2010 Review #15: Prince of Persia

Prince of Persia
Rated PG-13
(intense sequences of violence and action)
1 hour 56 minutes

Storyline:
Based on the video game, which follows an adventurous prince who teams up with a rival princess to stop an angry ruler from unleashing a sandstorm that could destroy the world.

Cast:
Jake Gyllenhaal
Gemma Arterton
Ben Kingsley
Alfred Molina

Critic's Grade:
F
(Consensus: It doesn't offer much in the way of substance, but Prince of Persia is a suitably entertaining swashbuckler -- and a substantial improvement over most video game adaptations.)

My Grade:
D+

Another movie that I'm not going to waste a lot of time on reviewing. Here we have another movie based off a video game, and honestly it's very rare that a video game translates to a really good movie. Nothing changes much here. Here's the problem with adapting a video game: there is SO much story packed into the game itself, because you get hours upon hours of game play. When you transition that to film you basically have to create your own story off the game, but still use some of the well known elements from the game itself to still have the connection. I've never played the video game this movie is based off. After seeing this movie...I would never want to. But I guess the movie does not represent the game to it's fullest. I think the main connections between both film and game here are the setting and that nifty dagger thing that can temporarily turn back time (essentially the main plot of the film).

This is a movie from Disney productions...and that is so painfully clear while watching the film. Have you ever been to Disneyland and watched some of their shows they put on? Think about the sets and costumes if you can...well that's almost exactly the production value you get in this film. At least for most of the film. A lot of the little cities look like they came straight from the theme park. They look fake. Obviously they are supposed to be fake, but you have to make them look as real as possibly. The visual effects aren't much better either, they at times either look like a cartoon or maybe at best...video game graphics. If that was intentional to relate to the game, than awesome. If not, and that was an actual effort to bring this world to life, they really swung and missed...or at least swung and foul tipped it. There were some cool effect scenes though, mainly towards the end when all the action came into play. They also had a lot of slow motion camera shots which seemed so ridiculous and "current". Meaning that a movie set in this time doesn't really bode well with slow mo jumping off roof scenes or slow mo punching. Again...could be a reference to the game, I don't know.
The acting here is actually really bad...almost excruciating to watch. First off, Oscar nominee Jake Gyllenhaal (Brokeback Mountain, Donnie Darko) was not a good fit. He had a pretty mediocre British accent (even though his character is Persian??). And it felt like a high school play performance. Sure he's kind of pretty (although I don't see the real appeal) but man this was by far his worst performance I've seen him do. That woman who played the princess...good Lord was she unbearable to listen to most of this movie. Sure she is pretty too...but ugh, it felt like it was her first gig ever (although I know it's not). It was like she won a contest to be in a movie with Jake Gyllenhaal or something. I have NO idea why such talented actors as Oscar winner Ben Kingsley (Gandhi, Shutter Island) and Alfred Molina (Spiderman 2, Magnolia) even chose to be in this movie. If their agents picked it for them...shame on them. Their talent is far greater than this film and they they both gave performances like they knew they were making a big mistake.


This movie wasn't totally dreadful to me, it had some redeeming action moments...but that's all it really had. It didn't feel like a video game movie...even though the graphics looked like a game. The performances sucked big time, the sets were laughable and this whole movie just stunk it up big time. Sure it's better than that shit fest MacGruber...but that isn't saying much at all. I just didn't care for this movie at all.

2010 Review #14: MacGruber

MacGruber

Rated R

(strong crude and sexual content, violence, language and some nudity)

1 hour 30 minutes

Storyline:

Ex-special operative MacGruber is called back into action to take down his archenemy, Dieter Von Cunth, who's in possession of a nuclear warhead and bent on destroying Washington, D.C. Based off of a SNL skit.

Cast:

Will Forte

Ryan Phillippe

Kristin Wiig

Val Kilmer

Critic's Grade:

F

My Grade:

F+

I can't talk to long about this movie, so I'm only going to a paragraph review. This movie doesn't warrant an in depth film review because this movie has nothing really to review. This is a film based off a SNL skit, that I've never seen. Honestly this skit should have stayed on TV, this was not meant to be extended into a 90 minute feature film. This movie was barely funny in my eyes. It had the same few jokes throughtout the whole film, they just kept recycling them. It was either some gay oral sex joke or a joke about celery in someones ass. Even for a spoof type film, there was no spoof essence at all...at least not that I could see. It was painful to watch at times, and I maybe let out a short and small chuckle once or twice...but this movie was just so bad. Will Forte is kind of funny here, but ugh...he was extruciating to watch at times. Kristin Wiig is usually reliable but not here. What the hell is Ryan Phillippe doing in this movie?? And all I can say is...poor Val Kilmer. To me...this movie was a total dud. I really didn't like it. For a comedy...it lacked any real...comedy.

2010 Review #13: Robin Hood

Robin Hood

Rated PG-13
2 hours 20 minutes

Storyline:
The story of an archer in the army of Richard Coeur de Lion who fights against the Norman invaders and becomes the legendary hero known as Robin Hood.

Cast:
Russell Crowe
Cate Blanchett
Mark Strong
William Hurt

Critics Grade:
D-
(Consensus: Ridley Scott's revisionist take on this oft-told tale offers some fine acting and a few gripping action sequences, but it's missing the thrill of adventure that made Robin Hood a legend in the first place)

My Grade:
B-

We have yet another version of the timeless classic folks tale, Robin Hood. Actually this movie is more of a prequel to all of the other versions of the story we have seen. This is the "how did Robin Hood become Robin Hood back story". I actually wasn't thrilled to see this movie, the previews for it never truly grabbed my undying attention. Plus I've never been a big fan or follower of Oscar winner Russell Crowe (Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind). But now he has teamed up once again with Oscar nominated director Ridley Scott (Gladiator, Black Hawk Down) to create another Gladiator-esque film.

Let's face it, you are kidding yourself if you think this movie doesn't share a lot of similarities to the best picture winner, Gladiator - a film I recently watched for the first time and is a MUCH better film than Robin Hood. They have the same style, the stories kind of have a similar feel to them. I honestly thought I was watching a dumbed down, PG-13 version of Gladiator the whole time. Don't get me wrong, Robin Hood is not a BAD movie...it just isn't Robin Hood. Robin Hood is supposed to be full of adventure, it's supposed to be fun. This version is completely opposite of what I know of Robin Hood. This film is so dramatic and very light on the comedic aspects of the character. Russell Crowe isn't known for his sense of humor, so in that sense I think he was a poor chance to play the iconic role. The film has quite the epic feel to it, it kind of falls in line with Gladiator in that sense and even reminds me of Lord of the Rings at times. This story is supposed to have some kick to it, it's supposed to provide entertainment. I think this film lacks most of those qualities.

Like I said though, this movie is not bad. If Robin Hood was always intended to be an epic, dramatic tale, this movie would be amazing. What Ridley Scott and his writers did here was pretty much remove the heart and soul of the classic tale and added their own flavors into the mix. Not bad flavors, just not ones that enhanced the taste of Robin Hood...the taste we all know and love. Actually the flavors he added...made the whole thing kind of bland. HOWEVER, if this is a stand alone film, and it was supposed to be epic, that it had everything right. Story wise, I just don't think they hit a home run there. Where this movie lacked the most was story. You never really got to much of an insight into any of these characters and never do you really feel for any of them, especially Robin Hood. His back story was told rather abruptly and lazily if you ask me.

The film making here was damn near brilliant. Beautiful camera shots, and incredibly addicting musical score and this really looked like the world of Nottingham. I mean the pieces were all there on a technical standpoint. This whole movie looked absolutely stunning and at times breathtaking. The action sequences were exciting and chilling and got your heart racing. Although there were moments where the action kind of just fell flat way to quick. But for the most part it was really well done.

This movie also has some good performances. Russell Crowe has never been my cup of tea, but I won't deny that he's good at his craft. But he is not Robin Hood, I'm sorry. He was GOOD performance wise, but he brings NOTHING to the table with this character. Robin Hood is supposed to have some charisma in him, but Crowe plays him rather dully. I feel like Robin Hood didn't have much really going on in this movie for long periods of time, I kinda feel like he was just there, and that was it. This tale is about him, but there was so much else going on it took away from him. I like Oscar winner Cate Blanchett (Aviator, Lord of the Rings) and she plays pretty good Maid Marion and I liked her in the movie. Her performance though was always one note and quite subdued. Mark Strong has been typecast as the villain now I think. Well he plays this villain pretty convincingly, but I hated his look. He looked kind of like a poor man's Lord Voldemort and at times looked pretty silly. The rest of the cast all did quite a stand up job. I think the best performance in the film was by far from supporting actor, Oscar nominee, Max Von Sydow (Minority Report, Shutter Island).

So I think I just have very mixed feelings about this movie. In most aspects, this is a very good movie. It is extremely well made and looks gorgeous. The performances are all pretty good. It just lacks severely in storytelling and it took the meaty part of the tale away from the original concept. Robin Hood is not meant to be epic and overly dramatic. I love epic films, believe you me, but not in this particular case. This movie was way to heavy handed and dark. It just didn't work for this story. However, this is still a good movie from a film making standpoint. The story is not AWFUL either. Just...I don't know...it's all so...eh. I honestly will forget about this movie by years end. I say go see it, but I can't guarantee you will love it. I sure didn't.

2010 Review #12: Iron Man 2

Iron Man 2

Rated PG-13

2 hours 3 minutes

Starring:

Robert Downey Jr.

Don Cheadle

Scarlett Johansson

Gwyneth Paltrow

Sam Rockwell

Mickey Rourke

Samuel L. Jackson

Paul Bettany (voice)

Storyline:

Billionaire Tony Stark must contend with deadly issues involving the government, his own friends, as well as new enemies due to his superhero alter ego Iron Man.

Critics Grade:

B-

(It isn't quite the breath of fresh air that Iron Man was, but this sequel comes close with solid performances and an action-packed plot)

My Grade:

B

The first real blockbuster of the summer is finally here! A couple of years ago the first Iron Man movie took be by surprise and I absolutely loved it! It had a cool story and a great lead performance and mainly some fantastic action sequences throughout the film. It was what a summer movie is all about! Iron Man 2 is sure to be the biggest money maker of the summer if not somewhere in the top 3...you never know what may surprise. The question is...is it worthy of being the summer blockbuster? Is it a viable sequel to a great superhero movie? I'd say yes...for the most part.

Not often to sequels live up to the original film. I don't think Iron Man 2 lives up to it's predecessor, but it certainly comes fairly close. The movie lacks the punch and pizazz of the first film, it lacks the charisma. We don't get our first real action scene until about mid way through the film and then it dies down again after that. We don't get any consistent action until the last 30 minutes of the movie. That's all fine and dandy, I don't mind the story build up but it didn't feel like a summer action flick. At least not totally. It didn't stand out and wasn't 100% memorable. But here's the thing, it had enough action sequences to still be quite good, because when there was action, it was pretty damn cool. It had awesome visual effects and the action was at times pretty tense.

There is a lot more story in this film, which I found to be great. A lot of people just want things blowing up and to shy away from story. Not me. I liked the first half of the film that showcased all the problems that Tony Stark was having in his personal life and the fact that he's slowy dying. I liked it...but didn't love it. The story wasn't all that profound, and honestly it was a bit cliched and at times boring. Don't tell me you can't expect good stories from these movies. At this point we've had enough solid super hero movies that have had great stories (The Dark Knight anyone?). This didn't have bad writing at all...it just didn't brighten up the screen or the characters all that much. It was solid, just not awesome. It didn't balance out the action, at times it wasn't worth sitting through all the story stuff to get to the action.

What this movie definitley has is good performances, which is not very common for the super hero genre film. Oscar nominee Robert Downey Jr. stole the show again of course. That guy is growing as one of my favorite actors working today. He just has this awesome stage presence that dominates the screen. He IS Tony Stark. Oscar nominee Mickey Rourke (Sin City, The Wrestler) plays a pretty cool villian. He doesn't have a ton of speaking lines, but his actions are so nonchalant that it is at times scary. He fit the role so perfectly and his Russian accent was pretty good. Those electric whip things he used as a weapon looked awesome! I'm a big fan of Sam Rockwell (Snow Angels, Moon) and once again he does not dissapoint. He plays a creepy greedy guy who wants to take down Tony Stark and he pulls it off well. This guy needs some Oscar attention one day!! Scarlett Johansson was a nice addition to the cast and she had a pretty kick ass action scene towards the end that was pretty darn enjoyable to watch.

This movie has a lot of good things about it, for sure. This movie is entertaining for the most part, it has some cool action, great effects, and some solid performances from the rather large main cast. I think it's main downfall is a fairly weak story and the whole thing is just so predictable which took away from any real excitement. I got kind of restless wondering when the summer blockbuster action and excitment was about to happen and it just seemed to happen so far and few between that it was a BIT of letdown. But not to much, because there is definitely some action here. I totally recommend this movie especially if you love the first movie. This IS a good flick, don't misread this review. This has a lot of good things working for it, it only has a few things that mark it down. This is a good sequel that just doesn't quite live up to the original..but that's OK...because Iron Man 2 is still a fun, good movie.

2010 Review #11: Disneynature's Oceans

Disneynature Oceans

Rated G
1 hour 26 minutes

Documentary Subject:
An ecological drama/documentary, filmed throughout the globe. Part thriller, part meditation on the vanishing wonders of the sub-aquatic world.

Narrated By:Pierce Brosnan

Critics Grade:
B-
(Oceans adds another visually stunning chapter to the Disney Nature library)

My Grade:
A-

Last year on Earth day we got the first film chapter from Disneynature, "Earth". A visually stunning, beautiful and remarkable story that followed four animal families. It flowed wonderfully and the story it told for each family was full of both beauty and joy as well as tugged gently on the heart strings. Now we have a new chapter, and this time we go off land and into the wonders of our Oceans.

This movie is just as visually breathtaking as last years "Earth", in fact maybe even more so. The camera got up close and personal with some of the most unique creatures on this Earth that most of us never knew existed. Everything from creepy looking squid things all the way up to the king of the ocean, the blue whale...the largest animal the Earth has ever known. You really get a cool insight into how these creatures live their lives. It's so surreal to see how similar their lives are to our own human existence. They defend themselves, they feed themselves, take care of their family, love one another, go to work, clean up the "home", etc. It was just so great to watch. It shows how much we take our animal counterparts for granted. We feel they are beneath us for some reason, but my God they are just as delicate as we are.So visually yes...this movie nailed it. It was a beautiful thing to see. My biggest and mainly only problem with the film is the storytelling...or lack there of. "Earth" actually followed four animal families over the course of a year or so. This movie doesn't have that formula. This movie is just a series of beautiful images shown to us. It lacked any emotional connection like "Earth" had. We never spend to much time with any one animal before we go onto the next. It wasn't a very factual movie, it didn't exactly teach us anything. Basically it was "hey look at all this pretty stuff but we won't give you any real info about them". I kind of go into a movie like wanting to learn something. I can't actually tell you anything about these animals after seeing the movie other than how cool they are.

But don't really let that deter you from seeing this film or taking your kids to see this film. I think this would be a fantastic movie for your children to see. Overall this is just a great movie experience. It's a beautiful treat of a film and I for one cannot wait for next year's Disneynature edition.

2010 Review #10: A Nightmare on Elm Street

A Nightmare on Elm Street

Rated R
(strong bloody horror violence, disturbing images, terror and language)
1 hour 35 minutes

Storyline:
A re-imagining of the horror icon Freddy Krueger, a serial-killer who wields a glove with four blades embedded in the fingers and kills people in their dreams, resulting in their real death in reality.

Critics Grade:
F

My Grade:
C-

I am going to keep this fairly short. I would say a good 30% of the movies we get these days are remakes or re-imaginings of older, classic films. Typically these are remakes of old horror movies. Most of them are pretty bad, but at least they are somewhat "fun" or "entertaining" and I use those terms very lightly. It's not state secret that I have not been a fan of pretty much ALL the recent horror movie remakes. This probably isn't the worst one ever though. The original Nightmare on Elm Street was creepy and Freddy Krueger made it hard for people to fall asleep after seeing the film. The original movie itself did not scare the daylights out of me, but I'll admit I had a nightmare or two after seeing it for the first time many years ago.

This one though...this one is almost laughable. No offense to Oscar nominee Jackie Earle Haley (Little Children, Watchmen), who does the best he can with this...but this was NOT Freddy Krueger. The only person who can EVERY play Freddy is Robert Englund. First off, the make up for this guy looked totally fake. Whenever he spoke, his mouth barely moved but when you can see it moved...it was obvious makeup. The original Freddy looked more real and scary. This guy looked like a pizza, no offense to burn victims...because this guy didn't even look like a burn victim. His voice was not right, it sounded to much like his Watchmen character. His voice was not threatening or freaky. His killing methods were so boring and they have been done millions of times before in these kinds of movies. Nothing original there.I know you can't expect decent acting in these kinds of movies, and I wasn't looking for it. However, there should be at least one or two slightly redeeming performances that don't make the acting totally cheesy. But my gosh...the acting here was atrocious. It actually made the movie hard to watch, I would describe it as being uncomfortable to watch at times. This group of people...I couldn't wait for them to die!! It's as if they were acting in some high school play or just reading cue cards...it was so flat and so so so bad. The only one who was good in this movie was Jackie Earle Haley. But again...these aren't movies you expect good acting from.

The writing in this movie is partly to blame for the bad acting however. The dialog was pretty poorly written for the most part. However, the best part of this movie was the storyline. I kind of like the back story of Freddy. It was definitely a lot darker than the original. And it wasn't elaborate which I also liked, it was a pretty well summed up scene or two that gave us the gist of the back story that sets up the main film. It also makes Freddy a bit more sinister in his actions. The movie was also just the right length, they didn't take to long to get it going. No boring lead up or anything. It also had some pretty dark and cool atmosphere, which is key for a movie like this. Also had some good effect work...but this is a Michael Bay production...you are going to get that.

I don't know...I guess now that I think of it...I didn't hate this movie as much as I thought originally. It had a cool back story and some good filmaking. Jackie Earle Haley did the best he could with the Freddy character but it was NO Robert Englund. The rest of the cast was super bad and it did not benefit from well written dialog. I guess now I'm torn about this movie now that I'm writing about it. Maybe it wasn't that awful. Was it great? No...not for me personally. I didn't "like" it but maybe I didn't so much hate it. Hmm...that's weird, I've never had that happen before. As a slasher flick...you know I guess it worked. I would have liked to see some more original and fresh kill scenes though.

I guess if you are a fan of slasher movies...you may like this movie. This movie does not compare at all however to the original...no one could ever convince me of that. Also...just know I don't like remakes...I go into them with extremely low expectations.