Movie Review: Lottery Ticket (2010)
Spoilers: none
---
Kevin Carlson lives in the projects. Life with dear sweet grandmother is a challenge when it comes to paying the rent and bills, but all of that changes when he wins the lottery.
As the news gets out that Carlson is destined to be a multimillionaire, the family is suddenly inundated with enemies, friends, so-called friends, and distant relatives—all wanting a piece of the pie.
Times will remain tough for Carlson before he can cash in on his 370 million dollar winnings due to having to wait through the 4th of July weekend until the downtown claims office opens. Will he be able to survive three days with an unsigned winning lottery ticket in the crime cesspool known as the projects?
If you supposed that a movie that helps us dream of what we would do with lottery money can't be too bad, you wouldn’t be entirely wrong. Lottery Ticket is not as much a bad film as it is an evenly paced trip down the stream of mostly embellished characters and a story made much less compelling due to iffy writing.
Here, the talents of Loretta Devine and Ice Cube are essentially do-nothing additions, whereas the true emotionally invested performances come from Carlson (Bow Wow) and his best friend Benny (Brandon T. Jackson). Certain characters – like Keith David as "Sweet Tee," a local crime boss, and Ice Cube as "Mr. Washington" – border on clichéd, even silly.
Lottery Ticket does a fine of job at demonstrating how money can so drastically change those around us, but it doesn't hit the high marks that it needs to. The film will fair better as a standard broadcast on BET and other made-for-TV movie venues than it has as a major release picture for the big scream.
(JH)
---
Grade: C- (2 stars)
Rated: PG-13 (for sexual content, language, including a drug reference, some violence, and brief underage drinking.)
Director: Erik White
Summary: Kevin Carson is a young man living in the projects who has to survive a three-day weekend after his opportunistic neighbors find out he's holding a winning lottery ticket worth $370 million.
Starring: Bow Wow "Kevin Carson," Brandon T. Jackson "Benny," Naturi Naughton "Stacie," Loretta Devine "Grandma," Ice Cube "Mr. Washington," Keith David "Sweet Tee," Terry Crews "Jimmy the Driver," Mike Epps "Reverend Taylor," Charles Q. Murphy "Semaj"
Genre: Comedy / Drama
Trailer
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
Parodies of Vampire Movies Can Suck, Too
Movie Review: Vampires Suck (2010)
Spoilers: none
---
Vampires Suck is the latest work of directors/writers Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, the same duo who brought us the despicable, theater-mass-exodus-inducing works known as Disaster Movie, Epic Movie, and Meet the Spartans. These god-awful, so-called excuses for parodies proved to be nothing more than stupid and unwatchable time-wasters that would disappoint even the lowest bottom-feeders of junk-movie whores.
But unlike their earlier failures, Vampires Suck is, believe it or not, much less of a diabolically bad disappointment, with quite a number of “laugh out loud” funny moments designed to smear Stephanie Meyer's Twilight book and movie series. If you happen to be one among many frothing-at-the-mouth haters of the current teen vampire romance trend (and if you're bored out of your mind), you'd almost benefit from seeing Vampires Suck. Almost.
Nearly all will find the expectedly over-the-top dabbling in stupidity too much to handle as it ransacks what could have been a legitimate ensemble of humor based on the merit of clever mockery, but instead, the film's creators give in to their usual tendencies to go full throttle into the bizarre and ridiculous.
Between moments of stagnation and shear stupidity are some genuinely funny lines and stabs that will (and should) be quite memorable...
While Vampires Suck is a no-go from the critic's perspective, the well-chosen cast has a good measure of chemistry and could not have been better picked, with Jenn Proske (as Becca), Matt Lanter (as Edward), Diedrich Bader (“Oswald” from The Drew Carey Show), and Ken Jeong (“King Argotron” from Rolemodels).
Other than this, not much can be said for the film except that it's quite an achievement for a work of Friedberg and Seltzer to produce something that doesn't show up on the Worst of the Year list.
(JH)
---
Grade: D+ (1 ½ stars)
Rated: PG-13 (for crude sexual content, comic violence, language, and teen partying)
Directors: Jason Friedberg, Aaron Seltzer
Summary: A spoof of vampire-themed movies, where teenager Becca finds herself torn between two boys. As she and her friends wrestle with a number of different dramas, everything comes to a head at their prom.
Starring: Jenn Proske "Becca Crane," Matt Lanter "Edward Sullen," Diedrich Bader "Frank Crane," Chris Riggi "Jacob White," Arielle Kebbel "Rachel," B.J. Britt "Antoine," Charlie Weber "Jack," Emily Brobst "June," Bradley Dodds "Salvatore," Ken Jeong "Daro"
Genre: Comedy
Trailer
Spoilers: none
---
Vampires Suck is the latest work of directors/writers Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, the same duo who brought us the despicable, theater-mass-exodus-inducing works known as Disaster Movie, Epic Movie, and Meet the Spartans. These god-awful, so-called excuses for parodies proved to be nothing more than stupid and unwatchable time-wasters that would disappoint even the lowest bottom-feeders of junk-movie whores.
But unlike their earlier failures, Vampires Suck is, believe it or not, much less of a diabolically bad disappointment, with quite a number of “laugh out loud” funny moments designed to smear Stephanie Meyer's Twilight book and movie series. If you happen to be one among many frothing-at-the-mouth haters of the current teen vampire romance trend (and if you're bored out of your mind), you'd almost benefit from seeing Vampires Suck. Almost.
Nearly all will find the expectedly over-the-top dabbling in stupidity too much to handle as it ransacks what could have been a legitimate ensemble of humor based on the merit of clever mockery, but instead, the film's creators give in to their usual tendencies to go full throttle into the bizarre and ridiculous.
Between moments of stagnation and shear stupidity are some genuinely funny lines and stabs that will (and should) be quite memorable...
Edward Sullen: “This will never work. I have a desire to eat you!” Becca Crane: “Aren't most guys into that?”
“Relax, Becca. We're just like any normal American family, except we have no souls and we walk the earth trying to satisfy an unquenchable thirst for blood.”
Parking sign at the new school: “Misunderstood new girl who drives a crappy truck.”
Tea bag sticker: “Rebound Guy Tea”
While Vampires Suck is a no-go from the critic's perspective, the well-chosen cast has a good measure of chemistry and could not have been better picked, with Jenn Proske (as Becca), Matt Lanter (as Edward), Diedrich Bader (“Oswald” from The Drew Carey Show), and Ken Jeong (“King Argotron” from Rolemodels).
Other than this, not much can be said for the film except that it's quite an achievement for a work of Friedberg and Seltzer to produce something that doesn't show up on the Worst of the Year list.
(JH)
---
Grade: D+ (1 ½ stars)
Rated: PG-13 (for crude sexual content, comic violence, language, and teen partying)
Directors: Jason Friedberg, Aaron Seltzer
Summary: A spoof of vampire-themed movies, where teenager Becca finds herself torn between two boys. As she and her friends wrestle with a number of different dramas, everything comes to a head at their prom.
Starring: Jenn Proske "Becca Crane," Matt Lanter "Edward Sullen," Diedrich Bader "Frank Crane," Chris Riggi "Jacob White," Arielle Kebbel "Rachel," B.J. Britt "Antoine," Charlie Weber "Jack," Emily Brobst "June," Bradley Dodds "Salvatore," Ken Jeong "Daro"
Genre: Comedy
Trailer
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Stallone Gives Us Mercenaries, Bolivia, and A Really Loud Gun
Movie Review: The Expendables (2010)
Spoilers: none
---
The Expendables exudes masculinity without even trying. Being confident in its ability to bring you more than impressive action, it has enough left over to be reheated and served up again. It matters little that it went the way of the underachiever with its star-packed cast and failed to live up to its potential. It could have done more than it did, but it doesn't coast on star power alone. That's the important thing as far as any critic or self-respecting movie buff is concerned.
Stallone, Statham, Li, Lundgren, and Rourke are The Expendables—skilled and deadly mercenaries who carefully choose their weapons, but are more often than not painted in a virtuous light. They're like a less contraption-focused A-Team, a group of specialists that can be appreciated in value when judged by the number of most explosives rigged or guts sliced open. Best of all, The Expendables feels like an old-school raw-action movie you can be fond of just because of the high testosterone level.
It has all of the elements of a perfect “tough guy” movie, and with few of the shortcomings. These guys struggle with what so many tough guys must face, like problems in relationships, a borderline-insane rogue team member, a beautiful contact woman (in a “damsel in distress” role), and often conflicting attitudes between each other about getting the job done or who is better. They have a few things in common – important things – the most important being: they know they are expendable. That no-nonsense title isn't just to sound catchy. Watch as it is heavily inculcated into the plot’s development.
When not in combat, these guys play darts...with knives. They use much bigger knives to stab people. They struggle with girl problems. They drink beer and enjoy tattoo artwork. But they fight inner battles as surely as they do outer ones, as these “clean-up boys” fight to keep what remains of their consciences intact while carrying on in lives committed to bloodshed. The subject of death is handled with refreshing maturity.
And you have what you get in movies graced with more than a few celebrity appearances--occasionally funny and well-placed punchlines, some with good political comic relief. The Expendables brings with it the satisfaction of older, more vindictively-themed films, with the testosterone of a bull getting his freak on. And yet, it has enough of an artful tinge to be more than mindlessly macho.
You have a segment where Lee Christmas (Statham) is on the front of a plain in an air-exposed combat cockpit. He fires off some big explosives and destroys a pier with soldiers still in place. The soldiers are aiming to fire back as the plain flies by when it has been airborne and clearly out of sight for at least several minutes. Why are the soldiers still standing there? Statham's strapless glasses stay on his face the whole time. With some imperfections, it has just the appropriate amount of embellishment in the action to have you not be put off at the thought of seeing more.
Celebrity gossip enthusiasts would bark about how old everyone looks. And it's so true. The creators wanted the old bigwigs to get the big roles. Watch it in the wrong mindset and you can see how the film could be interpreted as an attempt at lampooning action stars of the previous two decades. But you almost have to be a Miley Cyrus fan to go there in thought.
There are lots of stars here, including Eric Roberts as the villain, and Bruce Willis with an integral role. Jet Li should be kicking, not talking as much as he does. He is, believe it or not, a new sight to behold as he plays a character with Little Man's Syndrome. He doesn't totally suck at it, either. The conserved amount of time and energy spent in presenting serious dialogue brings out that Willis doesn't easily look intimidating, even when he wants and needs to. Perhaps Stallone should be patting a grandbaby to sleep at an in-law's house, but no one told him that. He went and brought us this movie instead.
Lungren looks not just big and old and unbelievably mean, but like a trigger-happy meth-head who happens also to be insane. I was taken in by him at every shot. He looks as captivating as he did going up against the Italian Stallion as Drago—always with that awesome ability to re-vamp his appearance.
It’s not going to take home any awards, but The Expendables is a great end-of-summer “shoot ‘em up” that deserves a few accolades for what it provides its target audience.
(JH)
---
Grade: B- (3 stars)
Rated: R (for strong action and bloody violence throughout, and for some language.)
Director: Sylvester Stallone
Summary: A team of mercenaries head to South America on a mission to overthrow a dictator.
Starring: Sylvester Stallone "Barney Ross," Jason Statham "Lee Christmas," Jet Li "Ying Yang," Dolph Lundgren "Gunner Jensen," Eric Roberts "James Munroe," Randy Couture "Toll Road," Steve Austin "Paine," David Zayas "General Garza," Giselle Itié "Sandra," Charisma Carpenter "Lacy," Gary Daniels "The Brit," Terry Crews "Hale Caesar," Mickey Rourke "Tool"
Genre: Action / Adventure / Thriller
Trailer
Spoilers: none
---
The Expendables exudes masculinity without even trying. Being confident in its ability to bring you more than impressive action, it has enough left over to be reheated and served up again. It matters little that it went the way of the underachiever with its star-packed cast and failed to live up to its potential. It could have done more than it did, but it doesn't coast on star power alone. That's the important thing as far as any critic or self-respecting movie buff is concerned.
Stallone, Statham, Li, Lundgren, and Rourke are The Expendables—skilled and deadly mercenaries who carefully choose their weapons, but are more often than not painted in a virtuous light. They're like a less contraption-focused A-Team, a group of specialists that can be appreciated in value when judged by the number of most explosives rigged or guts sliced open. Best of all, The Expendables feels like an old-school raw-action movie you can be fond of just because of the high testosterone level.
It has all of the elements of a perfect “tough guy” movie, and with few of the shortcomings. These guys struggle with what so many tough guys must face, like problems in relationships, a borderline-insane rogue team member, a beautiful contact woman (in a “damsel in distress” role), and often conflicting attitudes between each other about getting the job done or who is better. They have a few things in common – important things – the most important being: they know they are expendable. That no-nonsense title isn't just to sound catchy. Watch as it is heavily inculcated into the plot’s development.
When not in combat, these guys play darts...with knives. They use much bigger knives to stab people. They struggle with girl problems. They drink beer and enjoy tattoo artwork. But they fight inner battles as surely as they do outer ones, as these “clean-up boys” fight to keep what remains of their consciences intact while carrying on in lives committed to bloodshed. The subject of death is handled with refreshing maturity.
And you have what you get in movies graced with more than a few celebrity appearances--occasionally funny and well-placed punchlines, some with good political comic relief. The Expendables brings with it the satisfaction of older, more vindictively-themed films, with the testosterone of a bull getting his freak on. And yet, it has enough of an artful tinge to be more than mindlessly macho.
You have a segment where Lee Christmas (Statham) is on the front of a plain in an air-exposed combat cockpit. He fires off some big explosives and destroys a pier with soldiers still in place. The soldiers are aiming to fire back as the plain flies by when it has been airborne and clearly out of sight for at least several minutes. Why are the soldiers still standing there? Statham's strapless glasses stay on his face the whole time. With some imperfections, it has just the appropriate amount of embellishment in the action to have you not be put off at the thought of seeing more.
Celebrity gossip enthusiasts would bark about how old everyone looks. And it's so true. The creators wanted the old bigwigs to get the big roles. Watch it in the wrong mindset and you can see how the film could be interpreted as an attempt at lampooning action stars of the previous two decades. But you almost have to be a Miley Cyrus fan to go there in thought.
There are lots of stars here, including Eric Roberts as the villain, and Bruce Willis with an integral role. Jet Li should be kicking, not talking as much as he does. He is, believe it or not, a new sight to behold as he plays a character with Little Man's Syndrome. He doesn't totally suck at it, either. The conserved amount of time and energy spent in presenting serious dialogue brings out that Willis doesn't easily look intimidating, even when he wants and needs to. Perhaps Stallone should be patting a grandbaby to sleep at an in-law's house, but no one told him that. He went and brought us this movie instead.
Lungren looks not just big and old and unbelievably mean, but like a trigger-happy meth-head who happens also to be insane. I was taken in by him at every shot. He looks as captivating as he did going up against the Italian Stallion as Drago—always with that awesome ability to re-vamp his appearance.
It’s not going to take home any awards, but The Expendables is a great end-of-summer “shoot ‘em up” that deserves a few accolades for what it provides its target audience.
(JH)
---
Grade: B- (3 stars)
Rated: R (for strong action and bloody violence throughout, and for some language.)
Director: Sylvester Stallone
Summary: A team of mercenaries head to South America on a mission to overthrow a dictator.
Starring: Sylvester Stallone "Barney Ross," Jason Statham "Lee Christmas," Jet Li "Ying Yang," Dolph Lundgren "Gunner Jensen," Eric Roberts "James Munroe," Randy Couture "Toll Road," Steve Austin "Paine," David Zayas "General Garza," Giselle Itié "Sandra," Charisma Carpenter "Lacy," Gary Daniels "The Brit," Terry Crews "Hale Caesar," Mickey Rourke "Tool"
Genre: Action / Adventure / Thriller
Trailer
Saturday, August 21, 2010
A Girl. A Bet. A Camera. What Could Go Wrong?
Movie Review: Shooting April (2010)
Spoilers: none
---
The title of this review is the official tagline to the movie and is arguably the perfect summation of this shockingly sensational independent film about some internet camera junkies, a girl, and a runaway obsession with posting videos of stunts and pranks online for nothing more than attention.
Truman Anderson (Matthew Prater) loves the ladies. His way with them is the envy of every guy friend or acquaintance with whom he has to do. “Weasel” (Eric Fagundes) is his best friend, but lacking in the smooth-lined, “bag 'em and leave 'em” sexual conquest skills that he so admires in his companion. Their friend Doug (Darius Safavi) has a $3000 camera, which he puts to good use fetching material for their website, an excellent place to see petty vandalism, secretly taped make-out sessions, and drinking bashes put on with delirious fervor.
It's all part of the run-of-the-mill, unchallenged stupidity of bagging babes and claiming victory until a pretty, shy, and yet classy girl named April (Rachel Seiferth) enters the picture. Truman is such a “player” that he and his friends come up with a bet. He nails April on camera or has to pay $100 to each of them. One easy lay after another may be what complicates things, as here, the above title/tagline bears repeating: A girl. A Bet. A camera. What could go wrong? The answer: a lot.
Call it a timely warning to the YouTube generation or call it a graphic tale of the fruits of hedonism unchecked, the film fully deserves the bluntness of the creator's well-chosen title, with its ever-so-slight hint of misdirection. The picture on the DVD cover alone produces a riveting compulsion to watch.
1999’s Blair Witch Project opened with: “In October of 1994, three student film makers disappeared in the woods near Burkittesville, Maryland. One year later, their footage was found.” This one likewise opens with a reference to footage found by law enforcement, but not many in the line of “mockumentary” style films deserve as much kudos as Shooting April rightly gets. If 2009's The Fourth Kind taught us anything, it was that embellished and/or fabricated facts in the name of a made-up story do not always crank out worthy entertainment. One of the keen exceptions is this very credible and well-acted film.
A few long-running moments of parties and pranks, with flippantly used profanity and make-out scenes, serve as foundation-layers for what is a steadily-paced story, which ceases not to grow in satisfaction. Every detail offered up is done so in the name of masterful character development. So much time is taken in this endeavor that it won't be until the end when said efforts can be fully appreciated.
At least one quick shot of male nudity, a few exposed breasts, and free-for-all drinking bashes are shown, with expectedly abrupt cuts throughout the footage for a heightened sense of realism. Shooting April is extremely disturbing, but every bit as compelling (and perhaps more so) than you would expect, considering the plot subject or filming style.
While resisting the temptation to be emotionally exploitative, director/producer Tod Lancaster – in this his directorial debut – devotes the film’s lively energies to behavioral and reactionary nuances that will not go unnoticed by viewing audiences. Powerfully acted and boldly believable, Shooting April is a more than memorable thriller and stands side by side with some of the best films of the year.
(JH)
---
Grade: A+ (4 stars) Recommended!
Rated: No MPAA rating
Director: Tod Lancaster
Summary: A guy and his two friends place a bet on having sex with a girl named April.
Starring: Matthew Prater "Truman Anderson," Eric Fagundes "Weasel," Rachel Seiferth "April," Darius Safavi "Doug," Lindsay Bellock "Lindsay," Bobbi Jean Basche "Rachel," Marie Westbrook "Donna," Elaine Loh "Elaine," Meghan Ashley "Meg," Robert Donald Lee "Bobby"
Genre: Thriller
Trailer
Spoilers: none
---
The title of this review is the official tagline to the movie and is arguably the perfect summation of this shockingly sensational independent film about some internet camera junkies, a girl, and a runaway obsession with posting videos of stunts and pranks online for nothing more than attention.
Truman Anderson (Matthew Prater) loves the ladies. His way with them is the envy of every guy friend or acquaintance with whom he has to do. “Weasel” (Eric Fagundes) is his best friend, but lacking in the smooth-lined, “bag 'em and leave 'em” sexual conquest skills that he so admires in his companion. Their friend Doug (Darius Safavi) has a $3000 camera, which he puts to good use fetching material for their website, an excellent place to see petty vandalism, secretly taped make-out sessions, and drinking bashes put on with delirious fervor.
It's all part of the run-of-the-mill, unchallenged stupidity of bagging babes and claiming victory until a pretty, shy, and yet classy girl named April (Rachel Seiferth) enters the picture. Truman is such a “player” that he and his friends come up with a bet. He nails April on camera or has to pay $100 to each of them. One easy lay after another may be what complicates things, as here, the above title/tagline bears repeating: A girl. A Bet. A camera. What could go wrong? The answer: a lot.
Call it a timely warning to the YouTube generation or call it a graphic tale of the fruits of hedonism unchecked, the film fully deserves the bluntness of the creator's well-chosen title, with its ever-so-slight hint of misdirection. The picture on the DVD cover alone produces a riveting compulsion to watch.
1999’s Blair Witch Project opened with: “In October of 1994, three student film makers disappeared in the woods near Burkittesville, Maryland. One year later, their footage was found.” This one likewise opens with a reference to footage found by law enforcement, but not many in the line of “mockumentary” style films deserve as much kudos as Shooting April rightly gets. If 2009's The Fourth Kind taught us anything, it was that embellished and/or fabricated facts in the name of a made-up story do not always crank out worthy entertainment. One of the keen exceptions is this very credible and well-acted film.
A few long-running moments of parties and pranks, with flippantly used profanity and make-out scenes, serve as foundation-layers for what is a steadily-paced story, which ceases not to grow in satisfaction. Every detail offered up is done so in the name of masterful character development. So much time is taken in this endeavor that it won't be until the end when said efforts can be fully appreciated.
At least one quick shot of male nudity, a few exposed breasts, and free-for-all drinking bashes are shown, with expectedly abrupt cuts throughout the footage for a heightened sense of realism. Shooting April is extremely disturbing, but every bit as compelling (and perhaps more so) than you would expect, considering the plot subject or filming style.
While resisting the temptation to be emotionally exploitative, director/producer Tod Lancaster – in this his directorial debut – devotes the film’s lively energies to behavioral and reactionary nuances that will not go unnoticed by viewing audiences. Powerfully acted and boldly believable, Shooting April is a more than memorable thriller and stands side by side with some of the best films of the year.
(JH)
---
Grade: A+ (4 stars) Recommended!
Rated: No MPAA rating
Director: Tod Lancaster
Summary: A guy and his two friends place a bet on having sex with a girl named April.
Starring: Matthew Prater "Truman Anderson," Eric Fagundes "Weasel," Rachel Seiferth "April," Darius Safavi "Doug," Lindsay Bellock "Lindsay," Bobbi Jean Basche "Rachel," Marie Westbrook "Donna," Elaine Loh "Elaine," Meghan Ashley "Meg," Robert Donald Lee "Bobby"
Genre: Thriller
Trailer
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The Other Guys
Movie Review: The Other Guys (2010)
Spoilers: none
---
The Other Guys, starring Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrell – with Dwayne Johnson, Samuel L. Jackson, and Michael Keaton – manages to be a funny film with an unsteady stream of entertainment continuity. Like hot water, sometimes you have to wait for more.
Wahlberg is Terry Hoitz, a disgraced police detective known for accidentally shooting pro baseball player Derek Jeter. His partner (Ferrell) is Allen Gamble, an under-appreciated, low-achieving forensic accountant with a short past as a pimp. These two get to file the paperwork for the “big gun” cops, Christopher Danson (Johnson) and P.K. Highsmith (Jackson). That is, until these two super-officers bite the dust while trying to stop the bad guys on a call.
Suddenly, the two top spots for the next big hitters are wide open, but Gamble and Hoitz are not proving suitable candidate replacements, despite enormous efforts to stop embarrassing their department with screw-up after screw-up. The next major case involves billionaire investor David Ershon (Steve Coogan)—a man the audience immediately knows upon introduction can only fill the role of the bad guy with his dead-giveaway British accent and as the owner of 18 Lamborghinis.
Ershon owes organizations from various nations of the world huge sums of money. As he Ponzi schemes his way toward keeping his enemies off his back, an unexpected and close-to-home party stages a robbery to divert attention from the moving of money. Allen and Terry are hot on their trail. Well, not really. They would be, but they keep screwing up.
Always sharply delivered are the lines, with even the most intended-to-be awkward jokes made unfailingly funny. Ferrell and Wahlberg have amazing “odd-couple” vibrancy, with each offsetting the other's persona. Narrated by Ice-T, we have a plot that is sometimes more difficult to keep focus on than it should be, and with an execution that tends to stagnate. The bizarre characterizations and lengthily drawn out jokes can at times be too much, but these tendencies don't stop The Other Guys from going on to become one of Will Ferrell's funnier films.
Despite getting bogged down in its intermittently boring delivery, The Other Guys – with its two powerful leads – manages to hold its vitals with just enough high-hitting comedy to stay afloat.
(JH)
---
Grade: C+ (2 ½ stars)
Rated: PG-13 (for crude and sexual content, language, violence, and some drug material.)
Director: Adam McKay
Summary: Two mismatched New York City detectives seize an opportunity to step up like the city's top cops whom they idolize.
Starring: Derek Jeter "Himself," Samuel L. Jackson "P.K. Highsmith," Dwayne Johnson "Christopher Danson," Rob Riggle "Martin," Damon Wayans Jr. "Fosse," Michael Keaton "Captain Gene Mauch," Will Ferrell "Allen Gamble," Mark Wahlberg "Terry Hoitz," Steve Coogan "David Ershon," Eva Mendes "Dr. Sheila Gamble"
Genre: Comedy / Action
Trailer
Spoilers: none
---
The Other Guys, starring Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrell – with Dwayne Johnson, Samuel L. Jackson, and Michael Keaton – manages to be a funny film with an unsteady stream of entertainment continuity. Like hot water, sometimes you have to wait for more.
Wahlberg is Terry Hoitz, a disgraced police detective known for accidentally shooting pro baseball player Derek Jeter. His partner (Ferrell) is Allen Gamble, an under-appreciated, low-achieving forensic accountant with a short past as a pimp. These two get to file the paperwork for the “big gun” cops, Christopher Danson (Johnson) and P.K. Highsmith (Jackson). That is, until these two super-officers bite the dust while trying to stop the bad guys on a call.
Suddenly, the two top spots for the next big hitters are wide open, but Gamble and Hoitz are not proving suitable candidate replacements, despite enormous efforts to stop embarrassing their department with screw-up after screw-up. The next major case involves billionaire investor David Ershon (Steve Coogan)—a man the audience immediately knows upon introduction can only fill the role of the bad guy with his dead-giveaway British accent and as the owner of 18 Lamborghinis.
Ershon owes organizations from various nations of the world huge sums of money. As he Ponzi schemes his way toward keeping his enemies off his back, an unexpected and close-to-home party stages a robbery to divert attention from the moving of money. Allen and Terry are hot on their trail. Well, not really. They would be, but they keep screwing up.
Always sharply delivered are the lines, with even the most intended-to-be awkward jokes made unfailingly funny. Ferrell and Wahlberg have amazing “odd-couple” vibrancy, with each offsetting the other's persona. Narrated by Ice-T, we have a plot that is sometimes more difficult to keep focus on than it should be, and with an execution that tends to stagnate. The bizarre characterizations and lengthily drawn out jokes can at times be too much, but these tendencies don't stop The Other Guys from going on to become one of Will Ferrell's funnier films.
Despite getting bogged down in its intermittently boring delivery, The Other Guys – with its two powerful leads – manages to hold its vitals with just enough high-hitting comedy to stay afloat.
(JH)
---
Grade: C+ (2 ½ stars)
Rated: PG-13 (for crude and sexual content, language, violence, and some drug material.)
Director: Adam McKay
Summary: Two mismatched New York City detectives seize an opportunity to step up like the city's top cops whom they idolize.
Starring: Derek Jeter "Himself," Samuel L. Jackson "P.K. Highsmith," Dwayne Johnson "Christopher Danson," Rob Riggle "Martin," Damon Wayans Jr. "Fosse," Michael Keaton "Captain Gene Mauch," Will Ferrell "Allen Gamble," Mark Wahlberg "Terry Hoitz," Steve Coogan "David Ershon," Eva Mendes "Dr. Sheila Gamble"
Genre: Comedy / Action
Trailer
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Not The King of The Mountain
Of all the places I have ever lived, our house on Welcome Drive was the most full vessel of memories in my life. I have lived in a few different places since childhood, but nowhere else do the details of where I used to live so stick. I can still tell you my old address and even my first phone number without missing a beat. Am I alone in this?
With as many subsequent phone numbers as we've had, being able to recall the first seems rather odd. Try and remember all your previous phone numbers. See how hard it can be. 12808 Welcome Drive, San Antonio, TX 78233 was the old address. View it on Google Earth. That chimney visible from the road, that driveway and wooden window posts...dad put those on there himself. If you sent me a postcard in the 80s, it would come to me at this address. If you could jump in a time machine and head back to make a call to me at any date prior to August 6, 1990, you'd have to call me at this number: (210) 653-8526. I'll confess that as I wrote this article, I couldn't resist the urge to call the old number just to see who has it now. A damn automated answering machine picked up.
With as many subsequent phone numbers as we've had, being able to recall the first seems rather odd. Try and remember all your previous phone numbers. See how hard it can be. 12808 Welcome Drive, San Antonio, TX 78233 was the old address. View it on Google Earth. That chimney visible from the road, that driveway and wooden window posts...dad put those on there himself. If you sent me a postcard in the 80s, it would come to me at this address. If you could jump in a time machine and head back to make a call to me at any date prior to August 6, 1990, you'd have to call me at this number: (210) 653-8526. I'll confess that as I wrote this article, I couldn't resist the urge to call the old number just to see who has it now. A damn automated answering machine picked up.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
On The War Against Radical Feline-ism
Movie Review: Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore (2010)
Spoilers: none
---
In the ugly, no-holds-barred, all-out war for the worst kid's movie, this sequel (9 years out from the 2001 original and decent film, Cats & Dogs) crawls to the bottom (not the top) of the list. The top would be where the runner-ups for the worst come in, but this one – part two, The Revenge of Kitty Galore – is one of the better among rotten kid's movies that critics will love to hate.
In summation, it is just another secret agent, talking animal movie where the animals converse, hold and manipulate objects, and employ technology like any forerunner or sustainer of human civilization. The animals are just like humans, which, if you think about it, should be considered at least a little creepy. The film involves spin-offs of James Bond character names and perhaps every joke or pun ever used about cats, dogs, birds, and mice, as household pets.
The dogs are out to defend their best friend mankind against the evils of “radical feline-ism.” Like you'd expect, the dogs and cats despise each other, but are going to have to work together to save the planet from an eminent threat—the threat of Kitty Galore, a survivor of an accident in a vat of hair removal compound. Having been disowned by her humans, she vows revenge. Good call for a villain (who even wants to like a hairless cat?)
The dog's squid-like headquarters of underground passageways looks pretty impressive. The top gears on their transportation shuttles are “K-8” and then, of course, “K-9.” There are so many quips used about technology and household appliances and cat litter – and crazy cat ladies and cats getting high on catnip like human stoners – as there is the employment of advanced animatronic developments to make it seem a cut or two above what it is.
The animal personalities are never complex. Their back-and-forth goes like “good cop, bad cop” routines from Hawaii Five-0 or any in the whopping number of simplistic hero personalities from any dated TV series or cult classic flicks. Some verbal exchanges end with a “Hey, wait up” while one character walks off from another after the delivery of a sappy line.
Yes, Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore is ingloriously bad, but will entertain everyone under the age of 8—almost guaranteed. It stands somewhat near the edge of the line of the “so bad it's good” ranking, but falls back in that all except the very young will have a blast hating it. Just don't hate it too much.
To its credit, the pacing is swift enough to allow for the loathing of only one cheap line and base-level attempt at humor at a time before the scenes and situations change. When it gets to things like parodying James Bond and Silence of the Lambs, it is trying very hard to provide witty nourishment for the adults in hopes that they will be less anxious to trash it along with the rest of the 12-year-olds who have outgrown it. It is doubtful that this strategy will win over very many.
The film's failure is not for lack of star power--not with the voice talents of Christina Applegate, Katt Williams, Nick Nolte, Bette Midler, and Roger Moore. It's not that the film is not enough; it's that it’s too much. It could have been much worse. It could have done as badly as this year's Furry Vengeance, which was pure torture to watch. As it stands, The Revenge of Kitty Galore sequel is an unneeded one that, if it had to be made, should well have gone straight to DVD.
(JH)
---
Grade: D+ (1 ½ stars)
Rated: PG (for perilous action scenes)
Director: Brad Peyton
Summary: The ongoing war between the canine and feline species is put on hold when they join forces to thwart a rogue cat spy with her own sinister plans for conquest.
Starring: James Marsden "Diggs" (voice), Nick Nolte "Butch" (voice), Christina Applegate "Catherine" (voice), Katt Williams "Seamus" (voice), Bette Midler "Kitty Galore" (voice), Neil Patrick Harris "Lou" (voice), Sean Hayes "Mr. Tinkles" (voice), Wallace Shawn "Calico" (voice), Roger Moore "Tab Lazenby" (voice), Joe Pantoliano "Peek" (voice), Michael Clarke Duncan "Sam" (voice)
Genre: Action / Comedy / Family
Trailer
Spoilers: none
---
In the ugly, no-holds-barred, all-out war for the worst kid's movie, this sequel (9 years out from the 2001 original and decent film, Cats & Dogs) crawls to the bottom (not the top) of the list. The top would be where the runner-ups for the worst come in, but this one – part two, The Revenge of Kitty Galore – is one of the better among rotten kid's movies that critics will love to hate.
In summation, it is just another secret agent, talking animal movie where the animals converse, hold and manipulate objects, and employ technology like any forerunner or sustainer of human civilization. The animals are just like humans, which, if you think about it, should be considered at least a little creepy. The film involves spin-offs of James Bond character names and perhaps every joke or pun ever used about cats, dogs, birds, and mice, as household pets.
The dogs are out to defend their best friend mankind against the evils of “radical feline-ism.” Like you'd expect, the dogs and cats despise each other, but are going to have to work together to save the planet from an eminent threat—the threat of Kitty Galore, a survivor of an accident in a vat of hair removal compound. Having been disowned by her humans, she vows revenge. Good call for a villain (who even wants to like a hairless cat?)
The dog's squid-like headquarters of underground passageways looks pretty impressive. The top gears on their transportation shuttles are “K-8” and then, of course, “K-9.” There are so many quips used about technology and household appliances and cat litter – and crazy cat ladies and cats getting high on catnip like human stoners – as there is the employment of advanced animatronic developments to make it seem a cut or two above what it is.
The animal personalities are never complex. Their back-and-forth goes like “good cop, bad cop” routines from Hawaii Five-0 or any in the whopping number of simplistic hero personalities from any dated TV series or cult classic flicks. Some verbal exchanges end with a “Hey, wait up” while one character walks off from another after the delivery of a sappy line.
Yes, Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore is ingloriously bad, but will entertain everyone under the age of 8—almost guaranteed. It stands somewhat near the edge of the line of the “so bad it's good” ranking, but falls back in that all except the very young will have a blast hating it. Just don't hate it too much.
To its credit, the pacing is swift enough to allow for the loathing of only one cheap line and base-level attempt at humor at a time before the scenes and situations change. When it gets to things like parodying James Bond and Silence of the Lambs, it is trying very hard to provide witty nourishment for the adults in hopes that they will be less anxious to trash it along with the rest of the 12-year-olds who have outgrown it. It is doubtful that this strategy will win over very many.
The film's failure is not for lack of star power--not with the voice talents of Christina Applegate, Katt Williams, Nick Nolte, Bette Midler, and Roger Moore. It's not that the film is not enough; it's that it’s too much. It could have been much worse. It could have done as badly as this year's Furry Vengeance, which was pure torture to watch. As it stands, The Revenge of Kitty Galore sequel is an unneeded one that, if it had to be made, should well have gone straight to DVD.
(JH)
---
Grade: D+ (1 ½ stars)
Rated: PG (for perilous action scenes)
Director: Brad Peyton
Summary: The ongoing war between the canine and feline species is put on hold when they join forces to thwart a rogue cat spy with her own sinister plans for conquest.
Starring: James Marsden "Diggs" (voice), Nick Nolte "Butch" (voice), Christina Applegate "Catherine" (voice), Katt Williams "Seamus" (voice), Bette Midler "Kitty Galore" (voice), Neil Patrick Harris "Lou" (voice), Sean Hayes "Mr. Tinkles" (voice), Wallace Shawn "Calico" (voice), Roger Moore "Tab Lazenby" (voice), Joe Pantoliano "Peek" (voice), Michael Clarke Duncan "Sam" (voice)
Genre: Action / Comedy / Family
Trailer
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
For Eccentric Mouse Lovers, and Perhaps a Few Others
Movie Review: Dinner for Schmucks (2010)
Spoilers: none
---
Paul Rudd and Steve Carell star in Dinner for Schmucks.
Motioning each swing of a golf club with the other investors in the office, a group of business execs get ready for their yearly dinner where each successful member brings the biggest idiot they can find. When Tim (Rudd) literally runs into Barry (Carell) on the street in his car, the advantageous businessman realizes he has found the perfect candidate in his newly befriended mouse taxidermist.
A justifiably invested Steve Carell and sly but always assertive Paul Rudd do a tremendous job in this eccentrically-minded movie that is supposed to highlight the values of friendship and where to find it. But with its cast consisting of a role-playing, sexscapading scorned lover, a computer geek mind reader, and big business snots who will sell each other out for a small bonus, the potential for a good movie quickly gets kicked to the curb despite many chances to redeem itself at a host of intervals.
At no point does Dinner for Schmucks climb over the wall to being memorably funny, though it will sometimes draw out an unprepared-for eruption of chuckles. The hammy characters, with their exaggerated quirks, are a bit much while providing far too little laughter in return. The funniest performance by far is from comedian Zach Galifianakis ("Alan Garner" from The Hangover) as he plays mentally insane IRS auditor, Therman, who thinks he can control minds.
The twofold message of choosing friends wisely and standing up for your principles may be commendable, but the film's getting there is a long and winding road of funny, not so funny, and always incredibly bizarre while you know where things are headed before they get there.
By the end, you don't want to see any one of these once charming performers who deserved a better script in this insufficiently humorous retreat into partial risque-ism and over-the-top idiocy. 2 stars for the creatively inspiring, but dynamically dim and disappointing, Dinner for Schmucks.
(JH)
---
Grade: C- (2 stars)
Rated: PG-13 (for graphic language and adult situations)
Director: Jay Roach
Summary: A rising executive befriends a man who would be the perfect guest at a dinner for idiots.
Starring: Steve Carell "Barry," Paul Rudd "Tim," Zach Galifianakis "Therman," Jemaine Clement "Kieran," Stephanie Szostak "Julie," Lucy Punch "Darla," Bruce Greenwood "Lance Fender"
Genre: Comedy
Trailer
Spoilers: none
---
Paul Rudd and Steve Carell star in Dinner for Schmucks.
Motioning each swing of a golf club with the other investors in the office, a group of business execs get ready for their yearly dinner where each successful member brings the biggest idiot they can find. When Tim (Rudd) literally runs into Barry (Carell) on the street in his car, the advantageous businessman realizes he has found the perfect candidate in his newly befriended mouse taxidermist.
A justifiably invested Steve Carell and sly but always assertive Paul Rudd do a tremendous job in this eccentrically-minded movie that is supposed to highlight the values of friendship and where to find it. But with its cast consisting of a role-playing, sexscapading scorned lover, a computer geek mind reader, and big business snots who will sell each other out for a small bonus, the potential for a good movie quickly gets kicked to the curb despite many chances to redeem itself at a host of intervals.
At no point does Dinner for Schmucks climb over the wall to being memorably funny, though it will sometimes draw out an unprepared-for eruption of chuckles. The hammy characters, with their exaggerated quirks, are a bit much while providing far too little laughter in return. The funniest performance by far is from comedian Zach Galifianakis ("Alan Garner" from The Hangover) as he plays mentally insane IRS auditor, Therman, who thinks he can control minds.
The twofold message of choosing friends wisely and standing up for your principles may be commendable, but the film's getting there is a long and winding road of funny, not so funny, and always incredibly bizarre while you know where things are headed before they get there.
By the end, you don't want to see any one of these once charming performers who deserved a better script in this insufficiently humorous retreat into partial risque-ism and over-the-top idiocy. 2 stars for the creatively inspiring, but dynamically dim and disappointing, Dinner for Schmucks.
(JH)
---
Grade: C- (2 stars)
Rated: PG-13 (for graphic language and adult situations)
Director: Jay Roach
Summary: A rising executive befriends a man who would be the perfect guest at a dinner for idiots.
Starring: Steve Carell "Barry," Paul Rudd "Tim," Zach Galifianakis "Therman," Jemaine Clement "Kieran," Stephanie Szostak "Julie," Lucy Punch "Darla," Bruce Greenwood "Lance Fender"
Genre: Comedy
Trailer
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
An Inventive Fire-starter
Movie Review: Inception (2010)
Spoilers: none
---
Inception is an incredible film. It goes where most films involving dreams dare not go, which is to say, way past using dreams as flashbacks to momentary regrets or fears of impending doom, or as a way to showcase off-the-charts screams that end in a sweaty wake-up. These uses are always to accent a plot and provide teasing suspense, but seldom what the movie is really about. Not so with Inception.
Inception refers to taking an idea and subconsciously implanting it into another's subconscious without that individual knowing it. Leonardo DiCaprio and his “dream team" exist in a world where it is technologically possible to link up individuals to enable them to share dreams. They are extractors, robbers, top experts at fishing out personal information from minds. Though less crude than using ski masks and 12-gauge shotguns and pointing them in the face of a scared 7-11 clerk, is it stealing all the same—and in the most invasive and intimate way possible.
Inception runs well over 2 hours in length with DiCaprio and the team leading a highly risky operation to implant a single thought into the mind of a business tycoon, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy) so that his opposition, Saito (Ken Watanabe) will be able to seize the opportunity to dominate the world energy market when his competition's enterprise has been dissolved because of the implanted component. Being that we're talking about dreams (and dreams within dreams), you know without knowing anything else that the film's mechanism of delivery will involve a complex schematic.
DiCaprio, as Cobb, strikes a deal with Saito to transmit the piece of information to his opponent in return for his name to be cleared so that he may return to America to see his children. He fled the country as the prime suspect in his deceased wife's murder. Cobb seeks out a chemist Yusuf (Dileep Rao) to provide the perfect sleep aid to keep the team unconscious for the needed amount of time of the operation. Ariadne (Ellen Page) is an architect hired to construct dream sequence buildings, roads, hallways, corridors, and even air ducts. A library's worth of data and research is collected on the subject down to the lower-most levels of the psyche.
This is an art admirer's dream, involving stairway paradoxes and reality-bending optical illusions that are brought to life with seamless skill. Unlike dreams, which can possess an element of chaos that baffles the logical mind, the movie brings with it a clarity that both takes into account and answers the questions about how any one person's dream or dreams could be melded or shared with others. Through captivating car chases, long falls off of embankments and railings, and close-quarter grappling in conditions of weightlessness, the script forgets to take into account nothing.
Our minds capitalize on the vast quantities of information we take in daily, putting it together as though it is our own or someone else's creation. Cities or rooms collapse (or begin to explode or be swept apart as by a tornado) when dreams collapse as you start to discover that you are in the dream state. If you die in your dreams, you wake up. And not knowing where you are in a dream or where it begun is a giveaway to the fact that you're dreaming, which would seem to beg the question of when and where one dream ends and another begins. But even that quandary is answered for us.
Objects are created while awake, personalized objects of definite weights and shapes that are special and relative only to you. They are called totems. When you feel or see these, you know you are not dreaming. Hence, for the viewer, there is clarity in a world where clarity the term makes not a lick of sense. But there can be cause for alarm when you are in someone else's dream; mess around too much and you become the target of projections—character generations, or more accurately, machinations of the psychological defense mechanisms of a mind to repel all other forms of consciousness.
Consider this review a primer. I am only laying the groundwork for this thorough thought-provoker, a work of stunning multi-tiered complexity, with reaching symbolism that will call for it’s re-watching. For only brief moments does it bog down in the trying extremities of the story—and mostly they rest on the part of the viewer for not being able to keep up. We have a rather long wait until the film reaches its emotive peak, which isn't found until the very end.
Christopher Nolan, who brought us Momento (2000), brings us Inception, a film that demands a lot from its viewers, but falls behind in only one major regard; it stands too emotionally distant in its profoundness. While it may be that one who travels the globe will find the greatest mysteries inside his head, it is the film's noticeable lack of personal relevance that comes across to its audience. A thousand machine gun shell casings lying on the sidewalk can't hide this flaw. But here is a movie that has taken on a life of its own in a plot that will have plenty of fans who specialize in understanding the "nuts and bolts" of every little piece of furniture or encounter or object or story point. It is the truly inventive movies that are known to start fires.
(JH)
---
Grade: A- (4 stars) Recommended!
Rated: PG-13 (for violence and intense adult situations)
Director: Christopher Nolan
Summary: In a world where technology exists to enter the human mind through dream invasion, a highly skilled thief is given a final chance at redemption that involves executing his toughest job yet.
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio "Cobb," Joseph Gordon-Levitt "Arthur," Ellen Page "Ariadne," Tom Hardy "Eames," Ken Watanabe "Saito," Dileep Rao "Yusuf," Cillian Murphy "Robert Fischer," Tom Berenger "Peter Browning," Marion Cotillard "Mal," Pete Postlethwaite "Maurice Fischer," Michael Caine "Miles"
Genre: Action / Mystery / Sci-Fi / Thriller
Trailer
Spoilers: none
---
Inception is an incredible film. It goes where most films involving dreams dare not go, which is to say, way past using dreams as flashbacks to momentary regrets or fears of impending doom, or as a way to showcase off-the-charts screams that end in a sweaty wake-up. These uses are always to accent a plot and provide teasing suspense, but seldom what the movie is really about. Not so with Inception.
Inception refers to taking an idea and subconsciously implanting it into another's subconscious without that individual knowing it. Leonardo DiCaprio and his “dream team" exist in a world where it is technologically possible to link up individuals to enable them to share dreams. They are extractors, robbers, top experts at fishing out personal information from minds. Though less crude than using ski masks and 12-gauge shotguns and pointing them in the face of a scared 7-11 clerk, is it stealing all the same—and in the most invasive and intimate way possible.
Inception runs well over 2 hours in length with DiCaprio and the team leading a highly risky operation to implant a single thought into the mind of a business tycoon, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy) so that his opposition, Saito (Ken Watanabe) will be able to seize the opportunity to dominate the world energy market when his competition's enterprise has been dissolved because of the implanted component. Being that we're talking about dreams (and dreams within dreams), you know without knowing anything else that the film's mechanism of delivery will involve a complex schematic.
DiCaprio, as Cobb, strikes a deal with Saito to transmit the piece of information to his opponent in return for his name to be cleared so that he may return to America to see his children. He fled the country as the prime suspect in his deceased wife's murder. Cobb seeks out a chemist Yusuf (Dileep Rao) to provide the perfect sleep aid to keep the team unconscious for the needed amount of time of the operation. Ariadne (Ellen Page) is an architect hired to construct dream sequence buildings, roads, hallways, corridors, and even air ducts. A library's worth of data and research is collected on the subject down to the lower-most levels of the psyche.
This is an art admirer's dream, involving stairway paradoxes and reality-bending optical illusions that are brought to life with seamless skill. Unlike dreams, which can possess an element of chaos that baffles the logical mind, the movie brings with it a clarity that both takes into account and answers the questions about how any one person's dream or dreams could be melded or shared with others. Through captivating car chases, long falls off of embankments and railings, and close-quarter grappling in conditions of weightlessness, the script forgets to take into account nothing.
Our minds capitalize on the vast quantities of information we take in daily, putting it together as though it is our own or someone else's creation. Cities or rooms collapse (or begin to explode or be swept apart as by a tornado) when dreams collapse as you start to discover that you are in the dream state. If you die in your dreams, you wake up. And not knowing where you are in a dream or where it begun is a giveaway to the fact that you're dreaming, which would seem to beg the question of when and where one dream ends and another begins. But even that quandary is answered for us.
Objects are created while awake, personalized objects of definite weights and shapes that are special and relative only to you. They are called totems. When you feel or see these, you know you are not dreaming. Hence, for the viewer, there is clarity in a world where clarity the term makes not a lick of sense. But there can be cause for alarm when you are in someone else's dream; mess around too much and you become the target of projections—character generations, or more accurately, machinations of the psychological defense mechanisms of a mind to repel all other forms of consciousness.
Consider this review a primer. I am only laying the groundwork for this thorough thought-provoker, a work of stunning multi-tiered complexity, with reaching symbolism that will call for it’s re-watching. For only brief moments does it bog down in the trying extremities of the story—and mostly they rest on the part of the viewer for not being able to keep up. We have a rather long wait until the film reaches its emotive peak, which isn't found until the very end.
Christopher Nolan, who brought us Momento (2000), brings us Inception, a film that demands a lot from its viewers, but falls behind in only one major regard; it stands too emotionally distant in its profoundness. While it may be that one who travels the globe will find the greatest mysteries inside his head, it is the film's noticeable lack of personal relevance that comes across to its audience. A thousand machine gun shell casings lying on the sidewalk can't hide this flaw. But here is a movie that has taken on a life of its own in a plot that will have plenty of fans who specialize in understanding the "nuts and bolts" of every little piece of furniture or encounter or object or story point. It is the truly inventive movies that are known to start fires.
(JH)
---
Grade: A- (4 stars) Recommended!
Rated: PG-13 (for violence and intense adult situations)
Director: Christopher Nolan
Summary: In a world where technology exists to enter the human mind through dream invasion, a highly skilled thief is given a final chance at redemption that involves executing his toughest job yet.
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio "Cobb," Joseph Gordon-Levitt "Arthur," Ellen Page "Ariadne," Tom Hardy "Eames," Ken Watanabe "Saito," Dileep Rao "Yusuf," Cillian Murphy "Robert Fischer," Tom Berenger "Peter Browning," Marion Cotillard "Mal," Pete Postlethwaite "Maurice Fischer," Michael Caine "Miles"
Genre: Action / Mystery / Sci-Fi / Thriller
Trailer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Follow by Email
