Ah, those early century action movies, you have to love them. Over the top action, over the top characters, and over the top filming methods. Think of Bad Boys 2, the Matrix, Gone in 60 Seconds, XXX etc etc…
Swordfish is really no different, as it is made by the same people who did the Matrix and Gone in 60 seconds.
The acting list is very impressive though. John Travolta plays an arms dealer, Hugh Jackman plays a computer hacker, Halle Berry plays an undercover spy, and Don Cheadle plays the FBI agent. One big happy family as you can see.
The story itself reflects some of those early century fears. Jackman’s services as the best hacker in the world are summoned by Travolta, who wants to break into hidden government funds. The hacker is god here, he can break into anything, no barriers show themselves to him, and everyone is powerless in his wake. The early fears of computer control are nicely shown in a way, he who controls the computer, controls all. Anyways, after refusing a couple of times, Jackman accepts to do it (as it might let him see his daughter again, yawn….), and as expected, does a perfect job. But then things twist ever so slightly, and identities get revealed, and things are not what they seem. In the end, Travolta is a kind of good guy, yet he still has to break into the bank. Yes, it is confusing. The ultimate cliché of the secret government agency, so secret the government does not know about it is brought back to life here.
It may be a bit cliché, but in the end, the story does have a nice little surprise, so not all is what it seems. And that is always a bonus in a movie. Regarding the way the movie is made, it all tries to be a bit over-stylish. Villains are shown as hanging out in super exotic clubs, FBI agents have to fight authority, hackers are actually uber-cool; the list is endless. Again, this is a common trait in those early century action movies, so not really a unique criticism to Swordfish. And after a few years anyway, it does age pretty well in my opinion.
Coming to the action, it is great, in that early century type of way. Cars explode upon impact, massive guns can be built upon in a matter of seconds, and people tend to carry rocket launchers with them just for the fun of it. The very first explosion scene is extremely well done, and is almost one of the reasons to watch the movie in the first place (in a way like the gun fight scene in Heat makes up for 80% of the awesome-ness movie).
So all in all, this is one very good movie. It is not really good story and cinematically-wise, but if you love epic movies, this is definitely one to add to your collection. Yes it is cheese, but it is Beaufort, the good type of cheese.
3/5
Loved: Good action movie, does what it says on the tin
Hated: One problem in the story as to why Travolta has to steal the money in the first place. I don’t really get it.
dimanche 4 septembre 2011
vendredi 26 août 2011
You Don’t Mess with the Zohan (2008)
I don’t know why, but for some reason, I always had the title in my head. I honestly cannot remember if the movie was a box office success or not (I rarely read other reviews before writing my own, for integrity and all that), or whether is was so controversial it made the news, or what, but the name stuck.
So when I saw it on DVD I thought why not, Adam Sandler movies are always pretty enjoyable at least. This one is no exception.
The story is a bit twisted, as these types of comedy generally are. We follow Zohan, who is a superheroesque Israeli secret service agent. He likes to “Disco” a lot, and kick Palestinian ass. However, he is getting weary of war, and decides he wants to become a hair stylist in New York (as we all do). He thus fakes his death, against his nemesis, The Phantom, flies to New York and attempts to find fame and fortune there, while avoiding being recognised.
Generally said, there is really nothing special about the plot. The movie itself is pretty amusing, but not laugh-out-loud funny. There are not really any memorable moments either, it pretty much is a watch and forget movie, in terms of comedy. The character of Zohan is a superlative one. Don’t expect any realism or many emotions here. He is pretty much an invincible killing machine that has a soft side, and a very questionable fashion sense.
In terms of social clichés concerning ethnicity, Sandler has pulled all the stops. The movie is filled with them, and uses these for its source of comedy. This is usually a very dangerous route. Russell Peters manages it well, but even he can get boring after a while. Sure some moments, such as when the Arabs call the Hezbollah phone service, are pretty amusing, and did bring a smile to my face, but all in all, they are not new, and they are pretty much all in here. After all, once you go over all the Jewish-Arab jokes once, it kind of gets offensive after a while, and in my mind, Sandler did take it just that little step too far. Had it been toned down just a little bit, and avoided a couple of clichés (like the hummus for example), and provided a bit more original comedy, this could have been a very good film.
What I think Sandler tried to do was make his own version of Zoolander. And even though Zohan is not as funny as that movie, it still remains a fairly noble effort. The combination of fashion world and military warfare is does work in is own weird way.
Yes, people will find it offensive, but if you go past the offensiveness, you still end up with a nice amusement of a movie.
2.5/5
Loved: Fairly funny, fairly novel, pretty amusing
Hated: Clichés are a bit repetitive, Sandler’s character can get annoying, nothing new on the comedy front
So when I saw it on DVD I thought why not, Adam Sandler movies are always pretty enjoyable at least. This one is no exception.
The story is a bit twisted, as these types of comedy generally are. We follow Zohan, who is a superheroesque Israeli secret service agent. He likes to “Disco” a lot, and kick Palestinian ass. However, he is getting weary of war, and decides he wants to become a hair stylist in New York (as we all do). He thus fakes his death, against his nemesis, The Phantom, flies to New York and attempts to find fame and fortune there, while avoiding being recognised.
Generally said, there is really nothing special about the plot. The movie itself is pretty amusing, but not laugh-out-loud funny. There are not really any memorable moments either, it pretty much is a watch and forget movie, in terms of comedy. The character of Zohan is a superlative one. Don’t expect any realism or many emotions here. He is pretty much an invincible killing machine that has a soft side, and a very questionable fashion sense.
In terms of social clichés concerning ethnicity, Sandler has pulled all the stops. The movie is filled with them, and uses these for its source of comedy. This is usually a very dangerous route. Russell Peters manages it well, but even he can get boring after a while. Sure some moments, such as when the Arabs call the Hezbollah phone service, are pretty amusing, and did bring a smile to my face, but all in all, they are not new, and they are pretty much all in here. After all, once you go over all the Jewish-Arab jokes once, it kind of gets offensive after a while, and in my mind, Sandler did take it just that little step too far. Had it been toned down just a little bit, and avoided a couple of clichés (like the hummus for example), and provided a bit more original comedy, this could have been a very good film.
What I think Sandler tried to do was make his own version of Zoolander. And even though Zohan is not as funny as that movie, it still remains a fairly noble effort. The combination of fashion world and military warfare is does work in is own weird way.
Yes, people will find it offensive, but if you go past the offensiveness, you still end up with a nice amusement of a movie.
2.5/5
Loved: Fairly funny, fairly novel, pretty amusing
Hated: Clichés are a bit repetitive, Sandler’s character can get annoying, nothing new on the comedy front
dimanche 21 août 2011
Cowboys and Aliens (2011)
We’ve all liked westerns. They may be long and boring, but there is an air of coolness around them. The scenery is always great, and the same stories repeated on and on, still remain pretty good. The reality of the movies is often the most striking part.
We’ve also all liked science-fiction movies. They are usually fast-paced, full of non-stop action. Usually everything is done through CGI, and there are usually a gazillion different stories on the same theory that we are not alone in this universe. What makes them great usually is the fact that they are not realistic.
So what happens if you attempt to combine the two together?
We get Cowboys and Aliens, in a way.
Directed by Jon Favreau, and featuring some of the best names in Hollywood, on the face of it looks great. Cowboys and Aliens looks like a match made in heaven. Take your ordinary Western, throw in some aliens, and you get an action packed adventure that should scream success.
However, is it not as smooth as that. Sure, the initial half hour feels very western, with panoramic views, slow dialogue, slow action and ambience. But then the aliens appear, and it becomes more like a science-fiction movie set in the 19th Century. Sure, it can be seen as “From Dusk Till Dawn” (Half Tarantino, Half Rodriguez), two movies in one, and Favreau tried that I guess. The thing is, I was hoping for a more creative mix of the two genres rather than just a scotch-taped up movie.
Don’t get me wrong it is really good, I was just hoping for something a bit more creative. Story-wise, we follow Daniel Craig as an amnesic cowboy who wakes up in the middle of nowhere with a strange bracelet on his arm. He gets harassed and stuff, kicks ass, and then aliens arrive attacking everybody. Craig and Harrison Ford round up a good ol’ posse, and hunt the aliens down with the help of some out of the world assets. The aliens themselves are nothing new, huge cockroach like things that are just here to steal our gold (get the western-movie reference there?), who underestimate humans, and end up getting hurt.
Visually, as per usual, it is very good, and there is an overall Western feel to the movie that is much appreciated. The story itself is pretty good, if a bit obvious/too good. I mean, yes humans are weak and all that, but adding another alien form to the cockroaches that wants to help us fight them away is a bit too good/déjà-vu to be thoroughly enjoyed.
Overall a very good movie that slightly fails to deliver. Or that could just be me over-expecting again. Maybe Western and Science-Fiction cannot mix very well. Oh wait, taking into consideration “Wild Wild West”, maybe Cowboy and Aliens does deliver!
4/5
Loved: Concept is great. Very enjoyable movie
Hated: Obvious story overall, slightly failed delivery
We’ve also all liked science-fiction movies. They are usually fast-paced, full of non-stop action. Usually everything is done through CGI, and there are usually a gazillion different stories on the same theory that we are not alone in this universe. What makes them great usually is the fact that they are not realistic.
So what happens if you attempt to combine the two together?
We get Cowboys and Aliens, in a way.
Directed by Jon Favreau, and featuring some of the best names in Hollywood, on the face of it looks great. Cowboys and Aliens looks like a match made in heaven. Take your ordinary Western, throw in some aliens, and you get an action packed adventure that should scream success.
However, is it not as smooth as that. Sure, the initial half hour feels very western, with panoramic views, slow dialogue, slow action and ambience. But then the aliens appear, and it becomes more like a science-fiction movie set in the 19th Century. Sure, it can be seen as “From Dusk Till Dawn” (Half Tarantino, Half Rodriguez), two movies in one, and Favreau tried that I guess. The thing is, I was hoping for a more creative mix of the two genres rather than just a scotch-taped up movie.
Don’t get me wrong it is really good, I was just hoping for something a bit more creative. Story-wise, we follow Daniel Craig as an amnesic cowboy who wakes up in the middle of nowhere with a strange bracelet on his arm. He gets harassed and stuff, kicks ass, and then aliens arrive attacking everybody. Craig and Harrison Ford round up a good ol’ posse, and hunt the aliens down with the help of some out of the world assets. The aliens themselves are nothing new, huge cockroach like things that are just here to steal our gold (get the western-movie reference there?), who underestimate humans, and end up getting hurt.
Visually, as per usual, it is very good, and there is an overall Western feel to the movie that is much appreciated. The story itself is pretty good, if a bit obvious/too good. I mean, yes humans are weak and all that, but adding another alien form to the cockroaches that wants to help us fight them away is a bit too good/déjà-vu to be thoroughly enjoyed.
Overall a very good movie that slightly fails to deliver. Or that could just be me over-expecting again. Maybe Western and Science-Fiction cannot mix very well. Oh wait, taking into consideration “Wild Wild West”, maybe Cowboy and Aliens does deliver!
4/5
Loved: Concept is great. Very enjoyable movie
Hated: Obvious story overall, slightly failed delivery
lundi 15 août 2011
Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)
Sequels are never good news. Some worked, but most were forgotten. Hollywood understood this, people do not like sequels. So a new trend appeared, prequels. Some say this trend appeared with Spider-Man, others say, with the Incredible Hulk. The basics are simple, take a popular story, and say how it all began. Ever since then, we have learned how the A-Team formed, how Batman got his fetish for bats, and how James Bond got his Aston Martin DB5 on a civil servant’s salary.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes follows the trend. The original Planet of the Apes told the story of a civilisation where the apes are now the evolved species, and humans are mute slaves. In Rise, we learn just how the Apes got this boost in evolution. Guess who’s responsible. That’s right, bio-medical companies. We follow Will Rodman (James Franco) who is trying to find a cure to Alzheimer (which his dad has coincidentally) by creating a virus that allows the brain to repair itself. The test subjects for this project are, you guessed it, apes. After a failed experiment, Will finds himself adopting a super-intelligent ape, that he calls Caesar. Caesar learns about the world very fast and soon becomes aware of the dangers facing him. After turning other apes like him – super-intelligent thanks to the virus-, he goes on to cause havoc in San Francisco in order to free the apes from the burden of human civilisation.
The story itself is very interesting, and raises some genuine concerns regarding animal welfare, and bio-medicines. Turns out that the virus that gives the apes the power to become super-intelligent does not have the same effects on humans, thus answering the other part as to how the apes took over. One man’s dream to change the world caused all this.
On the cinematic side, the way the apes are portrayed is genuinely novel. We have close-ups of their faces, and see their emotions through their eyes. We see that we are not dealing with pure animals, but an evolving species. This is shown through two very important events, one of which sees all the apes rising on their hind legs. The other scene is too good to spoil. The more the apes seem to involve, the more they are filmed like normal humans. When they do not have the virus, they are shown from a distance, usually in groups. Once the virus has an effect on them, the focus is more on individual apes and their reactions and feelings. This does culminate to the point when a dying gorilla scene is treated in similar Hollywoody fashion.
Finally, as to how Rise fits in with the franchise, well as I said it is a prequel. There are some nice references to the space mission that left for the original film. To properly understand it you have to forget the 2001 remake ever existed.
All in all, a thoroughly enjoyable film, which is really well done. What is scary though is that theoretically it is possible……..
4/5
Liked: Story, actors, novel portrayal of apes
Dislikes: Guess what, leaves room for a sequel….
Rise of the Planet of the Apes follows the trend. The original Planet of the Apes told the story of a civilisation where the apes are now the evolved species, and humans are mute slaves. In Rise, we learn just how the Apes got this boost in evolution. Guess who’s responsible. That’s right, bio-medical companies. We follow Will Rodman (James Franco) who is trying to find a cure to Alzheimer (which his dad has coincidentally) by creating a virus that allows the brain to repair itself. The test subjects for this project are, you guessed it, apes. After a failed experiment, Will finds himself adopting a super-intelligent ape, that he calls Caesar. Caesar learns about the world very fast and soon becomes aware of the dangers facing him. After turning other apes like him – super-intelligent thanks to the virus-, he goes on to cause havoc in San Francisco in order to free the apes from the burden of human civilisation.
The story itself is very interesting, and raises some genuine concerns regarding animal welfare, and bio-medicines. Turns out that the virus that gives the apes the power to become super-intelligent does not have the same effects on humans, thus answering the other part as to how the apes took over. One man’s dream to change the world caused all this.
On the cinematic side, the way the apes are portrayed is genuinely novel. We have close-ups of their faces, and see their emotions through their eyes. We see that we are not dealing with pure animals, but an evolving species. This is shown through two very important events, one of which sees all the apes rising on their hind legs. The other scene is too good to spoil. The more the apes seem to involve, the more they are filmed like normal humans. When they do not have the virus, they are shown from a distance, usually in groups. Once the virus has an effect on them, the focus is more on individual apes and their reactions and feelings. This does culminate to the point when a dying gorilla scene is treated in similar Hollywoody fashion.
Finally, as to how Rise fits in with the franchise, well as I said it is a prequel. There are some nice references to the space mission that left for the original film. To properly understand it you have to forget the 2001 remake ever existed.
All in all, a thoroughly enjoyable film, which is really well done. What is scary though is that theoretically it is possible……..
4/5
Liked: Story, actors, novel portrayal of apes
Dislikes: Guess what, leaves room for a sequel….
lundi 8 août 2011
Source Code (2011)
Some movies are good. Some movies are bad. Some movies are neither. Source Code enters another category. This movie is not bad, far from it, yet not exactly good. However, once you’ve seen it, you keep thinking about it, in a good way.
The story line at first seems very simple: The US army have developed a program to revisit the past, as seen through a dead man’s eyes, in order to discover information. We follow Colter Stevens as he tries to discover the identity of a train bomber before another major attack, by exploring a train that has already exploded, moments before the bomb goes off. The exact same situation is thus explored in different ways, showing us to some extent the randomness of life and how it can be so easily altered. That’s the philosophical part I get from it anyway.
Up to here, things seem simple and easy, and we imagine it to be another Vantage Point – an action movie with a difference. However this is not really an action movie. Sure there is the love part, but in the end, the story is more about life itself in a science-fictiony kind of way. So after an initial twist that adds a huge emotional factor to the movie (along with the obvious and necessary love story), you feel like this movie could be different. The initial ending proves this as what you think is the last scene, is so well done and memorable, you almost feel a tear coming.
And then there is a final twist that just simply boggles the mind. You think you have the movie figured out, and then the last five minutes just put everything back into oblivion. (Hint: Think about the space-time continuum). You think it is not possible, think about it more, and think again, and still cannot find a plausible explanation. More questions are asked than answered in the end.
Yes, it is a bit like Inception in a way.
I really was not expecting much from Source Code. The trailer made it see like a basic sci-fi action movie. Turns out it is not a lot like that, and thus had me pleasantly surprised. The actors were all great in their respective roles and the story was novel and interesting. You really do feel for the protagonist, something that is rare in modern movies.
Sure, on the one hand the ending does seem too Hollywoody however; on the other hand it is really unexpected (tough you expect it in a way, because it is Hollywood after all). Some of the movie does seem obvious, like the love story, or the identity of the bomber, yet the way taken to the ending is new, and thus Source Code is an undiscovered gem of 2011.
4/5
Loved:A really unexpected movie, with nice twists. Good story, good actors, good all-round.
Hated:Does seem a bit obvious/Hollywood.
The story line at first seems very simple: The US army have developed a program to revisit the past, as seen through a dead man’s eyes, in order to discover information. We follow Colter Stevens as he tries to discover the identity of a train bomber before another major attack, by exploring a train that has already exploded, moments before the bomb goes off. The exact same situation is thus explored in different ways, showing us to some extent the randomness of life and how it can be so easily altered. That’s the philosophical part I get from it anyway.
Up to here, things seem simple and easy, and we imagine it to be another Vantage Point – an action movie with a difference. However this is not really an action movie. Sure there is the love part, but in the end, the story is more about life itself in a science-fictiony kind of way. So after an initial twist that adds a huge emotional factor to the movie (along with the obvious and necessary love story), you feel like this movie could be different. The initial ending proves this as what you think is the last scene, is so well done and memorable, you almost feel a tear coming.
And then there is a final twist that just simply boggles the mind. You think you have the movie figured out, and then the last five minutes just put everything back into oblivion. (Hint: Think about the space-time continuum). You think it is not possible, think about it more, and think again, and still cannot find a plausible explanation. More questions are asked than answered in the end.
Yes, it is a bit like Inception in a way.
I really was not expecting much from Source Code. The trailer made it see like a basic sci-fi action movie. Turns out it is not a lot like that, and thus had me pleasantly surprised. The actors were all great in their respective roles and the story was novel and interesting. You really do feel for the protagonist, something that is rare in modern movies.
Sure, on the one hand the ending does seem too Hollywoody however; on the other hand it is really unexpected (tough you expect it in a way, because it is Hollywood after all). Some of the movie does seem obvious, like the love story, or the identity of the bomber, yet the way taken to the ending is new, and thus Source Code is an undiscovered gem of 2011.
4/5
Loved:A really unexpected movie, with nice twists. Good story, good actors, good all-round.
Hated:Does seem a bit obvious/Hollywood.
mardi 2 août 2011
Captain America (2011)
Now here’s a movie I was waiting for! When the first trailer came out at the beginning of the year, I was so eager with anticipation, I could only be disappointed! Turns out, I was not. Captain America truly did live up to the trailer, and that is a very rare thing for a movie.
The last in the series before the Avengers comes out (spoiler alert I guess), this is the story of Steve Rogers, a ninety pound asthmatic who through shear determination to join the army gets enlisted in an experimental program that grants him superhuman strength. He then becomes an American hero and goes on to fighting a Nazi general, who it turns out, is more than just an angry German (that would be another spoiler I guess). All this takes place through a both very realistic and fantastic (the old definition here, not “Fantastic 4” style. Think “The Invisible Man” if you will. If you don’t understand what I mean, well, tough….) recreation of the Second World War period.
This is another Marvel Masterpiece. Visually it is as impressive as it is well played. All the actors are perfect in their respective roles, and there seems to be no weak points in the movie. The balance of action, drama, impressiveness, comedy and story is on a par with previous Marvel movies, that means very good! And best of all, even though Marvel were dealing with one of the hardest characters to take seriously, they managed to pull it off. Chris Evans’ Captain America is not camp, nor is he a Duke Nukem-style patriot. He is both superhero and humble at the same time, but not too goody two-shoes. Yes there is American patriotism; the whole movie in fact has the feeling of a Second World War recruitment ad, but that is what it has to be to pay tribute to the original Captain America (the comic book part is true, Wikipedia-it). It still remained very good. Moreover, the movie brings together the Marvel universe in a very interesting way.
And yet, unlike Thor and Iron Man, I was not stricken per se. It was all very impressive, but the story kind of flew in a way. Some may say that is a good thing, I did not see the passing of time, so I genuinely enjoyed myself, yet it is not that. To say why I was left a bit disappointed would be to give the movie away a bit….
As Captain America only had one movie to develop himself, everything had to be pushed in two hours. All of his Second World War exploits are told in those two hours, and they take place over a few years. Next time we see him will be in the Avengers. I guess the reason why I was disappointed was because of Marvel’s timing. If the Avengers came out in 2015 for example, we could have had more Captain America and thus get a better chance to explore the character. In the movie you do get the feeling he is asthmatic, boom-hero, then boom- he saves the world, and then finally, boom-literally. The character lacked development.
But then again, if the Avengers were to come out in 2015, I would have gone mad.
Bring on May 2012 (stay until after the credits to know why)!!!!!
4/5
Loved: Superbly made, impressive visuals, great story, great actors etc…
Hated: More time to develop Captain America rather than pushing it all in one movie.
The last in the series before the Avengers comes out (spoiler alert I guess), this is the story of Steve Rogers, a ninety pound asthmatic who through shear determination to join the army gets enlisted in an experimental program that grants him superhuman strength. He then becomes an American hero and goes on to fighting a Nazi general, who it turns out, is more than just an angry German (that would be another spoiler I guess). All this takes place through a both very realistic and fantastic (the old definition here, not “Fantastic 4” style. Think “The Invisible Man” if you will. If you don’t understand what I mean, well, tough….) recreation of the Second World War period.
This is another Marvel Masterpiece. Visually it is as impressive as it is well played. All the actors are perfect in their respective roles, and there seems to be no weak points in the movie. The balance of action, drama, impressiveness, comedy and story is on a par with previous Marvel movies, that means very good! And best of all, even though Marvel were dealing with one of the hardest characters to take seriously, they managed to pull it off. Chris Evans’ Captain America is not camp, nor is he a Duke Nukem-style patriot. He is both superhero and humble at the same time, but not too goody two-shoes. Yes there is American patriotism; the whole movie in fact has the feeling of a Second World War recruitment ad, but that is what it has to be to pay tribute to the original Captain America (the comic book part is true, Wikipedia-it). It still remained very good. Moreover, the movie brings together the Marvel universe in a very interesting way.
And yet, unlike Thor and Iron Man, I was not stricken per se. It was all very impressive, but the story kind of flew in a way. Some may say that is a good thing, I did not see the passing of time, so I genuinely enjoyed myself, yet it is not that. To say why I was left a bit disappointed would be to give the movie away a bit….
As Captain America only had one movie to develop himself, everything had to be pushed in two hours. All of his Second World War exploits are told in those two hours, and they take place over a few years. Next time we see him will be in the Avengers. I guess the reason why I was disappointed was because of Marvel’s timing. If the Avengers came out in 2015 for example, we could have had more Captain America and thus get a better chance to explore the character. In the movie you do get the feeling he is asthmatic, boom-hero, then boom- he saves the world, and then finally, boom-literally. The character lacked development.
But then again, if the Avengers were to come out in 2015, I would have gone mad.
Bring on May 2012 (stay until after the credits to know why)!!!!!
4/5
Loved: Superbly made, impressive visuals, great story, great actors etc…
Hated: More time to develop Captain America rather than pushing it all in one movie.
dimanche 24 juillet 2011
Cars 2 (2011)
Think of it as Hangover 2 for kids. I don’t mean you have transvestites and bad culture references, but it is like the original, only bigger, yet not as good.
Gone is the story of Lightning McQueen who is humbled by a small lost American village. Instead the main focus is on the rather annoying secondary character, Tow Mater. The first movie followed the change of McQueen; here we see how Mater’s not actually an idiotic rusty Chevy.
As with all good sequel, there are more guns, more explosions, and more characters. The story has all the elements of the recent Bond movie, Quantum of Solace (Italy, explosions, guns, the environment and a sort of romance), yet is adapted for car enthusiasts and children. Many people (over-protective parents?) have criticised Cars 2 for being too scary and violent compared to old Pixar movies. Really? Have they seen the original Toy Story????? I still get nightmares from the creepy crab-like mutant doll! And if you count Disney as well, who can forget The Lion King? The uncle killing the father in front of the sun? If that is not cruel and twisted, what is?
Back to Cars 2, though. I am a HUGE fan of the original. I love cars, and I love Pixar, so a movie bringing the two elements together was always going to be in my top ten. Even though the sequel is not as good, I still thoroughly enjoyed it. As a car fan, it is pure heaven. The amount of details given to the car world, and the car-geek references had me loving every moment of it! (“A Pacer! I haven’t seen one of those in years!”) The amount of detail put into designing this car world is simply stunning. You can see that this movie was made by genuine car enthusiasts.
Regarding the plot itself, it is a bit basic, and indeed is maybe not as good as some of Pixar’s earlier work. Tow Mater is confused for a secret agent, and joins an attempt to save the world from a bunch of car lemons (ie badly made cars no one cares about) who want to destroy the success of bio ethanol fuels. Basic you see? And in the background, McQueen joins in a world Grand Prix.
If you do not like cars, I can totally understand why you would not like it. That does not mean you are right though.
For me, I loved it, and if like me you enjoy both cars and Pixar, go see it!
4/5
Loved: Car World, Good Entertainment, Visually Impressive, Pretty Funny
Hated: Plot is not that good. Soundtrack either.
Gone is the story of Lightning McQueen who is humbled by a small lost American village. Instead the main focus is on the rather annoying secondary character, Tow Mater. The first movie followed the change of McQueen; here we see how Mater’s not actually an idiotic rusty Chevy.
As with all good sequel, there are more guns, more explosions, and more characters. The story has all the elements of the recent Bond movie, Quantum of Solace (Italy, explosions, guns, the environment and a sort of romance), yet is adapted for car enthusiasts and children. Many people (over-protective parents?) have criticised Cars 2 for being too scary and violent compared to old Pixar movies. Really? Have they seen the original Toy Story????? I still get nightmares from the creepy crab-like mutant doll! And if you count Disney as well, who can forget The Lion King? The uncle killing the father in front of the sun? If that is not cruel and twisted, what is?
Back to Cars 2, though. I am a HUGE fan of the original. I love cars, and I love Pixar, so a movie bringing the two elements together was always going to be in my top ten. Even though the sequel is not as good, I still thoroughly enjoyed it. As a car fan, it is pure heaven. The amount of details given to the car world, and the car-geek references had me loving every moment of it! (“A Pacer! I haven’t seen one of those in years!”) The amount of detail put into designing this car world is simply stunning. You can see that this movie was made by genuine car enthusiasts.
Regarding the plot itself, it is a bit basic, and indeed is maybe not as good as some of Pixar’s earlier work. Tow Mater is confused for a secret agent, and joins an attempt to save the world from a bunch of car lemons (ie badly made cars no one cares about) who want to destroy the success of bio ethanol fuels. Basic you see? And in the background, McQueen joins in a world Grand Prix.
If you do not like cars, I can totally understand why you would not like it. That does not mean you are right though.
For me, I loved it, and if like me you enjoy both cars and Pixar, go see it!
4/5
Loved: Car World, Good Entertainment, Visually Impressive, Pretty Funny
Hated: Plot is not that good. Soundtrack either.
Horrible Bosses (2011)
We’ve all been there. You are trying to work hard, earning an honest living, and one element makes your life at work hell: your Boss. You then keep imagining how better you life would be without your boss.
This is the basic concept of Horrible Bosses. We follow three friends who have some of the worst bosses around: Kevin Spacey, Collin Farrell and Jennifer Aniston. One is a power-crazy tyrant, the other is a doped-up douche bag, and the last is a nymphomaniac. (exactly how the last one works, I still do not get it)
After pushing our friends to the limit, they decide to try and get rid of their bosses. Hilarity then ensures as things don’t exactly go to plan. On the face of it a very basic plot, but wait, there is an interesting twist! The outcome is to be expected as this is still a good ol’ buddy movie, but just how it is reached is not exactly what you’d think. In a way, the three protagonists’ stupidity helped them out (and one guardian angel, but that’s giving too much away)
This is a very good movie, though not Laugh Out Loud funny as say Hangover was (another bro-threesome-romance movie, by the way). Every single character is funny in their own way (except maybe PJ Byrne’s character who is more annoying than amusing, but we can attribute that to Byrne himself). Some of the actors play outside their comfort zone and are pretty good at it (trust me, you won’t watch Friends or In Bruges the same way ever again!).
On the comedy side, there is nothing new here. Seth Gordon seemed to have stuck to the motto, “If it works, why change it?” A lot of the jokes are fairly obvious, but still very enjoyable, and almost all are attributed to the characters’ stupidity (“Open the door! -Okay, how’s my hair?”)
So on the face of it, a very amusing movie, however, don’t go expecting anything new here. Horrible Bosses seems to use all the usual jokes, with a new plot. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not bad, just Business as Usual.
3.5/5
Loved: Actors’ roles, humour, new story
Hated: Nothing new on the comedy side
This is the basic concept of Horrible Bosses. We follow three friends who have some of the worst bosses around: Kevin Spacey, Collin Farrell and Jennifer Aniston. One is a power-crazy tyrant, the other is a doped-up douche bag, and the last is a nymphomaniac. (exactly how the last one works, I still do not get it)
After pushing our friends to the limit, they decide to try and get rid of their bosses. Hilarity then ensures as things don’t exactly go to plan. On the face of it a very basic plot, but wait, there is an interesting twist! The outcome is to be expected as this is still a good ol’ buddy movie, but just how it is reached is not exactly what you’d think. In a way, the three protagonists’ stupidity helped them out (and one guardian angel, but that’s giving too much away)
This is a very good movie, though not Laugh Out Loud funny as say Hangover was (another bro-threesome-romance movie, by the way). Every single character is funny in their own way (except maybe PJ Byrne’s character who is more annoying than amusing, but we can attribute that to Byrne himself). Some of the actors play outside their comfort zone and are pretty good at it (trust me, you won’t watch Friends or In Bruges the same way ever again!).
On the comedy side, there is nothing new here. Seth Gordon seemed to have stuck to the motto, “If it works, why change it?” A lot of the jokes are fairly obvious, but still very enjoyable, and almost all are attributed to the characters’ stupidity (“Open the door! -Okay, how’s my hair?”)
So on the face of it, a very amusing movie, however, don’t go expecting anything new here. Horrible Bosses seems to use all the usual jokes, with a new plot. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not bad, just Business as Usual.
3.5/5
Loved: Actors’ roles, humour, new story
Hated: Nothing new on the comedy side
Transformers 3 (2011)
Let me put things into context: Transformers 1 was awesome. Then there was Transformers 2, seemingly with the idea that “more is more”. Everything was bigger and better. As a result, it was not so good. Enjoyable? Yes. Memorable? Not at all.
Now we have Transformers 3, and as expected, Micheal Bay did just what we expected him to do: Take Transformers 2 and turn the dial up a notch.
So what does this give us?
Well, an alternate reality where the Space Race was in response to aliens landing on the moon, Chernobyl being caused by aliens, bigger robots, bigger explosions, the destruction of Chicago, another near-end of the world, and an even bigger bimbo than Megan Fox.
The story is what you’d expect from a Transformers movie. Once again, a very important detail is brought to light that could change the world forever. The villain gets even bigger and more powerful. All seems lost; everyone wants to abandon the fight, until Shia Lebeouf comes along and saves the day.
It’s all very impressive and entertaining, but in a way disappointing. I guess there is not much else to do with the Transformers franchise, apart from turning everything up a notch and create a sense of awe among the audience.
It’s okay in the early cinematic experience sort of way (where movies were seen as an entertainment like a day out at the fair), but even to an action-movie fan such as myself, it does get a bit tiring.
For one thing, Micheal Bay’s past as a Playboy movie director is clearly visible here when he films the new heroin. I can almost understand why Megan Fox left! After that, the product placement is getting a bit out of hand also. Yes, a Ferrari 458 robot is fun. Giving him an Italian accent and calling him Dino is a bit too much. The cameos are okay but a bit too obvious. Shia Lebeouf even manages to get more annoying! I thought it was not possible, but he has surpassed himself! And finally, a bit more reality would not hurt. (I had no idea Navy Seals could climb 40 flights of stairs in 10 seconds! Or say, a collapsing building manages to comically fall on another one and stay there…)
I truly believe that each new Transformers is more like a parody of the previous one.
On the positive side, it is visually impressive, and the attention to detail is stunning. I guess it is exactly like the first movies: A way to try and impress to cinema-goer, nothing else.
Watch it once for fun, but I cannot really see why someone would want to watch it twice, unless you went out for an urgent dinner half-way through (it is a very long movie)…
2.5/5
Loved: Stunning visuals, alternate reality story is interesting I guess?
Hated: Pretty much all the rest
Now we have Transformers 3, and as expected, Micheal Bay did just what we expected him to do: Take Transformers 2 and turn the dial up a notch.
So what does this give us?
Well, an alternate reality where the Space Race was in response to aliens landing on the moon, Chernobyl being caused by aliens, bigger robots, bigger explosions, the destruction of Chicago, another near-end of the world, and an even bigger bimbo than Megan Fox.
The story is what you’d expect from a Transformers movie. Once again, a very important detail is brought to light that could change the world forever. The villain gets even bigger and more powerful. All seems lost; everyone wants to abandon the fight, until Shia Lebeouf comes along and saves the day.
It’s all very impressive and entertaining, but in a way disappointing. I guess there is not much else to do with the Transformers franchise, apart from turning everything up a notch and create a sense of awe among the audience.
It’s okay in the early cinematic experience sort of way (where movies were seen as an entertainment like a day out at the fair), but even to an action-movie fan such as myself, it does get a bit tiring.
For one thing, Micheal Bay’s past as a Playboy movie director is clearly visible here when he films the new heroin. I can almost understand why Megan Fox left! After that, the product placement is getting a bit out of hand also. Yes, a Ferrari 458 robot is fun. Giving him an Italian accent and calling him Dino is a bit too much. The cameos are okay but a bit too obvious. Shia Lebeouf even manages to get more annoying! I thought it was not possible, but he has surpassed himself! And finally, a bit more reality would not hurt. (I had no idea Navy Seals could climb 40 flights of stairs in 10 seconds! Or say, a collapsing building manages to comically fall on another one and stay there…)
I truly believe that each new Transformers is more like a parody of the previous one.
On the positive side, it is visually impressive, and the attention to detail is stunning. I guess it is exactly like the first movies: A way to try and impress to cinema-goer, nothing else.
Watch it once for fun, but I cannot really see why someone would want to watch it twice, unless you went out for an urgent dinner half-way through (it is a very long movie)…
2.5/5
Loved: Stunning visuals, alternate reality story is interesting I guess?
Hated: Pretty much all the rest
Green Lantern (2011)
Now this is a hard one. I was really looking forward to it. The previews seemed amazing, after all. I then went and saw it, and kept feeling disappointed.
We follow arrogant jet-fighter pilot Ryan Reynolds as he is given the gift of the Green Lantern by a dying alien. This gift allows him to use this superpower to create anything he wants with his mind. Cue lots of training in a far away world, a scared Reynolds who decides he can’t do it, an angry alien that wants to destroy the world, and a sudden change of heart from our hero, who suddenly becomes one of the most powerful Green Lanterns around.
Call me a cynic, but somehow Reynolds’ sudden change of heart is one of the reasons I left the cinema disappointed. Maybe it’s the DC way and I’m too used to Marvel, but it felt a bit too sudden. The guy goes from cocky pilot, who’s scared of his duty to typical loveable superhero, ready to save the day, almost instantaneously. It’s a bit too perfect to be true, and in a way brings the whole story down in my mind. Oh and the whole dead-dad flashback felt a bit too Top Gun, and added to the whole too-moveish atmosphere of Green Lantern. It would have worked in the ‘90s, but today, movies need to be realistic, even if they are about superheroes. (Why does Batman work and Superman doesn’t, for example?)
Another disappointment was the visuals. Again, maybe I am too used to Marvel’s work, but it felt a bit “early 2000” if you see where I’m going. Blame was given by the director on the 3D technique used, which involves filming in 2D, then artificially creating the 3D effect in editing. I can believe that. The alien world and people lacked detail, it felt too smooth.
Finally, the last thing that killed to movie for me was Ryan Reynolds. He can go up there with Shia Lebeouf as my top ten most annoying people who can ruin a movie. He is just too smug and cocky to be believable. It is a thin line I guess for an actor to capture that comic-book cockiness, but if achieved it is great, look at Downey Jr’s Tony Stark for example.
Maybe I’m being too analytical, but maybe some superheroes cannot work in the 21st century. Superman will never work, and I fear Green Lantern is another one. Maybe the second instalment will prove me wrong, I do hope so.
2.5/5
Loved: Still relatively enjoyable, though a lot more work has to be done!
Hated: Reynolds, pre-dual core visuals, too comic-book story
We follow arrogant jet-fighter pilot Ryan Reynolds as he is given the gift of the Green Lantern by a dying alien. This gift allows him to use this superpower to create anything he wants with his mind. Cue lots of training in a far away world, a scared Reynolds who decides he can’t do it, an angry alien that wants to destroy the world, and a sudden change of heart from our hero, who suddenly becomes one of the most powerful Green Lanterns around.
Call me a cynic, but somehow Reynolds’ sudden change of heart is one of the reasons I left the cinema disappointed. Maybe it’s the DC way and I’m too used to Marvel, but it felt a bit too sudden. The guy goes from cocky pilot, who’s scared of his duty to typical loveable superhero, ready to save the day, almost instantaneously. It’s a bit too perfect to be true, and in a way brings the whole story down in my mind. Oh and the whole dead-dad flashback felt a bit too Top Gun, and added to the whole too-moveish atmosphere of Green Lantern. It would have worked in the ‘90s, but today, movies need to be realistic, even if they are about superheroes. (Why does Batman work and Superman doesn’t, for example?)
Another disappointment was the visuals. Again, maybe I am too used to Marvel’s work, but it felt a bit “early 2000” if you see where I’m going. Blame was given by the director on the 3D technique used, which involves filming in 2D, then artificially creating the 3D effect in editing. I can believe that. The alien world and people lacked detail, it felt too smooth.
Finally, the last thing that killed to movie for me was Ryan Reynolds. He can go up there with Shia Lebeouf as my top ten most annoying people who can ruin a movie. He is just too smug and cocky to be believable. It is a thin line I guess for an actor to capture that comic-book cockiness, but if achieved it is great, look at Downey Jr’s Tony Stark for example.
Maybe I’m being too analytical, but maybe some superheroes cannot work in the 21st century. Superman will never work, and I fear Green Lantern is another one. Maybe the second instalment will prove me wrong, I do hope so.
2.5/5
Loved: Still relatively enjoyable, though a lot more work has to be done!
Hated: Reynolds, pre-dual core visuals, too comic-book story
Bad Teacher (2011)
Now here is a movie that surprised me in a good way! I went in not expecting much, a bit like Bridesmaids, and came out with a huge smile on my face.
At first I thought it would be the typical good teacher/bad teacher movie, and it is in a way, yet it manages to be both innovative and amusing at the same time.
We follow here Cameron Diaz, stuck in a teacher job as her rich husband has left her. She falls for new assistant, Justin Timberlake, the only problems are her top assets. She believes she needs to get breast-enlargements in order to win his heart (and wallet in the process as he is the heir to a watch empire). Throw in HIMYM’s Jason Segel as the gym teacher who’s fallen for Diaz and we have here a very funny movie that had me yearning to return to high-school and becoming an assistant teacher.
Cameron Diaz is wonderful as the most inappropriate, foul mouthed, drug abusing, drunk teacher a school could have. Parents will probably hate it, but if you, in some weird twisted way, found the school part of your life fun, you will adore it. She is also great as the profiteering friend, trying to turn every situation to her advantage. Her role here proves that Cameron Diaz knows how to do funny very well! Justin Timberlake’s character is both pathetic and amusing at the same time. One thing is for sure, you will not look at him in the same way as before. (The part when he sings is particularly amusing. I can’t really tell you about the other very funny part; you’ll have to see for yourself).
I guess the real appeal to this movie is that we always tried to imagine how our teachers got along, when we were back at school, and in a way this movie gives us an accurate view to our image. We liked to picture them mocking each other, or trying to compete with one another. When a new younger teacher joined the school, we always wondered how things would get along. Bad Teacher answers these questions, exactly the way we’d like them answered (not always the truth I’m afraid though).
I cannot find any major faults in this comedy. Maybe the plot line is a bit simplistic, come to think of it. Maybe the end romance is a bit too obvious. Oh, and I guess some of the characters are textbook school-movie ones, so no real creativity there. It does feel very Americanised, but then again, no one seems to complain about Glee, unfortunately. All I can say is, if you are young, open-minded and enjoyed school, you will definitely enjoy this movie.
4.5/5
Loved: Really funny, great school atmosphere, great actors
Hated: Maybe a bit too simplistic, not for parents
At first I thought it would be the typical good teacher/bad teacher movie, and it is in a way, yet it manages to be both innovative and amusing at the same time.
We follow here Cameron Diaz, stuck in a teacher job as her rich husband has left her. She falls for new assistant, Justin Timberlake, the only problems are her top assets. She believes she needs to get breast-enlargements in order to win his heart (and wallet in the process as he is the heir to a watch empire). Throw in HIMYM’s Jason Segel as the gym teacher who’s fallen for Diaz and we have here a very funny movie that had me yearning to return to high-school and becoming an assistant teacher.
Cameron Diaz is wonderful as the most inappropriate, foul mouthed, drug abusing, drunk teacher a school could have. Parents will probably hate it, but if you, in some weird twisted way, found the school part of your life fun, you will adore it. She is also great as the profiteering friend, trying to turn every situation to her advantage. Her role here proves that Cameron Diaz knows how to do funny very well! Justin Timberlake’s character is both pathetic and amusing at the same time. One thing is for sure, you will not look at him in the same way as before. (The part when he sings is particularly amusing. I can’t really tell you about the other very funny part; you’ll have to see for yourself).
I guess the real appeal to this movie is that we always tried to imagine how our teachers got along, when we were back at school, and in a way this movie gives us an accurate view to our image. We liked to picture them mocking each other, or trying to compete with one another. When a new younger teacher joined the school, we always wondered how things would get along. Bad Teacher answers these questions, exactly the way we’d like them answered (not always the truth I’m afraid though).
I cannot find any major faults in this comedy. Maybe the plot line is a bit simplistic, come to think of it. Maybe the end romance is a bit too obvious. Oh, and I guess some of the characters are textbook school-movie ones, so no real creativity there. It does feel very Americanised, but then again, no one seems to complain about Glee, unfortunately. All I can say is, if you are young, open-minded and enjoyed school, you will definitely enjoy this movie.
4.5/5
Loved: Really funny, great school atmosphere, great actors
Hated: Maybe a bit too simplistic, not for parents
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)