"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.
Monday, May 25, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
