Wednesday, review day
Apparently I have a trend of posting one of these on every Wednesday of a month, no matter when I make other posts. So far be it from me to mess with a budding tradition. It's Wednesday, January 27th, and today's old reviews are:
The Condemned
3 stars
A gritty, action-packed twist on the TV show "Survivor" and the well-known short story "The Most Dangerous Game," this film packs a powerful punch that at least partially makes up for its lack of depth and believability. Most of that punch comes from the highly touted "combat" image of Stone Cold Steve Austin, but the unsung hero of this movie is actually the actor playing its villain, Vinnie Jones. Jones has done well for himself as the comedic villain, mostly in Guy Ritchie films, but in The Condemned he proved he could fill the shoes of pure, self-centered evil. Be warned, this movie is brutal, but it is also a thrilling nailbiter, and it does not take the amoral road of 13: Game of Death. Worth a rental for action fans.
August
2 stars
Disappointing. Hartnett shows he can carry a movie, so now can someone write one that's worth being carried by him? Oh wait, they already have, it's called Lucky Number Slevin. Anyway, it was nice to see Robin Tunney again, and David Bowie certainly owned his screen time (all three minutes of it), but most of this movie was just a bunch of different people arguing with each other for various reasons. And the end was a pretty big letdown.
Heist
2.5 stars
Maybe I've seen too many heist/caper/double-cross movies recently. Maybe I'm spoiled. But while I couldn't fault the lead acting in this movie, and it certainly had some clever moments of manipulation and misdirection, I found myself enjoying it a lot less than I thought I would.
I feel the supporting cast had a lot to do with this sense of ennui. While Gene Hackman, Delroy Lindo and Danny DeVito are eminently watchable (I'm not the biggest Hackman fan ever, but I won't deny he's got talent), but the supporting characters (unlike in, for example, Ocean's Eleven or The Italian Job) were either whiny, cocky and irritating or flat, unemotional and boring. And while the heist itself was clever in its simplicity, the sheer number of double-crosses and betrayals (both real and for show) the characters played out to and with each other made the movie seem jumbled and overcomplicated--way too much effort for a plot so straightforward. Furthermore, most of the double-crosses could be spotted a mile away.
Theatre fans will undoubtedly appreciate David Mamet's tight script, and heist flick fans will probably want to check it out just on principle. But I imagine many general moviegoers will not be impressed.
The Forbidden Kingdom
4 stars
First of all, I've got to give this movie mad props for staying very true to the mythology upon which it was based. If you rent this on DVD, check out the special features where they explain the legends of the Monkey King and the Eight Immortals...they are fascinating. And with so many movies haphazardly throwing fantasy and mythology together into an unrecognizably disgusting mishmash (are you listening, guys who did The Scorpion King 2?), the way Rob Minkoff handled the legendary characters in this film was an incredible breath of fresh air.
Second, it's just about damn time that Jet Li and Jackie Chan did a movie together. They were just incredible--as were their two female counterparts. And the token white guy protagonist (token protagonist--there's a contradiction in terms, lol) did a good job playing his trainee role a la Karate Kid or Sidekicks.
Campy? Unbelievable? A bit over the top? Sure, but who cares? This is definitely a new classic of Comedy Fu.
88 Minutes
3 stars
Yet again the monster of predictability rears its ugly head...before I even rented this movie, I heard how predictable it supposedly was. But really, after going into it expecting predictability, I have to say I was too pleasantly surprised at how predictable it wasn't--or at least how good a job it did of hiding that predictability by being exciting and entertaining.
Okay, enough of the P-word, because really I hate when films get billed that way out of hand. 88 Minutes was a pretty good film, not incredible, but above average, that pretty much lost all its credibility from people getting so hung up on knowing the ending halfway through that they ignored everything cool about it. I really wanted to see this movie in theatres, but it was only in them for about 3 weeks because of these people, and thus I missed it. Okay, rant over.
So while I admit it is not impossible to have a movie that both sucks and stars Al Pacino, I have to posit that it is pretty difficult. As I said, 88 Minutes was not incredible, but Pacino's presence did a lot to keep it from being mediocre. Same goes for rising star Neal McDonough (if you haven't seen him in "Band of Brothers" or Tin Man, check them out immediately)...I expect great things from him in the near future. The various females (Alicia, Leelee, Amy, etc) were, I felt at least, more than just eye candy. And the misdirection, double-crossing, emotional baggage, and scary whispers of "tick tock, Doc" helped to draw me even deeper into the plot. So again this movie did not amaze, and it will not win any awards, but it was a lot more entertaining than it seems like anyone gave it credit for.
Scenes of a Sexual Nature
2 stars
Scenes of a Sexual Nature is not porn. It's not even all that sexual, as the only sex that happens in it is either quickly aborted or merely implied. There is no nudity, or even any real removal of clothing, save for one guy getting left hanging with his pants around his ankles. Also, the romantic contact is kept to an absolute minimum: some of the featured couples don't even kiss or touch each other. And even what dialogue it has that I imagine the film's creators considered "sexually charged" is really pretty tame. So in reality, the title of this film is largely deceptive, which was somewhat disappointing for the audience.
Moreover, this film was clearly British enough that it had no real sense of resolution. The couples that had dilemmas did not solve them, those that had romantic potential did not realize it, and those that were simply in a general state of existence stayed exactly as they were. The most tense moment was, I kid you not, a period where one of the straight male characters was unable to urinate behind any trees or bushes because flirty gay men kept surprising him in the act.
I kind of feel like a jerk for panning this movie, especially because of its highly talented and diverse cast, its exploration of interracial and homosexual relationships as equal to monoracial and heterosexual ones (not my cup of tea, but still valid and modern), and the masterful interweaving of its seven storylines. But really, when I wasn't disappointed or slightly turned off by this movie, I was pretty bored with it. The presence of Polly Walker ("ROME") was a bright spot, but one fantastic moment does not a movie make.
Happy Wednesday, all.
FBS
The Condemned
3 stars
A gritty, action-packed twist on the TV show "Survivor" and the well-known short story "The Most Dangerous Game," this film packs a powerful punch that at least partially makes up for its lack of depth and believability. Most of that punch comes from the highly touted "combat" image of Stone Cold Steve Austin, but the unsung hero of this movie is actually the actor playing its villain, Vinnie Jones. Jones has done well for himself as the comedic villain, mostly in Guy Ritchie films, but in The Condemned he proved he could fill the shoes of pure, self-centered evil. Be warned, this movie is brutal, but it is also a thrilling nailbiter, and it does not take the amoral road of 13: Game of Death. Worth a rental for action fans.
August
2 stars
Disappointing. Hartnett shows he can carry a movie, so now can someone write one that's worth being carried by him? Oh wait, they already have, it's called Lucky Number Slevin. Anyway, it was nice to see Robin Tunney again, and David Bowie certainly owned his screen time (all three minutes of it), but most of this movie was just a bunch of different people arguing with each other for various reasons. And the end was a pretty big letdown.
Heist
2.5 stars
Maybe I've seen too many heist/caper/double-cross movies recently. Maybe I'm spoiled. But while I couldn't fault the lead acting in this movie, and it certainly had some clever moments of manipulation and misdirection, I found myself enjoying it a lot less than I thought I would.
I feel the supporting cast had a lot to do with this sense of ennui. While Gene Hackman, Delroy Lindo and Danny DeVito are eminently watchable (I'm not the biggest Hackman fan ever, but I won't deny he's got talent), but the supporting characters (unlike in, for example, Ocean's Eleven or The Italian Job) were either whiny, cocky and irritating or flat, unemotional and boring. And while the heist itself was clever in its simplicity, the sheer number of double-crosses and betrayals (both real and for show) the characters played out to and with each other made the movie seem jumbled and overcomplicated--way too much effort for a plot so straightforward. Furthermore, most of the double-crosses could be spotted a mile away.
Theatre fans will undoubtedly appreciate David Mamet's tight script, and heist flick fans will probably want to check it out just on principle. But I imagine many general moviegoers will not be impressed.
The Forbidden Kingdom
4 stars
First of all, I've got to give this movie mad props for staying very true to the mythology upon which it was based. If you rent this on DVD, check out the special features where they explain the legends of the Monkey King and the Eight Immortals...they are fascinating. And with so many movies haphazardly throwing fantasy and mythology together into an unrecognizably disgusting mishmash (are you listening, guys who did The Scorpion King 2?), the way Rob Minkoff handled the legendary characters in this film was an incredible breath of fresh air.
Second, it's just about damn time that Jet Li and Jackie Chan did a movie together. They were just incredible--as were their two female counterparts. And the token white guy protagonist (token protagonist--there's a contradiction in terms, lol) did a good job playing his trainee role a la Karate Kid or Sidekicks.
Campy? Unbelievable? A bit over the top? Sure, but who cares? This is definitely a new classic of Comedy Fu.
88 Minutes
3 stars
Yet again the monster of predictability rears its ugly head...before I even rented this movie, I heard how predictable it supposedly was. But really, after going into it expecting predictability, I have to say I was too pleasantly surprised at how predictable it wasn't--or at least how good a job it did of hiding that predictability by being exciting and entertaining.
Okay, enough of the P-word, because really I hate when films get billed that way out of hand. 88 Minutes was a pretty good film, not incredible, but above average, that pretty much lost all its credibility from people getting so hung up on knowing the ending halfway through that they ignored everything cool about it. I really wanted to see this movie in theatres, but it was only in them for about 3 weeks because of these people, and thus I missed it. Okay, rant over.
So while I admit it is not impossible to have a movie that both sucks and stars Al Pacino, I have to posit that it is pretty difficult. As I said, 88 Minutes was not incredible, but Pacino's presence did a lot to keep it from being mediocre. Same goes for rising star Neal McDonough (if you haven't seen him in "Band of Brothers" or Tin Man, check them out immediately)...I expect great things from him in the near future. The various females (Alicia, Leelee, Amy, etc) were, I felt at least, more than just eye candy. And the misdirection, double-crossing, emotional baggage, and scary whispers of "tick tock, Doc" helped to draw me even deeper into the plot. So again this movie did not amaze, and it will not win any awards, but it was a lot more entertaining than it seems like anyone gave it credit for.
Scenes of a Sexual Nature
2 stars
Scenes of a Sexual Nature is not porn. It's not even all that sexual, as the only sex that happens in it is either quickly aborted or merely implied. There is no nudity, or even any real removal of clothing, save for one guy getting left hanging with his pants around his ankles. Also, the romantic contact is kept to an absolute minimum: some of the featured couples don't even kiss or touch each other. And even what dialogue it has that I imagine the film's creators considered "sexually charged" is really pretty tame. So in reality, the title of this film is largely deceptive, which was somewhat disappointing for the audience.
Moreover, this film was clearly British enough that it had no real sense of resolution. The couples that had dilemmas did not solve them, those that had romantic potential did not realize it, and those that were simply in a general state of existence stayed exactly as they were. The most tense moment was, I kid you not, a period where one of the straight male characters was unable to urinate behind any trees or bushes because flirty gay men kept surprising him in the act.
I kind of feel like a jerk for panning this movie, especially because of its highly talented and diverse cast, its exploration of interracial and homosexual relationships as equal to monoracial and heterosexual ones (not my cup of tea, but still valid and modern), and the masterful interweaving of its seven storylines. But really, when I wasn't disappointed or slightly turned off by this movie, I was pretty bored with it. The presence of Polly Walker ("ROME") was a bright spot, but one fantastic moment does not a movie make.
Happy Wednesday, all.
FBS