APOLLO 18 (2011)

I can't quite remember when I heard about Apollo 18. What I do remember is immediately being drawn to it simply because of the tag line - 'There's a reason we've never gone back to the moon'. Like most, I've often wondered why Apollo 17 was the last mission and, more poignantly, why we haven't been back since. So regardless of the fact that this was undoubtedly a fictional piece of work - I was intrigued by the premise, the story and the method of cinematography. Plus, being a fan of the Paranormal Activity films made me that much more interested.

Occasionally I would look to see when Apollo 18 would be released and honestly, I didn't even notice it was pushed back several times. My summer has been filled to the brim with films to anticipate, so this was just another one on the list. However, the fact it was pushed back to one of the least busy movie weekends of the year should have been a healthy indication that it wasn't testing well. Fool me once...

The basic idea behind the film (or found footage, I should say) is that the Apollo 18 crew were sent to the Moon on a secret mission by the Department of Defense. The goal was to set up some receivers and basic monitoring equipment for an unknown reason. After discovering a Russian lander a couple of clicks from their base, the two astronauts on the surface (and one in an orbiter up above) believe they've found the real reason they were sent. However, it turns out a Russian conspiracy wasn't the only mystery lying in wait - the other mystery is the premise for the film. I'm strictly against spoilers so let me say that the antagonist in Apollo 18 is so ridiculous that it seems to be the afterthought of a really bored 8 year-old. Unfortunately, this only sealed the fate with Apollo 18 for me. There were far more problems before anything decent even started happening.

I had bigger issues with the pacing of the film. I often found myself bored and it didn't take long for me to get tired of the shaky camera gag. Even then, when it did work, it was only when scarier moments happened - and they were too few and far in between. This is where you can tell the difference between Apollo 18 a film like Paranormal Activity. Apollo 18 did it's best to slowly build the suspense and create 'edge of your seat' moments, but it failed at even that. We can't forget this is a scary movie that people are expecting to see. When it's anything but, you're left wondering if maybe you should have seen Don't Be Afraid of the Dark instead. For the record, no. In fact, at this point I'm not sure anything lately has come close to as good a horror movie as I would like. Maybe Fright Night?

Apollo 18 sadly gets an closed door. Despite my love for outer space, the moon and horror films I can't really say you'd have the best of times at this one. Maybe it was the mood I was in, or maybe it was the fact I saw the film at 1PM vs 10PM. It really shouldn't matter anyway. For now I'll stick with zombies and ghosts to get my horror ya-yas out. What I will respect about Apollo 18 is that it did only have a budget of $5 million. Than again, Paranormal Activity was made for just $11,000. Ya, never mind. Shark Night 3D anyone?

*Stills courtesy of The Weinstein Company

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...

COWBOYS & ALIENS (2011)

I heard about Cowboys & Aliens via a friend after last year's Comic-Con. Then I slowly heard about it through the various media outlets. One of the coolest things I heard was that director Jon Favreau had refused to do it in 3-D. Finally, a director (a good director, too) had found his creative voice and stood up to the man. When I finally did see the trailer I was more or less intrigued. That was about six months ago. Somewhere between that point and now I lost the fond feelings I had for Cowboys & Aliens. I don't know what it was, but by the time I eventually saw the flick, I was more or less displeased by the lackluster story flashing before my eyes.

There's been a lot of talk about the mixing of two previously un-mixed genres - science fiction and western. Of course, fans of the Joss Whedon TV series Firefly will promptly (and justly) disagree. The mixing of those two genres was the basis for the 'space western' as Whedon called it. Only difference here is that it happens closer to home. What made me want to see it the most was the nice mystery element the trailers set up. It was less about 'Why are the aliens (or demons as they're called) here?' and more about 'Why does Daniel Craig have that cool little thingy attached to his wrist?'. Unfortunately, neither answer is as satisfying as you might like.

Aside from Daniel Craig's presence (Robert Downey Jr. was originally slated to be the lead), we also get appearences by Harrison Ford, Sam Rockwell and hottie Olivia Wilde (Tron Legacy). All of them do fine enough but I felt even their performances or roles were nothing to get excited about it. I felt very similarly when I was watching True Grit, a film this far too closely resembles. I kept on thinking 'So what?'. So what if this person dies, so what if that person gets hurt... and why the hell is that chick resurrecting out of the fire?! Yeah, that last one isn't True Grit, but whatever.

What I'm left wondering with Cowboys & Aliens is if the western genre is still alive and kicking? Is this a typical western movie? No, but western it still is. I always hope no genre is too dead to be brought back with a good movie, but the most recent good western I've seen is the animated Rango. At the very least it had the essence of the older western movies we all used to appreciate. Meanwhile, True Grit and Cowboys & Aliens exist for the wrong reasons in the wrong ways.

Cowboys & Aliens sadly gets a closed door. While I can appreciate the slight originality to it, I felt a lack of adventure and wonder. It's all very cool and ten years ago I would have loved this movie. Now though, it'll slip through the cracks and end up as a 'meh' movie when all is said and done. If you ask anybody about this film, you'll get a 'It's neat, but...' - and that's never a good response.

*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...

SUPER 8 (2011)

There's a movie that exists out there right now called Son of Rambow, as well as one called Be Kind Rewind. What do these movies have in common with writer and director J.J. Abrams' latest flick? All three are about something that's very close to heart for me - making movies. Does that make them all self-referential and arrogant? Surprisingly, no. It makes them films about something we all have in common - the love and nostalgia for our childhood innocence, beliefs and above all, imagination.

What Super 8 has been incredibly good at since the teaser debuted in Spring of 2010 has been keeping it's plot, it's themes and it's creature a secret. If this were a Michael Bay film trailer (which I thanked God every second it wasn't), you would have been privy to seeing the beast and the destruction it caused - thinking it was 90% of the film. Super 8 is not so much about the mysterious creature causing all the ruckus as it's about the imagination of the kids involved, the good of a child's heart and the intentions of a kid who just really, really wants to make a movie - an idea that's undoubtedly something Abrams is close to.

As I was leaving the cinema I heard a lot of people saying they were disappointed with this movie and didn't like it. I believe those same people by the way, probably left Transformers 2 proclaiming it was the best film they've ever seen. If you didn't like Super 8, I truly believe you were either in the wrong mind frame to see it or you just simply had a bad childhood. There's absolutely no reason to hate on this film, I wouldn't discount this being one of the better films of the summer. For those of you too focused on banging the chick you went to see this with, understand that this may be one of those movies you may have to see again to fully understand the symbolism contained within Super 8. It's not the black and white, easy to understand picture it appears to be, and I wouldn't have expected less from the man who created Lost.

Does all this mean that I think Super 8 is a perfect film? No. It has it's little problems here and there, mainly being that it drags in some places and seems to contain a few cliché moments. But, Star Trek had it's problems as well and we can't forget about producer Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds, can we? But, even with all Abrams has accomplished as a writer/director, I still feel he's newer to the scene and may need to do a little more leg work before we get a career-defining film out of him. While his movies are still a grade above a lot of the shit we see out in theatres today, I still feel that magical something missing from his work. That something may be another decade's worth of experience.

Regardless, Super 8 gets a wide open door. It has something a lot of movies lately lack - heart. While I wasn't around to see E.T. in theatres when it was released in 1982, I imagine a lot of people would have felt the same way leaving that film. Like E.T. though, I believe Super 8 will eventually gain momentum and the same kind of cult status. While it's more difficult in a generation where kids are spoiled and would rather shoot aliens than understand them, more films like Super 8 may be a solution. I will say though, I'm glad a movie called Super 8 was (thankfully) not in 3D.

*Stills courtesy of Amblin Entertainment

Read more...

X-MEN: FIRST CLASS (2011)

After seeing the first four X-Men films over the past decade, I think the biggest surprise for me when watching First Class was that it was actually quite good. While the other films were always 'just okay', thankfully this fifth installment proves that this series is finally learning from it's mistakes and First Class is the first X-Men I've seen that has very little wrong with it - this includes the casting choices and the performances by almost every actor present.

Charles Xavior (James McAvoy) and Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender) become friends while on the hunt for the same enemy, Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon). Shaw plays a man with the same goal Magneto will have in later movies - one bent on the idea of exterminating the human race. That is to say, all non-mutants of course. Amongst the two are several newly discovered mutants, including (but not limited to) Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), Beast (Nicholas Hoult) and Emma Frost (January Jones). We also get two relatively surprising but hilarious cameos from Rebecca Romijn and Wolverine himself, Hugh Jackman.

First Class not only steps up in special effects and style, but we end up with a wonderful mixture of humour, action and drama. Even more surprising, is that in his younger days Professor X was a bit of a player - all the while Magneto was nothing but drama, drama, drama. As a person who never read the comic books, I can't comment on whether or not First Class takes the cake for being faithful to the source material. But I'll say it certainly had a nice amount of references to the previous films and I can only hope that any future X-Men films follows the pattern of this installment. Mainly, that story isn't sacrificed for action and effects.

The other really neat thing about this film is that it's not in 3D! Now I don't have a hate on for 3D, in fact it can be downright enjoyable at times. If anything I'm a bigger fan of the super HD digital picture quality. What I realized with First Class though, is that it really doesn't make a lick of difference either way as far as entertainment goes. That's occurred to me before, but this one sealed the deal on the fact that I won't be seeing 3D nearly as much as I used too. Not only that, the lack of 3D in this case only further enforces why First Class is so well done.

X-Men: First Class gets an open door, and is definitely the best X-Men of the bunch. This is not only the best of the rest, but gains a spot for me up there with the best superhero movies of all time, including Spider-Man 2 and The Dark Knight. I hope that along with Wolverine coming out next year, First Class gets a sequel - which I'm sure it will. I'm certainly not done seeing McAvoy and Fassbender in these rolls, and look forward to seeing how the rest of the story and characters tie in as well.

*Stills courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox

Read more...

SOURCE CODE (2011)

Hot Train Time Machine? Definitely.

Every year around this time I seem to find movies I like to label as one of the great movies of the year. Last year I called Date Night one of the funniest and best movies of the year - turns out that prediction was a little premature. However, Source Code is definitely one of the best films I've seen in the past year and if not that, it's certainly one of the most entertaining films I've been to lately. Albeit, I am a big fan of movies centered around plot lines involving a form of time travel, but normally they let me down and I'm left feeling cheated. Will nothing ever live up to Back to the Future?!

So Source Code goes something like this: Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal, Prince of Persia) wakes up on a train headed for Chicago and meets Christina Warren (Michelle Monaghan) who insists she knows him. After some stumbling around and wrapping his mind around the confusing nature of the situation (and we're right there with him!), the train explodes and Stevens is jolted awake in an odd, metal capsule. There he learns from Colleen Goodwin (Vera Farmiga, Orphan, Up in the Air) that he has just awaken from the 'source code' - a sort of simulation that is far too complicated for the average man to understand, but is more or less a shadow of an event that's already passed (or at least the last eight minutes of one). If you've ever seen Deja Vu and are thinking that Source Code sounds similar, you're about right.

While Stevens doesn't fully understand his reason for being there, Goodwin tells him it's for the greater good and his reason for being there is trumped by Stevens' need to find out who the bomber is (or was, rather) along with the the explosive that's been planted. While hesitant at first, his love at first sight for Christina is motivation enough for Stevens to continue trying until he complete his task - over and over and over. If you've ever seen Groundhog Day and are thinking Source Code sounds similar, you're about right.

As you may expect, with director Duncan Jones' previous film being Moon, there's something with Source Code that must remain a secret as well - for telling ya'll would ruin the film and this is one movie you should be seeing anyway. I'll tell you though that without this twist, Source Code would've been magnificent anyways. Does it therefore make the twist pointless? No. It's more of a story 'enhancer' than the story itself. But it's certainly not as important as the twist uncovered by Sam Rockwell in Moon.

What I most appreciated about Source Code was its pacing. Mixed along with a twist here or there, some incredible action, a few heart felt moments and some comedy believe it or not - Source Code never has a dull moment. It easily snags an open door and I encourage you to walk through it (just not over and over, eight minutes at a time). The last time travel movie I felt decently strongly about was 2004's Primer (honorable mention goes to 2008's Timecrimes). Source Code for the record, is at least twice as good - but half as complex.

*Stills courtesy of Vendome Pictures

Read more...

LIMITLESS (2011)

I'll have what he's having.

The Hangover's funny man Bradley Cooper (also starring in The Hangover: Part 2 this summer) stars in Limitless as Eddie Morra, a man who proves that taking drugs can help you be a successful politician. So what's the magical pill itslelf? It's an experimental drug that only lasts for a half a day or so, but when it works - it really works. It works well enough as a 'brain enhancer' that people would kill for it. In fact, some do. What the concept of a film like Limitless proves is that the pen is truly mightier than the sword - except in this case the pen doesn't quite replace the sword as much as it teaches you how to wield it in a really kick ass kinda way.

Limitless starts off being narrated by Morra, pointing out he is a writer, a loser and a lousy boyfriend. Morra no sooner loses his girlfriend than he finds himself in trouble because the book he's optioned has no single word to it's name and is due in the worst way. However, once he gets hold of the miracle drug to end all miracle drugs (100% of your brain is apparently used vs. the usual 20%) he gets a haircut, does a sit-up or two and writes his entire book in just four days. Morra then proceeds to get his girlfriend Lindy back (played by the unremarkable Abbie Cornish) and before he knows it he's on top of the world. Unexpectedly, however, he starts forgetting entire sections of his day, can't sleep right and is soon reliant on the drug that originally saved him. Not only that, but Morra has a few bad seeds after him and comes to realize that getting smart may not have been the smartest thing to do after all.

Now, aside from the few nausea-inducing transitions and opening title sequences Limitless threw at us that had me looking away a few times, I actually really liked the way the movie played out and the talent Cooper showcased by taking this role. The whole thing made me want to read a book, enhance my intelligence and play the stock markets. In theory, if you're smart enough, you can rule the world. It's all about predictable human psychology and behaviour - if a person knows people and how they act and maybe has a few start-up dollars, then there's no reason you can't become more powerful then you've ever imagined. To quote Morra 'I was blind but now I see". As you may expect, Limitless also shells out a healthy dose of action that keeps you on your toes more often than not. It's all really fascinating to be honest and it's almost impossible to not have a good time during this flick.

Limitless snags an open door. You may find yourself often thinking of Matthew McConaughey in Two for the Money (2005) as McConaughey also had the same kind of look Cooper sports here, with slicked back hair and a hunger for fortune and success. But, while Two for the Money didn't have Robert De Niro (who plays Carl Van Loon in Limitless), it did have Al Pacino in the role of the old man who knows all - but despite De Niro's star power - Cooper steals the show and you're left thinking "Robert De Whosit? Which is a good thing in Hollywood. Robert Downey Jr. did it, Jim Carrey tried to do it and Robin Williams - well, yeah... Either way, I look forward to seeing Cooper in Hangover 2 and I may just see him in just about anything else as well. You have a new fan, Mr. Cooper.

*Stills courtesy of Alliance Films

Read more...

BATTLE: LOS ANGELES (2011)

I'm goin' to LA! Maybe not...

It's been said that in 2013 we'll be getting a sequel to 1996's awesome-tastic Independence Day. Until then, we're going to have to sit through movies like last year's dreadful Skyline, the anxiously awaited Paul (in theatres next weekend), and of course - Battle: LA. That stated, is Battle: LA really on par with the great alien-invasion movies of all time? Unfortunately (but not unexpectedly), no. While Battle: LA tries it's hardest to meet all the criteria of a good invasion flick, it falls short on a couple notes, and relies on a few too many clichés.

SSgt. Michael Nantz (played by the always decent Aaron Eckhart) is about to retire from the US Marine Corps as he feels like he's getting too old - which can be deduced from the fact that he runs like a little girl, apparently. But wouldn't you know it - he's called away from his retirement plans as LA gets hit with the a bad case of the ET-Invadies. What do these aliens want? One scientist assumes it must be our liquid water as the earth is covered with so much of it - a welcome change from the aquaphobic entities that attacked in Signs (2002).

In an effort to clear out the large area of Santa Monica in which the aliens are invading (not the first time in United States history, I've heard), the US decides to go and Hiroshima the place to eliminate the enemy threat. Before that can happen, though, they send in Nantz and his men to search for any remaining survivors in the area and get them back to FOB (Forward Operating Base). The clincher: they only have three hours to do it before they and any remaining survivors are vaporized. The big questions fill out the remainder of the plot: Do they make it? What do the aliens really want? Can mankind stop a technologically advanced species? What are the ramifications of such an interaction? Why the hell aren't people more in awe of the fact they aren't alone in the universe? Unfortunately, a lot of those questions aren't answered. As for the ones that are - you kinda don't really care by the end.

When it comes to alien movies (especially those that try and be realistic), I've always preferred the kind that try and involve some form of politics and a deeper lesson aside from the one that states "Let's kick some alien ass!". Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) did it, as did Contact (1997), Mission to Mars (2000) and District 9 (2009). With Battle: LA, you get less 'wonder' and more 'Who cares? What about the American peoples' right to fight?!'. I mean, it's good to be patriotic and all, but you know you've gone too far when it starts to feel like you're watching a recruitment video for the US Marine Corps.

Battle: Los Angeles gets a closed door. While the action is promising and the effects are extremely well done, the plot is grossly underdeveloped and director Johnathan Liebesman relies far too much on cheesy emotional cues to get us through the dragging story. It doesn't take more than the first half hour to know whats going on, and I feel the film is trying to be more about the journey of the human spirit than the destination. In the case of Battle: LA, the only destination I began to care about was one involving the end credits.

*Stills courtesy of Columbia Pictures

Read more...

THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU (2011)

Time to adjust some bureaus...

What is the Adjustment Bureau? Well, if I told you I would have to kill you. Then again, if I don't tell you something, this wouldn't be much of a review, would it? But... I don't want to give away too much or else it's going to warrant a spoiler warning and that's not really my style. Alright, well here's what I'm going to say. I appreciate you coming here (as I'm sure you and all your friends do daily), but this is one movie I'm going to tell you to see first before reading my (or anybody else's) review. If you've seen the movie or don't really care to see the movie then read ahead. Like I said, there won't be any spoilers, per say, but when it comes to a movie like The Adjustment Bureau, it's hard to determine what people really consider a spoiler these days. Moving on...

Matt Damon stars as savvy politician David Norris in his second kinda-weird movie recently - if you include last year's Hereafter, that is. Norris is up for the Senator of New York and he's most likely going to lose. While he's preparing his closing speech, he runs into Elise Sellas played by Emily Blunt. She inspires him to give the speech of his life and then takes off never to be seen again - at least that's the way the Adjustment Bureau would like it. It isn't longer than a month later when Norris gets on a bus and as fate would have it, (keyword: fate) he runs into Elise once more - only to be confronted by the Adjustment Bureau - not moments after he secures Elise's name and number. So, who are the strange men in fedoras? They are those that control your destiny. What purpose they serve and who they work for is the secret you'll wait the full 105 minutes to uncover. Either way, Norris wants to be with Elise (badly) and they wont let him - so the game is on.

I think the most prominent thing about The Adjustment Bureau is that it's a good, solid movie. Is it a movie that will change your life - as another review I read would tend to suggest? No. While I think some may find their lives changed slightly once the credits roll, it'll be dependant on where you are in your life at the time - as is the case with the majority of films. For most though, it may fall a bit short. I, personally, left the theatre no more inspired than when I had walked in. Bureau doesn't really introduce any idea we haven't seen before, though - nor does it bring about a new way to look at said idea. It's a retread at most of something that was perhaps more revolutionary back in 1954, when the original short story was written by Philip K. Dick. Dick, by the way, was also responsible for the short stories for which movies like Blade Runner and Minority Report were based off of.

The Adjustment Bureau gets an open door. The pace of the film is good, the action well done and the acting top notch - we get a nice balance of romance as well. While I enjoyed it, I doubt the film will pick up any pace nor do I think it will be remembered years from now as a classic - that happens sometimes to good movies. But in this day and age, with new franchises and movies being thrown at us every month and in 3D, perhaps just being remembered as a good movie (period) isn't the worst fate, after all.

*Stills courtesy of Universal Pictures

Read more...

TRON LEGACY (2010)

So...you come here often?

Tron came out in 1982 to mixed reviews. I saw it for the first time earlier this year and while I can appreciate it for what it meant to audiences when it was released, frankly I found it a little dull. The storyline proposed an interesting way to view how computers worked from a first person point of view, but the look of the film (colors, not graphics) was uninteresting to look at.

Twenty-eight years later, we find ourselves in the midst of a sequel to draw in a new generation of Tron fans, and of course it comes to us in 3D. Tron Legacy starts off seven years after the end of Tron. Kevin Flynn (the Dude himself, Jeff Bridges) now has a son, Sam (of whom the older version is played by the relatively unknown Garrett Hedlund). Kevin has also taken his experiences from the first film and turned them into a video game called, unsurprisingly, Tron. However, one night Kevin disappears forever, leaving his legacy to his son, Sam.

Fast forward to 2010 and Sam has the usual 'grew up without parents' complex that wealthy troublemakers like Bruce Wayne also seem to have. Although he could take over the company his father acquired after the first film (Encom), he decides to instead frivolously break into Encom on a regular basis and leak the company's software for free - as his father originally intended.

That sums up Sam's life until one day his lawyer and second father, Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner) tells Sam he received a page from Kevin's old arcade (aptly titled 'Flynn's'), which has been closed for the last twenty years. Sam heads there to investigate the strange occurrence and finds a secret basement room containing the portal into the virtual world we became aware of in the first movie.

As with his father, Sam is immediately put into a gladiatorial game as soon as he enters the system. Now that technology has advanced, so has the look of this virtual reality. As Sam identifies himself as a a user and not a program (more specifically as Kevin Flynn's son) an old friend named Clu (an exact digital replica of Kevin) takes sinister interest in Sam and it soon becomes clear what Clu's motive is. Clu wants to use Sam to get to an aging Kevin, who has since been trapped in this world for the last twenty years. More specifically, Clu wants to obtain Kevin's information disk and use it as a way to get out of the virtual world and into the real one, where he plans to continue his journey of creating and maintaining Hitler-esque perfection. With that threat against them, it's up to Kevin and his estranged son Sam, along with Kevin's mysterious protege, Quorra (Olivia Wilde) to not only stop Clu from getting to the outside world, but get themselves home.

Speaking of Clu, I was relatively impressed by the CG they used to animate both the younger version of Kevin Flynn as well as Clu. Although there is something uncanny about the way they move and they both indeed look like characters from The Polar Express (2004), it's a neat way to bring back a younger Jeff Bridges from the pre-Lebowski era and an effective story-telling technique. There are some people that are bashing this, but considering Clu exists in a computer generated world for the most part, it's not something I had a problem with.

On a pure aesthetic level, Legacy looks fantastic and is certainly easier to get into than its predecessor. I give it some credit for the idea to make the virtual reality world 3D and not the real world that sandwiches the middle of the film. Although the 3D isn't come-at-you amazing with Legacy, I believe this decision was still effective, at the very least.

The biggest problem Legacy does have is not anything that makes me hate the film per say, it's more or less just an improvement that needed to be made. Although some will gauge this problem as perhaps bigger or smaller than I am making it out to be, it is a problem nonetheless. What you will find as you exit the theatre after the credits begin to roll, is that although you have been pleasantly entertained for the last two hours, you weren't blown away - at least not as much as a fan of the first film (or even a newcomer) should be. The action was fine, the storyline okay but ultimately (and oddly) forgettable. I don't really know if it was because we've seen films with a similar storyline before (ie: Inception, The Matrix, I, Robot) or if the darker look and lighting of the film put your mind more asleep than doing what it should have, which was creating an effective atmosphere.

I would have ultimately enjoyed the film a bit more should they have explored the other possibilities this virtual reality had. There is moment in the film where Kevin gives Quorra (a virtual reality-born individual) a new arm by locating the broken code on her disk and fixing it, thus having her new limb grow right before their eyes. I couldn't help but think of a similar thing being done for people with cancer, who are handicapped or blind, and having their problems being solved as simply as a computer virus can be. Although this may not be viable in this storyline, it was something I felt should have at least been discussed. Meh, perhaps the sequel.

I also wondered why even simpler things aren't questioned - like why or how food exist in this world and why Kevin needs it, or more poignantly - why he even ages in the first place. These are things Sam didn't ask, and seeing as he was representational of the audience's point of view - it would have been nice.

Tron Legacy ultimately gets an open door. Although there are movies I've liked on a higher level in recent months, this one still has it's moments and is worth a trip to the theatre. Don't go in expecting too much and you'll have a good time. Also, let it be known there are some things left unanswered at the end of the film. It doesn't make or break the movie for me and I don't know if they're saving it for a follow-up, but it is something to be aware of as it may be a bother to some.

*Stills courtesy of Walt Disney Pictures

Read more...

SKYLINE (2010)

Has anybody ever told you that your eyes light up a room?

The thing that got me excited to see Skyline was the relatively original imagery I'd seen in the trailer. It had a distinct and original look to it. More specifically the image of thousands of people flying through the air, being sucked up into a giant alien spacecraft seemed wholly entertaining. Now, that's what got me to see the movie, it's not what made me dislike it.

Skyline focuses on a group of people in Los Angeles who wake up early one morning to discover that aliens have invaded their fair city - and yes, I'm aware I could insert an immigrant joke here, but I won't because I have tact, even if Skyline doesn't. Glowing blue lights that shoot out from the ships have the hypnotic power of drawing people towards the light, making them oblivious to the fact they're about to get Hoovered. Thousands fall victim to this ploy, minus a few who realize what's going on and look the other way.

If there's one thing to be said about Skyline's alien species, it's that they're quick and efficient. If you succeed in hiding from them the first time around, another one will be back later on to find you. Whether or not it's the giant kind that stands five stories tall or the smaller ones that fly, it seems you're doomed. Of the few that realize something is going on as events unfold, is a small group of friends (which includes The Texas Chainsaw Massacre's (2003) Eric Balfour) who are stuck on the top floor of an LA high rise apartment building. That apartment building, by the way, is the biggest problem Skyline has. Well, one of the biggest problems.

Now, I don't hate the idea that an entire movie may take place in an apartment building. Quarantine (2008) did well with a similar premise, and I really liked it. What I don't like with Skyline (aside from the shotty acting and poorly written scenes) is the fact that this movie spends far too much time sitting around trying to avoid spending it's $10 million budget in five minutes. To do that, it gives us lame arguments between Balfour's character, Jared, and his girl, Elaine (Scottie Thompson). We also get another weak back story for Jared - this time with his best friend Terry (Scrubs' Donald Faison). In fact, the only redeeming quality about Skyline is the last five minutes. It's the only part of the film I actually enjoyed as it introduced an intriguing and relatively original idea. I won't say how it ends here as even though the movie was bad, I hate spoilers.

I'm giving Skyline a closed door. If it's lucky enough to get a sequel (which I highly doubt) then maybe check it out. Even on DVD though this won't be a very good watch. The first hour and half should have been five minutes long and the last five minutes should have been an hour and a half long. While I'll recognize the fact that the special effects are actually pretty good, a movie comprised of a few cool shots that doesn't have a good story to back it up - is still a bad movie.

*Stills courtesy of Black Monday Film Services

Read more...

RESIDENT EVIL: AFTERLIFE 3D (2010)

Zombies aren't the only ones losing their lustre here.

Oh-oh. Looks like those pesky, virus infected un-dead are at it again – and I imagine by this point Alice (Milla Jovovich) is gettin’ mighty pissed off at and tired of saving everybody from the ironically named (and somehow still funded) Umbrella Corp. and their army of ‘almost but not quite’ un-dead zombies.

We catch up with Alice during a raid on Umbrella Corp. where her and her incapable clones start tearing up the place all in the name of retribution - at least I think that's why she's there. Doesn’t really matter anyways as the first ten minutes of Afterlife is there for two reasons: to preview all the cool 3D effects director Paul W.S, Anderson is going to be throwing at you for the next eighty minutes, and to set up the new bad guy - Umbrella's man in charge, Albert Wesker (Shawn Roberts). As the Alice clones attack the company and foreshadow certain destruction, Wesker safely escapes via aircraft. Alas, he is not alone. That's when the real Alice stands up and (compliments of Wesker) takes a syringe in the neck that makes her human again. At this point Wesker decides its a good idea to temporarily leave the control panel and walk over to Alice to give his bad guy speech. But dammit, wouldn't you know it, he forgot to stay and steer the plane (no, seriously) and that results in an obvious crash.

Unsurprisingly (or surprisingly, rather), Alice survives and heads to Alaska to meet up with her friends from the end of the last film, who were on a pilgrimage to find an unharmed and uninfected safe spot known only as Arcadia. On her way there we hear Alice's thoughts via video diary for some reason, which never really pans out. On that note, I sure as hell hope they're not planning on using that as a device for an upcoming sequel, akin to Quarantine (2008), Diary of the Dead (2007) or more recently, The Last Exorcism (2010).

Turns out something mysterious happened in Alaska and the only one left standing is Claire (Ali Larter, reprising her role from Resident Evil: Extinction [2007]). The problem is Claire has amnesia and can't remember and damn thing, including who Alice is. So, with no other searching to do (guess Alaska's not that big), Alice takes Claire back onto the plane and for whatever reason they head to Beverly (Hills, that is).

Flying above the over infested, filthy wreck that used to be LA (doesn't seem too different to me :-P), they spot a group of survivors hanging out on the roof of a prison. Alice does the damn near impossible and lands the plane on the roof, only to find the survivors disappointed she's not a rescue plane from the Arcadia (which is revealed to be a giant ship just off the coast). The group's goal is to now get to the Arcadia and seek refuge to end the horror that is their life.

Now, I should state for the sake of this review I haven't had any real problems with the first three movies in this series. Resident Evil (2002) was a decent action movie with a great set up that didn't pay off amazingly well in the end. It's sequel, Apocalypse (2004), I felt was a retread of the first film so I didn't really like it - but I didn't hate it either. I did however, really enjoy Extinction (2007). I liked the new setting, I liked the characters and I even thought some of the action was pretty cool and original.

However, Afterlife, was like a mix of all the best parts of the first three films with a page torn from the "How to Make a Movie Like The Matrix" book. Everything from the villain, Wesker, to the slow motion bullets to the bullet time action caused my eyes to actually hurt from rolling them so much. I know the other movies (especially the first) used Matrix style action as well, but this film over does it. To top it all off there's a scene later on that 100% rips off a scene in The Island (2005) that took me to the point where I knew there wasn't one original piece of cinema in this entire film. You'll know which scene I'm talking about when and if you see this movie.

This is all outside the ridiculous dialogue that spews from some of the characters mouths during the movie, as well as the laughably cliche 'wouldn't be seen in a horror movie anymore' death scenes. The only thing missing (and I'm not even sure it was) was the post-death one liner.

Now, I know I'm ripping on this film a little harshly, and you're thinking "Charlie, is there nothing about this movie that is redeemable?". Well, yeah, there's something to like here. The 3D in Afterlife works really well, actually. Besides animated films like Up (2009) and Piranha 3D (2010), I generally don't care if there's 3D present in a film or not. Here they played to 3D nicely and there were some pretty wicked shots (think of the sunglasses flying through the air from the trailer) that at least showed they put a bit of effort into shooting the film knowing it would be seen in such a way. I'm hoping the same will be true for Saw 3D (October, 2010) - basically a movie that (I hope) knows 3D is for different dimensions and not just enhancements.

I am giving Resident Evil: Afterlife a closed door for obvious reasons. If you can stand mindless action and a wholly unoriginal story line, the 3D might be worth it. It's no doubt there will be a sequel for Afterlife. If the series continues on this same trend I don't think RE 5 will be any better. Because I like the idea of these movies enough and a sequel is inevitable anyways, I vote that this series get a reboot akin to Batman and more recently Spider-Man. Keep Milla, despite her limited range as an actress I like her enough to want to see her still play Alice. Everything else needs a good old fashioned Spring (er, Fall) cleaning .

By the way, I hate the idea that the Umbrella Corp. is still a functional company. The fact that even in the face of human extinction it still acts as though it has shareholders to make a good face for is awfully unrealistic, as is the ability to (somehow) keep on finding employees to … well, employ. At what point do you say “Alright guys, well, I think we messed up and things have gotten just bad enough. Maybe we end this whole thing because it’s definitely a tired gag we’re doing here.” Yeah, definitely tired...

*Stills courtesy of Constantin Film Produktion

*This review has also appeared on Ain't It Cool News! Check it out HERE!

Read more...

INCEPTION (2010)

Let’s hope they don’t make a sequel...

Christopher Nolan has made some of the best movies in the past ten years. I first noticed him with Memento (2000), and more recently he made the more than awesome The Dark Knight (2008). In that ten years he’s made five other movies, and somehow found the time to slowly chip away at a masterpiece about the invasion of dreams and the inner workings of the human psyche.

When I first saw the trailer for Inception I wasn’t sure what to think. It had some interesting visuals, to say the least, but you were left feeling both intrigued and … whatever. I knew I wanted to see it but I also wanted more details first. Even when I did finally go to the theatre to see the film I really had no idea what to expect.

In a nutshell (and I promise I’m not ruining anything) Inception is about a man named Dom Cobb (Leo DiCaprio) who is the best at one thing – stealing secret information from the mind of someone who is sleeping. He enters your dreams and gets information you would never be willing to discuss with yourself, all without you knowing. He does this with the help of his associate Arthur (the always amazing Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and his dream-designing architect Ariadne (Ellen Page). After being hired by Saito (Ken Watanabe) the team goes after a rich playboy named Robert Fischer (Cilian Murphy). They don’t just want to get information though, their job is to put an idea in Fischer’s mind and make it think it’s his idea. This technique is called ‘inception’, and is rumoured to be impossible. That’s all I’m going to say about the plot, because that’s all you need to know.

What I found most amazing about Inception is the fact that no matter how hard I think – it seems to be a relatively flawless movie. After ten years of writing I would hope Nolan would have fixed any bugs or donut holes in what is seemingly his defining film. But the fact I find Inception flawless is only the tip of the iceberg of why this is a great film.

Some people will run out and tell you this movie is as confusing as Donnie Darko and way too long. Personally, I had no problems following the storyline and keeping up, nor did I mind the length. In films like this, as I usually do, I was constantly thinking of theories to explain things, doing math in my head and continually trying to skip ahead and predict any possible surprises and twist endings that might show up. I was doing all that and still kept pace with Mr. Nolan’s creation so it’s beyond me why people leave Inception not knowing what the hell happened – aside from the ending, which I will get to right away.

One of the top Googled searches this past week was “Inception theories”. Now, I know what you’re thinking. The answer is NO, I am not going to theorize about what exactly happened in this movie. I, like most people, take the story at face value and don’t believe Nolan has created something that requires hours of online searching to know exactly what happened (I’m looking at you Mulholland Dr.). Until he comes out and says “this is what happened”, I will stick by my own beliefs as most people who enjoy any movie should.

As for the performances, I think Inception was really well cast, and there may be a couple of Oscar nominations here. Leondardo DiCaprio will definitely be a front runner for Best Actor this year, if not for this film, than for Shutter Island (or maybe both?). Joseph Gordon-Levitt is quickly becoming one of my new favourite actors. He’s a likeable guy, does really well in this film and has a certain old school Hollywood feeling to him. If you haven’t seen 500 Days of Summer, please do. It’s really well done.

Now for the most talked about ending since The Sixth Sense. I don’t want to spoil anything for those of you that haven’t seen it, so I can’t go into too much detail. As aforementioned, I take the movie at face value which means I take the ending for what it is. Now, I’m talking about the ending scene, not the last shot. The last shot could mean something, or it means nothing (you’ll know what I’m talking about when you see it). I heard one guy in the theatre when we were leaving say “Why did they have to ruin the movie by doing that?”; another said “So what the hell happened then?”. I laughed at the ending as I would with someone who just made an extremely clever joke – because the ending is nothing more than Nolan winking at the audience and telling us you either get what the movie is about or you don’t. If you don’t, you’ll hate the ending and want to punch something. If you do, you will laugh like I did because you know exactly what Nolan is doing.

In the end, I obviously give Inception a wide open door and believe it will be a long time before I see anything that I ultimately loved as much as this movie. It’s like reading a great book and finishing and you’re left saying “Now what?”. This is without a doubt the best movie of the year, and maybe the best movie you're likely to see in a while.

*Stills courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures

Read more...

SPLICE (2009)

Splice is not the film I thought it would be, or could be…

.

I think the most interesting thing about Splice is just how great it sounded before going in – and I wasn’t listening to people’s opinions from work, or friends or nuttin’. I’m talking about the hardcore, movie critiquing professionals out there that litter the web these days. To put that into further perspective, Splice has a rating of 74% on Rotten Tomatoes. Now I must make clear, I NEVER read a review for a movie until I see it. It’s the number one thing to avoid as a film critic because believe it or not, your view can and most likely would be swayed in one way or another. Somehow though, word of mouth got around and the general vibe I was feeling said that Splice was refreshing. I think the people that gave this type of vibe to this movie were looking for something deeper in Splice than was actually there.

Perhaps it was actress Sarah Polley that gave a credible aura to Splice. Maybe it was Oscar winning actor Adrien Brody that made people say “These two wouldn’t be involved in this project if this movie didn’t mean something”. But realistically, I’m not going to know until I complete this review and finish putting my own thoughts out there.

Simply put, Splice is either the smartest horror movie ever made, or it’s the worst. The first half of the movie plays out like an original, thought-provoking thriller influenced by Pan’s Labyrinth - while the last half plays out like the director of Snakes on a Plane walked in and said “I make the best worst movies ever, and I know exactly what your movie’s missing!”.

I have no doubt upon writing this monstrosity (no pun intended – no, seriously) that writer and director Vincenzo Natali had his idea, was on the right track and then his drunk-ass buddy walked in and said “Dude, you know what would be sick? Have Adrien Brody and the monster do it! That would be awesome!” To which Natali replied “Well, that is psychological and plays into Freud. Since the rest of the movie plays with morals, why not take it further?” Too far dude, too – damn - far.

This however comes into play when I say Splice may actually be a brilliant movie. The people I went to the movie with left saying things along the lines of “I will never forget what I just saw in there.” or “I’ve never seen anything so disturbing in my life.” I can imagine people saying the same things after leaving the first screening for Salvador Dali’s Un Chien Andalou. But does the fact a piece of art (yes, movies are still art) can have that affect on someone mean it’s good art? That’s just something to think about.

Regardless of whether Natali was trying to accomplish anything more than shock is to be debated. Splice however will undoubtedly become a cult classic for a lot of horror lovers because its juts plain creepy. But for this self-proclaimed horror lover, I am giving it a closed door. It must be noted that although I have talked the now infamous sex scene to death, I am not giving it a closed door simply because of that scene. What bothered me about Splice was the fact that the tone of the film changed in the theatre the second that scene happened. I also want to point out there are bad movies out there like The Squeakquel that are bad simply because they are bad. This movie fails because it’s disappointing and turns a good movie with big promise bad for no apparent reason. Splice went from respect for a smaller movie with some revered actors in it to a non-stop LOL fest simply because it got kind of ridiculous. For me, that’s unforgivable.

*Stills courtesy of Gaumont

Read more...

PRINCE OF PERSIA: THE SANDS OF TIME (2010)

Someone please use the sands of time to get this thing un-made…

I’ll say it straight up - I’ve never played the video game this movie is based off of. In this case it probably doesn’t matter though. First of all, I am a firm believer that a movie should stand alone from the material it is based off of. Exempli gratia, a Harry Potter movie should not be enhanced any further because I’ve read the books, outside of a few Easter eggs here and there for the die-hards. I wonder though, if Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time would have been a better movie for me if I had played the game? From what I’ve heard – the game is quite enjoyable (if not a bit easy).

Movies based on video games have always had a curse looming above their heads almost as if the video game gypsies made the decision long ago that no movie would be more than moderately successful when based on a video game. I site Bloodrayne, Super Mario Brothers and Doom all as evidence. Speaking of Super Mario Brothers, will someone get Tim Burton on an adaptation already? Clearly he won’t be doing any original work in the near future with remakes of Frankenweenie and The Addams Family on his plate. His style of directing and love of the weird could definitely make a Mario movie work. But I digress…

Jake Gyllenhaal (who I’m confident has about as much acting range as Ben Affleck) does his best to lose the gay cowboy typecast he set up in Brokeback Mountain by taking on an Indiana Jones-esque role as Dastan. Dastan is the charming, side-smirking adopted Prince of Persia who finds a magical dagger that lets him turn back time for about a minute. However, the knifey-knife needs to be refilled with the sands of time after it’s used every two or three times making it about as fuel efficient as a Hummer towing the Statue of Liberty - making the movie relatively lame. Ben Kingsley plays the bad guy Nizam once again proving we need a Ghandi sequel or he needs to fire his agent (see Sound of Thunder for further proof). Even Alfred Molina as ostrich racer Sheik Amar is completely awful and his performance the best out of all of them.

The fact of the matter is that Prince of Persia’s action sequences (which is all we’re really looking for) are unoriginal and a retread of a lot of other action movies we’ve all seen before. This includes slow motion Matrix-flips and death-defying acts that are about as realistic as the bus in Speed jumping that 50 foot gap. And yes, I do have the ability to hold off some harsh criticism when it comes to special effects in a supposed eye-candy movie about a magical time-warping dagger, but when nothing else holds its ground (the dialogue, the acting, the plot) then really it drags everything else down with it.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time gets a closed door. It may not be the worst movie of the year, but it’s awfulness is further multiplied due to the large budget and existing fan base that should have put a bit more pressure on writers and studio execs. The only plus here is that Disney showed some restraint when not releasing this in 3-D. Summer 2010, meet your version of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

*Stills courtesy of Walt Disney Pictures

Read more...