No Country for Old Men Review

Well, it's been a while.  i haven't been watching a lot of movies lately because I have been engrossed in Breaking Bad and want to get through them before someone spoils the ending for me.  but when you're on a plane from Toronto to Regina, there's not a whole lot else to do and I had wanted to see this one for a long time.

It starts out really well.  It's a tremendously well acted movie with superior performances from Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem.  While it seems to move a bit slow, you don't seem to mind because the story is quite gripping and very well shot.  I can see why it won best directing.  But I don't quite understand why it won best picture.  It's moving a long quite well for most of it and then it just derails to an ending that really doesn't make a lot of sense.  It does have a philosophical air to it throughout so I can see what the Cohen brothers were going for.  But it was almost as if they realized they had two hours with no resolution so they just ended with some non-sensical soliloquy from one of the characters and fade to black.  After all, the Academy eats up that artsy crap; and it worked.  Not having read the novel, I can also only assume that is what they had to work with for the source material and probably stayed true to it.  Unfortunately, that works better in the written word than it does in film and I'm not sure why.

The bottom line is that I'm of two mids for this one.  On the one hand, the acting is great and the directing is superb.  On the other hand, a couple of twists send it spiralling into something they desperately try to save and, in my mind, fall short of doing so.  But, all in all, it isn't a waste of two hours.  See it.

The Man With One Red Shoe Review

If you want a fun little movie with a few laughs and that isn't difficult at all to follow, this is the movie for you.  It's the story of a guy who is unwittingly a pawn in a chess game between two rival CIA factions.  While the potential for a lot of twists and confusing turns is there, the film makers did a very good job of making sure that didn't happen.  in fact, it may have been too good because the movie is actually very shallow with little to no intrigue that a spy movie should have.

But this is, first and foremost, a comedy rather than a spy movie.  So ensuring that the intrigue is there is a much lower priority.  They focus on keeping it light and the result is some very funny bits with Tom Hanks being unaware of what is going on around him and the CIA agents suffering the consequences of his inadvertent bumbling around.  And Hanks plays this very well.  Even back in the 80s, he was a top actor.  Throughout this movie, his performance is stable and convincing even when his situations were not.  he is supported by a competent but not stellar cast that allows him to be the spotlight.

Like I said, it's pretty thin and there are a lot of holes and problems with the script.  But it is funny and only 1.5 hours long.  It's a fun diversion to turn your brain off.  See it.

Ned Kelly Review

I'm a fan of history so I tend to like historical movies especially if they are based on true events.  I had never heard of this one until I got Netflix and I thought I should give it a try.  I grew up in Central Saskatchewan so the story is actually quite familiar to me but with different names.  The story of Ned Kelly is eerily similar to that of Louis Riel.  So is the attitude towards the characters over a century later.  A man in an oppressed minority rises up against the ruling class and is labeled an outlaw.  The troops come in and a series of bloody battles ensue.  To this day, both Kelly and Riel are viewed as either folk heroes or traitors depending on how you view the story.

There are two ways this movie could have gone.  It could have been upbeat and fast moving like Young Guns 2 or it could have been brooding and artistic like The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford.  While it is almost a hybrid of the two, it leans more towards the former and that is a good thing.  There are times in this film where they try to delve into the mind of Kelly through Heath Ledger's mannerisms and scenes with no dialogue.  But they do it sparingly and, for the most part, the plot progresses through a well written and acted story.  This does lead to some inconsistent pace which can be a bit distracting to the viewer but it isn't enough to make it poor.  Sadly, I think they may have stuck to the truth a little too much because, overall, the movie lacks any fantastical drama that movies like to have.  It took a good true story and kept the whole thing plausible.

The acting in this film is really what makes it good.  There are no poor performances right from the stars through to the minor characters.  Gregor Jordan was able to get what he needed out of everybody to make it believable.  Heath Ledger gives a fine performance as Ned Kelly and, while it wasn't his absolute best work, it was very solid.  He truly was a very good actor that we lost all too soon.

See it, especially if you like historical movies and those set in the 19th century.  It's an interesting twist on a western-like movie being set in rural Australia.  But is still has the feel of a good old western.

Top Gun Review

It's been about 18 years since I've seen this movie and there are a few things I didn't realize back then.  First, Tom Cruise is Dorian Grey.  Take a look at all of the actors' current headshots on IMDB and you'll see that the guy is not aging at all.  Second, the guy in the back of an F-14 exists solely to jerk his head around and panick while looking for "bogeys."  Third, I think the beach volleyball scene was there only to reward girlfriends for allowing their boyfriends to drag them to a movie about fighter pilots.  Finally, the best part of this movie is Anthony Edwards.  The Goose character is a fantastic Millhouse to Tom Cruise's Bart.  He steals every scene he's in and when he dies, it's still heartbreaking.

But that's not to say that the rest of the movie suffers.  It's still quite good.  Many action movies don't age well but this one does extremely well.  The aerial scenes are still able to put the viewer on the edge of the seat.  Danger Zone is still awesome to sing along to while planes are taking off.

There's not a whole lot to say about the rest of the cast's acting.  Michael Ironside and Tom Skerritt are solid in their supporting roles.  Val Kilmer is as good as he can be (which isn't much) and Tom Cruise is pretty solid even if there is more brooding than is necessary.  I think they tried to make the character too complicated with his sense of loyalty to Goose, angst over his father, and reckless attitude.  So there's a lot of confusion there.  The fact that Cruise could work as well as he did within those parameters is a testament to his abilities.

The one thing I don't like about this film is that the romantic interactions between Cruise and Kelly McGillis bring an otherwise fast paced action movie to a halt.  The pace is quite inconsistent.  It isn't enough to ruin the movie but it does make an above average movie out of something that could have been near perfect.

See it. It's always good for a nostalgic trip.

48 Hours Review

The original buddy action comedy movie.  This is the one that inspired things like Lethal Weapon, the Last Boy Scout, Tango and Cash and even Turner and Hooch with its odd couple pairing and fast paced dialogue.  If those were the only requirements, this would be a great movie.  However, in order to make a great cop action comedy, you need more than just a run down dirt bag and a motor mouth colleague.  You also need to have decently written dialogue that not only moves the story along but also makes the viewer laugh.  You need memorable one liners.  48 Hours does not have that.  It's basically an hour and a half of Nick Nolte spouting racial slurs at Eddie Murphy.  There are a few instances where Murphy's reactions are well written and acted but these are too few and far between to save the movie.  I will concede that the delivery is done fairly well by both actors.  But the writing is so ham and cheesy that even the best actors wouldn't be able to save it.

Another thing a movie like this needs is great action.  While it may have been good for 1982, the action does not age well into today.  The shootouts are over acted and chases are nothing special.  I did enjoy the fist fight between Nolte and Murphy because it was reminiscent of Hugh Grant vs Colin Firth in Bridget Jones' Diary in the fact that it was two guys who can't fight but attempting it anyway.  Whether this was by design for the characters or just bad choreography is irrelevant.  It did entertain.

To wrap up those shortcomings, the movie is just out and out boring.  The story has no real intrigue or twists.  Without that, one would have to rely on entertaining dialogue or great action.  And as I mentioned, this movie has neither.  Instead, they use a lot of filler like a useless montage of Nolte driving towards the club that Murphy is in while an entire song is played.

I'm glad it was made because it paved the way for one of my favourite subgenres.  But what it spawned is so much better than what it is.  Don't see it.

Rounders Review

I find it odd that I had never seen this movie.  I've always been an Edward Norton fan and I do like Matt Damon.  And it was released in an era where I was going to see just about anything that was released.  But, thank goodness for Netflix because it allows me to dig up films like this on those evenings when Steph is out and there's nothing but reality TV on the networks.

Rounders starts off entertaining enough.  Once you get past the crash poker lesson so you can follow the story, the character development and interaction is witty and quick.  It was almost as if they were trying to capitalize on the success of Swingers with their fast talking, hip "lingo."  It does slightly cross the "reality vs ability for everyone else to understand" line with the terminology used.  I do play poker on occasion so I did understand most of the language used.  For the other, more confusing terms, I was able to get the meaning just from the context.  But if you aren't a poker fan, you may find yourself in need of some sort of poker to English dictionary and quick access to the "pause" button.

The acting performances are very strong all the way through with one exception (which I will get to).  Matt Damon and Norton have a solid chemistry and their timing is impeccable.  They make a very good team that I would like to see more of.  John Turturro also impressed as the "angel on Damon's shoulder" and voice of reason.  Turturro can often come off as a bit simple in his roles but he really stepped up his game as a wizened veteran of the poker scene.  The exception to the acting was John Malkovich.  If movie makers just let Malkovich be himself, he can be a very intense and scary individual.  But as soon as you give him a fake accent, he always comes off as phony and comical (just as he did in Johnny English).  The KGB character did not have to be Russian.  He could have just been a very, very bad American like Con Air's Cyrus the Virus.

I said it starts out entertaining enough.  But when Marvin Hamlisch has his advisory scene with Damon in the bar, the movie comes to a grinding halt that it never really recovers from.  By then, you have enough invested emotionally to care about the outcome.  But you do want it to wrap up quicker than it does.

Because it's likely available for free somewhere for you, I say see it.  But I don't know if it's worth a second viewing unless you really loved it 15 years ago.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Review

I've often said that I want my nine hours of Lord of the Rings back.  So why would I watch a prequel to the franchise?  Especially when it is based on a book that I still lament being forced to read in high school?  Well, 9 hours on a plane from London to Calgary makes you do odd things.

One thing I do have to give Peter Jackson credit for is that he knows how to use landscapes to his advantage in a fantasy movie.  That is one of the things that the Hobbit excels in.  The sweeping visuals on the screen and settings are quite well done.  I did notice, however, that the effects tended to be inconsistent.  There were times when it all looked so real but then there were other times when the green screen effects were fairly obvious.  I also thought that the animatronics were also substandard for such a big budget epic fantasy (especially among the Orcs and their dogs).  None of the animals seemed lifelike at all.

That aside, I do have to admit that the story is actually quite entertaining.  I guess it's something I didn't appreciate in high school.  It moves quickly (except for the scene with Gollum) and that could be because it's a set up for another trilogy.  So this one is all build up and doesn't have that mid-movie lull that most stories have.  So I imagine the second one will be fairly boring much like The Two Towers was.  The acting was also very good but I would expect nothing less from Martin Freeman and Ian McKellan.

I'm a bit torn.  Some of the technical aspects were a let down.  But, coming out of it, I did feel that I had been entertained.  So I would say you should see it.

Jack Reacher Review

Well, where do I begin?  If this is what Lee Child novels are like, I'll stick to my Jack Higgins books.  I can't find any redeeming qualities for this film.  The closest I can get is that Tom Cruise didn't do a terrible job in delivering utterly horrible lines.  It's sad really because the story is actually pretty good with a lot of potential.  A sniper kills people in downtown Pittsburgh and the accused gets them to bring in a former military cop that has the tenacity of a pitbull.  It could have thriller written all over it.

But all of that potential is wasted through the use of very poor writing and extremely poor delivery of said writing.  It's almost as if every other line was written in a half-hearted attempt to be the next cool action movie catch phrase.  And the director then told all of the actors to channel their favourite 1940s-50s melodramatic actor before delivering it.  It was all over the top, wooden delivery that made it difficult to watch.  Add in the fact that it seems that Rosamund Pike was only there for the cleavage factor and it really is laughable.

For the most part, it seemed actually plausible for the situation to occur in real life.  But the hero is some unrealistic phantom super man and the villain was like some James Bond reject.  Given what Bond had for villains and sinister plots in the 80s, you know it's just that bad.

I didn't think Tom Cruise could make an action movie worse than Knight and Day but he did it.  I hope Oblivion is a step up.  Don't see it.

Lincoln Review

I can see why this film got Daniel Day Lewis the Best Actor Oscar.  Nobody knows for sure what Lincoln sounded like or how he carried himself.  There's no moving visual or recorded speech that we can refer to when making a movie like this.  But Lewis makes the viewer forget that he is an actor and completely convinces us that this is what Lincoln was.  I was looking for flaws and found none.  The performance is one of the most perfect ones I have ever seen.

As for the rest of the movie, it is very solid and deserved the attention it got.  It's 2.5 hours long and I was watching it in an uncomfortable airplane seat.  Yet, it flew by and never felt tedious.  It had an outcome that we all know and still managed to create tension and even uncertainty.  Steven Spielberg did a very good job of telling the story of Lincoln's triumphs and not dwelling on the tragic end and thus making him a martyr.  Instead, it focuses on his personal battles to do what he knows is right even if it jeopardizes the relationships with people he loves.

There was really only one aspect of this film that I thought could be left out.  That was the political agenda and thinly veiled attacks on America's slow civil rights progress and the Republican Party losing its way.  There are two spots in the movie where specific dialogue points to these two things and they felt really out of place.  There's no way the people saying them could make these predictions especially in the context they were said.  It was blatant partisan politicking and it really had no place in the film.

That being said, it is still a great movie.  See it.

Ironclad Review

There's something about movies in a historical fashion that we all seem to find fascinating.  I think it's the romanticizing of a time where, in some ways life was simpler and in others it was much more complicated and difficult. I particularly like these movies when there is no focus on the fantasy or super natural.  Ironclad is based on the actual siege of Rochester in the 13th Century when King John was trying to reclaim his kingdom after signing the Magna Carta.  And while it has the basic story, it is very inaccurate in a lot of things that they really didn't need to change.  At this time, the Danes were not pagan.  Rochester was a significant city but they portray it as a remote outpost.  They even talk about its strategic importance.  If it was so important, it would have drawn a lot of people to it in search of a better life.  So to make it remote and small just contradicts what they were trying to do in the movie.  Altering a historical story for the big screen can be done well (see Gladiator for a good example).  But to sacrifice story integrity for dramatic effect is a bad mistake.

The battle scenes are realistic.  They are very bloody and graphic to the point of being a little too much.  But ever since Braveheart, the movie going masses have come to expect and demand such things in their war movies.  It's kind of sad because the films tend to rely on the gore rather than leave it to the imagination and interpretation of the audience.  I was surprised to see this in a British production because the British tend to downplay the sensational and let the audience think.  It's one reason why I tend to lean towards British cinema in the first place.

Some of the editing, cinematography, and basic story is a bit sloppy but overall, it's not too bad.  There is a tacked on love story brought in to try and appeal to human nature and it's done so quickly and half assed that it just wasn't necessary.  The writing is inconsistent with the time period though.  Many of Brian Cox's lines don't seem to fit with the rest of the cast but he does deliver them convincingly.  Paul Giamatti also does a good job portraying the sniveling little a-hole of a king.  Normally, a screaming tirade from such a character directed at his enemy comes off as cheesy and hard to watch.  But his hollering at Cox was done very convincingly.  It's not surprising because both of these men are very good actors.

If you like the medieval thing you may want to watch it.  The performances are decent.  And the sets, costumes, and fight choreography seem genuine.  If you are looking for a tight, historic movie with few holes, you may want to give it a pass.  My recommendation is to see it and judge for yourself because it isn't a total waste of time.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) Review

The only problem I have with this movie is that, through the whole thing, I had the score of the Simpsons' stage production of the Planet of the Apes running through my head.  But that's hardly the fault of the film makers so I can't count it against the movie.  But, let's face it.  Wouldn't that actually be a benefit to the movie?  (I actually have one other problem.  I've been to Muir Woods twice and there's no way it would be deserted at any time.  Just try finding a parking spot if you ever go.  But they had to clear it out for the cinematic effect.)

Overall, this movie is actually very good.  I was expecting much less.  But it's got a very solid and tightly wrapped story to it.  As a prequel to an entire franchise, it does have a completely expository tone to it.  The entire thing is an introduction.  I know I've complained about those types of movies in the past so I'll just say that if you're going to do a prequel, this is the way to do it.  Answer the questions about how things got to the way they were in the later movies but don't ask a bunch of new questions that will just lead to the two stories not lining up properly.  in other words, you need to stay true to any canon you created with a later movie.  Rise of the Planet of the Apes does it quite well.

The other thing that makes this good is the absolutely breathtaking special effects.  Caesar actually looks like an enlightened chimpanzee.  This is probably due to the fact that they used a human and made him a chimp rather than animating a chimp.  It brought a sense of realism that should have beaten Hugo for a visual effects Oscar.  Further to this, all of the green screening effects that they had to use were flawless.  Add in very good acting (and only one cheesy - but albeit obligatory - "damn dirty ape" line) all around and it makes for a very strong action/sci-fi movie.

See it.

Chinatown Review

This is one of those movies that was made in a time when Hollywood was just starting to move from overacting glamour to more gritty and realistic movies.  Robert De Niro and Jack Nicholson are largely responsible for those style of movies being successful.  Both were tremendous actors back in the day.  They're still good but, as they get older and start embracing other genres, they are starting to become caricatures of themselves.  I'm not saying that they're washed up.  Far from it.  I'm just saying that, when they stick to roles like Nicholson played in Chinatown and De Niro did in Taxi Driver, they are at their best.

Nicholson really carries this movie.  It isn't a spectacular story by any means.  It's a basic crime movie where a guy is investigating one thing and uncovers a whole conspiracy and other shady details and winds up in over his head.  It's one of Hollywood's basic thriller plots.  There is not a whole lot surprise so it has to rely on some good acting and a quick pace to keep the audience interested.

It accomplishes this through a great performance by Nicholson.  He plays the wisecracking, "do it my own way" private detective quite well and shows a great range of emotions throughout.  You can tell that the other actors are trying to step up their game and keep up with his level.

The pace is also kept fairly quick.  There are a couple of times when I thought it was slowing down but that could be because I was watching it on a plane at around midnight.  I'm sure that if I watched this in an early evening, I would have thought it was moving very quickly.

See it.  It doesn't get as gritty and violent as some of today's thrillers.  But given that it's over 30 years old, it still stands up as a fairly decent crime thriller.

The Fantastic Four Review

When this movie came out, I thought that the effects were really good.  For the most part, they have stood the test of time.  The invisibility, flames, and human rock are all still very good.  However, the stretchy skin aspect of Reed Richards has not aged well.  This is supposed to be a super hero movie and whenever he does his thing, it comes off looking like something from The Mask.  It's more comical than anything and the leader of a super hero group should not be the comic relief.

Overall, the acting is as good as can be expected with the weak and quite lame and cheesy writing that has occured.  Chris Evans plays cocky quite well but was given absolutely moronic lines and the character suffered for it.  Jessica Alba is passable and Michael Chiklis delivers well for a character that is outside of his comfort zone.  He's at his best as a badass and Grimm is a more tenderhearted character with a rough exterior ( a cheesy allegory given e whole rock skin thing but that's the MO of Marvel).

The story is a good telling of the origins of the group but it is just that: only the origins.  The whole film is exposition and doesn't move on into a more self-contained story.  Building the whole thing for a sequel is a risky proposition.  Given at there is a sequel, I guess it paid off.  When I finally watch it, I'll review it too.

It moves fast and has a lot of good action sequences.  So for a comic book movie, it is good enough.  See it if you haven't already.

The Great Train Robbery Review

The hallmark of a good heist movie is to keep it light.  After all, the protagonists in most of them are actually very bad people with bad intentions.  And the audience should be cheering for the heroes.  With a setting like Victorian England and two fine dramatic actors like Sean Connery and Donald Sutherland it would have been easy to turn this into a very heavy and intense heist movie.  I haven't read the book so I cannot speak to its tone.  But I was glad to see that Michael Crichton kept the tone light all the way through.  The flippant attitudes of Pierce and Agar make it a much more enjoyable film.  In this way, it really resembles Ocean's 11 without the large entourage of characters.

The Great Train Robbery follows the basic elements of a good heist movie.  There's the setup where the main character sees an opportunity for personal gain.  This is followed by recruiting some help and then moving into the preparation stage.  It is the preparation stage that is the most important in these films because it is more about how they cross their 't's and dot their lower case 'j's than it is about execution.  This story does an excellent job in laying out how they go about getting all four keys and dealing with the inevitable road bumps along the way.  It is during one of those road bumps that the movie takes a slightly darker turn that doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the tone.  How they deal with Clean Willy is a deviation from the rest and it still kind of bothers me.  But, throughout the buildup to the heist there is a fine mix of tension and comic relief to make it very entertaining.

Finally, the heist itself is a bit anti-climactic in that there is really no crisis to be dealt with other than Connery hanging out on the edge of a train.  It's almost as if their planning was too thorough.  Other than Connery dealing with wave after wave of bridges on the top of the train, there's no real suspense.  But they don't dwell on it and the film actually wraps up quite quickly.

Overall, it's a well-paced, lighthearted heist with some decent performances.  See it.

Dorian Gray Review

By now I should know that it's usually a red flag when a movie starts out showing a scene that happens halfway through the timeline and then starts the story with "one year earlier."  It means that the first gripping part of the movie is so far from the beginning that, if they didn't hook you in with it from the start, you'd never make it through.  This is exactly what happened in Dorian Gray.

I have not read the novel but it is on my list.  So I don't know how true the film is to the Oscar Wilde story.  (Considering a good portion of the film takes place well after Wilde died, I'm pretty sure a lot of that was never in the novel.)  I do know that Dorian Gray is a cautionary tale about the soul and the consequences of your actions (at least I think it is).  And given the subject matter, it would have to be a fairly melancholic piece to begin with.  What the film makers did was take that dark story and make it even darker.  Gray is portrayed as a man really without a mind of his own.  He is easily influenced and of a very weak character.  This makes it hard to really have any vested interest in Gray at all.  Instead, I found myself more intrigued by the Basil and Harry characters that are Gray's influencers.  This is especially true of Harry because he's the driving force behind Gray's depravity.  He's also played by Colin Firth who is (in my mind) the King of Hollywood right now.

It's odd really because Gray seems to be so empty and one dimensional.  His only motivation is hedonism and to see how far he can take pleasure for his own satisfaction.  It makes sense in a way because all of the consequences of his actions are deflected to the painting in his attic leaving him, ultimately empty.  The big problem with this is that I feel it can work in a novel but that kind of character fails in a film.  Without blatant (and thus, poorly written) exposition in dialogue, it's difficult to get into the head of a character like that.  It can be explained with much more detail in the written word.  As a result, on film, Gray just becomes this zombie of a sex addict and a lot like the characters in Crash (the sexy car accident one.  Not the "everyone's a racist" one) and it becomes boring.

So, once you realize this, the only reason to sit through the whole thing is to see what the painting looks like.  This is another symptom of the film maker's inkling that they may not have a masterpiece because they purposely leave out any decent shot of the painting after it starts transforming.  You can call it mystery and suspense if you like but I just don't buy it.

All in all, it focuses too much on weird nudity and depravity and not enough on the underlying themes.  Don't see it.

Planes, Trains & Automobiles Review

I would imagine that when most critics saw Due Date, they said it was not much more than a retelling of Planes, Trains & Automobiles.  However, I had never seen Planes so Due Date was just another road trip movie with wacky adventures for me.  My first reaction when seeing Planes was "this is an awful lot like Due Date."  I had to remind myself that the John Hughes movie is actually almost 25 years older and did it first.

It's a basic odd couple tale where two guys are put into an absurd situation and the stuffy one learns a lot about himself and being a better person.  The fat one with the facial hair does wacky things that make us laugh.  Like most John Candy films, it is really just a vehicle to showcase his comedic ability.  The story is not supposed to be deep.  The resolution can be seen coming in the opening credits.  And the co-star exists simply to allow the jokes to come.  It's odd because Steve Martin can do all of that stuff on his own very well.  So making him the straight man to Candy's jokes was different.  And there are a couple of times when they do let Martin have some of the spotlight.  (His encounter with Edie McClurg at the car rental counter comes to mind.)  But, for the most part, the quality of this movie hinges on one thing: does it make you laugh?  Yes, it does.  It remains upbeat and the jokes and slapstick are quality.  It's a good thing too because, like most 80s comedies, they go all-in on that one aspect.

The one thing Due Date did to a greater degree was to polarize the characters more.  Robert Downey Jr was much more of an a-hole and Zack Galifinakis was much more of a doofus.  That allowed Due Date to be more of a zany and crude comedy.  But it also allowed Planes to be more down to earth and relate-able. The only downside is that the consistency of the characters suffers.  Candy is supposed to playing a doofus.  But there are times when he seems to have more depth than you would expect from a guy who would read a smut novel in the airport.

But, all in all, Planes delivers on it's promise for laughs.  See it.

The Eagle Has Landed Review

Sometimes these movies from the 60s and 70s are hard to watch.  For the most part, cinema was just on the verge of becoming more realistic.  It's almost as if they knew they couldn't get away with the melodramatic acting anymore but had nobody who knew how to turn the corner.  They also didn't have the effects that we have today that can make a war movie more realistic.  The Eagle Has Landed is right on the edge of that.

What makes it a good movie is the source material.  Jack Higgins' book is what got me interested in reading and this is probably his best story.  He's a master of imagining a "what if" WWII scenario.  And the idea of sending Nazi paratroopers into England in a last ditch effort to turn the war tide is a fantastic premise.  So they had a great story to work with.  And the thrill of the story does keep you interested.  After that, it remains strong with the cast.  Put Michael Caine, Donald Sutherland and Robert Duvall in a movie and it's going to be at least decent.  It isn't any of their best performances (Sutherland's Irish accent is subpar) but they all do know how to deliver a line.  The lack of German accents for half of the Nazis is kind of distracting.  But I'd rather have that than a bad German accent.

Overall, it's worth your time simply because of the good story.  But there is a lack of good war tension that modern movie making techniques could fix.  It's one of the better ones that the era has to offer even if the era's limitations doesn't allow it to age as well as it could.

See it.  And if they ever do a remake, I'll be first in line.

The Five Year Engagement Review

Speaking of run of the mill romantic comedies, this is a perfect example.  There is nothing in this movie that really makes it different than any other.  It's the typical, "two people are in love, reach a crisis, and come to realize they still love each other."  We've seen it, or a similar story, time and time again.

That's not to say that there aren't some funny moments in the film.  There were a few times when I laughed out loud at something Jason Segel, Brian Posehn or Chris Parnell said.  But, for the most part, even their lines seemed to have no real effort in the writing and delivery.  That disappoints me because both Posehn and Parnell are some of the best at being the sidekick that confuses the hero and makes you laugh (Posehn's work on Just Shoot Me was quite good).  This all surprises me because this movie was written by Segel and produced by Judd Apatow.  Both are very talented people.

It's almost as if they decided at the last minute to throw together a film that would be able to make a few bucks.  Kind of like if Apatow and Segel found that they both had some free time to take up a little hobby and keep themselves busy.  I got the feeling that there was no real planning or original idea that sparked anything to make this project.  And that's not necessarily a bad thing because there is definitely a market for the basic romantic comedy.  And if people like it and you keep it within budget to make a few dollars, well, that's just free enterprise.

If you're into that kind of thing, you may enjoy it.  But I doubt it because even Steph said it was just OK.  And this genre is right in her wheelhouse.  Don't see it.

Seven Psychopaths Review

One thing is for certain.  Marketing materials for movies are deceptive.  The last movie I saw, Silver Linings Playbook marketed itself as a run of the mill romantic comedy.  It turned out to have a lot of layers and emotion and has been nominated for Best Picture.  Seven Psychopaths marketed itself as a hip and quirky underworld comedy; much like any movie based on an Elmore Leonard novel.  With one, the viewer is pleasantly surprised to be entertained comedically and still experience a deep movie.  With the other, the same thing is attempted but fails miserably.  (It also marketed itself completely false.  Neither Abbie Cornish nor Olga Kurylenko is one of the psychopaths.  It is completely not what the marketing would have you believe.)

Seven Psychopaths is about a guy writing a screenplay about psychotic people.  He wants the movie to have depth and be about more than just killing.  It's a commentary on almost anything Guy Ritchie has ever done or inspired.  Then, he gets sucked into a world of actual psychopaths.  I won't give away any more in case you want to see it.  The actual movie you are watching is trying to do the same thing that the writer is.  Ironically, they should have never made the attempt and it should have just been a movie about a group of psychos who kidnap another psycho's dog.

Keeping it shallow would have enabled them to really play off of the potential for the cool one-liners that they hyped up so much in the trailers.  They had the cast to do it.  Colin Farrell proved he could do cool, underworld comedy in In Bruges.  Sam Rockwell, Woody Harrelson and Christopher Walken can all play that very well too.  But Harrelson is cast as a mob leader and should have been an anti-hero.  Rockwell would have been better as the mob leader.  Walken was cast well as the aging weirdo but his lines were obviously written with his quirky delivery in mind.  It would have had more punch if they had just written the movie with clever dialogue and let Walken add his weirdness to it.

But the thing that really makes this movie fail is that they wanted to make a comedy.  But then they bring in very, very dark topics that make the viewer very uncomfortable when they're supposed to laugh at the dialogue.  Comedy mixed with violence often works.  But there's a line when, if crossed, they fail to mix.  Seven Psychopaths crossed that line with most of the back stories of the psychos.  If you don't laugh, everything falls flat and the movie seems boring.  If you do laugh, you feel guilty.  It's a lose-lose for the viewer.

Don't see it.

Goon Review

This one's a mix of Necessary Roughness, Rocky and Happy Gilmore.  An underdog discovers a hidden talent and is given the opportunity to be a minor star.  It sounds like a half decent premise for an ok comedy.  The reason it took me so long to see it is that I'm not a hockey fan and one of the main reasons is their unwillingness to seriously address the fighting issue.  Then, Karl told me it was actually very funny so I thought I'd give it a shot one afternoon on my day off.  Karl was right.  This is actually a very good movie.

One of the reasons is Sean William Scott.  We all know he can play a smart ass and jackass.  But what most people don't know is that he's actually very talented.  He veers off a little here in that he plays a loveable goofball with a slightly violent streak (like Happy Gilmore).  But he's even more "aw shucks" and it really works.  Some of the lines he delivers because the character is so dim are absolute comic gold.  The rest of the cast does a decent job of providing the needed caricatures that a sports comedy needs.  They all have them and this one is on par with the best.  In fact, all of the dialogue is very cleverly written and well timed.

The only beef I have with the film is some of the inconsistencies and continuity.  It's a Canadian made film and they really play up the stereotypical Canadian accent.  As a Canadian, it rubs me a bit the wrong way when they really play it up.  We don't all sound like confused Americans with head trauma.  In fact, most of us don't.  Yes, our "out" does have a lot less of a drawl than the Americans but it isn't that different.  When they had a character with a Canadian accent, the only one that was believable was Liev Schreiber.  It was just enough and he made it very convincing.  The rest were over the top and obvious attempts to make Americans think it was quaint and get them to watch the movie.  The other continuity issues are only recognizable if you know a little about Canada and hockey.  The MTS Centre is in Winnipeg but it was home to the Quebec team here.  There's lots of local Brandon, MB advertising on Halifax's boards, etc.  But that's OK.  There probably just wasn't enough budget to fully modify the sets for realism.  And even the big budget films don't get it all right.

See it.  The laughs are definitely worth the time.