You are browsing the archive for 2011.

← Previous Entries
Next Entries →

Movie Review: Jack and Jill (2011)

March 4, 2012 in Movie Reviews, Reviews

Can someone please explain to me what the f@&! happened to Adam Sandler?

I guess I am just a glutton for punishment.  After hearing that Sandler’s latest comedy about twins, Jack and Jill, in which he plays both titular characters, raked in the Razzies nominations, I decided to check it out because it made me curious.

Could it really be that bad?  After all, I had seen some real shockers last year, and the Razzies usually tend to be based on hype more than anything else.  Most of the time the winners were nowhere near the worst films of the year, or so I believed.

And thus I held out a little bit of hope for Jack and Jill.  Sadly, while I doubt it is the worst film of 2011, it was a colossal disappointment, even by Sandler’s recently abysmal standards. And hey, I loved his earlier films like Happy Gilmore, Billy Madison, The Waterboy and so forth.

Jack and Jill is just so wrong on so many levels.  Sandler plays Jack, an advertising executive married to the most thankless character I’ve seen in years, played by Katie Holmes (I’ll get to her later, don’t you worry).  He is what you would probably call a “normal guy”.  His twin sister Jill, also played by Sandler, is an overweight, embarrassing, ignorant and probably slightly mentally challenged woman who comes to stay with him for a little while.  During her stay, Jill somehow inexplicably catches the attention and affection of Al Pacino (played by the real deal), whom Jack is trying to get for one of his commercials.  And I can’t believe I just tried to explain the plot of this film.

The biggest problem with Jack and Jill is that it’s just not very funny, especially when Jack and Jill are on screen, which is almost all the time.  I don’t know why, but lately Sandler keeps playing these rich, “normal guys”, probably versions of himself, who are complete dickheads.  Jack is no different.  He’s just his mean, highly unlikable guy who’s pretty much a big bully.  I know he also plays Jill, but this feels different because she’s a woman and we know she’s nothing like Sandler in real life.  And the whole film is essentially Jill, who is actually quite likable despite her flaws, being bullied.

You can probably already guess what happens. Jack can’t stand Jill at the start of the movie and tries to use her to get to Pacino, but in the end he realises…need I say more?

In fact, I’ve come to realise that most of Sandler’s films follow this same trajectory nowadays, and it stinks. Jack and Jill painfully reminded me of one of the worst films I saw in 2010, the appalling Grown Ups, in which Sandler and his comedian buddies were about as unfunny as I had ever seen them.

Here, watching Sandler on screen was as funny as watching some successful millionaire make fun of a handicapped person begging on the side of the street.  When I saw him revert to incredibly obvious and lame toilet humour I knew he had hit a new low.

The only thing that saved the film from complete disaster was the great Al Pacino, playing the great Al Pacino…or at least a caricature of the great Al Pacino. I have no idea how they convinced him to star in this movie, but Pacino was the film’s saving grace and provided essentially all the laughs — though to be fair even he was a little hit and miss at times.

Oh, and before I forget, Katie Holmes.  Is this what Tom Cruise allows her to do these days?  Really?  She did basically nothing.  A pot plant could have played her role, and probably could have done it better.  It made me wonder whatever happened to her after carving out a successful TV career in Dawson’s Creek.  Sure, she was popular for a while, especially after she bared her gifts in The Gift, but has she had a role in which her character really mattered since?  Batman Begins, maybe, but remember how much better The Dark Knight was without her in it?  It’s a tragedy because I think she has a lot more potential.

I hate to finish on a sour note after this rant, but the truth is Sandler needs to get back to his roots, where “character development” takes a back seat to just plain old silly fun.  That’s what he was good at and that’s what he’s always been good at.  His earlier movies were funny because he made fun of himself.  Now he is, explicitly or implicitly, making fun of others who don’t deserve the ridicule, and that’s just not fun to watch.

1.5 stars out of 5

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Movie Review: Shame (2011)

February 17, 2012 in Movie Reviews, Reviews

Writer-director Steve McQueen’s sex-addict movie, Shame, has been the talk of the town lately because of Hollywood’s biggest new star, lead actor Michael Fassbender’s…um…”assbender”.

Fassbender’s appendage, which is on full display in the film, has been the subject of a slew of jokes, including from George Clooney, who asked during his Golden Globes acceptance speech if Fassbender had ever played golf with his hands tied behind his back (other jokes include “Fassbender puts pornstars to Shame“, “Fassbender has nothing to he aShamed of”, “Fassbender puts Vincent Gallo to Shame”, “Fassbender is going to be starring in Boogie Nights 2: No Prosthetics Needed“, etc). (Okay, I made pretty much all of them up.)

Oh, yes, what’s the film about?  Fassbender plays Brandon Sullivan, a successful New Yorker who just can’t keep it in his pants.  The guy just needs it all the time, wherever, whoever, you name it.  And he’s not even the master of his domain, if you know what I mean.  It’s actually quite debilitating and not as exciting as it seems.  His sister Sissy, played by Carey Mulligan, shows up out of nowhere and turns Brandon’s life upside down.  Sissy has some serious issues of her own, and it’s obvious they are both trying to forget their troubled past, which is hinted but never revealed.

You would think that a film about a sex addict would be a comedy, but Shame is extremely dark and depressing, pretty much all the way through.   Like most addictions, Brandon’s issues are deeply rooted (pun intended), and McQueen does not glamorise it at all, making his best efforts to convey the condition in a realistic manner.  It’s portrayed not a whole lot differently to any type of serious addiction, be it drugs or alcohol — though I wouldn’t say the film is as harrowing as say Requiem for a Dream.

Despite the film being centred around sex, it’s not gratuitous — though there is a fair bit of it, there’s not nearly as much sex and nudity as one would expect.  Credit to McQueen for showing enough to convey what’s necessary but not to the point where it becomes exploitative.

I haven’t seen all of the Oscar best actor nominees, so I can’t make a definitive statement — but it’s a minor travesty that Fassbender, who also starred in McQueen’s acclaimed debut, Hunger,  was not given the nod this year for his daring, brilliant, controlled performance.  Without him, I’m not sure how this film would have turned out.  Also very impressive is Carey Mulligan, who hadn’t jumped out at me before in previous roles but was particularly effective here as the needy, disruptive Sissy.  The singing scene was a little cringeworthy but everything else was solid.

Shame is very much an indie drama film, so it’s not going to be for everyone.  There are long, lingering shots and plenty of conversation and silence.  But at the end of the day, everything is there for a reason and as a result the film works as a piece of compelling cinema.  It’s a an effective and disturbing portrayal of an addiction that robs the afflicted of their ability to make an emotional connection with other people.  I was riveted from start to finish.

4 stars out of 5

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
5 Comments »

Movie Review: Columbiana (2011)

February 2, 2012 in Movie Reviews, Reviews

Apparently, allegedly, supposedly, Columbiana was originally envisioned as a sequel to The Professional (otherwise known as Leon), you know, Natalie Portman’s debut as a pre-pubescent assassin wannabe who is rescued and taken in by a super lone assassin played by Jean Reno.  It’s kind of got cult classic status now and is a personal favourite of mine.

But let’s face it, even though it will get the fanboys all hot under the collar, the idea of a grown up Natalie Portman who has fulfilled her dream of becoming an assassin was always going to suck and piss all over the legacy of the original film.

And so I’m glad they didn’t go down that route.  Instead, Columbiana as a similar premise, except with Zoe Saldana (Avatar, Star Trek, The Losers) in the lead role as a little girl who is determined to become an assassin after her family is wiped out by drug lords in Columbia and she escapes to America to live with her uncle.  Fast forward a few years and Saldana has become the real deal — a super svelte, sexy, kick-ass assassin who is intent on tracking down and annihilating all those involved in her family’s demise.

As an action film, Columbiana does produce some thrills and clever ideas.  Saldana looks the part and, because the film is co-produced and co-written by Luc Besson (the man behind The Professional), the style is slick and has that unique “Besson feel” to it — I’m thinking classics like The Fifth Element, Nikita, Taken, Taxi – all films he has been involved with in some capacity).  The gun fights, hand-to-hand combat and in especially the chase scenes are all done extremely well.

That said, when all said and done, Columbiana will likely go down as one of the more forgettable Besson-related films.  There’s just nothing in this film that feels fresh or special, and the storytelling by director Olivier Megaton (Transporter 3 – and said to be at the helm of the much anticipated Taken 2) leaves a lot to be desired.  It was choppy and uneven and simply not engaging.  I actually got a bit bored during the slower scenes.

But I will say that I found the action-packed scenes of Columbiana enjoyable when I was watching it.  As a Zoe Saldana vehicle and popcorn movie, it delivers, but don’t go in expecting a whole lot more.

2.75 stars out of 5

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Movie Review: Dream House (2011)

January 25, 2012 in Movie Reviews, Reviews

At first glance, Dream House appears like your run-of-the-mill haunted house movie.  A young couple moves into a new house, spooky stuff happens, yada yada yada, you know the rest.  But while Dream House is not a particularly good horror film (in some ways it’s not even a proper horror), I do have to say that it is different to what you would ordinarily expect from a movie of this kind.

Daniel Craig is Will Atenton, a successful book publisher who leaves his profession to move from New York to New England with his wife Libby (Rachel Weisz) and his two little girls.  Everything is fine until weird stuff starts happening and Will starts to believe that their dream house has a past that will come back to haunt them.  Someone who knows more than they are letting on is their neighbour, played by Naomi Watts.

Up until this point it’s all pretty cookie-cutter stuff, but Dream House breaks away from the expected trajectory by throwing a curve ball midway through.  It’s not an unexpected twist, but the timing of the twist is curious as it’s usually reserved for the final act.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t really do a whole lot for the film, which is, for the most part, plodding and lacking in both scares or thrills.  It takes the wind out of the sails too early and shifts the focus to melodrama, which simply doesn’t work without the character foundations required.  I guess the only benefit is that it keeps you interested in how they are going to fill up the remainder of the 92-minute running time.

I really wanted to like Dream House because I’m a fan of the genre and all three leads (in fact, it’s where Craig and Weisz fell in love and ended up getting married — which explains their solid chemistry), and despite not expecting very much out of it I still came away disappointed by the stale pace and dearth of scares.  The negatives could have been somewhat mitigated had the drama been more moving but it failed in that regard too.  Strangely, the film has a pretty awesome soundtrack, but when that’s the most redeeming thing about a film you know it can’t be good.

2 stars out of 5

Tags: , , , , ,
1 Comment »

Movie Review: The Thing (2011)

January 17, 2012 in Movie Reviews, Reviews

I haven’t seen John Carpenter’s 1982 original and went into the new version of The Thing believing that it was a remake.  Interestingly, while the premise is somewhat similar, the 2011 version is not a remake and not a sequel, but a prequel.  Apparently those who have seen the 1982 film will understand why some things in the 2011 version turn out the way they do.

Anyway, I digress.  Either as a prequel or a standalone film, The Thing works on some levels as a sci-fi horror but fails to be nearly as effective as it could have been.  It contains a solid performance from Mary Elizabeth Winstead (the object of Michael Cera’s affection in Scott Pilgrim vs the World), who channels her inner Ellen Ripley, some freaky special effects and a whole lotta paranoia, but I couldn’t quite shake the feeling that I had seen it all before (and this is without seeing the original).

The Thing (2011) tells the story of a group of researchers who head to a Norwegian base camp to examine a “discovery” from Antarctica.  As it turns out, the discovery is not quite as dead as they thought it was, and soon the base is turned upside down, with people dying gruesome deaths and the survivors not knowing who they can trust.  There’s tension and there’s paranoia and there’s chills (it is, after all, based in the ice).  As far as freaky scares go, The Thing delivers.  The titular character is a nasty, “WTF is that?” piece of work and kudos must go out to the special effects team that created it.

As I said, I haven’t seen the 1982 film, so I cannot comment on whether the 2011 film compares favourably (though from most accounts it doesn’t).  What I can say is that it is certainly better than the vast majority of films in recent years that have been reboots, remakes, sequels, prequels or spin-offs of other popular/famous horror  films or franchises (eg, those Alien, Predator, Alien vs Predator, Nightmare on Elm Street, Freddie vs Jason, Saw, Final Destination films, etc).  That said, there wasn’t anything particularly clever or special about this film either, and it’s highly unlikely that it will have the longevity of the original, which is still often brought up as a horror classic.

At the end of the day, The Thing (2011) is what it is — a solid prequel that doesn’t nearly live up to the highly touted original but doesn’t crap all over its legacy either.

3 stars out of 5!

Tags: , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

← Previous Entries
Next Entries →

Bad Behavior has blocked 583 access attempts in the last 7 days.