Gavin Grades The Movies |
|
|
by Gavin
,
posted May 18 2013 12:00AM
|
 In life, you're one of two people; a Star Trek or Star Wars person. I fall firmly into the Star Wars category since it just appleaed to my child mind more growing up. To date, I have only seen two Star Trek films and zero episodes of any of the show's variations. However, director JJ Abrams ( Super 8, ABC's Lost) has done something that I never thought anyone could do; he's made Star Trek movies that appeal to both Trekkies and those of us who've had sex. What raises the stakes this second time around with him in the captain's chair is the news that he will also be taking over the Star Wars series for Disney in two years. So this was like a small audition for what he'll do with a franchise I hold dear.
The Abrams Star Trek films are prequels and show what happened prior to the series starting. According to my friend Dave, who is such a Trekkie he showed up in uniform to the screening, Into Darkness brings us up to the point where the TV show starts. The story follows the crew of the USS Enterprise hunting a terrorist and avenging the death of a friend. The thickness of the plot comes from who the mysterious terrorist is and what his motives are. He's played by Benedict Cumberbatch ( Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, War Horse), who has a name that already makes him sound like a Bond villain. Make no mistake, he is at the top of a very long list of reasons to see this movies. His performance is menacing, sympathetic and exciting. Learn that name because you're gonna be hearing it a helluva lot after this.
The rest of those reasons on the list are also stellar. The cast is all the same as the first one and features Chris Pine ( This Means War, Bottleshock), Zachary Quinto (NBC's Heroes, FX's American Horror Story), and Simon Pegg ( Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) just to name a few. Everyone in the film carries their weight but the relationship between Kirk and Spock is explored deeply and even moves the least of the Trekkies among us. That could only have been achieved with a script that fires on all cylinders. Not for a second does the tone stay long enough to over stay its welcome.
Into Darkness is almost two-and-a-half hours long and feels as long as an episode of the TV show. The action begins from the opening scene and is simply relentless after that. Now, some movies that jam that much action into a film usually do it as a crutch to make up for a weak script and shallow characters. That is not the case with Into Darkness. This is a rich story that's less complicated than the first Abram's Star Trek and twice as enjoyable. Everything about it equals entertainment and none of it lags at all.
Of course there is the JJ Abram's trademark lens flares that fly across the screen with dazziling color and distract every single time. There's also brief moments of eye rolling with blatant pandering to Trekkie fans. There's also moments of melodrama that I can't get into without major spoilers that feel slightly tired and on-the-nose. But all these hiccups are minor at best and never once distract or derail from the awesomeness that is Into Darkness. I recommend seeing it on an IMAX screen like the Esquire downtown since it's a movie-going expiereince that a home theater will never reproduce. More refreshing than seeing a great film like this though is the knowledge that it's obvious that the Star Wars franchise is in good hands.
Star Trek: Into Darkness (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: A+
|
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted May 11 2013 11:56AM
|
 The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitsgerald is a book that I didn't appreciate when I had to read it in high school. I didn't read it again in college when I had it assigned and still got a respectable "B" on the paper. I didn't really appreciate how amazing it is until I met my wife. She's a high school English teacher with a degree in English. She's reads hundreds of books and The Great Gatsby is her favorite of them all; her passion through conversations we've had about it has infected me and made the book one of my favorites as well. Excitement was high for seeing the latest attempt to make this into a feature film and after it was over our emotions were unexpected but disapointed wasn't one of them.
Director Baz Luhrmann kicked his career off with a bang with 1992's Strictly Ballroom. No one saw it back then but when he made Romeo + Juliet in '96, everyone was so impressed with his aggressive, modern take on the classic by Shakespeare, that they went back to see Ballroom and were equally as blown away. Then he made Moulin Rogue which was a combination of the two previous films and it instantly became a cult classic and a commanding film. But the elusive Luhrmann must be sensitive to criticism since his next film, Australia, was a box office and critical failure in every way. That was five years ago and since then he's done nothing but short art films that no one sees. The Great Gatsby is his hopeful big comeback but you can tell while watching it that he's gun shy.
If there's one thing that can be said about the film it's that it has a flawless cast. Leonardo DiCaprio is Gatsby, Tobey Maguire is Nick, Carey Mulligan (Drive, An Education) is looking as gorgeous as ever as Daisy and Joel Egerton (Warrior, The Thing) is totally hatable as Tom. Everyone showed up to the set to play ball and they all do. It's also not the subject material that the script is based on that holds the film back either. One of the most enjoyable things about it is that the narration is taken right from the pages of the book and Fitzgerald's poetry is read very well by Maguire. It's Luhrmann who holds this film back.
When Luhrmann creates a scene that is beautiful chaos and a party that visually can cause seizures, he's at his best. When there are scenes where simply dialogue must be given without all the frenzy to distract, he really seems to suffer in Gatsby. The film is 143 minutes long and it feels every second of it, which surprised me. It's not like The Great Gatsby is full of action but it's also not a slow book either. Luhrmann's pacing once the exaggerated celebrations are over slows down to a sluggish crawl. Hopefully you're into the story and characters enough by then that you stay with it.
Another choice that Luhrmann made that seems to be what everyone is talking about is Hip Hop being used in the soundtrack. I can assure you that it's not gratuitous and I think it suits the film perfectly. These characters were filthy rich, some of them criminal, people that threw extravagant parties attended by thousands of people at indescribally giant mansions in the 1920s. If that's not a perfect parable for the Hip Hop culture, I don't know what is. It feels completely rational to use that music and sparingly is exactly how it's used.
The Great Gatsby is a film about the heart of the American Dream; how it's corrupt and a lie and appreciating the beauty in that. There have been many attempts to make it into a movie but I think this is the only one that captures the true feelings of living that culture at that time as well as the core emotions you feel when reading the book. It's not perfect but I think that's understandable since making it flawless would be impossible. Fans of the book will notice some of their favorite parts missing but that's to be expected for any book-to-film translation. It's a project that was handled with passion and precision by a director who may not have been ready to get back behind the wheel of that by yellow car just yet.
The Great Gatsby (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: B+ |
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted May 3 2013 12:22AM
|
 It's perfect that the man who is Iron Man in the Iron Man movies is Robert Downey Jr. I can't think of anyone more symbolic to play a playboy who's the son of someone famous who's ego and arrogance get dimished after an incident that makes him humbled and realizing he's capable of doing more. It's like he was destined to play the role considering that's the exact the same story of Downey's life. And now, if rumors are true that we're faced with the final Iron Man film, it's suiting that it goes out with the best of the series.
When I heard that John Favreau (Swingers, Rudy) was stepping down as Director, I was pretty concerned. I was even more so when I found out he was replaced by Shane Black. He's a guy who's been a fixture in Hollywood for a while but as a screenwriter, most notably as the guy who wrote the Lethal Weapon movies. But aside from Iron Man 3, he only directed one other film and that was the 2005 movie Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (also starring Robert Downey Jr.). It's a really underated and awesome film but it was stripped down, low budget and mostly a character piece masked as an action. Would Black be able to translate his inexpierence and character driven style to a major Summer blockbuster like this? Boy, did he ever!
Some people who go see Iron Man 3 will be disapointed in the lack of action. There are really only two scenes and one barely features Tony Stark in the Iron Man suit; in fact most of the film lacks him in the suit. But what's excellent about the film is that it is very much a character-driven story. Lots of time is spent developing the relationship between Stark and his wife, Pepper Potts, played by the always irritating Gwyneth Paltrow. He also allows the film to get fairly dark, exploring how what happened in last summer's The Avengers, has caused Stark to dwell in anxiety, panic attacks and depression. But just as soon as the film feels it's a little too dark, Black gets us right back out of it with some of the trademark Downey Jr. wit that rattles off the screen like a machine gun.
But my favorite part of the film is what they decided to do with the villain known as The Mandarin. Now anyone who even vaguely knows the Iron Man comics knows that this is THE bad guy for him. He's essentially The Joker to Batman. He has a rich mythology attached to him and a specific biography. He's played chillingly by Sir Ben Kingsley (Ghandi, Sexy Beast) in one of the best performances of his career. I can't say too much about this without ruining a major plot point but let's just say they take the character of The Mandarin in a dramatic new direction that is absolutely brilliant. It was bold and ballsy to do that considering how hard fanboys can be on accuracy and I can say that it's one of the reasons why this is the best in the series.
All this praise isn't to say the movie isn't without flaws. There's a sequence involving a little boy that feels incredibly out of place and pointless. It seems as if some Hollywood Producer got his meddling mits on the film and said, "it's good but it either needs a cute kid or a dog or both." Not that the scenes aren't entertaining and funny but it drags on too long and starts to make the 130 minutes feel a lot longer. The lack of action and seeing Tony in the Iron Man suit is also a slight sticking point. I appreciate what they did but that doesn't excuse the fact that when people show up for Iron Man 3 it's not unresonable to expect that they see a lot of Iron Man in it!
The film is everywhere including the Esquire IMAX Theater downtown and, despite the absence of lots of action, the climax is as epic as anything you've seen in the series and the 3D makes it even better. It's also the funniest of the three movies, which is no easy feat to hang your helmet on. I hope to see what Black could do with another Iron Man film but to be perfectly honest, if the rumors are true, this is a perfect way to end the franchise.
Iron Man 3 (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: A
Listen to Gavin's interview with actor William Sadler (Shawshank Redemption, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) who plays the President in Iron Man 3:
|
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Apr 30 2013 1:34PM
|
|
Listen to the interview with actor / producer Jason Mewes (Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back, Clerks):
|
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Apr 27 2013 11:43AM
|
 Director Michael Bay has a bad reputation. He's infamous for being a douchbag, a bully, a hack and even an asshole. His movies are despised by a large percentage of movie hounds because they're everything Hollywood has become in that they never care about substance and as long as things keep moving, blow up, show hot girls and have big A-list casts; people will show up and slap down money for it. I won't deny any of that for a second but I'll fully admit that I still kind of like the guy. But Pain and Gain is one of his worst.
The movie is based on the true story about three muclehead gym rats that get the idea to kidnap a rich client, torture him till he signs over all his money and then live the high life. Things don't go according to plan and people end up dying. The three murders are played by Mark Walburg, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and Anthony Mackie ( The Hurt Locker, Real Steel). The rest of the cast some impressive talent in Tony Shaloub ( Men in Black, Cars), Ed Harris ( The Rock, Pollock) and Rob Corddry ( Hot Tub Time Machine, Warm Bodies) but all that supporting talent isn't enough to over shaddow how base and shallow this film is.
They market it as a true story and even stop in a clever and funny way to remind you this is a true story but the truth is that it's what happened but not how. This is a murder case where two people died and a third was tortured and the "heroes" of this film are serving out their sentences on death row. These were not good guys and the families of the victims are suing the film for portraying them as fun-loving dudes. Knowing that before seeing the film may have tainted my impression but I still think that would have lingered in my mind. True quirky murder stories make for great films but they should never be made at the expense of the victims. Fargo is a great example of how it can be done perfectly, which is why it won Best Picture. Pain and Gain was made with zero reguard for anyone's actual feelings.
Johnson has been in a ton of movies and I'm not sure I've enjoyed any of them outside of The Other Guys and Get Smart...probably because he dies early on in each one. I have nothing against him; he's a throwback to the 'roided-up leading men of the '80s that were larger than life, had limited acting range but looked good holding a gun. Pain and Gain was the first time I've been really impressed with his acting skills though. He plays a born again Jesus freak who still struggles with his demons and he plays him earnestly and still manages to be really funny. Walburg on the other hand has worn out his welcome with me. After seeing this I'm pretty sure his range consists of talking fast, yelling and being Mark Walburg. This is some of the most base performing he's done with his career and it makes you realize that it's all been base for quite some time.
You know, Bay may be a douchebag who swung hard with Pain and Gain but struck out, but I still wouldn't write him off as a director. I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the Bad Boys films, The Rock, the first Transformers and even Armageddon. But the man is no flawless genius and this proves it. This was a film made to be slick and flashy but instead comes across cold, detached, unfeeling and mostly just stupid. Maybe at his core that's what Michael Bay is really like, if you listen to the rumors that are out there. Supposedly they're based on true stories too but told with zero reguard for the victim (him) so he should know how that feels.
Pain and Gaivn (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: D+
|
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Apr 19 2013 5:04PM
|
 Director Joseph Kosinski is a lucky man. He came out of nowhere, complete obscurity; and for his first attempt at directing he was given the highly anticipated Tron: Legacy by Disney. That was a success and had a decent budget. For his second attempt, he teams up with Tom Cruise who helps produce and star in Oblivion with a budget considerably bigger than Tron. Now it's easy to say right there that that makes him lucky but what trumps that is that Oblivion is based on a graph novel that HE wrote! Only one other time has the author of a graphic novel been allowed to direct the film version of it and that was Frank Miller with Sin City and he didn't even really get to direct (giving him the credit was a nod from the real director, Robert Rodriguez).
Oblivion follows Cruise as he oversees and fixes the giant equipment that is used to suck all the water out of Earth after the last of the remaining humans have left to live in Saturn's moon after a war with aliens destroyed our home planet. But as things become obvious from almost the opening credits, all is not what it appears to be. Make no mistake that this is some heavy Science-Fiction and will alienate (no pun intended) some of you. But those of us that enjoy a little Sci-Fi will feel right at home.
The reason for getting so comfy is Oblivion is because virtually nothing in this film is original. You can tell that Kosinski is a fan of the genre because Oblivion steals or pays homage (depends on how generous you want to be) to several of Sci-Fi's greatest. You'll quickly recognize themes or imagery that invoke 2001, Wall-E, Moon, The Matrix, Planet of the Apes, Star Wars, Mad Max...the list can go on and on. The fact that there are so many allusions makes me think that it is intentional but if you want to be harsh, you can scream at the screen that it's all hack material.
Regardless of how you feel, Oblivion is a gorgeous film. Although there are FX in almost every shot, it doesn't feel like a film made entirely in a computer. The scenes on Earth seem like actual locations that you vaguely recognize and what has destroyed them seems very logical. When you add to that a marvelously composed score of synth pop, sharp details in design and some of the best audio FX I've heard in a while, it makes you realize this is a film that is to be expierenced. (But maybe that was just because I saw it at the Esquire IMAX Theater...which I highly recommend.)
Be warned though that this is a film that doesn't come together until the final 20 minutes. Prior to that it meanders and confuses with plot points that come up and are not explained nor logical. However, when the final act begins it is and although the big "twist" you see coming for miles, it's satisfying and makes Oblivion a film that probably watches much better on a second viewing.
Cruise is great, which he usually is, and is a treat to see in Sci-Fi again. Say what you will about him on a personal level, the guy is a consistent performer who is intense and present, although everything he's done, for the most part, has been the same role. Morgan Freeman shows up in a small and silly role and Oscar-winner Melissa Leo gives a warmly sinister performance that is no surprise but easy to enjoy.
I fully plan on watching Oblivion again since it's a film I didn't really enjoy until it was almost over. Movies like that are fun for me because the ending is so good that a second viewing feels like I'm watching it for the first time. The Usual Suspects was like that for me. Now, Oblivion doesn't have an ending as shocking or goosebump-enducing as that but it's good enough to make me think and spark conversation afterward; and that's rare for movies now it seems.
Oblivion (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: B
|
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Apr 12 2013 12:06PM
|
|
Listen to Gavin's interview with director Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire, 28 Days Later):
|
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Apr 5 2013 4:56PM
|
 When I was 18-years-old, my best friend Joe told us about this horror movie he watched that scared the hell out of him and insisted that we all watch it. So he got a copy, we assembled all our movie nerd friends and watched it at my dad's apartment. The movie was the original 1981 Evil Dead starring Bruce Campbell (Spiderman, Burn Notice). The movie was far from scary; hell, it wasn't even good but it was crazy and spastic and poorly funded but excellently shot and we had an absolute blast watching it. Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness, which is the third in the series, quickly clawed their way to the top of my favorite horror films. So when I heard they were going to do a remake of it, I joined the legions of furious fanboys who cried for the heads of those responsible.
As it turns out, those responsible were the people behind the originals, namely Campbell and director Sam Raimi (Oz the Great and Powerful, the Spiderman series). That lended a considerable amount of credence to the project. What really sold me on it though was when I heard they weren't going to try to recapture the silly campiness but instead go balls-to-the-wall and make a legit horror film. After that, the marketing for it sealed the deal; when I saw the disturbing trailer and a poster that made the boldest statement ever ("The most terrifying movie ever made!") I was saturated in interest.
This new reimagining of Evil Dead is an absolute masterpiece of horror. What director Fede Alvarez did was amazing, which is way impressive considering it's his first feature film. He managed to pay total homage to everything you hold dear about the originals and still manage to create a unique experience. This is every bit its own film and deserves to be hailed as possibly the best horror film remake in history (Alexandre Aja's The Hills Have Eyes is a close #2 though).
Make no mistake that this is a horror film that has the sole intention of scaring and disturbing you with an assault of relentless gore and macabre imagery. Once this rollercoaster clears the first hill it doesn't stop for the remaining 70 minutes. And every single bit from the originals that you loved so much is present and not even one of them feels cheesy or stupid. It is the only kind of film that could've been made for fans by fans. That's not to say people who have never seen the original can't enjoy it; you certainly can. But be warned that this movie was made ONLY for people with strong stomachs and an affinity for the horror genre, which I can't imagine anyone who hasn't seen the originals is.
I do have to admit that some of the casting is a little weak and considering it's a cast of only five people, if one person sucks that's 20% of the cast. But I'd imagine it was difficult to find young, attractive actors that would be willing to do the physical torture involved in shooting Evil Dead since everything is done without the use of computers, like true horror should be. Taking over the lead role is a woman named Jane Levy (HBO's Shameless, ABC's Suburgatory) and she's pretty good. At times she feels forced but considering the ridiculous over acting Bruce Campbell gave us, she seems subdued.
I couldn't recommend people see Evil Dead more. Well, let me clarify; I don't think that everyone should see it because it's probably the most graphic horror film to come out in the last five years (It had to be cut to earn an R-rating). But if you're someone who likes to have bloody fun at the theater, where you're encouraged to scream at the screen and can find the fun in the violence? Then Evil Dead is the orgasmic nut-punch you've been looking for...but try to watch the originals first.
Evil Dead (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: A
WANNA WIN A LIMITED EDITION EVIL DEAD SHIRT?! TEXT "GROOVY" TO 73389 TO WIN!! |
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Mar 29 2013 5:32PM
|
 Channing Tatum has had a really good year. He bolstered his female fan base with Magic Mike, proved he can be funny as hell and earned a fan base among men with 21 Jump Street and even got respect from stuck-up critics with his work in serious films like Side Effects. So why would he sign on to do a sequel to a movie of his that nobody liked, not even hardcore fans of the G.I. Joe show and toys? The answer to that is because he barely does. This is not a Channing Tatum movie, despite being one of the largest people on the poster and controling half the shots of all the trailers. But that's a good thing.
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra came out in 2009 and it was a terrible failure in almost every way and THE black eye in Joseph Gordon-Levitt's career. But Hollywood is as greedy as Wall Street and if they think they can get bank out of a franchise, then goddamnit, they're gonna do it. But how do you get people to show up for a sequel when they hated the first one so much? You relaunch the franchise with a re-imagining. But doing a relaunch just four years later looks desperate. So what G.I. Joe: Retaliation does is both; it is a sequel and relaunch and they accomplish that by killing off everyone from the first one within the first ten minutes. That's right, Duke is dead and Roadblock, played by Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is the new face of G.I. Joe (which is silly to those of us that grew up on it).
I give this movie some credit for doing that because it's ballsy and not easily pulled off. However, they didn't really succeed in making it a whole lot better. Even by bringing a slick new director in Jon Chu, who only has expierence directing movies with dancing in them like the Step-Up series and Justin Bieber's documentary, they still couldn't shake off the vibe that it's a pretty stupid movie. In full disclosure, I'm not sure why that bothers me so much considereing that the premise for the cartoon and toys was stupid. This movie has a plot not that much more thought out than those featured on the show in the '80s and a moronic script to match.
That's not to say the movie is a total loss. The Rock is a decent leading man as long as this is the kind of movie he quarentines himself in. The man is so large now that he looks like he could die at any second from an exploded heart, but that's how we like our action stars. He's a throwback to the squared jaw, biceps bigger than a human head star of the '80s action flicks that were stupid, bloated and fun...and that's exactly what G.I. Joe: Retaliation is. If I was a 10-year-old again, I'd proably enjoy it like I did those.
The best part of this film is Jonathon Price (Brazil, the Pirates of the Carribbean films), who returns as The President and seems like he has a blast playing two roles. Bruce Willis pops his head in for a small role that's also silly and fun as well. Do you have to see the original to enjoy this one? Not really. The studio knew that since hoping people would come back to find out how that cliffhanger ending turned out was a long shot. Not really sure who this movie will appeal to outside of the boys and fathers of boys who want to have as close to "family fun" as you can while watching copious amounts of people dying, but I guess we'll find out.
G.I. Joe: Retaliation (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: C- |
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Mar 24 2013 12:21AM
|
 Funny thing about advertising is that it's a necessary evil. On one hand, you need it desperately to tell people you exist, especially in a movie season that pumps almost 100 films out in three months, and on the other hand, it can make people think your movie sucks. The Croods is an animated movie about cavemen starring Nicolas Cage...what about that would possibly make anyone want to see it? Add in shotty advertising that made me think this was another forgetable family cartoon that should've gone strait-to-video and you've got a problem. Well, I'm here to tell you that there's lots of reasons to see this and the advertising doesn't do it justice.
This was a collaborative directing effort from two guys. One is named Kirk De Micco who has done nothing but crap like Space Chimps and Racing Stripes, but the other is Chris Sanders who is a former Disney guy who directed the amazing How to Train Your Dragon and worked on The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast. Cleary, you can see the difference in pedigree. What transpires in The Croods are stark contrasts between who did what and the parts that don't work really don't work and the parts that do are great!
If you can look past Nicolas Cage, who sucks even when you don't see him, you have a great and talented cast around him. Ryan Reynolds, Emma Stone, 87-year-old Cloris Leachman (Young Frankenstein, ABC's Dancing with the Stars) and Clarke Duke (NBC's The Office, Hot Tub Time Machine) all star and all shine as very gifted voice talents. The script is written well enough so that all characters are comedic and the only one that is purely scenery is Catherine Keener's (Where the Wild Things Are, 40-Year-Old Virgin), who sadly is the mother and plays no important role whatsoever.
Most animated films are 3D just because it's easy to make them that way and ticket prices are much higher becaues of it, but Sanders proves he knows how to really utlize it with How to Train Your Dragon and dazzles us again with The Croods. The depth perception used in the 3D makes the plentiful action sequences well executed to the best of their ability and hightens the excitement. Judging the animation is not really something I'm expierenced enough to talk about but some areas seem rough while others seem way advanced.
The story of a father's compulsive need to protect his family and deal with his daugter falling in love with a boy seems downright...well...Stone Age and that's the downside of The Croods; there's nothing original. But if it ain't broke, don't fix it, right? It's for kids. It's effective. It's fun and shockingly emotional (but maybe that's just because I'm new to this whole fatherhood thing). I know 3D is pricey and bringing the family can add up to the downpayment of a car, but The Croods is worth it for a night that everyone can enjoy.
The Croods (Rated PG)
Gavin Grade: A-
| | | Tags : Topics : Entertainment_Culture, Human InterestSocial : Entertainment_CulturePeople : Catherine Keener, Chris Sanders, Clarke Duke, Cloris Leachman, Emma Stone, Gavin Grade, Kirk De Micco, Nicolas Cage, Old Virgin, Ryan Reynolds
|
|
|
| |
|
