Sunday, August 16, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
UPDATE!!! -- Critic's Corner on the move/new site under construction
Apologies for the absence of an earlier note on this site for the readers out there. The Critic's Corner movie review blog has been on a recent hiatus over the past month or so due to my transitioning into a new job.
Now that I'm no longer a full-time reporter of the Lake County Leader and not located in the Polson area anymore, the Critic's Corner reviews will no longer be directly affiliated with Polson Theaters Inc or solely focused on those films being shown in Polson and Ronan.
That was a great time for the Corner, and I thank the Leader and Polson Theaters for their joint cooperation in making that happen.
But now we're moving on. The new Corner blog site is currently under construction and an updated URL to transfer from this site to the new site will be added here soon. The site promises to be newer, bolder, with added features such as a weekly rental review of either a new release DVD or an under the radar classic on DVD.
Plus as all the movies I see will now be coming purely out of my own pocket, I will be giving moviegoing readers the full skinny on whether it's worth your money or to skip it, and I won't be sitting through any crappy movies that are forcastibly bad from the get-go just to have a blog review for that evening.
Only the best will make the cut and no holds barred -- the Corner is getting serious here people, and a lot more fun.
So hold onto your hats ... my first review will be of Judd Apatow's 3rd and most apparently complex film, "Funny People" -- starring Adam Sandler and Seth Rogen.
Other anticipated upcoming reviews may include: "Extract", "Public Enemies", "The Hurt Locker", "District 9", "The Collector", "Bruno", "Away We Go", and "Let the Right One In."
You can even now vote on which you would most like to get the Critic's take on (following "Funny People") for the next Corner review by clicking your selection on the poll at right.
Thanks for your patience, thanks for reading, and happy movie-watching!
Ty Hampton
Critic's Corner
Now that I'm no longer a full-time reporter of the Lake County Leader and not located in the Polson area anymore, the Critic's Corner reviews will no longer be directly affiliated with Polson Theaters Inc or solely focused on those films being shown in Polson and Ronan.
That was a great time for the Corner, and I thank the Leader and Polson Theaters for their joint cooperation in making that happen.
But now we're moving on. The new Corner blog site is currently under construction and an updated URL to transfer from this site to the new site will be added here soon. The site promises to be newer, bolder, with added features such as a weekly rental review of either a new release DVD or an under the radar classic on DVD.
Plus as all the movies I see will now be coming purely out of my own pocket, I will be giving moviegoing readers the full skinny on whether it's worth your money or to skip it, and I won't be sitting through any crappy movies that are forcastibly bad from the get-go just to have a blog review for that evening.
Only the best will make the cut and no holds barred -- the Corner is getting serious here people, and a lot more fun.
So hold onto your hats ... my first review will be of Judd Apatow's 3rd and most apparently complex film, "Funny People" -- starring Adam Sandler and Seth Rogen.
Other anticipated upcoming reviews may include: "Extract", "Public Enemies", "The Hurt Locker", "District 9", "The Collector", "Bruno", "Away We Go", and "Let the Right One In."
You can even now vote on which you would most like to get the Critic's take on (following "Funny People") for the next Corner review by clicking your selection on the poll at right.
Thanks for your patience, thanks for reading, and happy movie-watching!
Ty Hampton
Critic's Corner
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
“Transformers” sequel less than meets the eye
“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” — 2.5 out of 5 stars for action
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
Hoards of non-biological alien robots duke it out with planet Earth as their battleground for the second time in two years as “Revenge of the Fallen” definitely stuns the eye but also numbs the brain with little to offer in the way of a memorable storyline.
After the evil Decepticons fled Earth after their defeat in the first film, they have re-grouped and returned with force to reclaim their fallen leader Megatron. The peaceful human-loving Autobots have found their place aiding the United States military, but are weary of their nemesis return, calling friend Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) away from his first week at college to join the fight and help them once more. Sam just may unknowingly hold the key to this age old battle as the war is brought to his doorstep whether he likes it or not.
First of all, I have to say that just seeing “Transformers” on the big screen has a surreal sort of nostalgic effect with me, as I’m sure it does with others of my generation. I can appreciate and enjoy the film despite it’s obvious shortfalls, because it’s like I’m watching Saturday morning cartoons again — except on a much larger screen, with far better effects, and Optimus Prime is far more of a badass.
But nonetheless this is a typical Michael Bay action film, and these days, that’s a bit of an insult in the film industry. The filmmaker directed the first Transformers installment in 2007 (as well as earlier memorable hits “The Rock”, “Bad Boys I and II”, and “Armageddon”) and the idea was fresh and played like a straight-on thrillride with all the special effects in the world. It rode CGI effects to success and the origins of the Transformers tale was enough to pass for a good action film. Somewhere along the line that whole gig ran out of gas here though.
This movie will get no respect from the film world other than being a big budget, explosion-packed action film — and that’s all it deserves. It’s not as much a film that tells a story as much as it is a movie that displays all the mechanical advancements in film CGI technology over the years and what we’re now capable. Other than that, it’s pretty much a brainless experiment with enough cheesy comedic one liners and PG-13 sexual stereotypes to put the Megan Fox fascinated teen audience in the seats and keep them there.
Oh yes, she is beautiful. Beautiful but talentless in acting when it comes to anything but wearing tons of lip gloss and running from large fictional robots on a green screen backdrop.
The plot really didn’t expand from the first film — and the first movie was not bad — making it an obvious desperate sequel with not much to say other than “Kaaaabooooom!” Plus any message in the film is somewhat unclear, other than a hint of half-hearted patriotism.
The main man responsible for this traincrash of a story is screenwriter Roberto Orci who created the first “Transformers” film screenplay. Turns out he has become quite notorious for writing scripts for remakes and sequels as he wrote screenplays for the likes of the new “Star Trek” as well as “Mission Impossible III”, “The Legend of Zorro”, and ... what the? “Xena: The Warrior Princess”? How does this man still have a job after that?
As far as acting goes Shia is a decent fit for the role but plays everything a little too cutesy for me. You’re not making Disney films anymore buddy, grow up. Then there’s Megan Fox playing Sam’s rebel hottie girlfriend whose greatest acting accomplishment was maintaining enough cleavage and perfect hair at all times, no matter how many explosions are going off all around her.
The best actor choices were Hugo Weaving (yes the main elf in “Lord of the Rings” and villain of “The Matrix” series) as the voice of Megatron and John Turturro as the eccentric former secret service guy whose gotten his wires a little fried working on his alien robot conspiracy theories. Nobody plays crazy like Turturro, and he’s really the only legit actor on the cast.
None of the other supporting roles are worth mentioning because they were either robots or terrible actors.
This sort of special effects dominated cinema clearly has a draw with the masses though, as it pulled $16 million nationwide on opening night — which was a Wednesday. Hump day, of all the days to pull that feat off. A bit frustrating considering the legions of far better films that would never see that kind of number.
Not only that, but Bay seems to be selling out in other ways these days as sexed up this movie more than anybody would ever dare. There were more bimbos, sex jokes, and sexual references in this movie than I’m sure most Optimus Prime fans had witnessed in their entire life. What about a movie oriented around giant robots and explosions also says “make me sexy”? Plus there’s a lot of really young kids in that theater this summer who probably don’t need all the crude and sexual stuff in this one.
Bay you gone and lost yo mind bro. There’s really just too much going on here — cinematic overload. It’s a bit of a mess to be honest.
One other drawback is its 150 minutes in length and two and a half hours of robots fighting and people running gets old by the end. Plus the On pure entertainment value — since after all, it’s an action flick — and my childhood love for Transformers, I’m going to give it 2.5 out of 5 stars and that may be generous.
“Revenge of the Fallen” is rated PG-13 for brief drug material, intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, crude and sexual material and language. It’s showing at 3:45, 6:45, and 9:30 p.m. nightly at the Showboat Cinema 2 in Polson.
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
Hoards of non-biological alien robots duke it out with planet Earth as their battleground for the second time in two years as “Revenge of the Fallen” definitely stuns the eye but also numbs the brain with little to offer in the way of a memorable storyline.
After the evil Decepticons fled Earth after their defeat in the first film, they have re-grouped and returned with force to reclaim their fallen leader Megatron. The peaceful human-loving Autobots have found their place aiding the United States military, but are weary of their nemesis return, calling friend Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) away from his first week at college to join the fight and help them once more. Sam just may unknowingly hold the key to this age old battle as the war is brought to his doorstep whether he likes it or not.
First of all, I have to say that just seeing “Transformers” on the big screen has a surreal sort of nostalgic effect with me, as I’m sure it does with others of my generation. I can appreciate and enjoy the film despite it’s obvious shortfalls, because it’s like I’m watching Saturday morning cartoons again — except on a much larger screen, with far better effects, and Optimus Prime is far more of a badass.
But nonetheless this is a typical Michael Bay action film, and these days, that’s a bit of an insult in the film industry. The filmmaker directed the first Transformers installment in 2007 (as well as earlier memorable hits “The Rock”, “Bad Boys I and II”, and “Armageddon”) and the idea was fresh and played like a straight-on thrillride with all the special effects in the world. It rode CGI effects to success and the origins of the Transformers tale was enough to pass for a good action film. Somewhere along the line that whole gig ran out of gas here though.
This movie will get no respect from the film world other than being a big budget, explosion-packed action film — and that’s all it deserves. It’s not as much a film that tells a story as much as it is a movie that displays all the mechanical advancements in film CGI technology over the years and what we’re now capable. Other than that, it’s pretty much a brainless experiment with enough cheesy comedic one liners and PG-13 sexual stereotypes to put the Megan Fox fascinated teen audience in the seats and keep them there.
Oh yes, she is beautiful. Beautiful but talentless in acting when it comes to anything but wearing tons of lip gloss and running from large fictional robots on a green screen backdrop.
The plot really didn’t expand from the first film — and the first movie was not bad — making it an obvious desperate sequel with not much to say other than “Kaaaabooooom!” Plus any message in the film is somewhat unclear, other than a hint of half-hearted patriotism.
The main man responsible for this traincrash of a story is screenwriter Roberto Orci who created the first “Transformers” film screenplay. Turns out he has become quite notorious for writing scripts for remakes and sequels as he wrote screenplays for the likes of the new “Star Trek” as well as “Mission Impossible III”, “The Legend of Zorro”, and ... what the? “Xena: The Warrior Princess”? How does this man still have a job after that?
As far as acting goes Shia is a decent fit for the role but plays everything a little too cutesy for me. You’re not making Disney films anymore buddy, grow up. Then there’s Megan Fox playing Sam’s rebel hottie girlfriend whose greatest acting accomplishment was maintaining enough cleavage and perfect hair at all times, no matter how many explosions are going off all around her.
The best actor choices were Hugo Weaving (yes the main elf in “Lord of the Rings” and villain of “The Matrix” series) as the voice of Megatron and John Turturro as the eccentric former secret service guy whose gotten his wires a little fried working on his alien robot conspiracy theories. Nobody plays crazy like Turturro, and he’s really the only legit actor on the cast.
None of the other supporting roles are worth mentioning because they were either robots or terrible actors.
This sort of special effects dominated cinema clearly has a draw with the masses though, as it pulled $16 million nationwide on opening night — which was a Wednesday. Hump day, of all the days to pull that feat off. A bit frustrating considering the legions of far better films that would never see that kind of number.
Not only that, but Bay seems to be selling out in other ways these days as sexed up this movie more than anybody would ever dare. There were more bimbos, sex jokes, and sexual references in this movie than I’m sure most Optimus Prime fans had witnessed in their entire life. What about a movie oriented around giant robots and explosions also says “make me sexy”? Plus there’s a lot of really young kids in that theater this summer who probably don’t need all the crude and sexual stuff in this one.
Bay you gone and lost yo mind bro. There’s really just too much going on here — cinematic overload. It’s a bit of a mess to be honest.
One other drawback is its 150 minutes in length and two and a half hours of robots fighting and people running gets old by the end. Plus the On pure entertainment value — since after all, it’s an action flick — and my childhood love for Transformers, I’m going to give it 2.5 out of 5 stars and that may be generous.
“Revenge of the Fallen” is rated PG-13 for brief drug material, intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, crude and sexual material and language. It’s showing at 3:45, 6:45, and 9:30 p.m. nightly at the Showboat Cinema 2 in Polson.
Friday, June 5, 2009
A ‘Hangover’ never felt so good
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
“The Hangover” — 3.5 out of 5 stars for comedy
They should’ve just named this movie Murphy’s Law because everything that could have gone wrong for these poor four guys went wrong, and then some. However, the only symptoms you’ll suffer from with this “Hangover” are a possible laughter-induced belly ache.
Doug (Justin Bartha) is getting married in 48 hours so he and his three buddies Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) embark on bachelor’s party trip to Las Vegas. Things start out as planned but when Alan slips them all rufies in a toast drink instead of ecstasy, the drunken debauchery leads to evening that none of them will soon remember.
The three groomsmen awake to find a bengal tiger in their bathroom, a crying baby in the closet, and absolutely no sign of the whereabouts of their best buddy and groom-to-be, Doug. Hilarious other hyjinks such as hanging out with Iron Mike Tyson, stealing a cop car, accidentally marrying a stripper, and getting in deep with the asian mafia all ensue before this one is over.
Director Todd Phillips (“Old School”, “Starsky & Hutch”, and “Road Trip”) and the same writing team of Jon Lucas and Scott Moore who put together last year’s hilarious holiday comedy “Four Christmases”, have all struck again with an off-the-wall Vegas farce that puts to shame even the craziest of drunken Las Vegas stories.
To give the guy credit, Phillips actually matured some since his last major hit “Old School”, of course not in subject matter, but in the gritty shooting fashion he used to set this film apart from your standard comedy. I’d compare the shooting style to that of “Pineapple Express” or “Hot Fuzz” — both good film company to keep.
The big four actors were also a great team in this one, seeing as none of them are big enough stars to carry the load alone. Galifianakis (“Out Cold”) was the hilarious bearded screwball as usual but Helms (“The Office”) added a tender, genuine guy role to the lineup that was necessary amongst the rest of this motley crue.
Plus, Helms does a brief musical interlude on the piano before the third act begins which was probably the most random, spot-on humor in the entire hour and forty minutes.
The movie starts out a bit slow, dragging for the first 20 minutes or so like your typical bachelor’s party flick, but picks up speed fast as everything starts to go off the deep end and before you know it — Doug is gone. The three then are forced to play detective and retrace their steps in order to find their friend alive and in time for the wedding which is looking more and more unlikely.
This is real “dude” humor and, as has been the trend lately, “dude” humor means get ready for some extreme “cringe.” Plus, with a subject matter as such, what other way are you going to go? Still I can’t give a cringe, gross-out humor driven comedy four stars, much less five — so I have to give this one 3.5 stars because it was still pretty darn ridiculously funny.
This movie is rated R for some drug material, pervasive language, sexual content and nudity. It is showing at 4, 7:15, and 9:15 p.m. nightly at the Showboat 2 Cinema in downtown Polson.
Critic’s Corner
“The Hangover” — 3.5 out of 5 stars for comedy
They should’ve just named this movie Murphy’s Law because everything that could have gone wrong for these poor four guys went wrong, and then some. However, the only symptoms you’ll suffer from with this “Hangover” are a possible laughter-induced belly ache.
Doug (Justin Bartha) is getting married in 48 hours so he and his three buddies Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) embark on bachelor’s party trip to Las Vegas. Things start out as planned but when Alan slips them all rufies in a toast drink instead of ecstasy, the drunken debauchery leads to evening that none of them will soon remember.
The three groomsmen awake to find a bengal tiger in their bathroom, a crying baby in the closet, and absolutely no sign of the whereabouts of their best buddy and groom-to-be, Doug. Hilarious other hyjinks such as hanging out with Iron Mike Tyson, stealing a cop car, accidentally marrying a stripper, and getting in deep with the asian mafia all ensue before this one is over.
Director Todd Phillips (“Old School”, “Starsky & Hutch”, and “Road Trip”) and the same writing team of Jon Lucas and Scott Moore who put together last year’s hilarious holiday comedy “Four Christmases”, have all struck again with an off-the-wall Vegas farce that puts to shame even the craziest of drunken Las Vegas stories.
To give the guy credit, Phillips actually matured some since his last major hit “Old School”, of course not in subject matter, but in the gritty shooting fashion he used to set this film apart from your standard comedy. I’d compare the shooting style to that of “Pineapple Express” or “Hot Fuzz” — both good film company to keep.
The big four actors were also a great team in this one, seeing as none of them are big enough stars to carry the load alone. Galifianakis (“Out Cold”) was the hilarious bearded screwball as usual but Helms (“The Office”) added a tender, genuine guy role to the lineup that was necessary amongst the rest of this motley crue.
Plus, Helms does a brief musical interlude on the piano before the third act begins which was probably the most random, spot-on humor in the entire hour and forty minutes.
The movie starts out a bit slow, dragging for the first 20 minutes or so like your typical bachelor’s party flick, but picks up speed fast as everything starts to go off the deep end and before you know it — Doug is gone. The three then are forced to play detective and retrace their steps in order to find their friend alive and in time for the wedding which is looking more and more unlikely.
This is real “dude” humor and, as has been the trend lately, “dude” humor means get ready for some extreme “cringe.” Plus, with a subject matter as such, what other way are you going to go? Still I can’t give a cringe, gross-out humor driven comedy four stars, much less five — so I have to give this one 3.5 stars because it was still pretty darn ridiculously funny.
This movie is rated R for some drug material, pervasive language, sexual content and nudity. It is showing at 4, 7:15, and 9:15 p.m. nightly at the Showboat 2 Cinema in downtown Polson.
Monday, May 25, 2009
'Night at Museum' catches sequel-itis
"Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian" — 2 out of 5 stars for family
Ty Hampton
Critic's Corner
Ben Stiller and his gang of museum misfits tried to summon some of the magic that made "Night at the Museum" a hit, but fell short of any such mysticism with "Battle of the Smithsonian."
Picking up shortly down the road from where the prequel left off, Larry Daley (Stiller) has lost his way, taking up a job of hack inventions such as the glow in the dark flashlight, trading in his museum night guard's badge for instant success. But when he returns to the museum and finds that his wax buddies are being moved to Washington D.C. where they face peril from some of the exhibits at the Smithsonian, Larry has a change of heart and comes to their rescue.
There Larry runs into a barrage of historical villains who he must battle to save his friends, old and new.
My biggest issue with this movie is the blatant waste of talent. There are both hilarious people starring in the movie and behind the film's script yet this movie's funniest moments were in the previews basically. You have a cast including the likes of Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Robin Williams, Hank Azaria, Amy Adams, Christopher Guest, Ricky Gervais, Steve Coogan, Bill Hader, and Jonah Hill. Then you have Robert Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon writing the screenplay (who play the characters of Junior and Dangle from "Reno 911").
How did this miss? All these people are great but they managed to churn out a bland, colorless movie that is a stereotypical sequel. Not that the first movie was great, but they added a lot funnier people to this one, and it came up drier than the first -- plus Stiller and Wilson weren't even as funny. And I've loved watching those guys together for years now but come on guys, what happened?
I'm going to blame it on director Shawn Levy, who made the first edition in 2006 but has also made junk like "Cheaper by the Dozen" and the "Pink Panther" in recent years. Maybe what this guy is doing works for the masses, but it isn't working for me. Don't get me wrong either, I like a lot of "family" films that fall into this genre even.
Some highlights that earned it two stars in my book was the single interchange between Stiller and Jonah Hill, the menacing yet sensitive villain of Kahmunrah played by Simpson's mastermind Hank Azaria, Bill Hader as General Custer and Amy Adams' breath of fresh air performance.
Adams, as usual, was great. She has an energy and sincerity to her as Amelia Earhart that really brought the film to life. Unfortunately, they tried to drub up this romance between her artificial character and Stiller's which was awkward.
Amongst other awkward bumbles were these obnoxious cherub cupid things who flew around and sung like Backstreet Boys songs. Kind of funny for a second, but mostly just annoying.
Either way, for a film that is — yes a family film — but also pitched as an adventure/comedy "Battle of the Smithsonian" seemed to be terribly lacking in the adventure category running through the same territory as the original and missing the punch lines on many quazi-funny jokes. However, it is perfectly okay movie to bring the entire family to no matter how young, I just can't guarantee that the adult members of the audience will be as entertained as watching some other family films made lately.
For this, I give it 2 out of 5 stars for the family film genre.
The film is rated PG for mild action and brief language, and is showing at 4, 7, and 9:15 p.m. nightly at the Entertainer Theater in Ronan.
Ty Hampton
Critic's Corner
Ben Stiller and his gang of museum misfits tried to summon some of the magic that made "Night at the Museum" a hit, but fell short of any such mysticism with "Battle of the Smithsonian."
Picking up shortly down the road from where the prequel left off, Larry Daley (Stiller) has lost his way, taking up a job of hack inventions such as the glow in the dark flashlight, trading in his museum night guard's badge for instant success. But when he returns to the museum and finds that his wax buddies are being moved to Washington D.C. where they face peril from some of the exhibits at the Smithsonian, Larry has a change of heart and comes to their rescue.
There Larry runs into a barrage of historical villains who he must battle to save his friends, old and new.
My biggest issue with this movie is the blatant waste of talent. There are both hilarious people starring in the movie and behind the film's script yet this movie's funniest moments were in the previews basically. You have a cast including the likes of Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Robin Williams, Hank Azaria, Amy Adams, Christopher Guest, Ricky Gervais, Steve Coogan, Bill Hader, and Jonah Hill. Then you have Robert Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon writing the screenplay (who play the characters of Junior and Dangle from "Reno 911").
How did this miss? All these people are great but they managed to churn out a bland, colorless movie that is a stereotypical sequel. Not that the first movie was great, but they added a lot funnier people to this one, and it came up drier than the first -- plus Stiller and Wilson weren't even as funny. And I've loved watching those guys together for years now but come on guys, what happened?
I'm going to blame it on director Shawn Levy, who made the first edition in 2006 but has also made junk like "Cheaper by the Dozen" and the "Pink Panther" in recent years. Maybe what this guy is doing works for the masses, but it isn't working for me. Don't get me wrong either, I like a lot of "family" films that fall into this genre even.
Some highlights that earned it two stars in my book was the single interchange between Stiller and Jonah Hill, the menacing yet sensitive villain of Kahmunrah played by Simpson's mastermind Hank Azaria, Bill Hader as General Custer and Amy Adams' breath of fresh air performance.
Adams, as usual, was great. She has an energy and sincerity to her as Amelia Earhart that really brought the film to life. Unfortunately, they tried to drub up this romance between her artificial character and Stiller's which was awkward.
Amongst other awkward bumbles were these obnoxious cherub cupid things who flew around and sung like Backstreet Boys songs. Kind of funny for a second, but mostly just annoying.
Either way, for a film that is — yes a family film — but also pitched as an adventure/comedy "Battle of the Smithsonian" seemed to be terribly lacking in the adventure category running through the same territory as the original and missing the punch lines on many quazi-funny jokes. However, it is perfectly okay movie to bring the entire family to no matter how young, I just can't guarantee that the adult members of the audience will be as entertained as watching some other family films made lately.
For this, I give it 2 out of 5 stars for the family film genre.
The film is rated PG for mild action and brief language, and is showing at 4, 7, and 9:15 p.m. nightly at the Entertainer Theater in Ronan.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
‘Angels and Demons’ a masterful mystery
“Angels and Demons” — 4.5 out of 5 stars for thriller/suspense
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
Opposed to its precursor book-to-film adaptation “The Davinci Code”, a relative big screen belly flop, “Angels and Demons” dives in deep as a non-stop thrill ride with plenty of mystery, intrigue, and fateful twists to keep audiences on the edges of their seats.
Out of the early summer blockbusters I have to say that I enjoyed “Wolverine” and “Star Trek” for what they are, but this is a different caliber of film that blows both right out of the water. From Director Ron Howard’s pristine footage of Rome and the Vatican City, to the stunning visual effects, to stars Tom Hanks’ and Ewan
McGregor’s dueling great performances — this is a don’t miss film, no matter what the season.
Based off the novel by Dan Brown, acclaimed actor Tom Hanks plays Robert Langdon, a Harvard professor and expert symbologist who has dedicated his studies to investigating the past and present of the Vatican and Catholicism’s influence on world history. The story picks up with the death of the Pope and the church is called to conclave to decide its predecessor, but a dark ancient enemy of the Vatican has returned and left symbols all over the city — including inscribed on the chests of three dead church cardinals.
It seems the villain is taking out each proposed favorite to take the Papal office, and Langdon is the only man with the knowledge to unravel the puzzle and stop the murders from occurring before it’s too late.
Hanks gives a fair performance in this one — although his performance pails in comparison to films such as “Forest Gump”, “Cast Away”, and “The Terminal.” However, supporting actor Ewan McGregor (“Trainspotting”, “Star Wars: Episodes I and II”) upstages the legendary lead actor as Patrick McKenna, an assistant to the deceased Pope aids Langdon in his investigation knowing full well both of their lives are on the line.
Relatively unknown Swedish and Danish actors Stellan Skarsgard and Nikolaj Lie Kaas also provided quality supporting performances as a police commander with dark secrets and a deadly assassin for hire.
In my opinion there’s no higher tier level of directors than the level Ron Howard (“Frost/Nixon”, “A Beautiful Mind”, and “Backdraft”) is on currently. With cinematographer and director of photography Salvatore Totino at his side for their fifth film together, Howard can do no wrong here. The dynamic duo made a frantic thriller into a visually beautiful film that had the patience and maturity of a seasoned drama with the edge of a classic horror film.
While watching “Angels”, I was reminded of “Don’t Look Now” — a truly great thriller starring Donald Sutherland and based in the mystical city of Venice.
So even if you’ve read the book — love or hate Dan Brown — you will be pleased to see the story and characters come to life on screen in a big way. If you’re like me and you haven’t read the books well you my dear are on for a ride full of twists, deceit, and bloody betrayal.
Two advisories I would put out there are that this film is two hours and 18 minutes in length, but doesn’t seem like it, and there is a good deal of realistic, graphic violence that was not present in the “Davinci Code.”
The film and novel also both deal heavily in the philosophical debate of truth between spiritual belief and stone cold logic and scientific fact — but makes attempts to meet in the middle. The storyline is fictional, but deals with some very factual details of the Catholic church to make the plot seem all that much more real and believable.
None of these factors were a problem for me, but for some viewers they may be. This films primary purpose is to entertain and entertain it does, quite well.
For the thriller and suspense/mystery genres I would have to give this film a 4.5 out of 5 star rating and highly recommend it.
“Angels and Demons” is rated PG-13 for sequences of violence, thematic material and disturbing images. The film is showing at 4, 6:50, and 9:30 p.m. nightly at the Showboat Cinema 2 in Polson.
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
Opposed to its precursor book-to-film adaptation “The Davinci Code”, a relative big screen belly flop, “Angels and Demons” dives in deep as a non-stop thrill ride with plenty of mystery, intrigue, and fateful twists to keep audiences on the edges of their seats.
Out of the early summer blockbusters I have to say that I enjoyed “Wolverine” and “Star Trek” for what they are, but this is a different caliber of film that blows both right out of the water. From Director Ron Howard’s pristine footage of Rome and the Vatican City, to the stunning visual effects, to stars Tom Hanks’ and Ewan
McGregor’s dueling great performances — this is a don’t miss film, no matter what the season.
Based off the novel by Dan Brown, acclaimed actor Tom Hanks plays Robert Langdon, a Harvard professor and expert symbologist who has dedicated his studies to investigating the past and present of the Vatican and Catholicism’s influence on world history. The story picks up with the death of the Pope and the church is called to conclave to decide its predecessor, but a dark ancient enemy of the Vatican has returned and left symbols all over the city — including inscribed on the chests of three dead church cardinals.
It seems the villain is taking out each proposed favorite to take the Papal office, and Langdon is the only man with the knowledge to unravel the puzzle and stop the murders from occurring before it’s too late.
Hanks gives a fair performance in this one — although his performance pails in comparison to films such as “Forest Gump”, “Cast Away”, and “The Terminal.” However, supporting actor Ewan McGregor (“Trainspotting”, “Star Wars: Episodes I and II”) upstages the legendary lead actor as Patrick McKenna, an assistant to the deceased Pope aids Langdon in his investigation knowing full well both of their lives are on the line.
Relatively unknown Swedish and Danish actors Stellan Skarsgard and Nikolaj Lie Kaas also provided quality supporting performances as a police commander with dark secrets and a deadly assassin for hire.
In my opinion there’s no higher tier level of directors than the level Ron Howard (“Frost/Nixon”, “A Beautiful Mind”, and “Backdraft”) is on currently. With cinematographer and director of photography Salvatore Totino at his side for their fifth film together, Howard can do no wrong here. The dynamic duo made a frantic thriller into a visually beautiful film that had the patience and maturity of a seasoned drama with the edge of a classic horror film.
While watching “Angels”, I was reminded of “Don’t Look Now” — a truly great thriller starring Donald Sutherland and based in the mystical city of Venice.
So even if you’ve read the book — love or hate Dan Brown — you will be pleased to see the story and characters come to life on screen in a big way. If you’re like me and you haven’t read the books well you my dear are on for a ride full of twists, deceit, and bloody betrayal.
Two advisories I would put out there are that this film is two hours and 18 minutes in length, but doesn’t seem like it, and there is a good deal of realistic, graphic violence that was not present in the “Davinci Code.”
The film and novel also both deal heavily in the philosophical debate of truth between spiritual belief and stone cold logic and scientific fact — but makes attempts to meet in the middle. The storyline is fictional, but deals with some very factual details of the Catholic church to make the plot seem all that much more real and believable.
None of these factors were a problem for me, but for some viewers they may be. This films primary purpose is to entertain and entertain it does, quite well.
For the thriller and suspense/mystery genres I would have to give this film a 4.5 out of 5 star rating and highly recommend it.
“Angels and Demons” is rated PG-13 for sequences of violence, thematic material and disturbing images. The film is showing at 4, 6:50, and 9:30 p.m. nightly at the Showboat Cinema 2 in Polson.
Monday, May 11, 2009
‘Star Trek’ beams up old, new fans
“Star Trek” -- 4 out of 5 stars for Sci-Fi
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
With a new young cast, a revamped U.S.S. Enterprise, and fresh bag of tricks in the form of special effects, “Star Trek” is truly a larger than life adventure.
I’m no trekkie, only having seen two of the 1990’s Star Trek films in my day, but as a newcomer to the series I found this prequel to be fun, engaging, and an all-around enjoyable movie experience to kick off the summer movie season.
The film begins with a bang as we are shown the fate of Captain James T. Kirk’s father as a hero who saved the lives of others while he went down with his ship. Fast-forward 20 years and Jim Kirk (Chris Pine) is all grown up as a talented, boisterous, and rebellious enrollee in Starfleet on the path to fulfilling his destiny.
Along the way he clashes with rising rival Spock (Zachary Quinto), as we are introduced to the Enterprise and the clan of quirky characters who inhabit this legendary interstellar spaceship. The ship responds to a distress call from Spock’s home of Vulcan to find the fate of his planet and the universe hanging in the balance.
First of all, Captain Kirk is a great legendary character. The John Wayne of science- fiction. Considering that Chris Pine has no lead roles in his young movie or TV career, the chap did one heck of a job portraying the man that Bill Shatner defined so well. Pine even has some of the qualities of Shatner including the same piercing blue-eyed gleam as he faces doom-filled decisions atop his captain’s chair.
This performance matched with the plot’s focus on the rivalry between Kirk and Spock was really a winning combo as TV star Zach Quinto of “Heroes” and “24” fame captured the intensity and subtle vulnerability of the vulcan/human half-breed stuck between worlds.
Karl Urban, John Cho, Simon Pegg, and Anton Yelchin also served well as classic Trek characters Dr. McCoy, Sulu, Scotty, and Chekov. Haven’t heard of any of those names before? I’m not surprised. In fact the biggest name actor in the film is Eric Bana who gives a near perfect portrayal of the villain Nero.
The only other recognizable actor for most would be the man behind the original Spock, Leonard Nimoy, who appears in this one as future Spock.
Which reminds me I forgot to include that black holes and time travel are thrown into the mix in this film almost as haphazardly as they were in this season of “Lost.”The connection you ask?
J.J. Abrams was a co-creator of Lost and a writer for a bulk of the episodes. Still a co-producer of Lost, it seems a little ironic that a show that has taken a serious topsy-turvy time travel spin lately has some of the same elements as his second major movie directing gig (Abrams directed “Cloverfield” in 2008).
Plus, the plot seemed to be very on the edge of your seat action-driven, never stalling throughout the two-hour film – a trait that reminded me of when I viewed “Transformers” two years ago. To no surprise of mine I found out that the writing team for this movie is the exact same two guys who wrote screenplays for “Transformers” and “Transformers: Rise of the Fallen” (due out in June).
Not being a Star Trek diehard like the legions of fans out there, I phoned my trekkie friend after the movie Sunday to see what he thought of it. He had already seen the film twice over the weekend and was really happy over the way it was made regardless of its flashier, sexier polish.
And that’s one thing I love about Star Trek is that it’s about the fans. I remember looking around the packed theater at the matinee I attended and seeing a family of four, a row of elementary-aged kids, a row of teenagers, a couple in their 50s, a couple in their 20s … my point is Star Trek appeals to some part in just about everyone, no matter how old.
Then when the film was over, it received actually applause from the audience – the first time I’d seen that in a while. Oh for the love of trekkies.
There are very few perfect sci-fi films, and this movie wasn’t quite one of them, but it was fairly close and a sincere joy to take in as someone who has never really been into Star Trek before. I give it 4 out of 5 stars for the sci-fi genre.
“Star Trek” is PG-13 for violence, sci-fi action, and brief sexual content (it’s nothing too racy though, bring the kids). The film is showing at 4:15, 7, and 9:30 p.m. nightly at the Showboat 2 in Polson.
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
With a new young cast, a revamped U.S.S. Enterprise, and fresh bag of tricks in the form of special effects, “Star Trek” is truly a larger than life adventure.
I’m no trekkie, only having seen two of the 1990’s Star Trek films in my day, but as a newcomer to the series I found this prequel to be fun, engaging, and an all-around enjoyable movie experience to kick off the summer movie season.
The film begins with a bang as we are shown the fate of Captain James T. Kirk’s father as a hero who saved the lives of others while he went down with his ship. Fast-forward 20 years and Jim Kirk (Chris Pine) is all grown up as a talented, boisterous, and rebellious enrollee in Starfleet on the path to fulfilling his destiny.
Along the way he clashes with rising rival Spock (Zachary Quinto), as we are introduced to the Enterprise and the clan of quirky characters who inhabit this legendary interstellar spaceship. The ship responds to a distress call from Spock’s home of Vulcan to find the fate of his planet and the universe hanging in the balance.
First of all, Captain Kirk is a great legendary character. The John Wayne of science- fiction. Considering that Chris Pine has no lead roles in his young movie or TV career, the chap did one heck of a job portraying the man that Bill Shatner defined so well. Pine even has some of the qualities of Shatner including the same piercing blue-eyed gleam as he faces doom-filled decisions atop his captain’s chair.
This performance matched with the plot’s focus on the rivalry between Kirk and Spock was really a winning combo as TV star Zach Quinto of “Heroes” and “24” fame captured the intensity and subtle vulnerability of the vulcan/human half-breed stuck between worlds.
Karl Urban, John Cho, Simon Pegg, and Anton Yelchin also served well as classic Trek characters Dr. McCoy, Sulu, Scotty, and Chekov. Haven’t heard of any of those names before? I’m not surprised. In fact the biggest name actor in the film is Eric Bana who gives a near perfect portrayal of the villain Nero.
The only other recognizable actor for most would be the man behind the original Spock, Leonard Nimoy, who appears in this one as future Spock.
Which reminds me I forgot to include that black holes and time travel are thrown into the mix in this film almost as haphazardly as they were in this season of “Lost.”The connection you ask?
J.J. Abrams was a co-creator of Lost and a writer for a bulk of the episodes. Still a co-producer of Lost, it seems a little ironic that a show that has taken a serious topsy-turvy time travel spin lately has some of the same elements as his second major movie directing gig (Abrams directed “Cloverfield” in 2008).
Plus, the plot seemed to be very on the edge of your seat action-driven, never stalling throughout the two-hour film – a trait that reminded me of when I viewed “Transformers” two years ago. To no surprise of mine I found out that the writing team for this movie is the exact same two guys who wrote screenplays for “Transformers” and “Transformers: Rise of the Fallen” (due out in June).
Not being a Star Trek diehard like the legions of fans out there, I phoned my trekkie friend after the movie Sunday to see what he thought of it. He had already seen the film twice over the weekend and was really happy over the way it was made regardless of its flashier, sexier polish.
And that’s one thing I love about Star Trek is that it’s about the fans. I remember looking around the packed theater at the matinee I attended and seeing a family of four, a row of elementary-aged kids, a row of teenagers, a couple in their 50s, a couple in their 20s … my point is Star Trek appeals to some part in just about everyone, no matter how old.
Then when the film was over, it received actually applause from the audience – the first time I’d seen that in a while. Oh for the love of trekkies.
There are very few perfect sci-fi films, and this movie wasn’t quite one of them, but it was fairly close and a sincere joy to take in as someone who has never really been into Star Trek before. I give it 4 out of 5 stars for the sci-fi genre.
“Star Trek” is PG-13 for violence, sci-fi action, and brief sexual content (it’s nothing too racy though, bring the kids). The film is showing at 4:15, 7, and 9:30 p.m. nightly at the Showboat 2 in Polson.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
‘Wolverine’ slashes onto screen
“X-Men Origins: Wolverine” — 3.5 out of 5 stars for action
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
Hugh Jackman soaks up the spotlight and doesn’t disappoint as he portrays arguably one of the most compelling comic book characters of all time in the motley mutant Wolverine in “X-Men Origins.”
For those of you old school X-Men comic fans who felt a bit jipped by the first three, this movie will be the best of the series for you with more characters and more of the popular Stan Lee comic’s roots. For those of you who just got on the X-Men train with the first movie in 2000, this has more of the mutant mayhem and intense action scenes that you’ve grown to love. So really, it’s a win-win film if you like X-Men.
The film picks up with James Logan’s (Hugh Jackman) tragic story from childhood ailments, to the murder of his father, to fallen romance, to discovering his special abilities which allowed him to serve in, and withstand battle injuries, in each war from the Civil War to Vietnam. Upon a mishap during military duty that landed him in prison, Logan is discovered by military scientist William Stryker (Danny Huston) who recrutes him for a special team of mutants he is building.
When the team’s objective moves from defeating foreign druglords to sacrificing innocent civillians, Logan defects and goes his own way. But he can’t escape for long as he’s called back to defend his fellow mutants who are being picked off one by one by a mutant killer that he knows all too well.
First off, I must say that I’m a huge X-Men fan. I always have been and it’s X-Men that got me into the comic book culture to begin with. That being said, I’m a fan but also a tougher critic of the movies. The first installment was a B minus for me and the second and third films might have passed. This movie, however, was focused and true to the struggles of the character and the intense storylines of the comics and I think it’s probably the best X-Men film made.
The primary reason? Hugh Jackman. The man is a flat-out talented actor, and at this point, I really can’t see anyone else playing the role any better. That’s 1.) a tribute to Jackman’s intensity in the role and 2.) a nod to the costume and makeup team who now for four X-Men films have turned the former broadway musical star into the grumpy, vengeful, and delightful anti-hero over time.
In supporting roles, Huston plays a convincing two-faced nemesis, and Liev Schreiber (”Defiance”, “The Omen”)was twice as good as Sabretooth with half the muscle mass of pro wrestler/actor Triple H who played the role in the other X-Men films. Not to mention new characters that were skipped in the first three films like the inigmatic Gambit, played by Taylor Kitsch (Friday Night Lights), and the lethal mega-villain Deadpool, played quite well by — believe it or not — Ryan Reynolds of Van Wilder fame.
Director Gavin Hood is the also the same man who in 2005 wrote and directed the moving, awarding-winning film “Tsotsi”, about the life of an African gang leader — a far better film. But that was a true drama, “Wolverine” is a true-blue action flick with summer blockbuster written all over it and after all it’s not uncommon for filmmakers to sacrifice quality for a larger paycheck and a big name movie to put them on the board.
Hood didn’t do much in the way of creative visuals or shots, but some of the special effects are worthwhile and the fight scene choreography was the best I’d seen out of the four films. Luckily comic book guru Stan Lee (the primary creator of Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Iron Man, The Hulk, Captain America and Daredevil) held the position of executive producer for the film, keeping the storyline’s integrity intact.
Still as a true X-Men fan, I can’t help but be let down a little bit. I mean is it so much to ask for a comic book film to take a chance like the fellas who’ve gotten their hands on graphic novel films like “Sin City” and “Watchmen”. I know, I know graphic novels are grittier by nature but if you watch those movies there is a real, artisticly beautiful visual flare to them.
I see none of that in a single Marvel comics-based movie that has been made and I’m still waiting because Stan Lee’s comics are a timeless piece of art that deserve to be treated in such a way. An explosion of color, emotion, and tales of the struggle for humanity on an ink paper page. That same quality hasn’t transitioned the same to the big screen and maybe it never will.
Nonetheless I think this was the best of the four X-Men films, I’m just sad it had to come last. Will this prequel of sorts be the curtain call for the popular series? I guess only time will tell. However, a better answer to that question is given at the very end of the credits if you have time to wait around and see.
Whether you love them or still have no idea what an X-Man is, I think if you’re an action film guy, or gal, and you’re looking for the first summer blockbuster of the season, look no further than here. I give this film 3.5 stars out of five for the action genre.
“X-Men Origins: Wolverine” is rated PG-13 for violence, intense action sequenes, and partial nudity. The film is showing at 4, 7, and 9:15 p.m. nightly at the Entertainer Theatre in Ronan.
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
Hugh Jackman soaks up the spotlight and doesn’t disappoint as he portrays arguably one of the most compelling comic book characters of all time in the motley mutant Wolverine in “X-Men Origins.”
For those of you old school X-Men comic fans who felt a bit jipped by the first three, this movie will be the best of the series for you with more characters and more of the popular Stan Lee comic’s roots. For those of you who just got on the X-Men train with the first movie in 2000, this has more of the mutant mayhem and intense action scenes that you’ve grown to love. So really, it’s a win-win film if you like X-Men.
The film picks up with James Logan’s (Hugh Jackman) tragic story from childhood ailments, to the murder of his father, to fallen romance, to discovering his special abilities which allowed him to serve in, and withstand battle injuries, in each war from the Civil War to Vietnam. Upon a mishap during military duty that landed him in prison, Logan is discovered by military scientist William Stryker (Danny Huston) who recrutes him for a special team of mutants he is building.
When the team’s objective moves from defeating foreign druglords to sacrificing innocent civillians, Logan defects and goes his own way. But he can’t escape for long as he’s called back to defend his fellow mutants who are being picked off one by one by a mutant killer that he knows all too well.
First off, I must say that I’m a huge X-Men fan. I always have been and it’s X-Men that got me into the comic book culture to begin with. That being said, I’m a fan but also a tougher critic of the movies. The first installment was a B minus for me and the second and third films might have passed. This movie, however, was focused and true to the struggles of the character and the intense storylines of the comics and I think it’s probably the best X-Men film made.
The primary reason? Hugh Jackman. The man is a flat-out talented actor, and at this point, I really can’t see anyone else playing the role any better. That’s 1.) a tribute to Jackman’s intensity in the role and 2.) a nod to the costume and makeup team who now for four X-Men films have turned the former broadway musical star into the grumpy, vengeful, and delightful anti-hero over time.
In supporting roles, Huston plays a convincing two-faced nemesis, and Liev Schreiber (”Defiance”, “The Omen”)was twice as good as Sabretooth with half the muscle mass of pro wrestler/actor Triple H who played the role in the other X-Men films. Not to mention new characters that were skipped in the first three films like the inigmatic Gambit, played by Taylor Kitsch (Friday Night Lights), and the lethal mega-villain Deadpool, played quite well by — believe it or not — Ryan Reynolds of Van Wilder fame.
Director Gavin Hood is the also the same man who in 2005 wrote and directed the moving, awarding-winning film “Tsotsi”, about the life of an African gang leader — a far better film. But that was a true drama, “Wolverine” is a true-blue action flick with summer blockbuster written all over it and after all it’s not uncommon for filmmakers to sacrifice quality for a larger paycheck and a big name movie to put them on the board.
Hood didn’t do much in the way of creative visuals or shots, but some of the special effects are worthwhile and the fight scene choreography was the best I’d seen out of the four films. Luckily comic book guru Stan Lee (the primary creator of Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Iron Man, The Hulk, Captain America and Daredevil) held the position of executive producer for the film, keeping the storyline’s integrity intact.
Still as a true X-Men fan, I can’t help but be let down a little bit. I mean is it so much to ask for a comic book film to take a chance like the fellas who’ve gotten their hands on graphic novel films like “Sin City” and “Watchmen”. I know, I know graphic novels are grittier by nature but if you watch those movies there is a real, artisticly beautiful visual flare to them.
I see none of that in a single Marvel comics-based movie that has been made and I’m still waiting because Stan Lee’s comics are a timeless piece of art that deserve to be treated in such a way. An explosion of color, emotion, and tales of the struggle for humanity on an ink paper page. That same quality hasn’t transitioned the same to the big screen and maybe it never will.
Nonetheless I think this was the best of the four X-Men films, I’m just sad it had to come last. Will this prequel of sorts be the curtain call for the popular series? I guess only time will tell. However, a better answer to that question is given at the very end of the credits if you have time to wait around and see.
Whether you love them or still have no idea what an X-Man is, I think if you’re an action film guy, or gal, and you’re looking for the first summer blockbuster of the season, look no further than here. I give this film 3.5 stars out of five for the action genre.
“X-Men Origins: Wolverine” is rated PG-13 for violence, intense action sequenes, and partial nudity. The film is showing at 4, 7, and 9:15 p.m. nightly at the Entertainer Theatre in Ronan.
Monday, April 6, 2009
“I Love You Man” a bromance for the ages
“I Love You Man” — 4 out of 5 stars for comedy
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
Comedic co-stars Paul Rudd and Jason Segel have never been funnier than in the bromantic comedy “I Love You Man”, that’s got enough heart for the ladies and just enough raunchy humor for the fellas.
I don’t know if this one actually qualifies as a true romantic comedy, but it has a lot of the same ingredients just with a dude twist. If it does qualify, it’s easily the first romantic comedy that I wanted to go back to the theater the next day to see it again. It’s not your next teen/young adult cringe comedy or your sweetie-pie Hugh Grant romantic comedy, but really an atypical comedy that I would recommend to people looking for something a little different.
Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd) is a guy who’s always had good girlfriends but never really been one of the “guys.” In fact, when it came to planning and wedding and picking his friends for groomsmen, his momma probably topped the list.
So Peter, with the help of his bro-rific brother (Andy Sandberg), sets out to make some new friends that he can maybe find someone to call his best man while standing at the alter. Through hilarious mishap after mishap, Peter’s attempts to meet a normal guy he can befriend become more and more pathetic in nature. That is until he meets Sydney Fife (Jason Segel of “How I Met Your Mother”) who saves Peter from a lonely life with only the fairer sex, introducing him to the kingdom of dudedom.
Writer/director John Hamburg directed Ben Stiller film “Along Came Polly” and was the screenwriter or mastermind behind other Stiller hits such as “Meet the Parents”, “Zoolander”, and “Meet the Fockers.” He’s even at helm of “Little Fockers”, which is slated for 2011.
If you’ve seen “I Love You Man” this fact probably makes a lot of sense as Rudd plays a much more awkward Stiller-esque character than he has in recent films. Despite the fact that the protagonist in his films is often a photo copy of a previous Hamburg hero, this role really seemed to fit well for Rudd as he played the most honest and relateable character of his career.
Although Rudd really hits a high-note with this one, I don’t think he could’ve done it without wingman Segel by his side. The off-screen buddies have co-starred alongside eachother in a few films over the past few years (Judd Apatow produced films “Knocked Up” and “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”) and are really rising to the top together at the same time. This movie proved that neither of them need to be just minor characters in Apatow movies anymore and can grab major roles that Ben Stiller used to get before his payroll went through the roof.
But not to diss on the small side-characters in comedies, because they can really further the hilarity and did so here as well. The beautiful Rashida Jones (“The Office”), Jaime Pressly (“My Name Is Earl”), Thomas Lennon (“Reno 911”), J.K. Simmons, Andy Sandberg, Joe Truglio, Aziz Ansari, and Rob Heubel all pitched in great punch lines to make this movie even funnier and more than just a two-man show. The entire cast also proved that you don’t need big names to make a big splash in the laugh pool.
Although there’s more bro- than there is -mance, this film is truly a perfect bromance — in other words a romantic comedy that doesn’t send a majority of men running for the hills. Although it’s still very deserving of its R rating with crude sexual humor and language throughout, the vulgarities are toned down more than most R comedies that come out these days while the film still rings true and brutally honest while keeping its heart.
I give this one 4 out of 5 stars for the comedy genre, and recommend it as a good date movie and an even better laugh-out-loud comedy. “I Love You Man” is showing at Ronan’s Entertainer Cinema at 4, 7, and 9:10 p.m. daily.
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
Comedic co-stars Paul Rudd and Jason Segel have never been funnier than in the bromantic comedy “I Love You Man”, that’s got enough heart for the ladies and just enough raunchy humor for the fellas.
I don’t know if this one actually qualifies as a true romantic comedy, but it has a lot of the same ingredients just with a dude twist. If it does qualify, it’s easily the first romantic comedy that I wanted to go back to the theater the next day to see it again. It’s not your next teen/young adult cringe comedy or your sweetie-pie Hugh Grant romantic comedy, but really an atypical comedy that I would recommend to people looking for something a little different.
Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd) is a guy who’s always had good girlfriends but never really been one of the “guys.” In fact, when it came to planning and wedding and picking his friends for groomsmen, his momma probably topped the list.
So Peter, with the help of his bro-rific brother (Andy Sandberg), sets out to make some new friends that he can maybe find someone to call his best man while standing at the alter. Through hilarious mishap after mishap, Peter’s attempts to meet a normal guy he can befriend become more and more pathetic in nature. That is until he meets Sydney Fife (Jason Segel of “How I Met Your Mother”) who saves Peter from a lonely life with only the fairer sex, introducing him to the kingdom of dudedom.
Writer/director John Hamburg directed Ben Stiller film “Along Came Polly” and was the screenwriter or mastermind behind other Stiller hits such as “Meet the Parents”, “Zoolander”, and “Meet the Fockers.” He’s even at helm of “Little Fockers”, which is slated for 2011.
If you’ve seen “I Love You Man” this fact probably makes a lot of sense as Rudd plays a much more awkward Stiller-esque character than he has in recent films. Despite the fact that the protagonist in his films is often a photo copy of a previous Hamburg hero, this role really seemed to fit well for Rudd as he played the most honest and relateable character of his career.
Although Rudd really hits a high-note with this one, I don’t think he could’ve done it without wingman Segel by his side. The off-screen buddies have co-starred alongside eachother in a few films over the past few years (Judd Apatow produced films “Knocked Up” and “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”) and are really rising to the top together at the same time. This movie proved that neither of them need to be just minor characters in Apatow movies anymore and can grab major roles that Ben Stiller used to get before his payroll went through the roof.
But not to diss on the small side-characters in comedies, because they can really further the hilarity and did so here as well. The beautiful Rashida Jones (“The Office”), Jaime Pressly (“My Name Is Earl”), Thomas Lennon (“Reno 911”), J.K. Simmons, Andy Sandberg, Joe Truglio, Aziz Ansari, and Rob Heubel all pitched in great punch lines to make this movie even funnier and more than just a two-man show. The entire cast also proved that you don’t need big names to make a big splash in the laugh pool.
Although there’s more bro- than there is -mance, this film is truly a perfect bromance — in other words a romantic comedy that doesn’t send a majority of men running for the hills. Although it’s still very deserving of its R rating with crude sexual humor and language throughout, the vulgarities are toned down more than most R comedies that come out these days while the film still rings true and brutally honest while keeping its heart.
I give this one 4 out of 5 stars for the comedy genre, and recommend it as a good date movie and an even better laugh-out-loud comedy. “I Love You Man” is showing at Ronan’s Entertainer Cinema at 4, 7, and 9:10 p.m. daily.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
'Monsters vs. Aliens' saved by satire
"Monsters vs. Aliens" — 3.5 out of 5 stars
Ty Hampton
Critic's Corner
Dreamworks' newest big screen computer animated picture "Monsters vs. Aliens" isn't a lot of things for adult viewers, but it is pretty funny.
Sure it has enough gross-out splats and action-packed spurts for the little guys, but mom and dad won't be sleeping through this one or checking their watch as it is filled with hilarious, but wholesome, political satire and adult comedy that soars over your 10-year-old's heads. But don't worry there's plenty in there for them too.
Most brides have cold feet on their wedding day, but instead Susan (Reese Witherspoon) just grew 200 feet on hers after she was hit by a meteor. The gigantic woman dubbed by the government as "Ginormica" is swept away into a secret hideout where she is locked away with a handful of other mutant "monster" misfits (Seth Rogen, Hugh Laurie, Will Arnett) who never plan on being out in the world again.
But with an alien attack from the evil Gallaxhar (Rainn Wilson) impending on Earth, President Hathaway (Stephen Colbert) turns to his chief general W.R. Monger's (Kiefer Sutherland) plan to combat the aliens with monsters. The monsters set out to use their odd talents to save the world from utter demise.
Despite having a subpar storyline with no real direction or message (other than defeat the aliens) the writers of this one managed to sneak in some good lines and quips that are performed perfectly by a comedic ensemble cast like none I've seen in animated films of recent years. Sure, maybe they're not all the biggest names in Hollywood, but most of the actors who voiced-over the animated characters are in fact some of the funniest characters out there right now.
Other than the forementioned stars — Paul Rudd, Ed Helms, Renee Zellweger, John Krasinski, Jeffrey Tambor, and Amy Poehler also lend vocal performances to the film in smaller roles. Not bad for a kid's movie, right?
So the storyline isn't great and I didn't find anything too groundbreaking with the visuals of the animation, but I've heard that it's cooler in 3-D so maybe bring a pair of your own glasses if you get a chance. Many animated films are taking the 3-D turn these days and this throw-back trend seems to be the wave of the future.
This animated film doesn't make the same class as 2008's "Kung Fu Panda" or "Wall-E" — with I thought were both don't miss films for the genre — but it succeeds in some genuinely comedic "pop culture reference" moments that wouldn't have worked in the better two. Like Seth Rogen's character, a gelatinous blob named Bob who is therefore easily confused, emotionally fragile, and proceeds to attempt his best pick-up lines on a jello pudding.
If it helps to rank this animated feature in your mind, the film was created by the same people who made "Shark's Tale" and "Shrek 2" — neither the best animated Dreamworks piece but still funny and entertaining in their own right. For me, I would put their latest attempt "Monsters vs. Aliens" above Rob Letterman and Conrad Vernon's other works.
For the animated film genre I'm going to give this one 3.5 out of 5 stars with no reservations as it is great for the entire family. Sure there will be a couple of clean adult jokes that go over your kid's heads but there will probably be some "splat" kid jokes that go over our adult heads as well.
Plus, it's just about right at a short and sweet 1 hour and 34 minutes. Either way I recommend it to families and fans of animated movies.
"Monsters vs. Aliens" is PG for sci-fi action, some crude humor and mild language. The movie is showing at the Showboat Cinema 2 in Polson at 4, 7:15, and 9 p.m. nightly.
Ty Hampton
Critic's Corner
Dreamworks' newest big screen computer animated picture "Monsters vs. Aliens" isn't a lot of things for adult viewers, but it is pretty funny.
Sure it has enough gross-out splats and action-packed spurts for the little guys, but mom and dad won't be sleeping through this one or checking their watch as it is filled with hilarious, but wholesome, political satire and adult comedy that soars over your 10-year-old's heads. But don't worry there's plenty in there for them too.
Most brides have cold feet on their wedding day, but instead Susan (Reese Witherspoon) just grew 200 feet on hers after she was hit by a meteor. The gigantic woman dubbed by the government as "Ginormica" is swept away into a secret hideout where she is locked away with a handful of other mutant "monster" misfits (Seth Rogen, Hugh Laurie, Will Arnett) who never plan on being out in the world again.
But with an alien attack from the evil Gallaxhar (Rainn Wilson) impending on Earth, President Hathaway (Stephen Colbert) turns to his chief general W.R. Monger's (Kiefer Sutherland) plan to combat the aliens with monsters. The monsters set out to use their odd talents to save the world from utter demise.
Despite having a subpar storyline with no real direction or message (other than defeat the aliens) the writers of this one managed to sneak in some good lines and quips that are performed perfectly by a comedic ensemble cast like none I've seen in animated films of recent years. Sure, maybe they're not all the biggest names in Hollywood, but most of the actors who voiced-over the animated characters are in fact some of the funniest characters out there right now.
Other than the forementioned stars — Paul Rudd, Ed Helms, Renee Zellweger, John Krasinski, Jeffrey Tambor, and Amy Poehler also lend vocal performances to the film in smaller roles. Not bad for a kid's movie, right?
So the storyline isn't great and I didn't find anything too groundbreaking with the visuals of the animation, but I've heard that it's cooler in 3-D so maybe bring a pair of your own glasses if you get a chance. Many animated films are taking the 3-D turn these days and this throw-back trend seems to be the wave of the future.
This animated film doesn't make the same class as 2008's "Kung Fu Panda" or "Wall-E" — with I thought were both don't miss films for the genre — but it succeeds in some genuinely comedic "pop culture reference" moments that wouldn't have worked in the better two. Like Seth Rogen's character, a gelatinous blob named Bob who is therefore easily confused, emotionally fragile, and proceeds to attempt his best pick-up lines on a jello pudding.
If it helps to rank this animated feature in your mind, the film was created by the same people who made "Shark's Tale" and "Shrek 2" — neither the best animated Dreamworks piece but still funny and entertaining in their own right. For me, I would put their latest attempt "Monsters vs. Aliens" above Rob Letterman and Conrad Vernon's other works.
For the animated film genre I'm going to give this one 3.5 out of 5 stars with no reservations as it is great for the entire family. Sure there will be a couple of clean adult jokes that go over your kid's heads but there will probably be some "splat" kid jokes that go over our adult heads as well.
Plus, it's just about right at a short and sweet 1 hour and 34 minutes. Either way I recommend it to families and fans of animated movies.
"Monsters vs. Aliens" is PG for sci-fi action, some crude humor and mild language. The movie is showing at the Showboat Cinema 2 in Polson at 4, 7:15, and 9 p.m. nightly.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Neeson thrills in 'Taken'
"Taken" — 3 out of 5 stars
Ty Hampton
Critic's Corner
With a commanding performance, intense fight scenes, and unrelenting cool in "Taken" — legendary actor Liam Neeson placed his best argument for why he in his 50's could steal Daniel Craig's job playing Mr. Bond in his sleep.
Bryan Mills (Neeson) is a retired CIA spy who picks up bodyguard jobs to make some extra cash as he tries to be a better father after years of life on the road abroad. When Mills' daughter is kidnapped by sex-slave traffickers on a trip to Paris, the retired agent dusts himself off and goes back to work with a 96-hour ticking clock before he knows she will be sold as a prostitute and never seen again.
As a master of espionage he needs no training for this job, except this time around he's on a no-holds-barred path of vengeance to reclaim what matters to him most, no matter what the cost.
We saw a bit of Neeson's action chops recently in "Batman Begins" and "Gangs of New York", but I was surprised that he as a great dramatic actor could also take on such a dominating action role as this. His CIA-like proficiency and candor were believable, but it was his dramatic rhythm that kept me on my seat for the bulk of this one. This man can flat out act, period.
The North Ireland-born lead-actor of "Taken" and 'Schindler's List' has a film career spanning three decades and seems to be kicking more fanny than ever at age 56. But the most shocking thing on this veteran actor's resume isn't filed under past jobs, rather future projects as Neeson is lined up to again work with Steven Spielberg playing Abraham Lincoln in the biopic scheduled for a 2011 release.
Although he was working with a predictable storyline solely focused on revenge, director Pierre Morel With "Taken" turning out a polished and professional big screen directoral debut, one only needs to look at his prior experience behind the camera as the cinematographer (or "director of photography") for Jason Statham action flicks "Transporter", "Transporter 2" and "War" with Jet Li.
The story is quite conventional, linear and predictable though. No twists, no turns — just the thrill of exacting seemingly justifiable revenge. The problem I have with this is you have an amazing lead actor and a story that could have been expanded to tap into some of his skills more but instead opted not to do so. What do we know about the other characters (good and bad) in this story? Nothing. What do we know about the protagonist Mills? Not much, but enough to know this guy has deep secrets and is very, very good at what he does.
So why not make this a more interesting story as a character study of a man who is a has-been badass, who's washed-up, and now dealing with this vengeance-fueled retrieval of his daughter with some degree of emotion or struggle — rather than enjoying it with such uncomplicated ease.This of course would spin the film back into more of a dramatic thriller genre field, ala "Gone Baby Gone" which is a far better film that seized all the right opportunities.
Instead "Taken" lingers as an entertaining, but slightly better than average, action/thriller. For this reason I give it 3 out of 5 stars for the genre, but I would recommend the movie to action fans who are weary on excessive content these days as this one keeps it in the PG-13 ballpark.
"Taken" is PG-13 for intense sequences of violence, thematic material, and drug references. This movie is showing at the Entertainer Cinema in Ronan at 4, 7, and 9:10 p.m. daily.
Ty Hampton
Critic's Corner
With a commanding performance, intense fight scenes, and unrelenting cool in "Taken" — legendary actor Liam Neeson placed his best argument for why he in his 50's could steal Daniel Craig's job playing Mr. Bond in his sleep.
Bryan Mills (Neeson) is a retired CIA spy who picks up bodyguard jobs to make some extra cash as he tries to be a better father after years of life on the road abroad. When Mills' daughter is kidnapped by sex-slave traffickers on a trip to Paris, the retired agent dusts himself off and goes back to work with a 96-hour ticking clock before he knows she will be sold as a prostitute and never seen again.
As a master of espionage he needs no training for this job, except this time around he's on a no-holds-barred path of vengeance to reclaim what matters to him most, no matter what the cost.
We saw a bit of Neeson's action chops recently in "Batman Begins" and "Gangs of New York", but I was surprised that he as a great dramatic actor could also take on such a dominating action role as this. His CIA-like proficiency and candor were believable, but it was his dramatic rhythm that kept me on my seat for the bulk of this one. This man can flat out act, period.
The North Ireland-born lead-actor of "Taken" and 'Schindler's List' has a film career spanning three decades and seems to be kicking more fanny than ever at age 56. But the most shocking thing on this veteran actor's resume isn't filed under past jobs, rather future projects as Neeson is lined up to again work with Steven Spielberg playing Abraham Lincoln in the biopic scheduled for a 2011 release.
Although he was working with a predictable storyline solely focused on revenge, director Pierre Morel With "Taken" turning out a polished and professional big screen directoral debut, one only needs to look at his prior experience behind the camera as the cinematographer (or "director of photography") for Jason Statham action flicks "Transporter", "Transporter 2" and "War" with Jet Li.
The story is quite conventional, linear and predictable though. No twists, no turns — just the thrill of exacting seemingly justifiable revenge. The problem I have with this is you have an amazing lead actor and a story that could have been expanded to tap into some of his skills more but instead opted not to do so. What do we know about the other characters (good and bad) in this story? Nothing. What do we know about the protagonist Mills? Not much, but enough to know this guy has deep secrets and is very, very good at what he does.
So why not make this a more interesting story as a character study of a man who is a has-been badass, who's washed-up, and now dealing with this vengeance-fueled retrieval of his daughter with some degree of emotion or struggle — rather than enjoying it with such uncomplicated ease.This of course would spin the film back into more of a dramatic thriller genre field, ala "Gone Baby Gone" which is a far better film that seized all the right opportunities.
Instead "Taken" lingers as an entertaining, but slightly better than average, action/thriller. For this reason I give it 3 out of 5 stars for the genre, but I would recommend the movie to action fans who are weary on excessive content these days as this one keeps it in the PG-13 ballpark.
"Taken" is PG-13 for intense sequences of violence, thematic material, and drug references. This movie is showing at the Entertainer Cinema in Ronan at 4, 7, and 9:10 p.m. daily.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Artful ‘Watchmen’ stunning on bigscreen
“Watchmen” – 4 out of 5 stars
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
Although the heroes of the “Watchmen” exist in an alternate universe parallel to our own, these masked crusaders ring truer than any I’ve ever seen on the silver screen in this popular graphic novel film adaptation.
The Watchmen are a gang of cops who started wearing costumes in response to theatric criminals and served to protect the American people through World War II and Vietnam. In the Watchmen world we won Nam, the year is 1985 and Richard Nixon is (somehow) on his fifth term as President as the U.S. is headed towards nuclear holocaust with Russia.
Nixon has recently banned the Watchmen from duty as one of them, Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), who is a walking nuclear bomb due to side affects from a terrible government experiment. Manhattan is the only Watchman with extraordinary powers as the rest return to civilian duties or common lives – until shaken awake by the mysterious (and peculiar) death of one of their own.
Although the film jumps between characters, the mystery is unraveled mostly from the view of one protagonist in particular – the masked, vengeful and verging on psychopathic Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley). This guy is my favorite character as he has a haunted past and carries a thirst for justice that he is willing to quench however and whenever – a true superhero bandit.
I was so amazed with Haley’s standout performance as Rorschach that I was bothered why I hadn’t seen the actor before. Then I looked up the guy and I have seen him before, but in a much different role – that of the smelly hippy Dukes character in Will Ferrell’s 2008 comedy “Semi-Pro.” Wow, this dude’s got range.
All the story’s protagonists are unconventional, flawed superheroes who drink, smoke, swear, and aren’t afraid to kill in the name of justice. No doubt, the graphic novel made for very juicy material, and I’ve heard this movie stayed true to epic comic.
However, fans of the comic may stay with the subtleties of the storyline a litter better than the mass audiences who will no doubt flock to the theaters to see this visual masterpiece. But this story has a little bit of something to keep everybody along for the ride.
Director Zack Snyder also captained “300” with help from director of photography Larry Fong on both films. The 2006 Spartan bloodbath was equally as visually stimulating, and if there is anything these guys get it’s how to impress with art direction and special effects.
Being a fan of more traditional DC and Marvel Comics characters as a kid and young adult, I enjoyed learning about the Watchmen universe of these flawed and jaded superheroes who were foreign to me. The storytelling was what made this so interesting and easy to me as the filmmaker did not simply introduce one hero after the other from the get go – rather peeled away layers of complexity throughout.
I’ve always sort of dreamed of filmmaker Quentin Tarantino remaking a classic superhero story from his own point of view and – although this doesn’t have the quirky, clever dialogue of a Tarantino film – I get the feeling Watchmen is about as close as it’s going to get.
Additionally, the music in this film is great and helps to animate the movie even more. From Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable" that is tuned to the opening slaying of one of the original Watchmen, to Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are-A-Changin" and Jimi Hendrix's "All Along the Watchtower."
Length is a problem though – at a mere 2 hours and 43 minutes this epic’s only saving grace is the fact that they managed to fit it all in, making no hurried haphazard effort to set up a sequel.
At times I felt like the plot was losing speed or draining on, but then as soon as I knew it the protagonists were thrust back into the middle of a high-flying, intense action scene with a plethora of perfected “slow-mo” matrix shots and ballerina-esque choreography.
But if the film could have trimmed even half an hour out, for me the action would have carried me through as there were some unnecessary plotlines (i.e. the love triangle between Dr. Manhattan, the Nite Owl and the Silk Spectre).
Beautiful additions to this epic story are the politically charged metaphors, humanized drama, and its truly unapologetic nature. This movie is in your face for two hours plus.
That being said, this film felt the most like it would fall into the action film genre, being geared towards special effects and extreme scenes of violence.
I believe action films should keep us on the edge of our seats and most of all, entertain at all costs. Watchmen did that on so many levels and was truly, visually stunning so I have to give it four out of five stars for an action/drama. As far as comic book/graphic novel films go I would park this one directly behind, but in the company of, “Sin City” and “The Dark Knight.”
Watchmen is rated R for strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity, and language. As this film appears to many as just another comic book movie, I would strongly caution parents that the blood and language are as advertised but the sexual content is borderline pornographic.
The film is showing at 4 and 7:15 p.m. daily at Polson’s Showboat Cinema.
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
Although the heroes of the “Watchmen” exist in an alternate universe parallel to our own, these masked crusaders ring truer than any I’ve ever seen on the silver screen in this popular graphic novel film adaptation.
The Watchmen are a gang of cops who started wearing costumes in response to theatric criminals and served to protect the American people through World War II and Vietnam. In the Watchmen world we won Nam, the year is 1985 and Richard Nixon is (somehow) on his fifth term as President as the U.S. is headed towards nuclear holocaust with Russia.
Nixon has recently banned the Watchmen from duty as one of them, Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), who is a walking nuclear bomb due to side affects from a terrible government experiment. Manhattan is the only Watchman with extraordinary powers as the rest return to civilian duties or common lives – until shaken awake by the mysterious (and peculiar) death of one of their own.
Although the film jumps between characters, the mystery is unraveled mostly from the view of one protagonist in particular – the masked, vengeful and verging on psychopathic Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley). This guy is my favorite character as he has a haunted past and carries a thirst for justice that he is willing to quench however and whenever – a true superhero bandit.
I was so amazed with Haley’s standout performance as Rorschach that I was bothered why I hadn’t seen the actor before. Then I looked up the guy and I have seen him before, but in a much different role – that of the smelly hippy Dukes character in Will Ferrell’s 2008 comedy “Semi-Pro.” Wow, this dude’s got range.
All the story’s protagonists are unconventional, flawed superheroes who drink, smoke, swear, and aren’t afraid to kill in the name of justice. No doubt, the graphic novel made for very juicy material, and I’ve heard this movie stayed true to epic comic.
However, fans of the comic may stay with the subtleties of the storyline a litter better than the mass audiences who will no doubt flock to the theaters to see this visual masterpiece. But this story has a little bit of something to keep everybody along for the ride.
Director Zack Snyder also captained “300” with help from director of photography Larry Fong on both films. The 2006 Spartan bloodbath was equally as visually stimulating, and if there is anything these guys get it’s how to impress with art direction and special effects.
Being a fan of more traditional DC and Marvel Comics characters as a kid and young adult, I enjoyed learning about the Watchmen universe of these flawed and jaded superheroes who were foreign to me. The storytelling was what made this so interesting and easy to me as the filmmaker did not simply introduce one hero after the other from the get go – rather peeled away layers of complexity throughout.
I’ve always sort of dreamed of filmmaker Quentin Tarantino remaking a classic superhero story from his own point of view and – although this doesn’t have the quirky, clever dialogue of a Tarantino film – I get the feeling Watchmen is about as close as it’s going to get.
Additionally, the music in this film is great and helps to animate the movie even more. From Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable" that is tuned to the opening slaying of one of the original Watchmen, to Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are-A-Changin" and Jimi Hendrix's "All Along the Watchtower."
Length is a problem though – at a mere 2 hours and 43 minutes this epic’s only saving grace is the fact that they managed to fit it all in, making no hurried haphazard effort to set up a sequel.
At times I felt like the plot was losing speed or draining on, but then as soon as I knew it the protagonists were thrust back into the middle of a high-flying, intense action scene with a plethora of perfected “slow-mo” matrix shots and ballerina-esque choreography.
But if the film could have trimmed even half an hour out, for me the action would have carried me through as there were some unnecessary plotlines (i.e. the love triangle between Dr. Manhattan, the Nite Owl and the Silk Spectre).
Beautiful additions to this epic story are the politically charged metaphors, humanized drama, and its truly unapologetic nature. This movie is in your face for two hours plus.
That being said, this film felt the most like it would fall into the action film genre, being geared towards special effects and extreme scenes of violence.
I believe action films should keep us on the edge of our seats and most of all, entertain at all costs. Watchmen did that on so many levels and was truly, visually stunning so I have to give it four out of five stars for an action/drama. As far as comic book/graphic novel films go I would park this one directly behind, but in the company of, “Sin City” and “The Dark Knight.”
Watchmen is rated R for strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity, and language. As this film appears to many as just another comic book movie, I would strongly caution parents that the blood and language are as advertised but the sexual content is borderline pornographic.
The film is showing at 4 and 7:15 p.m. daily at Polson’s Showboat Cinema.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Slumdog’s 8 Oscars don’t lie
“Slumdog Millionaire” – 4 out of 5 stars
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
A powerful love story, great director, moving music, and organic ensemble cast make this multi-Oscar award winning independent film a universally appealing story for all.
Jamal (Dev Patel) and brother Salim (Madhur Mittal) grow up in the slums of India’s largest city Mumbai where they witness the murder of many including the slaying of the mother in their own neighborhood. Jamal and Salim band together with slum orphan girl Latika (Freida Pinto) for survival in a dangerous world.
The story is viewed from Jamal, who is being interrogated for possibly cheating on the Indian version of “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.” Jamal explains to investigators his story to allow them to understand how fate has brought him to the show not for money, but rather to catch the attention of his beloved Latika who was taken from him years back.
The struggle of enduring love against all odds between Jamal and Latika and loyalty vs. betrayal between Jamal and Salim make this foreign eastern tale an easy and compelling drama to connect with.
The story is moving, inspiring, and true-to-itself – and that’s all great – but a good story is made a great story by its storyteller. In this case, meet visionary and eccentric director Danny Boyle.
The British filmmaker is the creator of such acclaimed successes as “Trainspotting” and “28 Days Later”, an underrated sci-fi masterpiece like “Sunshine”, and a monumental flop like “The Beach.”
Although the story was adapted from a rather unknown novel to screenplay by British writer Simon Beaufoy (who also took home an Oscar as did Boyle), it is this bold director who takes the camera lens and shows us life from a truly different angle than we typically see it with each shot.
At the same time, I would not call any of Boyle’s work abstract as his unique take on things only seems more true to life, capturing the hidden beauty – even that of the impoverished slums – that we are too preoccupied to regularly see.
The cast all unknown to me – I literally had not seen a single face in this movie before I stepped into that theater and they were an amazing ensemble. The individual standout performances from the lead three characters self-dubbed the “Three Musketeers” were something else, but the entire foreign cast working together in unison like different parts of some sort of larger organism – now that was amazing.
In my opinion the biggest reason why this movie won the Oscar for best picture is all the interesting hurdles and roadblocks this film had to overcome to make it and the impact it has had as a true underdog film. Without a doubt, Slumdog is one of most successful independent films ever.
Was initially looked at to go straight to video but received an engaging turnout on the small limited release level before hitting big screens around the globe and winning over audiences worldwide with its heartfelt story.
Also a fact that has come out recently in the press is that most of the child actors in the film were actually recruited from the “slum” neighborhoods and have been given new homes for their families and a guaranteed means of higher education from the Indian government due to their roles in the successful film that exposed the darkside of impoverished life in Mumbai’s ghettos.
Anyways, back to the film itself. I haven’t seen a film since “Little Miss Sunshine” this filled with uplifting spirit that the movie’s climax makes you smile, clap, and even tear up a bit with joy all at the same time. I won’t say any more because I hate spoilers.
Oscar politics, hype, and global impact aside – this was not the best film I’d seen lately. I recently preferred the story and message of Clint Eastwood’s “Gran Torino” which I gave 4.5 stars for a drama compared to the 4 out of 5 stars I’m giving Slumdog. Either way, both are great movies that I encourage you to see when you get the chance.
Slumdog is rated R for some violence, disturbing images, and language. The film is showing at Polson’s own Showboat 2 Cinemas at 4:15, 6:50, and 9:15 p.m. nightly.
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
A powerful love story, great director, moving music, and organic ensemble cast make this multi-Oscar award winning independent film a universally appealing story for all.
Jamal (Dev Patel) and brother Salim (Madhur Mittal) grow up in the slums of India’s largest city Mumbai where they witness the murder of many including the slaying of the mother in their own neighborhood. Jamal and Salim band together with slum orphan girl Latika (Freida Pinto) for survival in a dangerous world.
The story is viewed from Jamal, who is being interrogated for possibly cheating on the Indian version of “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.” Jamal explains to investigators his story to allow them to understand how fate has brought him to the show not for money, but rather to catch the attention of his beloved Latika who was taken from him years back.
The struggle of enduring love against all odds between Jamal and Latika and loyalty vs. betrayal between Jamal and Salim make this foreign eastern tale an easy and compelling drama to connect with.
The story is moving, inspiring, and true-to-itself – and that’s all great – but a good story is made a great story by its storyteller. In this case, meet visionary and eccentric director Danny Boyle.
The British filmmaker is the creator of such acclaimed successes as “Trainspotting” and “28 Days Later”, an underrated sci-fi masterpiece like “Sunshine”, and a monumental flop like “The Beach.”
Although the story was adapted from a rather unknown novel to screenplay by British writer Simon Beaufoy (who also took home an Oscar as did Boyle), it is this bold director who takes the camera lens and shows us life from a truly different angle than we typically see it with each shot.
At the same time, I would not call any of Boyle’s work abstract as his unique take on things only seems more true to life, capturing the hidden beauty – even that of the impoverished slums – that we are too preoccupied to regularly see.
The cast all unknown to me – I literally had not seen a single face in this movie before I stepped into that theater and they were an amazing ensemble. The individual standout performances from the lead three characters self-dubbed the “Three Musketeers” were something else, but the entire foreign cast working together in unison like different parts of some sort of larger organism – now that was amazing.
In my opinion the biggest reason why this movie won the Oscar for best picture is all the interesting hurdles and roadblocks this film had to overcome to make it and the impact it has had as a true underdog film. Without a doubt, Slumdog is one of most successful independent films ever.
Was initially looked at to go straight to video but received an engaging turnout on the small limited release level before hitting big screens around the globe and winning over audiences worldwide with its heartfelt story.
Also a fact that has come out recently in the press is that most of the child actors in the film were actually recruited from the “slum” neighborhoods and have been given new homes for their families and a guaranteed means of higher education from the Indian government due to their roles in the successful film that exposed the darkside of impoverished life in Mumbai’s ghettos.
Anyways, back to the film itself. I haven’t seen a film since “Little Miss Sunshine” this filled with uplifting spirit that the movie’s climax makes you smile, clap, and even tear up a bit with joy all at the same time. I won’t say any more because I hate spoilers.
Oscar politics, hype, and global impact aside – this was not the best film I’d seen lately. I recently preferred the story and message of Clint Eastwood’s “Gran Torino” which I gave 4.5 stars for a drama compared to the 4 out of 5 stars I’m giving Slumdog. Either way, both are great movies that I encourage you to see when you get the chance.
Slumdog is rated R for some violence, disturbing images, and language. The film is showing at Polson’s own Showboat 2 Cinemas at 4:15, 6:50, and 9:15 p.m. nightly.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
James a riot as ‘Mall Cop’
“Paul Blart: Mall Cop” – 3.5 out of 5 stars
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
Possibly the best physical comedian alive, Kevin James puts on a show in this hilarious family comedy.
Paul Blart (James) is a kind-hearted single dad and New Jersey Police Academy flunkey who takes a lot of pride in his job as Mall Security Officer. On top of that, Paul also takes extra care in protecting Amy, the nice new girl who works in the mall.
Near closing time on Black Friday, Paul takes a break at the arcade and is rockin’ out to “Detroit Rock City” on Guitar Hero. When the song finishes he finds that the mall has been taken captive by a gang of skateboarding, bmx-biking ninja thieves who intend on stealing all the credit card numbers from the big day’s transactions.
All civilians clear out the mall except for a group of employees who are taken hostage – including Amy – and Paul is the only man who can save the day. Equipped with only his brain, his mustache, his polar bear-like physique, and his handy Segway scooter – Blart takes on these kung-fu bandits to fight for the woman he loves.
Kevin James is truly a one-man show in this one. That’s not saying the supporting actors weren’t funny, it just means he stole the show and deserved to as he sunk everything into this from lead actor, to stuntman, to co-writing the script.
For his first real big screen lead role, James teamed up to co-write the movie with his buddy and the writer of his former hit show “King of Queens”, Nick Bakay. The outcome was the humor came naturally to the character and succeeding in getting a goofy laugh out of me almost every time.
And believe it or not, James did most of the stunts himself, flying through the air, slamming into walls, breaking through the windows – pretty impressive for the big guy. Plus it all plays into the larger joke of the movie which is kind of a play on Bruce Willis’ role in “Die Hard.” Except the criminals and James aren’t on an even playing field, because who knows the ins-and-outs of a mall more than security guard.
So what I’m saying is this movie is sort of “Die Hard” combined with “Home Alone” with Kevin James thrown in the mix. Genius, simply genius.
Plus there is something to be said about what the film’s production company, Adam Sandler’s Happy Madison, has been doing lately. Both this movie and Sandler’s “Bedtime Stories” (which actually was adopted by Disney of all people) are both family-friendly comedies that are really, truly funny for adults and kids alike while staying moderately appropriate.
And it’s about time somebody accomplished this outside of the animation realm – so with James as one of the newest members of Team Sandler, I look forward to what else they can cook up in the future.
I guess my only drawbacks from this movie were the plot went some ridiculous places, and the rest of the cast were almost complete nobodies. I mean, the next biggest actor to James was the guy who played the psycho brother in “Wedding Crashers” (Keir O’Donnell). What, they couldn’t have gotten a few more Happy Madison regulars to jump in there and give it a boost?
Overall when I saw this I was in a mood to laugh and this movie did that plenty. I give this one 3.5 out of 5 stars for the comedy genre.
The film is rated (PG) for some violence, mild suggestive humor, and some language. It is showing at the Ronan Entertainer Cinema at 4, 7, and 9:10 p.m. nightly.
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
Possibly the best physical comedian alive, Kevin James puts on a show in this hilarious family comedy.
Paul Blart (James) is a kind-hearted single dad and New Jersey Police Academy flunkey who takes a lot of pride in his job as Mall Security Officer. On top of that, Paul also takes extra care in protecting Amy, the nice new girl who works in the mall.
Near closing time on Black Friday, Paul takes a break at the arcade and is rockin’ out to “Detroit Rock City” on Guitar Hero. When the song finishes he finds that the mall has been taken captive by a gang of skateboarding, bmx-biking ninja thieves who intend on stealing all the credit card numbers from the big day’s transactions.
All civilians clear out the mall except for a group of employees who are taken hostage – including Amy – and Paul is the only man who can save the day. Equipped with only his brain, his mustache, his polar bear-like physique, and his handy Segway scooter – Blart takes on these kung-fu bandits to fight for the woman he loves.
Kevin James is truly a one-man show in this one. That’s not saying the supporting actors weren’t funny, it just means he stole the show and deserved to as he sunk everything into this from lead actor, to stuntman, to co-writing the script.
For his first real big screen lead role, James teamed up to co-write the movie with his buddy and the writer of his former hit show “King of Queens”, Nick Bakay. The outcome was the humor came naturally to the character and succeeding in getting a goofy laugh out of me almost every time.
And believe it or not, James did most of the stunts himself, flying through the air, slamming into walls, breaking through the windows – pretty impressive for the big guy. Plus it all plays into the larger joke of the movie which is kind of a play on Bruce Willis’ role in “Die Hard.” Except the criminals and James aren’t on an even playing field, because who knows the ins-and-outs of a mall more than security guard.
So what I’m saying is this movie is sort of “Die Hard” combined with “Home Alone” with Kevin James thrown in the mix. Genius, simply genius.
Plus there is something to be said about what the film’s production company, Adam Sandler’s Happy Madison, has been doing lately. Both this movie and Sandler’s “Bedtime Stories” (which actually was adopted by Disney of all people) are both family-friendly comedies that are really, truly funny for adults and kids alike while staying moderately appropriate.
And it’s about time somebody accomplished this outside of the animation realm – so with James as one of the newest members of Team Sandler, I look forward to what else they can cook up in the future.
I guess my only drawbacks from this movie were the plot went some ridiculous places, and the rest of the cast were almost complete nobodies. I mean, the next biggest actor to James was the guy who played the psycho brother in “Wedding Crashers” (Keir O’Donnell). What, they couldn’t have gotten a few more Happy Madison regulars to jump in there and give it a boost?
Overall when I saw this I was in a mood to laugh and this movie did that plenty. I give this one 3.5 out of 5 stars for the comedy genre.
The film is rated (PG) for some violence, mild suggestive humor, and some language. It is showing at the Ronan Entertainer Cinema at 4, 7, and 9:10 p.m. nightly.
Friday, February 20, 2009
'New In Town' is a hoot dontcha’ know
“New In Town” – 3 out 5 stars
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
City girl Renee Zellweger and her supporting cast of merry Minnesotans make this fish-out-of-water romantic comedy a keeper, you betcha!
With Zellweger’s quirky natured humor, Harry Connick Jr.’s charm, and J.K. Simmons’ classic one-liners like “Shut up you crazy old Hoot Owl!,” and,“Holy beer and cheese soup!” – this flick truly has a little bit of something for everybody.
Lucy Hill (Zellweger) is a cutthroat, corporate woman from sunny Miami who gets a sudden – and unwanted – change of scenery when the company bigwigs send her up north to play the grim-reaper and layoff half the staff at a factory in rural Minnesota. What seems like an easy task for this career-driven modern woman turns out to be a lot more than she bargained for as this tough little town plays hardball – the Minnesota way.
Zellweger may not have been quite as funny as her Bridget Jones romantic comedy character in those films, but I felt the supporting cast made up for that and then some. Simmons (“Spider Man I-III”, “Juno”, “Burn After Reading”) plays the long-time factory foreman who isn’t about to nudge for some out-of-towner. His down-home demeanor and comments add a wealth of color to the film.
On top of that Siobhan Fallon (“Baby Mamma” and “Men In Black”) and acclaimed actress France Conroy (“Six Feet Under”) are a supporting knock out punch as two riffing Minnesota wives who befriend Lucy and teach her everything they know – except for their top-secret, beloved tapioca pudding recipe of course.
This was also Danish filmmaker Jonas Elmer’s mainstream big screen debut and I think he did exceptionally well showing the bitter cold of the great north and the tough grit of the blue-collared people that inhabit this country.
This movie is still far from perfect though. One drawback for me was that there are some cheesy, predictable cookie-cutter romantic moments in this film as opposed to something -- I don’t know – real. But it’s a common of the rom-com genre.
Then there is the fact that the folksy Minnesota jokes about their goofy accents, overly friendly nature, etc., was already done in film – and done much better – in a Cohen Brothers movie called “Fargo.” This movie feels like Zellweger’s “Bridget Jones” series but Americanized in “Sweet Home Alabama” fashion combined with new versions of old Fargo jokes.
I’m not saying the humor isn’t still funny, because it definitely is and it doesn’t get old – it’s just been done before.
And don’t just take my word for it, I saw this quasi chick-flick with two girls, one of which gave it 4 stars and the other gave it 2.5. I give this movie somewhere in the middle for the romantic comedy genre with a 3 star rating out of five stars.
It’s rated (PG) for language and some suggestive material. “New In Town” is now showing at the Showboat 2 in Polson at 4, 7, and 9 p.m. nightly.
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
City girl Renee Zellweger and her supporting cast of merry Minnesotans make this fish-out-of-water romantic comedy a keeper, you betcha!
With Zellweger’s quirky natured humor, Harry Connick Jr.’s charm, and J.K. Simmons’ classic one-liners like “Shut up you crazy old Hoot Owl!,” and,“Holy beer and cheese soup!” – this flick truly has a little bit of something for everybody.
Lucy Hill (Zellweger) is a cutthroat, corporate woman from sunny Miami who gets a sudden – and unwanted – change of scenery when the company bigwigs send her up north to play the grim-reaper and layoff half the staff at a factory in rural Minnesota. What seems like an easy task for this career-driven modern woman turns out to be a lot more than she bargained for as this tough little town plays hardball – the Minnesota way.
Zellweger may not have been quite as funny as her Bridget Jones romantic comedy character in those films, but I felt the supporting cast made up for that and then some. Simmons (“Spider Man I-III”, “Juno”, “Burn After Reading”) plays the long-time factory foreman who isn’t about to nudge for some out-of-towner. His down-home demeanor and comments add a wealth of color to the film.
On top of that Siobhan Fallon (“Baby Mamma” and “Men In Black”) and acclaimed actress France Conroy (“Six Feet Under”) are a supporting knock out punch as two riffing Minnesota wives who befriend Lucy and teach her everything they know – except for their top-secret, beloved tapioca pudding recipe of course.
This was also Danish filmmaker Jonas Elmer’s mainstream big screen debut and I think he did exceptionally well showing the bitter cold of the great north and the tough grit of the blue-collared people that inhabit this country.
This movie is still far from perfect though. One drawback for me was that there are some cheesy, predictable cookie-cutter romantic moments in this film as opposed to something -- I don’t know – real. But it’s a common of the rom-com genre.
Then there is the fact that the folksy Minnesota jokes about their goofy accents, overly friendly nature, etc., was already done in film – and done much better – in a Cohen Brothers movie called “Fargo.” This movie feels like Zellweger’s “Bridget Jones” series but Americanized in “Sweet Home Alabama” fashion combined with new versions of old Fargo jokes.
I’m not saying the humor isn’t still funny, because it definitely is and it doesn’t get old – it’s just been done before.
And don’t just take my word for it, I saw this quasi chick-flick with two girls, one of which gave it 4 stars and the other gave it 2.5. I give this movie somewhere in the middle for the romantic comedy genre with a 3 star rating out of five stars.
It’s rated (PG) for language and some suggestive material. “New In Town” is now showing at the Showboat 2 in Polson at 4, 7, and 9 p.m. nightly.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Clint shines in gritty ‘Gran Torino’
“Gran Torino” – 4.5 out of 5 stars
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
Legendary actor, director, producer Clint Eastwood proves without a doubt that he is still the hardest working man in Hollywood with this epic tale of love, hate, and redemption.
If you haven’t yet seen this film in theaters and you’ve been looking for that great movie, look no further and check this one out now because it’s worth your $7.75 and then some.
Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) is an aging Korean War veteran existing in a hollow, anti-social shell as he has struggled to move on and live life after experiencing wartime brutality first hand and suffering the recent tragic loss of his wife. The times they are a changing as everything in the world passes by Walt as he is at a standstill, spending his days shining his beloved hotrod and subsiding off of Marlboros, 12 packs of Pabst Blue Ribbon, and beef jerky.
In his suburban Detroit neighborhood a Hmong family living next door becomes the focus of intimidation and attack from a local gang, forcing Walt awake to do the right thing in sticking up for the immigrant family. To do this he must slowly shed layers of deeply rooted anger, racism and prejudice.
Aside from genius performances, aside from the amazing story, aside from the seamless cinematography – what I found most powerful about this film was its range. The film transitions genuinely from intense drama to quite hilarious moments of dry “Clint” humor. Some moments make you forget you’re watching a sincere drama instead of “Grumpy Old Men.”
Over the past five years Eastwood has brought us acclaimed piece after acclaimed piece, providing unarguably some of the best film of the new millennium. From 2003’s “Mystic River” to the following year’s “Million Dollar Baby” to 2008 projects Torino and “The Changeling” – everything this man touches seems to turn to gold.
But that’s no accident. Clint Eastwood is one of the greatest story tellers of our time, and he accomplishes that feat from in front of and behind the lens. Most importantly is Clint’s critical ability to get down to the heart of the real, authentic human drama that surrounds us everyday.
Frankly, (and I haven’t seen all the other nominated films yet) it’s a travesty that this film did not receive any nods for best picture, best actor, or best original screenplay from the Academy. Adding even more insult to injury is the fact that although Clint has four Oscars sitting at home for his directing, the man never won the big one for best actor.
From “Dirty Harry” to “Escape From Alcatraz” to Torino he never brought home the hardware and now we’re being told this will be his last on screen role. Regardless, I felt the man should have been considered for this beautiful piece of film.
I give Gran Torino 4.5 out of 5 stars for the drama genre. I highly, highly recommend this movie to any fan of film with one reservation – the language in Torino is fairly severe, including repeated use of ethnic slurs.
Gran Torino is rated “R” for harsh language throughout and violence. It’s showing nightly at the Showboat 2 Cinemas in Polson at 4:15, 6:50 and 9:10 nightly through Feb. 26
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
Legendary actor, director, producer Clint Eastwood proves without a doubt that he is still the hardest working man in Hollywood with this epic tale of love, hate, and redemption.
If you haven’t yet seen this film in theaters and you’ve been looking for that great movie, look no further and check this one out now because it’s worth your $7.75 and then some.
Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) is an aging Korean War veteran existing in a hollow, anti-social shell as he has struggled to move on and live life after experiencing wartime brutality first hand and suffering the recent tragic loss of his wife. The times they are a changing as everything in the world passes by Walt as he is at a standstill, spending his days shining his beloved hotrod and subsiding off of Marlboros, 12 packs of Pabst Blue Ribbon, and beef jerky.
In his suburban Detroit neighborhood a Hmong family living next door becomes the focus of intimidation and attack from a local gang, forcing Walt awake to do the right thing in sticking up for the immigrant family. To do this he must slowly shed layers of deeply rooted anger, racism and prejudice.
Aside from genius performances, aside from the amazing story, aside from the seamless cinematography – what I found most powerful about this film was its range. The film transitions genuinely from intense drama to quite hilarious moments of dry “Clint” humor. Some moments make you forget you’re watching a sincere drama instead of “Grumpy Old Men.”
Over the past five years Eastwood has brought us acclaimed piece after acclaimed piece, providing unarguably some of the best film of the new millennium. From 2003’s “Mystic River” to the following year’s “Million Dollar Baby” to 2008 projects Torino and “The Changeling” – everything this man touches seems to turn to gold.
But that’s no accident. Clint Eastwood is one of the greatest story tellers of our time, and he accomplishes that feat from in front of and behind the lens. Most importantly is Clint’s critical ability to get down to the heart of the real, authentic human drama that surrounds us everyday.
Frankly, (and I haven’t seen all the other nominated films yet) it’s a travesty that this film did not receive any nods for best picture, best actor, or best original screenplay from the Academy. Adding even more insult to injury is the fact that although Clint has four Oscars sitting at home for his directing, the man never won the big one for best actor.
From “Dirty Harry” to “Escape From Alcatraz” to Torino he never brought home the hardware and now we’re being told this will be his last on screen role. Regardless, I felt the man should have been considered for this beautiful piece of film.
I give Gran Torino 4.5 out of 5 stars for the drama genre. I highly, highly recommend this movie to any fan of film with one reservation – the language in Torino is fairly severe, including repeated use of ethnic slurs.
Gran Torino is rated “R” for harsh language throughout and violence. It’s showing nightly at the Showboat 2 Cinemas in Polson at 4:15, 6:50 and 9:10 nightly through Feb. 26
Friday, February 13, 2009
‘Friday the 13th’ remake slashes way onto screen
"Friday the 13th" -- 2 out of 5 stars
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
The classic 24-hour nightmare of terror hits the big screen again in Producer Michael Bay’s newest rendition of the famed 1980 slasher film “Friday the 13th”.
The blood is redder, the teen victims are dumber, and the villain Jason seems to event newer ways of killing people all in a film that seems to offer nothing new – a common shortfall of remakes. Some accomplish a new modern day adaptation with added stylish flare and others just stick to the same old tricks that made the initial film a hit.
The original Friday the 13th hangs up there in an elite 70s and 80s horror class with the likes of films “Halloween”, “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, and “Nightmare on Elm Street” – so there’s a reason this was destined to be a remake as the ladder have already received the same treatment or are in the works now.
This adaptation starts with a group of teenagers embarking on a camping trip in the woods where a psychopath and her deformed son, Jason, were said to have slain the staff of entire summer camp at Camp Crystal Lake. Thing is, the son who was thought to be dead is back and on a rampage with out-of-town campers turning up missing left and right.
Jason mows through the first bunch of campers in record time and fashion, making up about a 20-minute introduction to the film before the title shot is shown. Then the primary group of frat boys and ditsy girls show up to stay at their parents cabin on the lake and they one by one befall Jason’s new campaign of terror.
Downgrades: Typical of slasher flicks, the actors in this movie are complete unknowns but they seem increasingly more ridiculous and unlikable than in the past as I found myself (on more than one occasion) rooting for Jason more than the victim in peril. To make it worse they through in a stoner twist to this version.
Plus, a number of moments in the film are beyond poor acting and just ridiculously cheesy – which would be a common complaint of mine for the entire slasher/horror genre. It’s the opposite of engaging and likewise invokes little empathy from the audience to care about the film’s subjects.
Improvements: Jason is not a walking vegetable and can actually run and pursue fleeing victims like the vicious killer he is. If you remember the classic Jason of old just slowly walked basically wherever he went – ala Michael Myers in “Halloween.”
Additionally, although the film lost its classic film imagery it did gain some clean, glossy modern veneer that Michael Bay seems to put on all his films these days and it seemed to only bring out the effectiveness of the gore and sound effects even more. After all, that’s partly why people come to see these movies.
Producer Michael Bay is known for as many colossal hits (”Transformers”, “The Rock” and “Armageddon”) as he is for sub-par misses (”The Island”, “Pearl Harbor”, and “The Hitcher”), and this latest effort leans toward the miss category in my book.
In 2003 Bay teamed up with German director Marcus Nispel -- who also made this film -- for his first classic horror remake “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”. That is a creepy tale that Nispel and Bay brought an extra angle to by making the villain as evil as it gets and the entire town is out to help him – very well done I thought.
It appears the duo tried to accomplish the same thing in this attempt by using the same old playbook and following the original too much. Although I am happy that this film turned out to be a lot more like the chainsaw thriller than the 2003 blaspheme bomb “Freddy vs. Jason”.
Regardless of what you think of Bay’s films, the man certainly is busy, as the Bay produced “The Unborn” is in theaters now with “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” due this summer, and his adaptation of “Nightmare on Elm Street” slated for 2010.
Overall I found this film to be a lowbrow, but entertaining bloodbath but I wouldn’t give it much more credit for anything than that. Horror movies can be made with suspense, intelligence, and stylistic skill and this really lacked any of the fore mentioned attributes.
I give it 2 out of 5 stars for the horror genre and add a parental disclaimer that there is a good deal of nudity and sexual content in this version.
The film is rated “R” for strong bloody violence, some graphic sexual content, language and drug material. It is showing at 4, 7, and 9 p.m. nightly through Feb. 26 at the Entertainer Cinema in Ronan.
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
The classic 24-hour nightmare of terror hits the big screen again in Producer Michael Bay’s newest rendition of the famed 1980 slasher film “Friday the 13th”.
The blood is redder, the teen victims are dumber, and the villain Jason seems to event newer ways of killing people all in a film that seems to offer nothing new – a common shortfall of remakes. Some accomplish a new modern day adaptation with added stylish flare and others just stick to the same old tricks that made the initial film a hit.
The original Friday the 13th hangs up there in an elite 70s and 80s horror class with the likes of films “Halloween”, “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, and “Nightmare on Elm Street” – so there’s a reason this was destined to be a remake as the ladder have already received the same treatment or are in the works now.
This adaptation starts with a group of teenagers embarking on a camping trip in the woods where a psychopath and her deformed son, Jason, were said to have slain the staff of entire summer camp at Camp Crystal Lake. Thing is, the son who was thought to be dead is back and on a rampage with out-of-town campers turning up missing left and right.
Jason mows through the first bunch of campers in record time and fashion, making up about a 20-minute introduction to the film before the title shot is shown. Then the primary group of frat boys and ditsy girls show up to stay at their parents cabin on the lake and they one by one befall Jason’s new campaign of terror.
Downgrades: Typical of slasher flicks, the actors in this movie are complete unknowns but they seem increasingly more ridiculous and unlikable than in the past as I found myself (on more than one occasion) rooting for Jason more than the victim in peril. To make it worse they through in a stoner twist to this version.
Plus, a number of moments in the film are beyond poor acting and just ridiculously cheesy – which would be a common complaint of mine for the entire slasher/horror genre. It’s the opposite of engaging and likewise invokes little empathy from the audience to care about the film’s subjects.
Improvements: Jason is not a walking vegetable and can actually run and pursue fleeing victims like the vicious killer he is. If you remember the classic Jason of old just slowly walked basically wherever he went – ala Michael Myers in “Halloween.”
Additionally, although the film lost its classic film imagery it did gain some clean, glossy modern veneer that Michael Bay seems to put on all his films these days and it seemed to only bring out the effectiveness of the gore and sound effects even more. After all, that’s partly why people come to see these movies.
Producer Michael Bay is known for as many colossal hits (”Transformers”, “The Rock” and “Armageddon”) as he is for sub-par misses (”The Island”, “Pearl Harbor”, and “The Hitcher”), and this latest effort leans toward the miss category in my book.
In 2003 Bay teamed up with German director Marcus Nispel -- who also made this film -- for his first classic horror remake “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”. That is a creepy tale that Nispel and Bay brought an extra angle to by making the villain as evil as it gets and the entire town is out to help him – very well done I thought.
It appears the duo tried to accomplish the same thing in this attempt by using the same old playbook and following the original too much. Although I am happy that this film turned out to be a lot more like the chainsaw thriller than the 2003 blaspheme bomb “Freddy vs. Jason”.
Regardless of what you think of Bay’s films, the man certainly is busy, as the Bay produced “The Unborn” is in theaters now with “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” due this summer, and his adaptation of “Nightmare on Elm Street” slated for 2010.
Overall I found this film to be a lowbrow, but entertaining bloodbath but I wouldn’t give it much more credit for anything than that. Horror movies can be made with suspense, intelligence, and stylistic skill and this really lacked any of the fore mentioned attributes.
I give it 2 out of 5 stars for the horror genre and add a parental disclaimer that there is a good deal of nudity and sexual content in this version.
The film is rated “R” for strong bloody violence, some graphic sexual content, language and drug material. It is showing at 4, 7, and 9 p.m. nightly through Feb. 26 at the Entertainer Cinema in Ronan.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
'Marley' a dog lover's delight
Ty Hampton
Critic’s Corner
"Marley and Me" — 3.5 out of 5 stars
The novel-based “Marley and Me” had every tail in the theater wagging as a true blue dog lover’s tribute to man’s best friend.
Although Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston worked well in the leading roles, both took a backseat to our furry protagonist Marley.
The story picks up with John and Jennifer Grogan’s (Wilson and Aniston) lives after the the newly-wed journalist couple moves to Florida and John surprises his wife with a new puppy. We follow the Grogan’s through their ups and downs, trials and triumphs in life — all with Marley by their side providing a wealth of four-legged mischief and comfort in the tough times.
Big name players Wilson and Aniston aren’t going to receive any acclaim for their performances, but they played the roles true to the real people in the non-fiction book “Marley and Me.” Supporting performances from Eric Dane, Kathleen Turner, and the always hilarious Alan Arkin, provided addtional streaks of color to the story that remained tightly focused on the family for a bulk of the film.
Director David Frankel did a fine job on his second major release bigscreen movie, using some fast action editing to further the visual appeal of the film in areas where this could have easily been your typical cookie cutter film. Of course Frankel is no rookie behind the camera with accolades such as being the original director of the hit HBO show “Entourage”, and time directing episodes of “Sex and the City”, “Rome”, and “Band of Brothers.”
The plot follows the Grogan’s as Marley ages from a spry pup to an older lab with white hairs around the eyes. My biggest beef with the film was that it seemed to come to a crawling finish, focusing on the sad ladder end of the dog’s life too much.
I also have to give the filmmakers credit though, because the film’s climax and finale is about as real as it gets. At the screening I went to there was not a dry eye in the room — and it felt like a real human experience with a beloved friend.
I personally was touched by this film as a huge dog person. I laughed, I cried, and it made me appreciate my own four-legged friend all the more.. It's a feel good flick and I recommend it if that's what you're looking for.
Overall it was not the biggest or best film, but it made for a great family comedy and I give it 3.5 out of 5 stars for that genre.
The film is rated (PG) for thematic material, and some suggestive content and language. “Marley and Me” will be playing at Ronan’s Entertainer Cinema at 4, 6:50, and 9 p.m. daily through Thursday, Feb. 12.
Critic’s Corner
"Marley and Me" — 3.5 out of 5 stars
The novel-based “Marley and Me” had every tail in the theater wagging as a true blue dog lover’s tribute to man’s best friend.
Although Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston worked well in the leading roles, both took a backseat to our furry protagonist Marley.
The story picks up with John and Jennifer Grogan’s (Wilson and Aniston) lives after the the newly-wed journalist couple moves to Florida and John surprises his wife with a new puppy. We follow the Grogan’s through their ups and downs, trials and triumphs in life — all with Marley by their side providing a wealth of four-legged mischief and comfort in the tough times.
Big name players Wilson and Aniston aren’t going to receive any acclaim for their performances, but they played the roles true to the real people in the non-fiction book “Marley and Me.” Supporting performances from Eric Dane, Kathleen Turner, and the always hilarious Alan Arkin, provided addtional streaks of color to the story that remained tightly focused on the family for a bulk of the film.
Director David Frankel did a fine job on his second major release bigscreen movie, using some fast action editing to further the visual appeal of the film in areas where this could have easily been your typical cookie cutter film. Of course Frankel is no rookie behind the camera with accolades such as being the original director of the hit HBO show “Entourage”, and time directing episodes of “Sex and the City”, “Rome”, and “Band of Brothers.”
The plot follows the Grogan’s as Marley ages from a spry pup to an older lab with white hairs around the eyes. My biggest beef with the film was that it seemed to come to a crawling finish, focusing on the sad ladder end of the dog’s life too much.
I also have to give the filmmakers credit though, because the film’s climax and finale is about as real as it gets. At the screening I went to there was not a dry eye in the room — and it felt like a real human experience with a beloved friend.
I personally was touched by this film as a huge dog person. I laughed, I cried, and it made me appreciate my own four-legged friend all the more.. It's a feel good flick and I recommend it if that's what you're looking for.
Overall it was not the biggest or best film, but it made for a great family comedy and I give it 3.5 out of 5 stars for that genre.
The film is rated (PG) for thematic material, and some suggestive content and language. “Marley and Me” will be playing at Ronan’s Entertainer Cinema at 4, 6:50, and 9 p.m. daily through Thursday, Feb. 12.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
