THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN (2011)

Growing up I vaguely remember the story of Tintin and his dog Snowy, not to mention his friend Capatain Haddock. I remember this because it was a cartoon and back in the day before there was too much to watch the selections were limited. As a cartoon, Tintin always seemed a little dry but nonetheless I found myself watching it from time to time. Then - nothing. At least not for fifteen years of my life.

Then, through my various interweb snoopings, a couple of years ago I discovered Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson were teaming up to bring Tintin to the big screen. Retrospectively, it's surprising it took anybody this long to make a movie based on one of the most successful comic series of all time. But alas, along with writers Steven Moffat and Edgar Wright (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World) this amazingly talented super team has brought us The Adventures of Tintin, which also happens to be Spielberg's first 3D movie. As Scorcese did with Hugo, I'm happy to say he's done it right.

In this case, The Adventures of Tintin turns out to be more of a single adventure - one surrounding an old ship called the Unicorn. The ship itself belonged to a relative of Captain Haddock, who's played by the motion capture master himself - Andy Serkis. Tintin is played by Jamie Bell and other notable 'performances' come from Thomson and Thompson, who are voiced by Nick Frost and Simon Pegg respectively.

Tintin works for a lot of reasons. The biggest and most important reason it works is why any good film succeeds - the story. I'm not certain if the story is wholly based on previously written written material, although I wouldn't be surprised as even my foggy memory shook loose a few familiar moments from the cartoon. Other reasons Tintin is so wonderful are in part due to the amazing special effects, the successfully utilized 3D and my thirst for adventure - or anybody's for that matter. Any criticisms lie within that of the uncanny valley. While I admire the detailed animation and often marvelled at it - my suspended disbelief was never broken per say, just jarred.

The Adventures of Tintin gets an open door as I suspected it would. It's kid friendly, it's adult friendly and it's PETA friendly. Seriously, a lesser dog would have been eaten by that hawk. With Oscar season upon us, Tintin is sure to score big in at least a couple of categories including Best Animated Feature. I imagine a sequel isn't far off either.

Read more...

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3 (2011)

Read more...

CONTAGION (2011)

The first thing to be said about Contagion is that I highly recommend avoiding it at all costs if you're any kind of germaphobe. I don't consider myself a germaphobe at all - although (like most people, I hope) I wash my hands after using the washroom and before I eat, I pay no attention to how often I touch my face (Contagion states its a ridiculous 6,000 or so times a day) and I rarely pay attention to the fact I occasionally chew on my hoodie's draw strings. Coming out of Contagion I felt filthy. As the film progressed I became more aware of the people around me coughing, or sneezing. I nearly freaked out when a lady beside me sneezed and some of her spittle ended up on my hand. At that moment I recalled walking out of Super Size Me in 2004 delighted as the theatre staff handed out some healthy snacks in support of a better lifestyle. I was praying some staff would be standing outside of Contagion with free bottles of Purel. In the paranoia aspect, Contagion brought it's A-game. Other aspects of the film ranked a little lower.

For all those out there hoping to see a film with as much action as something like 1995's Outbreak, you'll be disappointed. The general population will probably get bored by Contagion's slower pace. For those of us that like dramas and can feel comfortable and patient enough to ride the slow beats, Contagion should serve you just fine. The biggest problem with a film like this (which is just under two hours long) is that the patience never really pays off. I don't remember there being a moment where I actually felt satisfied. I knew Contagion could have been the movie I wanted it to be, but it just never excited me as much as I felt it should have.

I've heard through various other sources that this film is the most realistic take on a deadly virus outbreak that's graced the movie screen yet - perhaps that was the problem. Everything more or less happened the way it supposed to and while the human population isn't turned into zombies or completely annihilated, it's hardly a happy ending. Contagion feels less like a whole movie and more like part of a larger story - or several half stories put together.

That stated, the acting is killer. More specifically due to outstanding performances by Matt Damon, Laurence Fishburne and Jude Law. None of them get it wrong and all of them add realism to the story. Despite all the half-negatives I'm saying about Contagion, it still works. There may be problems with some pacing and character development, but it's still an interesting story. I don't for see anybody saying this is the best film of the year, nor is it the worst. It's right in the middle and ultimately I have to give it an open door. For all the more risky films like Contagion that don't quite hit the nail on the head, there are some that do. Besides, I'd rather have a world filled with mediocre movies than the one currently filled with 80% crap.

*Stills courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures

Read more...

FRIGHT NIGHT (2011)

At the beginning of this year I found out that 2011 would break the record for most remakes and sequels in one year. I was aware of most of the sequels, but it's the remakes that have been taking me by surprise - both in quality and the fact that I didn't even know they were remakes. It was only slightly before watching Fright Night that I found out it had been done once before. In 1985 William Ragsdale teamed up with Roddy McDowall (known most for his Planet of the Apes roles) to conquer Jerry - a vampire. Once I knew about it, in preparation for this review, I found the original on Netflix and watched away. I wasn't disappointed by the film, nor was I profoundly entertained. I got a kick out of seeing McDowell perform sans ape and liked the storyline enough, but I felt it dragged and I was left underwhelmed.

Remakes as they go, always go in one of two directions. The first is that you end up with a shot-for-shot modernization of the classic that shouldn't have been touched in the first place. Horror films always seem to get revamped (small pun intended) and more often than not, in this style. I cite 1998's Pyshco remake and 2006's The Omen as prime examples. The other option is a reimagining, where you have a similar beginning and end but a different middle. Obviously there's variations and blends of this rule, but it's more or less the same. A reimagining though, isn't always good either (ie: Rob Zombie's Halloween). Fright Night, for the record, is a prime example of a reimagining.

Colin Farrell plays Jerry the vampire, a stranger who's just moved in next door to Charley (played well by Star Trek's Anton Yelcin). In the original, Charley is a sci-fi/horror geek who stalks Jerry until he finds out the truth. In this version, Charley is working very hard at being more socially acceptable in school and is later warned of Jerry's antics by his friend, Ed (played by McLovin himself, Christoper Mintz-Plasse). It seems a mutual friend has gone missing and Ed begs Charley to help him find their vanished comrade. After some investigation, more truths about Jerry come to surface and soon Charley finds himself in a head to head battle with Jerry to save his mom (Toni Collette) and his girlfriend (Imogen Poots).

I remember a time when I used to really hate Colin Farrell. I don't really remember why, or where I saw something to make me feel this way. I know I've seen him be an Irish prick on some talk show, where his real self shone through and I instantly put him in a class with Russell Crowe -douchebags who roam Hollywood thinking they're all that. Oddly enough, that changed for me after seeing Farrell in Horrible Bosses - when he was at his douchebagiest. But it showed a lighter side of Farrell to me and allowed me to experience just how good he could be. Fright Night is no exception. While some will argue this film belongs to Yelchin, there's a subtly in Farrell's performance that seals the deal for me. There's no ego attached to the fact that Jerry's a super cool vampire who knows he's probably going to bone your girlfriend. He just simply knows he's been around 375 years longer than you and has the experience to prove it. Nothing like respecting your elders, right? Or you know, wanting to plunge a stake into their heart.

Fright Night gets an open door. Despite some parts that seemed to move too fast (in definite contrast to the original), Marti Noxon (known for the Buffy the Vampire Slayer series) delivers a solid script and some really witty moments (I couldn't place some of the dialogue patterns until after when I found out who wrote this adaptation). Even though it shares the same title as the original, this take on Fright Night feels like a different movie completely. It's fun and scary enough that if it's still kickin' around come Halloween, I recommend checking it out to get into the mood of things. Even before then, it's still worth your time.

*Stills courtesy of Dreamworks SKG

Read more...

RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (2011)

There are far too few movies I go to, where in the end I actually walk out with a feeling that I'm better off for seeing it. Movies that come to mind more recently are Source Code, Limitless and The Adjustment Bureau. With the exception of Source Code, however, none has moved me quite like Rise of the Planet of the Apes just has. This is partially because I love movies - pure and simple. But any fan of any type of art will tell you that while you can love paintings, or music, or literature - that doesn't mean everything is spot on. The biggest reason though, comes from the fact that Rise is just really well done.

If you're familiar with the Planet of the Apes franchise, you know there's been six movies so far. The original Planet of the Apes was released in 1968 - an astonishing 43 years ago. After that came a weak sequel and then an intriguing transition film. The fourth film, titled Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, is the one this current film is a reboot of. While I liked Conquest, thankfully it can't hold a candle to the realism and power that lies within Rise. Don't get me wrong though, I know the influence the original series had and I respect that. For me, as a huge POTA fan nothing will ever beat the original and its comments on social acceptance and racism. It was a powerful film and will always be considered as such.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes takes all that was wrong with the old films and fixes it. What always bothered me about the originals was the lack of realism. This may be coming from the mind of someone who has come to both appreciate and hate CGI simultaneously, but Rise nails it. There wasn't one moment where I was worried the effects weren't carrying the story. The actors deliver the same. I felt James Franco and John Lithgow did brilliantly. Thought even they didn't bring their A-game nearly as much as Andy Serkis. Using the same technology they used in Avatar and King Kong, Serkis delivers a knockout performance as the lead revolutionary ape, Caesar. It's an odd thing to feel for a CG character as much as one does watching Rise. Rightfully deserved, though when your seeing such a powerfully emotional character arc unfold before your eyes.

To top it all off, you get a good few references to the old films as well as a few teasers for potential sequels (of which the second is already in talks). Some of the old references to watch for include seeing an old Charlton Heston movie on the TV in the background and the use of a few choice infamous phrases - more of a nod than a gimmick, thankfully. As for teasers, there's a scene in the midst of the credits not to miss as well as limited talk of a manned mission to Mars. The mission to Mars storyline seems insignificant at first, until a Newspaper article later on proclaims 'Lost in Space?'. It doesn't take too much to put together that those astronauts will likely face the same fate as Heston and his buddies did back in '68. Whether it's just a nod or not will be determined in years to come.

I've always felt that walking into a movie shouldn't require effort on the viewer's part. You shouldn't have to sit there and struggle to like a movie - the creative team behind a film is responsible for that. Few films are far from achieving this. They rely too heavily on special effects or action or big names to do the work (ie: The Smurfs). With Rise of the Planet of the Apes, they rely on the story. Shocking right? That a good story with heart can actually work every once in a while. Especially with this storyline as they could have easily resorted to a bad action movie. Not that it was awful, but Burton's remake ten years ago is an example of how this Rise could have gone from thoughtful to awful pretty damn quick.

I may be pleasantly optimistic at this point (coming off the high from Rise), but with talk of Andy Serkis getting an Oscar nod for his work in this Planet of the Apes adventure - perhaps we're not far off from a Best Picture nomination as well. There's still plenty of year left though, as we come into August with a bang, but this is one to definitely catch. Open door, all the way.

*Stills courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox

Read more...

FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS (2011)

Think about the possibilities. A friend with whom you could have unlimited sex and not get emotionally attached too. It seems, though, this is an impossible dream only imagined by the immature and the naive. But at some point, those of us who get older and find ourselves wedged in between that 'first love' and 'committed relationship' phase attempt it because dating has become a repetitive, cruel and exhausting joke. Sexually, this can be very frustrating. Girls - this is why guys are more likely to be found playing a game of pocket pool rather than dreaming of white knights and prince charmings. We know what we need and we know what we want (just not always on an emotional level. Justin Timberlake says it best in Friends with Benefits after Mila Kunis asks him what movies after the credits are like. He answers with one word: porn.

If you've seen Timberlake on SNL in the past couple of years you know he's not the N'Sync toting, boy band weirdo he once was. Instead, he's evolved into a very talented and funny actor. Mila Kunis, being raised on the sets of sitcoms also knows the value of wit - and together they're unstoppable. The first half of Friends With Benefits will blow your mind by how laugh out loud funny it is. From the opening credits on you'll find yourself either laughing (or cringing) at the 'funny because it's true' dating and sex commentary made by this talented on-screen couple. I've never been more pleased in a comedy.

But in typical Hollywood tradition, we have to learn some life lessons and more importantly (apparently), we all have to grow up some time. I believe there was easily enough material to make a movie entirely based on the 'f**k buddy' label, which made me even more disappointed when I found myself half way through watching something I'd seen on screen a million times before - and I didn't know why. Within Friends With Benefits there's a movie within the movie that stars Jason Segal and Rashida Jones as a couple of cliché romantic film characters who say every bad line imaginable. This fake film seemed earlier on to be a nice commentary of the cheese Hollywood has been bringing to the fondue party for the past thirty years. Unfortunately, I believe it was only in place to make one believe the ending of Friends with Benefits 'at least wasn't as bad as that other shit comedy the characters were watching'. But alas, I was watching another shit comedy. Having JT say he knows 'this is cheesy' or 'I know you wanted a movie moment, so...'. is just as bad and seems more of an easy way out than anything. Satire is no longer satire if it's - well, not satirical.

There is good though. Namely, supporting appearances made by Woody Harrelson and (even smaller) guest spots by Andy Samberg and Emma Stone. I feel all the characters and general idea (and maybe even the first sixty pages) were there from the get go and this is what sold it to the studios. I also wouldn't blame the writer of the film (Keith Merryman) if his original idea didn't involve all the mushy, cliché stuff at the end. Studios are unsurprisingly known for pressuring an artist for happy endings, stories about Alzheimer-ridden fathers and life lessons. It's not enough anymore that things are just funny - really funny.

Based on the first half alone though, Friends With Benefits won me over and therefore gets an open door. Like I said, the first forty minutes could have sustained the whole movie but doesn't. The plus - the last half makes it a good date movie and the perfect excuse to see Mila Kunis sporting nothing but her undies. Unfortunately we also see a lot (and I mean a lot) of Timberlake.

*Stills courtesy of Castle Rock Entertainment

Read more...

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER (2011)

Finally, it arrives. After a small post-credits teaser following Iron Man three years ago, the last movie in the pre-Avengers line-up arrives. Other films in that line-up have included Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk and the disappointing Thor. While The Avengers (scheduled to kick off Summer in May 2012) looks epic, is Captain America good enough to rally the troops and build up enough excitement to make The Avengers the success Marvel is hoping for? You bet it is, despite some of the imperfections.

A couple years back after Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk it was the hot topic to be speaking about 2011 in the series. People were wondering who was going to play Thor and Captain America and how the films would turn out. We all know the mess Thor was, but I have to say I'm pleased with the casting choices for Cap. I've always been a fan of Chris Evans (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, The Losers) so I'm glad to see him in a roll that seems to fit well. For a while, there was talk of The Office's John Krasinski getting the roll of the red, white and blue hero. I won't lie, I sort of rooted for him to take the lead at first. He's a charming guy and seems to have that 'rah! rah! sis boom bah!' American spirit that's needed for a roll like this. It only takes one viewing of Captain America though to recognize the movie would have been just ... weird with Krasinski in it.

In the opposing roll to Evans' hero, Hugo Weaving (Transformers, The Matrix) takes on yet another villain role as Red Skull - the Yin to Steve Rogers' Yang. Red Skull is said to be Hitler's right hand man, that is until he grows tired of Hitler's antics and decides to get really serious with the supernatural interest originally put in place by old Adolf himself. Red Skull uses a force he states was left by the Gods for man to find, also known as the cosmic cube (teased about in the Thor post-credits). His plans for the cube's energy are nothing less than that of taking over the world. Skull uses the energy to build tanks and guns, nothing completely unlike the futuristic weapons we would see in Iron Man. However, it seems the army is at its wit's end and doesn't know how to stop him. So, why not use Tony Stark's father, Howard Stark's (Dominic Cooper) genius and combine it with an experimental serum created by German scientist Dr. Abraham Erskine (played perfectly by Stanley Tucci). The result is Captain America.

While it seems a lot of comic book to movie translations fail (I really, really hated Thor), I don' t think anybody will be really disliking Captain America. While it lacks the certain finesse that made X-Men: First Class such a good film, it offers a lot to those who have experienced the older Captain America movies (via an awful Broadway costume) as well as those that dig the comics. You also get some great hints as to a potential plot for The Avengers movie (stay tuned post-credits as usual) as well as some wonderfully done action sequences (when they're piratically done) -despite a slight overdose of cheese. The only part that threw me off were some of the moments where it was clear there was too much CG to make anything look real. It was mostly purposeful, but I wanted the movie to have that nitty gritty forties feel we're used to seeing in movies from that era. Especially when Captain America is riding his bike out of a building as it explodes - reminded me a lot of Machete-type of effects, or something you would see in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. Thankfully, we're not subjected to it over and over. I will have to say, however, I was super impressed by the CG look of Steve Rogers' pre-buff mode.

Ultimately, Captain America: The First Avenger gets an open door. Unfortunately, it was one of the summer blockbusters I was looking most forward too and it didn't fully live up to expectations. I think a movie that takes place in that era had an opportunity to be something really special (and not only because the forties is my favorite decade). It could have channeled a number of feelings from that decade including film noir, but it didn't. As a popcorn flick and something to get you excited about next year's Avengers, it doesn't disappoint. The performances are fine and the running time sufficient. There's also a decent amount of humour mixed in with a love story that make this a borderline date movie. But I triple dog dare you not to get the theme for Team America stuck in your head at least once during Captain America. It's almost damn near impossible. America, f**k yeah!

*Stills courtesy of Paramount Pictures

Read more...

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: Part 2 (2011)

Last year a significant part of my early twenties left me for good - I was watching the series finale for Lost, wondering how I could possibly enjoy the summer knowing the fall wouldn't bring the return of my favorite characters. In 2002 when I graduated high school, one of the first DVDs I bought that summer was Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. I've seen every movie in theatres since and despite the initial childlike nature of the films, I was always able to find the magic in them - at first in November, then increasingly as a summer blockbuster. As I matured, so did the films and their themes. Like most, I flip-flopped between deciding if Hermione (Emma Watson) would grow up to be hot (or not). Tonight, a significant piece of my last decade also left me for good as I bid farewell with Harry Potter and the Deahtly Hallows, Part 2.

Oddly enough, while I've certainly enjoyed the last seven Potter flicks (including the most recent one), I wasn't aware just how much I'd miss the series until I walked out of the theatre this evening. Say what you will about certain films, but the Potter series has been a world event almost every year for the last decade. Not only for myself (I've seen them with numerous friends), but for pop culture, literature fans, fantasy fans and of course the people involved. It's when you least realize it sometimes, that you find yourself saying goodbye to the ones that have been a small part of your life. As an extremely nostalgic person - this never comes easy.

If you've read the books you'll more or less know what to expect with this last hoorah. If you haven't read the books but have seen the movies - you, as well, will know what to expect. If you haven't seen the movies nor read the books, what the hell are you doing seeing the last film first? The trailers for Deathly Hallows: P2 state it all - "Only one can live". This is the final battle between Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) and it - is - epic. While I've steadily labeled every Potter film's successor as the best one to date, I'm pleased to say it ends in the same fashion - and it ends with a helluva bang (and a sort of bonus scene that was oddly disturbing and unexpected).

If you're like me and have grown to love and cherish the Potter series over time, you'll know the oddly emotional feeling of saying goodbye to Ron (Rupert Grint), Harry and Hermione. Each film has allowed us more and more of a glimpse into their lives and that of their families. There have been memorable moments and horrible losses. They've grown up to expect adventure and realize death and everything in between. And while they've shown us glimpses of the classes these three have had at Hogwarts, I started to wonder about three or four movies ago if they've ever actually made it to class. Sort of like when you watch The Simpsons and wonder if and when and how Homer actually goes to work. Not that one would watch the Potter films and expect realism, but it's just a thought anyways. What is real, however, is the sincerity that's present with final film like this one - from both the viewer and the characters. There are tough moments in Deathly Hallows: P2, moments that rival some of the better dramatic moments I've seen in Oscar films. If Lord of the Rings can walk away with an Oscar, maybe it's time Harry Potter does too.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 gets a wide open door - as does the whole series. I'll be going back to have a Harry-thon one of these weekends to revisit some of the older films. I guarantee you watching this final installment will make you want to do the same thing, mostly for sentimental reasons. In an age where sequels and reboots are the big thing, I can only say it'd be nice if this was the end. But, in twenty years I may change my mind as I'm sure writer and creator J.K. Rowling is already thinking of ways to bring it back in some fashion (which may explain the ending in DH: P2). But for now, it's been a pleasure getting to know you, Mr. Potter. I bid you adeau.

*Stills courtesy of Warner Bros. Studios

Read more...

LARRY CROWNE (2011)

Straight up, I've always been a fan of Tom Hanks - both in public and film. In public he keeps to himself and seems more or less a humble guy. In films, he's not afraid to have fun and when he wants to be he's a damn good actor. When it comes to Hanks being a writer and a director, he also nails it. The two films he's helmed so far (That Thing You Do! and Larry Crowne) both are similar in that they're both innocent and mean well. You can feel the devotion and love for the projects that Hanks has from script to screen. While his projects aren't groundbreaking or wholly original, it's like spending time with the nicest guy you know - vs. the artsy one. I wouldn't be surprised if Hanks' next film was titled Can't We All Just Get Along?.

That theme is what makes up the majority of Larry Crowne, a film about a divorcee who gets fired from his job forcing him to find a new path in life. He meet cutes his teacher (Julia Roberts) at a community college after he enrolls to further his career. The funny thing about a film description like the one I just gave is that it could easily be both the romantic comedy it is, as well as an Oscar winning drama. The reason it's not the latter, I believe, is simply because Hanks wrote it and simply wants to make people smile. The reason it could be an Oscar drama (and at some points maybe should have) is because it deals with a lot of serious themes like the recession, job loss, middle-aged crisis and reinvention. It's a lot like About Schmidt that way - just less depressing (and less naked Kathy Bates).

Along his journey to a new romance and an adulthood education, Crowne gets a scooter to save on somr gas and runs into a 'scooter gang' at school, who are nice enough to help him along the way. The lead of the gang is played by Talia (Gugu Mbatha-Raw). Her roll is to help Crowne update his look and land the leading lady (who just happens to be in a loveless marriage). It's these type of relatively unrealistic circumstances that weigh the light and fluffy Larry Crowne down. If you can get past it though, you shouldn't find a problem having a lot of fun.

The truth of the matter is that like the character it's named after, Larry Crowne doesn't have a mean bone in it's body. It's a delightful, innocent and small film - especially compared to something like Transformers. Yet, a movie that costs hundreds of millions of dollars to produce pales in comparison to the lessons (both life-wise and thematically) one can learn from a film about a middle-aged man struggling to regain his footing.

Larry Crowne gets and open door. Hanks and Roberts are both so terribly charming you can't help but fall under their spell. Is it a funny movie like Bridesmaids was funny? Hell no. So for those of you looking for bathroom humour - look elsewhere. Is it the perfect movie for someone, or anyone really, that's going through a change in their life and needs a little inspiration? Hell to the double yes. Is it a bit hokey? Yup. Are there cliché and cheesy moments? Absolutely. Is it so incredibly lovable, and the perfect film to end long work week with? 100% confirmed.

*Stills courtesy of Universal Pictures

Read more...

TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON (2011)

This is my first Transformers review for my website and I can't express to you all how glad I am about that. We all know just how plain awful Revenge of the Fallen was, but we also know the first film in the series showed some promise (and not enough Megan Fox, winkity wink). As much as I think Megan Fox is a, well - fox, I also recognized immediately the poor thing couldn't act her way out of a student film. The replacement of her by the slightly superior Rosie Huntington-Whitely was the first step in making Transformers 3 a fresher film.

You'll find the effects are well done (as always) and the 3-D is still whatever (as it is in any movie really). The action however is much, much better and this could be for a number of reasons. The first may be that there is simply just more of it, and less of a love story between Sam (Shia LaBeouf) and his girl of the hour. There's also less of Sam's very annoying parents. We get it, they're the comic relief - we also had enough of them in the first one. You not only end up with more, but better action here. I didn't care much for the pyramid scene in Revenge of the Fallen and it's certainly trumped in Dark of the Moon by the battle in downtown Chicago. There's something insanely cool about the scene where that highrise was tipping over (or it may have just been my subconscious telling me to watch Inception again). This brings me to second reason the action is better - which is really just because it's so much more epic. If you don't think you'll enjoy a movie about a mechanical alien race, then you're there to see the special effects and action and this is the first Transformers where I felt satisfied.

As far as the story goes, I can honestly say you won't care. You may like the fact that Patrick Dempsey is in it (if you're a girl), or you may like the fact that there's less of that Sector 7 douche, John Turturro (if you're anybody else). It's the same old stuff and it's predictable for the most part. There's bad robots and there's good robots and there's girls and cars and explosions. Director Michael Bay may not be the finest filmmaker, but he did really seem to put more effort into Dark of the Moon and it shows by the time the credits roll. He took all of what worked in the first two and left out what didn't.

What's new in Transformers 3 is the Forest Gump-like history tie-ins they use to explain why it's called Dark of the Moon. It's actually quite impressive and reminded me a lot of what we saw in X-Men: First Class. Expect to see more of it (for a third time this year) in September's Apollo 18. Perhaps Hollywood is sponsoring the next Moon trip and wants to make sure it's numbers are good?

I'm giving Transformers: Dark of the Moon an open door. I hope it's the last one (my Transformers fan friend insists it almost has to be - due to original story restrictions). Plus, with Reel Steel coming out this winter we may have already had it with robot movies by the time the end of the world mosies along next December. But this movie is enjoyable at the very least, and you're rarely left wondering why LaBouef seems to be doing a better job quitting the franchise on national TV than actually promoting this thing.

*Stills courtesy of Paramount Pictures

Read more...

CARS 2 (2011)

Did I hate Cars 2? Nope. Did I like it? About as much (if not slightly more) than the first one. My friend Luke brings up an interesting point about this film. While it's obvious this film exists to cash in on merchandising opportunities, the reason the Cars movies work is because we all believe our cars to be personified. There's almost nobody out there that doesn't refer to their car or a vehicle (especially the ones we love) as 'he' or 'she'. So what's better than seeing a film like Cars 2 and thinking to yourself "Hey, I bet my minivan does think that way!"

Does that mean Cars 2 is without its flaws? No, not at all. But it is watchable if you can get past the idea that for some reason cars with no hands can somehow make buildings, write newspaper articles and dare I say - make babies? Best leave that story for a time when Disney runs out of enough ideas to make a film literally titled The Birds and the Bees. These flaws were present in the first one as well. If you accepted it then, you'll accept it with the sequel.

In Cars 2, two main characters stray from home - Lightning McQueen (Midnight in Paris's Owen Wilson) and Mater (Larry the Cable Guy). They leave Radiator Springs behind for the sites of the world in pursuit of first place at the World Grand Prix. Sure enough, in front of the big shots Mater embarrasses McQueen leaving McQueen to push Mater out of the way and move on to 'more important things'. That's when Mater runs into spies Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) and Holly Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer). The spies mistake Mater for one of the most gifted spies they've ever encountered. If Cars was McQueen's movie then Cars 2 is certainly Mater's.

Now, the Disney/Pixar execs will swear a couple of things when it comes to Cars 2 (Pixar's most unnecessary film to date). One is that this film was made solely for merchandising purposes (they'll say it was made to appease the fans' demands), and the other is that this is more of spy movie than a spoof of a spy movie. The merchandising is whatever - Cars 2 cost Disney $200 million to make. While it'll easily make that back in ticket sales, a movie made mainly for kids essentially sells out the second it's pitched anyways. If the studios thought kids would want to sport Black Swan gear, we would see the same - art or not. So for those of you hating on this film for that aspect of it, get over your high sense of self and tell me you didn't want an Optimus Prime action figure in the worst way when you were eight. As for the spy part of it, that's something I wanted to discuss.

It's the 21st century, a spy film made today will have some air of James Bond to it no matter what. It's what made Austin Powers successful, and it will make Cars 2 successful. The thing they have in common? They are both spoofs of spy movies in some ways. While Austin Powers is more candid about it, Cars 2 still borrows a lot from the spy genre and therefore becomes a spoof. But let me be clear, this isn't a bad thing. Here it's used as a tool to send Mater on a wacky adventure and provide some comic relief.

For the entertainment value alone, I am giving Cars 2 an open door. The day that I can't recommend a Pixar film will be a sad day indeed. This one came close though. But there are enough jokes, color and pretty things to look at that while the adult in us may struggle with it a bit, the kid in us (or car enthusiast in us) will love it.

*Stills courtesy of Disney/Pixar

Read more...

CONAN O'BRIEN CAN'T STOP (2011)

Conan O'Brien can't stop. Nor, before and after this documentary - do I want him to. I recently watched Never Say Never, the Justin Bieber doc about his rise to stardom and his experience of preparing for a show at Madison Square Garden. While fascinating and undoubtedly interesting for a teen at the start of Bieber's career, what would a tour; a schedule; a fresh start and an obsession be like for someone who's been in the public eye for two decades? Someone who's suddenly forced into what seemed like an early retirement? The answer comes to us in the form of the funny, sensitive and oddly dark Conan O'Brien Can't Stop.

On January 22, 2010, O'Brien left his gig at The Tonight Show (and NBC) forever. While I don't need to go into the details it was after an invariable raping by NBC that highlighted their lack of commitment to a decision (put forth by them), as well as their utter talent for disorganization. I understand that there are two sides to this story, but as a longtime fan of O'Brien, I will (and always have) side with him. Can't Stop follows O'Brien after his departure from The Tonight Show and fills us in on just what happened in those six months he was contractually obligated to stay off of television.

Turns out, O'Brien did stay off the air waves. The stages of the US of A on the other hand, are fair play. O'Brien created the tour for one reason only - because he literally couldn't stop. He had become accustomed and addicted to entertaining crowds of people; to introducing them to surprise guest stars and celebrities. And unlike Charlie Sheen's recent bout of banter aimed at Hollywood execs, O'Brien does it with class and dignity - showing that while it was a difficult ordeal it's less about him and more about what he was doing for the people. Let's not forget that O'Brien snagged a healthy 45 million from NBC as part of his severance package. To my friend Rowan, that spells private island and a communication-less existence for the rest of days - a road O'Brien could have easily taken. The fact he didn't shows just how dedicated to his art he is and how much he truly loves what he does.

If there's a flaw in this film is that there's not enough about O'Brien's past and that it all seems a little rushed. While I find this part in O'Brien's life very intriguing, I did find myself wanting to see more about his life and his career. If anything (even though there's plenty of source material out there), I want to see a documentary more about The Late Night Battle - as it was called. Another time perhaps.

Conan O'Brien Can't Stop is a wonderful little doc thought that easily snags an open door. It's honest, it's up front and it's funny as hell. A truly likable guy, I sincerely hope Conan O'Brien can't and doesn't stop until he literally has to.

*Stills courtesy of Pariah

Read more...

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS (2011)

It’s been a while since I walked into a movie without knowing too much about it. The last one that came close was Hobo With a Shotgun, and even then I still knew more about it than I did Midnight in Paris. All I knew was that this was a Woody Allen film starring Owen Wilson and Rachel McAdams. The other thing I knew was that I really enjoyed Vicky Cristina Barcelona, so I figured I would enjoy this latest addition to Allen’s repertoire. I’ve never been happier to walk into a film knowing so little as I was walking out of Midnight in Paris.

The trailer (which I only saw post-film in preparation for this review) states that ‘Paris after midnight is magic’, but doesn’t prepare you for exactly what type of magic you’re about to experience. It’s interesting, it’s exotic, it’s nostalgic and it’s surprising. I’ll tell you this though, IMDb states Midnight in Paris is a romantic comedy – it’s anything but. If anything, it’s more of a mystery, which I loved and embraced.

As usual, I’ll keep this review spoiler free – although in this case it’s more difficult then you think. Already this may sound a little unlike your typical Allen film and it’s a whole hell of a lot more optimistic. Even the choice to use Wilson as the lead proclaims exactly what type of mood Allen was in when he wrote this flick. Don’t get me wrong though – you’ll still end up with enough typical Woody-isms to make the most modest Allen fans happy.

Upon knowing I was about to see this film, I invited two of my friends along. One was my friend Dave (with whom I ventured into Vicky Cristina with) and the other was his girlfriend Wendy (of the new blog A Girl Named Wendy). Dave didn’t dig this newest Allen instalment for a reason still unknown to me. To be fair, there were time restraints and lengthy discussions could not ensue to further validate his thoughts. From what I gathered though, Dave may have disliked the film for the same reason Wendy and I enjoyed Midnight in Paris. That reason is one based on the slight and purposeful cheesiness of the film. There are moments in the movie (including the ending) where things seem too convenient or perfect or obvious. I’ve always enjoyed subtlety as much as any film lover but here I felt it was neither here nor there. It didn’t affect the film and in some cases made it that much more charming – unrelatable as it may be for those of us like Dave, who are looking to identify with the characters a little more.

Midnight in Paris easily scores an open door. A major theme in this film is one based around nostalgia – more specifically the idea that a person can feel out of their element in the year they occupy and wish only for a time machine. I’m one of those people. I constantly wish for second chances or the opportunity to see myself shine in a different decade. This is another reason I enjoyed Midnight in Paris. It’s rare these days for me to leave a movie feeling as if I learnt something and here I truly did.

*Stills courtesy of Gravier Productions

Read more...