Gavin Grades The Movies |
|
|
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
|
 Warner Brothers needs to find another franchise they can squeeze money out of since Harry Potter is ending and they were too stupid to nab the Twilight series.  So what's the next best thing?  Turn a childhood fairy tale into a 100 minute long feature film and add in sexy teenage love with horror for children and base it off a book that I sure hope was better than this awful script.  Then you nab the crappy director of the first Twilight movie, Catherine Hardwicke, to direct it in hopes of giving the Hot Topic crowd more gothic romance t-shirts to buy.  The fact that any studio would even trust Hardwicke with another movie after Twilight is beyond me.  The good news for her though is the Red Riding Hood is at least a little better than Twilight, but just barely.  She has a profound way of not being able to direct actors to produce a good performance.  Casting actors who can't act is only a problem in some of them like new hunky dufuses that play the love interests of Red Riding Hood aka Valerie, Shiloh Fernandez (Dead Girl) and Max Irons (Dorian Gray).  But she gets her hands on well accomplished actors like Gary Oldman (JFK, Dracula) and Julie Christie (Hamlet, Finding Neverland) and still gets stale, vapid, empty performances from them.  Red  Riding Hood is embarrassing to watch.  There's nothing good in the film at all.  That's not to say that the whole thing is a mess though.  The imagery is pretty decent.  Sure the sets look like something out of a made-for-TV movie but the shots of Valerie, played by Amanda Seyfried (Jennifer's Body, Mama Mia), walking through the snowy woods on her way to Grandmother's house with her long red riding cloak flowing behind her are pretty neat to see.  Plus I enjoyed the Whodunit? approach to who the wolf is.  That held my interest through the entire movie but that was the only thing that did.  The zombie-like performances and cheesy dialogue was enough to make wish the wolf would pick off some of the key characters earlier in the movie.  The romance in Red Riding Hood is as thin as the paper it was printed on.  Never once do you find yourself caring about anyone in the movie, especially the young love triangle that feels as warm and authentic as an arraigned marriage.  I'm not even sure who could really look at this movie and say it was a success.  I would imagine that if you're a fan of the book, you'd be pissed it was ruined.  If you never read the book , you'd just be bored out of your mind.  And if you're a Twilight fan, a teenage girl, or both, you'd only feel like this was a cheap ripoff.  And a cheap ripoff of Twilight is the stuff that crap is made of.
Red Riding Hood (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: C- |
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
|
 Here's an interesting question that I get different responses to from everyone I ask: Should a movie that's a remake be considered for the Oscar for Best Picture? Â I've thought about this for a while and I'll hold off on giving you my answer. Â The reason why I ask is because this film is a remake by Swedish filmmaker Thomas Alfredson. Â It was subtitled and called Let the Right One In and it was a masterpiece. Â It was overlooked by all those that are in a position to hand out accolades for films but grew to be one of the most respected horror movies of all time among critics. Â Let Me In is its American doppelganger and this time it's directed by Matt Reeves who literally amazed me with his first movie Cloverfield. Â When I heard they were even going to make this movie, I cringed at the idea. Â But when I saw that the cast was the heartbreaking Kodi Smit-McPhee (The Road) and the intense-beyond-her-years Chloe Moretz (Kick-Ass, (500) Days of Summer) as the young lovebirds I started to drink the Kool-Aid. Â I chugged it though when I saw Oscar-nominee Richard Jenkins (Eat Pray Love, Burn After Reading) and the totally underrated Elias Koteas (Shutter Island, The Killer Inside Me) were rounding out the cast as the adults. Â The basic premise of the movie is about two kids falling in love but one is a vampire and one is a human. Â I know what you're thinking but trust me...this is NOTHING like Twilight. Â Think of this as Twilight without the bad acting, cheesy melodrama and, most importantly, for adults. Â It's difficult to classify this as a horror when it's so much more, but gruesome and bloody it certainly is. Â It's not scary and it won't make you jump though. Â It's as close to blurring the line between drama, horror and art as you can get. Â This is not for mass consumption; the great films rarely are. Â It's filled with symbolism, color-theming, subtle performances, and meaningful subtext...all the stuff that doesn't usually go over well with crowds. Â However, Reeves brings an almost fresh feel to the film. Â There are times when it's a shot-for-shot remake and other times where he put his own fingerprint on it and amused me. Â Sadly some material was taken out, I'm guessing because it was too confusing or shocking for American audiences. Â Too bad because it was a scene that made me go "What the f**k did I just see?!" Â (If you're really curious just rent the Swedish version. Â It's toward the end.) Â To answer my question I asked earlier, I think this should be considered for Best Picture. Â Not so much because of the accomplishments this film had on its own but how it could represent the first one as well. Â There is just enough in this version to make it it seem original but not enough for me to give it the A+ its predecessor earned. Â Hopefully though this version will draw enough people to make Hollywood know that there is an audience out there for smart, subtle, sad horror and it doesn't all have to be a sequel to Saw.
Let Me In (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: A
Click here to win free tickets to see Life as We Know It
| | | Tags : Social : Chloe Moretz, Elias Koteas, Gavin, Kodi Smit-MchPhee, Let Me In, Let the Right One In, Matt Reeves, Movie Reviews, Richard Jenkins, Thomas Alfredson, Twilight
|
|
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
|
 Every time a Twilight movie comes out, I have to go see it. Â My wife is a HUGE fan. Â So much so that she dragged me to see Eclipse while we were on our honeymoon...even after she already saw it. Â I'm not a fan. Â The first film came out and I thought it was such a poorly made pile of crap that I couldn't stand to watch it. Â However, just like with this third installment of the series, I had to see the second one too. Â The second, New Moon, was better and you could tell they were starting to right the wrongs they made with the first one. Â If Eclipse is an indication of how things are evolving in the series, then the last film should be great. Â The Twilight Saga is getting increasingly better. Â That's not because of the story, although that is strengthening as well; it's because the studio is finally putting some money, time and talent into it. Â It's apparent to me that the mistakes that were made when the first film was are being corrected, such as casting and who they choose to helm the project. Â Last time they added Grade A quality performers in the form of Dakota Fanning (War of the Worlds, The Runaways) and Michael Sheen (Frost/Nixon, 30 Rock). Â This time they replaced a nobody performer named Rachelle Lefevre, who played the villainous Victoria, with a much more recognizable and talented Bryce Dallas Howard (Spiderman 3, Lady in the Water). Â They also seem to be getting better and better directors. Â This time around they went with David Slade. Â Now Twilight is far from horror, but by bringing in a rising star of the genre, it gives the project some much needed fangs. Â Slade directed the gruesome vampire film 30 Days of Night, which wasn't a very good story but was directed very well. Â But what really blew my skirt up was Slade's film Hard Candy. Â It starred Ellen Page as a would-be victim of a pedophile who gets her revenge. Â I consider it one of the scariest horror films I've ever seen and it was all due to his manipulation of the actors and the look of the film. Â Did he bring that same talent to Eclipse? Â Well, not all of it but he did bring some. Â Eclipse does have a darker look and better acting though. Â That's a relief since it contains three fairly untalented actors. Â Taylor Lautner and Robert Pattinson aren't terrible, but they both could be much better. Â Kristen Stewart is one of the worst working actresses in Hollywood though. Â I have no idea why she is the "IT" girl right now, but thanks to David Slade...she's at least watchable. Â She used to have a stuttering way to her technique that was as irritating as a fork scraped across a plate to me. Â But in Eclipse, she didn't do it...not even once! Â Thank you David Slade! Â There are some things I didn't like. Â The movie builds toward what appears to be an epic battle scene that falls flat in its action. Â But scenes are in it that successfully and finally pull me into the melodrama of the love triangle that Bella is in. Â I find myself choosing a side and wanting her to pick it. Â That's what the point of the series is. Â Will she be with Edward or Jacob? Â Who knows, but it's getting more exciting and intense as it goes on. Â Let's just hope the improvements being made are going to continue that way. Â If they do, we're well on our way to a great finish.
Twilight Saga: Eclipse (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: B | | | Tags : Social : Bryce Dallas Howard, Dakota Fanning, David Slade, Eclipse, Gavin, Kristen Stewart, Michael Sheen, Movie Reviews, New Moon, Rachelle Lefevre, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Twilight
|
|
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
|
 My review of âTwilightâ is still on this movie blog somewhere.  If you care enough, you can look it up and find out exactly how much I DIDNâT like that movie.  I wonât spend time in this review talking about âTwilightâ because it appears that the team behind this franchise has learned from their mistakes.  In case youâre not a âTwi-Hard Fan,â the plot for this is simple: Bella is abandoned by her lover Edward for her own protection, which is also what her friend Jacob has in mind, who uses his newly discovered werewolf abilities to protect her as well.  Almost everything about this movie is better than the original.  The old director was fired and director Chris Weitz was brought in for this one.  Not a huge step in the right direction since we have him to blame for âThe Golden Compassâ but anything is better than the last director, Catherine Hardwicke.  They threw more money at this movie so the production value doesnât make it feel like a made-for-TV special anymore and the Special FX are a little better.  However I think we saw more believable CGI animals in the 1990s.  And finally the actors playing new characters in âNew Moonâ are of a MUCH, MUCH better quality; namely Michael Sheen (âFrost/Nixonâ) and Dakota Fanning.  But thereâs the rub.  See, when you put actors that are as good as them in the same movie that feature actors as bad as the returning cast, it just makes the difference in talent that much more drastic.  And yes, Iâm talking about Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner and ESPECIALLY Kristen Stewartâ¦the stars of the film.  In their defense, the boys are at least tolerable though they lack any semblance of passion.  Kristen Stewart, on the other hand, might have single-handedly sunk âNew Moonâ as well due to her being unwatchable!  Her twitchy, vacant style of acting is beyond annoying, void of skill and as empty-of-a-performance as youâll see in a movie grossing this much money.  In fact, Dakota Fanning and Michael Sheen are only in the film for 10 minutes, but they raised the quality a full letter grade by reminding me what quality acting is and actually making me care about whatâs happening on the screen.  I do feel bad for Taylor Lautner who was almost killed by the movie studio in his attempt to get into the shape heâs in for âNew Moon.â  He has to live in hell to look incredible while the rest of the Wolf Pack get to look like regular guys who, even one of them, boasts an impressively embarrassing pair of saggy boobs.  Iâm not sure if there are gay metaphors either with The Wolf Pack, but the only thing gayer than hanging out shirtless in the rain with your boys wearing nothing but cut-off jean shorts would be if they also grew bushy mustaches and listened to Lady Gaga.  Regardless though, is âNew Moonâ a good movie?  Yes it is for the most part.  Does it deserve its 130 minute runtime?  No and it feels even longer than that.  But the story is better, the action is better (when it comes) and if Fanning and Sheen have bigger parts in the next oneâ¦I say bring on âEclipseâ because we shouldnât put a stake in the heart of this franchise yet!
The Twilight Saga: New Moon (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: B-| | | Tags : Social : Gavin, Kristen Stewart, movie, New Moon, Reviews, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Twilight, Vampires, wake up call, Werewolves
|
|
|
| |
|
