Hitchcock

Joblo.com

In limited release is the new Anthony Hopkins flick, Hitchcock.    It as it would be, this is a story about film making great Alfred Hitchcock at the time he was making his classic, Psycho in 1959 and 1960.

This film deals with Hitchcock's absolute obsession with making what would become the groundbreaking horror flick.  Psycho of course, was a different kind of movie for the era, basically becoming the first "slasher" flick.  Although it is incredibly tame by today's standards, it was huge at the time and scared people to death.  But the classic shower scene still holds up well as far as begin scary is concerned.  Psycho changed movies forever in numerous ways, and Hitchcock was the one bold enough to know that this was to become more than just a movie.

Hopkins is great as Hitchcock in about every way.  He looks like the icon, and sounds like him too.  In this picture he is in conflict with his wife Alma (Helen Mirren).   They have been married for decades, and she of course is a screenwriter in Hollywood too.  There are years of resentment, and jealousy coming to a head as Alfred becomes incredibly obsessed with this picture and it's young and beautiful star, Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johansson).

Even though they let us in on some of the nuances behind the making of  Psycho, this movie is generally about how making this movie affected his personal life with Alma.  This is not a "trivia" movie. Yes, they address some of the roadblocks and secrets associated with Psycho.  One slight bombshell for some may be that the book Psycho was actually based in part, on a true story from Wisconsin.  But Psycho was not  completely true, but based on real a real guy arrested by terrible crimes named Ed Gein.

This is a very nice picture that hopefully will find some success.  It boasts a great cast that also has Jessica Biel as Vera Miles (also in Psycho)  and Toni Collette as Hitchcock's trusted assistant, Peggy.  Collette is terrific in her small role, as are Johansson and Biel.   Through the magic of makeup and costuming, these women are transported back in time and look stunningly authentic as 1960 ish Hollywood beauties.  They each own small roles that they really took charge of.  All very good.   Johansson and Biel both look amazingly like Leigh and Miles.  

I can't think of a movie that Helen Mirren has made lately that she hasn't been great in.  She and Hopkins give command performances here and develop a wonderful chemistry that is palpable.  Both are outstanding.  This move also sports a respectable supporting cast, and really terrific sets and costuming.   I always think it's fun to be sent back to the golden Hollywood age in movies when done well, and this is.  This movie is quick and tidy at 95 minutes and very well conceived and edited.  Just like a real Hitchcock movie from his era.

Hitchcock. There is nothing not to love about this movie

Grown ups 2

Bubblews.com

This could quite possibly be the shortest movie review of all time, the new Adam Sandler sequel comedy, Grown Ups 2.

This again is star studded with all the original suspects back from first film, and a ton of cameo "performances"  from many pop culture scenes.   It's the same basic premise, these four guy friends from childhood all now live back in their small home town and are reliving  their youth all over again.  Plot?  There really is none, this is simply a block of SNL type skits, welded together in a 100 minute movie. 

This is complete with humor that will make a 10 year old laugh uncontrollably.   Plenty of poop jokes, and sight gags you would rather not see.  Lots of puke too, and scads of face near the rear end shots too, just for giggles.   Lots of 5th grade stuff that gets old very quickly.   I get it, I was 10 once and of course that was hilarious then.  But a whole lot of this is targeted at those 40 plus, as our characters are about that age, and the soundtrack is clearly out of the 1980's.   The music soundtrack is actually pretty good here, would be a good one for your collection.

Honest observation here.  The 10-12 year olds that packed the theater last night were laughing a ton during this movie. The even clapped when it was over.   So, all the poop jokes and gags worked.   But a little bit of this goes a long way.   Oh, there are some funny moments here and some clever dialogue from time to time, but  not enough to save the day.  There is nothing really different from the first movie, and I did ask a few patrons when we were leaving and all of them said the original was funnier, and better. 

In the end, this actually may end up on many year end lists as one of the worst movies of the year.  It certainly is near the top so far. 

Grown Ups 2.   Nothing new here.   Same stuff.

Riddick

Sodahead.com

In yet another installment of the Riddick movies, here comes Riddick.   The first was in 2000 that spawned a sequel or two, and video games as well.  For those late to the party, this is more futuristic Sci-Fi.

Vin Diesel stars as Riddick, an escaped con, murderer, and a man with special powers and abilities that make him awesome and tough to catch as he is a fugitive from justice.   What powers?  To be honest, not really very important, as this is simply a bunch of silliness all the way around.

In this installment, Riddick has been left for dead on a barren planet, but of course he is not dead.  He is trying to survive a horrible planet escaping attacks by huge hyena-type dogs, and huge dinosaur like monsters.  And of course he does.   He then raises a hyena-type dog as a pet and they strike out on an adventure to a part of the planet that seems more inhabitable.  There he finds an outpost station where he fires off a survival beacon.  Then two rival bounty hunter troops fly down on space ships to try to collect Riddick and the huge reward that goes along with it.  But of course, he is too much for two heavily armed troops with space ships and 11 bounty hunters.  Will he survive and get off this planet?  I'm guessin' yes.

Yes, there is a bit more to the story than just this, but not really much.   There isn't much about this that is interesting.  Oh, there is some kind of sexual-chemistry between Riddick and one of the bounty hunters named Dahl, (Katy Sackhoff,) an amazingly buxom, tough as nails woman who can kick most men's behinds, and shoot guns.  But that is about it. What this is, is a combination of average special effects, a tired premise, and a lackluster story that seems more bent on how many tortuous and gross things they can show you, as opposed to what would be interesting.  But that might be the problem.  Movie making has gone a long journey since the last Riddick or two, and it just may have passed it by.

Riddick, this won't make this franchise any new friends that's for sure.  But for hard core fans, you may be glad it's back.   Average at the very best.

Prisioner

Imageshack.com

Listen to this cast.   Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Melissa Leo, Maria Bello, Terrence Howard, and Viola Davis  Most of these are Oscar nominees and Leo is an Oscar winner.  So this is all lines up to be a very good movie.  And overall it is.  But, this is certainly not for everyone.

Prisoners is exceptionally dark, bleak, and heavy.  It deals with young child abduction which sadly, is too much a part of the world today.  As skillfully as this movie is crafted, this may in some cases be simply too much harsh and real subject matter for some to see. Especially if you have young children and young daughters specifically.  So be advised going in.

This is the story of two families in lower-middle class Pennsylvania who live in a very average neighborhood who share Thanksgiving dinner together.   After the dinner, the two young girls (about 10), one from each family, leave the house under very average circumstances. They then disappear in broad daylight by someone driving an old beat up RV.  No one sees them and no one has any idea where they are.  Panic sets in.

The police are notified and they send out a lone wolf, dedicated detective (Gyllenhaal) to investigate the case.  He is determined to bring the girls home.   So the search begins, and frustration sets in with the two families over the slowness, and the bureaucracy of the system.  After a few days, the two fathers from each family  (Jackman and Howard) decide to take a vigilante approach to this. They kidnap the young man who was caught driving the said RV, who has the IQ of a 10 year old.  And begin torturing him after the police release him for no real evidence.  Will the find the girls alive?  And what will this event do to all of them?  That is Prisoners.

Yes, this is very harsh.  You have to deal with child abduction and all the feelings that go with that.  You have to witness torture of this young man, and you have to deal with two and half hours of immense mental anguish these families go through.  Plus the pain that the detective feels, as time seems to be slipping away.  Who kidnapped these girls and where are they?  Rough stuff.

But with all of that said, and accepting it if you can, this is a very well done movie that is daring enough to look at this all to often reported crime and make it real.  This movie does not sugar coat one thing.  It also makes you feel the terrible anguish all are feeling.  And it doesn't error in turning this into Taken, which is a completely different kind of movie with a very different vibe and feel.

Jackman is sensational in this huge role as a conservative, God fearing. hard working laborer who does the only thing he knows to do to try to find his young girl.  But Gyllenhaal may give the best performance of his career as the solitary detective who is only on this earth to do his job.  I thought he was strength of this movie as he is amazingly believable in this role.  The supporting cast is great, but may be a bit over-casted as there wasn't enough movie to go around at times.   As tough as this is for many, this is a pretty good and bold movie.

Prisoners.  Not for everyone, but quite good.

Thank you for sharing

Coolpicz.com

TFS is a very bold and daring movie that has the gumption to deal with real addictions.  But hold on, this time we're dealing with sex addicts.  Should be noted at this stage, this is a real adult movie that deals with super grown up subject matter.  Plus this is a "film".   A movie goers movie, meaning the once or twice a year movie goer, should see something else.

TFS is the story of 4 very different adults that live in New York City.  They are all relatively successful, and all are very different. The only thing they have in common, is they are all sex addicts. This movie deals with all of their stories collectively and individually as they strive every day to overcome the disease that has overcome them and their lives.   It is dealt with a certain amount of drama, timely humor, a strong sense of real, and terrific character development.   It is honest and sincere, and pulls no punches.  It is very direct at times, and for me scores tons of originality points as I have never seen this subject dealt with on screen like this.   I have heard this called a romantic comedy, but it's not. It's just a good movie.

As original as this story is, the real strength of this movie is the script.  Hollywood here resists the normal temptation to glorify or sugar coat this kind of story.   All of our characters are real, and have real problems.  They are not made out to be victims, but real people who have a condition that has consumed their existence.   They are all fallible, and remain that way throughout and that is a great decision.   This movie takes us to a place we have never been, and leaves us thinking we've learned something.

This stars Mark Ruffalo, Tim Robbins, Gwenyth Paltrow, Josh Gad and Alecia Moore or you know her better as Pink.   I thought she was simply terrific.   Her performance in this movie was really grounding.  This movie could have easily shot way over the fans heads, and been some high brow flick that would have been too uppity for many.  But as good as the starring cast is, she is the most important character in this movie.  This has a real nice feel to it, and well designed soundtrack and filmed wonderfully. You feel like you are really there.

Runner Runner

Imageshack.com

Runner, Runner starring Ben Affleck and Justin Timberlake is the shear definition of "swing and a miss."  

This movie is a behind the scenes look at the online gambling industry that has become huge business world wide.  Sounds like it could be interesting, but it's really not.  In fact, this movie looks bored with itself and has the look of being made a long time ago, and is just now finding itself in theaters.

It's the story of Richie (Timberlake) who is a graduate student at Princeton.  He is paying his college tuition by playing online poker.  He is about 60 grand in the hole to the university, and then loses all of this money online.  He and his brainy friends find out that they in fact, have been cheated by the online company (what a shock).   So Richie decides to go to Costa Rica where the company is based and confront the owner, a huge gangster type named Ivan Black (Affeck).  Sound ridiculous already?  It is.

He then befriends Ivan and they become partners to a degree, and Richie bags going back to the states to finish school so he can lead a life of being a big wig in the online gambling business. Trouble is Ivan is playing him, and then all the backstabbing begins and so on and so forth.  Guess what?  Ivan is really a terrible guy, and Richie is really a smart guy, and the FBI is involved, and then there is some form of a silly romance where Ivan and Richie are sharing a woman....please make this stop!

This movie could not be any less interesting if they tried. It looks like a million other forgettable movies and goes nowhere.  Right up front, do you or anyone else really care that some privileged Ivy League kid is having a hard time paying for college?  Yeah, me either.  This is one of the cardinal flaws of this flick.  No one cares one bit about our "hero."  Game over.  And Affleck is simply going through the motions here, the whole time asking, "When do I get paid so I can go home?"

You don't care about the principles, and the whole thing is just so....uninteresting.   What a waste of time and money.  And what a horrible flop its opening weekend with two big stars in the lead.

Runner, Runner.  Run...the other way!

CAptain Phillips

HDwallpapers.com

Tom Hanks is back in the new action, thriller Captain Phillips.   This is based on the true story of a American cargo ship taken hostage in Somali waters in 2009.   You may not remember the actual incident, but you will remember the end game clearly.  Enough said.

Hanks is Captain Phillips.  A veteran ship captain of the huge cargo ship Maersk Alabama.  It sails with thousands of tons of cargo in sometimes very treacherous waters.  The Alabama was in waters off the coast of Africa in 2009 when it was taken by Somali pirates and was attempted to be held for ransom.  This is common practice in these waters, as the corrupt war lords and organized crime leaders in this part of the world are very powerful.   BTW, the Maersk Alabama was the first American ship pirated in over 200 years.

As the ship is taken, Phillips tries with all he knows to save his ship, and end this siege as quickly and safely as possible.  But he soon finds that to be impossible.  And he finds himself in a situation that is simply terrifying for any man, anywhere.  Hanks is great as our hero, and it is good to see him land a nice role in as story worth telling.

The real star of this movie though is an actor named Barkhad Abdi.  He is simply sensational as the "captain" (Muse) of the Somali pirates who commandeer the Alabama.  The character written for him was remarkable, and complex.  He gaunt and scary physical appearance here was amazing.  He is truly scary in this movie, in a script that had to have it.   You needed a believable, haunting, interesting and intimidating villain to pull this off and he is it.  This movie, does not work without his performance and the inner conflict of his character. His character is the single key to success here.  I don't now where Abdi came from, as there is virtually no information available on him anywhere.  But he is terrific.  Exceptionally well done.

Captain Phillips though good, does suffer from a couple of problems, first it is entirely too long at 2 hours 15 minutes.  This could have been shaved some and been far better.  It also belabors some points to point of nausea.   And there are few dead sports where it all seems so slow.   But in it's defense, it does take us where we have never been before.  On the bridge of a gigantic freighter and lets us inside that world.   And alerts of to the plight and bravery that it takes to sail these waters, and they do ti every day.  That is well done as well.

Captain Phillips.  Good, not great.  A good night at the movies.

Gravity

 Imageshack.com

First off, this movie is absolutely made for today's 3-D.   It really works well here.  Also, all of this is filmed in zero-gravity, or simulated zero-gravity and is certainly challenging movie making.   That is very impressive.   But for me, this is a movie that is far more concerned about what it can do, as opposed to what it should do.   Huge on effects, but this is loaded with redundancy.

The story in short is this.   A group of astronauts is orbiting the earth doing a repair to the Hubble telescope. As they are outside the shuttle, they are bombarded with a shower of space debris from a Russian space experiment goes wrong.  The debris which is traveling at 20,000  mph is now destroying all other satelights and that debris is crashing into them as well. All of the crew is killed except for them and the shuttle is destroyed.  So they must fight all odds to try to survive.

The goal is to get to the International Space Station, and get on the emergency pod and come back to Earth. But you can probably guess that doesn't pan out well, and now what?  Can they possibly live through this storm 200 miles above the Earth?

I have seen a ton of great reviews on this movie, and I have to respectfully disagree.  I think many are star struck by our cast.  True, there are some remarkable effects as this is exceptionally complex movie making and that isn't lost here.  But this movie really had a tough time holding my attention as it is scene after scene of people tumbling through space.  This would be a sensational scene in a movie that had something else to say.  But, this has little to say.  But it certainly looks great on the big screen and in 3-D.  This movie was absolutely made for the theater.  This is not a movie that will transfer well to DVD.

Sets are great, effects are great, but the story is average.  Also there are a few large holes in this that really stall it out.  Do you think that NASA, the agency that does all of these remarkable things all over the universe would get the info of the accident that causes all the problems to these guys with no notice?  Yeah, me either.  It all seems to come out of left field, and nothing ever comes out of left field to NASA.  That bothered me.  Huge hole.

This movie will also shock many as to how short it really is.  To be honest, you may be ready for it to end, with all the zero-gravity filming and you can become fatigued by it.  But you are paying a huge premium movie ticket price for 3-D, or IMAX 3-D and for Clooney and Bullock for a movie less than 90 minutes.  Should be noted too, this has a ton of Bullock, and a sliver of Clooney.

Gravity.  Complicated movie making.  But in the end a star studded, dressed up special effects fest for adults.

Catching fire

Comicimage.com

It took me over a month (instead of a week to read), so it didn’t really pull me in like the first book. Since it’s the middle book, it’s kind of like a place holder, developing a story line linking the exciting first book, and the grand finale of the last book.

The beginning is just a quick recap without really telling us what the return from the Hunger Games really was like.

The middle is like Hunger Games revisited. I was mad they had to do it again and I was kind of bored reliving it all again, even though it was slightly different this time.

I was disappointed by the lack of character development for Katniss. She became a vague character. I loved her courage and strategic way of thinking in the first book, but in the second one that basically stopped, and frankly she just started getting on my nerves.

But I did like it! I just didn’t *love* it as much as the first one. And have been told that the last book of the series is good so I am definitely going to read on.

What I liked:

I liked knowing what happened next after the Hunger Games.

The first 75% of the book was uneventful, but the end was very good! I was surprised by the turn of events and was excited to finally be sucked back into the story in the very last chapters.

Nothing really catches fire, literally… but all the events of the book set up a lot of conflict. Their world starts to “catch fire,” causing the end to be a cliff hanger. It sets readers up to go read the final book, so I am looking forward to reading it and finally finding out the results of the love triangle (I’m on Team Gale) and the rebellion against the Capitol.

Don John

imageshack

This is the writing and directorial debut of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and he also stars in the title role as Jon, a young man who runs a routine and sticks to it. He loves his family, church, boys, girls, apartment, and most importantly his porn. Why does he love these things? Because they all give him a feeling that is unmatched by anything else in the world. Don Jon will most likely be remembered as “the movie about porn” but there are a lot of things that prove that statement to be wrong.

Okay but first thing’s first, yeah there is a lot of talk about porn in the movie. Jon loves it and states that every guy in the world loves it. He’s even quite poetic when he digs deep inside himself to try and explain to the people around him who don’t understand. There’s something that he feels when watching porn that he never feels when he’s with an actual woman. He describes it as “losing himself,” but even he can’t understand why he doesn’t lose himself when he’s with a girl.

This guy-driven romantic-comedy goes through its motions when Jon meets Barbara (Johansson) at a club. After tracking her down on Facebook (porn and Facebook, how modern!), they have lunch and start a relationship, but Barbara wants to get to know Jon, his friends and his family before they ever sleep with each other. While this disappoints Jon at first, he knows he’ll always have his porn.

What happens between Jon and Barbara makes for a good discussion. The greatest aspect they both have going is that they’re both incredibly attractive, but beyond that they’re very different. This part of the plot demonstrates a careful pen in Gordon-Levitt’s screenplay. Barbara is a type of loud-mouth bitch that we’ve seen before, but it’s shown with reason by the way she was grown up and the love stories she believes in. Plus, I’m sure she’s not alone in the world when she believes that watching porn while in a relationship is considered some kind of cheating.

While Jon changes and attempts to recreate himself to meet Barbara’s needs, he really doesn’t make substantial changes until the unlikely friendship of another student blossoms. What I like about the interactions between Jon and Esther (Moore) is that just because she’s older doesn’t mean she has all the answers. Her life is in shambles but still does offer an insight that Jon could never have reached by himself.

Don Jon offers a variation of the rom-com for guys that comes off as fresh because of some reinventions. The film benefits from the chemistry of Gordon-Levitt and Johansson, who tip-toes around their complicated characters and situations as well as you could without over-acting. And after it’s all over, it’s tough to not be happy for Jon, who with the help from everything he loves, finally learns to lose himself.

 

Thor

Imageshack.com

I’m not a movie critic, and don’t have anywhere near the insight or vocabulary that my friends at the A.M.P. Movie Reviews site have, but I love movies.

Always have, always will and I’d like to share my ‘amateur’ thoughts with you on some of the films I see.

Ok, first things first – I’d like to come clean about something.  I’m a geek. I love sci-fi, fantasy, superheroes, horror, etc.  However, I’ve never really been into ‘American’ comic books and graphic novels until very recently.

As a boy, I read Commando, Eagle, The Beano, Dandy and Wizzer & Chips on a weekly basis.  But the Marvel and DC estates never appealed to me in their paper form.  Loved the Superman films, Spiderman tv series, but could never get along with the comics.

Hence why I came to this movie cold – I’ve never been interested in Thor as a character.  In fact, there was something about him that I actually disliked.  So I sat down to watch this movie purely as preparation for the Avengers movie next year.

In theory, the film should be brilliant. Kenneth Branagh directing, Anthony Hopkins playing Odin, and a supporting cast of Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgård and Rene Russo and many other great actors – surely a recipe for success?  But then they said that about Hudson Hawk…

This is an ‘origin’ movie, that is it explains who Thor is and how he becomes a superhero on Earth.  A headstrong, arrogant warrior who, cast out of the fantasy world of Asgard by his father, has to live as a human without his considerable powers.  Fish-out-of-water jokes ensue, a little bit of love interest, redemption and a whole load of CGI effects!

And you know what?  I absolutely loved it!  It’s not going to win any Oscars, but it delivered everything that I want in a superhero movie.

Branagh handles this action film with great gusto, with newcomer Chris Hemsworth grabbing hold of the hammer as the hero Thor.  Apparently Hemsworth was in TVs Home and Away and I’d completely forgotten him playing George Kirk in the recent Star Trek reboot, but after this performance I’ll certainly keep an eye out for him.  Playing Thor with just the right amount of tongue-in-cheek and campness required for such a fantastical superhero, I actually cared about the character.

Supporting cast did exactly that – support.  None of them showboating which was a refreshing change.  Branagh favourite Patrick Doyle provides the rousing score, which in parts rivals his work on Hamlet (one of my all time favourite scores) and the CGI manages to be over the top, but not eye-jarring.

Is this film perfect?  Far from it.  We’re not talking Shakespeare here people!  The plot is pretty damn thin, and I didn’t quite buy the villain Loki, played by Tom Hiddleston, who is returning to the role in the forthcoming Avengers.  Hopefully he’ll be given a bit more to work with to flesh out his character.  I also found the traditional Marvel post credits scene disappointing.

But, and it’s a big but – it ticked all the boxes I was looking for – redemption and victorious return, camp cheesy jokes, characters I actually liked, and a world that I definitely want to see more of! The good news is that not only does Hemsworth return as Thor in the Avengers movie, but Thor 2 has been slated to follow.

In fact, as far as Marvel movies go, I’d probably put it slightly below Iron Man, on a par with Norton’s superb Hulk, and well above the sadly disappointing Iron Man 2 and Bana version of Hulk.  Haven’t seen Captain America yet, so I’ll revisit that at a later date

Rush

Imagesahck.com

Rush, like most films directed by Ron Howard, is pretty much exactly the film you expect to see when you walk into the theater. The trailer sets up a good racing movie, with a rivalry between the hotshot, go-for-glory mentality of James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) vs. the cautious, intellectual approach of Niki Lauda (Daniel Bruhl), and basically shows how their rivalry developed over a number of years, culminating in their season long dual in 1976 for the F-1 Championship. And that is precisely what Howard delivers, in a film where the racing scenes are expertly staged, and the performances are top notch. The one thing about the film that did surprise me – pleasantly – is how it never takes sides. It doesn’t turn Hunt into a hero, and Lauda into a villain, or vice versa. Instead, it presents two men, with completely different views on what it takes to be a winner – and lets the audience decide who was right, and who was wrong – or, if you’re like me, decide that they were equally right. Both men raced the way they needed to if they wanted to win.

 

The movie sets these two drivers up as polar opposites – and benefits greatly from the performances by the two leads. Chris Hemsworth, who has never really had a chance to show his acting chops (he’s fine as Thor, but there are no nuances to that character) portrays Hunt as foolhardy – a fun loving party guy who drinks, smokes and screws constantly, and when he’s behind the wheel, he depends on his own intuitions. He has no fear, gleefully accepts the prospect of death, and goes for broke every time out. It’s a fine performance – and I suspect American audiences are going to be on his side more than not – even though Hunt was British, he is almost a prototypical brash American – and Hemsworth relishes the opportunity to play this charming bad boy. He doesn’t have all that more depth than Thor – but it’s a different role, and one that suits Hemsworth. Daniel Bruhl is even better as Lauda – a man who doesn’t care if anyone likes him, he’s just there to win. He’s more involved with the mechanics of his car, and knows every detail of the race he’s going drive. He is a technical driver, one who relies on his intellect to win. At first, he is the much less sympathetic – and likable – character. But he is also given more depth than Hunt. It would have been easy to turn him into an unfeeling villain – but Peter Morgan’s excellent screenplay doesn’t do that. In fact, by the end, I was rooting for him.

 

The racing scenes are some of the best of their kind ever put on film. Working with cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle, Howard has crafted scenes that are loud, brash and exciting – often putting us behind the wheel with the drivers. Although at times Howard does rely on some rapid editing, he never loses focus – and you never lose perspective on what is happening. You feel the rush (pardon the use of the word) of the races in your guts as they are going on – that mixture of excitement and fear, that feeds the drivers need to go out there week after week and risk their lives.

 

As a narrative, Rush follows a fairly well-worn path – the two rivals start off hating each other, and gradually they build up a begrudging respect for the other person. They still may not like each other, but they realize that in a way they need each other – the presence of the other fuels their desire to get better, and pushes them to places they otherwise would not get to. That’s not exactly an original observation, but it gets the job done.

 

And that pretty much describes the movie as a whole – not exactly original, but it gets the job done. Howard has always been a gifted technical director – and this has to rank as one of the best of his career in that regard. And he has always been good with actors – and he gets career best work out of Hemsworth and Bruhl (the rest of the cast is pretty much disposable – but have some nice moments). And Peter Morgan’s screenplay is very good – stripping the movie of much of the filler movies like this often have, and concentrating on what works. Rush is precisely the movie the previews promised it to be – and for me that makes it an immensely satisfying, if not overly original, movie.

2 Guns

Starring: Denzel Washington (Robert 'Bobby' Trench), Mark Wahlberg (Michael 'Stig' Stigman), Paula Patton (Deb), Bill Paxton (Earl), Fred Ward (Admiral Tuwey), James Marsden (Quince), Edward James Olmos (Papi Greco), Robert John Burke (Jessup), Greg Sproles (Chief Lucas), Patrick Fischler (Dr. Ken).

Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg are two very talented actors, who spend most of their time coasting on their considerable charm. Before last year’s Flight, Washington had spent basically a decade doing this – and Wahlberg, while occasionally throwing in a film like The Lovely Bones and The Fighter – basically does the same thing. You know what you’re getting when you walk into an action movie starring one of these two guys. And to both of their credit, they don’t simply phone in their performances – they perform them to the hilt, even if they aren’t really challenged by them. That can be said about their first onscreen team-up – 2 Guns. This is a likable, late summer action comedy with double and triple crosses, an ever twisting plot, and multiple trips across the border into Mexico.

 

When the film opens, we meet Bobby (Washington) and Stug (Wahlberg) as they walk into a dinner across the street from a bank. They want to rob the bank, and are there for two reasons – one, to scope out their target, and two, to make sure that this dinner “with the best donuts in three counties” won’t mess up their job. Needless to say, not everything is what appears to be. They pull off the robbery – only to discover they have both been lying to each other, and whoever gave them the information in the first place has also been lying. What follows is an over complicated plot featuring a Mexican drug dealer (Edward James Olmos), a crazed CIA agent (Bill Paxton), the DEA (represented by Paula Patton), and the army (James Marsden). The plot is busy, but never confusing, and the movie breezes by easily – coasting on the considerable charm of Washington and Wahlberg.

 

The film was directed by Baltasar Kormakur, who had made some pretty acclaimed films in his native Iceland, before coming to Hollywood. His North American “debut” was last year’s Contraband – also starring Wahlberg – and also having one of those plots where nothing is as it seems. Personally, I thought Contraband overstayed it’s welcome – tried too hard to pull the wool over the audiences eyes a few too many times. 2 Guns seems to be constantly threatening to do the same – but never quite does. The film is short, violent, funny, briskly paced and ends just as I was starting to get tired of all the plot twists. In short, it’s an effective genre piece – not much more – but a fun way to spend a couple of hours.

 

Washington and Wahlberg are surprisingly good together. It didn’t surprise me to find out after the movie was over that it was initially meant to be a vehicle for Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson (perhaps they backed out when Google came calling) . The film was most likely re-written to better suit its current stars – but this is still an buddy-comedy/action movie – and Washington and Wahlberg play well off each other. It also helps that the rest of the cast is game as well. Olmos is having fun playing the stereotypical Mexican drug kingpin – and I’m not sure what movie I’ve seen him in the last decade or so where he’s been better. James Marsden once again proves why he’s better suited for these type of odd, quirky supporting roles than as the leading man. Paula Patton is a standard issue “love interest”, but she does the job well. Best of all is Bill Paxton, who just may be insane.

 

Overall, 2 Guns doesn’t attempt to do anything too new. There’s nothing wrong with making a solid, fun, genre movie – and that’s precisely what the filmmakers have done here. I do hope that it isn’t too long before Washington and Wahlberg stretch their acting muscles again, but for now, it’s good enough to see them at their charming, movie star best

 

 

Iron man 3

Shouldn't be a surprise that I loved it, and probably as much as the first.

I will admit that the first's story is a lot tighter while the second has a lot more going on with its larger cast of characters - I wouldn't say the pacing drags, there's just a lot more to absorb in a short frame of time & I can see how the bigger ensemble & their arcs could be made accountable for this. It also doesn't have the political relevance the first film had. I didn't seem to get affected by that though, I was totally engaged the whole way through.

Downey again nails Stark to a T, and while he makes a return to his ego-tistical, prick-ish ways he still manages to keep us on his side. Rockwell's Hammer is in fine form, and does an excellent job of portraying used-car-salesman-turned-weapons-dealer (loved his little Hammer dance at the expo). Scenes with Downey & Rockwell in the first act are worth the price of admission alone. I was pleased to see Faverau give himself increased screen time as Happy - he had some great comedic moments. Scar-Jo is serviceable as Black Widow as was Sam as Fury, but I just didn't feel Gwens turn as Pepper (or the romance between her & Stark) this time round & apart from Vankos/Rourkes initial appearance, he never really came across as the uber villain of the piece, which were probably the weakest elements of the film for me.

I'm pleased ILM have really been let off the leash here, because the action sequences are excellent and way more impressive than the original. Whiplash's debut, Tony's Birthday party & the final battle being the standout sequences.

And for the all Marvel fans, yeah stay until after the credits - there's some gold to be had.

This sort of film is the reason I go to the cinema, to be thoroughly entertained & to have a decent laugh.

4.5 stars out of 5

I gave it an extra 1/2 star because of how well War Machine was realized - that being my comic book dream come true. Also neglected to mention that Cheadles' turn as Rhodey made me go "Terrance Who?". He was really that much stronger in the role compared to t
hehdwallpapers. first

Man of steel

digitaltrends.com

To
 the oft-asked question of whether or not the world is really starving for yet another superhero origin story, Man of Steel simply responds by serving up what could be as much spectacle and action — minute-by-minute, frame-by-frame — as any movie anyone could think of. Zack Snyder’s huge, backstory-heavy extravaganza is a rehab job that perhaps didn’t cry out to be done but proves so overwhelmingly insistent in its size and strength that it’s hard not to give in. Warner Bros.’ new tentpole should remain firmly planted around the world for much of the summer.

With Christopher Nolan’s mammoth Batman trilogy having wrapped up last year, the quick return of the other great DC comic hero was inevitable, even if the last attempt, Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns (2006), only lasted one lap. Nolan’s involvement here as a producer and co-story writer with David S. Goyer, his collaborator on all three Batman films, will encourage fans to look closely for his fingerprints, and a first impression might suggest his hand in deepening the hero’s roots to such a serious extent and insisting upon using Hans Zimmer to compose the score.

Visually and rhythmically, however, Snyder has gone his own way, summoning up memories of Dune in the sculpted architectural look of Krypton, echoing Jesus by underlining the sacrifice Clark Kent is called upon to make for the good of mankind, and simply by hardly letting five minutes go by without inventing some new excuse for a staggering action scene -- any one of which undoubtedly cost more than the combined budgets of all of this year’s Sundance competition lineup.

Even the inevitably expository first 18 minutes on Krypton are spiked with an amazing amount of visual stimulation. As Jor-El (Russell Crowe) lays it all out about the planet’s road to ruin, its failed intergalactic colonization efforts and his discovery of a planet to which he can send his little son, we’re witness to both large-scale calamity and the intimate treachery of the rebellious General Zod (a ferocious Michael Shannon), whose murderous campaign gets him packed off to the deep space equivalent of Siberia.

Snyder doesn’t miss a beat once the tale spins down to Earth. Scarcely has Kal-El emerged from his projectile after a long flight when he rescues workers from a burning oil rig. The youngster later sees his classmates in disturbing X-ray vision and, not long after the renamed Clark Kent asks his adoptive mother (Diane Lane), “What’s wrong with me, Mom?” a parade of topless shots of the young man reveal far from anything wrong but, rather, that the actor playing him, Henry Cavill, would have been fully qualified for a major role in Snyder’s 300 without any digital musculature added.

When Clark saves the day yet again by lifting a school bus out of the water after it’s gone off a bridge, his adoptive father (Kevin Costner) realizes it’s time for a heart-to-heart. “You’re the answer to whether we’re alone in the universe,” he confides upon showing Clark the old pod that brought him to Earth.

 

NO school like the OLD school

Guess whose back ladies and germs!!!! Okay so since I was very busy with my internship the past couple of weeks I really did get time to hit the cinemas, but fear not, I thought this would be the perfect time to review my all time favourite classic movie: SCARFACE.

Okay where do I start, there’s so much to say. Okay let me start by saying that; if you haven’t seen this classic, you not living right (serious face). But not all hope is lost, hopefully after this epic read, you’ll be convinced.

Allow me to break it down:

After a quarter of a century, a return to the big screen now further magnifies the brutal unsubtle of Brian de Palma's 1983 gangster movie, itself a reworking of Howard Hawks's 1932 film. De Palma and screenwriter Oliver Stone cleverly transpose the action to Fidel Castro's "Mariel" expulsion of jailbirds from Cuba in 1980. Among the dodgy flotsam winding up in Miami is Tony "Scarface" Montana, ferociously played by cock-of-the-walk Al Pacino, shrilly insisting on his anti-communist political status, but thirsting for sex, money and blood. Tony parlays a successful hit job on an old Havana compañero of Fidel's into a connection with the local drug lord - and from there his inexorably growing addictions to power and cocaine propel him to the top, and over it.

Pacino's performance is always intensely watchable (although even in 1983 he is developing his mannerism of ending a scene by shouting throwaway lines over his shoulder as he swaggers off) and his very first scene, under interrogation by US immigration cops, is a cracker. The early career of Tony and his buddies in sunny, breezy Miami Beach is nice to watch and De Palma's handling of Tony's first bungled drug deal is tremendous: with the camera drifting enigmatically back and forth between the motel room carnage to the waiting getaway car. But there is also something a little stately about the dramatic pace and that 1980s synth score, and also a quaint sort of Kung Fu/Bond movie aesthetic to Scarface, with its lairs and spot lit country homes, its perimeter fences and its dozens of disposable henchmen fatally greeting Tony's "little friend". (Incredibly, two new movies this week reference the famous line and a third is a reworking of the basic Scarface plot.)

I am struck once again by the strange facial similarity between Tony's wife Elvira, played by Michelle Pfeiffer and his sister, Gina, played by Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio. Deliberate psychological insight? Or a just an accident of style? The movie is dwarfed by Raging Bull and GoodFellas at either end of the decade, and I'm not sure if it really is a satire on America's new Reaganite dawn, but it's still a must-see for Pacino's potent and influential performance.

https://www.google.co.za/search?q=scarface

  <!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->

Yours Sincerely

Mr Ndlazi

Proudly Mzansi

www,google.images.com

The film is about two cops, trying get recognition by busting thugs. Loads of humour, but then again its comedy its meant to make us laugh. I would call it a com-action film. Comedy and action film which was directed by Andrew Wessley.

The cast is people you already know from the comedy scene. Some are really good comedians but acting my brothers and sisters is something they should forget about. The film is not really predictable, yes it has a happily ever after ending but it has a humour twist in it. 

The concept was not original at all. When watching the film it will remind you of movies like Rush Hour and 21 Jump Street. But hey the director defended this by saying the originality prevails through the set, the actors and the locations. Watch the film, its a comedy with potential

Temptation

Being a supporter of both Spike Lee & Tyler Perry, I would have to say the main problem I've had with Tyler's films is the constant need to mix serious drama or tragedy with farce/comedy. That's what bothered me the most about "Madea Goes to Jail" - Tyler's most commercially successful film grossing over $90 Million at the box office. The scene in which two powerful actors - future Oscar Nominee Viola Davis (The Help) talks to Derek Luke's (Antwone Fisher) character about the guilt he has carried for years due to the past rape of his friend brought laughter from the audience when it should have brought tears with Derek Luke's tears. The laughter came from Madea being thrown into the mix. Serious, heart wrenching moments are constantly interrupted by Madea. 
 
Now, with "Tyler Perry's Temptation" mockery, farce, & Madea have been completely removed, replaced by compelling story making with a thought provoking message. The quality of this film is on the level of "The Family That Preys" which was a great film whose only weakness was one dimensional characters that should have been fleshed out more. "Temptation" is better than that film because Tyler has done a great job with this script featuring three dimensional well rounded characters. The 3 primary characters of the film, the husband, the wife, & the guy who brings the temptation, are neither all good nor all bad, but a mixture of both. 
 
"Scandal" is one of the best shows on tv, but it has almost glamorized adultery & seduction. In conversations with some of my peers and my generation, I have come to realize that adultery is much more common than we think. It is not frowned upon, but some think that it's nothing wrong to sleep with someone's husband or someone's wife. When I mentioned to one of my friends about my attraction to a married woman, they were like, you should get that. I mentioned that I would never disrespect this woman, I respect her marriage, I'm a Christian. My friend was like, so what. "Temptation" is not as exaggerated as Idris Elba's "Obsessed" or "Fatal Attraction"; it's actually more realistic than those films, and I'm sure many of us can relate to it. This film deals with how powerful & how destructive seduction can really be. Hopefully, "Temptation" will be a warning to those faced with adultery that choices have consequences, now or later.

www,google/image.com

The Hangover 3

 

So being the loving boyfriend that I am, I decided to take my girlfriend out on a movie and lunch date. We both have a great sense of humour, so choosing a movie was a mutual thing. So we chose to watch the much anticipated Hangover 3.

This movie ditches the formula setup of the first two installments, in favor of a more boring story revolving around Alan (Zach Galifianakis) who has been in a downward spiral since the sudden death of his father, Sid (Jeffrey Tambor). Alan’s dutiful brother-in-law Doug (Justin Bartha) recruits fellow “Wolfpack” members Stu (Ed Helms) and Phil (Bradley Cooper) to stage an intervention and convince Alan to seek treatment so that he can better himself, and his life.

Of course, what should be a simple road trip and drop-off is sidelined by the sudden appearance of a gangster named Marshall (John Goodman), who reveals to the Wolfpack that they have a mutual friend in one Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong), who recently escaped from a Thai prison and is on the lamb. Marshall kidnaps Doug as ransom for the Wolfpack’s service in luring Chow out of hiding; however, the wily Chow is not so easily caged, as the Wolfpack quickly (and painfully) discovers that they have been scammed by Chow.

In all honesty I think it’s redundant, the jokes are over rated and also very cliché. They should have just left the legendary Hangover 1.Sequels are a hard act to follow, and this one was an epic fail. But Alan is a legend (haahahahahah) his just special.

Out of 10 well, because Alan and Chow are legends, I’ll give it a 5. But that’s just my thoughts, which are of paramount importance.

 https://www.google.com

What ya say?

Yours Sincerely

Mr Ndlazi

 

 

 

Lesson 2

Hi there boys and girls!!!
In case you were wondering what criteria I use to judge movies, then this might give a bit of insight, then maybe you can try it and become a world renowned movie blogger like myself (i wish LOL)


1, A well written-script with active characters who make decisiosn that lead them down a path.
2. Well-written dialogue that sounds natural.
3. Good actors and actresses that add their own touch to th emovie.
4. A great story. A simple story told in the right way is better than an intricate story with a million plots that don't connect. It's about connecting with the audience, not a million special effects and explosions.
5. Evokes emotiones--after all, if we want to watch a comedy, then we should be laughing. If we are watching a horror movie, we should feel scared. If we are watching a drama, we should feel for the characters. You never want to have an audience sympathize with your characters, but rather emphasize.
6. An invigorating climax.
7. All loose ends in the movie come together at the end for a powerful ending, even if it's simple. (unless the purpose is to set it up for a sequel).
8. Good setting that parallells the story.
9. Good transitions between scenes that are both efficient and creative. As a screenwriter, you always want to enter a scene as late as possible and exit a scene as soon as possible. Don't bore the audience with stuff that isn't important.
10. Good production that makes the story believable.

That"s how it done boys and girls. Now get your movie tickets and start judging.( excuse the pun)

Yours Sincerly
Mr Ndlazi