Gavin Grades The Movies |
|
|
| Posts from November 2010 |
127 Hours
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
|
 You may or may not remember hearing about this true story a few years ago. 127 Hours is about Aron Ralston, who was a young adventurer who was hiking in Utah and got his hand trapped between a canyon wall and a giant rock. He was trapped there for (you guessed it) 127 hours until he decided to save himself by cutting his own arm off with a dull, rusty pocket knife and hiked back out of the desert. That's not a spoiler alert because if you're going to see this movie, you pretty much know what's going to happen. In fact, if you don't know that I'm glad I told you because it's intense. I heard someone say that, "to say 127 Hours isn't about the arm cutting scene is like saying Jaws isn't about the shark." That's true but only to an extent. Oscar-winning director Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire, 28 Days Later) takes us on a journey so harrowing and awful that the only reason why it's watchable is because you know Aron survived. Again, not a spoiler because it says in the opening credits the movie is based on his book. From the second the boulder crushes his hand and he realizes he's trapped in that canyon, it's nothing but a film about claustrophia and helplessness. But there are two elements of the film that prevent it from getting boring. One is Boyle's unique style of aggressive filmmaking. His films feel like what Oliver Stone's used too. However, in 127 Hours it does feel unnecessary at times to have such jumpy editing and trippy, out-of-focus shots. The other is star James Franco (Milk, Pinneapple Express) giving the best performance of his career so far. If The Academy overlooks him for Best Actor, the entire awards should be ashamed. Franco brings so much energy, humor and heartbreak to a one-man tour-de-force that you ARE trapped down there with him. But you're not gonna get through the movie without a little blood on you because you have to make it through the arm-cutting scene. I'm a fan of horror movies and have seen my share of gore, but this was different. Boyle's directing makes that scene seem like a music video in the way that it's a solid 3-4 minutes that has odd angles, quick edits and strange music. It doesn't dwell on the gruesomeness but in a way that makes it more disturbing. But it's not just a splatter scene...it's art. Yes, this scene is almost impossible to watch but it's brimming with emotion. When I saw The Passion of The Christ by Mel Gibson, I cried during the crucifixtion scene. Not because I'm a Christian but because, as a fellow human being, it was so sad to know someone had to endure that much suffering. The arm-cutting scene in 127 Hours had the exact same effect on me and I wept while I cringed. The movie is about hope, not pain. It made me feel the way that Sean Penn's Into the Wild did, except this one is happier because Aron lived and Chris didn't. This film will make you appreciate your freedom, appreciate your family and appreciate your limbs. It's going to leave a stamp on your heart and soul, even if you want to get up and leave at some points.
127 Hours (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: A
|
|
| |
Tangled
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
|
 When The Princess and The Frog came out last year, there was a trailer for this movie before it and it almost appeared that Disney was going to keep this classic 2D animation of the classic fairytale musical stories going. You know, like The Little Mermaid, The Lion King, Aladdin and Beauty and The Beast. I thought The Princess and The Frog was marvelous and just as worthy to stand among those other Disney classics. But then I saw that Tangled was going to be computer animated and...even worse...released in 3D! I wrote this film off as another crappy Disney movie that could've been released by any other studio before I even saw it. I was wrong. I enjoyed this movie SO MUCH more than I thought I would. First off, the computer animation is made to look (almost in tribute too) the 2D animation. Second, the 3D effects are fun but not too gimicky to make me think I'm in an amusement park. But most importantly, this is a classic Disney movie in every sense. It's a musical with great songs. It's fun and colorful. It has a hilarious script and is directed well by a team of guys who worked on Bolt, which was far from traditional Disney. It follows the formula for a successful Disney film to the finest point: a princess who's in trouble but is still tough, a charming hero that doesn't like her at first, talking (or not talking) animal friends that steal the show with their human emotions, an evil villain that has one, clear goal, unlikely friends the two main characters meet along the way, love that comes from their shared expierence and songs, action and comedy to wrap it all up. Put it all in the pot, bring it to a slow boil and you've got a successful Disney film. Sure they're all the same but remember that the target audience is children; the more you can keep it familiar to them, the more they'll dig it. The whole thing is wonderfully acted by the shockingly good team of Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi (ABC's Chuck), who can actually sing pretty well. There are times when you're watching Tangled that you forget that it's computer animated and, for me, that's what really won me over as a fan. I guess I just need to come to terms with the fact that the classic 2D animation might be dead. Although The Princess and The Frog was a critical success, it was considered a box office failure and I suppose that's because kids want to see 2D animation as much as adults want to see Black and White films. But as long as Disney still pays homage to the old school, I can learn to love the new school.
Tangled (Rated PG)
Gavin Grade: A-
|
|
| |
Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows pt 1
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
|
 Here it is! Â The moment we've all been waiting for! Â This marks the beginning of the end. Â Director David Yates, who's taken the helm of the last few Potter films, made an inspired decision during the production of this movie - he went toe-to-toe with the studio and refused to shoot it in 3D. Â Good for you, Yates! Â The Harry Potter movies don't need Hollywood's trendy gimmick-of-the-month to put asses in seats or rake in the dough. Â So why did you decided to split the last Harry Potter book into two films? Â Don't get me wrong; when the Deathly Hallows part 2 comes out and I can watch them back-to-back, I'll be thrilled that they did. Â But to release this as a singular movie doesn't do much for the illiterate portion of the Potter fans that never read the books. Â The movie follows JK Rowling's last novel to an exceptional detail and still comes in at over two hours...yet is one of the shortest Potter films. Â It follows Harry and the kids carrying on with the mission Dumbledore gave them before his death at the end of the last film. Â It also really pushes the limits of that PG-13 rating with some deeply emotional scenes, sexual imagery and violence like we haven't seen in the series yet. Â Yeah, you can tell that this is the last one and it's balls to the wall time! Â I did read the book and found the first half to be almost dull at times. Â Most of it seemed like it was spent trying to figure out how to kill Voldermort while hiding in the woods. Â I'm glad my memory isn't that great or Yates felt the same way I did because the first half of the Deathly Hallows movie is much more entertaining than I was expecting. Â It's funny, it's sad, it's thrilling and totally turns your crank for the next one (which comes out this summer). Â However, it's not complete and that's the problem with the film. Â You can't look at this like the other Potter movies or even part of a saga like Kill Bill or Back to the Future or Star Wars. Â Those are separate installments of a story that have a beginning, a middle and an end. Â Sure they are trending toward a larger story, but each have climaxes within themselves. Â The Deathly Hallows (the book) does as well...and holy crap is it ever a climax! Â But half of it doesn't. Â By the time Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt. 1 comes to an end, you're in tears and you're amped up for more, but you feel unsatisfied because you only got half a movie. Â It really is unfair to review this film at all. Â Everyone involved did a great job. Â Yates is continuing to see how dark and brilliant he can make a Harry Potter movie. Â The acting from everyone is top notch like it always is and the kids (who are now all adults) are giving the best performances yet. Â Even the familiar whimsical score was eerily absent from this film to let us know that this isn't the Harry Potter we were introduced to a decade ago. Â The only reason why this movie doesn't work as well as it should is ONLY because it's an incomplete story. Â So that's what I'm gonna give it...an I. Â I know that's a cop out but until The Deathly Hallows is REALLY complete, which happens in July, we'll just have to make do with this.
Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows part 1 (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: I (but a B+ if I have to give it something)
|
|
| |
The Next Three Days
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
|
 All the advertisements for this movie boasted some of the most vague campaigning I've ever seen for a film. Â All we gather after watching a two and a half minute long trailer for this movie is that it stars Russel Crowe and Liam Neeson and it's about a woman in jail. Â The ironic part is that one of those three tidbits isn't even true. Â Liam Neeson is a one-scene cameo and almost his entire performance is shown in the trailer. Â The Next Three Days is the thriller from Hollywood Sweetheart and Clint Eastwood's BFF, Paul Haggis. Â Haggis started off as a writer in Hollywood and has moved on to directing. Â He's given us Crash, Million Dollar Baby, Flags of Our Fathers, Letters of Iwo Jima, and the two last James Bond movies. Â With the exception of Crash, all are fine films. Â (And yes, I mean that! Â Crash was terrible and I'll fight ya over it!) Â The Next Three Days will be put on Haggis' lame pile. Â The film is about a regular guy who has his wife go to prison for murder. Â He believes she's innocent so he plans to break her out. Â I'll give Haggis credit that it's more original than it seems. Â I couldn't remember a movie in the last decade or so that was about breaking someone out of prison; most are about someone trying to break themselves out and it's a very different story if you're outside the walls. Â From the very beginning though this film is off the tracks. Â Everything in it is glazed over like you're watching the Cliff's Notes version of a good movie. Â Crowe's wife is played by the gorgeous Elizabeth Banks (The 40-Year-Old Virgin, W.) is trying to prove that she's not just a pretty face that does comedy really well and deserves to be considered for more dramatic work. Â Besides those two main roles there are a slue of useless, underutilized characters that are played by pretty good actors; such as Olivia Wilde (Year One, Tron: Legacy), Brian Dennehy (Tommy Boy, Romeo + Juliet), RZA (Wu-Tang Clan), and Daniel Stern (City Slickers) just to name a few. Â They are shells of actual characters that have no backstory, no personality, no purpose and no fuel to keep the story going. Â That's not because they lack the screen time to make it work either because the same goes for Crowe and Banks. Â Everyone in this movie is replaceable with any character from any other thriller and it wouldn't change the story at all. Â And this is only half the problem; the other half is an excruciating first two acts. Â It's so slow and boring and doesn't seem to mind. Â There's no sense of an artful director at the helm that saw this iceberg coming and wanted to speed the ship up to get to the good part. Â And that really is the sad part; the last third of the movie is really good. Â The ending is exciting and suspenseful and deserves an audience, but I'm not sure who could stick around for it. Â The Next Three Days came across a lot like Crash to me; it's a movie that thought so highly of itself that it didn't want anyone to tell it how it could be improved. Â It was so sure it was a masterful movie that it didn't need a test screening or Hollywood dust-up. Â Shame too because it wouldn't have been a total wash because I'd tell them to keep the ending the way it is and reshoot everything else.
The Next Three Days (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: C -| | | Tags : Social: Brian Dennehy, Clint Eastwood, crash, Daniel Sterns, Elizabeth Banks, Gavin, Liam Neeson, Olivia Wilde, Paul Haggis, Russel Crowe, RZA, The Next Three Days
|
|
|
| |
Unstoppable
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
|
 My wife had zero interest in seeing this movie. Â When I told her what it was about she literally said, "What's it about? Â A runaway train? Â Like in modern times? Â How many people are onboard, like 4? Â Boring!" Â Needless to say, she didn't go with me to see it and I brought my friend, Dan, along instead; someone who can appreciate a simplistic action movie like me. Â My wife was pretty wrong about it being boring though...although she was right about the people onboard...that number is actually zero. Â Unstoppable is directed by film veteran Tony Scott, who you probably don't know but I guarantee you know his resume. Â He's one of the godfathers of the modern day action movie. Â If it's simple, over budget and made only so you can chomp down on gobs of popcorn as a nervous reaction to the suspense, then Tony Scott is your man. Â He's given us over the years such films as Top Gun, Enemy of the State, Taking of Pelham 123 and the cult classic True Romance to name a few. Â He teams up again with his muse, Denzel Washington and new to the Scott family is Chris Pine (Star Trek, Bottleshock). Â Both are great and likable as the unlikely heroes that are archetypes of your typical action movie. Â One is young, one is old. Â One is a rookie, the other is a veteran. Â They don't like each other but they make a great team. Â One has a family problem he doesn't want to talk about, the other helps him with it. Â It's a formula that no one likes to deviate from too much because we all like it and it sells lots of tickets. Â It's also easy to write those characters into the "true story" that is Unstoppable. Â Don't get too excited because it's not "based on a true story" it's "inspired" by one. Â What it's actually based on was an unmanned train carrying toxic chemicals traveled 47 miles in 2001 in Ohio. Â But it wasn't a high action adventure and the train never went faster than 45 mph. Â The train in the movie though zips along at 80 mph, it's carrying explosive stuff on it and it's headed straight toward a series of populated towns in Central and Western Pennsylvania (close to where I grew up). Â Adding to the cast of characters is Rosario Dawson (Seven Pounds, Rent, Grindhouse) as the helpful command center worker and Kevin Dunn (Transformers, Lost) as the evil corporate CEO. Â Tony Scott movies are really hit or miss with me. Â He has a style that is very obvious with his pointless zoom-ins, mega quick editing and seizure-inducing handheld shots. Â But for Unstoppable it works pretty well. Â Once you get past the first fifteen minutes of the movie the rest of the action is...well...unstoppable. Â It doesn't get boring for a split second, even though when you think about what you saw afterward, it really isn't a whole lot of anything happening. Â It's an action movie with 90% planning and 10% action but gives you the impression that it's 100% action. Â Not an easy thing to do as a director. Â Never once have I looked forward to seeing a Tony Scott movie, but rarely am I upset that I had to sit through one. Â Unstoppable doesn't break that streak, but it is one of his best I've seen in a while. Â However, spoiler alert, the title is false advertising.
Unstoppable  (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: B
|
|
| |
Morning Glory
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
|
 That JJ Abrams has his hand in everything. Â The mega-Producer/Director has been affectionately adopted by the geek communes of the world for re-imagining Star Trek and giving us Cloverfield, but we also forget that he's the brains behind the show Felicity, that awful NBC show Undercovers and now...gasp...Morning Glory. Â Yeah. Â JJ Abrams is the Producer behind this cookie-cutter romantic comedy staring Rachel McAdams (The Notebook, State of Play), Harrison Ford and Diane Keaton. Â The film is about an ambitious morning TV show producer who gets a shot at the big leagues in New York City and falls in love with Patrick Wilson (Watchmen, Hard Candy) and tries to save a failing show. Â It's nothing new. Â Movies like this are meant to be harmless, fun, cute, colorful and happy; and that's exactly what this is. Â However, one thing it's not is creative or original. Â Shocking that it had hands on it by Abrams who usually delivers creative, if not original, material fairly consistently. Â Granted, he didn't write or direct this. Â That role fell to Director Roger Michell (Notting Hill) and Writer Aline Brosh McKenna (Devil Wears Prada, 27 Dresses). Â See the former movies that those two have created? Â It's no wonder they were selected to do Morning Glory. Â This is more of the same. Â It's predictable, Hollywood carbon copies. Â I know I sound like such a snob right now so I'll let you know that I don't mind that all the time. Â I think Hollywood needs to have the formulas down to continue to make their money. Â That's so they can fund the more original, edgy or risky projects that do get made. Â And I know that all those movies have their purpose. Â Everyone who left the theater after seeing 27 Dresses or Notting Hill felt happy and moderately entertained. Â That's exactly how you'll feel leaving the theater after this. Â It doesn't challenge you or make you feel any real emotion and that's okay, I guess. Â But that's not to say that you won't laugh. Â The movie does have some very funny scenes, especially for the "We're Making Everything Better" montage that comes in the middle of the film like it's plucked right out of the '80s. Â You also get one of the better performances from Harrison Ford in the last decade...of course, we only have a handful to compare too. Â The sublime Jeff Goldblum (The Fly, Jurassic Park) is in this as a totally underused character that doesn't give him a chance to dazzle like he used too. Â Why dust yourself off, Jeff, if you're not gonna give us something to talk about?! Â Diane Keaton surpriese and earns a lot of respect from me for playing a part that I didn't expect from her. Â She really lets her hair down and acts a fool in the film as the opposite to Ford's cranky news veteran. Â McAdams is adequate, as she always is, playing the same kind of part she always does. Â I hope she branches out into something more daring soon or she'll just morph into a likable (and bankable) version of Katherine Heigl. Â So what's the story, Morning Glory? Â It's basically this: If you're looking for a movie that will make you smile, make you laugh and not make you think that you got your money's worth because you get the vague impression you've seen this movie before...then Morning Glory is for you. Â It's essentially ordering the same thing off the menu every time; sure it's a little boring because you've had it so often, but at least you know it's not gross.
Morning Glory (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: B- | | | Tags : Social: Aline Brosh McKenna, Diane Keaton, Gavin, Harrison Ford, Jeff Goldblum, JJ Abrams, Morning Glory, Movie Reviews, Patrick Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Roger Michell
|
|
|
| |
Freakonomics
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
|
 It's been about two years since my mom gave me this book for Christmas. She INSISTED that I would love it. "Really Mom? Because that seems to be a book about economics." But here's the thing, she couldn't have been more right! It's a fantastic book that was written by Journalist Stephen Dubner and Economist Steven Levitt that looks at every day questions that society has wondered and answers them in a purely unbiased way because it's only based on numbers and statistics. Still sounds kind of boring, doesn't it? It's not though; it's very lighthearted, funny and easy to understand. This movie captures the mood and tone of the book perfectly and it's done by incorporating five very talented documentary directors, Morgan Spurlock (Super Size Me), Eugene Jarecki (Why We Fight), Rachel Grady (Jesus Camp), Seth Gordon (The King of Kong), and Alex Gibney (Gonzo, Taxi to the Dark Side). All of the documentaries that these directors have made in the past are some of the best in the last decade and it's almost like Freakonomics was crafted by a dream all-star team of artists. The two authors host the movie and kick the whole film off with their happy-go-lucky, jovial banter. Although some of the topics covered are serious, it's never presented in a manner that is so dry that it bores you. Not to mention the fact that each chapter of the movie only lasts about 10-15 minutes and are polar opposites of each other. The film covers some of the topics such as cheating, does your first name affect your life's success, why is crime lower than it was in the '70s and can kids be bribed to do well in school. The movie is a mere Cliff's Notes version compared to the book (and book's sequel Super Freakonomics...which I hope gets a movie treatment too), but still a very fun and very informative piece of entertainment. By the numbers...this is a winner!
Freakonomics (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: A| | | Tags : Social: Alex Gibney, Eugene Jarecki, Freakonomics, Gavin, Morgan Spurlock, Movie Reviews, Rachel Grady, Seth Gordon, Stephen Dubner, Steven Levitt, Super Freakonomics
|
|
|
| |
Megamind
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
|
 These 3D computer animated movies are a really risky gamble for consumers. Â You have a 50/50 shot at seeing something that's worth your money usually, but when the movie is in 3D and the ticket price could be as much as $15 a person, you damn well better deliver the goods or you're gonna have some really pissed off eyes behind the shaded specs in the theater. Â Megamind stars the voices of Will Ferrel, Brad Pitt, Tina Fey, David Cross (Mr. Show, Arrested Development) and Jonah Hill. Â Yeah, Brad Pitt doesn't really fit in that comedic lineup but he holds his own considering that his role of the heroic Metro Man isn't meant to be all that funny. Â In fact the movie isn't really meant to be anyone's except for Ferrel who plays the titular Megamind, the dastardly villain. Â The movie is from the director who did Madagascar and the production team behind Kung Fu Panda and How to Train Your Dragon. Â The animation is okay and it's full of cheap 3D tricks that are usually reserved for a theme park, but what saves this movie is the fairly original story mixed with the comedic timing of Ferrel and Cross. Â To my knowledge, Will Ferrel hasn't done any voice work prior to this but I hope he makes another go of it because he's terrific at it. Â David Cross plays Minion, who is Megamind's henchman. Â Almost half the scenes in the film are done with those two as the subjects and the jokes are subtle and quick. Â The animation aids the comedy at times but also stifles it by being...well, animated. Â There are some animated movies that are so funny that I consider them some of the best comedies of the year they came out; such as the original Shrek, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Aladdin to name a few. Â But, and perhaps it's the lack of inner child in me, I can't ever enjoy a comedic cartoon as fully as I would if it was life action because of that. Â So in that respect, when an animated movie makes me laugh pretty hard, I feel it deserves the respect that its earned. Â However with Megamind, the scenes that don't involve those two are still fun, but just barely. Â Tina Fey is a very funny actress but she's given no funny scenes. Â Jonah Hill plays his usual fat doofus and stretches his thin threads of comedy to the breaking point. Â And Brad Pitt seems kind of out of place in this and rather luke warm in the role. Â The story is relatively good, playing off the lore of Superman and borrowing from other superhero stories. Â But it's nothing that will blow your socks off. Â Your kids will like it and you'll love half the film and like the other half. Â Let me know when Megamind the live action, PG-13 version comes out and I'm sure I'll fully love it then.
Megamind (Rated PG)
Gavin Grade: B-
|
|
| |
|
