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...

SHREK FOREVER AFTER (2010)

Shrek Forever better than Shrek the Turd.

It’s a usual tale we’ve heard a million times and seen in a hundred movies and TV shows. The main character wakes up to their “awful” life where they don’t realize how good they have it – so they ask a magical fairy (or a magical fairy man) to make it all better and give them the life they crave. It’s your typical “what if…?” proposal that creates a story full of lessons learnt. I will admit, however, I wasn’t crazy about seeing this typical plot being brought to the likes of Shrek Forever After.

Don’t get me wrong. I wasn’t worried about the idea that this instalment would be the worst thing to happen to the series. Shrek was magical, Shrek 2 was hilarious (and perhaps my favourite) and Shrek 3 was a typical, disappointing and awful sequel and comparable to the likes of Spider-Man 3. So the Shrek series had already let me down so I didn’t expect much from Forever After, especially when I heard the premise behind it.

The movie starts when we find out Shrek (Mike Myers) has actually hated his life since getting married and having kids. No one fears him anymore (turns out he was happier during those times), everyday is the same and he has become somewhat famous since becoming and unbecoming the King of Far Far Away. It’s the same routine for him every day and frankly he misses the golden era of life he was leading when we first met him in Shrek.

After becoming easily frustrated at his triplets’ first birthday party, he leaves the party and goes for a stroll. By the way, the funniest and most catchy line of the movie goes to the fat kid at the birthday party who keeps telling Shrek to “do the roar” (and it’s not that line either-but he’ll say it and you’ll laugh). So along the walk Shrek runs into Rumpelstiltskin (Walt Dohrn) who says he will let Shrek be like he used to be for one day before he met Fiona (Cameron Diaz), and all ol’ Stiltsy wants in return is one day from Shrek’s childhood. Subsequently, he picks the day Shrek was born and Shrek wakes up in the plot of Back to the Future 2.

In this life Fiona doesn’t know him, Donkey (Eddie Murphy) is afraid of him and Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas) is a fat, fat mess. It’s up to Shrek to gain Fiona’s kiss by the end of the day to break the spell and put Rumpel in his place.

Shrek Forever After may not be as funny or refreshing as Shrek 2, but it still delivers on the laughs in a lot of unexpected places. There wasn’t much wrong with this film, just stuff I would have like to have seen. In the alternate universe he visits, Shrek theoretically never existed (paradox much?) - therefore his actions done in the first film are null. I would have found it clever and endearing if perhaps during his adventures in Oz he ran into the first film’s villain, Lord Farquaad. Even a small cameo would have reminded us a bit more of where this film series came from and created a more nostalgic feel for what is supposedly the end of the series. Plus John Lithgow’s height-challenged character was one of the more entertaining characters in Shrek. But his absence is about the only complaint I have.

There’s nothing to really hate in Forever After, and that doesn’t make it the worst movie of the year by any means. But what it does have doesn’t make it an amazing movie either. For me, Forever After was simply fun and something I was able to get into relatively easily. I had a great time watching it, and it further adds to my belief that animated films can actually benefit from 3-D. The door is open for this 4th and final instalment of this lovable green ogre’s quadrilogy, and I recommend it to anyone wanting a little harmless fun added to the beginning of what is sure to be a great summer for movies.

*Stills courtesy of Dreamworks Animation

Read more...

IRON MAN 2 (2010)

Robert Downey Jr. and a VERY welcome Don Cheadle pump some iron and entertainment into the very anticipated Iron Man 2.

After revealing his identity to the world at the end of the last film, Tony Stark is being hounded government officials to give up the suit. Stark is also being stalked by a Russian played by Mickey Rourke who’s father was dissed by Stark’s father and is out for blood. Gewnyth Paltrow is back to play the new CEO of Stark Enetrpirses, leaving an opening for sexy and suave assistant Scarlet Johanson to take her place. Sam Rockwell also pops up here as weapons dealer Justin Hammer. And of course we get a semi-pointless appearance or two by Sam Jackson as Avenegers director Nick Fury.

Eventually, Tony’s arc reactor design (which powers the Iron Man suit) is leaked, and the government obviously takes things to the wrong level by trying to make it a weapon, as opposed to a method of keeping the peace like Stark built it for. It is at this point that everything goes to hell and Iron Man must come to the rescue and save the day.

Iron Man 2 is not better or worse than the first. A lot of the joy from the first one came in seeing a character arc with Tony as he goes from potential bad guy to overzealous good guy. He also plays with building the suit, trying it out and getting some nice revenge. The film is capped off with Nick Fury briefly entering the picture and inviting Tony to join the Avengers Initiative. Iron Man was a fun, amazing action film. The reason I bring this up is because with the second movie (although we want more of the same) we don’t get much development.

Here’s what we get for plot development. For the record I don’t consider any of this a spoiler, as it's all available in the trailer:

Stark’s friend Rhodey becomes War Machine, something that was hinted at in the first film. Why Tony had arc reactors in all his previous suits ready to go, I don’t know. Don Cheadle by the way, is a welcome replacement for the prudley Terrance Howard who apparently had problems really emoting. Pepper Pots and Tony Stark’s relationship grows more romantic, starting with him making her CEO of his company. Sam Rockwell is introduced as Justin Hammer, a potential return villain for sequels to come.

The stuff that is here for filler and goes nowhere is the following:

Tony’s health is decreasing due to the arc reactor in his chest, and he needs to fix it. I won’t say if he does or not, but in the end you’re kind of like, so what? Nick Fury asks Tony again to become part of the Avengers, as he declined in between the last film and this one. By the end, Tony still seems unsure, but there is promise. And no, I don’t believe it’s a spoiler, because there is no development there, at least not really.

Iron Man 2 (as a movie where maybe nothing is promised) is a fun movie, and certainly worth seeing. You really want geeked out developments here, and besides the stuff I mentioned, we get a few hints here and there for the upcoming Avengers movie, which is wonderfully entertaining. Stay until after the credits by the way, there’s a nice little teaser there. Downey, Rourke and Rockwell all have outstanding performances here, and are incredibly entertaining. Rourke especially, is more entertaining than you may expect. Some of the best moments of the film come from Downey doing his thing, especially when he’s slightly depressed just prior to the climax.

Iron Man 2 seems less of a sequel that is better than the first, and more of a filler and necessity that is building up to both Iron Man 3 and the Avengers, both due out in 2012. It does not however, disappoint as far as entertainment is concerned. It moves at a nice pace, the effects are flawless and there is more than just a few laughs, even if some of them are a little cliché and expected.

Iron Man 2 gets an open door, and is a welcome start to the summer blockbuster season.

*Stills courtesy of Paramount Pictures

Read more...

THE LOSERS (2010)

A-Team who...?

The Losers is a movie about people who are not actually losers (well maybe a bit, but not in the traditional sense). No, they are a group of ex-military folk who literally lose the battle they playing between the good (them) and the evil (a guy named Max [Jason Patric]).

The not-yet losers are sent to destroy a village of bad guys of some sort, when they realize these guys have a group of twenty or so kids as hostages. This noble group of soldiers consists of Clay (played by Javiar Bardem look-a-like Jeffrey Dean Morgan), Jensen (upcoming Captain America’s Chris Evans), Roque (Idris Elba), Pooch (Columbus Short) and Cougar (Oscar Jaenada). Once the group finds out there are children in the compound, they call off the pending air strike. The heartless, faceless Max then proceeds to come on the radio and explain this will not be an option. The team then heads into the camp anyways, successfully rescues the children and puts them onto a helicopter. The team stays behind because they are informed they can’t fit in the bird with all the kids. They celebrate the victory until the helicopter they were meant to be in explodes killing all souls inside of her and leaving the soldiers to fake their own death and disappear forever. Or do they?.....

A few years pass and we catch up with the team somewhere south of the equator where an opportunity arises courtesy of Aisha (Avatar’s Zoe Saldana). She knows where to find Max and gives the in-hiding soldiers a chance to get their sweet, sweet revenge. And of course, what kind of movie would it be if they didn’t take the opportunity?

The Losers is the comic book world’s angle on the A-Team, which the movie version of is being released in June. It may have been thrown together relatively quickly, and is certainly set up to be a competing series and money maker, but it’s actually not too bad. As expected Chris Evans provides a lot of the funny lines and actions in the movie, including the infamous trailer scene where he shoots three guards with his finger-gun (it’s actually his soldier buddy with a sniper rifle). The scene is expected but still delivers laughs. The acting in this film is fine, and there is certainly no problem with the action. It’s some of the best real-life action since Casino Royale or the Bourne movies. The movie overall is like those movies, mixed with Tropic Thunder and Ocean’s Eleven (2001). So you can see where the fun in it kind of comes from here.

The problem with this movie is the lack of originality. You watch this movie and feel like you’ve seen if before. It’s not ‘bad familiar’, but it’s not ‘good original’ either. But what can you really expect from the director of I’ll Always Know What You Did Last Summer? Amongst all the movies out and coming out it’s most likely to get lost. If a sequel was planned or is coming, it will probably be released in the slower winter season, and a couple of the characters may be replaced by different actors, or written out entirely due to this films inevitable lacklustre performance.

Overall, The Losers is a fun movie, and it’s too bad it won’t be seen by more people. Part of it is poor timing for its release, and part of it is the unoriginality and lack of prior fan base. I am giving this movie a slight open door, but maybe see it at a discount theatre or on DVD, where it may pick up some steam by that point. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see it in the Wal-Mart $5 DVD bin by next summer, either.

*Stills courtesy of DC Entertainment

Read more...

DATE NIGHT (2010)

Steve Carell and Tina Fey play the Fosters in Date Night, a movie I am calling the funniest comedy of the year. That’s a bold statement to make you say? Is it though?...

The Fosters head out one evening for their weekly, predictable date night. Normally they are found at their friendly neighbourhood eatery, chowing down on potato skins while making fun and doing impressions of other couples who are out and about. However, both Claire and Phil are terribly bored by this regiment and attempt to do something different. They head into the city to the newest, hottest restaurant and ask for a seat. After the maitre d’ scoffs at their request for not booking a seat sometime in the 1970’s, the Fosters take a reservation from a pair of mysterious no shows called the Triplehorns.

A beat or two later we (the viewer) and the Fosters find this to be a bad idea as they no sooner are ridiculed for taking someone’s reservation before having guns shoved in their faces. They soon find themselves on the run from another pair of bad guys who don’t know how to aim at a running target or can’t seem to keep people in their grasp. The best part about this usually-terrible movie cliché? Somehow we believe it! Whether it’s the fact we absolutely adore the two most talented actors on TV, or whether it’s the fact the movie doesn’t take itself too seriously, you soon find yourself rooting for the Fosters and laughing almost uncontrollably.

There is a lot to be said about a PG-13 comedy that keeps the laughs going without resorting to toilet humour or having every funny part being shown in the trailer. Although a lot of the dialogue is definitely written by two quirky comedians, real truths are revealed in the film that no matter what type of situation a person is in, most would honestly be thinking about as they are being chased around Manhattan with a gun. Exempli gratia, climbing up a fire escape to break into an apartment, Tina Fey’s character notes to her husband that he should remember – everything he is doing, she is doing in heals. Random - but funny because it’s true.

Mark Wahlberg, Mark Ruffalo, James Franco, Kristin Wiig and Mila Kunis also appear randomly throughout this film, and are there to serve a purpose, but definitely don’t overstay their welcome. The thing that concerned me walking into Date Night, was that Tina Fey and Steve Carell would constantly be vying for center stage. Either that or one or the other might accidentally upstage the other, as both are stars and can carry their own. It does not happen. In fact, they play well enough off of each other one could only hope to see them paired up again soon in something else. Their chemistry is divine.

The door is open for date night, not only because it’s a funny and witty comedy that doesn’t take itself too seriously, but because it’s well written and it’s a movie that proves that clean comedy still exists. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy swears and gore as much as the next person if it applies to a film, but too many comedies rely on cheap laughs nowadays that’s it’s nice to see something that’s worth your $10.

*Stills courtesy Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation

Read more...

SHE'S OUT OF MY LEAGUE (2010)

Read more...