Moonrise Kingdom Commentary

Wes Anderson is definitely an interesting director.  And a very difficult one to review.  He has this knack for taking pretty basic stories and plots and making them extraordinary and surreal through the use of clever writing and very quirky characters.  Some of his films have stories that are more out there than others.  The Life Aquatic and The Royal Tenenbaums come to mind.  Moonrise Kingdom moves more to the other end of the surrealism spectrum.  It has a premise that seems quite plausible and there’s only a few instances where you really feel like what just happened couldn’t in real life.  Two misunderstood kids fall in “love” and decide to run off together.  The only problem is, they’re on an island and really have no place to go.  Anderson took that and put it into the hands of a perfectly cast group of actors and came up with a movie that is quirkily funny and heartwarming at the same time.  And, when you’re done, you have that signature “what the hell just happened” feeling that is prevalent at the end of all of his movies.  But that isn’t a bad thing.  While the viewer usually feels like that, they also feel very happy for having witnessed the film.  It’s a hard feeling to describe in words.  You just have to watch the movie.  You’ll either get it or you won’t.

I mentioned a perfectly cast group of actors.  This is just that.  Ed Norton is fantastic as the in over his head scout master.  Bruce Willis is strong as the island police officer.  Normally, Willis takes his comedic roles a bit too far.  I don’t know if it was good directing or just the surrealism of the movie but Willis reined it in and did a good job.  Bill Murray and Frances McDormand play supporting roles and keep it limited to that.  It would have been easy for any of them to dominate.  But they let the movie focus on Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward as the two runaways.  And both of them deliver.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Gilman became an Anderson mainstay like the Wilsons or Jason Schwartzman.  Anderson’s movies can sometimes be overwhelmed by the deadpan acting of everyone but it never took centre stage in Moonrise Kingdom.  I was a bit disappointed that neither of the Wilson brothers made an appearance but they can’t be in everything Anderson does.

See it.  You’ll either love it or hate it.  But you can’t take someone else’s word on a Wes Anderson film.  You have to see it and decide for yourself.

Here Comes The Boom Commentary

Like Happy Gilmore, this movie is about someone stepping out of their comfort zone to participate in a sport in order to help someone they care about.  It's a Hollywood story that is done a lot.  It is even made by the Happy Madison company.  But it is not so similar to Happy Gilmore enough to say that it's basically the same movie.  Happy Gilmore relied very heavily on the weird "out there" gag.  Boom doesn't rely on much of that at all.  Instead, it is a movie filled with heart and inspiration with the requisite laughs thrown in.

I can't really think of anything bad to say about this movie.  The only thing that I didn't really care for was the big, inspirational Hollywood ending.  But, given the type of movie it is, they really couldn't get away from that.  They also couldn't get away from Voss learning his lesson and changing as a person because that's just the formula for these inspirational movies.  Some will fall flat and some will be good. Like Happy Gilmore, Boom delivers.  But, as I said, it's for different reasons.

Boom is very well written and cast.  Everyone looks and plays their parts perfectly.  This is especially true of Henry Winkler.  He's a scene stealer throughout and delivers his jokes with a deadpan naiveté that makes the audience keep laughing after he's done.  Secondary characters are strong and allow Kevin James and Salma Hayek to shine.  James has always been able to play the loveable has been like in Paul Blart and Zookeeper.  But he really takes it up a notch with his delivery of both smart ass and simpleton lines in Boom.  He's played a lot of good roles (and is one of my favourites ever since King of Queens) but I think this is his best so far.

Even after the over the top and unrealistic (bordering on cheesy) moments, you come away with a really good feeling.  When that happens and you laugh as much as I did, that makes it a top feel good movie in my books.  Definitely see this one.

Taken 2 Commentary

The first Taken was a great movie.  It was fantastically written, shot and acted.  It kept you on the edge of your seat for the whole time with a terrific pace and tension.  Taken 2 is a prime example of going to the well once too often.  They tried to do the same thing and it fell completely flat.  It has the same great shooting and acting.  But the writing is where it suffers the most.  From start to finish, this story is full of holes and problems.  It is odd though.  I would have thought it could have been really good.  After all, in most movies where someone is avenging a death, it's the good guy going after the bad guys.  In this one, it's a very bad man avenging his very bad son who died at the hands of the good guy.  They could have taken that morality angle a little further.  Rather, they addressed it briefly and moved on trying to focus on the thriller aspect.  Normally, I would applaud this.  But I thought it was too good an angle to dismiss and, if they had executed the thriller aspect better, I could have looked past it.

But the thriller was executed very poorly.  There are just too many holes and conveniences to make it a realistic story that I can get lost in.  the first Taken had that element.  It always seemed plausible and portrayed a very nasty situation so vividly that it was almost disturbing (and, if I had daughters, I probably would have been traumatized by watching it).  Taken 2 loses all of that element of the movie. Sure, the action (what little there is - it takes a half hour for anything to happen) and fights (fist and gun) are pretty decent but it is overshadowed by things like Kim conveniently finding a whole ensemble of clothes that fit her perfectly in a maid's locker.  Or Bryan being able to figure out where he is and where to go later (two different places) using the same information he took in while blindfolded.  He also has a very intimate knowledge of Istanbul's slummy areas and then has to recall the sounds he heard in the van?  That whole aspect is just too confusing to really explain without a three pint conversation.  But the worst hole is just so preposterous; how does a person who has failed a driver's test three times suddenly become able to execute advanced driving maneuvers in a stick shift in unfamiliar, narrow and crowded streets?

It really was a waste of good acting performances and decent directing.  There's just too many of those holes combined with an uninspired and predictable story that it really failed as a sequel.  They should have just left well enough alone with the first one.  Don't see it.  Watch the first one again and get chills down your spine.

Looper Commentary

From the first time I heard of this movie, I wanted to see it.  It's a great twist on the time travel element that seems to capture everyone's imagination.  It's really difficult to review this movie without giving away anything.  Everything that happens is so integral to the plot and story.  Being a time travel movie, you have to be willing to not think too much in order to enjoy it.  That being said, I think this is one of the best ones at not getting too into paradoxes and problems with the issue of time travel.  Yes, they acknowledge it and it is integral to the movie.  But they don't dwell too much on the effects and, when they do, they make sense.

I think the best part of this movie is the acting.  It has two of my favourites in Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis.  Through well used makeup and good acting, Gordon-Levitt is able to make you believe that he could be a young, impetuous Bruce Willis.  It was better to do that than the other way around because I don't think Willis could pull it off.  But through their performances and some good writing, there is an air of believability in a movie where the premise is scientifically impossible.

There really are no heroes in this one.  Everyone is kind of a bad person with the exception of Sara and she's got a past too.  With that, they're willing to break a few cinematic rules and it makes the movie much darker and grittier than I was expecting.  That's a good thing because I found when it did that, I was sucked in much more emotionally and enjoyed the movie that much more.  I will concede that there are times when it is a bit predictable and the foreshadowing isn't veiled very much.  But I think that helped keep it simple given the time travel angle and actually allowed for a better experience.  There also moments of deja vu and then the viewer will realize that there are some intangible elements that evoke memories of another great time travel movie, 12 Monkeys.

This is a definite must see movie.  It is one of the best I have seen all year.

Trouble With The Curve Commentary

I'm a baseball fan.  So I will admit that I spent some time picking apart some of the inaccuracies in this movie regarding the sport.  First, in what universe would the Red Sox or Braves have a top two pick given that it's a movie that takes place in current time?  Also, there is no way that, in a championship game, there would be a spazzy, "please just let me get hit" Charlie Brown type kid batting in front of "the next Albert Pujols."  But, the Red Sox and Braves have appeal for the masses and the wimpy kid allowed for a decent little scene.  After all, this isn't a movie about baseball.  Rather, it is a movie about redemption and second chances with a baseball background.  So I can forgive the numerous baseball inaccuracies.

Overall, this is a good film.  It started out a little boring and slow.  But, by the time I got halfway through, I found myself really enjoying it.  It has a very decent mix of heartwarming, heartbreaking and humour that keeps the audience interested.  Performances are strong from all of the main actors.  Amy Adams plays the "had to be strong to get by yet oddly vulnerable" daughter very well.  Justin Timberlake gives a fantastic performance as a former pitcher who has already adjusted to his second chance and, in turn, teaches Adams and Eastwood how to do the same.  The weakest of the three (and it wasn't that weak) was Clint Eastwood.  His performance was basically the same thing he did in Gran Torino: the stubborn old crank that refuses to change but can't help but soften a bit.  But, let's face it.  Isn't that all he ever really played?  Go back and watch the Dirty Harry movies.  That's just Eastwood.  He's never been a great actor.  But he's got that quality that just makes us want to watch him.  He used to be a bad ass but now he reminds us all of our own cranky grandfathers.

Most of the secondary actors are decent too.  John Goodman, Robert Patrick, the guys who played the other aging scouts, etc. are all good.  The only one I would say they needed to change was Joe Massingill.  While he looked the part of a high school baseball prospect, his acting was just too poor to make his character entertaining.  You're supposed to hate him.  But I hated him, not because of his attitude but because of his inability to deliver a line convincingly.  His character was too important to allow for that performance.

The writing, overall, is a bit weak.  The movie is very predictable and really has no surprises.  It follows basic movie formulas of things that need to happen in order for the heroes to win and the villains to lose.  But it isn't a thriller that would rely on surprise twists to keep you interested.  Instead, Trouble with the Curve is a drama that wants you to be vested emotionally.  Because the performances are decent, it can rise above slightly above mediocre writing and deliver a quality movie.

While it isn't a masterpiece, it's still worth two hours.  See it.

Resident Evil: Retribution Commentary

This is my 200th movie review.  YAY!!!  I have reviewed every movie I have watched since Battle: Los Angeles.  Thanks for coming along for the ride.

Normally, I hate horror movies.  While I see the Resident Evil movies more as monster action movies, they really are a horror franchise.  For some reason, I enjoy these movies.  OK.  I admit it.  It's probably because of Milla Jovovich running around and kicking ass while wearing tight clothing.  Most guys my age were hopelessly infatuated with her as Leeloo in the Fifth Element.  But I also do thing that these movies have terrific action and effects.  With that element, Retribution continues the great tradition.

The effects are top notch.  Everything looks quite real even though most of it is added after the fact.  The action sequences are very good and as lifelike as they can be with monster zombies, etc.  The fight scenes are well choreographed and use a terrific mix of regular speed and slow motion.  The 3D was also used judiciously and just enough to almost make the viewer feel like they are actually there.

But that's the end of the positives in this one.  There is basically no story development.  Given the end of the previous one, it seemed like it could be a good continuation of trying to find a safe haven.  But, if the ending is any indication, it was simply a bridge from that one to the next one.  It was almost as if the film makers knew they needed to make a film to keep the momentum going but had no idea as to what to do for a story.  So they just made a simple escape story with elements regurgitated from the previous movies.  And, in making that, the actual dialogue suffers because there's no development and you do not care about any of the characters except Alice.  Then, it's combined with some absolutely terrible acting.  Everyone except Jovovich is downright terrible in this movie and even she seemed to be phoning it in sometimes.  Some of it has to be because of the uninspired writing but, even with dialogue that could be good, every delivery is wooden and forced.  This is especially true of Sienna Guillory as Jill Valentine.  I can't beging to express how horrible she is in this movie.  And Binbing Li and Michelle Rodriguez are only slightly better.

If you are a fan of the franchise, you'll want to see it for the effects.  You don't need to see the others to see this one because they spend the first few minutes giving a very concise exposition with everything you need to know (the overall story isn't that deep).  But, if you do want to see this as a stand alone movie, I suggest you think twice and don't see it.  There's really no story development and I'm sure you can pick it all up in the next one.

Goldeneye Commentary

I'm a huge fan of the James Bond franchise.  I think they do a good job of making top notch action movies that are obviously not feasible in real life.  That's a tough thing to do without making the audience roll their eyes for two hours.  And I think the Pierce Brosnan Bond movies have done the best job of that.  Goldeneye takes the epidemic of organized crime and corruption that plagued Russia after the Cold War and turned it into a Bond movie that has all the hallmarks and things we come to expect.  It has the two girls (one good, one bad), the syndicate that inexplicably has the resources to pull a huge crime off, single use gadgets and a second in command henchman that kills people in an absolutely ridiculous way.  But, because it is grounded in a historically real situation combined with a personal element between Bond and the villain, it feels a little more real than the Roger Moore Bond movies.

Technically, I think this is also one of the better movies.  It came out at a time when CGI was just coming into its own and, even though it is easy to see that it is heavily green screened, I've seen recent movies that do a vastly worse job than Goldeneye.  As far as settings go, it does what we expect in Bond movies.  There's cold Russia, the Caribbean, Europe, etc.  So there's really nothing special there.  One of the things that really stands out here is the innovative tank chasing Ouromov through the streets of St Petersburg.  Normally, Bond uses his own car with all of its gadgets.  In Goldeneye, he had to improvise with something he isn't familiar with and it results in some cool over the top property destruction.

I know why they had to switch to Daniel Craig to play James Bond.  And I like the Craig movies and the direction its going.  But I am saddened that Brosnan was made to stop.  I really think that he saved the franchise at a time when people were kind of tired of it.  He brought new life and coolness to the character that Timothy Dalton couldn't.  Fortunately, we have four Brosnan Bond movies and all of them are watchable (and Tomorrow Never Dies is my favourite of the franchise).  So see it.