Gavin Grades The Movies |
|
|
| Posts from December 2009 |
It's Complicated
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
|
 Writer and Director Nancy Meyers has been giving us slices of upper-middle class American comedy with a pinch of family drama for almost as long as I've been alive. Â She's given us What Women Want, the Father of the Bride series, Something's Gotta Give and others. Â Now's she's given us It's Complicated staring Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin and to say that it's either good or bad is...well, complicated. Â The movie tells the story of what happens when a midlife divorced couple finds themselves falling in love with each other again. Â Alec Baldwin plays the suave ex-husband, Meryl Streep plays the dizzy ex-wife and Steve Martin plays a nerdy architect. Â All three are delights to watch perform in almost whatever they do and seeing all three share the screen together is so much fun. Â Some of that fun might stem from the fact that it's nice to see a romantic comedy that's about ADULTS for once. Â Personally, I'm almost 30. Â It's weird for me because I'm getting to that age where I don't consider myself old but I don't care about the barely 20 crowd and their "romantic" problems anymore. Â I look for complexity and maturity and layers to my romance. Â It's also kind of nice to see that Meyers shows these people for all their mid-life glory; fat, saggy, greying, old...yet can still create some scenes that are still downright sexy. Â She also makes the scenes very funny and very touching at times. Â But it's that drama that just happened to irk me. Â The funny was great and I laughed out loud, especially at some of the scenes with The Office's John Krasinski doing what he does best (maybe all he knows how to do) and that's playing "awkward Jim." Â But the drama seemed puzzling to me since it became unclear who I was suppose to enjoy in the film. Â As the movie unfolds it becomes apparent that the two leads are in fact very unlikeable people who don't really care about how their actions affect anyone else around them. Â Hmm...sounds kind of like one of those romance movies about the 20 somethings I don't like very much anymore. Â Perhaps I'm over thinking this and should just take it for what it is. Â But in a movie that has so much potential and momentum, I just didn't like it loosing it's sense of characters by the end.
It's Complicated (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: B
|
|
| |
Sherlock Holmes
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
|
 When I first heard that a Sherlock Holmes movie was being made staring Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes and Jude Law as Watson, I cringed. I'm a fan of both as actors, but they didn't match my memory of the nerdy, British detective and his rolly-polly, doctor sidekick that I had as a kid reading the stories. There's a good reason for that though; this isn't your Grandmother's Sherlock Holmes. Director Guy Ritchie, has had quite a few stumbles over the past recent years and I don't just mean his divorce to that awful mummy, Madonna. He started his film career off with two of the best British caper movies of all time, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrells and Snatch. Then he had failure after failure. He seemed to be nothing more than another Orson Welles that hit his best at the very beginning and had nothing left to give. I guess he does in the writing department but his directing is superb in this reimaging of the classic Sherlock Holmes stories. The sets are amazing and Ritchie shoots for authenticity with the props and set decorations while colliding it with his aggressive and stylized directing arsenal that comes complete with ultra-slow motion, choppy editing, and montages of things in the past or future. But that mix of classic and modern might be too much of a clash for some people. But if you can get past that you'll be thrilled with Downey Jr. and Law giving great performances as crime fighters and comedians. By giving the mystery duo the ability to kick anyone's ass and deliver one-liners while doing it, Ritchie basically made a Period/Buddy Cop movie. That's not a bad thing in my opinion, but I know some members of the party I was with when I saw it thought it was cheesy. The mystery that drives the plot is great and classic Holmes, but the who-dun-it feature wasn't there, unless you count the set-up for a sequel that comes as no shock to anyone who knows even the slightest bit of information about the books. The only problem with the movie is that it feels clunky and awkward at the beginning. Guy Ritchie's movies can never be accused of being slow, but the first third of the film feels that way because of some form of unstiching in the editing or script or perhaps in the audience's ability to adjust to seeing a tone that's very different than what they thought they'd see. But besides that, Sherlock Holmes is a fun Buddy-Cop movie in the same tone of Bad Boys or Lethal Weapon set in the world of A Christmas Carol.
Sherlock Holmes (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: B+
|
|
| |
Up in the Air
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
|
 I can't think of too many movies that came out this year that had a title as bad as this one. Â Up in the Air? Â Is that really the best they could come up with? Â I know that was the title of the book it was based on but, geez...it sucks! Â A good friend of mine from high school worked on this movie as the Second Assistant Camera Operator (his name is Craig M. Bauer and he's right after the cast in the credits...look for him!). Â He said while filming this movie, "this one is actually really good." Â He's a jaded film crew member who's worked on way too many movies to ever say a movie is GREAT, but this one truly is. Â George Clooney stars as a professional bad news-giver who travels the country, day after day, firing employees at different companies. Â His life is full of hotels, flights, casual relationships and no baggage. Â He believes this is the best way to live since he's never weighed down by anything or anyone. Â Anna Kendrick, who you might remember as Bella's plucky human friend "Jessica" in the Twilight series, is a young up-and-comer for Clooney's company who's being forced to tag along with him on a round of firings to see what field work is like. Â Vera Farmiga (The Departed) is a sexy siren of the sky that he meets in his travels, who lives like him. Â Out of this situation, we have the makings of a dramedy that is sure to pick up some Oscar nominations. Â Clooney does what he does best by being the suave playboy he pretty much is in real life. Â The vulnerability he displays in his emotions though are muted and subdued; but that seems to be the kind of guy his character is. Â I think if I saw a real watery breakdown of tears I'd cry "Hollywood schlock" at the screen. Â Instead this movie dwells in a world that is very real, very timely and very shallow and sad. Â At a time when everyone knows at least one person that is out of work, it's hard to care about a character who fires so many on a daily basis without a care of what kind of person they leave in the dust. Â But believe it or not...you do. Â That's the wonder that director/writer Jason Reitman (Juno, Thank You for Smoking) has done. Â He made a very unlikable character not only likable, but sympathetically lovable. Â Not an easy feat since the film is padded with montages of real life people from Detroit and St. Louis talking to the camera throughout the film about being laid off from their real jobs, some with devastatingly real tears. Â Up in the Air takes that reality and makes it hopeful, happy and a perfect mirror on what's really important in your own life by being a very funny-at-times movie that's also about the recent sadness, despair and depression of the current economic turmoil in the country and uses those real life stories of terminations to frame what the movie is really about...connections. Â Hmm...maybe that should have been the title.
Up in the Air  (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: A | | | Tags : Social: Anna Kendrick, Craig Bauer, Gavin, George Clooney, Jason Reitman, Movie Reviews, oscars, Twilight, Up in the Air, Vera Farmiga, wake up call
|
|
|
| |
Avatar
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
|
 Avatar might have been the most anticipated movie of 2009 and for good reasons. Â I've heard that it cost somewhere between $300 - $500 million to make and has been what director, James Cameron, has been working on for the past ten years; his first since his last movie, Titanic. Â Whenever that much hype gets put on something, it's a very risky move. Â On one hand you get the publicity you need to make sure asses get in seats, but on the other hand you better come through and deliver a movie that lives up to it. Â Avatar cost so much money to make that it will be almost impossible to see huge profit numbers, so the only way it will be remembered as a success is by what people think of it and what awards it wins. Â Cameron has made a staggeringly ambitious piece of fantasy that's unlike anything I've ever seen before. Â The FX are so life-like and vivid that it's impossible to tell what is fake and what is real. Â The fact that it's in 3D also helps to immerse you in a world that doesn't exist; that world is a planet called Pandora. Â Pandora is so amazingly real that it feels like you can almost smell the plants or feel the musty humidity in the air. Â The 3D effects aid in the camera's movement through lush jungles settings to give you the sense that you are ON this planet. Â The colors are so vibrant that it is a breathtaking just to look at it, especially the nighttime sequences that look as if the entire planet is lit with a Black Light moon. Â However, that's where the creativity stops. Â The inhabitants are called The Navi and are 10' tall blue humans with cat faces. Â All the animals on the planet are just like the ones we have here with minor changes. Â There is no Star Wars originality when it comes to creatures in this. Â And that lack of creativity expands to the story as well, which is one you've seen a million times before in other sweeping epics, except this time there are blue people involved. Â However, I kind of like the fact that Cameron chose such a generic story to tell the tale. Â The story makes absolutely no effort to hide its message of Imperialism. Â The overt story echoes the annihilation of the Native Americans, their land and culture. Â Their even called the Navi for God's sake, but if that's too cryptic the Navi even look, talk and act like Native Americans. Â But hidden in that story are also political statements about environmentalism, the war on terror, the Vietnam & Iraq Wars, over-zealous military leaders and the bleeding of natural resources. Â But don't worry, it's only a political movie in disguise. Â In actuality it's a 160 minute-long, brightly colored, emotional fantasy adventure filled with FX that amaze the senses and has one of the greatest battle sequences of 2009...just too bad it's a story we've heard far too many times.
Avatar (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: B+ | | | Tags : Social: Alien, Avatar, Gavin, James Cameron, movie, Navi, Pandora, Reviews, Sam Worthington, Titanic, Weaver
|
|
|
| |
The Princess and The Frog
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
|
 Oh Disney! Â I don't know how you did it in the past. Â You used to create such wonderful movies that they would dazzle our eyes, inspire our dreams, dare children to imagine and earn Oscars. Â But for some reason Disney, you got away from that. Â Thank God Pixar came along and saved you from the quagmire film nightmare you built around yourself. Â But as a fan of the Golden Age of Disney and an owner of those childhood dreams and imagination, I can proudly scream out, "Welcome Back Old Friend!" Â The Disney Animation Studios assembled a dream team to create "The Princess and The Frog." Â It's directed by Ron Clements and John Musker who are the geniuses behind "Aladdin" and "The Little Mermaid." Â Then just to make sure it gets even better they get Randy Newman to write all the songs...like he's been doing for decades, and get Pixar's John Lasseter (The "Toy Story" movies, "Bug's Life," "Cars," "Up") to Produce. Â I dare you to make a bad movie with them at the helm! Â This film, I'm sure you've heard, is a first for creating a black Disney Princess character. Â Her name is Tiana and will be one of the most loved no doubt. Â But this movie has several other firsts in it that I can't say without ruining the plot. Â One of those firsts was actually quite shocking. Â The film takes place in New Orleans in the 1920s, an age of jazz and food...way before it was sadly destroyed, which adults will feel morose about when seeing it the way it was. Â The music fits the mood of the city perfectly having each song be a different New Orleans style. Â There was jazz (of course) but also gospel, zydeco, ragtime and never once feeling like a stereotype or trite caricature of the culture. Â The acting is great and in true Disney fashion, it's done by mostly no-name actors, except for John Goodman, Oprah, Terrence Howard and Keith David in smaller roles. Â Sure the story if formulaic (you can easily swap out Louis the Alligator and Ray the Bug in this for Timon and Pumba) but it kind of has to be because that's what we love about classic Disney films. Â But what I loved the most about this movie is something that kids will only pick up on subconsciously. Â Disney films have always fit the mood of the country when they were made. Â "Snow White" was made during The Depression and had songs like "Whistle While You Work." Â "The Little Mermaid" was made during the materialism of the 1980s and reflected that in Ariel's relentless collecting of things and selfishness "look at this stuff, isn't it neat...but I want more." Â This film is no different and it's even better that it speaks to African American kids. Â Tiana reflects what President Obama tried to say to high schools earlier this year (although he was banned in some schools). Â She doesn't hope for a better life through luck and circumstance but instead works really hard at it and doesn't rely on short cuts to do it. Â Every song in the movie is about working hard, being optimistic and keeping your gumption. Â Of course it's not just message but also whimsy, wonder and thick helpings of that classic Disney mood and charm, slathered all over every frame of 2-D animation that makes this movie fantastic and worthy to be stand among the other Disney greats!
The Princess and The Frog (Rated G)
Gavin Grade: A+
|
|
| |
Precious
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
|
 You can always tell who the people are who saw Precious as they leave the theater.  Theyâre the ones who are shuffling down the hallways, staring at their feet in a blank look that may or may not have a hint of suicidal thoughts behind it.  Yikes!  This movie is almost in the same realm as Requiem for a Dream or American History X in the way that itâs full contact cinema.  You donât sit back and enjoy this movie; this movie sits back and kicks your ass.  But in this case, it doesnât make it a great movie.  The story is about a 16-year-old girl named Precious who has one of the most horrible, abusive lives you can possibly think of.  Go ahead and think of something horrible you can do to a human being; chances are that happens to Precious.  The title role is played wonderfully by a young newcomer named Gabourey Sidibe.  Her vulnerability is admirable as sheâs the opposite of every single leading actress in Hollywood, yet she carries herself with a confidence that most donât.  There are also some shockingly great performances from Lenny Kravitz and Mariah Careyâ¦yeah, THE Kravitz and Carey.  You probably wonât recognize them thoughâunless theyâre pointed out to youâdue to weight gain, lack of make up and a killer accent on Carey.  Sherry Shepard (30 Rock, The View) also shows up in a near disguise performance as well.  The real star of the film, however, is MoâNiqueâ¦comedian MoâNique.  Never did I ever think that I would say the sentence âMoâNique should win an Oscar,â but here I am saying it.  She gives one of the best performances of the year, and possibly of the last decade, from a woman.  Her entire role is disturbing all the way up to the climax of the film where MoâNique treats us to one of the most heartbreaking and soul-wrenching monologues Iâve ever seen.  MoâNique, who is a victim of childhood sexual abuse herself, had to dig so deep for that scene I have the feeling that it was purely cathartic, making the tears from the other actors painfully real.  If MoâNique doesnât win an Oscar for this performance there should be a public outcry over it.  I think another Oscar might go to director Lee Daniels (Monsterâs Ball).  His approach to such a dark story is almost whimsical at times while keeping it gritty and painful.  He does let you off the hook with some of the more disturbing scenes by cutting away just in timeâ¦thankfully.  His directing choices remind me almost of Oliver Stone in the way he edits, zooms, goes to fantasy scenes and even uses colors.  But all this said, the movie isnât great.  The performances are.  The directing is.  But not the movie.  Iâm trying to find meaning in the story.  I get that itâs meant to be inspirational and that even when this girl was beaten down as far as she was, she still picked herself up to move forward.  But does that work on me?  Itâs interesting that the theater was packed when I saw it and it was all by white people.  African Americans are not flocking to see Precious.  Instead, itâs being seen by the white, suburban, Art House crowd, like me, and itâs not filling me with inspiration.  In fact, all it did was make me feel sorry for people like Precious, and I donât think thatâs the movieâs intention.  I can gain some inspiration from the drive to keep moving forward no matter what; but it still comes from a place of pity because I canât identify with any of her problems.  Because of that, I think this is becoming a movie that everyone thinks they HAVE to like, while losing sight of the fact that some films can offer you great elements without a win overall.
Precious: Based on the Novel âPushâ by Sapphire (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: B+
|
|
| |
The Road
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
|
 Novelist Cormac McCarthy seems to be a discovered treasure lately. Â The 76-year-old wrote the novel that 2007 Best Picture winner âNo Country for Old Menâ was based on and he has three more of his novels being turned into movies in the next two years. Â He also wrote the novel âThe Roadâ and if I were a betting man, Iâd say heâs got a good shot at having another one of his babies win Best Picture again. Â âThe Roadâ stars Viggo Mortensen, Charlize Theron, Robert Duval, Guy Pierce and a brand new 14-year-old Australian boy named Kodi Smit-McPhee. Â This cast gives every inch of themselves to this story of survival in a post-Apocalyptic world. Â But donât be fooled. Â This isnât â2012â³ or some other special effect extravaganza where the every-day guy does amazingly heroic things while falling in love again with an old flame. Â This is bleak, dark, depressing and beautiful. Â In fact most of the movie has no special effects at all. Â Director John Hillcoat did a great job of choosing already desolate locations to film so that elaborate FX werenât needed to distract you from the story. Â Why did the world end? Â How did it end? Â When did it end? Â These are all questions that arenât answered and donât need to be answered. Â In fact, we donât even know characterâs names. Â Mortensen and Smit-McPhee are simply credited as âThe Dadâ and âThe Boy.â Â Thatâs all you need to know because at the core of this movie is a simple struggle of a father and son surviving in an unfriendly, hostile world, all while being completely relatable to the perils, triumphs and heartbreak that live in the seasons of life. Â The Academy should really pay attention to this movie. Â Iâm not a fan of children or actors that are in the movie for 5-10 minutes winning Oscars, but this may have to be an exception since Smit-McPhee and Duval give us performances that are gut wrenchingly sad. Â The tone of the movie is reflected perfectly by Hillcoatâs directing. Â The movie wasnât shot in Black & White, but it might as well have been since itâs depleted of colors except for some choice flashbacks. Â The flashbacks, by the way, are the only change from the novel, to which it stays very faithful. Â The violence in the book is done tastefully and modestly in the film, although sometimes whatâs not seen is far more grotesque and disturbing than what is seen. Â (Not hard to figure out how some people are surviving) Â It might get a little slow and plodding for some viewers that have a shorter attention span but sticking this movie out till the end is not just what you need to do for closure to this hopeless story, but itâs almost a gift to anyone whoâs ever had to go through life, thatâs symbolized here as âThe Road.â
The Road (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: A+
|
|
| |
New Moon
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
|
|
|
| |
The Blind Side
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
|
 This movie is shocking on several different levels.  Some of those shocks are good and some of them are bad.  In case you didnât know, this is the true story of NFL player Michael Oher.  Now before all the women reading this tune out thinking itâs a football movie, understand that his story is one of heartbreak, tragedy, kindness, and loveâ¦and a little football.  One of the positive shocks to come from this was star Sandra Bullockâs performance.  Get this - she was actually good!  This might be one of the best performances of her career, but thatâs not saying much since the bar wasnât very high to begin with.  She plays a plucky, strong, WASPie, Southern Belle that runs the wealthy family that saves Oher from his ghetto war zone he roams night after night as a teenager.  Another positive shock was the performances from country singer Tim McGraw, who plays Bullocks husband, and the gentle giant, Quinton Aaron, who plays Oher.  Aaron is relatively new to acting but could have a career as big as his stature if he continues to get roles like this.  Heâs able to convey so much sadness and defeat without saying a word, which works out for him since he only has about 25 lines in the whole film.  One of the negative shocks is how long this movie is.  It has a runtime of over 2 hours and as far as I could tell has no need for all that.  The other negative shock is the casting of child actor Jae Head as the youngest member of The Tuohy family.  Every scene this kid infects drips with hair-pulling schticks that wouldâve made even Macaulay Culkin in âHome Aloneâ roll his eyes.  I could be in the minority on this since he seemed to earn laughter from most of the theater, but I couldnât stand his annoying, hammy performance the entire movie.  Another shock that I had in the movie, that was neither good or bad, was how overtly Christian it was.  It almost seemed like it was made by a church group or Kirk Cameron.  There is heavy emphasis put on the fact that the wealthy Tuohy Family takes Michael Oher in because itâs their âChristian Duty.â  And in case you miss hearing that the first time in the film, donât worry because they say it over and over and over again.  I kept wondering why.  Was it because they are trying to insinuate that more Christians need to be as charitable as that and many arenât?  Is it because they wanted to take the emphasis off of the idea that maybe The Tuohys did it out of White Guilt?  Or was it to make you forget that The Tuohys were investigated by the NCAA for their role in raising Michael.  I donât know.  But what I do know is that âThe Blind Sideâ is a harmless and delightful movie that will make you appreciate what you have and want to help those who have nothing.  It âHollywoods Upâ the true story to a level that Iâm sure isnât 100% accurate but when looking at the actual photos of the family during the end credits you canât help but to tear up a little bit.
The Blind Side (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: B
|
|
| |
|
