Two years ago it was released online that Hollywood was planning on taking the classic Hasbro board game Battleship and turn it into a movie. It was met with nothing but laughs and jeers at what a horrible film that would turn out to be. It also launched rumors, some of which have been confirmed, that other classic board games like Ouija, Monopoly and Candyland are getting turned into movies to follow. Everyone was expecting the worst from Battleship, there was no way it could live up to the awful hype. I'm here to tell you that not only did it live up to it but it surpassed it.
Director Peter Berg has made some damn good films. Very Bad Things, Friday Night Lights, The Kingdom are all excellent and impressive feats considering that they're each three different genres that he tackled (literally in one case) flawlessly. Granted he made Hancock, but for the most part Berg is known as someone who makes quality films. Why he would ever lend his name to something so epically embarassing as Battleship is beyond me.
You may ask yourself why the movie about battleships warring in open water would ever be about aliens trying to destroy Earth. That's a great question and I can't answer it for you. The plot for Battleship is as bad as it gets. It's the kind of scipt that you wouldn't believe if you hadn't seen with your own eyes. It gets so bad that toward the end of the film the US Navy finds themselves out of battleships (yes, I know how silly that sounds) and their last resort is the USS Missiouri, which is a 70-year-old floating museum in Hawaii. The survivng cast members must then get the entire ship in shape for killing off the aliens in less than three hours because that's when the world ends, but the catch is that none of the know how to operate the antique ship. Their solution is...and I couldn't make this up if I tried...to find old veterans to help them run the ship and go to battle. Yup.
Even more silly is that there is indeed a scene where the actors are looking at an electronic grid that has pictures of battleships on it and they're saying lines like, "B4" and "E2" in hopes to shoot missiles to hit the enemy. It was so on-the-nose that I wanted to stand up in the theater and scream out to everyone, "How is no one else laughing at this?!"
The FX are as impressive, bloated and expensive as they come and Berg executes with the douchey precision of Michael Bay. Battleship continues to double down on itself as a film with goofy story plots and the disgusting budget to back it all up. Battleship will make plenty of money and I'm sure some people will even find it entertaining, but what it does to Peter Berg's reputation as a director is very difficult to repair. This is one Battleship that should have been sunk before it got to this point. Battleship (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: F
There is no better audience for a movie about having babies than a guy who just had one five weeks ago...except maybe a woman who just had one. My son Connor has made me tear my hair out and battle headaches but it's totally worth it. There were times when What to Expect When You're Expecting had the same effect on me, but it wasn't worth it. If you can make a new father hate your movie about babies, then I cringe to think what it did for everyone else.
What to Expect When You're Expecting is from director Kirk Jones (Nanny McPhee) and two writers who really haven't done anything before and hopefully never will again. How this group of misfits managed to put together a cast as A-list as they got is beyond me. The film touts the likes of Cameron Diaz, Jennifer Lopez, Elizabeth Banks (Hunger Games, 40-Year-Old Virgin), Anna Kendrik (Up in the Air, 50/50), Dennis Quaid, Chris Rock, Tom Lennon (MTV's The State, I Love You, Man), and Rob Huebell (I Love You, Man, The Descendants). But be warned; whenever you see a cast this large of recognizable faces and it's NOT directed by Quentin Tarantino or Oliver Stone, it's probably God-awful.
The key issue with What to Expect is that it's episodic in nature and therefore shallow. It literally covers every single cliche you can think of that Hollywood has already covered in films about pregnancy and condensed them into one film. It's so full of plots that it's busting at the seams and it views as uncomfortably as that sounds. The film is a comedy but they do cover very serious subjects such as miscarriage, infertility and difficutly during births, but because it's a film that tries to be everything to everyone, those scenes are mere like footnotes and not given the time to treat them with respect. It actually comes across as insulting to anyone who can relate to any of the dramatic moments that it's treated so casually.
I feel sorry for all the actors in the film. None of them are weak and they give the best performances they could with such an awful script. Each indivigual story would have made a fine feature length film on its own and it's a shame they didn't do that. A series of films under the title What to Expect When You're Expecting would have been far more successful. It would have paid respect to a book title that has become a generational tradition for couples preparing for parenthood.
There are some highlights such as any of the scenes with the Dads Group. They are mostly funny and Chris Rock steals the scenes with some very quotable lines. Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids), who is Oscar-nominated Melissa McCarthy (Bridesmaids) real life husband, is also given a chance to have a breakout performance playing Banks' husband.
There is no doubt that this movie will do well and find fans. I would imagine that every new pair of parents would love to make this babysitter-worthy and make it a date night in hopes that they'll see something in the film that they can relate to. Don't worry everyone who thinks that, you will...because it simply has everything and covers all possible scenarios. Just remember that films that try to be everything to everyone quickly end up being watered-down films for no one. The only thing that you should be expecting from this film is let down (and I don't mean in terms of breast feeding). What to Expect When You're Expecting (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: D
When I was 8-years-old, I was staying with my grandmother in Central Pennsylvania and there was a little store that sold comic books not far from where she lived. She took me there and I begged her to buy me one and she chose one called The Avengers and I was obsessed. In fact, I was so obsessed that I stole money out of her purse, snuck back to the store when she took a nap and bought more issues. That was 23 years ago and I never thought I'd see a movie version of that awesome comic superhero group, but here it is and it was totally worth the wait!
After five films and hundreds of millions of dollars, this is what we've been building toward. Marvel Studios took a giant risk with bank rolling these movies before any of them had a proven success rate, all so they could create a film that no one ever thought could be made. Something that combines Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and The Incredible Hulk all together on one film fighting side-by-side. Every person who even has the slightest interest in these films should be thrilled that they did take that risk because we're left with a film the likes of have never been seen before and not just because they accomplished the collossal task at hand, but also because it's a really freakin' well done movie!
First of all, you have to admire the level of continuity involved in maintaing 99% of the cast through all five films. The one person left out was Edward Norton who plays The Hulk in 2008. Due to Norton being a big baby, the ripped up clothes were donned by Mark Ruffalo (The Kids Are Alright, Shutter Island). I've never really been a fan of his because he plays Ruffalo in every movie, but he's adequite in The Avengers but the whole time you find yourself missing Norton's stellar chops. The good news is that that is the only major flaw in this film.
With the acception that The Avengers starts off kinda cheesy, cliche and not very interesting, the remaining two-and-a-half hours go by faster than Iron Man zooming through the sky. The moment that Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury character assembles all the superheros together, the film is esstentially one big action scene that never feels old or exhausting. The entire thing builds toward a climax at the end that features an hour long sequence that made our theater cheer and the hairs on my arm stand at attention.
Sure this has to do with the Grade A quality acting from the gang, especially Robert Downey Jr. who is the only Iron Man anyone ever wants to see. Of course it has the best CGI FX that money can buy; so much so that you don't realize most of the time that you're looking at them. Naturally, the storyline is fun, easy to follow and pays tribute to the comic book nerds while not geeking out too much that the normals can still play along. I would say that none of this would be possible and the most credit deserves to go to director Joss Whedon!
Who? Exactly. This Whedon guy was well known by almost no one prior to this film. Only some hardcore geeks knew him as the creator of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly shows. Outside of that he was just another TV writer that was floating along in obscurity waiting for his big break. Well, he sure as crap got it. It's like a story about a nobody winning the lottery and then doing something really awesome with his millions instead of blowing all his money on nothing in a year.
Whedon commands every inch of this movie with skill and restraint. That is no easy task when you consider the numbers of egos that had to come on board, the pressure from the all the Comic Con droolheads and the hot breath of studio execs breathing down his neck making sure this delicate egg that happened to have the accomplishments of five other films in it. I can't imagine what his life was like in the last year, but he pulled it off gorgeously and created not only the best movie in the series of five character films, but has birthed one of the best comic book movies ever made. The Avengers deserves to stand among the ranks of The Dark Knight, X-Men: First Class and 1978's Superman.
Be warned though that you probably should see Iron Man, Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, Captain America and Thor before seeing this. If you're gonns skip any of them, the one you can't afford to miss is Thor since that sets up the villain Loko, who's played again by a wonderfully theatrical and sinister Tom Hiddleston (Midnight in Paris, War Horse), and also the key element for the plot of The Avengers. Although these are all seperate films they really should be viewed as a series just as interlocking as the Harry Potter films. Even if you it means you have to wait to see The Avengers, watch them all first...but don't wait too long because The Avengers is a film that MUST be seen in a theater and MUST be seen in 3D.
Alright The Dark Knight Rises...there's how high the new bar is set....your move.
I'm fully aware that this movie currently sits at Rotten Tomatoes with a pitiful 44%. I know what that means for me as a reviewer to consider giving such a poorly graded film such a great grade. However, Will Ferrell's best work has never been met with stellar reviews. Anchorman, a film which I consider one of the funniest comedies of all time, has only a 66% on Rotten Tomatoes. Although, this deserves a lower grade than the cult classic that spawned countless quotable Ron Burgendy and company lines, Casa de mi Padre deserves the same level of respect.
When I heard that Ferrell and Producer/Director/Writer/Buddy Adam McKay wanted to do a comedy that was all in Spanish, my eyes rolled so hard you could hear them. But from the very opening seconds of the film, you realize that nothing is lost in translation as far as tone goes. This is still the same absurdist humor that you expect from this creative team. What makes this even more surprising is that it's also a splendid tribute to the Grindhouse genre of self-aware, bad b-movies. That is what fills in the gaps when the dialogue isn't cutting it.
The film is directed by Matt Piedmont, doing his first feature and only knowing Ferrell and McKay through their Funny or Die website. He does an amazing job reveling in the piss-poor quality of filmmaking and budget disasters that made these style of films infamous. Half of the comedy comes from obvious continunity mistakes, awful special FX, sloppy edits and even mannequins standing in for scenes where they couldn't get enough actors for the roles. It's genius and makes the movie worth watching over and over again to play I Spy with all the hidden treasures. The subtitles make it hard to find them all and at times I stopped reading them just to keep my eyes panning for silliness in the backgrounds.
Oh yeah. Subtitles. This movie is all in Spanish. Can Will Ferrell speak Spanish? No he can't. He learned it just for this movie, which is a bold and crazy stunt to pull off just to say you did. He's joined by an all Spanish-speaking cast including Diego Luna (Milk, The Terminal) and Gael Garcia Bernal (Babel, The Motorcycle Diaries). Everyone in Casa di me Padre gets the joke and they're great at telling it. The only problem with the subtitles is that the cadence of the lines is thrown off a bit and if you're watching it with people who speak Spanish, they'll be ahead of you on every joke because they hear it faster than you can read it.
This is far from a perfect comedy and I'm very aware that this isn't for everyone. It comes across as an inside joke or a bet that Ferrell made with someone. "I'll bet I can make an entire movie in Spanish and it'll STILL be really freakin' funny!" But it does run thin at times and feel like it might have made a better TV show or Internet skit. It's slightly longer than it needs to be, which is silly considering how purposefully stupid and simple the plot is. But it's a comedy that reminded me why Ferrell is one of the working kings of comedy right now and deserves at least a viewing...or if you're me several more to follow. Casa de mi Padre (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: A-
Well, here it is! The sequel that no one demanded to the 2010 Clash of the Titans, the movie that almost destroyed the 3D revolution. It was a lousy script, lousy remake of the classic, campy 1981 original, and piss-poor 3D FX that caused migranes and made people leave the theater. The good news about being the follow-up to a film that bad is that the bar is set very low. So with a bar so low, did Wrath of the Titans do better...yes, but that's nothing to hang your helmet on.
The first thing the studio did to improve the franchise was fire original director Louis Leterrier, who did such a bad job with the first one. Sad considering he also directed The Incredible Hulk with Edward Norton, which was not only the first in the Avengers series but a really well done film. They hired Jonathan Liebesman to grab the reigns and he does a much better job. Shocking since his previous films of Battle: LA, Darkness Falls and Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning are all pretty bad, but I think that was the fault of the scripts and not the direction. Liebesman makes a far richer world this time around and creates some fairly exciting action sequences.
It's those sequences though that are the reasons why you buy a ticket. "That was a CGI-fest," said my friend Dave who went with me. It sure it, but c'mon...that's why you're there. You don't buy a ticket to see a film called Wrath of the Titans for seasoned acting or heartbreaking drama. You buy a ticket because you want to watch Sam Worthington (Avatar, Man on a Ledge) fight a two-headed demon dog with a tail that has a snake's head. And as specific as that request is in a film, you won't be disapointed because it's in the movie.
One problem that you have with a film that so heavily relies on CGI is that you usually get performances out of the actors that look faker than their surrondings. Wrath of the Titans is no different. It's padded with some wonderful actors like Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes and Bill Nighy (Shaun of the Dead, Pirates of the Caribbean 2) and none show you why they're so respected in this. It could be because they are in scenes opposite of Worthington who is a terrible actor. Over the past three years, he's gained more and more popularity and I can't figure out why. His accent is never masked, which makes him appear as Sam Worthington in every movie; in Wrath he's just dirty Sam Worthington.
The story is one of simplicity and total fabrication. The first one at least was somewhat based on the legend of Perseus. This is a totally made-up Hollywood tale about how Perseus has to help his father, Zeus, to defeat a plot to resurrect his grandfather, Cronos, with the help of his uncle, Hades, and cousin, Aries. These are all real characters from Greek Mythology, but this story is not. It's simple, unjustified in the plot and silly at times; such as the decision to make Cronos a giant, lava monster for some reason.
The film is fun but you should expect more in every aspect. The only area that seems to be excellent is the CG FX, which deliver some pretty thrilling shots and sequences. But when you consider the fact that that's the only reason you really want to see Wrath of the Titans, you can leave your brain at the door and enjoy the pretty colors. Such a shame considering the rich world of Greek Mythology though. Wrath of the Titans (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: C+
Well, the day is upon us! The Reaping is here! We get to finally see one of the most anticipated movies of the last 5 years. I first heard about this book about a year ago. My wife and I were flying to Italy and she randomly picked up a copy in the airport. I made fun of her for reading ANOTHER teen fiction book and then made fun of her again when she read the whole thing on the flight over and couldn't wait to get back so she could buy the next book in English (they were all in Italian over there). It wasn't until I buckled under peer pressure and read it for myself that I became obsessed and longed for the day the movie came out. Needless to say, the wait was worth it.
For anyone who doesn't know The Hunger Games, it's a story about a bleak future where America is gone and in its place is a new land that is ruled by the evil Capital that forces children to fight to the death for televised entertainment. (Yes, I'm totally aware that this is a blatant ripoff of the 2000 Japanese horror film, Battle Royale. Argument for another time.) To compare this book series to Twilight is a massive insult to The Hunger Games. Author Suzanne Collins goes much deeper and layers a story that makes the "love triangle" a very minor part. This is more of a statement about government oppression, class warfare, loss of liberty, the dangers of reality TV, the death of innocence, slave labor; I'm not sure if Collins had a political agenda when she wrote it, but it certainly seems like she did.
The film however takes all that into consideration and strains out all the fat from the story and what we're left with is a 142-minute-long version. Every movie that is adapted from a book goes through this process and for fans of the written word, it can be painful. There is only one film that I saw that was based on a book that I thought completely captured the tone and left every detail in and that was Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Usually though, you walk away from the film with a vaguely satisfied feeling because the book was so much better. The Hunger Games is no exception, but it is one of the better ones I've seen.
Jennifer Lawerence (Winter's Bone, X-Men: First Class) is proof that the Academy was right for seeing such talent in her a few years ago. She plays Katniss with the control of a seasoned actress. Her fear, her pain, her frustration, her anger...it all looks genuine. She is the star that a film series of this magnitude needs and she pulls it off perfectly. The supporting cast is great as well and makes you sad they weren't utlized more. Woody Harrelson is awesomely cool as always, playing her surly trainer, Haymitch. They decided to make him less of a drunken fool in the film, which makes me wonder if they will expand his role in the later films to be bigger than the books do. Lenny Kravitz (Precious) and Elizabeth Banks (40-Year-Old Virgin, W.) are also fun to watch as the Capital lackies that gain a streak of conscienceness.
The casting of Josh Hutcherson (The Kids Are Alright, Journey 2) and Liam Hemsworth (Knowing, The Last Song) is still up in the air for me. Neither of them showed me any signs that they should be memorable and they easily fade into the background among the other heavy-hitting talent, which is a problem when you consider how important both their characters are for the series. It's not that they're bad actors, but they're not good or memorable as of now.
I think the real star of The Hunger Games though is director Gary Ross. The studio took a huge gamble on him since his previous films are good but nothing like this. He's directed Big, Seabiscuit and Pleasantville. They're all sweet, fun movies but everyone was nervous about whether or not he could take on the vast and morally void world of The Hunger Games. An even bigger hurdle for him was that he had to make this brutally violent story PG-13. Not only does he accomplish all of it, but he knocks it out of the park. His approach to this film is one of patience and calculation. Some are arguing that his choice of using handheld camera work makes the film too jumpy and causes motion sickness. That's true but it's that brilliant technique that allows him to not skimp on the violence and still secure his family-friendly rating. It is however totally unneccesarry at times, such as The Reaping and others, where it's wobbily filmmaking for the sake of wobbily filmmaking.
This is just the beginning. Same would say this is the best installment in the series, but I would disagree. The stories yet to come are more dangerous, more complex and a lot more fun. After seeing the cast and crew assembled to make The Hunger Games, it makes me very happy to think that it's in great hands and they'll fix the minor problems later. The Hunger Games (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: A-
Listen to Gavin's interview with Wes Bentley, who plays Seneca Crane in The Hunger Games.
The late '80s and early '90s were a very weird time on television. There was a lot of stuff on that was totally awful entertainment but it did really well. Was this because almost everything was awful so by comparison it was easy to look average and therefore watchable? Perhaps. But for four years during that time, the brand new Fox Network aired the show 21 Jump Street for over a hundred episodes. It was about young cops that went undercover in high schools posing as students and fighting crime. It was a premise so stupid that the entire cast, to this day, still regret doing it. So why would anyone remake this show into a movie? Because it would be funny as hell.
There is lots about 21 Jump Street the movie that's worthy of pointing out of succeeding. Stars Jonah Hill, who I was completely over and didn't see any talent left in at all, and Channing Tatum, who shocks me when he forms whole sentences let alone acts, are both brillant in the film. They couldn't be funnier and are fantastic enough to carry it themselves. There are other performers that steal the occational scene, such as Ice Cube as the angry police captain or Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation) as another angry police captain, but the film belongs to Hill and Tatum. They work together so incredibly well, it makes you forget the chemistry Hill had with Michael Cera in Suberbad and give credit to the fact that maybe he just has great comedic talent.
The direction is handled by the tag team of Chris Miller and Phil Lord in their first live action feature film. Their last movie was the shocking awesome and funny Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. (Trust me on this!) Now only do they handle the world of real camera shots of real humans but they make it look like they've been doing it for decades. The action, the editing, the aggression and the bloodhound-like sense of smelling out what's funny is all so good that it deserves to be among some of the best action comedies in the last decade.
However the best thing about 21 Jump Street is the self awareness it has. The film knows it's silly never once looses sight of the fact that it's film meant to be fun. There's even a line where a character says, "And that was the end of Act 2," which is funny to anyone who understands that every film must have three acts and almost always follow a formula. 21 Jump Street is no exception but at least it knows it, exploits it and makes it really freakin' funny.
Never once though does it slip into a parody of the TV show. It's not there to insult anyone who worked on or was a fan of the show. In fact, even though the whole cast thinks the show was a piece of crap, they're all in the film....even Johnny Depp. They're all hidden as different characters and have funny make-up on but it's a great game to see if you can find them all. The scene with Depp is unmissable and one of the best scenes in the movie. Depp seemed like he really enjoyed himself and I give credit to Hill and Tatum for stepping back and allowing him to be the star of the movie for about 3 minutes. It was worth it.
21 Jump Street isn't a "thinker" or Oscar material. What it it is, is good old fashioned funny-as-sh*t action comedy. The kind that used to come out every summer like Bad Boys, 48 Hours, Beverly Hills Cop, and Lethal Weapon. I never thought that Jonah Hill would be believable in one of those no matter how much weight he lost; but he was and was pretty good. He's not convincing as a high school student anymore, but neither is Tatum and that's part of the joke. I don't know if 21 Jump Street will go down as the funniest comedy of the year, although it has a good shot at it so far, but you can count on it going down on as the biggest shocker of the year - successfully making a terrible TV show into an edgy, fun, kick-ass action comedy that is even worthy of a second viewing. 21 Jump Street (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: A
If you're like most people in Ameirca, you're saying to yourself, "What in the hell is this John Carter crap I'm seeing on TV every ten minutes?" Well, I'll tell you real fast. John Carter is based on a book series written by Egar Rice Burroughs way back in 1912. It's considered the subject material for which ALL modern science-fiction was based on. It's a series that follows a Civil War veteran named John Carter who is transported to Mars where he aids in their own civil war. If that sounds too nerdy for you, then this movie isn't for you. If you are still interested, well, this might be the movie for you...maybe.
I consider myself a sci-fi nerd to an extent. I don't scoff at it and I can feast on some pretty out there stuff. When I heard they were making the John Carter series into movies, I was interested. I never read the books, like basically everyone still alive in America, but I had heard of them. When I heard that Disney was prepared to gamble with a monstrous budget and attached director Andrew Stanton (Findind Nemo, Wall-E) to it, I became very interested.
The entire film is littered with risks. For starters, the only recognizable stars in the film are Willem Dafoe, who is only the voice of a character and Mark Strong (Green Lantern, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) as a shape-shifting character. The leads are played by Taylor Kitsch (X-Men: Origins, Friday Night Lights) and Lynn Collins (X-Men: Origins, True Blood). Both are realitvely unfamous and unfamiliar to American audiences. Both do a find job in the film though.
Beyond the casting of unknowns as leads, I also appreciate the guts it took to cast Collins as the sexy Princess of Mars. She's not your typicals leading lady. She's built like a fitness model and is on the thick side. She also has a wide jaw, big nose and dark skin. None of this makes her any less sexy, but it's a huge departure from what you typically see in films. I appreciate that and hope it catches on in Hollywood.
The storyline is nerdy stuff but not unfamiliar. If you enjoy Star Wars or Star Trek, you'll have no problem at all enjoying the complex plot and weird characters. It's actually really impressive that the story was conceived 100 years ago. Keeping that mind, it's a wonder that more people haven't read these books and why they're so honored by those that make their way in the genre. However, that is the downfall of John Carter.
Stanton does such a good job trying to keep the film loyal to the books so he doesn't upset the fanboy culture that the film is bogged down in details and entirely too long. The actual runtime of John Carter is 132 minutes but with trailers, you're in for a film that's over three hours long. That's a real challenge to anyone who goes to see this with zero knowledge of the legacy. The film starts strong and ends stronger, but the entire middle section is soggy, uninteresting and even boring at times.
The action sequences are good but they're nothing that's gonna blow you away. Even the 3D is there for depth and not amusement park gimmicks. Usually I respect directors who use 3D like that even more, but if there was ever a time to make me pull my head back during an exciting 3D action scene, it should be in a sci-fi epic like this.
It also lacks personality. It's a total shock considering that Stanton has made two of some of the best animated films of all time. Pixar doesn't pump out crap and I would have thought that he picked up some key qualities that make a film fun; comedy, heart, and energy. John Carter possess none of those qualities. A real problem if they plan on making more of the series, which Disney does. They are going to have an uphill battle winning people over after they sit through a three hour long sci-fi epic for the whole family that feels like a struggle to get through.
The good news for Disney is that John Carter is not a broken film. It's enjoyable and it leaves you with a very excited feeling. The ending is fun and twisty enough that you forget you sat through some pretty trying chunks of time. This franchise can be fixed and I hope that it does. It has promise, but this first attempt is pretty hard to follow and just too damn long. John Carter (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: B-
In 1952, MAD Magazine was first published and inside was a comic that still runs today called Spy vs. Spy. It's a silly, wordless cartoon about a black spy and a white spy who just try to kill each other. About five years ago, it was rumored in Hollywood that they were going to take that wordless, short classic comic and turn it into a feature film. Bad script after bad script was written and the idea was laid to rest in horrible idea heaven...but then someone came up with the idea to add a girl and make it a love story and the end result was This Means War...a far cry from it's 1952 beginnings.
Even with an idea like the one we end up seeing in This Means War, doesn't mean it's good. In fact, it's a pretty lame, tired idea of a romantic, action comedy about two so-and-sos fighting for the love of a woman. What makes this film good is the talent that was brought to the table. Reese Witherspoon is the only face you may recognize unless you love movies. Her two handsome suitors are played by Chris Pine (Unstoppable, Star Trek) and Tom Hardy (Inception, The Dark Knight Rises). These two guys are actors I've had my eye on for a while going all the way back to Pine in Bottle Shock and Hardy in Bronson. They are both very skilled actors in their own way; Pine is charming and funny and Hardy is dark and intense (albeit not in this). Their talent doesn't fall short in this either, which is a shock for Hardy to see him pull off comedy so well.
It's still not a talent dreamteam without a good director and This Means War got a pretty good one. It was directed by a guy named McG. His real name is Joe McGinty Nichol but he calls himself "McG." It's true that he has a reputation for being as douchey as that nickname would have you believe but he's actually a pretty talented director when it comes to action films. He directed both Charlie Angels films and had the balls to do Terminator Salvation, all of which were better than expected. This Means War might be his best one yet and it captures the fun, explosions, funny and car chases that keep this film exciting.
However, the attempt to make the perfect date movie that both men and women could enjoy is what made this movie fall short of being great. They spend such emphasis on making sure the film is a romantic comedy and a comedic action that both story lines are elementary at best. On the action side, yes there's a bad guy the spies are after but what does he do? Why is he bad? Who knows? It's not important. We just know he's bad because he's wearing black, never smiles and shoots at the heroes. On the romance side, the relationships are ushered along so quickly that the plausability for Witherspoon to fall for either of these guys or for the guys to be okay with the other one dating her is void. Not to mention that the way both stories are wrapped up at the end is rushed, confusing and laughably unbelieveable.
But that's not why we love movies like this, is it? We wanted shallow romance, sexy explosions and cheap laughs and goddamnit, we get it all! This Means War is a film that is as charming as its two male leads. Sure it's hardly deep, richly dressed up and doesn't think too much, but who can resist those eyes? And the car chases, guns and funny quips too? This Means War (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: B
Pop Quiz: How do you know a movie is bad? Answer: When Brendan Fraser refuses to be in it. Apparently Journey 2: The Mysterious Island is a sequel but I was unclear as to a sequel to what. Turns out it was Journey to the Center of the Earth, which came out in 2008. That was a children's movie about a father and son being obsessed with the Jules Vern novel and finding out that it's actually true. I'm not sure what happens at the end of that movie but I can only assume that the father, played by Fraser, dies because he's not in this nor is there any mention of him.
As a stand alone film, Journey 2 isn't bad. Whenever I go to see movies made for kids I usually try to bring some with me. I gauge the reactions of them as we watch it and the 8-year-old daughter of my co-host seemed to really enjoy the 3D splendor of this film. The only returning character from the first one is Josh Hutcherson (The Hunger Games, The Kids are Alright) who ushers us into the thick of the plot withint ten minutes. He's looking for his grandfather, played by the spectacular Michael Caine (The Dark Knight series, Inception), and he's allowed to go to the middle of the Pacific Ocean looking for him as long as his step-father, played by Dwayne I-guess-now-formerly-know-as-The-Rock Johnson (The Other Guys, Tooth Fairy), goes along. If that seems like an extravaganza of awfulness in a plot that seems to come from nowhere and all happens in ten minutes, you're completely right.
Once they reach the Mysterious Island with their new friends played by Vanessa Hudgens (Suckerpunch, High School Musical) and Luis Guzman (Arthur, Boogie Nights) they must figure out the secrets of the island based on different literary classics while trying to survive and escape. The special effects are slightly above Saturday Morning network shows but the 3D more than makes up for it. Guzman and Johnson do a really good job of being funny in the PG-perameters and still earning an audible chuckle from me throughout the film. But that still doesn't avoid the puzzle of how this didn't end up as a straight-to-DVD film to begin with.
There's really nothing to this film outside of bright colors, fast action, funny lines and brainless plotlines. I have a feeling that this is as close to a show on ABC Family that never gets a second notice from anyone over the age of seven, will ever get to being on the big screen. At its core, that's all it is. How did they trick Michael Caine into being in it? That's a good question but I'm sure it ends with him getting a fat payday. But it is what it is. Journey 2 is no worse and no better than the junk your kids are shoving in their heads at the movie theater anyway, so why not have empty-calorie entertainment to go along with the empty-calorie candy. As far as tawdry kids' films that are simply cash grabs that put zero time into quality storytelling, heart or excitement goes...I've seen far, far worse. However, that being said, it's still all those other things too. Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (Rated PG)
Gavin Grade: C+
Two years ago it was released online that Hollywood was planning on taking the classic Hasbro board game Battleship and turn it into a movie. It was met with nothing but laughs and jeers at what a horrible film that would turn out to be. It also launched rumors, some of which have been confirmed, that other classic board games like Ouija, Monopoly and Candyland are getting turned into movies to follow. Everyone was expecting the worst from Battleship, there was no way it could live up to the awful hype. I'm here to tell you that not only did it live up to it but it surpassed it.
There is no better audience for a movie about having babies than a guy who just had one five weeks ago...except maybe a woman who just had one. My son Connor has made me tear my hair out and battle headaches but it's totally worth it. There were times when What to Expect When You're Expecting had the same effect on me, but it wasn't worth it. If you can make a new father hate your movie about babies, then I cringe to think what it did for everyone else.
When I was 8-years-old, I was staying with my grandmother in Central Pennsylvania and there was a little store that sold comic books not far from where she lived. She took me there and I begged her to buy me one and she chose one called The Avengers and I was obsessed. In fact, I was so obsessed that I stole money out of her purse, snuck back to the store when she took a nap and bought more issues. That was 23 years ago and I never thought I'd see a movie version of that awesome comic superhero group, but here it is and it was totally worth the wait!
I'm fully aware that this movie currently sits at Rotten Tomatoes with a pitiful 44%. I know what that means for me as a reviewer to consider giving such a poorly graded film such a great grade. However, Will Ferrell's best work has never been met with stellar reviews. Anchorman, a film which I consider one of the funniest comedies of all time, has only a 66% on Rotten Tomatoes. Although, this deserves a lower grade than the cult classic that spawned countless quotable Ron Burgendy and company lines, Casa de mi Padre deserves the same level of respect.
Well, here it is! The sequel that no one demanded to the 2010 Clash of the Titans, the movie that almost destroyed the 3D revolution. It was a lousy script, lousy remake of the classic, campy 1981 original, and piss-poor 3D FX that caused migranes and made people leave the theater. The good news about being the follow-up to a film that bad is that the bar is set very low. So with a bar so low, did Wrath of the Titans do better...yes, but that's nothing to hang your helmet on.
Well, the day is upon us! The Reaping is here! We get to finally see one of the most anticipated movies of the last 5 years. I first heard about this book about a year ago. My wife and I were flying to Italy and she randomly picked up a copy in the airport. I made fun of her for reading ANOTHER teen fiction book and then made fun of her again when she read the whole thing on the flight over and couldn't wait to get back so she could buy the next book in English (they were all in Italian over there). It wasn't until I buckled under peer pressure and read it for myself that I became obsessed and longed for the day the movie came out. Needless to say, the wait was worth it.
The late '80s and early '90s were a very weird time on television. There was a lot of stuff on that was totally awful entertainment but it did really well. Was this because almost everything was awful so by comparison it was easy to look average and therefore watchable? Perhaps. But for four years during that time, the brand new Fox Network aired the show 21 Jump Street for over a hundred episodes. It was about young cops that went undercover in high schools posing as students and fighting crime. It was a premise so stupid that the entire cast, to this day, still regret doing it. So why would anyone remake this show into a movie? Because it would be funny as hell.
If you're like most people in Ameirca, you're saying to yourself, "What in the hell is this John Carter crap I'm seeing on TV every ten minutes?" Well, I'll tell you real fast. John Carter is based on a book series written by Egar Rice Burroughs way back in 1912. It's considered the subject material for which ALL modern science-fiction was based on. It's a series that follows a Civil War veteran named John Carter who is transported to Mars where he aids in their own civil war. If that sounds too nerdy for you, then this movie isn't for you. If you are still interested, well, this might be the movie for you...maybe.
In 1952, MAD Magazine was first published and inside was a comic that still runs today called Spy vs. Spy. It's a silly, wordless cartoon about a black spy and a white spy who just try to kill each other. About five years ago, it was rumored in Hollywood that they were going to take that wordless, short classic comic and turn it into a feature film. Bad script after bad script was written and the idea was laid to rest in horrible idea heaven...but then someone came up with the idea to add a girl and make it a love story and the end result was This Means War...a far cry from it's 1952 beginnings.
Pop Quiz: How do you know a movie is bad? Answer: When Brendan Fraser refuses to be in it. Apparently Journey 2: The Mysterious Island is a sequel but I was unclear as to a sequel to what. Turns out it was Journey to the Center of the Earth, which came out in 2008. That was a children's movie about a father and son being obsessed with the Jules Vern novel and finding out that it's actually true. I'm not sure what happens at the end of that movie but I can only assume that the father, played by Fraser, dies because he's not in this nor is there any mention of him. 
