EXTREMELY LOUD & INCREDIBLY CLOSE (2011)

A couple posts back I spoke about my decision to begin including reviews by others, more or less in an effort to make things easier on myself. After reading the following review by Luke Fandrich over at Editing Luke, I asked him if I could share it here and he was more than willing. So thank you, Luke!

I also stated in the aforementioned post that before I shared a review I would see the film in question. After reading Luke's review, I no longer had the urge and am pretty sure I'm glad I didn't waste my time. As Luke states, "embrace the trailer for Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close and then move onto other nominees". So that's what I did and for your embracing pleasures, I've included the trailer for the film below Luke's review. Enjoy!

~Angry Charlie

________________________________________________________________

EXTREMELY LOUD & INCREDIBLY CLOSE

*Reviewed by Editing Luke of Editing Luke and Jeeves and the Jaguar

Slowly but surely I've been crossing nominees off of my Oscar screening list. A few nights ago, Andrea and I went to see Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, one of the nine nominees for Best Picture this year. I'll be blunt about this one, it wasn't very good.

The trailer for this flick had me excited, sort of the way I felt after seeing the trailer for United 93. I was imaging an emotional, but heartfelt picture about an innocent kid and his soul searching quest to find meaning against the backdrop of 9/11. It looked genuine and fresh.

The problem I had immediately with the film was the kid, to be honest. Part of his back-story is that he has some kind of social disorder or disability (never really defined in the movie) that makes him awkward and emotionally abrupt. He was always on the verge of a panic attack or he was flying off the walls with rage. In the first thirty minutes all I kept thinking was, what is his problem? How am I supposed to relate to him if he's so aggravating to watch? And, really? Someone thought audiences wouldn't find it annoying to centre such a sensitive story around a character who is already this disconnected from reality to begin with?

Like I said, I expected an emotional story, but the kid overwhelms every aspect of the narrative. His ticks and commentary seemed so gratuitous and heavy handed that I was actually relieved when some of the supporting players finally got a bit of screen time.

The thread of the film is the quest to find a lock for a key that is found in the father's closet after he dies during the attacks. I actually really liked the concept, but was scratching my head again when it wasn't really explained why the key should be relevant to begin with. Even the close relationship between the father and son didn't really justify that this seemingly random find would be worthy of scouring the city to find answers for. I suppose it could be argued that the quest to find meaning in some of these traumatic events is a hopeless search, but I still found myself thinking that wouldn't the kid be more content to search out a part of his father's actual history? Something that he already knew was important to his father?

I know in my own experiences in dealing with loss that I'm looking to give random items more meaning. You end up looking to expand on the things that you already knew meant something - unfinished business. The proposed scavenger hunt in Extremely Loud didn't seem grounded enough in many aspects.

When all is said and done though, I would have overlooked so many of the film's flaws if the kid was more relatable, a bit more innocent, more wide-eyed, more raw, and just far less stunted. In a story that was genuinely full of compelling connections and human stories, why have the main character fight against all of those naturally inspiring encounters instead of adding to them? Why distract us with painfully enigmatic narration and a kid who you have to will yourself to even root for? In short, it was the perfect recipe to continually disconnect from the plot.

It may be a bit harsh, but the flick isn't anywhere close to being one of the best films from 2011 and certainly shouldn't have been nominated in my opinion. If you really want to watch a powerful film surrounding 9/11, there are literally ten other flicks I could recommend to you - United 93 for starters. Do yourself a favor and embrace the trailer for Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close and then move onto the other nominees.

Read more...

THIS MONTH I REFUSE TO SEE...

THE VOW!

I have a vow... it's to never see this movie. If you liked Dear John or The Notebook though, you'll be in line opening day - which proves my point. All these movies are formulas used time and time again to get you into the theatre to cry - not at the repetitive nature from which these films are drawn, of course. But for the tragedy that befalls our hero couple and the pitfalls they're forced to overcome to hold each other just... once... more.

Do I dislike romantic, sappy movies? No, not really. Do I dislike unoriginal ones? Yup. I know there's a line out there that states every story has already been told in one form or another. While this may be true, it's not about a couple struggling with love that needs change - it's the way it's told. We see love all the time in movies and it's done in a million different ways. So if The Vow was willing to try harder, than perhaps it could become more of a timeless film than a money-grubbing one.

Even the actors in this film are reused from other sappy dramas. As you probably know, Rachel McAdams was in The Notebook and Channing Tatum was in Dear John. My question is where are Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore? Because The Vow uses the same 'I need you to fall in love with me after your memory loss' ingredients as 50 First Dates implemented. Hell, even The Notebook was a movie based ENTIRELY on that concept. That's why I refuse to see it- because I've seen those movies and prefer to see a movie more original.

However, there is one good thing to come out of speaking about this film. It's inspired me to start using a new term on my site when referring to movies that reuse the same story lines over and over - ESP. ESP is not only the ability I have to tell EXACTLY what it will be like based on the (much shorter) trailer, but it is a rating system I am officially implementing as of now.

In this case, The Vow has an ESP (Exact Same Plot) rating of 7/10.

If you don't believe in ESP, The Vow opens February 10th right in time for Valentine's Day! Wait, I'm seeing something else with my ESP - it appears to be a cash cow. Fact.

Read more...

ANGRY CHARLIE REVIEWS.... WHAT EXACTLY?

Besides my first post and introduction to this blog back in July of 2009, I've never spoken candidly on this blog until today. Normally I share all my intimate thoughts on my more personal blog (Don't Make Charlie Angry) and leave this blog to the purpose I intended it for - sharing my reviews of newer movies.

Unfortunately, what's happened in the past four to five months is I seemed to have pretty much stopped completely. After 114 written and video reviews it appears I've run out of the passion to review movies - or at least write about the films I see a couple times a week. That stated, I'm proud of what I've accomplished through this site but I'm still not sure where to take it.

I've thrown around lots of ideas and what it's come down to is this: I simply want to make it easier on myself to be excited about my blog and sharing my thoughts and opinions of movies in general. So, since I'm not sure where to start - I'll do the easiest thing possible.

If I feel like writing a review about a movie, I will. There are a lot of great movies out there and if you come (or were coming) to my site I don't want to take that away from you. But I don't always have the time or ambition to write was is essentially an essay outlining my likes and dislikes of any movie in particular. So, what I want to do in an effort to consistently update my site is start sharing others' reviews. I'm aware this is something similar to what Rotten Tomatoes does, but what's different is there are a lot of critics I watch on YouTube or read regularly that could never hope to be featured on such an exclusive site. So I want to start sharing them here.

As usual, I'll see the movie in question before I present a review for it. Whether it'll be my own review will be determined if I have anything else to say that wasn't covered in another's review (be it video or written). I may even review others' reviews and see how that goes. By doing things this way I hope to not only gain my passion for blogging again, but provide something a little different to those of you who are beginning to tire of the usual movie review sites.

So, with that, I'm moving forward and hopefully the change works for you! Please be patient with me for the next few months as I may seem all over the place, but I assure you - in the end Angry Charlie Reviews will be a better site for it.

Happy February!

Read more...

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...

THIS MONTH I REFUSE TO SEE...

ONE FOR THE MONEY!

What I love most about One for the Money's leading lady Katherine Heigl is that she doesn't care if she becomes the next Nicholas Cage. Lately she's made bad movie after bad movie and the last good movie Heigl was in was 2007's Knocked Up. Since then she's made several screen mistakes including her most recent debacles New Year's Eve and Life as We Know It. Coincidentally Life as We Know It was the movie I refused to see in October of 2010.

While Heigl's movies are undoubtedly enjoyable to a select few and while she is delightful and charming in all the right ways - the plots of her movies are unoriginal and idiotic cliché-ridden disasters. Not to mention the casting director for Money must've thought Heigl looked smokin' next to The Ugly Truth co-star Gerard Butler, because they cast his doppelganger Jason O' Mara (TV's Terra Nova) to be the man Heigl is dangerously in love with for this train wreck.

What's One for the Money about? Just imagine Heigl as a down-on-her-luck girl who decides to become Dog the Bounty Hunter. I imagine that's how it was pitched to the studio and based on the trailer - that's how it's pitched to you. No thanks - I think when it comes to One for the Money, I'm gonna skip bail when it opens January 27th. Happy 'New' Year!

Read more...

THIS MONTH I (ALMOST) REFUSE TO SEE...

JACK AND JILL!

It doesn't take more than one look at the now widely known and absurd trailer for Jack and Jill to know that by this point Adam Sandler is almost parodying himself. The trailer looks like it would have been something Sandler threw together as a skit back in his SNL days. Sadly, it's not. It's a movie the studio invested in and it's a movie that will get some play. People may almost want to see the movie that was 'so bad it's good'. Snakes on a Plane did it in 2006, Piranha 3D did it last year - will this be the year of Jack and Jill? It's hard to say.

What I do know is that I will be seeing it. And I will be reviewing it. Unfortunately as we near the Oscars it becomes harder and harder to find a movie you don't want to watch. Also, that weekend, it happens I'll be visiting my friend Luke in Medicine Hat, AB. I've never known anybody that has made watching a bad movie as enjoyable as Luke. As an example, I saw Rob Schneider's The Hot Chick and thought nothing good of it until I watched it with Luke. Now it's one of my favorite movies. Fact is, Luke has a way of sucking you into his enjoyment of bad movies with him and making you see why ridiculous is sometimes funny. It's hit or miss at times - if Luke doesn't like a bad movie (like 2007's Norbit), then you know it's really bad.

With Jack and Jill coming out the weekend I visit Luke, it seems like too good an opportunity to pass up. It is a 'watch with Luke' movie after all. And although I most certainly won't recommend it (we all can't know a Luke, after all), I will enjoy the pure ridiculousness of Al Pacino hitting on Sandler in drag. It's sad not because he wouldn't, but because he agreed to do it on film. Sigh... I miss Scarface Pacino.

If you want to risk falling down and breaking your crown, Jack and Jill opens November 11th.

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...

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...

THIS MONTH I REFUSE TO SEE...

DOLPHIN TALE!

Okay, look. This movie doesn't really have a lot wrong with it that would suggest anybody should avoid it. It has Morgan Freeman and is about a sad, sweet little dolphin who gets it's tale chopped off by.... something. I'm pretty sure it's even a true story. So the question remains - am I a humanless monster?

Probably.

But, with good cause do I not recommend this. Because without even seeing it, I can tell you a few things. It'll be a happy ending, there will probably be a dramatic dolphin death at the hands of somebody who will later change their ways and, oh yeah - it'll be the saddest thing anybody's ever seen and tears will rain down from God himself to wash over humanity's good nature and bless us all with the power of love. Girls will love this movie. PETA will praise this movie. Japan will hate it, but really - they would throw a harpoon through Ariel's head if they thought it could make good soup.

The point rests solely on predictability and cheesiness. I'm not even sure if the title Dolphin Tale is supposed to be a play on Dolphin TAIL. As in, the TAIL end of a fish. Maybe they realized the latter wasn't technically accurate? Who cares, though? There are far more interesting films to see this month, and that's what it comes down to. Also, I'm literally allergic to fish - this film would probably kill me. It's just too risky.

Dolphin Tale opens September 23rd if you're interested (in getting laid).

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...

FINAL DESTINATION 5 (2011)

I will say despite the Final Destination series' many faults - one thing it never fails at is it's countless ways to build up suspense and make you cringe. Even when it comes down to something as simple as the potential to step on a screw - you may find yourself on the edge of your seat. That is, until you witness the most ridiculous death you've ever seen. Then you find yourself asking 'Really?!' - that and 'Why did I come to Final Destination 5?'.

The biggest error in the Final Desination films is unfortunately also it's biggest gimmick and plot point. The fact that right before this big event happens the main character gets a disturbing vision of the future. Be it a plane crash, a highway pile-up or a bridge collapsing, for some reason a vision always precedes the actual events. By the time I found myself watching the fifth one I began to wonder less about who was going to die and more about where the hell these visions were coming from. This idea has increasingly become more of plot hole that just doesn't make any sense. This is forgivable enough if you have characters and story you care about - but when the film even lacks that, all bets are off when death comes knocking at the door.

The expert in this film (every horror movie usually has one) states in inexplicable detail how to beat death. Previous ways include using new life to rewrite your 'contact' and beating your near-death experience to earn a place amongst the living. In Final 5, the coroner explains you have to kill somebody else to take their life force. Once again - really?! Not only that, but he says it in passing and the kids eat it up like crack. At no point do they question it - they simply go along with it.

But these are all things consistent throughout the entire series. Something that's not is the one piece of originality Final 5 had going for it - it's a surprise prequel. Now, knowing this information won't ruin the film for you, I promise. However, that's the biggest problem in this film. If you didn't like the last three films, you'll generally still admit the first one was original in it's attitude and execution. So, the idea that this film could potentially bring back the original feel was an intriguing idea when I thought back upon it. As a prequel there's potential to answer a lot of questions and introduce a new way of thinking about this whole 'death as an antagonist' thing. However, in Final 5 it seemed more like an afterthought for the filmmakers rather than a springboard for a reason this film needed to exist. Also, the fact this film is called Final Destination 5 and not The Final Destination like it's predecessor speaks volumes about the lack of thought and foreplanning that went into this series.

Final Destination 5 gets a big ol' closed door. As I said with the last one, I truly hope this is the final destination. Unlike a horror franchise like Saw, Final Destination is sloppy gore that doesn't connect well. It's unimaginative and predictable at this point and it might be time to put this series to rest - especially with it coming full circle as it now has. Besides, when it comes to using common deaths such as falling as a 'freak' accident - you're clearly running out of ideas.

*Stills courtesy of Newline Cinema

Read more...

THE HELP (2011)

Every movie-goer likes an underdog, because every movie-goer likes to be inspired. Without a doubt, The Help accomplishes all this and more while continuing a theme from The Rise of the Planet of the Apes - one focused on civil rights. In this case though, it's one based on a true story. It's not a story that hasn't been told before, but it still amazes me when I watch a movie like this (that takes place only fifty years ago) and see just how far we've come in progressing racial equality. Unfortunately, fifty years has only made racism more taboo as opposed to obliterating it all together. Even then, it feels more like some people have just shifted their hatred to other races around the world.

The Help is based on the novel by Kathrym Stockett, with the screen adaptation by Tate Taylor - who also directs. It centers around Skeeter Phelan (Emma Stone), an aspiring journalist who finds herself doing a housekeeping column in a Jackson, Mississippi newspaper. Upon asking a friend's maid for cleaning tips, she finds out a lot more about what's going on between black maids and the white families they serve. The main maid in question is named Aibileen Clark, who is played by the wonderful Viola Davis.

Hesitant at first, Aibileen eventually gives in and begins to tell Skeeter her story. It only takes one call to the publisher of her dreams for Skeeter's idea to be tentatively picked up. There's a problem however, very few maids want to tell their story - even if Skeeter's attempt to share their inequality with the world is righteous. Especially when it comes to the ability for a maid to use a white family's toilet. As Skeeter states, the maids are allowed into these homes and are instructed to watch out for the children and essentially hold the ideal American suburban dream together. Yet, they have fewer human rights.

Along with the 'goodwill towards all mankind' message, a strong feature of The Help is the outstanding performances. Both Stone and Davis are pitch perfect and have a good chance at Oscar nominations, as does Allison Janney (who plays Skeeter's mother). The biggest surprise performance for belonged to Jessica Chastain, who plays a white woman who finds herself similarly outcast by the rest of the debutants.

The Help gets an open door. It's inspiring, touching and funny. Stone is at her best in this film and shows us what the cutie from Superbad can really accomplish. It makes me all the more hopeful for The Amazing Spider-Man next year (in which she coincidentally takes over Bryce Dallas Howard's role as Gwen Stacy). While at times The Help verges on something we've seen before, it never loses it's heart. It's that heart that keeps the film together, and keeps you caring.

*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...

THIS MONTH I REFUSE TO SEE...

SPY KIDS: ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD!

I never really thought too much about the original Spy Kids trilogy. I always thought they were so-so, even just as kids movies. After the last one came out I expected there wouldn't be anymore. Low and behold, it probably only took a one-word gimmick to get this film green-lit: Aroma-Scope. Yes, a basic scratch-n-sniff card to make the movie more interactive. Or, as they advertise it as - 4-D. Ironic, considering that time (the main plot device in the film) is considered the real fourth dimension.

The idea of 4-D brings to light just how unnecessary Spy Kids 4 really is. It also makes me question the casting abilities of somebody like Jessica Alba's agent - why she's in this and more recent films likes Little Fockers I'll never know. But really, I don't think this is a franchise that needed to be continued, or rebooted - or whatever. Even with me liking the idea of time manipulation (Clockstoppers almost did it justice), it's not enough to drag me to this most ridiculous of films this month.

If you're interested in shutting your kids up for part an afternoon, Spy Kids: All the Time in the World opens August 19th. Considering it's in 3-D though, you may want to save the $100 it'll cost you and just go get the little brats ice-cream or something and enjoy the rest of your summer.

Read more...

THE SMURFS (2011)

So, what do you get when you mix modern CGI with a classics children tail and the theory that if you can, maybe you should? You get a hunk of good intentions called The Smurfs. You also get somebody like Neil Patrick Harris to try and make it better. News flash folks, it's not NPH that does the writing - nor can his scrawny frame carry the weight of twenty years of childhood nostalgia and expectations. But then again - I'm not sure who could.

As more movies like The Smurfs continue to come out, a better idea comes to mind. Why not just leave well enough alone? Not only have the Smurfs told their numerous stories through the original show, but it's highly unlikely we need another 'wacky character caught in New York' story. Frankly, if you are going to make a Smurfs movie, why not keep it in the same environment that made the original so successful? Was there really no other story you could have told? Could there not have been more drug references? Did this have to be a kids movie when the generation it belongs to is now aged thirty or higher? I think if the studios wanted a film people would be raving about, they should have upped the ante here and made it more mature.

The basic story here is that The Smurfs are chased by Gargamel into a vortex that transports them to New York City. There the Smurfs meet Patrick (Harris) and Grace (Jayma Mays) who help them out by giving them a place to live until they can find their way back to the Smurf Village. Meanwhile, Gargamel is out to find them because, well, that's what he does. Also, he needs them so he can start up his own cosmetics company and take over the world - nope, I didn't make that up. But thankfully, the Smurfs will lend their helping hand to assist Patrick in coming up with a new ad campaign. One that'll undoubtedly represent his best wishes and intent - and not the interest of the people who are paying him (because his bosses are evil you see). Essentially, it's all a bunch of believe in yourself bullsmurf.

If there was any redeeming quality in this movie it was Hank Azaria who plays Gargamel. You could tell both him and Harris knew this movie was shit, so they decided to ad lib whatever they could get away with and have fun with The Smurfs. Yes, this movie is also kid friendly and colorful so I'm sure anybody under five may have a smurf of a time watching the film. Anybody with the brain of somebody a little more mature might giggle at some of the quips but will be bored by the unoriginal storyline.

I am giving The Smurfs a big BLUE closed door, because feeling blue can be a bad thing - despite the film's opening message. But let's be honest - there were very few people who knew this would make a good movie, even with the blue buzz around this thing. Although I've yet to see it, if you want a movie your child will cherish (especially if it's their first movie-going experience) I'd recommend Winnie the Pooh. From what I've heard, that's a movie to be proud of. New T-shirt idea: Go Pooh, Not Blue.

*Stills courtesy of Columbia Pictures

Read more...