On the same day I went to Stout, I also went straight to Emily's school on my way back to the cities, and a couple of hours later, we went to go see 17 Again, which I surprised myself for actually wanting to see. Emily asked if I could write a review of it, even if it's not for the Southerner, and I said sure, so I'm gonna give my best go.
--
"17 Again" has many messages: 1. Don't get your girlfriend pregnant, 2. Be nice to the nerdy kid, 3. Zac Efron can apparently do something other than a musical, 4. And don't wait too long, or he'll turn into Matthew Perry (yeah right..)
Mike O'Donnell (Perry) has had to live his life like he never wanted. In a dead end job, getting a divorce, and barely knowing his kids. He get's thrown through some sort of time warp pool, and turns 17, again. Now, a young Mike (Efron) must pose as a new high school student, try to right all his wrongs with his wife (Leslie Mann), get to know his children, and in his spare time show off his killer basketball skills (Troy Bolton, anyone?)
The film relies heavily on comedy brought in by Mike's best friend, Ned (Thomas Lennon). Lennon steals every scene he's in, whether he's being over the top, or just standing there. And speaking of comedy, who know Zac Efron was funny? You did, if you watched him host "Saturday Night Live," but I now wonder if he suddenly lost the ability to sing and dance impecibly, he might be a perfect little comedic actor.
Now to put it simply, for what it is, it's an enjoyable film. Teenage comedies do not have to be directed well, or even be scripted well, which makes "17 Again" fit the bill. But as much as it is a pure Zac Efron guilty pleasure, it's a funny, enjoyable way to throw away your friday night, and to sit back and relax, knowing that dreamy Zac won't really turn into Matthew Perry. But one could only hope he'd still be as humorous.
C+
--
This review may not reflect it, but I actually really liked it, surprising even myself. I thought it was funny, but it was kind of lame, and as I said, poorly directed. I think I'm seeing it again tomorrow night again. But there's a specific audience for it, as I'm sure you can gather, so know thine own self.
Showing posts with label movie review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie review. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Monday, November 24, 2008
Rock Me Sexy Jesus
Australia Review
Never in my wildest dreams would I have suspected that Baz Luhrmann could make a movie this good. “Australia” has such impact, a great assemblage of talented actors, and just the right amount of light-heartedness, this would be my top pick for an Oscar nomination this year, if I were handling the awards.
To lay the groundwork, let me just clue everyone in on the premise. If you, like myself, have had a hard time over the last month or so trying to glean from the previews what this movie is actually about ( it’s not just two hot Aussie actors kissing each other all the time), you can rest easy finally knowing that it’s about competition within the cattle herding industry. That’s right: cattle herding. Why would you ever make a movie about something so mundane?
Except, “Australia” is the opposite of mundane. The movie, plucked straight out of the wartime era, is instead, the best use of the word “epic”. Without being too sappy or tender, “Australia” manages to be the perfect rendition of the great classic romance. And while I’m ill-equipped to offer the male perspective on how it stacks up to some other more “masculine” options that are out right now, I will just mention, again, that the film takes place during WWII, so decide if that’s enough to keep you engaged for 2 and a half hours.
To address the bigger problem, yes, you read correctly: 2 and a half hours. This is my only complaint about the movie. It’s too long and could easily be made into two separate films entirely. We’re welcomed to the first half of the movie by the voice-over of a young aboriginal boy, Nullah (new-comer Brandon Walters), which could easily be far too cutesy, but it works nonetheless. He introduces us to Faraway Downs, the herding section of the Australian outback inherited by Lady Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman.) Lady Ashley (known to the people of Faraway Downs as “Mrs. Boss”) is met by her match in a man only known as The Drover, played aptly by Hugh Jackman. (And no, seriously, he never gets a real name.) Along with a motley crew of others, they herd their cattle into town ahead of the competition. End of act one.
The second half of the movie dives deeper into the relationships established in the beginning. It focuses on the struggle between the good characters versus the bad characters and scenes that will keep you on your toes waiting to see if the ending will be a happy one. You may also be intrigued by Walters, who manages to hold his own against the two principle actors. He is adorable, but not in your face, and he brings the perfect amount of innocence to the film. He completely steals every scene he is in, just by existing.
So, you may have gathered that I am quite enamored of this movie. I offer the opinion that “Australia” is an incredible movie, and I trust that anyone can stay engaged the whole time, and should definitely give it a shot.
A
Never in my wildest dreams would I have suspected that Baz Luhrmann could make a movie this good. “Australia” has such impact, a great assemblage of talented actors, and just the right amount of light-heartedness, this would be my top pick for an Oscar nomination this year, if I were handling the awards.
To lay the groundwork, let me just clue everyone in on the premise. If you, like myself, have had a hard time over the last month or so trying to glean from the previews what this movie is actually about ( it’s not just two hot Aussie actors kissing each other all the time), you can rest easy finally knowing that it’s about competition within the cattle herding industry. That’s right: cattle herding. Why would you ever make a movie about something so mundane?
Except, “Australia” is the opposite of mundane. The movie, plucked straight out of the wartime era, is instead, the best use of the word “epic”. Without being too sappy or tender, “Australia” manages to be the perfect rendition of the great classic romance. And while I’m ill-equipped to offer the male perspective on how it stacks up to some other more “masculine” options that are out right now, I will just mention, again, that the film takes place during WWII, so decide if that’s enough to keep you engaged for 2 and a half hours.
To address the bigger problem, yes, you read correctly: 2 and a half hours. This is my only complaint about the movie. It’s too long and could easily be made into two separate films entirely. We’re welcomed to the first half of the movie by the voice-over of a young aboriginal boy, Nullah (new-comer Brandon Walters), which could easily be far too cutesy, but it works nonetheless. He introduces us to Faraway Downs, the herding section of the Australian outback inherited by Lady Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman.) Lady Ashley (known to the people of Faraway Downs as “Mrs. Boss”) is met by her match in a man only known as The Drover, played aptly by Hugh Jackman. (And no, seriously, he never gets a real name.) Along with a motley crew of others, they herd their cattle into town ahead of the competition. End of act one.
The second half of the movie dives deeper into the relationships established in the beginning. It focuses on the struggle between the good characters versus the bad characters and scenes that will keep you on your toes waiting to see if the ending will be a happy one. You may also be intrigued by Walters, who manages to hold his own against the two principle actors. He is adorable, but not in your face, and he brings the perfect amount of innocence to the film. He completely steals every scene he is in, just by existing.
So, you may have gathered that I am quite enamored of this movie. I offer the opinion that “Australia” is an incredible movie, and I trust that anyone can stay engaged the whole time, and should definitely give it a shot.
A
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Lacking Express; Inclined Express
I promised I'd post my review of "W." and I'm not sure that anyone actually wants to read it, but I'll post it anyway. It's my review for the Southerner, so that's why it's so formal:
W. Review
Stated simply, it’s hard to figure out what this movie is. Is it a comedic slam of George W. Bush, or is it a sincere chronicle of his life ? I’ll tell you, after 2 hours, I’m still not sure.
Let me break it down for you. The way Oliver Stone made this movie evokes two very different interpretations: He either sought to paint W. as a divine tragedy (cue scenes with soft piano over hard times in Bush‘s life), or a great mockery, bringing some classic “Bushisms” back into the picture. But one can never really be sure what gets accomplished here.
On one hand, the scenes of Bush’s young life are done quite well. Josh Brolin steps into the Commander in Chief’s shoes with ease. Brolin’s portrayal of the early, rowdy, alcoholic Bush, who holds a slew of odd jobs, courts trashy women, and is heading down the "wasting your life" type of path, are ironically serious, boasting the possibility that if you just polish this up enough, this might have Oscar written all over it.
On the other hand, scenes of the later years, showing Bush in office, make him look, for lack of a better word: Stupid. There’s no other way to describe the movie at these points. The script is really hammed up with silly “Bushisms,” and they make him seem trivial, and completely overpowered by Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss).
But what does W. ultimately become? A hodge podge of Bush here in ‘77, and then Bush there in ‘02, and then in ’86, and in ’04, and ’02 all over again. Back and forth, and back and forth, and you get the picture. There are so many good ideas here that are undeveloped, and are completely not cohesive, that you kind of wonder why not just put this one back in the oven? And maybe just make the whole thing in chronological order. Clearly this could be a great movie, but not now.
Which brings up another question: Why now? Why produce this movie at the very end of Bush’s presidency? Is it to remind people that he’s still president? Could be. I for one, keep forgetting that he exists amidst this heated political season. Or could it be that Oliver Stone just really wanted to make a movie about Bush, and refused to wait? Or maybe, we’re supposed to enjoy it more because it’s so recent. Whatever the reason was, this is just does not seem like the time.
At the end of the day, Josh Brolin is W.’s only ace. The rest of the movie is so-so. Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush meets expectations, and James Cromwell and Ellen Burstyn as Mama and Papa Bush, are pretty good. However, W. may have relied too much on big names to fill small roles: Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice, Ioan Gruffudd as Tony Blair, Noah Wyle as Don Evans, and I’m still not really sure who Colin Hanks is supposed to be playing. Still more evidence of a diamond in the rough.
My advice to you is to not see this movie if you sincerely love George W. Bush. Conversely, if you hate him, be forewarned that you might find yourself respecting him at times. It’s an extremely slippery slope, but regardless, it’s an interesting movie, even if it’s a few cards short of a deck. It’s probably a good idea to put this one on your radar. If nothing else, you’ll get some laughs.
B-
I will write about my new thing later, although it will still be before the fact, because new thing will be much later.
W. Review
Stated simply, it’s hard to figure out what this movie is. Is it a comedic slam of George W. Bush, or is it a sincere chronicle of his life ? I’ll tell you, after 2 hours, I’m still not sure.
Let me break it down for you. The way Oliver Stone made this movie evokes two very different interpretations: He either sought to paint W. as a divine tragedy (cue scenes with soft piano over hard times in Bush‘s life), or a great mockery, bringing some classic “Bushisms” back into the picture. But one can never really be sure what gets accomplished here.
On one hand, the scenes of Bush’s young life are done quite well. Josh Brolin steps into the Commander in Chief’s shoes with ease. Brolin’s portrayal of the early, rowdy, alcoholic Bush, who holds a slew of odd jobs, courts trashy women, and is heading down the "wasting your life" type of path, are ironically serious, boasting the possibility that if you just polish this up enough, this might have Oscar written all over it.
On the other hand, scenes of the later years, showing Bush in office, make him look, for lack of a better word: Stupid. There’s no other way to describe the movie at these points. The script is really hammed up with silly “Bushisms,” and they make him seem trivial, and completely overpowered by Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss).
But what does W. ultimately become? A hodge podge of Bush here in ‘77, and then Bush there in ‘02, and then in ’86, and in ’04, and ’02 all over again. Back and forth, and back and forth, and you get the picture. There are so many good ideas here that are undeveloped, and are completely not cohesive, that you kind of wonder why not just put this one back in the oven? And maybe just make the whole thing in chronological order. Clearly this could be a great movie, but not now.
Which brings up another question: Why now? Why produce this movie at the very end of Bush’s presidency? Is it to remind people that he’s still president? Could be. I for one, keep forgetting that he exists amidst this heated political season. Or could it be that Oliver Stone just really wanted to make a movie about Bush, and refused to wait? Or maybe, we’re supposed to enjoy it more because it’s so recent. Whatever the reason was, this is just does not seem like the time.
At the end of the day, Josh Brolin is W.’s only ace. The rest of the movie is so-so. Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush meets expectations, and James Cromwell and Ellen Burstyn as Mama and Papa Bush, are pretty good. However, W. may have relied too much on big names to fill small roles: Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice, Ioan Gruffudd as Tony Blair, Noah Wyle as Don Evans, and I’m still not really sure who Colin Hanks is supposed to be playing. Still more evidence of a diamond in the rough.
My advice to you is to not see this movie if you sincerely love George W. Bush. Conversely, if you hate him, be forewarned that you might find yourself respecting him at times. It’s an extremely slippery slope, but regardless, it’s an interesting movie, even if it’s a few cards short of a deck. It’s probably a good idea to put this one on your radar. If nothing else, you’ll get some laughs.
B-
I will write about my new thing later, although it will still be before the fact, because new thing will be much later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)