Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Knocked Up (2007)
10/10
Just as good as 40 Yr Old Virgin
8 June 2007
Remember the movie "The 40 Year Old Virgin"? Well, they've remade it and called it Knocked Up. Well, not completely - there's a totally new story. But the same writer, director, and half the cast are back (no Steve Carrell, alas). And this movie has everything that the other one had: outrageously raunchy comedy, guys being disgusting, and truly touching moments. This is a very good thing.

I loved the 40 Year Old Virgin; it's one of my favorite movies. I did not think Judd Apatow could strike gold twice, but he has. Knocked Up once again delivers on every level. If anything, the plot and sensitive moments have even gotten stronger. The comedy certainly hasn't let up - I haven't laughed that hard in quite a while. In fact, I missed a lot of the dialogue because everyone was laughing so hard for so long.

Katherine Heigl (Gray's Anatomy) stars as Alison, a very pretty girl with a successful TV job at the E! channel. Seth Rogen plays Ben, reprising his likable lug character from 40 yr old, and if anything he's a little more of a slob and loser. But he's still very witty and honest, which is what makes his character so likable. The two meet up at a bar where they are both drunk, and they end up having a one night stand. Of course, she ends up pregnant, and decides to keep the baby just to spite her mom. So they try to make a relationship work together.

Now, from here the movie could get very predictable, but it doesn't. Sure, we know where it's eventually headed, but it sure doesn't get there the normal way. The two would-be parents fight almost nonstop, as their personalities are very different. But there's a realism to their fights that hits home. The audience is left thinking, "this sounds like two actual people arguing, not a scripted fight." Their frustrations come out, and the typical differences between men and women's thoughts are showcased. Just when their fights are getting really bitter, just when we've had enough, just when it seems to be heading in the direction of "The Break Up" (a supposed comedy that was just really uncomfortable and bitter fighting), the mood is broken up by more outstanding comedy.

One sidestory involves Alison's sister and brother-in-law. Paul Rudd from 40 Yr Old plays the husband, and he and Ben instantly bond over their manly feelings. The wife is played by the actress who was the drunk that puked on Steve Carrell in 40 Yr Old. She plays a very angry, controlling, and insecure lady who ends up alienating her husband with her attitude. It is interesting to watch Alison and Ben spend time with the other family, who have 2 kids of their own already. Every little problem or argument that the family has is painfully apparent to the new couple, and they fear that their own relationship will be headed in this direction.

There are many great scenes in this movie that really help it relate to the audience. In one scene, a major earthquake strikes in the middle of the night. In the aftermath, Alison realizes that when it was an emergency, Ben was not there to help her. Can she really rely on him, or is he doomed to be a slacker forever? Upon sifting through their scattered things, she realizes some other truths about him. In another couple scenes, Ben is having a conversation with his dad (the great Ivan Reitman of Ghostbusters fame), asking for advice. His dad is kind and honest, and says nice things that any dad would, but he does not and cannot seem to really give his son any advice. It becomes clear that his dad really is just an older and more mature version of himself: he's a likable guy and has good intentions, but isn't necessarily wise and doesn't really know what to do either.

If you took out all the over-the-top jokes and raunch in this film, it would stand alone quite well as its own sweet romantic comedy. But of course the jokes are awesome, and fans of Farrelly Brothers-type humor will not be disappointed. This movie has something for everyone, and unless you're easily offended by a dirty joke, should have most people rolling in the aisles. This is exactly the kind of movie I love, and I highly recommend it. If there's anything wrong with it, I didn't notice.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I can't remember what happened in the middle
26 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The 3rd and supposedly final installment in the successful Pirates series opened last night. Last year, the 2nd movie broke the record for the all time biggest opening ever. That record was just broken again by Spider-man 3 a few weeks ago. For the 3rd Pirates to break it yet again would be a very tall order, especially given its 3 hour running time.

This movie is not bad. Well, at least not as bad as Spider-man 3. But once again, as with Shrek 3 and Spider-man 3, it does not live up to its first two installments. Its one major flaw is that it is just too darn long. Shave about an hour off of it, and it would have been pretty good. But then again, who wouldn't want to watch Keira Knightley for 3 hours? Mmmmm, Keira Knightley.... Could there be anyone more hot? Well, maybe Jonny Depp or Orlando Bloom if you're into that kinda thing. Good news, you get to watch them for 3 hours too!

Jonny Depp actually pretty much saves this movie. Watching him shamble around like a drunkard and say witty and/or unintelligible things is actually pretty entertaining. And there's a few scenes of him basically hallucinating, seeing dozens of copies of himself around him, which are hilarious.

Then there's the story. Oh, the story! What were they thinking? There basically is none! Well, I think there's some attempt at one, but it is so nonsensical, convoluted, and uninteresting that we just content ourselves with watching Jonny and Keira and a few Pirate battles, and we're happy. The beginning starts out okay. A bunch of the good ole Pirates are in Singapore trying to get help from Chow Yun Fat. Then they set off to rescue Cap'n Jack from World's End - basically hell, since he's dead. That's all quite interesting and full of some good special effects. And of course the end of the movie has some grandiose pirate sea battles, so that's cool. But the middle? I don't even know if I can explain it. Something about a bunch of Pirate Chiefs meeting together to decide about releasing a captured goddess so she can help them defeat Davy Jones's ship which is under the control of an evil British Tea Company. Uh, yeah. That's actually fairly succinct. The movie wasn't nearly that clear in explaining it. So... let's just remove that hour from the middle, and we'll stick with rescuing Jack and then having a pirate battle. Hey, now it's a great movie! Just go use the restroom in the middle. Then buy some snacks. Then go to the arcade for a while. Then go home and feed your dog and come back. You'll be just in time for the good part!

But hey, what can we expect? It's a summer popcorn movie. They're not usually big on story. This movie actually does entertain and keep your interest fairly well. I just didn't really like the story. But just keep watching Keira and Jonny and you can't go wrong. Geoffrey Rush too, as Captain Barbossa, is also great. He's got the quintessential pirate voice down. Also, don't miss the one and only Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones (Jonny Depp's inspiration for his character's mannerisms) in a great cameo as Cap'n Jack's father.

I will say that there is a fairly unexpected twist at the end, which takes it in a slightly different direction. It actually leaves you with a yearning in your heart, because not everything turns out happy and neat like you expect. And of course, they leave it open for more possible sequels - which could actually be quite different spinoffs, given what happens to one of the characters at the end. Maybe they had to add that twist to make up for the lame rest of the story.

It's not Oscar material, but it gives you pretty much what you're looking for in this type of film. If you liked the other Pirates movies, you'll probably enjoy this one too, even if not as much. But if you didn't like the other Pirates movies, well, then there's not much hope for this one.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good stuff, just what was it?
21 May 2007
The first 28 Days Later was great. It was a unique alteration of the standard zombie movie. This one is more of the same, although perhaps not quite as good.

This movie is scary and entertaining. My main complaint is that you can't tell what the heck is going on during the action sequences. I know, I know, that's the style, but still! The camera is so jerky and the editing so rapid that you can't even tell who is getting killed or how they are getting killed. I think an infected person just vomited blood on somebody, but I'm not sure. Suffers a little bit from "Blair Witch syndrome" - hope nobody vomits from motion sickness.

But these frantic scenes contribute greatly to the atmosphere and terror of the plot. All in all, quite enjoyable.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Was a big Shrek fan, but not anymore.
21 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Dreamworks has had a great series going with Shrek. The animation has been stellar, the stories unique and original, and the humor off-the-wall. The movies have been a delight and a welcome change from the standard sappy Disney fare (not that there's anything wrong with those). In fact, the first Shrek helped usher in the new age of CGI movies, and finally proved that someone other than Disney/Pixar could do it well. Shrek has been a wonderful series and one of my favorites - until now.

Unfortunately, this latest entry in the series just does not deliver in the same way that the first two did. While the first two had original ideas and were packed with satire and adult humor, this one is just boring and predictable and barely has a few chuckles. In fact, it seems as though they simply wanted an excuse to bring all the characters back together. Who can blame them? They're making heaps of money. But the characters have lost their charm. Donkey and Puss n' Boots have gotten boring, and don't even have many good one-liners. They've added some other side characters - princesses from other Disney movies - but they're lame. Even Shrek isn't very funny anymore.

On the positive side, the animation is excellent again. But I'm finding that even that isn't as impressive as it used to be. Honestly, I think Meet the Robinsons blew this movie away. The animation was a little better, the story was more interesting, the characters better, the moral issues less cliché, and it was even funnier.

The story in Shrek 3 revolves around 2 new unoriginal plot points. For one, Fiona wants to have babies and Shrek is freaking out. The other is the king is dying and they need to find an heir to the throne. They tell Shrek that there is a distant heir, Arthur, that he can go and find. This leads to an interesting twist on the old Arthurian legend. Lancelot and Arthur are still in high school, which provides for some humorous jokes about high school during the middle ages. They even run into Merlin, voiced by Monty Python alum Eric Idle, who is a retired crackpot magician at this point. But these few interesting moments can't save the overall dreariness of the story.

This movie does have its funny moments, but the problem is like most movies these days, they were all in the trailer. And maybe I see more trailers than the average person, but to me the jokes have gotten pretty old by the time I finally see them again in the actual movie. I loved the first two Shreks because of their awesome skewering of fairy tales, Disney stuff, and modern things. They would lampoon things like Burger King, Starbucks, Disneyland, etc. But that's pretty much all gone in this movie. There's a couple brief Bambi-bashing moments, and Snow White using her animal-calling songs as a weapon, but that's about it. Even the cool surprises like the fire-breathing dragon or Fiona turning into an ogre have disappeared. What we're left with is a standard mediocre formulaic kids movie that will bore adults. Of course, it will still gross hundreds of millions of dollars because kids have no standards, but I'm disappointed because I expected so much more.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
6/10
No good villains!
21 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Movie pundits are projecting it to be one of the biggest openings ever, perhaps surpassing the first Spider-man's mark of $110 million opening weekend - or even breaking the all-time record set by last year's Pirates of $135 million opening weekend. After seeing it, I can see why this may be the case. It has pretty much what everyone is looking for - drama, comedy, romance, and lots of action.

Tobey Maguire reprises his role as Spider-man - one in which I have never been completely sold on him - and Kirsten Dunst is back as his girlfriend. Tobey actually gets a chance to do a little bit more with the role this time, gleefully hamming it up as overly cocky and aggressive when a parasitic black goo from outer space fuses with his suit (only in comic books can you come up with this stuff!). There are some scenes of him strutting down the street like John Travolta and flirting with women that are pretty darn funny. Kirsten, however, moves to more of a background role. Yes of course she still gets kidnapped by bad guys and has to be saved repeatedly. But in the few non-perilous scenes she's in, she looks tired and haggard and barely says much. When did she turn 40 anyway? I could have sworn she was like 24 last year.

The action scenes are of course fantastic again, featuring dazzling special effects and huge fights. But while these were fun to watch, I couldn't quite get into them as much as in previous Spider-man movies. Some of this I believe stems from the problem that there isn't just 1 clear-cut super villain in this movie. Instead, there are 3 or 4 different villains, but some of them aren't *really* villains. They're just nice guys who are having problems. Take for instance the Sandman. He's the father of a deathly sick little girl who's trying to raise money to help her. And what happens? He falls into some particle physics experiment and has all of his molecules turned into sand. Great, as if he didn't have enough problems. Then of course there's Peter Parker's best friend Harry, who is still trying to kill him (daddy Willem DeFoe is still egging him on). Oh yeah, and the extra-terrestrial black goo - you know that's got to be bad. And all of this while poor Peter is trying to ask M.J. to marry him.

All of these characters and action are great, but there isn't really a clear-cut plot with one antagonist that needs to be stopped. Even Spider-man himself starts looking pretty un-protagonistic himself through a lot of the movie. So while there's lots of stuff going on, there's almost too much stuff going on, and the movie seems to wander around for a good portion in the middle. Of course, everything comes together and makes more sense in the end, and the last half hour is great. Although it does stoop to a pretty low "deus ex machina" moment. Just when we're thinking "Man, this is terrible, how is this conflict ever going to get resolved?" out pops some completely random character to give us exactly the information we need to resolve the conflict - in about 30 seconds. How convenient. Where the hell did this guy come from? And why didn't he give us this information before - like in the last Spider-man movie! He could have saved them a lot of trouble. But better late than never. And so, the problems are resolved, good stuff happens, the end. Maybe they didn't want to add any more to the already long 2 hour and 20 minute running time.

I may be exaggerating some of the flaws of this picture, but I actually did like it. I just think I preferred Spider-man 2. At least, I liked Doc Ock a lot more than any of these wannabe villains. But director Sam Raimi continues the great comic-book-to-movie-screen adaptations, and most audiences will not be disappointed. Be sure to look for Raimi's childhood film-making buddy and "Evil Dead" collaborator Bruce Campbell in a hilarious little role as the maitre d' of a snooty French restaurant. I also liked the addition of Topher Grace as a slimy photographer competing with Parker for shots of Spider-man. He's probably the most interesting character, but unfortunately he doesn't really get the time to develop.

I can be picky about some of the things in this movie, but maybe that's just because I was half asleep at 2am watching it. Overall, it does deliver exactly what people expect. As long as you know you're going to watch a summer popcorn movie based on a comic book, you should have a decent time.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mr. Brooks (2007)
8/10
There's something about Mr. Brooks all right....
20 May 2007
This movie was not what I expected, but in a good way. I saw that Kevin Costner was in it, and figured it would be a light-hearted drama. Then I read that it was suspense, and figured he was a good-guy spy or something. Not so.

I don't want to spoil exactly what Mr. Brooks is (even though it's revealed in the early part of the movie), but let's just say he's not a good guy. He is cold, brilliant, methodical, and heartless. Definitely not the traits we normally expect from Kevin Costner. And yet, it's fascinating to watch. I found myself rooting for him, and then had to kick myself because his character is so despicable. Top notch acting from him.

Dane Cook seems an odd casting choice for a suspense thriller, and yet he is believable in his role as a cowardly average joe trying to get the better of Mr. Brooks.

This movie is surprisingly graphic and brutal in some scenes. Yet it is so engrossing that you will be hooked on every twist and turn (and there are some good ones).

Not for the faint of heart, not your normal Costner flick, but a very good movie.
500 out of 594 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed