(Nothing...)
There is absolutely nothing in this movie I can possibly talk about. It lacks a story, it throws plot points out the window, there are no characters. It felt like I was watching somebody play Modern Warfare 2 with aliens. Yes, this is my review of this movie.
(Could use a few adjustments to the ending.)
After enduring one horrendous movie after another, I was starting to get worried that perhaps maybe this year was going to be as hopeless for the box office as last year was. Despite this fear I went to see The Adjustment Bureau and had relatively high hopes that I could find a decent movie that had a cast of A-list actors. Did The Adjustment Bureau deliver on all fronts?
David Norris (Matt Damon) is having a very successful run for democratic senator of New York when his campaign takes a turn for the worst because of frat boy behavior back in his college days, which tarnishes his image. By chance, after losing, Matt Damon meets Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt) in the men's room and turns his bitter defeat into an opportunity. By chance after meeting her again, David's world is turned upside down when he encounters one of his staff being investigated by a strange group of people. It's here that David learns of the Adjustment Bureau, a group of men in fancy fedoras who make a series of adjustments to make sure you are sticking to the plan, which is basically how your life should be played out. David's plan calls for him to stay away from Elise because it's simply not in either plan. Despite all this, David decides to continue to see Elise, which could potentially ruin both their lives.
What we have here is an interesting, but not entirely unique experience. The Adjustment Bureau has a really strong start and keeps that momentum going for the most part, but once it reaches the third act, it starts to fall apart eventually collapsing at the very end. It was almost like the story had been adjusted by men in fancy hats who were trying to convince me that we can't have a good movie yet! While the story falls apart, the one part of the writing where this movie stays strong is in its characters. Not only do these characters get some funny lines, the chemistry between Emily Blunt and Matt Damon is so strong with this movie, it feels real. While the performances aren't what I would call oscar worthy, I am not saying they are terrible, they're definitely above average A-list casting with an unknown director.
The movie's atmosphere is brought to life by some decent cinematography, but my favorite scenes are when David's meeting the guys in the adjustment bureau. These guys look like something out of a classic 30's era film, and a lot of their set design sort of reflects this. The one thing I found to be a little silly in this movie was that all the power comes from the hat. Seriously, the hat is the source of god-like abilities to make adjustments to a person's life? I think it should have been a combo of the hat and the clothes. The one awesome thing these guys can do with their hats is use doors to jump from one point to another, such as taking a door to a stadium can lead you to the statue of liberty. How awesome is that for fast travel?
Despite its flaws, The Adjustment Bureau is a pretty good movie. While its premise is a lot like The Matrix in that we're not supposed to be aware of these guys, it's a sci-fi movie more akin to Inception. The difference here is that while Inception requires you to pay attention, most of The Adjustment Bureau is given in a more straight forward manner that's easier to comprehend. I ended up liking this movie for its characters as opposed to its story telling, and that's a complement from me because a little flaw like a bad end can ruin a movie, but the characters save it.
(Four? That's it? Shame on you!)
Again you continue to disappoint me in every way possible! You nominated The King's Speech for 12 awards, and I expected you to give it all 12 awards, but what do I find? You only give it four of the twelve? I am very disappointed in you guys!
By the way, that was sarcasm. Though in all honesty despite being wrong 90% of the time again, I was expecting The King's Speech to win the twelve awards it was up for, simply because I've had this theory that whatever movie has the most nominations will not only win best picture, but it will win every single award. Movies like Titanic and Lord of the Rings: Return of the King come to mind when I mention this, as both movies swept the oscars in their respective years, taking home eleven awards each. Then again, I expected Avatar to win best picture last year despite picking Inglorious Basterds as my personal choice for best picture.
Oh well, I don't need an awards show to justify my taste in movies.
(Those jobs will never be taken back at this rate...)
Times are tough for us all. We have to make a sacrifice every now and then, such as giving up a vacation, or maybe that fancy new car. The Company Men is one of those movies that was released at a perfect time, so you expect it to be a great movie, especially if you saw the trailer. Unfortunately this is a movie that with a great concept, can't get the execution quite right.
The Company Men is a movie about three different successful business men who become victims of corporate downsizing. Our lead victim, Bobby Walker (Ben Affleck), loses his job in the mess of this corporate downsizing. Upon losing his job, he immediately begins his search for another job, and is so sure he's going to get that new job so he can keep his nice house, and his Porsche, but he has no luck securing a job that pays the 120k per year salary he had. This, to me, is rather unrealistic because in this day and age, why should you look for a job when chances are you're going to have unemployment benefits for the rest of your life? The trailer seems to give off the idea that Bobby will spend a majority of the movie with his brother in-law Jack (Kevin Costner), but this character is only in the movie for maybe all of 20 minutes in a 2 hour environment. As for the other characters in Gene McCarly (Tommy Lee Jones) and Phil Woodward (Chris Cooper), we don't get to spend nearly enough time with these executives to understand what they're going through, and given that they're sort of the higher ups in the movie's company, it's rather hard for the average movie goer to relate to them.
The biggest issue I have with this movie though is it really wasted an opportunity to show that perhaps maybe we need an appreciation for the simpler things and that perhaps maybe success isn't always about your membership to the country club, or that nice exotic car of yours. Bobby is obviously meant to be the sympathetic character, the one we relate to the most. Ben Affleck does a decent job in this movie, given that his character is in Boston yet again, but it's far from his performance in The Town. Tommy Lee Jones gives a rather notable performance as well, but I barely felt anything out of Chris Cooper's performance, and found him to be the most difficult to sympathize with.
Sporting some nice cinematography by Roger Deakins, it's one of the movie's finer aspects. The weakest coming from John Wells' writing. Mostly because Bobby does eventually get his job back, but the ending actually sort of left me asking "have I learned anything from this?" All I learned was how unrealistic Bobby's character is in trying to find a job right away. it's that eventually. The whole movie almost feels like Bobby is just having a bad dream. Also, if you're going to do a story about the lives of three people, you can't just go and make one part of the story interesting and push the other two aside, Hereafter had this problem as well.
This is one of those movies that seems to be screaming "oscar bait." From its cinematography, to its acting, it's trying hard for an oscar. The one aspect this movie misses the most though is the story telling aspect. It's a good effort on John Wells' part since he wanted something that could be a sign of the times, and while perfectly timed, it misses the mark multiple times.
(Can you survive the goriest scene in a good long while?)
Aron Ralston's story is well known. He spent five days trapped in a canyon and managed to survive through any means necessary. So... why exactly would you make a movie out of this? No idea, but director Danny Boyle felt it was a good idea to make a movie out of it, and he manages to succeed at telling Aron's story, making a movie that is worthy of a best picture nomination.
One day, Aron Ralston goes canyoneering, but as usual, he doesn't tell anybody where he's going. His trip seems to be going well enough until he finds himself trapped between a rock and a hard place. Ralston spends the next five days examining his own life and trying to survive. Just about everybody should be familiar with his story and the extremes he went through to survive. How do you make a 95 minute movie out of a story like this? The drama of the movie comes from Aron taking a long, hard look at his life as he is trapped, and his struggle to survive on no food and very little water.
There are other actors in this movie I'm told, but this movie focuses on Aron Ralston, played by James Franco. Franco is one of those guys who is difficult to cast, because he really doesn't fit the mold of playing this character, but dammit, he did so well in this role, he earned that nomination for best actor. It's one of those moments where you feel like you're watching a documentary, and forget this is an actor playing a role.
127 Hours features some fantastic cinematography that not only captures the scenery well, but helps to capture the feeling of claustrophobia. For those of you with claustrophobia, it is recommended you not see this movie. During the times Ralston uses the camera to record his dillema, this is supposedly as close as we're going to get to seeing the real tapes. I'd love to see these tapes to see if that talk show with himself actually happened. I will also point this out, if you're squeamish, then the climax is almost completely unwatchable. I've seen my fair share of horror movies so I'm used to gore, but I've never seen it in this excruciating detail. Definitely one of the more cringe-worthy moments of the year.
127 Hours goes by really fast. For a movie that seems to sort of sit in one place for the whole 95 minutes, it wasn't dull by any means. From beginning to end, this is one fantastic movie about survival.
(Why??? WHY??? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYY??????)
I've seen a lot of bad movies. I've paid to see a lot of bad movies. I saw The Last Airbender in theaters. That should be qualification enough to say this movie is by far the worst of 2011 so far, and may possibly be worse than Nicolas Cage's other movie Deadfall. Oh yes, it's that bad. It makes movies like Grown Ups, Nightmare on Elm Street (2010), and The Last Airbender look like oscar worthy movies.
Set in the era of the Crusades, Nicolas Cage and Ron Perlmen are supposed to be knights in the middle of the Crusades. It's difficult to take this whole thing seriously because of Cage's totally convincing english accent and his damn mullet. I have an easier time taking Ron Perlmen's ugly mug seriously, and he too has an english accent that's totally convincing. Yes, I'm being sarcastic when I say their accents are convincing, because I really mean they don't exist considering they're surrounded by people with english accents. Anyway, these two knights have to escort a woman accused of being a witch to a remote location so she may be put away for good. Apparently they need some relic called The Book of Solomon to perform the ritual.
Most of the movie consists of them escorting the girl to this remote location, all the while learning the secrets behind this witch. Because of it's 95 minute running time, you'd think this movie would go fast, but it doesn't. It's actually quite boring in the second act. I found myself almost falling asleep, but I needed to stay awake because I had to see all 95 minutes of this movie. During their travels through the Wormwood Forest, I kept thinking back to my house in New York where my backyard was basically the woods. I should have shot movies there when I had the chance, I could have been making millions! Eventually when action takes place it mostly consists of our heroes fighting CG creations, and even then the CG creations look about as cheap as Cage's armor. Yes, it's that unconvincing, and I am left with the idea that this was originally intended to be a 3D movie.
When the movie's all over, you want to tell yourself "thank god," but how can you after that final battle which reveals that this movie has no witches at all. Seriously, your movie is called Season of the Witch, and there aren't any witches in it. Oh, and that final battle itself is pretty silly because while Mullet Man and Tall Head fight off zombies the priest keeps reading from the Book of Solomon to try and eradicate the demon. When it was all over, I was left with a nasty feeling in my stomach.
Season of the Witch is by far the worst movie of 2011. It may also be worse than Deadfall. Yes, Deadfall is a terrible movie, but truth be told, I love watching Nicolas Cage's performance in Deadfall because it's hilariously bad. This is not hilariously bad. This is just god awful. I can't find one redeeming factor other than thank god it wasn't in 3D.
(The real fight is for the oscars)
So many boxing movies. Yet so many of them are actually good movies. The two most common examples of boxing movies are Raging Bull and Rocky. What happens when you take ideas from both movies, and put them together? You get David O. Russell's The Fighter. A movie that has its heart in the right place, but lacks the emotional punch of most boxing movies.
The Fighter follows "Irish" Mickey Ward (Mark Wahlberg) and his fight to the welterweight title. It's also about his older brother Dickie Eklund (Christian Bale) fighting his crack addiction. So really, the title can go two ways since it's about two different fights. The story is told with a fantastic script, but as stated earlier it lacks the emotional punch of a good chunk of boxing movies simply because you can already tell what's going to happen. To its credit though, the rest of the script is fantastic.
Where this movie shines though, are the performances. For the longest time, I've felt Mark Wahlberg hasn't had a good role since Dirk Diggler in Boogie Nights, which I feel he should have won an oscar for. After starring in such wonderful hits like Max Payne, Mark Wahlberg proves he is indeed worthy of an oscar by delivering a top notch performance as Mickey Ward. Christian Bale himself does a great job, and I had a hard time recognizing him as Christian Bale. He really did slim down to play the crack addict role so perfectly. Definite oscar nomination for Bale as a supporting actor.
Funny enough, there isn't that much in the way of boxing in this movie. Sure, it shows a couple of fights, and has a few short Rocky style montages, but this movie is about its fighters. When it came to the fights though, they stick a video filter over them to create this idea that they were the HBO broadcasted fights. While it's a great effect, it's lost when they use the same filter to show the more cinematic angles. This is only a minor issue though, as the fights themselves are, like Raging Bull's, the last few moments of the fight. It works, yet at the same time, it doesn't.
The Fighter is Mark Wahlberg's best movie in a damn long while. It's also another great addition into the sports movie genre. While we have to put up with a rather predictable ending, the script, Wahlberg and Bale's performances really make up for it. There's a lot of heart in this movie that it deserves its oscar nominations. I can only hope Wahlberg will have a streak, because this movie has given him a bright future.
(We need more movies like this.)
So I'm entering 2011 with a movie from 2010, simply because I had been meaning to see The King's Speech for a long time. After sitting through so many poor quality movies last year, it's a miracle movies like The King's Speech still exist. This is a movie that gives 3D and visual effects the finger, and tells a story about hope in dire times.
The King's Speech is both a literal and metaphorical title in the sense. The Duke of York, better known in this movie as Bertie (Colin Firth), has been given the honor of being crowned King George VI. Trouble is, Bertie is not so good at delivering speeches thanks to a speech impediment he's had since he was five years old. His wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) recommends him to Lionel Logue (Geoffery Rush), who will help him overcome his stammering to deliver a speech during the dark times of Hitler and Nazism to give London the hope it needs. Yes, it's pretty much inspirational oscar bait, but I can't fault them for that. I was desperate for a movie with such beautiful storytelling, and I finally got one after waiting for so damn long.
Both Colin Firth and Geoffery Rush play off each other so well. At times I forgot I was watching a movie and thought I was in the same room with these two. Lionel's unorthodox therapy methods are some of the funniest things I've seen in a while. There's just something about a speech therapist who finds dropping F-bombs theraputic quite hilarious. From what we see of Helena Bonham Carter's performance, I am very impressed with her screen presence in this movie. Another minor performance I was impressed with was Timothy Spall's performance as Winston Churchill. I want to see him get nominated for best supporting actor for this movie, simply because he nails his character so well.
I can safely say that there are two departments this movie will win an oscar in is its costume and set design. 1930's London is recreated beautifully in this movie, with plenty of colorful, fancy decor all over the place. Lionel's office, on the other hand, is very cozy, house warming, and welcoming with an elevator that barely fits two people. Helena Bonham Carter wears the most beautiful, elegantly designed outfits along with pearls, which seemed to be typical of English royalty. I'm going to get a lot of heat for that, so I apologize if I insulted anyone reading this that's British. When Bertie is crowned King George VI he wears a fine suit full of medals and awards, fit for royalty. I really hope it wins oscars for these two areas.
The King's Speech is a refreshing movie in this day and age. We've had to put up with the 3D gimmick being shoved down our throats, movies that use dazzling visual effects, and explosions everywhere to mask poor movie making and storytelling. The King's Speech is one of those movies that entertains you with a wonderful oscar-bait story that is very powerful and inspiring, and dazzles you with pretty set design and costumes.
(It truly is a bad movie...)
The original Tron has quite a huge following. Imagine if computers were a living, breathing world. It was an imaginative experience. So after sitting in my seat with disorienting 3D glasses, after a whole two hours of movie, I ended up feeling let down after seeing this movie.
Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) disappears one day, and we see a grown up Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund) goofing around by taking Encom's latest operating system and putting it on the internet for free, because he's a rebel and the chairman at Encom is supposed to be EVIL! What this has to do with the movie, is beyond me because this whole scene adds absolutely nothing to the movie except to pad out its two hour length. You could not imagine my reaction through this whole opening act, because of how dumb it is. We then find out that Alan (Bruce Boxleitner) received a page from Kevin Flynn and rather than check it out himself, Alan insists Sam go check it out. Why does he insist upon this?
Let this whole opening act set the tone for the whole movie, because it is littered with insipid plot holes throughout the whole movie. Sam arrives into the grid, and is immediately given his purpose, which is to compete in the games. He immediately picks up on what's going on and how to play, and it's revealed that he's a user. It's here we meet the movie's villain Clu (Jeff Bridges' face on somebody else's body), and he needs Sam to find Kevin's identity disc so he can open the portal to get out of the grid and take over by erasing all imperfections. Clu, for some odd reason, wants to kill Sam by putting him through the light cycle game. This makes absolutely no sense, because if you need to use Sam to locate Jeff Bridges, why is the plot demanding that Not Jeff Bridges kill him? This makes absolutely no sense in any way. After a mess of a failure in trying to kill him, we're introduced to Quorra (Olivia Wilde), who is a special type of being called an ISO.
What is an ISO? It's a special type of sentient being that is able to roam freely. Clu finds this unacceptable so in a flashback, it's revealed he basically performed an ethnic cleansing by attempting to kill all of them. Quorra is the only survivor, of course, but while you might think it's suspensful that it's not revealed until much later, there is no suspense because this flashback gives it all away. This movie just keeps adding a plot hole every step it takes. I was getting annoyed every time a plot hole was added, that if I were to compare this to a piece of cheese, this movie is swiss cheese. However, if you count all the plot holes you would assume it was shredded swiss cheese. The basic movie's plot is Sam is trying to get back home after getting lost in the grid.
This movie trades in all its substance for style, but even the look of this movie can't be saved. The whole world itself is drenched in black, white, and greenish-blues. It's easy to tell who's good and who's bad because it's another case of red vs. blue, something we totally haven't seen enough of. The upside to the look is it doesn't end up looking as silly as the original, but given today's standards, everything needs to be overly complex that this movie looks like Need for Speed Carbon where the neon is all over the place. For me, the best thing about this movie is the soundtrack, but that alone cannot save this trainwreck of a movie.
This movie's script feels like an insipidly rough first draft. There should have been rewrites everywhere to seal the plot holes, because it would have made a better movie. This is a movie that reminds me a bit of Avatar in some ways. You wanted to see it and you loved it because you loved how it looked, and didn't care for its plot. The only difference is Avatar wasn't anywhere as bad as this movie was. I'm disappointed in Disney for taking so long to put out a sequel and tarnish the series' reputation.
Recent Comments