoiler). Through some unfortunate circumstances, he walks into town to find someone to charge his ipod (first of all, how does an ipod work after 30 years? Can someone explain to me that? Mine died after 2 years!). At the same time, he decides to find himself some water in the town’s bar which ends in trouble. Carnegie (Gary Oldman) is the town’s shrewd and mean head man, and he’s looking for a book… the one that Eli carries. His partner Claudia has a daughter, Solara (Mila Kunis), who ends up getting involved in Eli’s affairs and joins him for her own protection from Carnegie.

Highly stylized, slow, panning views of the post apocalyptic world add to the feeling of desolation and despair under the Hughes’ brothers direction.

A few things are a bit silly. How everyone can look so beat up in the sun except for Solara and her mother is beyond me. They can’t always avoid the sun for the sake of preserving their skin.

The movie swings from seriousness to comedic, and at times, downright silly. The scenes with George and Martha are ridiculous, but nevertheless, endearing. Michael Gambon is delightful as George, despite their characters’ real reason for inviting Eli and Solara into their home for tea.

Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman are fantastic in their roles. Both characters are a bit caricature like, especially Gary Oldman’s Carnegie, as though they were taken straight from a comic. Scenes are filmed in such a way that they too, look as though they could be taken straight from a comic; Eli in the tunnel, Eli walking on the road, Eli sitting in the room. It is an interesting artistic approach. The movie is very well paced, and though the movie starts off slightly slow, it slowly builds up and you will find yourself wondering what Eli will find in the west, and whether or not Carnegie will succeed.

No doubt about it though, viewers will be somewhat surprised with the ending. The Book of Eli includes a twist, a reveal that I doubt most viewers will be able to predict, similar to The Sixth Sense (but less fantastic and fits the tone of the movie perfectly).

I thought it was an interesting look at a post apocalyptic world, and instead of just running from the scary people, or zombies, or what have you, there is a good man that has a purpose. What it comes down to though, is that the movie is a whole lot of fun.

There is a great deal amount of violence so this is definitely not a family movie (see The Spy Next Door for that), but The Book of Eli is beautifully filmed, and deserves to be seen. Denzel Washington certainly helps, as does the always amazing Gary Oldman (who is quite creepy in his desire to own the book and of course his vile treatment of those around him, but is unfortunately quite two dimensional as most protagonists these days seem to be in film.) His reason for desiring the book? To blindly lead people and to build more towns because they will be moved by the words that are contained in the bible.

All the acting is top notch, as one would expect by the impressive cast. A few scenes and items bothered me (as mentioned above), but it’s not enough to take me out of the film and stop enjoying what it had to offer. So, I would recommend it.

Enjoy the ride. Recommended 3 books / 5 books.

Links:
IMDB
Trailer via Youtube

Movie Review: The Spy Next Door (January, 2010)

Director: Brian Levant
Screenplay: Jonathan Berstein, James Greer, George Poirer
Release Date: January 15, 2010
Actors: Jackie Chan, Amber Valleta, George Lopez, Billy Ray Cyrus, Magnús Scheving

In the United States, Jackie Chan has always been known for two things: 1) He always performs his own stunts and 2) His movies are full of cheese. Cheesiness, that is. The Spy Next Door is not lacking in either.

If you walk into this movie expecting a witty comedy, you won’t find any. The Spy Next Door is a family movie, with lots of the interesting and unique stunts that Jackie Chan has been known for. Jackie Chan plays Bob Ho, the former CIA agent that has recently retired from his job because he wants a normal life with his next door neighbour and girlfriend Gillian (Amber Valleta) and to get closer with her three children. He takes on the task of taking care of Gillian’s children when she has to leave to take care of her dad. However, when one of Gillian’s children - Ian (Will Shadley) accidentally downloads a top secret formula from Bob’s computer, Bob finds Gillian’s family and himself in danger with his Russian enemy, Poldark (Magnús Scheving).

The movie is Disney, in full form. As I was leaving the theatre, I heard what I thought two older women complaining about how it was kiddie crap. Or something to that extent. No doubt, the humor, which is clearly slapstick and downright cheesy (I cannot picture Jackie Chan with Amber Valleta, for one) is not for everyone. You have to go in, expecting more cheese than usual in comedy.

Don’t expect any great acting here, and even the kids are not all that likeable. Funny, but not that likeable and not all that adorable (which I think is a good thing.) Jackie Chan is good ol’ Jackie, and his relationship with the kids on the set and his funny stunts and use of spy gadgets to control the kids are the best part of the film.

If you like Disney, and you have young kids, I would definitely recommend this film to take your family if you just have to see a new movie this weekend. Just be warned that it’s extra cheesy!

Needless to say, for everyone else, I would say, stay at home and wait for rental, or for on demand. I enjoyed it, but I’m not sure it’s worth it to spend the nine dollars to go to the theatre to see it.

So-so. 2 gadgets / 5 gadgets

Links
IMDB
Trailer via Youtube

Movie Review: Extraordinary Measures (January, 2010)

Director: Tom Vaughan
Screenplay: Robert Nelson Jacobs
Release Date: January 22, 2010
Actors: Brendan Fraser, Harrison Ford, Kerri Russell, Meredith Droeger, Diego Velazquez
Based on the book of the same name by Geeta Anand

When I first heard about this movie starring Brendan Fraser and Harrison Ford, I was immediately intrigued. Based on a true story, the drama centers on John Crowley (Brendan Fraser), the father of three children, two of which have a rare genetic disorder. After almost losing his oldest daughter, John becomes desperate in finding a treatment or a pill that can effectively prolong the lives of his children. Having followed Dr. Robert Stonehill’s (Harrison Ford) research, John tracks him down and works together in creating a pill those with Pompe can take to either prevent the effects of the disease altogether or for those who are older, to allow sugar to work into the system by creating an enzyme that breaks down sugar, preventing the buildup of glycogen. With the promising outlook of Dr. Stonehill’s research, John is desperate in finding investors and getting the pill to market for his children to take before they pass away.

I’m not sure what to think about the film. While it was a good film, I felt it was, at times, slow, and a bit too forced. The story should be inspiring in itself, without flowering it up with emotional strings and lines, in which I felt was baited for a reaction. The movie was filmed like a Hallmark Movie event, or a made for Lifetime movie, which felt oddly conflicting, given the two big names as lead actors in the film. Harrison Ford was terrific as the odd, eccentric, awkward and clearly unlikeable scientist. As a result of the film feeling oddly out of place and not at all for theatrical release, I wasn’t all that pleased with the acting. Meredith Droeger, who played young Megan Crowley was amazing, with tons of personality. But she and Harrison Ford were the only ones that stood out, at least for me.

The story itself is interesting, especially a look at Pompe disease, one that I had never heard of, and was happy to be educated upon. However, because the story focuses on the father and the stand off-ish scientist but not so much of the children, there is a bit of an emotional disconnect. Are we supposed to care about the scientist that is stubborn and almost makes it near impossible for the father? Are pharmacy companies that cold when trying to come up with a cure or treatment for a disease? Because I neither cared for Dr. Stonehill nor the pharmaceutical company. And if it was a true story of how the treatment was brought to clinical trials, I somehow feel as though it could have been edited a bit better.

So how would I rate this? The production values seem poor, the acting is average, but the story save the length is really interesting. I had never heard of CBS Films making a theatrical film (but obviously as I’ve looked this up, I know I am just behind the loop.). I would definitely wait to see this movie. Wait for rental, on demand, or when it is broadcasted it on television. I wouldn’t watch it in the theatre. The only caveat is that if you’re a huge fan of either Fraser or Ford, it might be worth it for you to see. The true story is far more interesting.

On the fence. Wait for rental. 2.5 cures / 5 cures

Links:
IMDB
Trailer via Youtube

Movie Review: It’s Complicated (December, 2009)

Director: Nancy Meyers
Screenplay: Nancy Meyers
Release Date: December 25, 2009
Actors: Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin, Steve Martin, Lake Bell

Oscar season is upon us, and the inclusion of Meryl Streep’s It’s Complicated as a Golden Globe Best Picture nominee for Comedy/Musical baffles me.

The story focuses on Meryl Streep’s character Jane, who is a cook/chef for fine cuisine (French I believe), owns her own restaurant/store and a mother of three grown up children (the smallest attending her first year in college). Jane has been divorced to Jake (Alec Baldwin) almost ten years but finds herself having an affair (!) with her ex-husband who is now married to his then mistress Agness (Lake Bell - people might recognize her from the short lived NBC drama Surface and Boston Legal). Jane is fairly happy finally, in her single life that she hires architect Adam (Steve Martin, the most normal of roles I have seen him in a long time) to build her the kitchen she has always dreamed of, in addition to redesigning other areas of her home. But with the recent affair with Jake, her life has turned a bit upside down as she copes with the strange position of being a mistress, and being able to figure out what she really wants out of her life.

The movie is an interesting and hilarious look at a couple who were divorced many years ago, playing the “what if” game. What if they had never gotten divorced? The setups and the situations that Jane finds herself in were funny, amusing, thanks to Alec Baldwin’s crazy Jake. One of my friends thought this movie was only for divorcees or if you’re old, but I am neither, and really enjoyed myself. There are some definite laugh-out-loud scenes that will leave you reeling, but I didn’t find myself absolutely loving it and thinking “this is an excellent film”.

Meryl Streep’s presence on screen immediately lifts the film from an okay film to an above average film, as she plays Jane in an adorable and likable manner. You want her to be happy, and all along, you’re not sure if you think that getting back with her former husband is the best idea.

Steve Martin, being the fairly normal and also divorced architect Adam was a bit strange to me too. Steve Martin playing normal felt abnormal that in the scenes that Meryl and Steve shared, though sweet, I didn’t feel there was much chemistry and that something was lacking.

All in all It’s Complicated is a very well done film. The music suits the feel of the movie, as does the beautiful scenes in Santa Barbara. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I would expect most anyone to go into the film and enjoy it as well.

But the only explanation for why Meryl was nominated for her role in this and why this movie was nominated, is that the category includes a weak field. I mean, Nine for Best Comedy/Musical? The reviews for it are so bad, both critical and audience. The Hangover, Julie & Julia? Strange choices, both of which I enjoyed a great deal, but find strange they were nominated. But the Golden Globes have never been a very good precursor for the Academy Awards, as recent year records have shown. I adore Sandra Bullock in The Proposal, and would love to see her win since I can’t see anyone else in that role, but the field is very weak, with Meryl receiving two nominations for her comedies this year.

Not to detract from the movie, as I would definitely recommend it, and think it would be very enjoying on a rainy afternoon if you’re looking for a few laughs. It’s hard to go wrong with Meryl.

Recommended. 3.5 croissants / 5 croissants

Other Links:
IMDB
Trailer via Youtube

Movie Review: Avatar (December, 2009)

Director: James Cameron
Screenplay: James Cameron
Release Date: December 18, 2009
Actors: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez, Joel Moore, Giovanni Ribisi

If there’s one movie you should see this winter, Avatar should be it. When the Golden Globe nominations first came out last week and Avatar was up for Best Motion Picture Drama, I was confused. Was it really that good? Most people hadn’t seen it yet. After seeing it, I can understand why it was nominated. Many of you may not know much about Avatar. If you’re a film buff, you’re sure to have heard about Avatar at least once in the last year. Avatar is James Cameron’s first feature film since his monstrous hit Titanic, 12 years ago, a film that took 3 years to make, and was shelved for most of its life since its inception. This is due to the fact that the technology at the time was not advanced enough to support Cameron’s vision of life on Pandora. It was not until Cameron saw Gollum in The Lord of the Rings that he felt technology had advanced far enough to start work on Avatar, and in the years while working on the film, new technology was created in order to give emotion to the faces of the natives of Pandora.

So what is Avatar you ask? Jake Sully (Sam Worthington, Terminator Salvation), a paraplegic marine veteran whose brother was killed in his transfer to the space station, is asked to take the place of his twin brother in a mission on the distant planet of Pandora. When he reaches his destination, Jake discovers the reason why he is there. There is a mineral rock worth $20 million an ounce that is found underneath the home of the Na’vi, the native humanoids of the planet of Pandora. The corporation has set up a very large unit with full military manpower and machines, headed by Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi, Gone in Sixty Seconds), the main representative of the corporation. He’s close to sending in the troops to move the Na’vi by force if the Avatar group is unable to make any progress on their relationship with the Na’vi. The Avatar group is headed by scientist Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver, Alien), whose interest is in direct conflict with Parker Selfridge, as she has a desire to learn about the Na’vi, how they live and the amazing world they have created, especially in respect to their deity, known as Eywa to the Na’vi. Dr. Grace Augustine’s group has created Na’vi bodies that are biologically connected to the DNA of herself, Jake and Norm Spellman (Joel Moore, Bones). When they create a body link to these Na’vi bodies, they become them - they can eat, feel, drink, walk without ever leaving the machine that links the two together. On a run to collect samples in the forest of the flux of Pandora, Jake runs into a bit of trouble and unexpectedly finds himself rescued by Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), the daughter of the leader of a Na’vi clan. Through a sign, Neytiri senses there is something special about him and takes him back to the clan, where he is taught the ways of the Na’vi and soon becomes one of them. It is this journey that we get immersed into the world of Pandora and attached to the characters that we meet throughout the film.

So why must you watch this film? I tend to walk into films knowing very little about the story, and I think I tend to fairly judge the movie when I have less than idea of what the film is about. Well, what did I think? The story is definitely cliche, it has been done every which way. Through The New World, Dancing with Wolves, we have seen this movie in so many different forms. I admit I don’t really enjoy movies about natives very often, but I did like this one. I think it is mainly because the location is at an alien world, and it required technology to integrate with the Na’vi family. The screenplay was decent but not excellent. James Cameron’s strengths are definitely in his script writing (though better than George Lucas‘ especially when it comes to romance, but I digress). To this day, when I think of the script for Titanic, I cringe. (And I love the movie too.) So why should you see this film? Let me list a number of reasons.

Number One: Avatar is a visual feast, no doubt about it. Expect to be stunned into silence by the breathtaking scenes and forests of the alien planet Pandora. The new technology that James Cameron uses is something to behold. The facial expressions, the movements of the blue native humanoids are realistic and seamless. The CG, of which I usually complain a great deal when a scene looks fake, was nothing short of spectacular. I did not have much to complain in this department. The colors of the world of Pandora are simply amazing, so much so that I felt that wearing the 3D glasses kind of ruined it for me. Speaking of the 3D, it was very well done, and one could feel as though they were actually there. You could almost touch the plants that Jake was encountering, you were so immersed.

Number Two: The characters. Though Avatar is clearly plot driven, there is not much focus on the characters themselves. However, through the story, we grow to be very attached to Jake in his avatar body, and that of Neytiri (whom I could not distinguish was Zoe Saldana at all, but did a wonderful job, especially in a very poignant scene towards the last quarter of the film.). Stephen Lang’s Colonel Miles Quaritch was something of a caricature. With a penchant for violence and utter demolition, I felt he was mostly one note. I suppose that’s how his character is supposed to be. Michelle Rodriguez (Lost), army pilot Trudy Chacon balanced the lunacy of Colonel Miles Quaritch, as she is the opposite of the Colonel, showing she has a heart and a strong dislike of destroying lives. Though we don’t see much of Trudy, and I am not a Michelle Rodriguez fan, I liked her character. I don’t have much to say about all the actors, as they all did a great job with what they had to handle and it’s always nice to see Signourey Weaver on the big screen.

Number Three: Okay, so we can tell James Horner music usually a mile away. This time, there is enough variation to make the soundtrack unique enough. The music really adds to the epic feeling of the film, as Horner similarly demonstrated in “Titanic”. Without the music, the mystic of Pandora would not have been the same, nor the buildup to the battle. The song however, “I See You” by Leona Lewis is dreadful. In the very first few notes, all I hear is “My Heart Will Go On” by Celine Dion, whom I actually like somewhat. But Leona Lewis, I am not that fond of, and I’m even less fond of the song which seems to be a retread of the overplayed Titanic song.

I don’t know if Avatar is great enough to get a Best Picture Nod at the Oscars this year (it will get a nomination, no doubt), especially with the likes of such amazing movies as Precious and Up in the Air, but at least I can envision it, whereas before I was unsure. In addition, I always think year after year, how can one compare such different movies to come up with a “Best”? All I know is that Avatar is a wonderful film that when you go to the theatre, time will pass by quickly and the movie will end before you know it. The movie, at a running time of 2 hours and 42 minutes is very long but believe it or not, could have been even longer. I am looking forward to the “Director’s Cut” already. Now, why Avatar was nominated, and Star Trek was not, I’m not sure. So far, three people have told me that though they really enjoyed and liked Avatar, they still preferred Star Trek.

I plan on seeing this movie again. It deserves a second viewing. I’d like to see it without the 3D though, so I can fully enjoy the colors. I think James Cameron has a definite hit, but with a $300 million budget, one has to wonder whether or not Avatar will make all its money back, and if they do make a profit, by how much? Will this be another Titanic?

Highly recommended going to the theatre to see. Avatar on IMAX or Digital is the only way this movie should be enjoyed. 4 Banshees / 5 Banshees

Links:
IMDB
Making A Scene: Avatar via Hulu. Suggestion - do not watch this until AFTER viewing the film.