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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
