Category: Movie Reviews

    Writer/Director Chan-wook Park has always created innovative ways of scaring and/or at least creeping out his audiences, and this new jump into the vampire genre fits into his portfolio well.  He takes the parts of the legend he likes, and leaves the rest.  Here the vampire can still be killed by the sun, can only drink blood, and can be turned by being exposed to the blood of another vampire.  The biggest differences are ones that have never been argued with before (that I know of): you don’t grow fangs and you aren’t exactly impervious to death. 

    This new take on the genre, and this particular story, are so well thought out and incredibly written that you just know it will be remade into a big Hollywood blockbuster just as two of his other films, Old Boy (being directed by Steven Spielberg), and Lady Vengeance (starring Charlize Theron) will get the big budget treatment soon.

    But just like his other films, this looks like a pretty decent budgeted film, sans the big stars.  The effects are gruesome and over-the-top, yet beautiful at the same time.  The overall production is top notch.

    The actors are exceptional here as well.  You might remember Kang-ho Song in the Korean monster film The Host, but he really shows off his chops here as a vampire whose morality keeps him from wanting to do things that his new body wants to partake in.  After all, the vampire legend has always been one of not only blood, but of lust, and that is one area a priest cannot sit idly by. 

    One surprising attribute of this film is the amount of playfulness and hilarity it possesses.   There are so many funny moments in this film that one might think the audience were watching a comedy if they were standing outside the theater listening in.  Maybe it’s because there’s such a deep emotional connection, that the audible laughter comes both at intended moments and at uncomfortable moments as well. 

    Many words can be used to describe Tarantino’s work.  Creative.  Original.  Funny.  Ultra-violent.  Warped.  Engaging.  Inglourious Basterds is each one of these and more. 

    It is by far his most innovative piece to date, and that is saying a lot.  Without giving anything away, he takes many of the most famous Nazi figures and gives them alternative directions in true fantasy fashion.  It’s a “what if” of the highest order, that gives the audience not only a sense of revenge fulfillment, but a satisfaction that you rarely get from a movie nowadays. 

    As for performances, Pitt is really on his game here as Raine with yet another wonderful weird character to bolster his resume.  He has proven time and time again that he can add unique flavor to a character better than anyone in Hollywood.  He may not be the best dramatic actor in town, but with his performances in films like Twelve Monkeys, Fight Club, Snatch, and Burn After Reading, I’d put him up as the best comedic/quirky actor of our generation.

    Another standout performance is that of Christoph Waltz, who plays Col. Hans Landa, better known as “The Jew Hunter.”  I’m sure that the part is one of the best written villains in recent memory, but it was also masterfully acted by this relatively unknown thespian.  Having won the best actor award at the Cannes Film Festival will most likely give him a strong edge going into this year’s Oscar race. 

    So was there anything wrong with the film?  I think there are always a few of Tarantino’s idiosyncrasies that bug me, although I must admit that many of them grow on me over time.  First off, his music choices are just a little too much for me at first.  Also, he likes to take his time in some of the scenes.  For example, when the “Jewish Bear,” played by Eli Roth, makes his first appearance with his bat, it feels like minutes of listening to the bat hitting a tunnel before he appears.  The tension grows, but the tension would have been there with half the time cut out also.  Such a long wait just adds either comedy or annoyance.  Again, these types of things become enduring on film revisits. 

    Original film making is so hard to find and this is truly one of the most original films in years.  The movie looks like an incredibly expensive studio film, but in reality, it is a $30 million pseudo-independent pic, produced by none other than Peter Jackson.  Regardless, the effects are truly eye-popping, with a world that actually looks like humans and insect-like aliens co-exist together.  So just for the aesthetics alone, this is a stunning picture.

    But the film is so much more than effects.  The script toys with social issues like apartheid and morality, and then switches into full action modes seamlessly.  What could have been a preachy sci-fi film only hits days after you’ve had time to reflect.  After all, it’s hard to dwell on racism and social injustices too long when you are being so thoroughly entertained.

    As for the acting, I find it hard to believe that this is Copley’s first feature film as he is remarkable throughout.  I can’t imagine a A-lister that could have turned in a better performance in this role. 

    Likewise, this is writer/director Neil Blomkamp’s first feature as well, and he performs like a seasoned veteran.  Hollywood could have butchered a movie like this had they gotten their hands on it, and we are truly fortunate as an audience to see his vision come to life here, untainted by outside hands.

    As you can tell from the description, this film is made up of two very different stories, told at the same time.  This makes for an interesting approach to the script for a couple of reasons.  First, it shows the modern day obsession with cooking and then the person responsible for making cooking popular on television.  Secondly, the story of Julie alone would not have been enough to tell a compelling story, especially for a feature length film.  The addition of the Julia Child storyline was much needed in order to make the film interesting enough to sit through. 

    A mutualistic relationship is not seen here though.  It probably goes without saying that while Julie needs the Julia tale, the story of Julia would have been just fine without Julie.  In fact it would have probably been better.  It’s not that the modern tale is bad – it’s just that it pales in comparison.  The performance by Adams is good enough, and while the strain in the relationship with her husband was a little forced, and some of her stresses were overly dramatic, it’s still bearable.  The memorable part of the movie, however, is the world of Julia Child in 1950s France.  The performance by Streep could very well earn her another Oscar nom and I have to admit that I ran right out to buy the book, and well, let’s just say I devoured it.  Every part of the French story was entertaining and enthralling.

    Upon hearing that Judd Apatow was going to make a film about comedy, I couldn’t wait to see what he was going to do with it.  Then I heard that he was bringing lymphoma into it and I had to do a double take.  How can you make that funny?  The answer is you can’t.  Even when visiting the doctor, and Sandler and Rogen are trying to joke with the European physician, there is such an air of discomfort that it is hard to laugh without a tear trying to make its way out.  The fact is, this film is very funny, but because of the gravity of both the illness and Simmons trying to deal with his wasted life, the laughs aren’t big, but rather more heartfelt and emotional. 

    Each of the performances here is really terrific, especially Sandler’s.  I didn’t think he could top Punch Drunk Love, and I’m still not certain he did, but he really knocks this one out of the park and Rogen comes in right behind him.  It was also great to see Leslie Mann get a chance to be in a less light-hearted role as well.

    As it happened with 40-Year-Old-Virgin and Knocked Up, as well as countless other hits he has produced over the last few years, the real star here is Apatow who seems to have put together an almost perfect combination of drama and comedy with a huge dose of reality.  It also helps that not only is his writing as strong as ever, but his directing and storytelling skills are maturing.    I’m sure we’ll see a lot more silliness coming from him in the future, but surprises like this are always welcome.

    While this is one of the most successful films to have ever come from Taiwan, I feel that the cultural rift might be a little too much for some.  I’m not saying the film is bad, but I can’t say I would recommend it highly either.  I can blame much of the confusion of the film on the bad subtitles for which I’m certain that much is lost in translation.  After all, I don’t think a love song about Skywalker would whip the crowd into a frenzy of excitement, but if it would have, then I probably just have a clear lack of cultural understanding. 

    What is most impressive about the film was the beautiful cinematography and production.  I’ve never seen Taiwan look like such a lovely tourist destination in my life.  The beaches, the people, and the street life all look incredibly enticing.  B-

    I am going to preface this entire review by saying that this film is obviously not for me, but it seemed that the audience, chalked full of young children, really enjoyed it.  The kids couldn’t get enough of the talking animals and their antics.  They were standing up, dancing, excited, and in need of less sugar and stronger ADD drugs (in my humble opinion).  But nevertheless – they seemed to really be engaged and enjoying their time in the theater immensely.

    So what was wrong with the film?  First off, the script was pretty darn dumb and poorly executed.  First off, the jokes seemed very stale.  For example, Penelope Cruz’s pig Juarez makes a complaining comment about not being able to get anything off the rack due to her body shape, but then makes threats to the human girl for putting a dress on her.  These sorts of jokes just weren’t well thought out.  They weren’t very funny to begin with and then the inconsistencies set in.  The only dialogue that worked for me was that of Tracy Morgan’s creature Blaster.  He was just as funny as he is on 30 Rock, but in this case, no one around him could keep up. 

    The biggest disappointment, performance wise, was Galifianakis who is normally a really funny comedian.  All of the human interactions with the rodents looked awkward and poorly directed, but his talents especially were underutilized and he came across dry and boring.  Not a good turn considering the waves he made in The Hangover. 

    And while the animals all looked good on screen and the 3D (for those theaters that offer it) is of course eye-popping, I just couldn’t get excited about what I saw.  

    Still, if what you need is a 90-minute baby sitter, or something that will put a smile on your kid’s face, you could do worse than G-Force, but don’t expect to be blown away yourself.  C

    Through chance, Harry discovers an old text full of helpful notes and spells that once belonged to someone who called himself “The Half-Blood Prince.”  While Harry is not sure who the mysterious prince is, the special text brings his wizardry up a notch, and helps him not only in school, but in his battle against evil as well.

    I am fully understanding of the need to make the screenplay different from the source material and until now, I have never thought it a big deal in this series.  I have always felt that the major points were covered and the themes were carried out well.  With this new movie, though, I’m just not so sure.  I can appreciate that it can be a real problem taking such a large volume of material and putting it into a two and a half hour movie, and I wouldn’t want the task myself, but I think this coverage is the least faithful yet in the series.

    The major points were all touched on, so for that I guess you could say they did their job.  The Malfoy, Snape, Dumbledore, and Harry story lines were completed in good fashion.  But when I read the book, I felt that the most important thing it did was to tell the story of young Voldemort, or Tom Riddle, through Dumbledore’s memories.  This very important character development is vital to the overall story and will now never get the chance to take place on screen.  Sure there were a few little scenes with young Tom, but they were merely there to progress a different plot line.  I guess that I found this character development so deeply interesting and important, that I think it would have been worth a little more time sitting in the theater. 

    The acting here was also inconsistent.  Radcliffe and Gambon were solid in the dramatic leads, and I was very happy to see Tom Felton finally get a chance to show his stuff as Draco, but Harry’s friends Ron and Hermione (played by Rupert Grint and Emma Watson) made many bad choices as they tried to steal screen time.  In addition, many of the students seemed like they were trying to show off in the small amount of time they were allotted and ended up coming across like amateurs.

    I realize that this review probably makes it sound like I thought this was a bad movie and that is far from the truth.  I just had very high hopes that didn’t get lived up to.  I am excited that the next and final movie will be in two parts, which means that the story might actually get the time and attention it deserves.  B

    If this plot seems kind of simple, that’s because it’s inconsequential.  Really, just like in his film Borat, Cohen mixes reality with scripted comedy to show a look at America that most Americans will be very uncomfortable with.  He learned a valuable lesson with Borat though – a story can really sell the stunts.  And so this loosely sewn together set of gags and punks shown in a 90-minute tale is much more entertaining than like they would have been on their own as they were in his HBO program Da Ali G Show. 

    I really thought he was pushing the boundary of decency with Borat, and he was, but Bruno is surprisingly offensive.  Whether it’s the one of dozens of homosexual jokes, the African baby he adopts, the Ron Paul seduction, or the many, many full nude scenes, this movie crosses the line to the point where you wonder if the MPAA even watched it. 

    That being said, it is funny.  Really funny.  I found it hard not to laugh at the many antics and sketches.  I felt bad for some of the folks, such as Ron Paul and the poor preacher he picks on.  I wanted lightening to strike others, such as the parents of the babies he interviews for a casting session.  But regardless – I laughed at all of it.  If he’s good at one thing here, it’s pointing a finger how silly our obsession with A-list celebrity culture really is. 

    Unlike Borat though, the story is not quite as strong and the character is not as likable.  Cohen and company probably took it up a notch because they knew this and they had to get folks in the theaters somehow.  After all, while Borat was just as silly, the narrative was strong enough to earn an Oscar-nomination for screenplay, and this story doesn’t have a chance.  B-