Review: "How To Train Your Dragon"

- Posted by Rusty


Review: How To Train Your Dragon

My Rating: 5 bites [out of 5]

In Short: This is easily one of my new favorite movies, as well as just one of the best films of this or any year. If DreamWorks Animation continues to release stories this well-written and beautiful and heartfelt, Pixar will finally have a run for its money. [full review after the jump]

Full Review:

Gobber: “If you want to slay dragons…you’re going to have to put a stop to all of…this.
Hiccup: “But…you just pointed to all of me!”

This is a masterpiece. Really, it is. I rarely find a film I love so much, but this is a very easy one to embrace. And, as much as I love the first two Shreks, this is DreamWorks’ finest film, harking back to their early, glory days of Antz and The Prince of Egypt, and as far away as possible from their empty pop-culture-gag exercises like Shark Tale and Monsters vs. Aliens (although the latter deserves props for the pure genius of casting Hugh Laurie as the British mad scientist, Dr. Cockroach!).

How to Train Your Dragon is the kind of a movie that seldom comes about, one that has the ability to please almost everyone. Like the first Pirates of the Caribbean (for me, at least), it has everything you could want in a big-screen movie experience: great laughs, strong, wonderfully-written characters, dazzling action sequences (with the best 3D effects I’ve ever seen), a love story that takes you by surprise (and yet never loses its charm), and a heart-tugging emotional center that could very well result in some (probably begrudging) misty eyes.

The action takes place in the island village of Berk, a seaside Viking population (where, amusingly, all of the adults are Scottish, while the teenagers are American) that is at constant war with the neighboring dragon hordes. The two have always been enemies, requiring Vikings to be strong-willed and tough-as-nails…which presents an odd problem for our hero, the lovable, very quirky Hiccup (voiced to perfection by his real-life doppelganger, Tropic Thunder and She’s Out of My League breakout, Jay Baruchel), a boy who has no skills in battle (or muscles to show for it), but makes up for that with creativity and by being the only wry, endearingly sarcastic Viking. As much as he might disagree with the need to always fight dragons – and the resulting, quite damaging (to the wooden village, at least) status quo – he longs to prove his use to the colony, particular his father, the village leader, Stoick the Vast (Gerard Butler, at his burly, Scottish best). Unbeknownst to anyone, with his only-occasionally-glitchy machine for catching mid-air dragons, he manages to snag the elusive, never-seen Night Fury. But what should have been his triumphant first dragon kill instead evolves into something deeper – he gets to know the dragon (later named Toothless), and the bond they share is a large contributor to the heart of the film. All of this coincides with Hiccup’s dragon-slaying-training with the other kids (voiced by Ugly Betty’s America Ferrera and Superbad alums Jonah Hill, brilliantly playing douchey, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse, very good as a chubby nerd with a tendency to see things like a role-playing video-game) under the far-from-watchful eye of crazed, missing-limb-ed warrior, Gobber (scene-stealer Craig Ferguson). And, of course, there are rumblings of the dragon nest, the perilous location that could end the war for good, one Stoick is desperate to destroy, and one that Toothless might just hold the key to finding…

You can expect a grand finale – easily one of the best action sequences of the year (sorry, Iron Man 2) as well as some rousing set-pieces, but what really won me over (like always) are the characters and their relationships. Hiccup, in particular, the oddball boy who, in the course of this adventure, becomes a man, is an age-old storytelling mechanism, but it has special resonance here (and not just because Hiccup really does look like me in some fashion). He does discover his inner action hero, although not as a result of abilities that were hidden from him, like the action clichés we’ve come to expect (or, for that matter, his use of weaponry—Hiccup, lanky a boy as he is, has trouble lifting shields, which makes for a terrific running gag throughout the film). His gift always was his ingenuity, his ability to look beyond the surface details of any situation, and that is what ultimately rewards him. If you think about it, it’s a lovely bit of commentary about our need for forward thinkers. Hiccup, through getting to know Toothless and their eventual team-up, sees the futility of constant war, and, more importantly, the danger of demonizing your supposed enemy. The dragon could even stand for Hiccup’s own untapped potential—while everyone else in his village could only walk and run, Hiccup could fly and do something extraordinary, being able to think with actual imagination as opposed to unquestioning obedience. As the film goes on, Hiccup becomes the voice for eliminating unfounded prejudices, for abandoning blind, backwards traditions, and finally getting to know these “beasts” as more than just brainless threats to the village. I always thought the best family films (ie, Jim Henson’s Muppet stuff, Pixar, Disney at its peak) managed to impart progressive ideas without spoon-feeding them to kids, squeezing in beautiful, hopeful messages underneath the laughs and the adventure. How To Train Your Dragon is a superb example of that: the quote that opened this review comes full-circle in the end, as we realize that the village – and, better yet, the world at large – needs more of what Hiccup represents, for there can never be a deficit of kindness, compassion, and open-minded thinking.

There is also a phenomenal storyline about a father learning to understand his son. True, Stoick and Hiccup seem to have nothing in common (which leads to a sequence later in the film so hilarious, it had me giggling for days), but they learn to see beyond that, and their journey into finding common ground is one of the most rewarding elements here. It’s expertly played (even in voice form) by Butler and Baruchel, proving that both of them should have nice, long futures in Hollywood, as long as they continue to choose high-quality projects like this one (and please no more Gamers, Mr. Butler!).

And, of course, there couldn’t not be a romance, right? Not when the village has a plucky, gorgeous lass like Astrid at its disposal, a fiery girl who could make walking away from explosions into an act of pure sexiness. Yet, like everything else in this movie, that thread is handled with care, thought, and just a great deal of charm—Hiccup and Astrid don’t get closer together because they’re age-appropriate and both conveniently single (as all adventure movies have taught us over the years), but for deeper reasons, those befitting a genuine connection between like-minded people.

All of those positive qualities go without even mentioning the striking animation or the carefully-constructed action beats. With all due respect to Avatar, this is the movie to see in 3D. There is a flying sequence near the middle that is absolutely riveting; it’s amazing how much the added depth of 3D contributes to the experience. You end up feeling like you’re right up there with Hiccup and Toothless, soaring in the air, feeling the high of doing something spectacular. This isn’t the rush-job 3D of Clash of the Titans or a gimmicky, throw-stuff-at-you exercise like The Final Destination. No, this is what could be done with the format if applied correctly—by making the audience feel like a part of the world on the screen, immersed and totally engaged with whatever is happening. It helps, of course, that the story is this strong, and that the animation is as lush and stunning as anything in Dreamworks’ arguably prettiest movie before this, Kung Fu Panda. By the time the final fight comes about (with a threat that I wouldn’t dare spoil), everything comes together – the story, characters, the animation, the tremendous score – to give you a climax that truly keeps you glued to your seat. There’s even a surprisingly mature ending right after that, one that manages to uphold the film’s hopeful ideas, while poignantly addressing that there must be consequences to an undertaking of that scale.

You might not agree with me that this is a masterpiece, but you should see this anyway (if you haven’t done so already!). It’s a hard film not to love, even if you don’t connect with every aspect of the story. And, thanks to this, we’ve also been privileged with having a true word-of-mouth hit – a film that opened well (although not gangbusters like, say, Iron Man 2, which I don’t think will have the staying power of this movie), but remained in the Top 5 for weeks after its release, encouraged by extremely favorable audience responses. I brought up Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl earlier, and that film behaved in the exact same way—minimal drop-offs week after week, and nothing but giddy enthusiasm from the people who saw it…usually more than once. How to Train Your Dragon is an absolute treat, and I have a feeling it will enjoy a similar future. Job well done, Dreamworks—you’ve made a lot of hits (not all of them deserving), but now you’ve made a movie that transcends mere box-office numbers – a movie that, like the best novels and stories and characters, will enchant audiences for years to come.

P.S. Just a month ago, it was announced that How To Train Your Dragon will be sequelized, with a follow-up due in theaters roughly by 2013 (which, on some level, makes sense, since this is based on a series of children's books). I’m of two minds about this: on one hand, I adore these characters, and I’ll show up for another of their adventures in a heartbeat; however, I’m still apprehensive about another go-around. If the filmmakers can come up with a worthy story, then I support them wholeheartedly (and there's hope for that, since these are the guys behind the well-received Lilo & Stitch…which I really must see now). Please, please, Dreamworks, don’t let this turn into another Shrek scenario, pumping out more movies to cash in on a brand name, even after the audience lost their initial support. There is story potential left (this movie may be a close-ended chapter, but there is still room to explore), so let’s make it a sequel that holds up to the original, or, in a Pixar-ish challenge, steps up its game to deliver something even better!
Read more!

Review: "Iron Man 2"

- Posted by Rusty

Quick Note: I hate making excuses to you guys, but a quick apology once more for the recent lack of updates. I had to step away from the blog these last few weeks to study for and take the GREs (I’ll sadly have to disappear again in two weeks for my random and potentially insane idea to take the LSATs). To begin making up for all of that, here’s an extra long look at this summer’s first big blockbuster. A review of How to Train Your Dragon – and a return to semi-regular updating - coming by Tuesday night. Thanks again to all of you for sticking around and checking the blog!


Review: Iron Man 2

My Rating: 2 ½ bites [out of 5]

In Short: Warning: this review is going to be pretty long (nothing beats my Harry Potter obsession, but Mr. Tony Stark comes pretty damn close). So, here’s a quick rundown: while Iron Man 2 is fun, big, and entertaining, bringing back the characters you loved and delivering just enough good action to justify the $12 tickets (as expected for a mega-budget superhero sequel), it falls short of its predecessor mainly due to a cluttered and unfocused screenplay. For everyone who wants more details, though, brace yourselves: this is my most lengthy monstrosity since the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince review… [full review after the jump]

Full Review:

Ivan Vanko (a.k.a. Whiplash) to Tony Stark: “If you can make God bleed, people will cease to believe in Him. Then there will be blood in the water, and the sharks will come. All I have to do is sit here and watch…as the world consumes you.”

That’s a brilliant line, said with vengeful relish (and a very believable Russian accent) by Mickey Rourke’s Ivan Vanko, who also doubles as the main villain of this movie, Whiplash. It’s one of the best moments in this sequel, and it represents a fascinating thematic direction for this series to take, especially one that ended with Tony Stark announcing to the world: “I am Iron Man.” However, this also represents one of several great ideas that this sequel explores, none of which, unfortunately, are given enough follow-through to make this as strong and focused an outing as the first film. I can’t fully recommend Iron Man 2, as much as I wanted to and as much as I still love Robert Downey Jr./Tony Stark, but there are still enough good scenes and moments here to make it worthwhile to catch in theaters.

So, first, let’s talk about the good stuff. Picking up 6 months after the press conference at the end of Iron Man, we now find Tony Stark (Downey Jr., brilliant as always) dealing with his own legacy. He was on top of the world by the end of the first film, and now that world is slowly crumbling to pieces as his self-proclaimed savior ambitions bring about unexpected complications. The U.S. government is forcing him to release his Iron Man armor technology (the committee’s headed by a well-cast Garry Schandling, upping the smarm as Senator Stern), an unseen threat comes from Russia in the form of Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), whose Whiplash armor looks suspiciously like Stark’s own (even though Stark swears no one could know the arc-core design), his chief rival, Justin Hammer (another piece of swell casting—scene-stealer Sam Rockwell), wants to jump ahead in the arms-technology race, and, in an unexpected turn, the arc reactor that saved Stark’s life (the glowing chest piece that powers his suit and keeps the shrapnel from his heart) turns out be poisonous, now gradually killing Stark unless he can find something powerful – and stable – enough to replace it.

There’s also the matter of his company, now headed by his old assistant, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow, lovely like always), a rift with his best pal Rhodey (Don Cheadle, taking over for Terrence Howard in one of this sequel’s biggest missteps), a curvy, mysterious new assistant (Scarlett Johansson), and the shady Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D., Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson, owning the role) who keeps pushing Stark to realize his destiny and join some “super-secret boy band” (Stark’s words, not mine. What do you think that refers to?) That’s a lot to put on Tony Stark’s plate, and as psyched as he was to be a superhero 6 months ago, he realizes here that perhaps he took on far more than he could handle in his (now dwindling) life span.

I mentioned this sequel had problems, and, just from reading the summary, you could tell that the filmmakers took on a lot of different story threads, something that diminishes the character journeys here, and makes the action look more arbitrary than plot-driven. I’ll get back to that in a bit, but in terms of positive qualities, all of those threads are interesting in their own right. I liked watching Stark struggle to make his life mean something, especially after the incredible high he felt in declaring himself to be a global protector. Ditto the arrival of Mickey Rourke, who, with that great, weary, heavy-burden-carrying presence of his (not to mention some respectable Russian skills), makes a solid foil for Tony Stark (at least in theory).

Plus, what’s amazing about these films (inspired, no doubt, by Downey’s own performance style) is how rapid-fire and witty the dialogue is, almost like an old screwball comedy at times. I watched it twice now, and I loved how I missed certain jokes the first time around, or how I was so busy listening to one person that the other’s reactions completely flew by me. That is a rare thing for a big-budget blockbuster, and it‘s especially great to see this immensely gifted cast in such a loose, playful setting – watching them play with and challenge their co-stars is one of the biggest treats in this film. Best of all, the film gives some nice closure to the Pepper Potts/Tony Stark relationship, so wonderfully started in the first film. Their adorable bickering and romantic tension was my absolute favorite part of Iron Man. I think a lot of fans will be satisfied by where these two end up through the course of the sequel, and Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow (in what is becoming one of her most charming and effortless performances) continue to make a great pair, with both actors equally matched in their terrific verbal spars. What I like best about those two is that they are intelligent grown-ups, and not lovelorn teenagers whose biggest hurdle is confessing their feelings. They’re a sensible, very believable, very entertaining pair, and I honestly think Iron Man has the best superhero romance of all such movies. (Even in The Dark Knight, the holy grail of comic-book films, the Bruce/Rachel love story was more of a plot necessity than an emotionally engaging part of the series…and the less said about Spider-Man’s whiny, horrendously annoying Mary Jane Watson, the better).

So what am I grumbling about? If I loved the characters and the acting – not to mention the laughs and inherent sweetness to many of the scenes – why can’t I recommend this as at least a good film? Because, in the end, it felt incomplete to me. There is certainly a lot of thought placed into this second chapter of Tony Stark’s adventures, but I have a feeling that its unbearably-fast production schedule took a toll on some much-needed creative decisions. Think about it: the first Iron Man came out in summer 2008. That means the entire sequel had to be written, cast, shot, and edited (with all special effects intact) in a meager two years. That’s lightning-fast for a production of this scale – The Dark Knight had a whole three years after Batman Begins (plus, it seemed like its storyline was brainstormed long before that script had to be finalized), and, in that light, I think Iron Man 2 needed some extra time to finesse its ideas. What we have here are plenty of strong character and story choices that needed to be better organized to make the entire package more cohesive, as well as more relevant for the further development of Tony Stark, the character.

Take, for instance, the two villains. Justin Hammer and Ivan Vanko are respectable choices on paper. Both of them act as flipsides to Tony Stark and his alter ego. Vanko is the anti-Iron Man, a scientist who uses similar technology for selfish, purely evil reasons. Iron Man wished to save the world, while Vanko/Whiplash only sought to take out Stark for a personal vendetta. Hammer, then, is the anti-Stark, a weapons manufacturer who lacks the fierce intelligence and savvy of his rival, and who simply wants to eliminate the competition for good. From the good superhero sequels, like The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 2, we know that the ones that succeed manage to tie their villains into the personal issues faced by the hero, to make one unified theme in both the secret identity and superhero spheres. With the Joker, Batman/Bruce Wayne had to confront a nemesis who operated with no rules, no semblance of moral order, fueled by anarchy and chaos, a direct contrast to the upstanding, rigid-rules-abiding hero that Batman represented (which, of course, affected Bruce Wayne’s life choices as well). While Vanko and Hammer briefly touch on Stark’s own demons (both in his heroic and regular identities), like so many things in this sequel, those similarities never extend far enough to become fleshed-out ideas for the movie in whole (even Jeff Bridges' Iron Monger - lame a villain as he was - was a cool little metaphor for the type of cold, heartless arms-business perspective Stark swore to abandon for good). In the end, Hammer plays no role but providing money for Vanko to build some more suits, and, consequently, Vanko simply finds himself transformed from multi-dimensional, sympathetic bad guy into a video-game-like boss in the film’s climax. All in all, I think it’s time for Iron Man to have a real villain -- not another guy in a pumped-up techno-suit, but someone who actually challenges him intellectually as well as physically. Vanko and Hammer represent a move toward that direction, though perhaps it’s time to finally take on the Mandarin, Iron Man’s chief nemesis, who I’m guessing the filmmakers avoided because he skews toward the supernatural, in direct contrast to the more-or-less reality-based world Stark inhabits (then again, this should be easier to tackle once the Norse God of Thunder, Thor, is introduced into the Marvel universe next summer).

In another seemingly unfinished idea, I never bought the film’s suggestion that Iron Man brought about global (or, at the very least, American) peace. I’m sure he would put a major dent in crime, but to stop it all completely is just wishful thinking, and almost seemed like a ploy by the filmmakers to avoid any expensive action scenes. Just the same, the quote that opened my review could have taken the sequel down a very interesting, darker path, but the results of Stark’s first clash with Whiplash are shown on a minimal scale, hardly the “blood in the water” scenario cooked up by Ivan Vanko. Once the chinks in Iron man’s armor were shown – once you could see that he is not infallible by any means – that should have led to some sort of loss of public faith. A bit of context would have greatly helped, both before the movie got under way (ie, Iron Man stopping a robbery, foiling a terrorist attack, etc – anything just to show that he’s still at work making this world safe) and after the confrontation with the chief villain (ie, people distancing themselves from him, losing their trust in Tony Stark’s ability to maintain their safety).

This next part will be a bit SPOILER-y, so feel free to skip over it if you still want to be surprised when you see the movie. I need to mention it because one the film’s big reveals is also one of its chief script problems.

Finally, perhaps my biggest gripe is the lack of a concrete theme. This film brings out a few – Stark’s mortality, the greater superhero universe of The Avengers and what that means for Iron Man, and, most notably, the relationships between brilliant fathers and their sons. The latter is the most problematic: Stark is facing off with Vanko because of his father’s supposed mistreatment of Vanko’s, and yet no real substance is added to this part of the film. In fact, the entire section dealing with Stark’s father seems like a throwaway compared to the rest of the events transpiring here. (MAJOR SPOILER ALERT) Why exactly would Howard Stark’s great ambitions for Tony revolve around the discovery of a new element, one that just happens to power up his suit? If it’s important for later films in the Iron Man series, then, by all means, I respect that. Judging by this specific film, though, that just seemed awfully convenient, and, sadly, rather pointless (although major bonus points for casting Mad Men’s John Slattery as Howard Stark—I’d watch Roger Sterling in anything!). The fathers plotline is forgotten by the end, and when Vanko and Stark duke it out in the climax, it felt like it was happening because the audience had to be "wowed" with some stuff exploding, and not the culmination of two flawed sons fighting for the legacies of their fathers. Same with The Avengers set-up (which, to be fair, was awesome in so many geeky ways) and Tony’s health crisis – none of these ideas is given the attention they deserve, and each up being under-served. The first film knew exactly what it wanted to do – show the transformation of Tony Stark, the brilliant, boozy, womanizing rascal into a hero worth celebrating – with the invention of the suit symbolizing Stark’s own evolution into a man who deserves to keep living. Here, the story introduces so many things for Stark to experience that it dilutes the power of its arguably strongest element – Stark’s drink-fueled breakdown (a nod to the legendary comic-book arc, “Demon in a Bottle”) and coming to grips with his own potential demise. It’s too bad -- perhaps a little more screen time to work with - or a few more drafts of the script - could have made this more focused and direct, trimming the elements that weren’t entirely necessary (as much as I love Samuel L. Jackson and his organization, S.H.I.E.L.D., it didn’t need to play such a prominent role in this sequel…besides providing Avengers hints, of course) and pumping up the ones that would truly resonate with audiences.

End of MAJOR SPOILERS…

One final quibble: when Don Cheadle stepped in to replace Terrence Howard after the latter’s scuffle with Marvel, I was actually enthusiastic. I liked Howard very much in the original (particularly his chemistry with Robert Downey Jr. and that great, now-ironic moment when he looked at the Iron Man armor and said: “Next time, baby!”), but, honestly, I find Cheadle to be a stronger actor and – judging by the Ocean’s movies – funnier and quicker on his feet when it comes to improvising. Here, though, most likely due to the underdeveloped script, his Rhodey comes off stiff and surprisingly bland. If I didn’t know Stark and Rhodey were best friends from the first movie, I wouldn’t have believed it here; it probably would have made more sense to fight for Terrance Howard to stay for continuity’s (and chemistry’s) sake, especially if the character was going to be shortchanged to make room for some new players. The first film gave us a memorable friendship between these two guys. I’ve seen pairs like this before – the troublemaker and the straight arrow – two unlikely pals who, for reasons we can’t quite see, bring out the best in one another. Unfortunately, here they come off like two causal acquaintances, and, while Downey and Cheadle finally have some good moments near the end, they get so little time to interact that Cheadle’s re-casting – and, really the whole War Machine subplot (being the suit that Rhodey wears to help out Iron Man) – lacks the punch that it needed to become a vital part of this second film. (All that aside, I'm sure that Don Cheadle, easily one of our best actors, will improve once his character gets a meatier, more carefully-written role to play in the next sequel).

I know that sounds like a lot of complaints, but I really did want to love this movie (which is probably why this review took so long—I wanted to figure out exactly why I couldn’t embrace it, despite its many good qualities). The Iron Man movies are completely unlike all other superhero films out there – Christopher Nolan's new Batman series takes the cake for sheer dramatic depth and power, but these films are hilarious, intelligent, and just plain fun, albeit in a clever way that justifies all the explosions and special effects. And, however jumbled the story may be, Downey Jr. still holds it all together in another remarkable performance. It’s amazing that, in addition to just how funny he is in what will probably become his signature role, how much depth Downey brings to the role, how he really makes you feel for the moments where Stark feels his life slipping away, or how much he genuinely cares for Pepper, despite his own super-articulate, talkative ways getting in the way of showing that. When I saw the first film, I thought Tony Stark was the best original movie creation since Captain Jack Sparrow, and I stand by that. We rarely get to see such a perfect match-up of actor and character, and, with Downey in the role, Stark will continue to be the gift that keeps on giving. The rest of the cast does fine work as well, with special mention going to Jon Favreau as Stark’s go-to driver/bodyguard, Happy Hogan (also the film’s director, who probably couldn’t resist amping up his screen time and getting in on the fun) and franchise newbie (SPOILER ALERT) Scarlett Johansson as Natalie Rushman/Russian super-spy (love that my people finally get something cool!), The Black Widow. Johansson really surprised me with how naturally she fit into this world…and how incredibly badass she was in her standout action sequence. If she’s getting set up for her own Black Widow movie, then that sounds like the right way to go (and with the Wonder Woman movie stuck in development hell, isn’t it about time that we get a kickass-female superhero movie?).

So, in the end, stay for these characters and stay for that killer dialogue, not to mention the superb Monaco Grand Prix action sequence that stands as the most thrilling part of the film. And, of course, get ready to geek out over the abundant Marvel superhero references. Catch the Captain America nod, the huge Thor foreshadowing for next summer, and learn exactly when Iron Man 2 fits into the timeframe established by the ending of The Incredible Hulk. (Stick around for the after-credits scene too, although it’s not nearly as cool as the introduction of Nicky Fury at the close of the first Iron Man). Iron Man 2 has its share of problems, all of them likely stemming from not having enough time to fine-tine this screenplay. And yet it’s not a disposable, empty Hollywood blow-‘em-up movie either. I’d suggest catching it in theaters anyway, just with your expectations in check for what will probably not equal the first film’s more assured storytelling and many charms. With Iron Man 3 most likely coming after The Avengers team-up in 2012, I think that should give the filmmakers ample time to cook up something more interesting. Hopefully, in the next go-around, we’ll be in for a more worthy chapter in the always-welcome exploits of Mr. Tony Stark.

And, to close this off, here are some of my favorite lines from the movie (but avoid at all costs if you want to hear these for the first time in the theater!)…

Pepper Potts: "You were dying? And you didn’t tell me?!"
Tony Stark: (resolutely) "I was going to make you an omelet and tell you all about it!"

Tony Stark (to Nicky Fury): "Wait, I don’t want to get off on the wrong foot. Do I address the patch or the eye?"

S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Coulson: "We need you."
Tony Stark: "More than you know."
S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Coulson: (not missing a beat) "Not that much."

Tony Stark (referencing Senator Stern and the Senate Committee): "I tried playing ball with these ass-clowns!"

P.S. If anyone has the time and/or crazy interest, check out my coverage of the first Iron Man 2 footage ever screened at last year's Comic-Con. It was one of my very first pieces for this blog, and, in retrospect, it might be fun to compare my initial (very, very giddy) impression with how the final movie stacked up.
Read more!

Review: "Date Night"

- Posted by Rusty


Review: Date Night

My Rating: 3 bites [out of 5]

In Short: Don’t let that mediocre trailer fool you—Date Night is both and sweet and very funny, granting a perfect showcase for two of our absolute best comic actors. If anything, it’ll make for a pleasant diversion before the oncoming rush of huge summer films. [full review after the jump]

Full Review: I’ll keep this short and sweet, just like this film. However stupid and silly the trailer may have made it look, Date Night ended up really surprising me. It’s funny pretty much throughout its entire running time, with, best of all, a warm and heartfelt character-based story at its center.

Phil and Claire Foster (The Office and 30 Rock’s comedy giants, Steve Carell and Tina Fey) are a mild-mannered, likable couple who decide to spice up their weekly “date night” by dining out at a trendy New York hotspot. Unable to get a last-minute table, they end up stealing another couple’s reservation…and then chaos – involving mobsters, crooked cops, wild car chases, and a shirtless Mark Whalberg – ensues.

Although things get pretty goofy from there, I actually found myself charmed by the plot turns, even as the night took the most insane turns. The film’s enjoyment value really rests on the dependable and always improv-ready shoulders of Fey and Carell. They ground the wackiness with an actual believability – you instantly accept that these are two regular people who just want to go home, who are in way, way over their heads. And, of course, the two comedy stalwarts make an adorable married couple – they work so well together, riff so easily off one another’s rhythms (his: deadpan reactions, hers: instant quips and witty one-liners) that I hope this isn’t the last time they work together.

The film’s structure also gives way to a revolving door of essentially one-scene cameos, many by some very recognizable names. I don’t want to spoil them (that’s half the fun), but, since the trailer already gave one away, I’d say Mila Kunis and James Franco (who were comedy magic together once before) made the most hilarious impression with their takes on the trashy, weirdly sensitive, low-life couple…the very ones whose reservation sets off the night’s events. Of the rest of the cast (with what little screen time they have), I’d single out Mark Whalberg, an underrated comic actor to begin with (see: I Heart Huckabees—not a good film by any means, but a performance that should have gotten him his first Oscar nomination before The Departed) who nicely underplays as the suave, tech specialist, and whose chronic shirtless-ness gives Carell (and a lovestruck Fey) one of the best moments in the film.

But, as mentioned before, all of the cameos and awkward actions scenes (at least for our heroes) wouldn’t matter if we weren’t rooting so much for Phil and Claire Foster. Through this entire ordeal, they rediscover not so much the spark in their marriage (that was there all along; they just didn’t quite see it), but rather how much they mean to one another, how valuable they are to each other as partners in whatever madness ensues (be it having a family…or surviving a ridiculous case of mistaken identity). Carell, in particular, so talented that he makes being funny look effortless, continues to show his strengths as an offbeat leading man (just as he did with Get Smart and Dan in Real Life). He has a gift for sincerity, for making bizarre situations and lines that may be disgustingly sweet in other hands, come off natural and lovely. Fey, too, is a comedienne whose talent shouldn’t be overlooked; the entire film is a partnership (just like the marriage at its core), and it would never have worked if one of the actors wasn’t up to par.

Did the film really need all the action and shooting and stunt work? (even though there’s a car chase in the middle that might be worth the ticket price alone. It needs to be seen for its ingenuity, as a kind of Jason Bourne-style craziness gone even more haywire) Probably not, and the film occasionally steps in to territory that’s too juvenile and lowbrow, at least compared to the rest of the movie. But Fey and Carell are so good in their roles, and the entire ride so unexpectedly pleasant, that I didn’t mind the occasional flaws.

In the end, it’s refreshing to see a love story that feels genuine (and a middle-aged one at that), even if the central couple was married to begin with. With barely any fancy speeches, these two end up having a more romantic and realistic relationship than pasty, angsty tweens could ever dream of. I could understand saving this one for a rental, but I think many people will be surprised by this film, just like me. Even with some script flaws (and the much superior story of a boy and his dragon, probably playing in the theater next door), I doubt you’ll find as many laughs and a more appealing couple to spend two hours with.

Image courtesy of 20th Century Fox.
Read more!

Review: "Clash of the Titans" (2010)

- Posted by Rusty

Note: Sorry for missing the “What’s on the Menu” column again. To make up for that, I’ll have a review of last week’s only major release, the funny and surprisingly pleasant Date Night, very soon.


Guide to the Bite Ratings: I realize it’s been a (once again, super embarrassingly) long time since my last review. So, for anyone new to our ratings system, or for just a nice refresher, here’s a quick breakdown:

1 bite = terrible; an absolute waste of time (ie, Fantastic Four, Gamer, Friday the 13th, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen)
2 bites = mediocre; almost good; decent, but not quite strong enough to recommend (ie, 9, Troy, Step Up 2: The Streets, G.I. Joe)
3 bites = a good film, if not necessarily a great one (ie, Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, The Hurt Locker, Sherlock Holmes, Star Trek, Iron Man)
4 bites = a great film; pretty much an instant classic (ie, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Inglourious Basterds, Matchstick Men, Avatar)
5 bites = a masterpiece; a perfect film (ie, Lost in Translation, Almost Famous, Lawrence of Arabia, Ratatouille, The Incredibles); I’m very stingy with this one, but I think many 4-bite movies, with time, graduate to this level

Review: Clash of the Titans

My Rating: 2 ½ bites [out of 5]

In Short: Ridiculous and occasionally just plain stupid, this is still a lot of fun to watch thanks to the actors and the overall entertainment value. Check it out for the awesome visuals and great action, if not necessarily the dramatic arcs or character development (of which the less said about, the better). [full review after the jump]

Full Review: Clash of the Titans is exactly the movie it promises to be. The action is all-out, the Greek mythological world is represented here with all the best that modern movie magic could produce, and the entire experience is just plain fun.

It’s just not a very good movie, as much as I enjoyed it.

So, I’ll make this a cautious recommendation: the entertainment value is definitely here, as is some good acting (for a movie of this type) and a more-or-less faithful approach to the original myth of Perseus and Medusa.

In this version of the story, demi-god Perseus (Avatar’s Sam Worthington, in crew-cut, manly-stubbled, glowering good-guy perfection), the son of Zeus (Liam Neeson, always good), vows to take down the gods for the pain they’ve brought him (revealing any more would be too much spoiler territory—suffice to say that Perseus’ motivation is more effective here than the simple “Let’s go out and do this!” attitude he showed in the myth). As such, his journey has him facing off against giant scorpions (a great sequence), the Gorgon Medusa, the lizard-ified witch who turns men to stone with one look into her eyes (an even better sequence), the wrath of Underworld god, Hades, with his giant serpent beast, The Kraken (the show-stopper, with the Kraken better used here than in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest), and, in the process, hopefully saving the city of Argos (which, like all Hollywood period pieces, is populated only by Brits…and one Australian), whose citizens have stirred the ire of the gods with their selfish and impious ways.

If it sounds silly, it occasionally is. But the filmmakers, particularly director Louis Letterier, know what type of film they’re dealing with here, and they never try to be anything more (or less, for that matter) than just delivering a good, rollicking, adventurous time at the movies. With that, you might be willing to forgive the terrible supporting character development of Perseus’ fellow warriors (they might as well have been called Expendable Good Guys #’s 1-5).

Or the ridiculous creature design of Perseus’ ally, who comes off as a less articulate version of Treebeard from Lord of the Rings.

Or the fact that Hades (played with lots of scenery-chewing, slimy fun by the great Ralph Fiennes, who we’ll see again in villain mode in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows later this year) has a takeover plan that barely makes any sense. Why does Zeus even listen to him? Or, better yet, why can’t Zeus just stop him when it becomes obvious that he's been betrayed? Well, maybe it’s best not to think about that…

Like I said, if you go with the spirit of the film, you might be willing to overlook all of those problems, just like me. Director Louis Leterrier (The Incredible Hulk with Edward Norton, The Transporter 2 with my man, Jason Statham) stages terrific action sequences, like always, and shows a sly command with the tone of the picture as well, one that never quite veers into camp, but still manages to not take everything too seriously. I wish he showed the strong sense of story that he did with Hulk, but he keeps the pacing zippy and the action plentiful enough that I didn’t mind all that terribly.

More than that, the picture is cast just right. On the gods side, you could not do better than having Liam Neeson as Zeus, using that booming, commanding, and (yep) still pretty wise voice of his to maximum effect (despite the fact that this film retains Zeus’ stints as a part-time mortal rapist). Same with Ralph Fiennes, who’s clearly relishing playing over-the-top and irredeemably evil. And, on the virtuous side, we have Sam Worthington demonstrating once again why he’s so in-demand, and how well and comfortably he plays the reluctant hero.

--A note on Sam Worthington: I know a lot of people criticize his impossible-to-hide Australian accent (which, yes, still comes and goes here) or his lack of versatility. Fair enough, but, despite that, I find him an impressive young actor, one who should have a very bright future if he’s careful about his project choices. He might not necessarily become a respected character actor, but he certainly has the talent, and, like fellow Aussie Russell Crowe, he has the natural screen presence and charisma to hold your attention in a film of this scope. Look at him in his scenes with Neeson—he easily holds his own, and, throughout the entire film (even with minimal dialogue), you believe in his quest and in his ability to come out victorious. As he did with Terminator: Salvation and even Avatar, Worthington brings more depth than expected to this type of "conflicted" hero role. He has a straight-up drama coming up later this year, and I’m pretty sure he'll surprise more people once you get him out of the company of robots, gods, and giant blue aliens. Or, of course, he could always play Perseus again in a Clash of the Titans sequel (which just might happen, since the film’s a hit), something I wouldn’t object to at all!--

I also want to point out British actress Gemma Arterton (who will next be seen in May's Price of Persia opposite Jake Gyllenhaal), here playing Io, a slightly rejiggered version of the mythological heroine who caught Zeus’ eye. She mostly has to explain stuff to our hero, though she does it with aplomb, and she’s a very good, spunky foil for our straight-laced hero. Plus, the film nicely handles the would-be romance between Perseus and Princess Andromeda (Alexa Davalos), the woman who must be sacrificed to the Kraken if she wishes to save Argos, especially given that Sam Worthington has more screen time – and, really, chemistry – with Gemma Arterton. The film might veer off from the original myth to include more scorpions and special effects, but it keeps the story points that matter, and I very much liked that the script made Andromeda a strong woman with some actual agency over her fate, and not the boring damsel-in-distress (and prize for our hero) that she was in the myth.

All in all, if you can look past the many flaws, what we have here is an enjoyable film that just seeks to entertain. The effects are all amazing (well, maybe not the Treebeard…but the Kraken alone makes this worth seeing in theaters), the actors game to go with the tone, no matter how ridiculous things become, and, mostly, it’s just great to see the world of Greek mythology make such a huge return to theaters. If this gets kids excited to read up on Perseus and all his larger-than-life, horny, bizarre, yet always interesting fellow heroes, then, by all means, this is not a bad introduction.

So, if this type of adventure film is up your alley (it definitely goes with my ultra-geeky preference, that for old-school heroes vs. great, insurmountable odds), then you might come out with a smile on your face, just like I did.

P.S. I mentioned this before in the What’s on the Menu column last week, but I want to stress again that the 3D is not necessary for this film. As much as the advertising wants you to think so, the effect was added late in the process, so by no means was this movie shot with the intention of the extra dimension. With the exception of one axe flying at you, nothing here makes the extra $5 worthwhile. Unlike How to Train Your Dragon (the best film out right now—review also coming in a bit!), this wasn’t designed for the depth of 3D, so the world here just looks a little stretched out and poppy, nothing more. If you see it, save the money and just go for good old cheaper 2D.
Read more!

Review: "The Book of Eli"

- Posted by Rusty


Movie: The Book of Eli

My Rating: 2 1/2 bites [out of 5]

In Short: Sporting strong visuals, solid characters, and the occasional jaw-dropping action scene, The Book of Eli is, in part, worth catching. Story-wise, however, it doesn’t quite live up to its promising set-up... [full review after the jump]

Full Review: I was talking to my crazy movie-buff friend recently, and we both agreed that the toughest films to critique aren’t the great ones (easy as pie: you just lay on the praise) or even the really bad ones (even easier: lay on the snark and complaining), but, actually, the ones in between. The types of movies that fall squarely in the middle—not finessed enough to be a good movie, and not a complete waste of time like a bad one.

The Book of Eli is such a movie. It’s well-acted, beautifully shot (the desert landscapes have a desolate, haunted look that works perfectly for the film), and, for the most part, quite entertaining. I just can’t fully recommend it, despite its preposterous—but “wow”-inducing!—final twist.

The basic story follows Denzel Washington’s drifter, Eli—a soft-spoken heroic type who’s got a killer way with a sword. He owes a great deal to old-time epic Western imagery—he’s the mysterious stranger, the broken man with a good heart, essentially the Man with No Name, albeit with insane martial-arts abilities. It’s been 30 years since the movie’s mysterious “blackout”, and all this time Eli has been walking in the ruins of North America—an endless mass of empty space, dead bodies, and hiding cannibals. He’s headed to some destination, as we learn, which brings him to a somewhat-functioning town led by Gary Oldman’s Carnegie. Carnegie then discovers that Eli possesses a special book, the very one he’s been waiting ages to find, and, from that point on, ensues the film’s central chase, with Carnegie’s step-daughter, Solara (played by the gorgeous Mila Kunis—yay for fellow Ukrainians!) falling into the mix as Washington’s “disciple”.

I can’t reveal what that book is, but, really, you might have figured it out through the film’s not-so-subtle billboards. I like the basic idea behind the movie, as well as the different reasons it presents for wanting the book—one man wants it for controlling his people, the other for its inherent power and beauty. End-of the-world thrillers are an easy sell for me too—I love the imagery involved, as well as seeing what people are reduced to faced with a world without hope and the slow, steady death of the human race. The Book of Eli works on that level, adding some interesting observations into the equation, like the types of resources that become luxuries and, in a grand scale, the rewards of faith (even if it’s not in a spiritual sense). There’s also good character work and fine performances from all three leads. Washington pretty much owns the market for playing noble, good-hearted men, especially ones put against opposing odds—he does that here with confidence and a light touch of humor. Ditto for Oldman, although from the polar opposite perspective. The chameleonic Brit is a long-time favorite of mine, especially in scene-stealing-villain mode like The Professional and True Romance. The script gives his Carnegie just the right amount of sleaze and intelligence, granting the actor enough juicy material to chew his way through the scenes with Washington. As for Kunis, while far too beautiful and clean-looking be a believable member of this society (her entrance in a rowdy bar, where she’s supposed to be an abused hooker, still screams “movie star”), she holds her own with her imposing co-stars. Coupled with her lovely turn in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, she’s clearly on the rise, and I think we’ll see a lot more good work from her in the future.

The action sequences are impressive as well. Directed by the Hughes Brothers (Menace 2 Society, the Johnny Depp thriller, From Hell), these scenes are shot with an in-your-face urgency and excitement that you don’t often see in big-budget blockbusters. There’s no shaky camera work—just some great stunt work and, of course, slice-and-dice choreography, perfectly showcased in the opening fight with Eli and a group of hoodlums.

Where the film stumbles, though, is in its overall story arcs. It’s set up to be a big ideological clash between Washington and Oldman—two of our finest actors going head-to-head on the movie’s main conflict. Unfortunately, that doesn’t really happen. The launching pad is there, but the execution is lacking, reducing itself to just a few argument scenes between Eli and Carnegie and one big shoot-em-up. Similarly, Washington’s relationship with Kunis, which takes up the second half of the film, ends up being largely incomplete. You’ll see what I mean when you watch the movie—I didn’t buy that she learned so much from Eli (how long were they even traveling? 2 days??), nor that his words had such profound effects on her. It may have been helped by more screen time, but, in whole, Solara’s journey—and its ultimate payoff—feels unearned. I appreciate that the script tried to give these people depth; I can usually forgive plot flaws if the characters and the experiences they go through are well-developed. We have that here to an extent, but it feels like the heroes changed because the script said they had to, and not because they had an organic reason to do so.

But what about that twist? Ah, that I wouldn’t dare spoil. It’s creative and bold, even if it doesn’t entirely make sense. Does it make The Book of Eli worth seeing? Well, not entirely, but it still ranks among the best surprises I’ve seen recently. It’s infinitely better that the typical horror-movie “shocking twist”—it works for the story, rewards you for picking up on some clues, and, even though it smudges “realism” in favor of “gotcha!” awesomeness, it makes for a top-notch kicker to the movie.

So, as you can see, I wouldn’t qualify this as a particularly bad film. It’s just mediocre—capable of more, but its problems prevent it from being much stronger, especially given its premise and the caliber of its cast and behind-the-scenes talent. Of the movies out right now, this is one the better ones, though I suspect some standbys and upcoming releases will strip it of that title. In the end, I’d call it a great rental—on the small screen, and watching comfortably from your own couch, the movie’s faults will be easier to swallow and you could probably enjoy the film’s accomplishments (ie, the acting, cinematography, the clever clues to the finale) with much more enthusiasm.

Image courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures.
Read more!

Review: "The Princess and the Frog"

- Posted by Rusty


Movie: Disney’s The Princess and The Frog

My Rating: 3 bites [out of 5]

In Short: The hand-drawn-animated The Princess and the Frog is a most welcome return to form for Disney! Although it doesn’t hit the highs of their previous classics, it’s a lovely fairy tale that will sit comfortably on the shelf next to your old Disney VHS’es. [full review after the jump]

Full Review: The Princess and the Frog, in a spin on the Grimm Brothers’ “The Frog Prince”, stars the bright, determined Tiana, who dreams of opening her own restaurant in 1920’s New Orleans. But, when money problems get in the way, she stumbles upon a smooth-talking, very cooly accented, talking frog. Turns out, he’s a prince under a curse by the voodoo Shadow Man (a very colorful, fun villain), and if she kisses him…well, he’ll turn human again and pay for her restaurant!

Ah, but there’s the twist: the mucus-y kiss fails and they both turn into frogs instead, launching a bright, colorful adventure into the Louisiana bayou. Wisecracking animal sidekicks, lots of musical numbers, and one big, last-10-minutes showdown with the villain ensue. And, of course, we get lots of heartfelt moments along the way, with a sweet running theme of making your own dreams come true, not by wishing but through patience, hard work, and dedication—I wouldn’t expect any less from Disney.

Like it sounds, this it the old Disney formula down pat, and it’s a wonderful, familiar sight. What makes this outing extra special is likely the most engaging central couple Disney has ever had. Tiana is getting a lot of positive word-of-mouth for being the first Black princess (long overdue, though still nice to see), but her character is also headstrong, intelligent, hard-working (she even refuses to dance, for she’d rather work and save money for her restaurant!), and has big dreams that don’t only revolve around boys (take that, Bella Swan). She’s probably the most rounded character in the Disney Princess universe and the best role-model for young girls since Beauty and the Beast’s Belle.

As for Prince Naveen…well, he’s a charming, ultra-suave European womanizer (as much as the G-rating will allow him to talk about), but, of course, with a great, big heart too. He’s great fun to watch, and he gets the biggest laughs in this movie. There were also genuine and very sweet sparks between him and Tiana (not to mention an adorable running joke about “slime” vs. “one’s own mucus”)—his journey in the film is really the most rewarding. What a great change of pace from Disney’s stock of unbearably bland princes (I’m looking at you, Prince Eric!).

In all honesty, I wanted to rate this higher, but there were just a few nagging things that prevented it from becoming an instant classic for me. First off, while the story was cute, it just felt too slim to support 90 minutes, resulting in parts of the movie feeling padded and sapping its great, zippy initial energy.

Same goes for the musical numbers: the songs are well-animated—lots of oomph and colors and jazzy tunes—but there were a good one or two that felt like they were filling up time and not pushing the story forward. It doesn’t really help that the songs weren’t too memorable—I enjoyed them when I saw the film last week, but none of them really stuck in my head (compare that to: “A Whole New World”, “Under the Sea,” the opening song of Beauty and the Beast, and many, many more).

Finally, while the cast of characters here is a funky, creative bunch (including a jazz-playing chubby alligator and a Cajun fly), none of them end up really standing out. They don’t really pop off the screen—we like them, sure, but their personalities don’t leave too lasting of an imprint. There are no Timons here, or Abus, or Lumieres—Tiana and Naveen make up for this, but I would have liked to see them surrounded by a more developed group of people. Even the villain, while very amusing to watch and root against, pales in comparison to more deliciously evil Disney baddies like Jafar and Gaston. I know I’m comparing The Princess and the Frog too much to the Disney classics I grew up with; it should stand on its own, and, by all means, it does. It’s just so close to being perfect that it’s a bit of a bummer that it falls short.

Still, my nitpicks aside, I’m sure little kids will eat this up. Even better, all of us crazy Disney enthusiasts (I know there’s a bunch of us out there!) or just fans of good family films will love this too. It’s too charming not to like, brimming with warm humor and imagination, and, despite its shortcomings, I have a feeling I’ll watch this many more times over the years.

If you caught the trailers and I liked what you saw, I’m pretty sure you’ll like the final product too. Go out and see it—you know you want to; even if you don’t come out humming the songs, you’ll still exit with a great big smile on your face. After all, it’s why we adore the old Disney movies.

Good to know that Disney (and not just Pixar) is making those once again.

Image courtesy of Walt Disney Pictures.
Read more!

Weekend Bites: Ace vs. Zombieland... the Zombies win!

Posted by Ace

4 bites [out of 5]

There is finally something worth watching this weekend… or rather something worth spending your $15 at the box office.


Rules for surviving the Zombie apocalypse:
Rule #1 – Cardio
Rule #2 - The Double Tap
Rule #3 - Seatbelts

Alright… so who hasn’t thought of what they would do if, in fact, the Zombie apocalypse broke out? (Personally, I’d probably hull up in a Wal-Mart or Costco or something… that is to say after I killed all the Zombie employees first) With all the strange infectious disease scares floating around, who’s to say that the Zombie apocalypse won’t happen? I’m just saying… It’s something to keep in mind…

But I digress…

When I first heard about “Zombieland,” I naturally wrote it off. I’m not big on horror, or gore, or zombies for that matter. Ever since I was a kid and watched Night of the Living Dead during a daytime matinee on TV, zombies have scared the bejeezus out of me (and yes, there’s still a small part of me, hidden deep inside, underneath this dastardly handsome exterior that still gets a little scared by the “Thriller” music video).

But like I was saying, I wrote this movie off almost the instant I first saw a poster for it, mainly because I didn’t know anything about it. But the first trailer I ever saw for Zombieland was actually at San Diego Comic-Con this year, and it was probably the biggest surprise of the Con. Perhaps a lot more people shared my original sentiment about the movie, and just as likely, we were probably all pleasantly surprised by what the film had to offer. So, kudos to newcomer director, Ruben Fleischer, for breaking my preconceptions about this movie and dissuading me from not watching it.


The film stars Jesse Eisenberg (Adventureland), Woody Harrelson (White Men Can’t Jump), Emma Stone (Superbad) and Abigail Breslin (Little Miss Sunshine) as the last remaining living human beings in Zombieland, formerly known as America.

The plot is pretty simple… Survival.

Eisenberg’s character, Columbus, named after the city in Ohio (a coping strategy for the characters -- referring to themselves as the names of the cities they were from, helps them stay emotionally detached, in the event that they would have to kill one another) narrates the film as he runs through a list of rules he’s compiled which are imperative to surviving in Z-land. Columbus is trying to get to, well, Columbus in hopes of finding his family, and along the way, he runs into Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), the expert in zombie killing, who’s also on a quest of his own — finding Twinkies. Somewhere along the way, Columbus and Tallahassee get hijacked by a sister duo, Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). I don’t want to give too much away here, so I’ll just say this: they eventually all team up together.

And like I said earlier, the movie is pretty simple and straight-forward. There aren’t too many twists and turns, but it’s just pure, unadulterated fun at the expense of killing zombies. Drawing its inspiration from another great Zombie-comedy insta-classic, Shaun of the Dead, the film really isn’t a horror movie (and I still find it strange that Zombie movies have become their own sub-genre). Of course it has its moments that startle you, but I can’t really classify this as “HORROR” per se. It’s much too light-hearted for that. Unless you’re squeamish and you consider all movies that feature blood, guts, gore, and Zombies as horrific, then this movie’ll probably scare you.

But it’s not just about gore and guts and zombie smashing, it has a great amount of heart. As the characters try to stay emotionally detached from one another, they find themselves actually growing closer together. Columbus finds another kind of family in his endeavor to find his real family. But I guess being the sole surviving members of the human race will do that to people. Plus, someone makes a really GREAT cameo in the movie… arguably the greatest cameo of all time. Alright, I hyperbolized that just a tad, but it’s still awesome!

That being said, here are my rules for surviving Zombieland…

Rule #1 – Go watch this movie!
Rule #2 – If you’re squeamish… get over it and go watch this movie! (It’s time to Nut up or Shut up!)
Rule #3 – Refer back to Rules #1 and #2…

Images courtesy of Columbia Pictures

Read more!

Weekend Bites: "Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs"

- Posted by Ace



The ACESTER is back in the game. Sorry for the long hiatus, I had some personal matters to attend to. But now it’s back to work.

Since there was absolutely NOTHING good that opened this past weekend, I decided to check out something that opened LAST weekend, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, which opened at No. 1 for the second straight weekend. So now I have the great fortune of reviewing a food themed movie on a food themed movie blog.

Overall Rating: 2 ½ bites [out of 5]

For those of you who don’t know, the film is an adaptation of the well-known children’s book, written by Judi and Ron Barrett. The basic plot summary is about the town of Chewandswallow where it precipitates food and beverages three times a day. It’s been FOREVER since I’ve read the book, but I remember it being featured on Reading Rainbow, back in the day, and honestly, who didn’t love this book as a kid? Who didn’t love the idea of food raining down from the heavens? Or school being closed because a giant pancake smothers it?

But I digress.

Naturally, I was curiously excited about this film. Based on the trailer, I thought there was genuine ingenuity behind the adaptation of turning a twenty page children’s book into a full-length feature film. And to my surprise, it was in 3-D. I don’t think I’ve seen a 3-D movie since Captain Eo at Disneyland, so I was actually pretty excited about it. But to my disappointment, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs was kind of mediocre. Don’t get me wrong—I’m not being cynical because this is a kid’s movie. I’m a kid at heart and still love watching cartoons. But this one just wasn’t up to par.

The film’s adaptation of the book revolves around Flint Lockwood (voiced by Bill Hader), an aspiring inventor whose inventions usually end in disaster. He finally finds success with the invention of a machine that can create food out of water. Through one disastrous turn of events, his machine is launched into the upper atmosphere over Swallow Falls (later Chewandswallow), causing the food-based weather anomalies.

So here’s the good—Mr. T. His character was probably the coolest and funniest of the cast. And it’s glad to see, or rather, hear Mr. T in another acting gig. Secondly, the Gummi Bear fight scene was the only moment that made me laugh out loud. I don’t want to spoil anything, so I’ll just leave it at that. Lastly, it was great to see that the directors captured a few of the iconic moments from the book, for example the pancake crushing the school, and of course, the split pea soup fog. At least for me, those illustrations in the book stand out in memory to this day.

And now onto the bad news… it just wasn’t funny. It tried really hard to be funny, but the jokes all fell short of hitting its mark. I was sitting in a movie theatre full of kids, and there were very few moments when even the kids laughed out loud. It honestly felt like they were pitching a thousand different jokes, in hopes that at least one of them would stick, rather than letting the comedy come naturally. I can’t recall one other funny moment in the film, other than the Gummi Bear scene.

Some people may think that I’m being a little harsh, but I think that today’s audience has become accustomed to some great animated feature films, all of which possess mass appeal to all audiences. But Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, which had so much promise and the nostalgia factor, failed to meet its potential.

Image courtesy of Columbia Pictures and Sony Pictures
Read more!

Late Lunches: "State of Play"

- Posted by Rusty


Review: State of Play

My rating: 4 bites [out of 5]

I showed this movie to my parents a few days ago, and during a moment of Russell Crowe-investigative-reporting awesomeness, my mom turned to me and said:

“You want to be a reporter?”

I shook my head, just as Crowe did something badass again.

“Good. [Pause] Because you’d make a terrible one.”

That was meant in the nicest way possible...and I couldn’t agree more. I never wanted to be a reporter (if I do go into Journalism, I’d be much happier commentating from the side…preferably about movies, books, and TV!), but, man, I would never have the guts for what Russell Crowe does here. If I worked with him, I’d just be the worst possible partner—I’d nicely ask people for interviews, make jokes all the time, take “no” for an answer…and then Crowe would come along and rightfully beat me up (maybe he’ll even scream, “Are you not entertained?!” while doing that).

But that’s one of the reasons I loved State of Play—it was a fascinating glimpse into the lives of reporters—something I know very little about, despite wanting to be in that world. We see the tolls to your personal life that accumulate through the years, the consequences of publishing the truth about the people you care about, and just the choices these guys face on a daily basis, especially in the name of a good story. It’s not the main focus of the movie, but these details add life to the material, and raise it above what could have been just a standard mystery movie.

State of Play is a very strong film—the kind of well-thought-out story where lots of people with different agendas come together, the secrets come out, twists and turns happen at every possible moment, and loyalties and friendships are tested. This is smart entertainment—very well-acted, tightly plotted, and, despite little action in the traditional sense, it’s more exciting than what usually passes for “thrillers”. And it’s headlined by some of our best actors—all working in top-form, and giving us one of the best ensembles of the year.

I won’t get into too much of the story, since watching it unravel is a big part of the fun. So, here’s the basic set-up: Russell Crowe is seasoned Washington D.C. reporter, Cal McAffrey, and he stumbles on a strange shooting case. Meanwhile, his old college roommate, Congressman Collins (Ben Affleck), comes under fire for a possible affair, a story that falls to Rachel McAdams’s newbie blogger, Della Frye (and believing Crowe and Affleck as roommates is the only real stretch in the movie). As the twists pile up, Cal and Della start working together to unlock what might just be a wide-spanning conspiracy.


Once the main mystery kicks in, the story moves at a clip, tossing out rewarding plot twists left and right (especially one near the end, which viewers might figure out if they pay close attention). But I really want to give the filmmakers credit for making the movie as much about character as the overarching conspiracy. Crowe, especially, seems to be relishing playing Cal McAffrey—sure, he’s the never-back-down type when it comes to an important story, but the script (and Crowe) makes him a genuinely good guy—one who believes in the power of the truth, that newspapers could (and should) do more than entertain, even at the expense of making a profit. I also like that Crowe’s carrying a little extra weight here—he’s not in Maximus shape, and I think he uses that to his advantage. Cal’s a bit pudgy, loves to eat some second helpings of chili dogs (the mischievous smile on his face when he orders that is priceless), and that’s all a natural part of his character—he’s not the kind of guy who commands the attention of the Colosseum, but more the type who sneaks in on you with charm, his sense of humor, and his unthreatening, always-messy locks of hair. Crowe’s one of my favorite actors, and I like his lighter, playful roles (A Good Year, 3:10 to Yuma had glimpses of this too) just as much as the powerhouse-actor ones (like A Beautiful Mind, Gladiator, etc). He’s got a Robin Hood movie coming out next year, from Gladiator director, Ridley Scott, and I can’t wait to see what he does with that.

Rachel McAdams does lovely work here as well—in fact, it’s the relationship between her and Crowe that really makes the movie for me. Her Della Frye is a good writer, but a completely inexperienced reporter. Still, she’s got spark and tons of determination (she would have made a terrific Lois Lane), and Crowe’s character takes her under his wing—it’s a sweet notion, and how Cal pushes to bring out her inner-great-reporter are some of the movie’s nicest touches. There’s also a scene with the two of them near the end, playing off a running joke in the movie, and it’s just a treat to watch—just two fine actors breathing life and energy to some great writing. McAdams is one of our most talented young actresses, so kudos to her for continuing to pick quality projects like this one.

I also want to single out Ben Affleck as Congressman Collins—Affleck’s another one of my favorites, and it’s especially nice to see him put in such strong character work (I also hear his hippie stoner in Extract steals that whole movie). After all the Giglis and Surviving Christmases, I know his name has become a bit of a joke, but Affleck has been on a major roll since his “comeback” with Hollywoodland (which should have gotten him a Best Supporting Actor nomination). Watching his interviews, he’s definitely a clever and talented guy, and one with a wicked sense of humor about himself (really, listen to some of his DVD commentaries—no one makes fun of his own films like him)—he would be the first to admit that he made awful film choices in the past, but he’s well on his way to correcting that. This is a tricky role, and casting the likeable Affleck is a smart, extra layer to an already interesting character—see what I mean when you watch the film—it’s easily his best work since Hollywoodland.

The supporting cast is also excellent, including Robin Wright Penn (The Princess Bride), a deliciously smarmy Jason Bateman (the very missed Arrested Development), and Oscar-winner Helen Mirren (The Queen, National Treasure 2) as the tough-as-nails editor of Crowe’s newspaper (if anyone could stand toe-to-toe with Crowe…and intimidate him, it’s her). Some great writers pitched in to the script, most notably Tony Gilroy (the Bourne trilogy) and Billy Ray (Shattered Glass, the best movie about journalists, in my opinion…and proof that Hayden Christensen can actually act!), and it’s all confidently directed by Kevin McDonald (The Last King of Scotland).

The movie also comments on the current newspaper woes—mainly, the slow death of print and the domination of online material. I’m not too knowledgeable on that, but I thought the movie handled the issue with subtlety and quite a positive, intelligent outlook. I actually feel the same way about books, with the steadily building argument that Kindles and portable electronics will one day replace them. That may be the case…but, for now, I think people will still flock to read a good book in print, exactly the way it was intended (Harry Potter and Dan Brown’s new book—which I’ll do an “On the Bookshelf” for in a few days—are perfect examples of that).

If I had any quibbles, it’s that the pacing lags a bit toward the end (although you forgive it on second viewing, since it’s vital for the final twist). There’s also one confrontation with Affleck and Crowe that feels too overwritten—the forced, “I thought you were my friend!”-type of outburst, where Affleck has to scream out exactly what the Conflict is for the audience—it’s one of the very few false notes this movie hits. Like I said, these are minor quibbles—little things like that could have been taken out, but their presence didn't hurt my enjoyment of the movie.

Overall, along with Adventureland, this is my favorite film that I got to review here, so this is a very easy recommendation. Great suspense, an interesting story, and some fantastic acting…and you learn a little about journalists (which I found very cool)—I think there’s a little something for everyone here. And, let me just add: for a rental, it’ll be cheaper and a whole lot better than some of the films currently in theaters.

…and here are some fun facts to close this off:

Fun Fact 1: This movie was originally set to star Brad Pitt and Edward Norton (as Cal and Congressman Collins, respectively) in their first, legitimate post-Fight Club reunion (they co-produced a documentary since that movie), but that fell through as the script underwent some changes. Great actors, both of them, and the resulting film would have been just as interesting…if totally different.

Fun Fact 2: This movie’s based on a BBC miniseries starring James McAvoy (who was also in director McDonald’s The Last King of Scotland) and Bill Nighy (Davy Jones in the last two Pirates of the Caribbean movies)—I love both McAvoy and Nighy (man, I have way too many favorites), so I’ll be sure to check it out and let you guys know how it compares. The filmmakers here did an admirable job condensing 6 episodes worth of story into 2 hours, but if anyone’s curious, I’m sure a more-detailed version of this could be pretty interesting to see.


Images courtesty of Universal Pictures, Working Title Films, and BBC
Read more!

Weekend Bites: "9"

- Posted by Rusty


Review: “9”

My rating: 2 ½ bites [out of 5]

“9” isn’t a bad movie…but it’s the kind of thing where you walk out of the theater and say, “Yeah, that was all right” or “Not bad—it looked cool, and was pretty entertaining.” It doesn’t inspire enthusiasm, but just calm indifference. And that’s too bad—“9” looked like it was going to be something truly special. The brainchild of some great imaginations, the movie has a lot going for it: the back-story and set-up is actually pretty interesting, the voice acting is really well-done across the board—sincere, emotional, and never over-the-top, and the visuals are some of the most beautiful and memorable that I’ve seen this year (if ever in an animated film—really, the effects and details of the post-apocalyptic setting rival some of Pixar’s best stuff). But “9”, running at just a scant 80 minutes, has a story too weak to give any of those elements their due, and we’re left with a film that just can’t live up to its amazing potential.

If you watch the original short this movie is based on, it puts “9” (and its problems) into much sharper perspective (I embedded it below—check it out if you have the chance—it’s definitely worth your time). Shane Acker (who directed this movie as well…and was a UCLA student!) wrote and directed it, gaining the attention of movie giants like Tim Burton and Russian crazy-effects-wizard/“Wanted” director, Timur Bekmambetov—it’s basically one long scene set in a post-apocalyptic world (we don’t know any of the background yet), and revolves around a silent ragdoll and his attempt to stop a mechanized, soul-eating beast. Very cool stuff, and a very impressive achievement for a young animation student. And I’ll give Shane Acker major credit here—he did expand upon his short. The movie tackles similar ground, but with much more detail—after the destruction of the human race, nine dolls (brought to life by mysterious means) band together to survive and take down the source of the world’s demolition, led by the stalwart 9 (Elijah Wood).

It’s a fantastic set-up, and Acker brought out some great mythology, carefully explaining why every human has died out and the landscape fell into the hands of sentient ragdolls and malevolent machines. But Acker, along with his screenwriter Pamela Pettler (“Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride” and “City of Ember,” which fell apart too, story-wise), came up with an interesting short story to supplement the original idea, not a feature-length movie. Really, if you write down what happens in the film on paper, there’s probably 20 minutes of story here at best. True, the filmmakers fleshed out the short, but only in a very limited way, and so we’re left with a movie that tries to stretch a good idea across 80 minutes, offering tons of action, but few characters who grow and develop in the process.


And the resulting movie goes something like this: the characters talk about the plot. They fight a monster. They talk some more about the plot. They fight an even bigger monster. And Repeat, all the way until they fight the final, biggest monster and learn the final secret of the plot. And the characters, all animated with such care and attention to detail, never become the fleshed-out heroes they should have been. It’s fitting that all the ragdolls are named 1 though 9—that’s pretty much the amount of personality they get too—just one or two identifying features per doll, and that’s all they have time to show. Thus, we have characters like 1 (the always stately Christopher Plummer), who’s pompous and cowardly, 7 (Jennifer Connelly), who’s fearless and action-hero-like (a quick kudos to the filmmakers for making a girl the film’s only action hero), and, of course, 9 (Elijah Wood), who’s curious, brave, and is the crucial character for the Future of our world.

Then there’s a character like 6 (Crispin Glover)—my friend and I had the toughest time deciding what his purpose was to begin with. Everyone else contributes in some way—9 leads the resistance, 7 fights, and 6…well…he prophesizes…and sometimes draws stuff to help him prophesize. There’s actually a stretch of the film where 6 goes away, and it only hit me at the end that he was even missing from the group. You see what I mean? A film this well-made, that attempts to give us an original, thought-provoking story, deserved better characters—we needed well-rounded, interesting personalities, those that grow and change through the experience, and not simply move the plot along while we admire their designs. There's a lot more story here to explore, far more details into these characters' lives that are left untouched, and maybe one day we'll get that in a sequel...but for now, "9" needed a more complete narrative, and much less reliance on its fantastic action sequences.


On that note, the action really is something spectacular. These bits are thrilling and brimming with inventive energy—if anything, these scenes prove than Shane Acker is going to have good, long career after this. He stages his action well, and he has a sure hand with delivering the suspense and scares—especially as we meet the bigger machines, with all their whirring parts and endless ways to try to kill our heroes. As an action fan, the film worked great for me on that level, but, after a while, the action started to feel like a time-filler before the final reveals.

Still, as said before, this is one amazing-looking film. Every detail of this world is gorgeously constructed—the ruins, the endless wasteland, the smattering of everyday objects transformed to do something else (Martin Landau’s 2 is a very clever bit of animation and design), and even the ragdolls themselves—all similar-looking, but each composed of minor differences, be they different types of cloth or the inclusion of zippers. It’s clear that a lot of hard work went into this film—Acker obviously has a lot of heart and affection for his vision, and he’s a major talent from just a stylistic perspective. It’s actually kind of fitting that Tim Burton is a producer here—Burton was always visually interesting, but it took him years of experience to become as confident a storyteller as he is today (and it still took the occasional stumbles like “Planet of the Apes” and “Mars Attacks” along the way). I think Acker is following a similar course—his film-storytelling instincts just aren’t there yet—he can wow an audience, but he hasn’t quite cracked the need for the proper amount of emotional investment to compliment those amazing visuals. But I think he’ll get there—that short you see below shows a strong command of story and tone. Now Acker just needs to learn to sustain that momentum—to make the action feel organic to the plot, and not just a way to delay the development of the narrative and characters.


And, so, I’m really on the fence about recommending “9”. It’s very entertaining, and it should satisfy those hoping for some escapist action…but the lack of solid characters and the rather thin storyline might prevent it from being a satisfying experience (like it was for me). I wasn’t upset that I watched it, but I expected something much more moving and powerful. And, so, a fair warning: “9” is partly worth seeing, but it won’t live up to its amazing previews—as it stands, it’s a dazzling piece of work, but it’s more of a missed opportunity than the respected sci-fi classic it could have been.

Shane Acker's original short film, "9":

Images courtesy of Focus Features.
Read more!