Looking for a specific film review? CLICK BELOW

0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z / Trailers / DVD Store


Saturday, April 12, 2008
Movie Trailer: Righteous Kill
Robert De Niro and Al Pacino team up once again to show that just because someone is beyond their prime, it doesn't mean they can't make a buck. The two star in this tedious looking flick about two investigators tracking a serial killer who is killing criminals who have fallen through the cracks of the judicial system.

Yawn.

There has to be more serial killers in the movies than there have been in real life. It's never enough that someone is a murderer, they have to be a serial killer. I know, they must have the villain be a serial killer because it sets up a trail the cops can follow and provides a more demonic presence than just some jerk bumping people off.

Back in the old days (the seventies - man, it hurts to call those the "old days") they'd just label the bad guy a "psychotic" and leave it at that. Now they all have themes and plots they're unfurling. It's like all of the cinematic killers are working through grudges they built up while getting their masters degrees.


Click below to see the trailer
video"

Let me call this one: De Niro will be the cop who is single and involved with a woman at least twenty years his junior and their relationship is rocky at best. He is also the "cop on the edge". Pacino will be more stable but broken down after years of labor. He may be a family man but will most certainly be divorced. His family life will most likely be represented by a relationship with his estranged daughter. Pacino will be the one who gets killed by the serial killer who will most likely be a former cop from their past who's just sick of seeing the bad guys get away.

This is obviously targeted towards the older audience set, given the presence of De Niro and Pacino and the inclusion of the Stones' tune in the trailer, but I have to imagine that anyone old enough to be lured by these things is probably old enough to feel like they've seen this movie a thousand times before.


Click here to visit the official site


Screenwriters: Russell Gewirtz (Inside Man)
Director: Jon Avnet (Red Corner)
Actor: Robert De Niro (Raging Bull), Al Pacino (Scent of a Woman), Donnie Wahlberg (Saw II), Carla Gugino (American Gangster), John Leguizamo (Empire) and 50 Cent


Labels: , , , ,







Thursday, April 10, 2008
The Brave One (2007)
Should I see it?
Nope.



Short Review: Deathwish with lip gloss.


I've been putting off reviewing this film for a while now. This is for no other reason than I really didn't have anything to say about it. Since I've put up two posts about Uwe Boll this week, I figured I could finally get to this misfire.

The reason I don't have anything to say about this movie is because this movie doesn't have anything to say either. Jodie Foster plays Erica, a public radio personality (one of those who has an insufferably calm voices and blathers about nothing with sincere self-importance) who transforms into a gun toting Bernie Getz wannabe after her half-man, boyfriend gets bludgeoned to death by bad guys. Erica is shadowed by the investigating cop Detective Mercer (Terrence Howard) who suspects the mopey chick is responsible for shooting a bunch of people who, quite frankly, have it coming.

The problem with the movie is twofold. First, it doesn't want to commit to anything. Erica begins her vigilante streak by killing bad guys in self defense by luring villains into harassing her but eventually makes the descent into flat out murder. The film never fully and plainly condemns nor applauds her actions. Erica suffers with the moral balancing act revenge brings but she never comes down on either side. The people she kills have it coming and their deaths don't come with any sympathetic treatment. The fact is that a guy molesting riders on a subway who pulls a knife on a woman is begging for a gun wound. By the end of the movie there is very little actually said about revenge, society or good film making.

The other problem is that this movie, for all of its inability to be up-front with its point, is painfully self aware. Look at the character names - Erica Bain - "Bane" get it? The old word for Killer, death or a curse. Detective Mercer - Mercy. Ain't we clever. The script by television writers Roderick and Bruce A. Taylor stinks of cheesy and easy bits meant to give the illusion of meaning and depth but actually provides very little.


Related Reviews:
Jodie Foster movies
Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Inside Man (2001)


Other Critic's Reviews:
It's Movie Time
Decent Films Guide



Labels: , , , , ,







Monday, April 7, 2008
Gone Baby Gone (2007)
Should I see it?
Nope.



Short Review: Ben Affleck is to directing what Ben Affleck is to acting

Ben Affleck is living proof that a nice smile can get you far in Hollywood. Its probably a good thing because by the looks of things, actual raw talent doesn't help much.

Affleck co-wrote and directed this adaptation of Dennis Lehane's novel about a couple who work as private investigators who look into the disappearance of a young girl. The plot is nothing spectacular and it never cuts any new ground. The couple Patrick (Casey Affleck) and Angie (Michelle Monaghan) are inexperienced in investigating but know the streets quite well. Casey Affleck (the actual talented one in the family) does a passable job, but never fills in his character completely. I don't believe this is necessarily his fault since his performance is hindered by a stuttering script and poor pacing. Each scene begins strongly enough but by the end it feels like the screenwriters (Ben Affleck and Aaron Stockard) got bored with their own work and couldn't wait to start on the next scene. Then again, that could have been me, I kept finding myself pleading with Affleck to get moving with his predicable story.

Ed Harris also haunts this piece as a worn down cop who acts just like Ed Harris does in every movie he has ever done where he is strapped with a mediocre director. Harris is one of those actors who either gives a stunning performance (A History of Violence, Glengarry Glen Ross) or completely phones it in (Radio, Enemy At the Gates). Harris' job here is to say his lines and be angry and he does his job quite well. Morgan Freeman also shows up to nab a paycheck. Freeman nearly naps through all of his scenes.Like Harris, Freeman doesn't do much to get beyond his own face recognition and offers just enough of a performance to not hurt his career. Both men could have easily of been replaced by lesser actors and the same results would have been achieved.

Its not like Ben Affleck wasn't seated with a talented pool to pull from. He had everything in place except that he insisted on directing and writing the movie. Perhaps (and probably) his involvement is what got this film made in the first place. This doesn't mean it should have been made. This movie offers nothing new, nothing fresh and nothing lasting. It was made simply for the sake of making something. Since it isn't revolutionary, fresh or thoughtful, there's no reason to watch it. Forget about this one, anything about it that may be worth seeing, you've seen a hundred different times in a hundred different movies.


Related Reviews:
Ben Affleck movies
Boiler Room (2000)
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Paycheck (2003)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Film Critics United
The Stop Button



Labels: , , , , , ,







Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Movie Trailer: Anamoprh


Screenwriter: Henry Miller, and Tom Phelan
Director: Henry Miller
Actors: Willem Dafoe (To Live and Die in L.A.), Scott Speedman (Underworld), Clea DuVall (Zodiac), and Peter Stormare (Fargo)


Labels: , , , , , , ,







Wednesday, March 26, 2008
L'Empire des loups “Empire of the Wolves” (2005)
Should I see it?
No.



As a fan of Jean Reno, I went in wanting to like this movie. Ol' Reno let me down. This production about a detective (Jocelyn Quivrin) who joins with a fallen former detective (Reno) to delve into the Turkish mob in order to find a serial killer has some good moments, but some good moments doesn't make a movie worth seeing. There just isn't enough here to recommend the movie. Ultimately, this is a pedestrian thriller that relies too heavily on violence when it can't come up with any real substance.


Related Reviews:
Jean Reno movies
Les Rivières pourpres "The Crimson Rivers" (2000)
Les Rivières pourpres II: Les anges de l'apocalypse "Crimson Rivers 2: Angels Of The Apocalypse" (2003)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Reel Film Reviews
Beyond Hollywood


Labels: , , , , ,







Monday, February 18, 2008
We Own the Night (2007)
Should I see it?
No.

Short Review: I wish they owned a better story.

This film opens with one of the more gratuitous sex scenes in recent memory. Joaquin Phoenix and Eva Mendes grope on a couch immediately following the opening credits. One expects that with such vivid content being thrust (pun intended) at the audience in the beginning of a film there will be context to follow. Nope. No such context is provided. The two actors are asked by director James Gray to suffer the indignity and embarrassment of a sex scene for nothing other than to satisfy his bad film making impulses. Any time you see a sex scene in a film, it may seem like its fun and exciting. Now, of course, some actors will claim this is the case. If you've ever seen one of these things being shot, its a miserable thing, in particular for many actors. You have to lay there with another person who you may or may not know all that well and if you know them you may or may not even like them all that much. The actors then have to portray two people making "the beast with two backs" while taking direction, reshooting moves and waiting for lighting to get corrected. All of this while being half naked as the crew look on, bored, waiting to get a chance to sneak out for a smoke. When I see a sex scene like the one that opens this movie, its offensive when it is so clearly unneeded not only because the audience is asked to sit and watch but also because the cast and crew had to endure creating it. Perhaps Ms. Mendez and Mr. Phoenix wouldn't complain about having to do the scene but the audience should.

This whole movie is one long bad choice. The story follows Bobby (Phoenix) a successful nightclub owner who gets involved with drug dealers. Bobby's has a secret, his brother (Mark Wahlberg) and father (Robert Duvall) are both cops who are hunting down the aforementioned drug dealers. Following the shooting of his brother, Bobby turns on the dealers and works with the cops. People get shot, there's plenty of yelling and double crossing - all leading to the inevitable big shoot out at the end. Yawn. There is nothing about this story that is compelling, fresh or worthy of an audience's time. The script, also by Gray, is a tone deaf ramble written by someone who not only doesn't understand how to manage dialog but also scene progression. Combined with his timid directing style, this piece whimpers through its nearly two-hour run time.

There is a single sequence which works well in this film and that is a car chase scene. I thought it was well handled and shot. This sequence sticks out however since it is the solitary item of good film making in this whole production. The talents of the cast, all of whom are top-notch, are completely wasted on the listless dialog they're forced to spew. Any personal sacrifices made by anyone in the making of this film are wasted and those who were talked into financing the film should have put their money elsewhere.

I get many complaints that I'm too harsh on movies I don't like. Maybe I can be at times. But a poorly made film that is intended to be serious, like this one wants to be, are wasteful things. They gobble up resources and the efforts of the cast and crew who more often than not are asked to put in long hours and hard work to get a film like this made. Bad movies also consume time from the audience that could have otherwise been spent doing something worthwhile. How would you like it if I were to stop you on the street and tell you a long story only to find out I didn't have a point, I just stopped you to ramble - this is what bad movies do to us each time we sit through them. They put our lives on hold and give us nothing back for the investment. Life is short and bad movies make our precious time here just that less enjoyable. This is why I loathe bad movies and attack them. They are offensive.


Related Reviews:
Joaquin Phoenix movies
The Village (2004)
Walk the Line (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
The Critical Critics
eFilmCritic.com



Labels: , , , , , , , ,







Friday, February 1, 2008
Movie Trailer: Street Kings


Screenwriters: David Ayer (Training Day)
Director: James Ellroy(L.A. Confidential), Kurt Wimmer (The Recruit), and Jamie Mos
Actors: Keanu Reeves (Constantine), Forrest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland), Hugh Laurie (Flight of the Phoenix), Chris Evans (Sunshine) and Naomie Harris (Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End)



Click here to return to the Movie Trailer Page

Labels: , , , , , , ,







Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Hot Fuzz (2007)
Should I see it?
Not if you're sensitive



Filmmakers Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright pay homage to all of the stupid action movies they’ve ever seen. Much like what they had done with their ode to zombie movies with Shaun of the Dead, the intent of this work is to stand on the shoulders of the slouching giants that came before them.

Pegg portrays Sergeant Nicholas Angel, a tightly wound cop who is exiled to a small village when his colleagues in London find his excessive police talents too much to compete against. While in the village the ever diligent Angel teams up with a bloated cop named Danny Butterman. The two uncover a village wide murderous conspiracy. This simple fish out of water story is fun to watch and is handled, for the most part, expertly by Pegg and Wright.

There isn’t a grand scheme at work here. The underachieving point of the film is to simply give a nod to other underachieving films (the Keanu Reeves embarrassing action flick Point Break is given prominence). This film manages to do this easily. They offer affection towards stupid action movies while providing one at the same time.

This is a goofy movie but it has the sense to not take itself too seriously. This may seem like a small deal, it isn’t. In a day and age where Quintin Tarantino is considered to be a visionary, its nice to see some post-modernists who know their disposable culture isn’t critical.


Worldview: This film concentrates on the notions of duty and purpose. Sergeant Angel is so committed to his work that he fails to live a life. Conversely, his partner Butterman is such a slouch that he fails to be useful. The two transition away from their faulty behavior (Angel loosens up while Butterman becomes a real cop) as the film pushes forward. The trajectories of the characters aren’t anything new and are rather tedious. However, it should be noted that the film does support some morality that makes sense.

There is also a strong strain of through against being too prideful. I can’t really get into it without ruining the film so I’ll be a little ambiguous. Suffice to say that being overly concerned with rewards can lead to a downfall. This is clearly expressed in this production.


Production Notes: Where the film runs into a spot of concern is in its creation. What we have here is postmodern filmmakers offering homage to the works they’ve enjoyed in the past. This isn’t that big of a deal and it’s not a deal breaker in regards to seeing this film.

What we see here with Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright, considering their previous work, is a couple of men raised on Hollywood McMovies. While their ode to action movies is tongue-in-cheek and not really meant to honor the other works. They know that films such as Point Break and Bad Boys are horrid movies but they also know they are enjoyable and have had an impact on international society. This is where they part ways with their contemporary postmodernists Quintin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez who take the putrid drainage that flows from world cinema as being worthy of praise. Tarantino in particular has made a living from reviving disposable culture and treating it like it is high art. Pegg and Wright also perform this task but do so to lovingly mock the low quality fluff that the entertainment industry has been pumping out for forty years. There no pretense that what they’re up to has any value. At least they should get credit for knowing what they’re doing.


Cautions: This is an action film so there’s plenty of violence. The actual action sequences aren’t too heavy however. There’s little blood or gore in these sequences just comical tongue-in-cheek violence. Oddly though the aftermath of the murders which leads to the action sequences is where the film reserves all of its most adult content. Be warned, the murder victims are shown being stabbed, decapitated, burned and crushed. There’s absolutely no reason for the filmmakers to show this content but they do. Their lack of control is unfortunate since the remainder of the film is remarkably tame in regards to the presentation of violence.

I also need to note that there is a load of cursing. There's more swear words here than after Sean Penn stubs his toe.


Other Reviews:
Nehring the Edge
Cinema de Merde
Film-Forward Reviews


Another Simon Pegg Movie:
Shaun of the Dead (2004)



Labels: , , , , , ,