Nathan Fillion is so much fun to watch on screen. Anyone who saw and liked Firefly knew this. You could see the gentle character in there, the one who was destined for the romantic comedy. He had his moments in an otherwise lifeless film Slither but really shines in Waitress. Keri Russell also seemed destined for romantic comedy, despite a misguided turn in Mission: Impossible 3. And to see both Fillion and Russell in this film is a delight. It is also a delight that this film isn't your standard cookie cutter romantic comedy.
The film follows Jenna (Russell), a waitress at a diner with a knack for making pies and recently pregnant although she isn't happy about that. She is married to a jerk of a husband and has solace only in her pie making and her two eccentric friends and fellow workers (Cheryl Hines and late director Adrienne Shelly). She soon connects with her new doctor (Fillion) and also in there is Andy Griffith as the diner owner who is often cantankerous. This was a really enjoyable movie with a heartwarming resolution. It is well acted and just generally put a smile on my face.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Pirates 3
Even as I write this I can't decide if I liked Pirates 3 because it was good or because the second installment was so horrible that by comparison this one didn't bother me much. Although I suspect, the latter is the case. The third Pirates movie is now out and although I hated virulently the second film we can't forget I'm an idiot and a glutton for punishment. These are the reasons I see ever crappy Jack Black film and force myself into the theater when Michael Bay puts out his most recent schlock. So of course I bellied up to the box office and purchased my ticket just like everyone else.
The movie picks up where the second left off. Captain Jack (Johnny Depp) is dead, Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) has been brought back to life and with Elisabeth (Keira Knightly) and Will (Orlando Bloom) has set out to bring him back. They head to Singapore to meet a pirate there played by Chow Yun-Fat and get some special maps. And of course still to be dealt with are Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) and Lord Becket (Tom Hollander) the resident villains.
When it comes to Jack Sparrow, I've come to believe less is more. I'm sure at least one person I know would disagree with that but the more you see him the more his camp becomes tiresome. Now this movie had long been rumored to have a cameo by Keith Richards, the professed model for Depp's performance. Is the scene good? Well its mildly amusing, I laughed out loud when he came on screen (the only one in the theater who laughed)
The movie actually had a surprise I was not really expecting but was glad the director had the guts to do however tempered it ended up being in the end. Of course the film leaves open the possibility for a sequel, so expect one if the film does well. But in the end I think I liked this film, sort of. If you are curious, stay til the end of the credits for a sappy concluding note.
The movie picks up where the second left off. Captain Jack (Johnny Depp) is dead, Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) has been brought back to life and with Elisabeth (Keira Knightly) and Will (Orlando Bloom) has set out to bring him back. They head to Singapore to meet a pirate there played by Chow Yun-Fat and get some special maps. And of course still to be dealt with are Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) and Lord Becket (Tom Hollander) the resident villains.
When it comes to Jack Sparrow, I've come to believe less is more. I'm sure at least one person I know would disagree with that but the more you see him the more his camp becomes tiresome. Now this movie had long been rumored to have a cameo by Keith Richards, the professed model for Depp's performance. Is the scene good? Well its mildly amusing, I laughed out loud when he came on screen (the only one in the theater who laughed)
The movie actually had a surprise I was not really expecting but was glad the director had the guts to do however tempered it ended up being in the end. Of course the film leaves open the possibility for a sequel, so expect one if the film does well. But in the end I think I liked this film, sort of. If you are curious, stay til the end of the credits for a sappy concluding note.
Shrek The Third
I find most animated films tedious. They play for the children and if one is lucky you might get a shout out to the adults in the crowd. This was why the original Shrek was a bit better than the average. It had numerous adult centered jokes going. It wasn't fantastic but it had some truly funny moments. Shrek 2 was a painful reminder of why Hollywood really will exploit and destroy anything it gets its grubby hands on. Shrek The Third was mind numbingly boring.
In the third installment, Shrek (Mike Meyers) is set to become king of Far Far Away. He doesn't want to be king so he seeks out the only remaining heir, Artie (Justin Timberlake). Meanwhile Prince Charming plots revenge with all the other villains and Shrek must save the day. Aside from being virtually the same plot as equally bad Happily N'Ever After it is still a bad plot. The jokes thrown at the adults this time are very strained and it falls into a more traditionally bad children's animated feature.
In the third installment, Shrek (Mike Meyers) is set to become king of Far Far Away. He doesn't want to be king so he seeks out the only remaining heir, Artie (Justin Timberlake). Meanwhile Prince Charming plots revenge with all the other villains and Shrek must save the day. Aside from being virtually the same plot as equally bad Happily N'Ever After it is still a bad plot. The jokes thrown at the adults this time are very strained and it falls into a more traditionally bad children's animated feature.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Zombacoplypse!
I like zombies. I know people like Richard Roeper and Roger Ebert think they are the most boring villain of all time but I couldn't disagree more. I own every Romero zombie film, I own Zombie 2, Shaun of the Dead and even a few zombie films I have never actually watched but wanted to own in any case. I have a growing collection of zombie comic books. I own both Max Brooks books on zombies (if you are a fan of zombies I encourage you to pick up "World War Z". So you can imagine what kind of bliss I was in when I had a full night of zombie goodness coming my way.
A local theater was showing Day of the Dead (1985). Unrated old school zombie goodness with a dash of overacting and 80s synth. Does it get any better than that? Day of the Dead is definitely an acquired taste but I think its awesome and it stars the most loveable of all zombies ever: Bub. You watch it and see Bub and not want to...well hugging him would seem stupid (he is a zombie) but you would certainly smile and if he did bite someone you'd probably think: oh that crazy Bub, he did it again. But this wasn't the end of my night of zombies.
After Day, I went to see 28 Weeks Later. Now yes I know technically, they aren't zombies just rage infected humans but for the most part they are zombies. Now I don't really like the fast zombie as a rule but 28 Days Later was a fun little film. Is 28 Weeks Later a good follow up? Well no not really. I heard plenty of analogies like 28 Days Later is to Alien as 28 Weeks Later is to Aliens. In as much as both Aliens and 28 Weeks Later are sequels this is true. In all other aspects, this is a horrible comparison.
The film has its moments. The opening sequence is pretty good with a nice twist (that every damn review spoils). The drastic measures to contain the new outbreak are crazy and sort of fun to watch. A helicopter and zombies, nuff said. And the fact that to some degree the real villains are the American troops (although the Iraq parallel is a bit heavy handed).
Sadly the film had its crappy moments too. The camera never pauses it seems like and neither does the director. And then there is one amazingly tenacious zombie who shows up all the time. I felt like I was watching a music video where the same guy is hiding in every scene. The poor story line, bad pacing and camera work tie this one down into a forgettable mess. Still it was zombie paradise while it lasted.
A local theater was showing Day of the Dead (1985). Unrated old school zombie goodness with a dash of overacting and 80s synth. Does it get any better than that? Day of the Dead is definitely an acquired taste but I think its awesome and it stars the most loveable of all zombies ever: Bub. You watch it and see Bub and not want to...well hugging him would seem stupid (he is a zombie) but you would certainly smile and if he did bite someone you'd probably think: oh that crazy Bub, he did it again. But this wasn't the end of my night of zombies.
After Day, I went to see 28 Weeks Later. Now yes I know technically, they aren't zombies just rage infected humans but for the most part they are zombies. Now I don't really like the fast zombie as a rule but 28 Days Later was a fun little film. Is 28 Weeks Later a good follow up? Well no not really. I heard plenty of analogies like 28 Days Later is to Alien as 28 Weeks Later is to Aliens. In as much as both Aliens and 28 Weeks Later are sequels this is true. In all other aspects, this is a horrible comparison.
The film has its moments. The opening sequence is pretty good with a nice twist (that every damn review spoils). The drastic measures to contain the new outbreak are crazy and sort of fun to watch. A helicopter and zombies, nuff said. And the fact that to some degree the real villains are the American troops (although the Iraq parallel is a bit heavy handed).
Sadly the film had its crappy moments too. The camera never pauses it seems like and neither does the director. And then there is one amazingly tenacious zombie who shows up all the time. I felt like I was watching a music video where the same guy is hiding in every scene. The poor story line, bad pacing and camera work tie this one down into a forgettable mess. Still it was zombie paradise while it lasted.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Spiderman 3
As I sit here and type this I am currently the owner of over 100 Spider-Man comics. They are all neatly bagged and sitting on a shelf in plain view. I like Spider-Man and I like comic books, clearly. So I would be really insulted if someone criticized me for just not getting comics or not getting what Spider-Man is about. As if making a film just like the comic is a positive criticism. A movie is a different artistic genre than a comic book. It should be different. If all you are going to do is bring it exactly as it was on the page to the screen, what is the point? Why not just go read the page. A movie should stay true to its material but do its own thing.
I felt Spider-Man did this. It wasn't the exact story of Spider-Man's origin but it got it right in the right places. It had a great villain in Willem Dafoe and I bought into what I was shown on the screen. Spider-Man 2 was less successful. I felt Doctor Octopus was a bit one dimensional which is a shame because he was played by the brilliant Alfred Molina. He was just a crazy guy obsessed with as my friend put it "fuuuushhhionnn". James Franco was almost as whiny as Harry Potter and the film in general just pushed the limits of its own universe a bit too much.
I'm tempted to believe Sam Raimi and the entire cast and crew actually conspired to make a horrible film in hopes that no new film would be asked of them for a few years. This would allow Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst from having to reprise their roles. I'm tempted to think Raimi was actually trying to make Batman and Robin (19xx). Then years from now some new director could come along and make a return film which would blow up like Batman Begins (20xx). Although judging by the box office, if that was Raimi's goal, he failed miserably, no movie that makes 150 million in one weekend isn't going to get another sequel.
I'm not going to bother with a synopsis, I rarely do so why should this stinker be any different. I just want to say that when Peter Parker becomes a bad boy for a brief stint in the film, all I could do was think that it was very reminiscent of Superman's bad boy turn in Superman 3 after he was exposed to the pseudo-kryptonite. The bright point of that film was Richard Pryor, this film had no Richard Pryor or even a Richard Pryor-like actor.
The dramatic moments of this film were painful to sit through. The action was more so than usual cartoony and unimpressive. The love triangle is trite, the villains lack real motivation. Needless to say I hated this film.
I felt Spider-Man did this. It wasn't the exact story of Spider-Man's origin but it got it right in the right places. It had a great villain in Willem Dafoe and I bought into what I was shown on the screen. Spider-Man 2 was less successful. I felt Doctor Octopus was a bit one dimensional which is a shame because he was played by the brilliant Alfred Molina. He was just a crazy guy obsessed with as my friend put it "fuuuushhhionnn". James Franco was almost as whiny as Harry Potter and the film in general just pushed the limits of its own universe a bit too much.
I'm tempted to believe Sam Raimi and the entire cast and crew actually conspired to make a horrible film in hopes that no new film would be asked of them for a few years. This would allow Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst from having to reprise their roles. I'm tempted to think Raimi was actually trying to make Batman and Robin (19xx). Then years from now some new director could come along and make a return film which would blow up like Batman Begins (20xx). Although judging by the box office, if that was Raimi's goal, he failed miserably, no movie that makes 150 million in one weekend isn't going to get another sequel.
I'm not going to bother with a synopsis, I rarely do so why should this stinker be any different. I just want to say that when Peter Parker becomes a bad boy for a brief stint in the film, all I could do was think that it was very reminiscent of Superman's bad boy turn in Superman 3 after he was exposed to the pseudo-kryptonite. The bright point of that film was Richard Pryor, this film had no Richard Pryor or even a Richard Pryor-like actor.
The dramatic moments of this film were painful to sit through. The action was more so than usual cartoony and unimpressive. The love triangle is trite, the villains lack real motivation. Needless to say I hated this film.
Lucky You
I can't truly hate a film that opens with a Springsteen song, even if it is "Lucky Town". I hear Bruce belting out his tune and it puts a smile on my face. I also can't truly hate a film that stars Eric Bana and Drew Barrymore. Both are just so damn likable and cute. And finally I can't truly hate a film whose backdrop is poker playing in Las Vegas. That being said I don't have to like a film with such elements either.
Lucky You is a romantic comedy set in Vegas a few years ago and follows Huck (Eric Bana) who is a poker player who occasionally pushes to far and ends up broke especially when playing against his estranged father (Robert Duvall). He meets cute with Drew's Billie and surely enough they have a swift relationship one expects in a romantic comedy. Of course Huck screws up and Billie is hurt and blah, blah, blah.
The romance was kind of forced in this movie, and the real story is about the relationship between Huck and his father. His father has learned how to play poker and have a life; Huck has yet to learn that lesson. His father is trying hard to help him learn it. Which is what I think is ultimately wrong with the film. It just isn't interesting. Despite all the excellent actors in this film, no one wows with the material they have. They don't focus too much on the poker which is good because unless you're a fan, it would drive you insane.
I didn't hate this film, I just felt unaffected by it. Still it did have those Springsteen songs.
Lucky You is a romantic comedy set in Vegas a few years ago and follows Huck (Eric Bana) who is a poker player who occasionally pushes to far and ends up broke especially when playing against his estranged father (Robert Duvall). He meets cute with Drew's Billie and surely enough they have a swift relationship one expects in a romantic comedy. Of course Huck screws up and Billie is hurt and blah, blah, blah.
The romance was kind of forced in this movie, and the real story is about the relationship between Huck and his father. His father has learned how to play poker and have a life; Huck has yet to learn that lesson. His father is trying hard to help him learn it. Which is what I think is ultimately wrong with the film. It just isn't interesting. Despite all the excellent actors in this film, no one wows with the material they have. They don't focus too much on the poker which is good because unless you're a fan, it would drive you insane.
I didn't hate this film, I just felt unaffected by it. Still it did have those Springsteen songs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)