"The Bling Ring", the 5th film from indie darling and Hollywood royalty Sofia Coppola is a pop fusion of celebrity, technology, youth, fun and a cautionary tale that should be sought out.
"TBR" tells the true story of a group of Hollywood teenagers that in 2008 used the internet and social media to break into the homes and rob some of the days biggest celebrities including Paris Hilton, Rachel Bilson, Orlando Bloom and the crème de la crème of the day: Lindsay Lohan. Much like this years "Spring Breakers" "TBR" is a comment on youth in today's culture and again like "Spring Breakers" its spot on.
After 2010's disappointing "Somewhere" director Coppola returns to more of the form that we expect from the director of great movies like "The Virgin Suicides" and "Lost in Translation". Coppola writes as well as directs all her films and while scene chewing dialogue is not her strong point her female characters are always strongly constructed and former "Harry Potter" star Emma Watson really shines here in her first real role outside of the boy wizard franchise. Watson plays Nicki, one of the Bling Ring members who along with relative newcomers Katie Chang and Israel Broussard are the standout characters of the ring. Perennial "Aisle of Mann" favorite Aimee Mann also shows up as Nicki's mom who homeschools her and is a devout follower of "The Secret". Bush frontman Gavin Rossdale also appears as a sleazy nightclub owner.
I remember following the story of "The Bling Ring" as it actually happened, the movie is a great time capsule of the early 2000's when websites like TMZ and dlisted were in the newborn stages of reporting celebrity newstories often before mainstream media even had a clue that people were interested. These kids simply Google the addresses of the celebrities they target and find out when they are out of town filming or at a late night party and treat their Hollywood Hills pads as their own personal mall, without any remorse or thought of consequence.
Coppola grew up in Hollywood and is probably the best teller of this story, a mainstream structured production of this could easily come off as a Lifetime movie of the week. Along with creating a great soundtrack Coppola doesn't take sides and just shows the story as it probably actually happened.
Between Emma Watson's performance and the stylish setting and story take a chance on "The Bling Ring" it will remind you that you in fact used to be as cool as these kids, but maybe not with the same wrap sheet.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Monday, June 24, 2013
World War Z
We here at "The Aisle of Mann" love zombies. We've loved zombies before the TV show "The Walking Dead" made zombies cool and now everyone loves zombies including your grandma.
The "zombie" movie is a genre in of its own. Usually made for cheap and marketed to teens the zombie genre can range everywhere from the funny: "Shaun of the Dead" and "Zombieland", the topical: "Dawn of the Dead,1978" and the downright scary: "28 Days Later". The newest addition to the zombie genre is "World War Z". Easily the biggest, most expensive zombie movie ever made it also has easily the biggest movie star in the world headlining: Brad Pitt.
Purist's might scoff at the fact that the cult that is the zombie culture would be soiled with the likes of a big time movie star like Brad Pitt and a budget of nearly 200 million and rated PG-13. "World War Z" is based on the bestselling book by Max Brooks and blatantly is the story of the worlds demise during the end all be all zombie uprising. The budget for this material is warranted, zombie godfather George A. Romero couldn't even tackle this subject matter on a small scale budget. The question is always of course, is it any good? In short, while not the best zombie movie I've seen "World War Z" gets the distinct honor of being named the "Citizen Kane" of zombie movies.
As I stated earlier "WWZ" is based on a well known book of the same name, I've read the book and I assume at least some of you out there reading this have read it as well. compare and contrast between book and movie is not the goal here, to summarize: I LOVED the book, the movie I liked very very much. If you are going to the movie for a exact interpretation of the book then I'd just stay home, enjoy the movie as its own.
Brad Pitt plays "Gerry" a former UN worker who is now a stay at home dad. A zombie outbreak occurs while Pitt, his wife and two daughters are stuck in traffic in downtown Philadelphia. The movie is divided into two halves, the first is about Pitt and his family trying to escape zombies and get somewhere safe has some good action scenes and ok for PG-13 zombie gore. The family finally gets aboard a UN aircraft carrier and Gerry is forced to go back into the field to help find the origin of this outbreak which may lead to a cure. This is where the movie really picks up for me and "World War Z" turns into a superior film.
Other than the zombies, this is Pitt's movie. Other than character actor David Morse (The Green Mile) and a blink and you miss it cameo from Matthew Fox (Lost) Pitt is surrounded by either zombies or actors you never heard of. His performance here is subdued for the genre, "WWZ" is trying to make an as true to life movie about zombies as there can be and it does a good job. I would have liked to seen a little more humor however. The scenes between Pitt and his family are his most effective, he doesn't go into pure zombie kick ass mode too much which was disappointing.
What about the true stars, the zombies? Traditional zombies move slow and awkwardly, zombies for the new generation are quick and smart for being half dead. "WWZ" goes with the quick zombies here, no new ground is broken in terms of the makeup or how the zombies act but I did find myself jumping out of my seat a few times as "WWZ" does offer a few genuine scares. The biggest thing holding "WWZ" back is its PG-13 rating. Zombies attack in droves in some scenes and attack countless people but hardly a spatter of blood is shown. What it lacks in blood and guts "WWZ" does in fact make up for it in action scenes, two in particular during a zombie attack on a in flight plane and on the streets of Jerusalem are better than ANYTHING in "Man of Steel". The final showdown between Pitt and the zombies is tight and nerve-racking even if it is a slight homage to the raptors in "Jurassic Park."
What I hope "WWZ" brings to the table is that genre pictures such as zombie flicks can be sold to the masses and can carry a big budget and big movie stars. "World War Z" does a great job of wiping the wretched taste of "Man of Steel" from my palate even if there was a little left to be desired.
The "zombie" movie is a genre in of its own. Usually made for cheap and marketed to teens the zombie genre can range everywhere from the funny: "Shaun of the Dead" and "Zombieland", the topical: "Dawn of the Dead,1978" and the downright scary: "28 Days Later". The newest addition to the zombie genre is "World War Z". Easily the biggest, most expensive zombie movie ever made it also has easily the biggest movie star in the world headlining: Brad Pitt.
Purist's might scoff at the fact that the cult that is the zombie culture would be soiled with the likes of a big time movie star like Brad Pitt and a budget of nearly 200 million and rated PG-13. "World War Z" is based on the bestselling book by Max Brooks and blatantly is the story of the worlds demise during the end all be all zombie uprising. The budget for this material is warranted, zombie godfather George A. Romero couldn't even tackle this subject matter on a small scale budget. The question is always of course, is it any good? In short, while not the best zombie movie I've seen "World War Z" gets the distinct honor of being named the "Citizen Kane" of zombie movies.
As I stated earlier "WWZ" is based on a well known book of the same name, I've read the book and I assume at least some of you out there reading this have read it as well. compare and contrast between book and movie is not the goal here, to summarize: I LOVED the book, the movie I liked very very much. If you are going to the movie for a exact interpretation of the book then I'd just stay home, enjoy the movie as its own.
Brad Pitt plays "Gerry" a former UN worker who is now a stay at home dad. A zombie outbreak occurs while Pitt, his wife and two daughters are stuck in traffic in downtown Philadelphia. The movie is divided into two halves, the first is about Pitt and his family trying to escape zombies and get somewhere safe has some good action scenes and ok for PG-13 zombie gore. The family finally gets aboard a UN aircraft carrier and Gerry is forced to go back into the field to help find the origin of this outbreak which may lead to a cure. This is where the movie really picks up for me and "World War Z" turns into a superior film.
Other than the zombies, this is Pitt's movie. Other than character actor David Morse (The Green Mile) and a blink and you miss it cameo from Matthew Fox (Lost) Pitt is surrounded by either zombies or actors you never heard of. His performance here is subdued for the genre, "WWZ" is trying to make an as true to life movie about zombies as there can be and it does a good job. I would have liked to seen a little more humor however. The scenes between Pitt and his family are his most effective, he doesn't go into pure zombie kick ass mode too much which was disappointing.
What about the true stars, the zombies? Traditional zombies move slow and awkwardly, zombies for the new generation are quick and smart for being half dead. "WWZ" goes with the quick zombies here, no new ground is broken in terms of the makeup or how the zombies act but I did find myself jumping out of my seat a few times as "WWZ" does offer a few genuine scares. The biggest thing holding "WWZ" back is its PG-13 rating. Zombies attack in droves in some scenes and attack countless people but hardly a spatter of blood is shown. What it lacks in blood and guts "WWZ" does in fact make up for it in action scenes, two in particular during a zombie attack on a in flight plane and on the streets of Jerusalem are better than ANYTHING in "Man of Steel". The final showdown between Pitt and the zombies is tight and nerve-racking even if it is a slight homage to the raptors in "Jurassic Park."
What I hope "WWZ" brings to the table is that genre pictures such as zombie flicks can be sold to the masses and can carry a big budget and big movie stars. "World War Z" does a great job of wiping the wretched taste of "Man of Steel" from my palate even if there was a little left to be desired.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Man of Steel
And then I became really worried when they turned Lois Lane into a redhead....
"Man of Steel", the latest attempt to reboot the now 75 year old franchise that is "Superman" has finally arrived after months and months....and months of hype and hoopla. It's been somewhat of a bumpy road for Supes which is surprising seeing as he is arguably the most popular and recognizable of the superheroes. Superman was probably at his most popular during the late 70's and early 80's with Christopher Reeve putting on the spandex and starring in 4 movies (2 of which were great, the last 2....not so much) reboot upon reboot tried to take form during the 90's, most notably with director Tim Burton and star Nicholas Cage but those never came to fruition. 2006 finally brought Supes back to the big screen in director Bryan Singer's underappreciated "Superman Returns" starring complete unknown Brandon Routh. Even with a 200 million domestic gross "SR" was not able to revitalize the franchise and DC comics had to take a backseat to Marvel in the comic book movie wars.
I don't hold Superman in the high regards that most of my fellow fanboys do, I have and always will be apart of #teammarvel but along with Batman I have always respected the mythology of Kal-El/Clark Kent and will always show up for the movies. The main problem with Superman being converted into a feature film is the problem that other American literary classics have: the material, it can be said is un-adaptable. It may seem odd to think that a comic book such as Superman could be un-adaptable but beyond the "faster than a locomotive" notion there are a lot of layers to the character and the world(s) on which he is from.
After the success of "The Dark Knight" trilogy director Christopher Nolan was tapped to produce a new Superman movie. On paper this seems genius, after Batman was basically turned into a walking punchline Nolan revitalized Batman. It showed that when done right comic book movies can be seen as more than just popcorn fluff.
The bottom line is that "Man of Steel", with all the talent involved has to be looked at as the biggest disappointment of the year. Nolan again is just producer here but other than a few moments it hardly seems like he had any involvement at all. The director, Zack Snyder has made one great movie (Dawn of the Dead), two good movies (300 and Watchmen), a horrible movie (Suckerpunch) and a movie about talking owls (Legend of the Guardians) he has a great visual eye but his actual storytelling abilities leave much to be desired. Henry Cavill is Superman this time around and while he definitely has the look and build for Supes he plays the character very wooden and stale. This could be more from the wooden and stale script but the big problem here is that if this movie spawns off sequels and the long in development "Justice League" movie he has to be more charismatic. Amy Adams is Lois Lane and while its nice to see the character as more than just the damsel in distress even as talented as an actress as Adams is I just don't think that 250 million dollar blockbusters are really in her comfort zone. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane play Superman's adoptive parents, Jonathan and Martha Kent and both, especially Costner are underused as the stuff about Clark growing up and discovering his powers are some of the best stuff in the film.
The story structure is the movies main problem. Jumping between past and present gets tiresome and Clark seemingly jumps into his role as Superman in basically one scene, he gets the suit, he figures out how to fly and BOOM! he's Superman. The outline of the story was crafted by Nolan but Snyder can't tell the story with the same depth that Nolan would had he been behind the camera, the last 40 minutes or so is basically a CGI clusterfuck and a great character such as General Zod is basically left as a screaming thespian as played by character actor Michael Shannon. The final act of "Man of Steel is really its undoing, along with the CGI clusterfuck the movie ends just as last years "Skyfall" did in that it wraps everything that you actually wanted to see throughout the movie in the last 5 minutes so it gets you excited for the inevitable sequel(s).
Maybe Superman is the comic book equivalent of "Catcher in the Rye" a piece of literature that is universally loved but should just stay in the written form. To me Superman is not a relatable character and especially since they took kryptonite out of this version he has no weakness so when is there cause for concern? The Superman I respected stood for "Truth, Justice and the American way" this Superman is seemingly wrapped up in his own daddy issues and whether to keep facial hair or not...
"Man of Steel", the latest attempt to reboot the now 75 year old franchise that is "Superman" has finally arrived after months and months....and months of hype and hoopla. It's been somewhat of a bumpy road for Supes which is surprising seeing as he is arguably the most popular and recognizable of the superheroes. Superman was probably at his most popular during the late 70's and early 80's with Christopher Reeve putting on the spandex and starring in 4 movies (2 of which were great, the last 2....not so much) reboot upon reboot tried to take form during the 90's, most notably with director Tim Burton and star Nicholas Cage but those never came to fruition. 2006 finally brought Supes back to the big screen in director Bryan Singer's underappreciated "Superman Returns" starring complete unknown Brandon Routh. Even with a 200 million domestic gross "SR" was not able to revitalize the franchise and DC comics had to take a backseat to Marvel in the comic book movie wars.
I don't hold Superman in the high regards that most of my fellow fanboys do, I have and always will be apart of #teammarvel but along with Batman I have always respected the mythology of Kal-El/Clark Kent and will always show up for the movies. The main problem with Superman being converted into a feature film is the problem that other American literary classics have: the material, it can be said is un-adaptable. It may seem odd to think that a comic book such as Superman could be un-adaptable but beyond the "faster than a locomotive" notion there are a lot of layers to the character and the world(s) on which he is from.
After the success of "The Dark Knight" trilogy director Christopher Nolan was tapped to produce a new Superman movie. On paper this seems genius, after Batman was basically turned into a walking punchline Nolan revitalized Batman. It showed that when done right comic book movies can be seen as more than just popcorn fluff.
The bottom line is that "Man of Steel", with all the talent involved has to be looked at as the biggest disappointment of the year. Nolan again is just producer here but other than a few moments it hardly seems like he had any involvement at all. The director, Zack Snyder has made one great movie (Dawn of the Dead), two good movies (300 and Watchmen), a horrible movie (Suckerpunch) and a movie about talking owls (Legend of the Guardians) he has a great visual eye but his actual storytelling abilities leave much to be desired. Henry Cavill is Superman this time around and while he definitely has the look and build for Supes he plays the character very wooden and stale. This could be more from the wooden and stale script but the big problem here is that if this movie spawns off sequels and the long in development "Justice League" movie he has to be more charismatic. Amy Adams is Lois Lane and while its nice to see the character as more than just the damsel in distress even as talented as an actress as Adams is I just don't think that 250 million dollar blockbusters are really in her comfort zone. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane play Superman's adoptive parents, Jonathan and Martha Kent and both, especially Costner are underused as the stuff about Clark growing up and discovering his powers are some of the best stuff in the film.
The story structure is the movies main problem. Jumping between past and present gets tiresome and Clark seemingly jumps into his role as Superman in basically one scene, he gets the suit, he figures out how to fly and BOOM! he's Superman. The outline of the story was crafted by Nolan but Snyder can't tell the story with the same depth that Nolan would had he been behind the camera, the last 40 minutes or so is basically a CGI clusterfuck and a great character such as General Zod is basically left as a screaming thespian as played by character actor Michael Shannon. The final act of "Man of Steel is really its undoing, along with the CGI clusterfuck the movie ends just as last years "Skyfall" did in that it wraps everything that you actually wanted to see throughout the movie in the last 5 minutes so it gets you excited for the inevitable sequel(s).
Maybe Superman is the comic book equivalent of "Catcher in the Rye" a piece of literature that is universally loved but should just stay in the written form. To me Superman is not a relatable character and especially since they took kryptonite out of this version he has no weakness so when is there cause for concern? The Superman I respected stood for "Truth, Justice and the American way" this Superman is seemingly wrapped up in his own daddy issues and whether to keep facial hair or not...
Thursday, June 13, 2013
How I would change the current movie-going experience
The earliest clear and concise recollection I have going to the movie theater was seeing "Back to the Future Part III" during a very hot summer day. I can remember standing in line outside with many others and then walking into that cool, comfortable theater and all it took was a wild west ride with the DeLorean and I was hooked. Other movie-going highlights include being both awestruck and scared shitless during "Jurassic Park", standing up and cheering with a sold out theater "Independence Day", camping out 12 hours before a movie was even set to premiere "Revenge of the Sith" and maybe most importantly seeing my first fully naked woman on the big screen (Thank you Kate Winslet in "Titanic".)
The movies and more specifically the theater has always been meant as an escape, this is why they became so poplar around the country during the great depression. Whether you are happy, sad or indifferent the movies allow you to take a "time out" from whatever is going on in your life and laugh, cry, cheer, boo or simply say "meh".
I'm writing this to declare my disdain for the whole movie theater experience lately. Recently I went out to see "The Purge", obviously a younger skewing movie. It was on a Tuesday night which at my local theater means $5.50 for your ticket, not a bad deal. The discount Tuesday deal has been around for awhile now and I'm beginning to notice its starting to bring out the....how should I say....well its brining out those who frequent auctions or trade shows during the weekend or have their DVR storage saved up with countless episodes of "Duck Dynasty" and "Bigfoot Hunters" or have multiple subscriptions to various auto trader magazines. As well as it being the summer time obviously a lot more 12-24 year olds are going to be out as well. I'm not indicating that the movie theater should be an exclusive club by any means, I just believe that as movies become more and more popular there needs to be a universal set of rules that each theater should abide by. These are in no way meant to be a Marxist regime these are just a few "suggestions" that will make the whole experience better for everyone and most importantly for the theaters, make them more money.
1. SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP
Once the previews are over and the movie has started nobody should be allowed to enter the theater. Nothing is worse than when you are trying to get involved in the beginning of a movie and someone or some people are walking into the theater, letting light in and having you get out of your seat so they can walk by. We can't outlaw people leaving to go the restroom but the theater should have a specific employee, the same who cards the kids before they enter an R rated feature to stand by the door and not let late arrivers in.
2. SPEAKING OF USHERS
Ushers need to be doing more than just tearing tickets and telling you the wrong theater that your movie is playing in. I'd appoint one usher to survey the theater from a designated corner for the duration of each showing. Your phone rings or you pull it out to send a tweet or facebook status update during the movie? You're gone. If you are constantly talking or getting up and down to answer a call from your beeper or being a general annoyance to those in the theater, you are gone.
3. FOOD AND BEVERAGE
Lastly, and most importantly the concession stand needs to be improved. Keep the classics like popcorn, candy and soda but does anyone really go to a movie theater with a hankering for a hot dog or nachos? AMPM serves each of these hotter and cheaper. In keeping with the corn theme I think one of those big corn on the cobs you can get at the state fair would be great or a nice hamburger or maybe a salad option for our vegan friends if the selection is expanded I might not feel so pissed when I shell out 7 bucks for a small popcorn. And booze, if I can go to any other major public event: ballgame, live theater, rodeo, truck pull etc and be able to get at least a beer then why cant I get one for a 2 hour movie? Romantic comedies would be much more tolerable for the guys if we could throw back a beer or two as would a action film if the ladies could sip on a nice glass of chardonnay.
There are exceptions to all rules of course and the big one here is that a lot of these rules do not apply if the theater is not at least 3/4 full. If you are in an awesomely bad horror movie and the theater is basically empty feel free to facebook, make snide remarks at the screen or make out with your significant other if you are so lucky....that's what I do.
The movies and more specifically the theater has always been meant as an escape, this is why they became so poplar around the country during the great depression. Whether you are happy, sad or indifferent the movies allow you to take a "time out" from whatever is going on in your life and laugh, cry, cheer, boo or simply say "meh".
I'm writing this to declare my disdain for the whole movie theater experience lately. Recently I went out to see "The Purge", obviously a younger skewing movie. It was on a Tuesday night which at my local theater means $5.50 for your ticket, not a bad deal. The discount Tuesday deal has been around for awhile now and I'm beginning to notice its starting to bring out the....how should I say....well its brining out those who frequent auctions or trade shows during the weekend or have their DVR storage saved up with countless episodes of "Duck Dynasty" and "Bigfoot Hunters" or have multiple subscriptions to various auto trader magazines. As well as it being the summer time obviously a lot more 12-24 year olds are going to be out as well. I'm not indicating that the movie theater should be an exclusive club by any means, I just believe that as movies become more and more popular there needs to be a universal set of rules that each theater should abide by. These are in no way meant to be a Marxist regime these are just a few "suggestions" that will make the whole experience better for everyone and most importantly for the theaters, make them more money.
1. SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP
Once the previews are over and the movie has started nobody should be allowed to enter the theater. Nothing is worse than when you are trying to get involved in the beginning of a movie and someone or some people are walking into the theater, letting light in and having you get out of your seat so they can walk by. We can't outlaw people leaving to go the restroom but the theater should have a specific employee, the same who cards the kids before they enter an R rated feature to stand by the door and not let late arrivers in.
2. SPEAKING OF USHERS
Ushers need to be doing more than just tearing tickets and telling you the wrong theater that your movie is playing in. I'd appoint one usher to survey the theater from a designated corner for the duration of each showing. Your phone rings or you pull it out to send a tweet or facebook status update during the movie? You're gone. If you are constantly talking or getting up and down to answer a call from your beeper or being a general annoyance to those in the theater, you are gone.
3. FOOD AND BEVERAGE
Lastly, and most importantly the concession stand needs to be improved. Keep the classics like popcorn, candy and soda but does anyone really go to a movie theater with a hankering for a hot dog or nachos? AMPM serves each of these hotter and cheaper. In keeping with the corn theme I think one of those big corn on the cobs you can get at the state fair would be great or a nice hamburger or maybe a salad option for our vegan friends if the selection is expanded I might not feel so pissed when I shell out 7 bucks for a small popcorn. And booze, if I can go to any other major public event: ballgame, live theater, rodeo, truck pull etc and be able to get at least a beer then why cant I get one for a 2 hour movie? Romantic comedies would be much more tolerable for the guys if we could throw back a beer or two as would a action film if the ladies could sip on a nice glass of chardonnay.
There are exceptions to all rules of course and the big one here is that a lot of these rules do not apply if the theater is not at least 3/4 full. If you are in an awesomely bad horror movie and the theater is basically empty feel free to facebook, make snide remarks at the screen or make out with your significant other if you are so lucky....that's what I do.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
This is the End
If I told you there was a movie about the Rapture coming out laugh out loud, gasping for air funny is probably not the first thought that would come into your mind. If I followed that up with that it stars: Seth Rogen, James Franco, Jonah Hill, Jay Baruchel, Craig Robinson, Danny Mcbride, Michael Cera, Jason Segal, Emma Watson, Rihanna and basically anyone else you could think of who ever had a smidge of dialogue in Judd Apatow production in the last 10 years, oh and The Backstreet Boys....well if that interests you then "This is the End" is your Holy Grail my friends.
The basic set up for "This is the End" is that Jay Baruchel comes into LA to visit his best friend Seth Rogen (all the actors are playing a version of themselves). Jay is just looking to hang out with Seth, watch TV, smoke weed and get some Carl's Jr. Seth coaxes Jay into coming with him to James Franco's new house for a party along with all of the above mentioned actors and more. While Jay and Seth go out for cigarettes the Rapture takes place and a giant sinkhole appears in front of Franco's house swallowing up everyone including a coked up, sex addicted Michael Cera (hopefully playing against type). This leaves Franco, Rogen, Baruchel, Hill Robinson and Mcbride left to fend for themselves while hellfire and chaos run rampant in LA.
The reason to see "This is the End" is obviously not for the story itself. "TITE" is co-directed and co-written by Rogen and his "Superbad" co-writer Evan Goldberg and instead of coming off as a self indulgent Hollywood pet project it is easily the funniest movie of the year and will be a mainstay in mine and I'm sure countless others DVD rotation, basically if you are fan of at least two of these actors then you will agree with me.
What ensues during The Rapture are hilarious discussions about fame and celebrity, run ins with demons, an ax wielding Emma Watson, and the exorcism of Jonah Hill. Franco, Mcbride, Hill and Robinson are my MVP's here, a scene involving a confrontation between Franco and Mcbride is one of the funniest scenes in anything I've seen anywhere-its that good. I don't want to delve into specifics of the many great hilarious scenes as coming from me its like when someone tries to re-create a funny joke. Simply put just take yo panties off and go see this movie!
The basic set up for "This is the End" is that Jay Baruchel comes into LA to visit his best friend Seth Rogen (all the actors are playing a version of themselves). Jay is just looking to hang out with Seth, watch TV, smoke weed and get some Carl's Jr. Seth coaxes Jay into coming with him to James Franco's new house for a party along with all of the above mentioned actors and more. While Jay and Seth go out for cigarettes the Rapture takes place and a giant sinkhole appears in front of Franco's house swallowing up everyone including a coked up, sex addicted Michael Cera (hopefully playing against type). This leaves Franco, Rogen, Baruchel, Hill Robinson and Mcbride left to fend for themselves while hellfire and chaos run rampant in LA.
The reason to see "This is the End" is obviously not for the story itself. "TITE" is co-directed and co-written by Rogen and his "Superbad" co-writer Evan Goldberg and instead of coming off as a self indulgent Hollywood pet project it is easily the funniest movie of the year and will be a mainstay in mine and I'm sure countless others DVD rotation, basically if you are fan of at least two of these actors then you will agree with me.
What ensues during The Rapture are hilarious discussions about fame and celebrity, run ins with demons, an ax wielding Emma Watson, and the exorcism of Jonah Hill. Franco, Mcbride, Hill and Robinson are my MVP's here, a scene involving a confrontation between Franco and Mcbride is one of the funniest scenes in anything I've seen anywhere-its that good. I don't want to delve into specifics of the many great hilarious scenes as coming from me its like when someone tries to re-create a funny joke. Simply put just take yo panties off and go see this movie!
The Purge
"The Purge" is a story set in the not too distant future where under new laws set by Americas new founding fathers for one day a year basically all crime is legal, including murder. This premise sets up what turns out to be a completely effective movie and one of the sleeper hits of the summer movie season.
Ethan Hawke stars here and continues with his mainstream Hollywood comeback. Between "Purge" and last years kinda creepy "Sinister" Hawke has made a nice niche' in the B movie horror/thriller genre. Hawke plays James Sandin who sells state of the art security systems to protect upper class citizens from the dangers of the annual purge, including his own family of 4 which includes Lena Headey (Game of Thrones) as his wife. A series of events lead the Sandin's youngest son to let a random homeless man who is being chased by "purgers" into their home for protection. From here "The Purge" becomes a nice mishmash of "Taken" and "Funny Games".
"The Purge" comes from the producer of recent low budget "scary" movies like "Insidious" and the "Paranormal Activity" franchise Jason Blum. Much like uber producer Jerry Bruckheimer has signature aspects in all his films Blum's films do as well. "The Purge" is definitely more of a domestic thriller than horror/scary but it does include low budget scares such as people jumping out of shadows and loud ominous orchestra score during high tense moments. James DeMonaco is the first time director here and can set up a high tense scene very well and though his script is not very talk heavy he gets his point and intention clearly across.
The main flaw with "The Purge" is that even though the movies running time is a perfect for its genre 85 minutes long I felt that there was a lot left on the table in terms of backstory. What exactly were the events that were the causation for the purge to become legal? Who are the governing bodies who set this law up? Also the main villains in the story really have no story other than a creepy monologue by the main baddie towards the beginning of the film, it leaves a lot to be desired on the table. The film also takes itself almost too seriously, implementing more humor into a sick, deranged scenario a'la "Funny Games" could benefit if any sequel(s) are to be made.
The Premise is the selling point here, if that doesn't work then the movie doesn't work. Coincidentally or not, the recent events with the NSA are kind of a companion piece to the story here in terms of how much involvement should the government have in your life? Questions such as "Is killing one to save my family the right thing to do?" are asked throughout, for a movie mainly targeted at the 20 something crowd it has a lot of big ideas, again something refreshing in this era of sequels and remakes that we are currently in.
So the overall success of the execution in "The Purge" makes it a welcome change and a must see.
Ethan Hawke stars here and continues with his mainstream Hollywood comeback. Between "Purge" and last years kinda creepy "Sinister" Hawke has made a nice niche' in the B movie horror/thriller genre. Hawke plays James Sandin who sells state of the art security systems to protect upper class citizens from the dangers of the annual purge, including his own family of 4 which includes Lena Headey (Game of Thrones) as his wife. A series of events lead the Sandin's youngest son to let a random homeless man who is being chased by "purgers" into their home for protection. From here "The Purge" becomes a nice mishmash of "Taken" and "Funny Games".
"The Purge" comes from the producer of recent low budget "scary" movies like "Insidious" and the "Paranormal Activity" franchise Jason Blum. Much like uber producer Jerry Bruckheimer has signature aspects in all his films Blum's films do as well. "The Purge" is definitely more of a domestic thriller than horror/scary but it does include low budget scares such as people jumping out of shadows and loud ominous orchestra score during high tense moments. James DeMonaco is the first time director here and can set up a high tense scene very well and though his script is not very talk heavy he gets his point and intention clearly across.
The main flaw with "The Purge" is that even though the movies running time is a perfect for its genre 85 minutes long I felt that there was a lot left on the table in terms of backstory. What exactly were the events that were the causation for the purge to become legal? Who are the governing bodies who set this law up? Also the main villains in the story really have no story other than a creepy monologue by the main baddie towards the beginning of the film, it leaves a lot to be desired on the table. The film also takes itself almost too seriously, implementing more humor into a sick, deranged scenario a'la "Funny Games" could benefit if any sequel(s) are to be made.
The Premise is the selling point here, if that doesn't work then the movie doesn't work. Coincidentally or not, the recent events with the NSA are kind of a companion piece to the story here in terms of how much involvement should the government have in your life? Questions such as "Is killing one to save my family the right thing to do?" are asked throughout, for a movie mainly targeted at the 20 something crowd it has a lot of big ideas, again something refreshing in this era of sequels and remakes that we are currently in.
So the overall success of the execution in "The Purge" makes it a welcome change and a must see.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Now You See Me
"Now You See Me" starts out with great potential as a surprise sleeper hit of the Summer movie season but unfortunately doesn't have quite enough follow through to make it anything other than just a very "ok" movie.
"Now You See Me" can best be described as "Ocean's 11 meets The Italian Job with Magicians". The story is about 4 B-level magicians who are mysteriously brought together to perform what becomes the biggest magic act in Las Vegas. The final act at one of their shows is to rob a random audience members bank. This "trick" is a success and soon the police become involved and are hot on the trail of the 4 magicians as the try and complete the trifecta of huge robberies.
The cast here is almost a dream, no huge stars but a plethora of solid actors. Included are Jesse Eisenberg (The Social Network), Woody Harrelson (The People VS. Larry Flynt), Isla Fisher (Wedding Crashers), Dave Franco (James's brother), Mark Ruffalo (The Avengers), Morgan Freeman (every other movie since 1992), Michael Caine (The Dark Knight trilogy) and the GORGEOUS Melanie Laurent (Inglorious Basterds). The basic storyline and the cast were the two major selling points for me to see this movie, unfortunately the movie suffers from a longer than needed running time and is inconsistent for the majority of its nearly two hour running time other than a very good 35-40 minutes towards the middle of the picture and standout performances from Ruffalo and Laurent.
The main problem with "Now You See Me" is that if you are like me you go in expecting to see a movie about these magicians who rob banks, but in reality the movie is about Ruffalo's detective character on the pursuit. Ruffalo again is outstanding but segments of the movie go on with no magicians and when they did finally show up again I had honestly forgotten about them. When they are on screen they are mostly doing stage performances and the dialogue is almost entirely ADR (additional dialogue recorded) this is disheartening especially as a fan of Eisenberg, who really seems out of his element here and Harrleson who as the teams mentalist has some of the biggest laughs but again just underused. Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine show up basically playing versions of other characters that they have played in superior movies, Freeman genuinely seems to be having fun with his role but it appears this was strictly a paycheck role for Caine who himself was in one of the better movies about magicians "The Prestige".
Five screenwriters are credited with "Now You See Me" which is even more evidence that the parties involved here couldn't decide which direction they wanted to take the movie. Too many times you are lead to just assume "well its magic so I wont ask questions" which in turn is discrediting to your audience, sure there are moments where things happened that even surprised me but the moments of eye rolling were equal if not surpassed. French director Louis Letterier has made a few big budget Hollywood films before but he is better suited for movies with more explosions than is what offered here, movies about magicians such as the aforementioned "The Prestige" and "The Illusionist" are prime examples of this, "Now You See Me" could have benefited with a director with visual flare and storytelling abilities, Barry Sonnenfeld would have been my choice.
I thought "Now You See Me" would be an interesting change for the normal Summer movie selection, the idea is original and it is nice to see non blockbuster actors get blockbuster work overall this movie was a disappointment with a few bright spots mixed in.
"Now You See Me" can best be described as "Ocean's 11 meets The Italian Job with Magicians". The story is about 4 B-level magicians who are mysteriously brought together to perform what becomes the biggest magic act in Las Vegas. The final act at one of their shows is to rob a random audience members bank. This "trick" is a success and soon the police become involved and are hot on the trail of the 4 magicians as the try and complete the trifecta of huge robberies.
The cast here is almost a dream, no huge stars but a plethora of solid actors. Included are Jesse Eisenberg (The Social Network), Woody Harrelson (The People VS. Larry Flynt), Isla Fisher (Wedding Crashers), Dave Franco (James's brother), Mark Ruffalo (The Avengers), Morgan Freeman (every other movie since 1992), Michael Caine (The Dark Knight trilogy) and the GORGEOUS Melanie Laurent (Inglorious Basterds). The basic storyline and the cast were the two major selling points for me to see this movie, unfortunately the movie suffers from a longer than needed running time and is inconsistent for the majority of its nearly two hour running time other than a very good 35-40 minutes towards the middle of the picture and standout performances from Ruffalo and Laurent.
The main problem with "Now You See Me" is that if you are like me you go in expecting to see a movie about these magicians who rob banks, but in reality the movie is about Ruffalo's detective character on the pursuit. Ruffalo again is outstanding but segments of the movie go on with no magicians and when they did finally show up again I had honestly forgotten about them. When they are on screen they are mostly doing stage performances and the dialogue is almost entirely ADR (additional dialogue recorded) this is disheartening especially as a fan of Eisenberg, who really seems out of his element here and Harrleson who as the teams mentalist has some of the biggest laughs but again just underused. Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine show up basically playing versions of other characters that they have played in superior movies, Freeman genuinely seems to be having fun with his role but it appears this was strictly a paycheck role for Caine who himself was in one of the better movies about magicians "The Prestige".
Five screenwriters are credited with "Now You See Me" which is even more evidence that the parties involved here couldn't decide which direction they wanted to take the movie. Too many times you are lead to just assume "well its magic so I wont ask questions" which in turn is discrediting to your audience, sure there are moments where things happened that even surprised me but the moments of eye rolling were equal if not surpassed. French director Louis Letterier has made a few big budget Hollywood films before but he is better suited for movies with more explosions than is what offered here, movies about magicians such as the aforementioned "The Prestige" and "The Illusionist" are prime examples of this, "Now You See Me" could have benefited with a director with visual flare and storytelling abilities, Barry Sonnenfeld would have been my choice.
I thought "Now You See Me" would be an interesting change for the normal Summer movie selection, the idea is original and it is nice to see non blockbuster actors get blockbuster work overall this movie was a disappointment with a few bright spots mixed in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)