facebook_twitter

Gavin Grades The Movies

Posts from May 2010

Sex and the City 2
by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
Hi.  My name is Gavin and I'm a Sex and the City fan.  I'm not kidding.  I really am.  It started when I agreed to watch it with my fiance in return for her watching The Sopranos.  I was shocked when I really got into it.  I know about random Skippy in the first season.  I know that Burger was the worst boyfriend for Carrie.  I even remember when Steve first met Miranda.  Trust me, I'm a fan.  I feel like I must prove that so you don't think I'm just another Sex and the City hater blasting this awful movie.  When I heard that they were making a movie two years ago, I was surprised but happy because there were still unanswered questions, mainly, will Big and Carrie get married?  Well, they did and the first movie was great.  When I heard they were making another movie I thought, "Why?"  This completely unnecessary sequel starts off great.  A big fabulous gay wedding (won't say who gets married) that features the highlight of the movie where Liza Manelli performs "Single Ladies."  After the first hour of the movie, the girls get invited to Abu Dhabi for a business trip.  It's at that moment that the movie sinks into a quicksand pit of suck and never comes out.  First of all, who wants to see them in the Middle East?  The show is Sex and THE CITY not Sex and The Middle East.  When you remove the girls from New York City, it's not the same.  The same was true even for the show like when they went to The Hamptons, or Aiden's camping trip or the train ride across the country (see, I told you I'm a fan).  Manhattan is as much of a character as anyone of the girls are and when you take it out, you've lost me.  But that's only the beginning of the disaster known as Sex and The City 2.  The movie gets so lost in musical numbers (you read that right), stilted dialogue, lack of chemistry and corny puns that it makes the 2 and a half hour runtime excruciating.  Yes, you heard me right; this movie is almost 3 hours long.  Who do you think you are, Ben Hur?!?!  Just because you're filmed in the desert doesn't mean you're making an epic!  The movie is a mere shell of what made the show good.  Sure, it was about shallow, empty, materialistic girls who hump their way through season after season, but they also fell in love and developed real problems.  The real problems in this film are covered with such a poorly-made candy coating, it's stupid, not sappy.  Finally, the disastrous job that writer and director Michael Patrick King (Sex and the City, Will & Grace) did trying to make his point about the oppression of Muslim women needs to be addressed.  We all can agree that the way women are treated in the Middle East is barbaric and midlevel, but King actually makes himself look like a moron by offending the entire Muslim religion.  In scenes that are not only a million miles from funny and completely unrealistic, he mocks their culture to the point where it offended ME...and I'm not religious at all.  If the movie took place in Utah and he did the same scenes but involved the Mormons, this film would be protested by half of America.  Bottom line: time to hang up those Manolos, girls.  It's a shame the series has to go out like this...in a pitiful limp of what it used to be.  I had to go home and watch the show again just to get the stink off of me.  The few scenes that I did enjoy were ruined by the rest of the film...oh and also by the cackling, drunk bitches that sat in front of me too.  I had to yell, "Hey!, you're not in your living room, so shut the f**k up and watch the movie!"  It was so "Samantha" of me! Sex and the City 2  (Rated R) Gavin Grade: D
 (4) Comments
Tags :  
Social: , , , , , , , , 

 
Prince of Persia: Sands of Time
by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
This movie is from the team that made the Pirates of the Caribbean and National Treasure movies.  It's based on a video game, which is just like the other two since they were based on a theme park ride and the other is a cheap rip-off of Dan Brown books.  They also have more than that in common; they each sound horrible on paper and are shockingly better than expected.  I never played the video game Prince of Persia but I've been told by some gamer friends that it's really good.  There are several elements that are taken directly from the game, but don't let that worry you because you don't need to know anything about it to enjoy the movie.  Oscar nominee, Jake Gyllenhaal stars as the titular character also known as Dastan and managed to look even gayer than he did in Brokeback Mountain.  Besides sporting an inexplicable faux British accent for an Arabian character, he's very charming and funny as the courageous warrior who must protect a sacred dagger from the clutches of evil with the help of several characters including the ever-so-fun-to-watch, Alred Molina (Spiderman 2, The DaVinci Code) and exotic Gemma Arterton (Quantum of Solace, Clash of the Titans).  He's also pursued by Oscar winner, Ben Kingsley who sporting his "Ghandi" look again but not that attitude.  I wonder if another attribute to making this a good film is the unexpectedness of it actually being a good film.  I'll be honest, I thought this movie was going to be crap.  Nothing about it looked entertaining from the ridiculous look of its star, to the weird CG character made of sand, to the fact that it's based on a video game!  But all of it was!  The production value and CG give the film a great, warm, exciting period look of ancient Iran.  The action sequences, which are as bountiful as the dinner table of a Sultan, are fast, fun and thrilling.  The script is easy to follow, funny and not too stupid...it has to be a little stupid considering it's about a dagger that can turn back time.  To round it all out, director Mike Newell (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Donnie Brasco) brings the whole thing to life with a great pace and exhilarating action scenes.  I guess to sum it up, Prince of Persia is the perfect summer movie.  I don't need a brain to enjoy it, it's flashy, full of attractive people and it goes great with popcorn.  It doesn't have the clever script of National Treasure or lovable characters flawlessly played like Pirates of the Caribbean, but Prince of Persia is worth the price of admission (which I also admire Disney for not coating it in a gross 3D conversion to squeeze more money from us like Clash of the Titans).  In a summer of what looks like some boring-ass films coming out, it's good to see surprises like this and I can only hope for more like it. Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (Rated PG-13) Gavin Grade: A-
 (2) Comments
Tags :  
Social: , , , , , , , , , 

 
Robin Hood
by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
The last time the legend of Robin Hood was released on movie screens it was 1991 and Kevin Costner played him as apparently the only American in medieval England and was surrounded by a fun cast.  The movie was a success and we had ball watching it because we all know the story and enjoyed watching him steal from the rich in Nottingham Forest to give to the poor.  In this version from Oscar-winning director Ridley Scott (Alien, Gladiator) you'll see Russell Crowe star as the titular character and that may be all you'll recognize from the legend we love.  The studio marketed this movie as the true story behind the legend but in reality none of it is.  Historians don't really know anything about the real Robin Hood or even if he existed.  So what writer Brian Helgeland (L.A. Confidential, Mystic River) did was put a character that takes the name Robin Hood and sets him in real historical events.  I highly doubt, for example, that even if Robin Hood was a real person, the Magna Carta was HIS idea.  That's not to say that the he's the only character you'll recognize.  No way!  You have everyone in this like Little John (Kevin Durand), Maid Marion (Cate Blanchett), Friar Tuck (Mark Addy) and The Sheriff of Nottingham (Matthew Macfadyen) even shows up for a meaningless and brief role.  What's confusing is that you have all these familiar characters in a completely different and unfamiliar story.  I personally didn't think that was horrible but I can understand it if lots of people get turned off when they go hoping to see the story they know well and instead get schooled on twelfth century British history.  The good news is that you still have Ridley Scott driving the ship.  The sets, costumes, props and locations all look incredible in Robin Hood, but for a rumored $200 million, it damn well better.  Scott and Crowe have worked together on four movies now and they know how to deliver an exciting product.  Even when Oscar-winner Crowe gets really lazy with his performance and mumbles and stumbles his way through it, like he did in this.  The movie is the most epic medieval action-drama I've seen since Braveheart, but it still comes no where near its scope and caliber.  The battle scenes are well done, as they always are with Scott and the story is adequately compelling enough to get interested to see what happens next.  The performances are bland except from Mark Strong who plays a new character named Godfrey.  Strong, who last impressed me as the baddie in Sherlock Holmes and Kick-Ass, is quickly becoming the quintessential villain and can be scary no matter what accent he dons.  I even thought the new story was fine for the most part, but if Robin Hood runs into too much flogging from the critics, it will be because of that.  Imagine going to see an exciting movie about the Civil War, but all the major characters were from Star Wars.  If a story like that sounds like your cup of tea, then Robin Hood hits the target. Robin Hood (Rated PG-13) Gavin Grade: B
 (1) Comments
Tags :  
Social: , , , , , , , , , , , 

 
Babies
by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
Documentaries rarely do well at the box office.  Sure there is the occasional Michael Moore movie or March of the Penguins, but overall they go by unnoticed and slink away into DVD collections of movie nerds like me.  It's a shame because I really enjoy them and I think they have a lot to say.  It's refreshing when you see real stories with real people who have something unscripted and real to say.  But what happens when the subject and stars of your documentary have nothing to say because they can't talk...yet.  Babies is a French documentary by director Thomas Balmes that just might be able to take flight and be another documentary box office hit if word-of-mouth happens.  Don't be scared by it though, there's not subtitles because there's no dialogue.  I realize that I'm doing a horrible job at selling this movie right now for a majority of moviegoers, but how about I tell you what it's about and then you'll be hooked.  The film follows a year and a half of four different babies from four very different parts of the world; Mongolia, Japan, San Francisco and Namibia.  After watching ten minutes of the movie, you'd pretty much have to be a soulless assh*le to not fall in love with the stars of the movie.  All four grow increasingly adorable and grow before your eyes.  The feeling is one that is totally unique to any movie experience I've ever had.  I found myself feeling much like a parent of these kids on a small scale.  I know I wasn't alone either.  I could hear sniffles from tears when we all heard them say their first words.  The theater laughed at their amusing frustrations over simple tasks.  And we all appalled when we watched them take their triumphant first steps.  It was truly a unique experience to be part of as an audience member.  The film is shot beautifully and Balmes made specific choices that separate it as not just a cheap heartstring-pulling picture but as art.  Namely, he chose to have no narration which makes the film's short runtime of 85 minutes seem a lot longer.  However, I'm glad he decided to do that so it didn't feel like a Discovery Channel special and more like an artistic expression.  He also made the decision to exclude the babies' parents as much as possible.  There are moments that may upset some people though.  For instance, no babies were harmed in the filming of this movie (I'm guessing), but some cultures have very different ways of parenting.  Some clearly have a more hands-off approach and less sanitary lifestyle.  This might turn some people off and make it unenjoyable at times.  I found it interesting given the vast differences that shine through at first but then give way to undeniable maternal similarities that show that continents and cultures can divide us but deep down we're all still human.  I think it's brilliant to have this movie come out on Mother's Day Weekend and would be a perfect film for moms to see together.  The bonds shown between mothers and their babies are touching beyond words.  It also might be a perfect date movie for serious couples because if one is on the fence about starting a family, a simple viewing of Babies will make them craze a lineage faster than you can say "pacifier." Babies (Rated PG) Gavin Grade: A-
 (0) Comments
Tags :  
Social: , , , , , , 

 
Iron Man 2
by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
It's almost hard to believe it's been two years since Iron Man was released.  It had a big budget, but it stared a relative has-been who didn't have any blockbusters going on named Robert Downey Jr. and was directed by John Favreau who was known as being a comedic character actor and the guy who directed Elf.  Little did anybody guess that it would gross over $700 million world-wide, be the biggest movie of that year and shock audiences by making them remember how much fun a superhero movie could be.  Now, it's two years later and they try to recreate that magic with Iron Man 2.  They came real close, but missed.  Here's the problem: it's JUST as good as the first one was, but it doesn't seem like it.  The first one caught us all off guard when more than just comic book nerds were raving about it.  Soon Soccer Moms, Grandparents, little kids and even women in their twenties were not only checking it out; but they were LOVING IT!  So now the stakes are really raised because the expectations are sky-high for the same quality movie.  Downey Jr. still wins the audience over with his charm, charisma and good looks as the suave Tony Stark.  Gwyneth Paltrow returns as his sexy assistant, Pepper Pots.  But besides that, the lead characters are all replaced with new faces.  Scarlett Johansson, Don Cheadle (Crash, the Oceans movies) (who replaced Terrence Howard), Sam Rockwell (Moon, Choke) and Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler, Sin City) show up, all of which have been nominated for awards.  It might have been too many characters though.  The problem with this film is that it's kind of sloppy.  It starts off good, ends great and drags in the middle for about 45 minutes.  That might be due to too many characters on too many storylines.  Usually that can be enjoyed, especially when it's used in a world as rich and dense in detail as the one Marvel Comics created for us.  However, the center of this story turns a fun-filled action movie into a wordy drama that caused a boredom so thick, I could feel it in the theater.  However by the time the movie is over, the ending is so spectacular, you've forgotten how long and dry the wait was for it.  What excites me the most is the return of Agent Coulson, played by Clark Gregg (New Adventures of Old Christine, Choke), and the introduction of Nick Fury, played by Samuel L. Jackson.  Adding them introduces us to a story that drags the movie out, but are crucial to set up what will become a comic book epic film called The Avengers (due out in 2012).  I won't give anything away, but know that there are SEVERAL hints dropped in the movie as to who will be in this film (stay till the end of the credits!!).  I feel bad for Iron Man 2 even though it will make more money than most countries will make in their G.D.P. this year.  The reason why is because there was no way it could have ever been as good as the original.  That was a sucker punch of fun that no one saw coming.  Now when we expect it, we're almost let down by how it didn't knock us out like it used too.  But that's not to say that Iron Man 2 doesn't try its damnedest.  It delivers a fun action movie that's bright, colorful, a little long and the perfect start to what seems like a summer of lackluster films.  Let's just hope the high water mark doesn't come at the very beginning of the season with this. Iron Man 2 (Rated PG-13) Gavin Grade: B+   Click below to hear the interview with Clark Gregg about Iron Man 2 and the forthcoming Avengers movie Clark Gregg 5-7-10
 (1) Comments
Tags :  
Social: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 

 


advertise with us
Recent Blog Posts
Star Trek: Into Darkness
Gavin
May 17
Another Kanye Rant
The Wake Up Call
May 17
Seeing Something Shocking
The Wake Up Call
May 15
Congratulating Cancelled Show
The Wake Up Call
May 14
The Great Gatsby
Gavin
May 11
Ariel Castro's Daughter
The Wake Up Call
May 10
Obsessed With Trolls
The Wake Up Call
May 10
Hero Charles Ramsey Songified
The Wake Up Call
May 8
Categories
Archives