Bourne Legacy – Review

My high hopes for this movie were met with a gross mishandling of a trilogy that should have been left alone. Seriously, a new brand of ridiculous was invented just for this movie.

Lets start with a couple details just to bring you all up to speed. First off, Matt Damon does not star in any part of the movie. Now that wasn’t an immediate deal breaker because rising A-Lister Jeremy Renner replaced Damon, but it certainly demanded an inspired attempt by director Tony Gilroy. Unfortunately that is where this film fell flat.

One of the first rules of movie reviewing is not to ruin the movie, and that usually is usually a good rule to live by, however in this case you are going to thank me.

Early on in the film Renner is on the lam from an ambiguous government agency that obviously wants him dead. Although a very common premise for a film I was expecting this. What I wasn’t expecting was for the Bourne Trilogy to take on the flavor of a WWE wrestling match. (No disrespect to WWE, love that stuff)

Rather than having Renner simply hide in a cluster of trees or jump into an intimidating looking river like a normal secret agent, someone in Hollywood thought it would be a good idea to take things “to the max”. That was a terrible decision.

While running from an unmanned predator drone Renner found the time to cut out a homing beacon from deep in his leg, and set up a trap for a pack of wolves who also happened to be chasing him at the time. After doing this he single-handedly kills every wolf save one, the predator drone closing in all the while. Renner then proceeds to put the remaining wolf in a head lock and forces it to swallow his homing beacon at which point the wolf takes off into the woods only to be destroyed by a missile.

At this point director Troy Gilroy decided to follow the same line of thought that was made famous by professional baseball in the 90’s…. if you have a good thing, make it do steroids and then it could only get better right?

One of the driving conflicts of the film is that Renner’s character Alex Cross has ran out of “blues and greens”, pills that have made this next generation of Bourne-like agents better than the last one. Without them he will surely die… big surprise. I wasn’t kidding you when I said Troy Gilroy made the entire Bourne franchise do steroids, it was a pathetic layer to add to this saga and I’m glad Matt Damon had the sense to avoid this one entirely.

Either the screenplay was written by a fourteen year old boy who had three red bulls in half an hour or someone made a boo boo.

There is at best a few meager nuggets of enjoyment to be reaped from this movie. Please don’t go see it.

IMDB: 7.8

Rotten Tomatoes: 66% 

                                            

Lawless – Film Review

 

First off I’m glad to be back talking to yinz, it truly tickles me that some of you read this column on accident, I’m a jackass

 

Anyways moving right along… Lawless, pretty solid flick. Shia Lebeouf actually plays a character with some depth and Tom Hardy is back to his usual manliness.

 

The movie centers around the exploits of three back county bootleggers and professional hard-asses known as the Bondurant brothers. Immediately viewers are plunged into the Prohibition Era’s “wettest county on earth” (Franklin County, VA), a time and place as savage and genuine as any in U.S history.

 

Despite the initial fiery impression that this film’s trailers impart, the end product more closely resembles a nuanced non-fiction novel (that’s alliteration – stepping it up this year) than an 80’s style action flick.

 

Based on historical events, Lawless boasts an atypical plot progression that simultaneously manages to layer character development with visceral action scenes.

 

Although it may seem a tad dude-oriented, Lawless can indeed mollify even picky audiences of both genders with its engaging historical insights and romantic sub-plots.

 

Deep southern codes of honor clash with the march of progress. Tasty justice is dealt and painful blows are received.

 

Though my review has been glowing up to this point, I will concede that I was a bit peeved at certain points in the film.Stunning character studies and more than photogenic Appalachian setting fell prey on occasion to superfluous shots of Shia just being Shia. Shia flat out wasn’t the most interesting character in the film, he does a good job but he just wasn’t the actor I wanted to see.

 

However, the film more than compensated for that with Guy Pearce’s rejuvenated portrayal of a corrupt and genuinely creepy federal deputy. Jason Clarke (Public Enemies) also proved that his capability as a character actor, bringing surprising depth to his role as the middle brother Howard Bondurant.

 

Indubitably, Tom Hardy steals the show. Hardy’sone of the few actors that I truly feel has the “it-factor”. He is fast approaching the likes of Christian Bale and Russell Crowe in terms of tough guys with acting chops.  

 

I would hesitate to call this movie an out-and-out homerun. But when you cast actors exceptionally well, and you aim as high as director John Hillcoat did with Lawless, it is not a surprise that this one delivered the goods. Totes worth it.

 

Bovines  (2011, France, 62 min.) 4/5 out of 5 – Heading into the film I was a bit skeptical as to how a cohesive story could be woven from just shots of cows grazing. I was very pleasantly surprised however. The film was entertaining and endearing, shots of the cows really engaged the audience and made it emotional rather than just a film you’d watch in science class. Despite a total lack of dialogue, captions or really words of any type not counting the occasionally yell of a farmer a clear message was sent. Cows care for their young, they have emotions, and cows just aren’t as simple as we all think. The filmmaker sent that message with some of the best cinematography that I have experienced thus far in terms of creating emotion. Not only were the shot’s beautiful but they were arranged so effectively that they created a wordless story that even a young child could understand. The use of close-ups in this work is astounding, shots of eyes, noses and tails not only work to give you the true bovine experience but also portray the emotions driving this film. Due to the somewhat abstract nature of the film I am unsure as to where exactly it could be used. It doesn’t take a stance on an issue or particularly relate itself to any broad category. I guess it could be placed in an event about animals or agriculture or farm life. Of the films I watched I feel like this most closely relates to Eating Alabama. Although the style of filmmaking is incredibly different from film to film, they are closely linked in my mind because they give you a much better idea where that steak you are eating comes from. It highlights the realities behind food and agriculture. Beautiful camera work and strong narrative structure make this a very solid entry.

Drought (2011, Mexico, 84 min.) 3 out of 5 – I a going to preface this review by saying that the labels on the top and bottom of this film that remain from beginning to bitter end take a serious toll on the films dramatic impact. It is almost impossible to think of it as a feature film, it seems more like a special you would see on network TV. In comparison to the other films I watched this week the cinematography was shaky, often without a clear intent, and grainy in appearance. Shots linger where they shouldn’t, sometimes are poorly chosen and wouldn’t translate well to a large screen due to the poor visual quality. It is an interesting idea to start with. The inhospitable environment of the Mexican desert, the hard people who have battled that environment for years and how they manage to keep smiling is a compelling narrative. This narrative however is bungled by poor character development and narrative structure. Unlike taking the stories of several key characters and developing them to truly endear and engage the audience this film bounces around in what seems like a totally random fashion. It makes no point at all other than that life is hard, and it is not structured effectively enough to purely be a “day-in-the-life” style film. Despite all of this the film does address a very specific issue and if the audience was chosen correctly this film could be effective. It would most certainly have to be a small venue due to the quiet nature and poor film quality. Similarly rather than being a feature film I would categorize this more as informational, the poor narrative structure really hurts the dramatic impact of this film and it does not have the flash or the intrigue to compensate for that.

Children of The Tsunami – The always-powerful and devastatingly simple words of children are utilized to near perfection in this film. Made by BBC affiliate it is of high production quality. The use of traditional narration adds key structure and information cues to the film, and the interviews with the children most certainly do the rest. The filmmaker also utilized stock footage and photographs to give perspective and reality to the stories of the children. As one might expect it was touching and emotional, only children could remain so happy in the face of such desolation. I would place this as a concluding piece in an environmental pollution piece or in a special on the Tsunami. This film leaves such a strong emotional impression that it is a good note to end on and would leave the audience stunned. Quality filmmaking, little kids and an environmental tragedy make for compelling movies that much is for sure. (4.5)

Bidder 70 – The first 15 minutes of this film made me think it was going to be a knockout. The story of Tim Dechristopher is such an interesting one; he is a brave man with a compelling tale to tell. However I feel the film could’ve executed the story in a much more effective and dramatic fashion. The most interesting part of the film centers around Tim Dechristopher but rather than focusing on him and fleshing out his background and what truly makes him tick, the filmmaker bounced around. Shamelessly plugging an organization known as Peaceful Uprising I couldn’t tell if the filmmaker had chosen to tell Decristopher’s story because it was interesting, or if Decristopher had hired a film crew himself in order to try and bolster some support. I also think it could have been condensed. It is still a powerful story and it is still most certainly a strong film but it suffered from a bit of narrative ADD. Despite its shortcomings however this film is definitely feature quality, it tells an inspiring story in a manner clear enough to appreciate. The drama played out by Dechristopher and the trial to decide his future is quality stuff. (4)

Among Giants – This film was only 13 minutes long but I was it was 120. Advanced narrative structure, beautiful cinematography and a unique perspective make this film one of my favorites thus far. The film is driven by shots of nature, and is narrated by of one of the Tree Sitters currently taking a stand against logging in California. It had an almost poetic feeling and leaves the viewer with several superb visuals to hold on to. It is vague in a good way, it would be a great introductory piece to something like Eating Alabama or perhaps Bidder 70 that also deal with taking a stand and alternatives ways of life. I loved this film. It played out in a dramatic and cinematic fashion that combined the intrigue of the issue with a palpable drama. This film is of genuinely high quality; my only regret is that it isn’t longer. (5)

Eating Alabama – Eating Alabama was a great look into the issue of sustainability, in a Morgan-Spurlock like fashion. It is refreshingly honest and very relatable to a wide audience. The nature of the film is feature-like, and it could easily be the centerpiece of an event as it tells quite the engaging story. I was surprised first and foremost with how unbiased it was, the filmmaker was not pushing a specific cause he was simply trying to illustrate what true sustainability looks like. He allowed the genuine nature of his approach and the realities of modern food culture to take precedence over bias and that was the films biggest triumph. Apart from that he also told a very personal story that endeared and engaged the audience on a personal level. This film is surprisingly moving and effectively constructed. This film garners a sense of community rarely achieved. (4.5)

E-wasteland – This film is a dialogue and plot free look at the desolation and pollution occurring in Ghana due to the illegal exportation and dumping of supposed “second hand goods”. Large industrialized nations export their e-waste (the byproducts of outdated electronics and computers) into countries such as Ghana. Then this waste is scavenged and broken down by hand, and often burned, in order for the few valuable scraps of metal to be exposed and then sold by the people of Ghana. This process is not only unethical on the part of the companies dumping the waste, but also detrimental to the environment and to the health of those in Ghana who work to reclaim e-waste. All in all the film has some compelling and enlightening shots not only of the true filth that results from e-waste but also the hardships that accompany trying to reclaim it. It was an interesting preview into the topic of e-waste but the lack of character development and other narrative structures make it a bit repetitive by the end, and it is only 20 minutes long… (2.5)

Nuclear Nation – This film is a piece that should without doubt be used as the main entry for an event. As a feature length film it is one of the more cohesively made and emotionally charged films in the non-fiction genre that I have seen, even outside the context of EFF. The set up and construction of the films narrative is superb. Just enough background with just enough variety, switching between more personal interviews and scenes coupled with real footage to make for non-stop audience engagement. The filmmaker also selected and developed excellent characters within the film. Rather than having brief interviews or captions the director made it a point to take time with each character to truly illustrate them to the audience and the film benefitted from that. It was gripping and emotional, but also oddly inspiring and uplifting. For a people mired in a disaster far beyond reckoning their outlook makes even the stonehearted feel at least a little something. One of my favorites (5)

Elemental – This Film is an intricately woven multi-part narrative that focuses on three environmental activists. Each activist is unique and their methods vary widely, however throughout the film you realize that each of the main characters are actually very closely linked. They are each linked by their passion that is what I believe is the common “element” if you will, that is explored in this piece. It is a great mix of facts and analysis with character study, these two things in balance manage to simultaneously educate and enthrall the audience. It was a very well thought out film because despite there being three storylines going on at once the film still manages to flow and remain cohesive. The cinematic effect of wildlife shots in this film was nothing short of stunning. This is definitely feature quality and could be placed in any event that has to do with environmental activism and the like. Genuinely thought provoking and easy on the eye to boot. (4.5)

The Nature of Frederic Back – is an informative biopic piece about the life of a pioneer in the field of animation. It would be however a stretch to claim that this is a wholly environmental film. Although Frederic was most certainly an environmental activist, this is not the focus of the film. It is a more about his art and his upbringing that it is about the environment. It is a wonderful story and Frederic Back is most certainly an endearing character but it could be tough to place this film in an event because it is kind of off topic. Unless the focus was on French artists or the origins of environmental messages in children’s media I would hesitate to label this film as relevant. It is also a bit on the slow side; it reads somewhat like a history book. This would be an excellent selection for an educational film to play in a college art class but it does not have the draw or pizazz to be the focus of a screening. A wonderful man, a touching story, but this movie is unfortunately a bit off topic. (2.5)

Stuff Everywhere – unfortunately falls much in the same category of film as The Nature of Frederic Back, the only difference being that this entry was much less endearing. This film is basically the self-shot autobiography of a Dutch woman who suddenly realizes she has too much stuff. This realization leads her down a somewhat unnerving and obsessive path that ends with her categorizing and labeling absolutely everything that her family of three owns. This movie is more a statement about the consumerist nature of western culture – we have a lot of stuff, too much stuff, and we keep getting more stuff. The filmmakers could have made this point much more clearly and succinctly at the beginning of the film and saved us all some time. This film also lacked a sense of humor that could have made it quirky and fun rather than slightly disturbing. It is however incredibly unique and thus would have some serious drawing power, people would want to see it purely for the sake of novelty. This film was weird and in my opinion somewhat pointless. It was a commentary on economics and the consumer mindset, but the way in which this statement was made was roundabout and odd. I cannot dispute however that this film would most certainly have an audience. (3.5)

Coal Yard – Maybe I am just becoming partial to the brief and poetic nature of short films but Coal Yard was another very solid entry. It was reminiscent of both Bovines and Among Giants, but it seemed to take only the strengths. Because it was so short each shot held significance without overdoing it. So much of the “coal yard-feel” was transferred in such a short time. Truly remarkable. Good camerawork and use of sound. Shots of jet black coal, black tires, and black puddles on the ground make this film feel like a dark poem of sorts. This film really should be named “an ode to the color black”. It would be a great introductory piece due to its short length and ability to get an audience thinking, this film is like an artistic warm up lap that readies the audience for the marathon of films to follow. Good Stuff (4.5)

Fish Meat – is an insightful look into the newest frontier as far as sustainable food practices are concerned. It takes an in depth look at what farmed fish really means for the environment, and what we as the consumer don’t know about the process itself. It has a very simple yet effective narrative structure. Interviews and narration interspersed with actual shots allow for both context and intrigue. It shows how the fish farming process actually requires more over-fishing to be effective, and it shows how much the transportation of fish and fish feed can really impact the environment. It is straightforward and understandable. For the entire 30-minute run-time this film manages to both keep the audiences attention and inform them adequately on an issue, which in this industry is high praise. It is much like a shortened and less depressing version of Food Inc. It is both informative and engaging. (4)

Snow in Paradise – the very same company that produced Whakatiki made this film. The lightning in a bottle that they captured in that film was almost certainly lost on this one. Although the film begins with the same warm and endearing style of story telling it ends with an odd twist and bad special effects. The early shots are still very well chosen and it still has a high production value but the ending was just poorly executed. One thing it does have in common with Whakatiki is that it is not particularly on topic. All in all the use of unnatural special effects and a divergence from the organic style of storytelling witnessed in Whakatiki leaves an audience wanting more. I can see the story they were trying to tell but it was just the way in which they told it that was disappointing. NZ shorts just should have stuck to what they are good at. (3)

La Source -This film follows the story more of a man than it does follow the premise of environmental action. Regardless however this film still manages to win over the audience with strong filmmaking and an inspirational story at it’s core. You can tell that the production value must have been high due to the quality of the shots and because Don Cheadle is narrating. It follows the life of a one José Lajeunesse who is a Haitian immigrant who now resides in the U.S. His day-to-day life on its own is inspiring but it is the purification of his hometown’s water source that has the power to move even your crankiest of in-laws. It is of feature quality without doubt. It does focus more on the man than it seems to focus on the environment, but it certainly ties into the theme of rivers, making it an a versatile and applicable choice. It cost some money to make, and you can tell. (That’s a good thing) A great story told in a way that doesn’t mess it up. (4.5)

Betting The Farm – This film is a rarity in several ways. First off, it is a moderately uplifting environmental film (that in its own right is praiseworthy). Secondly, it manages to engage the audience for almost the entire film despite its long run time. Generally I am a fan of enviro film that is direct. The longer you clog up a films arteries with talking heads and extraneous character studies, the worse it gets. This film manages to avoid doing both of those things while simultaneously giving the audience a wonderful snapshot of the Maine farming community. It is both of feature quality and of feature length. It had a high production value and was a wholly well-executed piece of film making. It is also versatile in terms of age group and venue. It is simple enough that younger audiences can understand it and it is also inspirational enough to be placed in a variety of thematic categories. This film could very easily be the meat and potatoes of a film screening, I like the story and the film’s direction speaks for itself. (4.5)

Whakatiki – Although this film uses nature as a mechanism to broadcast meaning I wouldn’t put it firmly in the environmental film category per se. It plays like a very short feature film. Every shot is well chosen and imparts a surprising amount of detail, little details and inference are used to perfection. It almost reads like the last 13 minutes of a very good drama, not an enviro film. It was heart warming, well acted and simple. It would be a great intro or conclusion to a set of films because not only does it pique the audience’s interest in the joy/wonder associated with rivers, but also it has strong emotional takeaways that would make a strong final impression. If placed well I think this film could be an excellent addition to a film festival. (4)

Terra Blight – was one of the more engaging feature films that I had the privilege to watch this summer. The film was built upon a very strong foundation, both the video quality and the editing of the film made me feel like I was watching a Hollywood blockbuster, not an enviro film. This film is in essence E-wasteland’s big brother, a big brother that is far superior in every way. It focuses on the byproducts of the technology industry that are polluting African nations and several places here in the U.S. It is drawing attention to a largely unknown problem and the shock factor of that really adds to the effect of the film. The filmmaker used a great mix of shot styles, from created and edited slides with captions to haunting footage of e-waste. It did a great job not only illuminating an issue that for the most part has remained unnoticed, but also managed to do so comprehensively. It was a wholly inclusive and very engaging study of an issue that was easy on the eyes and creative in terms of narrative structure. (4.5)

Baka: A Cry From the Rainforest – reminded me of a film I would watch in a college class, and I mean that as a compliment. This film was made with the sort of calm narration and in-depth character study that reminds me of a national geographic special event. The films does an excellent job of plunging the audience deeper and deeper into the world of the Baka. The tribal lifestyle and the realities of the wilderness come to the forefront of this film and it becomes almost a drama of sorts. A great story complimented by a very patient and all-inclusive style of filmmaking. It does seem almost more like an exercise in anthropology than it does seem like your garden-variety enviro issue film. The environment however is impossible to ignore and forms the backdrop for the entire film, this movie shows nature rather than just talking about it and there is something to be said for that. The only hindrance that I would say this film encounters is its length; it would have to be a feature or maybe an entire event in itself. Despite its length it still manages to be intriguing. Well made, in depth, and if placed well with the right audience it could be a very rewarding experience. (4) BD – Baka: A Cry From the Rainforest reminded me of a film I would watch in a college class, and I mean that as a compliment. This film was made with the sort of calm narration and in-depth character study that reminds me of a national geographic special event. The films does an excellent job of plunging you deeper and deeper into the world of the Baka. The tribal lifestyle and the realities of the wilderness come to the forefront of this film and it becomes almost a drama of sorts. A great story with a very patient and all-inclusive style of filmmaking. It does seem almost more like an exercise in anthropology than it does seem like your garden-variety enviro issue film. The environment however is impossible to ignore and forms the backdrop for the entire film, this movie shows nature rather than just talking about it and there is something to be said for that. The only hindrance that I would say this film encounters is its length; it would have to be a feature or maybe an entire event in itself. Despite its length it still manages to be intriguing. Well made, in depth, and if placed well with the right audience it could be a very rewarding experience. (4)

Beijing Besieged By Waste – I want to preface this somewhat scathing review by saying this, given the fact that this man seemed to make this film almost entirely by himself in communist china I still believe that his film is worthy of recognition and could have a positive effect if placed in the right event. Beyond that I thought that this film was lacking. It had poor film quality; it wasn’t intriguing to the eye at all. It dragged on, it was incredibly long and although the filmmakers point was made quite clearly by the end nobody cared at that point due to the monotony. Full of repetitive shots, and a slow and confusing narrative structure this film was basically like watching the same few scenes over and over again. I admit I was shocked and disturbed by the amount of landfills around Beijing, but not shocked and disturbed in a way that made me want to keep watching, just shocked and disturbed in a way that made me want to turn the movie off. Finally the use of Google maps seemed like a bit of a repetitive and lazy filmmaking tactic that got on my nerves. A for effort, 2.5 for EFF. (2.5)

NO PICTURE AVAILABLE 

Wind of Change – is a stereotypical example of my style of enviro film, succinct and engaging, to the point but in a way that packs a punch, that way the audience leaves with a message rather than with a headache. Every minute in this film seemed crucial to the narrative, that is very high praise. It was a good mix of deep emotional character study and environmental issues. Despite being seemingly bleak at times this film, due in large part to the indomitably happy family is focuses on, this film is uplifting and inspiring. Truly feel good stuff. It also does a great job of incorporating self-shot footage and testimonials that allow the audience inside the mind of the characters directly and emphatically. It was in general a well-made film, the camerawork was good and it was something that played out like a film and not a TV special. The director stayed out of the way and let a great story tell itself that is usually how good films are made.

Nothing Like Chocolate – is a film that is exciting to me because of the possible situations it could be applied to. It not only can be applied to agriculture and human rights, but it can also be labeled as enviro activism and a food industry film as well. It does all of these things while centering on a topic that almost everybody is already interested in – chocolate. That alone makes this film clever and diverse in terms of its application. It is the story of a man who objects to the slave labor that is a staple of the chocolate industry and thus decides to start his own on the island of Grenada. It is a compelling mix of factory/production shots, character study, and real life stock footage that does a great job of giving the audience some perspective. It was an interesting look not only into the industry but also into chocolate itself. Decent production quality, not flashy or stunning, but functional. This film is a solid B and can be used just about anywhere making it a very useful addition to EFF. (4)

The Element of Surprise

I haven’t been this shocked by a movie literally ever. I mean in Inception my mind was slightly warped when I walked out and Memento raised my eyebrows, but I was thoroughly shocked after this one.

I partially attribute this to the fact I didn’t read any reviews before I saw it, (in an attempt to remain at least a tiny bit unbiased) but even so The Cabin In The Woods is a unique hybridization of film canon that deserves your attention.

I would describe it categorically as a cross between horror, suspense, satirical comedy and action. It has each of these elements in balance throughout the film and the end product is unique to say the least.

The title, the previews, and even the film posters all seem to point to one thing: cheesy commercial horror flick, the kind of movie that features blood and boobs in equal proportion without any substance to justify it. However this first-glance impression of the film could not be more incomplete.

I wouldn’t say the plot has twist but rather is just wonderfully perverse right from the beginning. You spend as much time trying to figure out what the hell is going on as you do rooting for the main characters.

Without divulging anything too juicy I’ll try and lay it out for you.

A group of college-aged kids decides to spend a weekend away from the world at a isolated log cabin somewhere in Appalachia. As soon as they arrive you understand that they are not meant to survive.

The film is experienced through two main perspectives, the victims, and the coordinated and exceptionally cast team of professionals that are tasked with killing the victims. Why they are doing and the story that lies behind this cabin are what really make the film tick.

The character actors cast in this film are spot on. Without any big names (except for an extremely brief cameo from the burnt out Sigourney Weaver) Director Drew Goddard crafted a suspenseful and unique masterpiece that can satisfy an incredibly diverse audience.

Although not being a household name Goddard has made quite a career for himself, and it is because of his very unique and expressive style of film making. Goddard was the director of TV suspense phenomenon Lost as well as the head-ache inducing Cloverfield. I mean say what you want about Cloverfield but it still exhibited some fresh perspective, and it showed Goddard had enough sack to bend the rules.

If you liked Shaun of The Dead, Saw and its various film cousins, Underworld, or a film that mimics the suspense of a film like Inception (minus the A-list actors) this is a film you would enjoy.

I give this one a solid A. It earned an 8.0 on IMDB and a shocking 92% (which is still rising) on RottenTomatoes. If you don’t want to listen to me listen to them.

Hollywood has gotten stuck in an incredibly repetitive and commercialized vein of film making it makes me sick. The Cabin in the Woods breaks the mold and delivers a bit of everything, leaving the audience with only this thought “I don’t know what in the name of sweet cheeba just happened to me, but I liked it… a lot”

IMDB: 7.7

Rotten Tomatoes: 85%

My Grade: C+

21 Jump Street – Film Review

Commercial Comedy Lives up to Expectation

Watching 21 Jumps Street’s previews was literally exactly like watching the movie. When I saw the preview I laughed, thought to myself man that’s probably solid and did not give it a moments’ thought after that.

Any movie with Jonah Hill is worth at least a few laughs (Knocked Up, Get Him To The Greek, Superbad, etc.) and this one is no different. Channing Tatum even avoids being the stereotype he usually and that’s also worth some recognition.

The film is based off the TV show 21 Jump Street that spanned from the late 80’s to early 90’s, but the only difference between the two is that the original had an actor with some serious chops in Johnny Depp. (Depp makes a pretty awesome cameo, just btw.)

Both the show and the film center around 2 reject cops that got kicked off active duty. However, because they looked so young they were selected to work under cover as high school students in the attempt to bust up a drug ring.

Having acted in Dear John, both G.I. Joe films and Step Up within in the past 6 years Channing Tatum Is generally all over the place. No one can deny the guy is good looking but his acting this film (and in general) makes it obvious that he is only a pretty face.

Playing the same jock-ass (jock-ass = jock + badass) in all of his films Tatum is really just a six-pack with a limited emotional spectrum. Although when a director (wisely) doesn’t ask Tatum to be anything more than a chiseled jock-ass he can be passable, like in the context of 21 Jump Street.

Tatum’s counterpart Jonah Hill supplies the same handful of laughs we always expect. His most recent film before this dynamic duo attempt with Tatum was The Sitter, which delivered just about the same amount of chuckles.

I honestly struggled to decide how to write this review. Never has a film been so incredibly close to what I thought it would be like after seeing the preview. It was predictable and started a little slowly which is atypical of a good comedy, but it still delivered some laughs so it wasn’t altogether a waste.

However If debating whether or not to go see it, maybe wait till you go home for the summer and watch on mom and dads cable subscription.

The only true comedy came from well-known character actors Rob Riggle and Chris Parnell. These guys have been the glue in blockbuster comedies such as Anchor Man, Step Brothers, and Hot Rod.

Although it hurts me to talk a little shnizz on Jonah Hill, at this point he is just trying too hard. He is a very funny man, don’t get me wrong, but if he keeps making B- comedies like 21 Jump Street his loyal fans will be relegated to re –runs of Knocked Up and Super Bad.

My review to this point has been a bit disparaging, and I think my disappointment stems from the hype. The previews were funny, I had heard it was funny from my friends (who are idiots, a fact I often forget) and I was pretty pumped for it. Unfortunately the hype and previews turned out to be the best part of the film.

Jonah Hill was funny, Channing Tatum avoided being cheesy, women were hot… but that is about it.

If you want to see a formulaic comedy on a day when you’re stuck sick at home this would be the one. I’m not saying its bad, its just not good enough for me to give a shit.

IMDB: 7.6

Rotten Tomatoes: 84%

 

Opening with a solid $250 million in the box office, “The Hunger Games” marks the next step forward in Hollywood’s book-to-movie sagas.

“The Hunger Games” provides some serious action and suspenseful film-making that has critics talking. For a PG-13 rated film, it certainly packs a punch.

Excitement surrounding the film’s premiere has been stirred by the wild success of the novel written by Suzanne Collins.

Following in the footsteps of LOTR (“Lord of the Rings,” for all you noobs out there), “Twilight,” and of course, the godfather of all book-to-movie franchises, “Harry Potter,” “The Hunger Games” cements this trend in current filmmaking.

All of these blockbuster-caliber films drew from hype, fueled largely by the books they were adapted from, to turn their debuts into big box office bucks.

In terms of revenue generated, “Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows II” is in the lead among these films with a gross of $380 million; next is “LOTR: The Return of the King” with $377 million; “Twilight: Eclipse” brings up the rear (rightfully so) with $300 million.

Each of these films was the highest rated of their respective series at rottentomatoes.com.

But worry not, “Hunger Games” fans: “The Hunger Games” is still generating revenue.

And we don’t even know if the first film in the series will be the most successful of the saga as far as the big screen is concerned.

In addition to the moola, all of these movies (with the exception of “Twilight”) have received mostly exceptional film reviews.

It is safe to say at this point that the book-to-movie phenomenon happening in Hollywood is putting butts in seats, but are these books’ die-hard fans satisfied with Hollywood’s sometimes half-assed recreations of these narratives?

In the instance of “The Hunger Games,” novelist Suzanne Collins was involved in both the writing and the production of the movie, which probably led to an at least somewhat satisfactory adaptation in her mind.

If you look at the movie in comparison to “Twilight,” the only other series with a strong female lead, “The Hunger Games” blows it out of the water.

On screen, “Twilight” comes across as mainly as a whiny teen love story, accentuated by random intervals of shirtless vamps.

“The Hunger Games” actually has substance, and isn’t just intended for 14-year-old girls.

The positive reactions in the blogosphere have labeled “The Hunger Games” as satisfactory for the average movie-goer and the fans of the novels alike.

Rumors are already buzzing of a video game are already underway, but it’s unclear whether a gory Xbox interpretation of kids killing other kids will gather enough support to actually hit the shelves.

Overall I give the film a B+.

I went into the theater knowing almost every major plot point thanks to my talkative friends, and I still really enjoyed it.
Even fans of the book I have spoken to on campus said they enjoyed it.

It is not directed toward one sex in particular. Any guy who says this movie is just for girls doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

It was one of the fullest theaters I have ever seen at The Movies at Meadville, and it was a Tuesday.

The Lorax

IMDB: 6.5

Rotten Tomatoes: 59%

 

Dr. Suess’ The Lorax

 

 

Simplicity is a quality far undervalued. No artsy drama or big budget blockbuster can shed such insight on the way things are like a good kid’s movie can. Pollution and greed have never been attacked in such a charming way.

 

Dr. Suess is known for his delightful ability to turn morals and lessons into colorful adventures that provoke thoughts of the way things ought to be. The Lorax is no different, and the message it sends is one that we all need to here.

 

Centered in the materialistic and cloyingly commercial Thneedville (eerily similar to Meadville in name) the story is focused around a boy’s quest to discover what has happened to all the trees.

 

It raises powerful questions that I hope we never truly have to ask, what has happened to all the trees? What have we done?

 

Getting rich, getting ahead, that’s what we are here at Allegheny to do right? Just keep your head down and do whatever it takes to come out on the other side a winner.

 

There is no place for lofty idealism gators; this is the real world.

 

The Lorax however sees things differently. A symbol of conscience, and the true guardian of the forest The Lorax fears a coming future that many of us choose to brush off.

 

Once all the Truffula Trees are been cut down and the once vibrant landscape is covered in the smog the belched out of the Thneed factory The Lorax ascends upward from whence he came. Greed had stained the land and it was time for him to go.

 

The Lorax leaves behind a stone that says only one word, “unless”. Later it is unraveled to mean “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

 

If you haven’t already noticed this edition of the campus has a theme, money. Oddly I feel that is why most of us are here. We have the money, want to make money, or were given money to come here and there is nothing wrong with that, it’s just the way of the world.

 

But I urge you to think (and I rarely am thought provoking so hear me out) about the duality of money. It is simultaneously great and awful. It is important that we recognize this dual nature of money. As it causes great happiness it also causes great sadness. Never should we take our status for granted.

 

Yet there are more important things. Far more important things, and I cannot surely say what those things are in your life but there certainly should be a few. The Lorax implores us never to stop caring, to never let greed blind us from what we know is wrong.

 

The Lorax delighted me in childhood and it’s adaptation to the screen delighted me once again. Tasteful, entertaining even for adults, and unexpectedly poignant this film is a must see.

 

I’m not sure if it is the Saturday night blockbuster type of flick. It is more the skip class, sneak away with a friend and see a movie that will make you feel good kind of thing. From time to time I think we all need a little of that.

Wanderlust

IMDB: 6.2

Rotten Tomatoes: 60%

I almost feel bad for relating how I really feel about this flick because I went into it with such high hopes, but truly just wow, this one stunk.

In the equation of movies this one made sense. Paul Rudd + Jennifer Aniston + quirky premise = good movie? That’s what we all hoped.

What started off as a creative spin on the classic rom-com spiraled into exaggeration and what seemed like painfully scripted antics that had me begging for the credits to roll.

Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston are a overworked Manhattan couple that suddenly find themselves out of work and at odds in their relationship. Their only option is to move in with Rudd’s caustically obnoxious brother Rick.

Along the way they stumble upon a laid back hippy commune called Elysium which seems to be exactly what the stressed out duo needed.

At first the stereotyping of both Rick (the commercial polo wearing suburban d-bag) and Elysium (dirty nudist vegan hippies) seemed a delightful contrast.

Quirkiness abounded and the film seemed to be heading the right direction. However not even Rudd’s sarcastic and relatable style of situational humor could not pull this film out of the crapper.

The true issue with the film is that despite a creative and unexplored premise the film squished all of the plot development into the final third of the film.

In the first third I was delightedly optimistic. The second third I started to say hey these jokes are getting old something needs to happen here. In the closing portion however I was biting my lip, checking the time and coming to grips with the reality that this movie was awful.

The actors did their best, truly this film was neither Rudd nor Aniston’s fault. Director David Wain however needs to be sat down…. Immediately. So much potential with so little substance left a bitter taste in my mouth.

A handful of low caliber one liners and an eclectic cast of funny people just can’t overcome the poor plot development. If beating a dead horse was a crime (which it may very well be) everyone who green-lighted this movie should go to jail.

To put it metaphorically this film was like a kid with all the potential in the world who tried meth, and as we all well know you can’t try meth, not even once. This flick is a C-, don’t see it. Just imagine that it w

Safe House

IMDB: 7.0

Rotten Tomatoes: 54%

Ryan Reynolds has finally left his Van Wilder roots behind as he and Denzel struck espionage silver in Safe House.

 

I say silver because although Reynolds created a believable CIA agent aura, he’s still no Jason Bourne.

 

Denzel on the other hand was predictably phenomenal as the enigmatic and extremely dangerous Tobin Frost the ex-CIA double agent that drives the film.

 

Although the CIA double-crossing conspiracy film genre has been milked harder than any of us feel comfortable with Safe House packs enough star power, shoot-outs and spy mystique to earn a solid B/B+.

 

If you sat down and really thought about the plot of this film you would realize that it’s predictable as all hell, but when actually watching the star power and loud noises help you to forget about all that.

 

Reynolds is a rookie CIA agent (if there is such a thing) stationed in Cape Town, South Africa when disavowed wanted man and ebony box office magician Denzel Washington lands in his lap.

 

What ensues is like a hybrid of Training Day and The Bourne Ultimatum.

 

That’s really the best way to describe it. Denzel does his thing just like always, Reynolds shows that he’s got some chops as he sheds a few tears and kicks a little ass.

 

The most rewarding aspect of the film is the sort of begrudging mentor-like relationship that develops between Reynolds and Washington in the film.

 

For the most part the film remains somewhat on the superficial side of entertainment (car chases, spy intrigue etc.) but the director chose to delve a bit deeper when it came to the relationship between the two stars.

 

Although director Daniel Espinosa made his A-list debut with this film he did a very solid job handling both his actors and the spy-film context, which can become convoluted or just plain boring if your not careful.

 

The runtime of 115 minutes gives the film adequate time to develop but doesn’t leave you running for the door when the credits roll like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and the like.

 

The main success of the film is in moderation. It had all the raw materials to make a solid flick and Espinosa did a great job stepping aside and letting the story tell itself.

 

When it comes down to it the film delivers what it says it will. Excellent actors in a high budget environment with some high caliber action and the added bonus of some character development make the film a solid Saturday night watch.

 

If you are fan of either actor it’s a must see, if you’re a fan of action your gonna see it anyway, and if your bored then you should certainly consider seeing Safe House.

 

 

 

Chronicle

IMDB Score: 7.6/10

Rotten Tomatoes: 86%      

By Ben Dauber

 

Chronicle took the box office by storm this past week and with good reason, high caliber action and solid performances by a bunch of no-name actors make for a solid watch.

 

Heading into the film I was skeptical. With a title like Chronicle, a focus on teen angst, and a PG-13 rating I was prepared for the worst.

 

The first 15 minutes I admittedly wanted to head for the door, but once you get into the meat of the film Chronicle grabs your interest and never lets go.

 

Director Josh Trank took a group of b-list TV starlets and an incredibly commercialized platform and regardless churned out a surprisingly praiseworthy film.

 

Chronicle defies two of my often failsafe film rules: 1) Teens discovering some sort of superpower is a no-no 2) Handheld style of filming (e.g. The Blair Witch Project) more often leads to headaches than good times.

 

One thing Trank did well was comprehensively explore the “power” the characters discover. Scenes of the characters fooling around with their abilities are some of the most entertaining in the film.

 

The other thing the filmmakers did incredibly well was to avoid the Cloverfield syndrome.

 

Cloverfield (2008) was film that I would have left incredibly angry, if I hadn’t already been incredibly nauseous. The reason for my post-film condition was due to the abuse of the hand held camera technique that has recently become popular.

 

A shaky camera constantly flashing left or right and remaining obnoxiously out of focus intentionally does not make up for a lack of substance in a film.

 

The makers of Chronicle realized this and rather than attempting to fool the audience into some false suspense with shoddy camera work they turned the usually crappy into the surprisingly creative.

 

Scoring a more than solid 85% on rotten tomatoes Chronicle has not only captured 22.0M in the box office but has also impressed the critics.

 

A solid watch for the action depraved no doubt, but if you want to watch a real man’s movie I still suggest seeing The Grey.