|
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
|
|
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
|
 Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a more fitting title than the team behind this film understands. Â I went to see this on the opening Saturday night at the 7:00 show and the theater was filled with 14 people. Â Could it be that America is so uninterested in originality and something they've never seen before that this movie will become a flop? Â I sure hope not. Â It's hard to describe this film to people who haven't seen it. Â You could say that it's a romantic comedy about hipsters in bands where the actors had to learn Kung Fu to film it. Â Another way could be what a video game about falling in love would look like. Â If any of that sounds slightly appealing to you, then don't walk...run to see this. Â Scott Pilgrim is an awkward, skinny guy in a band who falls in love with a girl. Â So naturally for a role like that the go-to guy is, of course, Michael Cera. Â The guy is still funny but I wonder how long he's gonna ride that "I'm Michael Cera playing Michael Cera" out. Â I also wonder what the perpetually-looking 15-year-old will look like when he's 50. Â Within the first 3 minutes of this movie, director Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) takes you out of reality. Â It's not a sudden jump into the pool though; he eases you into it. Â Trust me, you need to dip your toes into his world first because otherwise people would get up and leave if we suddenly saw how bizarre it will get by the end. Â The "fantasy" that Wright takes us to is treating Scott Pilgrim's romance like a video game. Â And like any good video game it has to have levels and in this case it's defeating his new love, who's played by the stunningly gorgeous Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Live Free or Die Hard, Grindhouse), who has 7 Evil Exes. Â And yes, that even means that when Scott defeats them they turn into coins!! Â Everything about this movie is full throttle - the comedy, the action, the editing, the directing. Â It's hands-down one of the most aggressively creative movies I've seen in the last decade. Â It's based on the graphic novel by Bryan Lee O'Malley but brought to life with the attention to detail that 300 was. Â The only complaint with the film is that it does get a little long in some parts and feels like it forgets it's a comedy. Â But those moments don't last more than five or six minutes and we're right back to the bizarreness. Â It takes me back to my original point though - will this film be seen by the amount of people it deserves to be? Â If my screening is any indication, the answer is no. Â That's really too bad for Scott Pilgrim. Â I don't want to see The World win this battle.
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World  (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: A- |
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
|
 I live my life by only a few rules. Â These rules were passed down to me from generations that came before me and should never be doubted. Â One of those rules is "If Ashton Kutcher is in a movie, there's a really good chance that it's going to be awful." Â It's good to know that that rule continues to be true. Â Valentine's Day was directed by Gary Marshall, who I happen to respect a lot. Â He's given us good movies like Pretty Woman, Frankie and Johnny and The Lottery. Â He's also given us crap like Runaway Bride and The Other Sister. Â Valentine's Day is an example of how a respected man who has lived and operated in Hollywood for the past 40 years can assemble a dream cast of all-stars and still have a movie that ends up in his crap column. Â Besides Kutcher in the movie you also get to see Julia Roberts, Patrick Dempsey, Jennifer Gardner, Kathy Bates, Hector Elizondo, Jessica Biel, Bradley Cooper, Taylor Launter (no, he does not take his shirt off or turn into a wolf) and Jamie Foxx just to name a few. Â (Note to Jamie Foxx: getting a tattoo on your head was probably the worst idea you've ever had. Â We can see it through your hair and I can't buy you in any role now other than the egomaniacal character known as Jamie Foxx.) Â Those are just SOME of the stars in this movie. Â You can't swing a dead cat without hitting one. Â The sad part is that with a cast this impressive you still have a horrible, lousy movie. Â The script was written by three women which is surprising because there's no story. Â It's about one day, Valentine's Day of course, in L.A. and little stories about all these different couples and how they intertwine and interact with each other. Â Imagine a Guy Ritchie movie like Snatch if it was about romantic relationships and didn't suck. Â I'm a fan of the multi-character, interweaving story but if you're gonna do that, don't set it in Los Angeles. Â Now, I've never lived there but after watching this movie I didn't realize that it was as small, intimate and safe as Grover's Corner. Â I didn't realize that there's only one high school and you run into people you know or just met all the time in the course of one day. Â The glaring lack of detail in the story-lines is hilarious! Â (Eric Dane is in it as a Quarterback for an NFL team, yet L.A. has no NFL team...just one example) Â To top it all off, there's nothing NOT predictable and cliche about this movie. Â That's because it's every romantic comedy you've ever seen mashed up in one film and performed with the brevity of Cliff Notes. Â The beautiful part about this movie is that it's going to make an assload of cash just because it's called Valentine's Day and it comes out on Valentine's Day. Â Be warned though: the movie doesn't ooze romanticism or make you feel all mushy. Â It doesn't make you laugh without insulting your intelligence. Â And it doesn't do anything, and I mean NOTHING, to make you feel like going to see Valentine's Day on Valentine's Day was a good idea. Â Chances are if you're someone who really likes to celebrate this holiday with your love, you'll leave the theater wishing you did pretty much anything else instead. Â Save yourself the $20 and over 2 hour runtime (yes, you read that right) and think of another romantic idea for the date. Â You'll be glad you did.
Valentine's Day (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: D-| | | Tags : Social : 107.9, Anne Hathaway, Ashton Kutcher, Bradley Cooper, Eric Dane, Gary Marshall, Gavin, George Lopez, Hector Elizondo, Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Gardner, Jessica Alba, Jessica Biel, Julia Roberts, Kathy Bates, Movie Reviews, Patrick Dempsey, Queen Latifa, Taylor Lautner, Taylor Swift, The End, Topher Grace, valentine's day
|
|
|
| |
|
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 |
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
|
 I'm a little behind in seeing this, but I was given the heads-up that it makes you very hungry. Â I was pressed for time so I had to eat dinner that night at Applebee's before seeing the film. Â Within the first couple shots of the movie you automatically feel like whatever you just ate is inadequate and lacked in flavor by a landslide to what's being made on the screen...in my case it was made even worse by my dinner choice. Â "Julie & Julia" is based on two books, two true stories and mushed together because it probably looked great on paper to do that. Â In my opinion, it wasn't. Â I actually would've been very interested in a movie that was just about Julia Child (Meryl Streep). Â I consider myself a "foodie" but besides that she led a very interesting life, was a pioneer and an inspiration for women who want to bust through glass ceiling. Â The story of Julie Powell (Amy Adams) is not interesting at all. Â She's a woman who was lost in her own life so she started a blog where she wrote about trying to cook all 500+ receipts from Julia Child's famous "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" book in a year. Â According to her, Julia Child and this project saved her life, her marriage and her sanity. Â Unfortunately you don't see any of that in the film. Â It's never fully explained how doing this made her see her life and marriage in a totally new light. Â Although I love Adams as an actress, she shows us one side of the character and never gives it an arch at all. Â To me it seemed that the Producers wanted to do a movie on Julia Child and thought no one would see it unless it had something else to it. Â That might be true for most, but adding the Julie Powell story just made it longer. Â Not to say that it's boring or painful to watch. Â It's not! Â It's cute and light and silly. Â But the movie becomes interesting again when it's back to 1950s France with Julia and her husband Paul. Â Now Paul is played by the awesome, Stanley Tucci. Â It's interesting to see the trailers beforehand full of the forthcoming romantic-comedies that star your usual Sandra Bullocks, Sarah Jessica Parkers, and Matthew McConaugheys because none of those actors share chemistry the way that Streep and Tucci do in this. Â There are scenes in the movie between them that director Nora Ephron capture in one continuous shot because they glide through dialogue in a way that's so natural that you honestly believe these people are in love...of course it helps when you were a couple that was as devoted as The Childs were to each other. Â This movie has many good parts and is enjoyable to see. Â Streep has earned another Oscar nomination as far as I'm concerned and so far is the leading contender. Â But it feels like a meal prepared by Julie Powell and not Julia Child...not nearly as good as it should or could be, but still pretty damn tasty.
Julie & Julia (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: B |
|
| |
|
by Gavin
,
posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
|
 It's rare that a movie comes along that has it all. Usually the acting and the directing is great but the screenplay was a little off. Other times the script is almost perfect and the actors perform to their fullest but the director is uncreative and boring. And occasionally the director does a masterpiece with a flawless script but Julia Roberts is in it. That's not the case with this film; everything lined up perfectly. Director, Marc Webb, has knocked it out of the park with visuals that weren't shoehorned in for no reason but didn't chicken out with generic over-the-shoulder shots either. Not too bad considering this is his first movie and the last thing he did was a Jesse McCartney music video. The acting from stars Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon-Levitt was perfection as they spun a web of chemistry that seemed like genuine love. Not too bad considering she did "The Happening" and he's the kid from "3rd Rock from the Sun." Too top it all off the script was written by two guys who made a romance movie that was funny, heartbreaking, and surreal yet painfully real. Not too bad considering that they also wrote "Pink Panther 2." It's as if fate wanted all these non-impressive people to come together to create this perfect romantic comedy...ironic given the plot of the movie. What makes me love this film so much was that it didn't set up the unreachable expectations that every other romance movie does. There aren't the sweeping romantic scenes on a hilltop or under a waterfall. There's no passionate kissing in the rain. There isn't even the impossibly romantic chance meetings or elaborate dates. It's two people and what happens to them in this relationship...in all its painfully plain highs and lows. It's so refreshing to see a romantic film that speaks to us instead of at us. Think about it. Most romance movies make you think "wouldn't that be SO romantic" or "I wish someone would do that to me" or "they're so lucky." Now imagine watching a romantic movie that makes you think "that's happened to me" and "I know EXACTLY how that feels." And while you're thinking that you bounce back and forth from having your gut shake with laughter and your eyes well with tears. I know it's a little early in the season and it's rare that movies like this pull it out, but I would say that this should be a serious contender for the Oscar for "Best Picture." If "Annie Hall" could do it, then I see no reason this couldn't. At the very least it deserves an award for being the first film to perfectly capture what it feels like to have sex with the biggest crush of your life for the first time. I know that's not an Oscar category but I'm sure it's an MTV Movie Award one, right?
(500) Days of Summer (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: A+ |
|
| |
|
