Life Of Pi Review

 The eye of the tiger-Suraj Sharma as Pi, a boy who ends up on a lifeboat with a life saving tiger in Life Of Pi
                            Ang Lee is an incredible director. I had no doubt in my mind that he was going to do wonders with the movie adaptation of Life Of Pi. I found the book to be incredibly dull and my expectations for Lee to give the movie some new life were about half right. Yes...this is a visually stunning and brilliantly acted (with the exception of one person who I will discuss later) but the film often lacks energy and more often than not is too boring to be recommended.

                            The film follows Adult Pi (Irrfan Khan) who is telling the story of his life to a writer (Rafe Spall-the one exception.) This story follows his parent's death and him ending up all along in the middle of the ocean with a tiger in a boat. It ends up, however that said tiger saved his life. Now-onto Spall. I understand that the role of the writer in this film is to listen and it's not exactly the most in-depth role. However-does Spall have to be so bland that it gets to the point where his character might as well not have been on screen? Tobey Maguire was originally cast for the role but was later replaced by Spall. Andrew Garfield was also considered. Either of these talented young actors would have been better than the one that they chose. As well-the fact that the story centers around Adult Pi and him does not help to justify how bad he is. Rather, it worsens the fact.

                             The film is a visual feast in every way possible. The 3D is amazing and the film is beautiful to look at. However, it is all too poky for much of its two hour running time and it runs out of steam long before the end credits roll. The story starts to get extremely repetitive and I myself started to get tired of Pi at any age. There are too many scenes in which the story could have progressed significantly but instead decides to do nothing with what it had. As well, the back and forth between Adult Pi telling the story and the story itself was tiresome and made the film more boring than it should have been.

                             Ang Lee is a brilliant director and once again proves that here. I am not recommending the film because the story is not interesting enough and quickly becomes tedious. Lee, however shows just how much he can do when given a boring narrative and an exceptionally bad performance. He may not have saved it completely but Lee does make Life Of Pi something worth seeking out on DVD.
(2 and 1/2 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated PG for emotional thematic content throughout, and some scary action sequences and peril)

Hitchcock Review

The trouble with Hitchcock-Anthony Hopkins and Scarlett Johansson as Alfred Hitchcock and Janet Leigh in Hitchcock
                            It's kind of sad actually. It's sad that such a fantastic director can get such an unfit treatment. Anthony Hopkins-one of my favorite all time actors portrays Alfred Hitchcock and can never seem to get the look, feel or voice down right. As well-the rest of the cast-talented as they may be never step up to the plate. They all just kind of sit there and do nothing as does the movie itself. Needless to say-Hitchcock is a complete failure.

                            The film follows the world famous director on his trek to make his new supposed masterpiece-Psycho. Everyone doubts he will make this film a success. Even his wife-Alma Reville (Helen Mirren) is starting to work with writer Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston) in skepticism of her husband's latest project. It is not until Alfred hires sex symbol Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johansson) to star in the picture that the film really starts to get good. The film I'm referring to getting good is Psycho not Hithcock.

                            One of my main problems with the film is it never got the look right. Despite a few cool opening scenes..for a movie about the early 60's...it never felt as if it was set in that time period. The film also feels as if it never knows what it wants to be. There are attempts at humor and suspense and drama. However, it never felt like it wanted to mix these genres. It felt as if it was more confused than anything. It's almost as if director Sacha Gervasi (who previously did the fantastic documentary Anvil; The Story Of Anvil) had no clue how to direct a non-documentary film. Also-writer John J. McLaughlin (who previously did the phenomenal Black Swan) didn't seem to be able to get this fictionalized account's message across right. Yes-we all know that Psycho ended up being a huge success but was it really necessary to slam the whole "the film is never going to even happen" thing into the audience's heads? I don't think so. Furthermore-the film seems to be too much of a showcase for Mirren. Yes-we know she is a fantastic actress but in a film called Hitchcock...why put his wife in the spotlight?

                           All in all-the film will appeal only to those majorly obsessed with the ingenious director. Sure-I'm a huge fan of his and know much about him but that really didn't seem to matter. When you have an option of how to spend ninety minutes of your life why would you possible choose to see a film such as Hitchcock? It's simply not worth it.
(1 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated PG-13 for some violent images, sexual content and thematic material)

Red Dawn Review

In the red-Josh Peck and Chris Hemsworth must fend off North Korean soldiers in the action film Red Dawn
                        It is actually impressive how unnecessary this was. I do not know why I saw it. What possible appeal could have come out of this film? Why are talented actors such as Josh Peck, Chris Hemsworth and Jeffrey Dean Morgan completely phoning it in? Why would anyone think this would not be a complete waste of time, money and screens in a multiplex? These are questions that will never get answered Perhaps they will never get answered because they are that rhetorical. Either way...Red Dawn proves that Hollywood is officially a wasteland of unoriginal, uninspired garbage.

                        The film stars Chris Hemsworth and Josh Peck as brothers Jed and Matt. One day after a football game, Matt wakes up to a mysterious noise. He asks Jed what it is. It turns out that it is the North Koreans taking over. They then have to recruit fellow fighters such as Robert (Josh Hutcherson), Toni (Adrianne Palicki) and Daryl (Connor Cruise) among others.

                         The main problem with this film (and trust me there are many) is that it is overly patriotic in the way it presents itself. It's almost as if director Dan Bradley and writers Carl Ellsworth and Jeremy Passmore made the film with the mindset that America is the only country that matters. That is all subjective so I don't mind someone thinking that. However, don't force it onto every member audience by making an unbearable film. The actors all feel as if they are improvising-acting immature at every turn and the action might as well not be there. There are also much too many scenes in which the film tries to be cool and up to date but rather feels dated and ridiculous.

                          In the end-there is no reason to see this film. Wasn't one Red Dawn enough?: Apparently not according to Hollywood. It's almost as if this is all that is left of the mainstream movies nowadays. Oh well-I still have an art house theater around me.
(1 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated PG-13 for sequences of intense war violence and action and for language)

Holy Motors Review

He's motoring-Eva Mendes and Denis Lavant as Kay M and a man with many personalities in Holy Motors
                         Holy Motors is a fascinating idea for a movie gone horribly wrong. I actually saw this film a few days ago and while I tend to think about a film I saw before I review it...I REALLY had to think about this one. The film is similar to that drunk guy at a party who is amusing the hell out of himself but is irking everyone else. It is a film that will bore many and make just about everyone sick of it long before the final credits role around. I actually had to think about this film long and hard not because it is a smart film. No...far from it. Rather...I had to do so because it is such a weird film that I couldn't help but wonder if writer/director Leos Carax made the film bad on purpose.

                         The film follows a man (Denis Lavant) who rides around in a limo with his chauffeur Celine (Edith Scob) while switching into multiple personalities. In this way-the film reminded me much of the Woody Allen classic Zelig. It is the same plot-a man who can be multiple people and just blend into whomever he is. However, Zelig is a classic....Holy Motors is far from that status.

                         The main thing that made me upset with this film is the fact that Lavant is obviously a major talent. He's got the look, feel and even the sound of a very versatile actor. So why is he hamming it up until the final, unfunny twists? I can't put my finger on it but I know there has to be a reason other than a paycheck. The film also features way too many moments where a story gets boring but never seems to end. There is an extremely strange scene with Lavant as a dancer of sorts that goes on for much too long. It is almost like Carax did not have a script and just came up with any weird idea he could think of. Take the two end twists. If you have seen the film you know what I am talking about. These twists are not only too strange for their own good and unfunny. They also have the feeling of being jammed into the film for no apparent reason. The very end of the film feels as if Carax did not have a good idea on how to end the film so he just winged it. The whole film is very much like this...bouncing from one weird idea to the next without ever giving the audience any real insight or substance.

                         In the end there are very few reasons to see Holy Motors. Lavant is a talented actor but even he can't save this film. The whole thing is too smug and the experience of watching it too discomforting.
(1 and 1/2 out of 5 Stars, The film is Not Rated)

Lincoln Review

Stopping the bleeding once and for all-Daniel Day Lewis and Joseph Gordon Levitt as Abraham Lincoln and son Robert in Lincoln
                             Who would have ever thought someone could pull of the face, voice, actions and just about everything else of our 16th president so well? Yes-after this year's atrociously boring Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter-audiences now get a true historical drama about this great man. Daniel Day Lewis plays him now and nails it. The rest of the cast disappear into their roles as well but Lewis is the one who makes this film as thrilling as it is.

                              The film follows Lincoln as he attempts to ratify the 13th amendment-therefore abolishing slavery and ending a 4 year war. His secretary, William Seward (David Strathairn) backs him up as do three other men (James Spader, Tim Blake Nelson and John Hawkes.) The plot having to do with these three men is the most entertaining part of the film although as a whole-the film is endlessly fascinating and entertaining. Lincoln's son-Robert (Joseph Gordon Levitt) wants to go fight in this war but his father advises against it. Of course-as is pointed out by Lincoln in the film-he, unlike most father has the power to assure that his son does not fight in the war. We also have Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones)-who gives Lincoln much support and Lincoln's wife-Mary Todd (Sally Field) who sees the love everyone displays to Lincoln.

                              Everything about the film works exquisitely. There is not a bad performance in the film. Spader-perhaps because he was on the unbearable season of "The Office" especially impresses here. He could have easily made his character too goofy and over the top. Instead-he shows what a talented actor can do with a potentially meaty role. Levitt and Field both hit the family dynamic very close to home and Jones is perfect as a man just trying to do right by his country. As well, Nelson, Hawkes and Strathairn among others are fascinating to watch in their respective roles. The film also makes politics intense once more. I am the last person to ever want to talk politics but I'd be lying if I said this film did not makes politics interesting for me. The film is funny, exciting, sad, touching and entertaining all at once and every scene is beautifully shot by director Steven Spielberg. Yes-after last year's mediocre films The Adventures Of Tin Tin and War Horse-Spielberg is back with what is bound to be another timeless classic.

                                What I am trying to say here is go see Lincoln. It is an unbelievably entertaining, fascinating piece of American cinema and an excellent addition to the historical drama cannon. There is not a more flawless film out in theaters right now and there should be an Oscar win coming Lewis's way. 
(5 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated PG-13 for an intense scene of war violence, some images of carnage and brief strong language)

A Liar's Autobiography: The Untrue Story Of Monty Python's Graham Chapman Review

Liar, liar-Graham Chapman's life is (sort of) explored in the animated film A Liar's Autobiography: The Untrue Story Of Monty Python's Graham Chapman
                                        Have you ever seen a film so bad that it kind of makes you appreciate all other films? Have you ever seen a film so bad that you sit there fascinated by what you are watching? Well-the new animated documentary (if you can even call it that) A Liar's Autobiography will allow you who said no to one or both of these questions finally get to have both of these experience. The film is dreadfully unfunny, painfully boring, soul crushingly stupid, disgusting to look at and yes-it even ruined all of the good memories about one of my favorite comedy troupes-Monty Python.

                                         The film explores the life of Graham Chapman-the Python member who died at 48 of cancer. When I say the film explored his life-I just mean it barely skimmed the surface. In fact-anyone with a brain would have more fun doing five minutes of research about  Chapman online. Also-they would learn more and save money (especially since this film is in 3D.) The film tells of his childhood and how he came out of the closet. However, it does this in such a derogatory fashion that I am shocked to say that this is based on something that Chapman wrote.


                                           Also-the film tries to be hilarious at every possible chance. In this aspect-the film did not succeed...at all. I never laughed once and considering the size of the crowd I was with-I might as well say neither did they. One guy in my audience chuckled softly to himself two times but that was it. The film is boring in the way that it does not go for any originality and is stupid and tedious in the way it repeats itself over and over and over. Also-the film is sickening to look at. Unlike something like the HBO show "The Life And Times Of Tim," which is crudely animated on purpose-this film is just cheap looking in its animation for no reason. The film uses many different styles of animation but none of them are pleasing in the slightest.

                                             In the end-there is no reason to see this film. It is a lifeless and worthless piece of junk. This is the first film in years that I want to burn every copy of. It is a waste of film, money and time and has officially ruined anything I ever loved about Monty Python.
(0 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for strong and crude sexual content including graphic animated sequences, language and some violent images) 

A Late Quartet Review

A delicate instrument-Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Christopher Walken and Catherine Keener as aging members of a quarter in A Late Quartet
                                Christopher Walken is back for his third movie this year. This is never a bad thing-especially when you have actors such as Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Catherine Keener and Imogen Poots backing him up. However, A Late Quartet-while featuring excellent performances from everyone in the cast including Mark Ivanir feels as if it has something missing. Throughout the film-it rubbed me the wrong way. Yes-Walken is perfect and Hoffman, Keener, Poots and Ivanir are all wonderful but all the characters just kind of sat there for me.

                                 In the film-Walken plays Peter-a member of a quartet who has been diagnosed with Parkinson's. When he hears the news-he asks the other quartet members-married couple Robert and Juliette (Hoffman and Keener) and Daniel (Ivanir) to let them play one last farewell concert. Their loyalty towards one another is tested in varying ways,however. The most significant is Robert and Juliette's daughter, Alexandra (Poots) dating Daniel.

                                I think what the film needed was a more cohesive narrative. It bounced from one thing to the next without giving me anytime to soak in just how excellent the film was. Walken is bone chilling in his role. I do not mean he plays an unlikable character...I simply mean he is so good and churning out empathy from the audience that we start to get chills thinking about what is going to happen to him. Walken has always been a great actor but not since 2002's Catch Me If You Can has he proven to be a great serious actor. Hoffman and Keener have great chemistry and give us a complex story that may have gone by a bit too fast to completely understand. I hate to sound cynical or snobby here-it is simply my opinion. Ivanir and Poots feel good together and both give off excellent individual performances but it felt as if they really shouldn't have been on screen together that much. The film is obviously passionately about its subject and earns respect for that but it feels as if first time writer and director Yaron Zilberman along with co-writer Seth Grossman let the movie flounder too much.

                             For the performances alone I will have to recommend A Late Quartet. I did not find it to be a great film by any means but it certain does feature people who know what they are doing. Walken is as good as ever (and that's coming from a guy whose favorite actor is Walken) and the rest of the cast bring their a-game. Just don't go in expecting any great shakes and you should be fine.
(3 and 1/2 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for language and some sexuality)

Skyfall Review

This time it's personal-Daniel Craig and Javier Bardem share the screen together in the newest James Bond film Skyfall
                             Bond is back and still going strong after 50 years. I know that may be the wrong way to start out a review-just telling my readers what I thought of the film.I know I should go more in depth with my analysis but I'm going to do that anyway by telling you all the ways I loved Skyfall. After the incredibly weak Quantam Of Solace of which the film had no real writers-Daniel Craig is back as world renowned spy James Bond. This time behind the camera-rather than having the same guy who directed Finding Neverland-we have the same guy who directed American Beauty. You decide which one of those sounds like a better director. Sam Mendes brings Bond back to life and gives him more oomph than ever before. To top it off-Javier Bardem plays as chilling of a bad guy here as he did in No Country For Old Men. 

                           In this entry-Bond is given a dilemma when an evil ex-spy (Bardem) comes back and claims that M (Judi Dench) has betrayed Bond. Now-things get personal as Bond tries to stop him at any cost necessary. Helping him is new Agent Q (Ben Whishaw) as well as Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes.)

                          What director Mendes does spectacularly is make the action come alive with bond high-tech, updated Bond-isms and old fashioned Bond-isms. We get the best of both worlds as Mendes and writers John Logan, Robert Wade and Neal Purvis gives us both the classic side of Bond and the side we have never seen of him before. Bardem reminds us of some of those great bond villains of days past. He brings a sort of charm to the role but he is also completely despicable and unsympathetic. Sure-he's not trying to take over the world like most of the general favorite Bond villains but is that really necessary for every Bond? Craig-who brought us a more personal bond in arguably the best Bond film ever-2006's Casino Royale scores again here. He is so good at playing Bond as both a suave, cool guy and a completely likable character. I will have to mention that the Bond women are not much a factor here. We get Eve (Naomie Harris)-Bond's assistant as one of them but she is barely in it.We do get the obligatory love scene but nothing more than that with the women

                           While Skyfall is fantastic-I expected it to be even a bit better. Sure-I have no room to complain because I am still giving it my full endorsement. However-there seemed to be something about it missing. Maybe it was just the Bond women not being there, but I don't think so. I think it was that I was feeling a certain nostalgia for the Bond films of days past and did not want to let that nostalgia go as I watched all the new high-tech elements. Either way-if the Bond series keeps films such as this coming-I have no problem with 007 staying around for another 50 years.
(5 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated PG-13 for intense violent sequences throughout, some sexuality, language and smoking)

Wreck It Ralph Review

He's in control-A video game villain (John C Reilly) and an accidental video game character (Sarah Silverman) must help each other out in Wreck It Ralph
                           Through the years-Pixar has proved time and time again that animated films can speak to people of all ages. I say this because this has set the bar for other animation companies. This is not to say that we never get bad animation anymore. Sure-parents still have to sit in a theater and endure an Ice Age Continental Drift but that doesn't happen as often now. If for nothing else-Wreck It Ralph is a flawed but fun film that provides bright colors and silly situations for kids and both old school and new school video game references for teens and adults alike. In other words...it's not perfect but it should have a little something for everyone.

                             The film stars John C Reilly as the title character...a video game villain who is tired of being mistreated by his fellow characters. Due to this-he decides to game hop much to the dismay of the good guy of his video game, Fix It Felix (Jack McBrayer.) It is in the game Sugar Rush that Ralph meets Vanellope (Sarah Silverman) who is the glitch of the video game. If you don't get what I meant by that...you will most likely not enjoy the film itself.

                               One thing I really liked about this film is that all of the voice actors bring their characters to life. Reilly is perfect as a nice guy stuck in a bad position while McBrayer is absolutely fantastic as Felix. McBrayer's wacky voice is ideal for the role of the good guy. Silverman creates a sympathetic character and Jane Lynch is perfect as an army woman from a Halo-esque video game. The best voice, however comes from Alan Tudyk as a character I choose not to mention because his character is a nice surprise. The film also features great chemistry between Ralph and Vanellope and makes good use of its video game centered plot.

                                Now for the flaws. The 3D is superfluous even though the film is visually stunning. Also-the film does have a few moments in which the pacing slows and the plot just meanders. Also, there is a twist that is somewhat cool but is also kind of thrown out there for no reason.

                                 In the end-Wreck It Ralph may not be a great movie but it should be enjoyed by the masses. There is no reason that you can't go out for a couple of hours this weekend and enjoy a good film. if you have kids or love video games-that film should be Wreck it Ralph. 
(4 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated PG for some rude humor and mild action/violence)

Flight Review

Learning to fly-Denzel Washington, Don Cheadle and Bruce Greenwood try to disprove a crash theory in Flight
                         Flight is a film made by people who knew what they were doing. It is directed by Robert Zemeckis (Cast Away, Forrest Gump, Back To The Future) and stars actors such as Denzel Washington and Don Cheadle who have rarely picked a bad role. It is shown very clearly and extremely often that there are talented people both in front of and behind the camera. This is the type of film that stays flawless almost every second and never manages to be too showy about the fact. A perfect example of it not being showy while being great is the scene that allows the movie to take off. This scene involves pilot Whip Whitaker (Washington) having to land a plane while in a nosedive. This scene is bound to be more intense than any whole of a film this year and yet it seems humble in its style.

                          In the film-Whip is a pilot who miraculously lands the plane. However, Whip is accused of having an excessive amount of alcohol in his system while flying the plane. It is now that lawyer Hugh Lang (Cheadle) and Ken Evans (Bruce Greenwood) must prove the innocence of Whip.

                         The best thing about the film is that you never know where it is going. Even though it is revealed in the trailer that Whip lands the plane-the audience is on the edge of their seat because they forget about what they saw in the trailer. This is the mark of a great director-the fact that they can make you be right in the moment without you even realizing it. The performances are also all top notch. Washington brings his A-game and shows us a sympathetic character who, despite their major issues, we root for. Cheadle and Greenwood are both great as men who must prove something that seems too true to be proven. John Goodman shows up as Harling Mays-a friend of Whip's who shares his alcohol and drug addiction. Here-for the second time (the first being Argo) in less than a month-Goodman provides excellent comic relief among all the seriousness. The film is well paced. At two hours and eighteen minutes-it never seems to drag. Also-there is an excellent romance between Whip and a fellow drug addict named Nicole (Kelly Reilly) whom he meets at the hospital. You can feel their chemistry just ooze off the screen.

                         Don't go into Flight thinking it's yet another AA movie about alcohol dependency. No-we have already had our share of that with the excellent Smashed from about a month back. Rather-this is a flawless film that will leave you holding your breath in suspense and perhaps touched, enlightened and surprised by how much you care for the character of Whip. You can thank Zemeckis and Washington for that-they both do great things here as do the rest of the cast and crew.
(5 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for drug and alcohol abuse, language, sexuality/nudity and an intense action sequence)

The Man With The Iron Fists Review

A fistful of violence-Lucy Liu and Russell Crowe go head to head as Madam Blossom and Jack Knife in The Man With The Iron Fists
                                      I have always had the belief that an action film does not need to be smart or well made as long as it is entertaining. That is not to say that these things can't help-it is just to say that I never watch something such as Kill Bill thinking it is going to be a classic. The Man With The Iron Fists is both incredibly entertainingly and yet somehow a bit unsatisfying. I was having a blast watching the film but I also thought "is this ALL that this talented cast and crew come up with?" It is incredibly esoteric in both its extreme comic violence (which includes but is not limited to an eyeball falling out of a man's head and arms being cut off) and its old-school throwback plot.

                                       The film has no real plot except to say that a tourist named Jack Knife (Russell Crowe-in one of his best performances) comes to a Chinese village. This village is where gold is being shipped, a blacksmith (RZA) is in danger and many violent acts are being committed. Even as I was watching the film...I did not know who to root for or why these people are doing what they were doing. In fact....I couldn't even answer these questions after the film.

                                       While the film is self aware of how ridiculous it is most of the time...it goes into serious territory a few too many times. I never thought that I would say this about a film but this film did not need to TRY to have a plot. Sure...it never reaches plot level because it is so wacky but when it tries to get into that territory...it just falls flat. The acting is top notch, however. Crowe and RZA both give awesome a new name in their roles while David Bautista and Lucy Liu both make good villains although the audience can't really tell they are villains.

                                           If you like this type of film then go for it. If not then you may be completely bored out of your mind. It may not completely work but The Man With The Iron Fists does provide a good bit of fun. It does drag and lose its footing quite a bit but that's forgivable for a movie like this because as I said-just give me entertaining.
(2 and 1/2 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for bloody violence, strong sexuality, language and brief drug use)