|
 Guest
Movie Reviews
Your Opinions
are always welcome. (Hey, Jim can't have all the fun)
When you see a Movie, Play or Show E mail your Review to
MIentertainment@comcast.net
Iron Man
Guest Review by Daniel Hogan:
I'll admit that my expectations were set very low when I finally went to see Iron Man this past weekend. And perhaps this was the reason why the film was able to exceed all of my expectations. It certainly can be added to the list of very enjoyable comic book adaptations, and most of that credit goes to the wonderful acting by Robert Downey, Jr.
I'll openly admit that my knowledge of Iron Man canon is minimal at best (I'm more of a Spider-Man, X-Men, Batman and Hellboy fan), but I know enough that the film did a more than passable job of condensing over 40 years of Iron Man lore in a way that is pleasing to both comic book and non-comic book fans.
Now back to Mr. Jr's acting. Robert Downey's portrayal of playboy/inventor Tony Stark was, aside from the lovely effects by ILM, the high point of the film. This role could have very easily been turned into another brooding Bruce Wayne/Batman- like character—both have similar traits: orphaned, very intelligent, non-super powered, inventor billionaires turned crime fighters– but Robert Downey made this character his own, and I'm very thankful for it.
The scenes I enjoyed the most were those in which Tony is fine tuning his suit and figuring everything out through trial and error (usually with comedic results). This adds a great human element to the story, even a super genius like Tony Stark makes mistakes—but he learns from them and keeps going. When he finally finishes his Iron Man suit, the audience shares Tony's feeling of accomplishment and is excited to see what the suit can do.
The first act of the film drags a bit, especially while Tony is held captive in Afghanistan, but after that things kick into high gear. The special effects are great and look very believable, I found myself forgetting at times that the Iron Man on screen was just computer generated. I love the shots where we see what Tony is 'seeing' through his suit's heads up display, those were very detailed and great eye candy.
I really enjoyed that they didn't turn this into some kind of love story and just focused on building the romantic tension between Tony and his assistant (played by Gwyneth Paltrow) Pepper Potts.
Iron Man was an enjoyable kick off to what will surely be a fun summer movie season and hopefully things just keep getting better.
Oh and make sure to stick around after the credits for an extra scene. It is worth the wait.
Cloverfield by: Bill Ketelhut
We knew it was only a matter of time before this happened. Someone finally took the concept of The Blair Witch Project and made a big budget version. The result is Cloverfield, a wonderfully hyped film which seems to be getting mixed reviews.
The film is shot, supposedly, through the lens of a digital camera by various friends. What starts off as the last day Rob Hawkins (played by Michael Stahl-David) will be in NYC before he goes to Japan for a job. His buddies are throwing him a party as well as making a video for him. Things start out pretty mundane but we are learning the character interactions when a tremor hits knocking out the power. When the lights come back on, the TV shows a broadcast of a boat captsized near the Statue Of Liberty. The party goers go to the roof and in the distance they see a giant exposion and debris flying their way. Now things get crazy as panic sets in.
Though it takes a while to actually see it, a giant monster is in downtown NYC and rescue crews and the military are trying to evacuate everyone. When the friends try to cross the Brooklyn Bridge, it gets destroyed and the friends end up trying to find and rescue Rob's girlfriend. The movie has some genuine thrills and a decent scare factor. I know some people hate handheld camera effects, but I love it and it adds to the realism of the panic and terror (esp moments where they are running with the camera, when it gets dropped or passed among themselves).
This is basically just a survival film which should appeal to fans of the X-Files early seasons, the original Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers and movies like The Host. Add in a little post 9/11 emotional impact and you get a chilling experience. The only weakness was some of the full body shots of the monster. Luckily, these are few and far between as we mostly see the monster far away, through dust and debris or ducking behind building.
Bill's Grade: B
Cloverfield by: Daniel J. Hogan
Note from Jim:
This guest review CONTAINS SPOILERS THAT ARE WELL MARKED
I was both delighted and disappointed by this film.
From a cinematic stand-point it was top-notch. The unique way of doing a 'monster eats New York' type film was very enjoyable on the big screen. Instead of normal film-style shooting, this film is done in a Blair Witch Project-like documentary style. Characters take turns 'filming' the scenes, which gives us a first person point of view of all the nonsense going on. The director also made us of one my favorite styles, which has all but disappeared in our Computer Animation age: Less is More.
Instead of showing EVERYTHING from the get-go, we are teased throughout nearly the entire movie - the monster gets very little actual screen time, and most of that is just quick shots of a random body part or soldiers shooting at something off screen. That was great: you had next to no idea what was going on, which made this a very unique monster movie. It reminded me of the original Alien or Jaws, where you saw very little of the actual creature which in my opinion is the better way to go.
When it comes to thrillers and scaring people, leaving stuff to the audiences' imagination is the best tool a filmmaker has in their tool box. In the old days, this was mainly because of the limitations of special effects. But now because of computers, we can show a monster tap dancing on top of the Statue of Library without giving it a second thought. BUT just because we CAN show all of that, doesn't mean we SHOULD.
And the problem is the audience has been spoiled in recent years by such unabashed displays of special effect prowess - we expect to see everything and not be teased as we were in the old days. I really hope Cloverfield helps to change that trend and leads the way of filmmakers leaving stuff up the audiences' imagination more often. Most of the audience around me was obviously disappointed by the lack of a 'big payoff' which they felt they were entitled to because of the brilliant marketing campaign surrounded the film.
I disagree: the movie, save a few examples, was exactly what I expected. People fell for the marketing of this film hook, line and sinker - it worked. I hope this starts a new trend in film advertising as well: not showing every major plot point in all the different trailers and ads for the film.
WARNING: SPOILERS START HERE
If you don't want to know the secrets, scroll down.
My main complaint of the film was the cheesy romantic subplot: a jilted young man trying to make his away across Manhattan to save his ex-lover while the monster tears the city to shreds and the Army blows stuff up. Once they showed the ex-lovers fighting at a party and the hero talking with his brother about how much he still loved her, I knew exactly how this movie was going to end. And I was right. BUT I enjoyed another aspect of this film that breaks the mold: Everyone dies. No one survives. I enjoyed that, because it was bad enough with the romantic subplot - had those involved survived I would have been really disappointed. An interesting sidenote is that because he chooses to go save this ex-flame, all of the main male character's companions die because of it. Had he just said the hell with her, a bunch of people would have survived.
What I also liked is how the film starts. The 'film' itself is a recovered video tape the government found after the attack. This lets you know right away that this story does not have a happy ending (borrowing a page again from Blair Witch Project). I LOVE that they don't explain much about the monster at all - this makes it more creepy. They also don't explain about what exactly happens after someone is bit by the creature's offspring, other than us being treated to a shaky camera quickly flying past a vicitm before something very bad happens. The film does not load you down with details about the creature: it just is what it is, and I loved it. But then I'm the kind of person who likes stuff being left open ended or left up to my imagination. Most people however don't feel the same way: they want to be spoon-fed every little detail. No thanks, not for me.
They do a lot of great stuff with atmosphere - including not having any kind of soundtrack, which adds to the 'reality' aspect of the movie.
SPOILERS END HERE
There are some down-right terrifying moments in this film which were amplified by viewing it on the big screen with a theater sound system. The Point of View cinematography really puts you right in the action. This is not a film you can watch on your TV, or iPhone or your iPod and get the same experience. You must see this film in the theater. I'm kind of surprised they didn't go the extra step and make this film 3D - that would have been killer.
I actually had a hard time sleeping last night, because I kept thinking about this film. That hasn't happened to me in a LONG time. But I also have an over-active imagination that is increased a hundred fold when I'm half-asleep. All of the unknowns of the film kept running through my head - it is a film that will stick to your ribs a bit. Some viewers may get motion-sickness because of the hand-held/shaky camera aspect, even I got a little quesy at times. So heads up.
To sum up, I loved the camera work and the Less is More approach of the film. But I hated the romantic subplot and that the cast is once again a bunch of young, good-looking people. If you want a thrilling one of a kind viewing, see this film in the theater - I don't recommend watching it at home at all.
The Bucket List
by Debbie
....My husband, Dave and I, went and saw "Bucket List" over the weekend and enjoyed it! Jack Nicholson is so funny.....it was a great movie and heartwarming as well. Many walked out clearing their eyes.
Sweeney Todd
by
Todd A. Heywood
I was a bit nervous about seeing Burton's rendition of this Broadway legend-- in part because I am not a big fan of his and in part because Johnny Depp is not in anyway who I imagine as Sweeney Todd. That said, I was downright paniced when Depp's first appearance on the "good ship Bountiful" included an off key intro to singing this incredibly difficult character role. But, that said, Depp managed to redeem himself, although he was not, certainly, the stand out in the production.
I still contend both Depp and Helena Bonham Carter were miscast in the lead roles of this opera turned movie event. Both were too young to play the bitter, angry 1840's monsters of London's Fleet Street. Neither had the darkness in their eyes of desperation. Depp of a man who has lost everything; Carter as Mrs. Lovett near starvation and economic collapse because her pies are terrible.
A point though goes to Burton for playing the love interest between Sweeney and Lovett as her infatuation which he wants nothing to do with. It was a curious, but charming, take on the love between the two. And Carter and Depp do manage to charm with their rendition of "Try the Priest," with Burton providing a nod to the original groundbreaking Broadway production, ending with Depp holding a clever and Carter a rolling pin in the iconic image of the show. Alan Rickman did a fine job as Judge Turpin, however, the creepiness of this older man fixated on his ward, Joanna was lost with the elimination of the creepy Mea Culpa song of the original. In the original, Turpin shows his anquish over his sexual fixation on Joanna by beating himself during prayer. It is overwhelmingly powerful, shedding a human light on a monster. With this missing, Turpin merely seems a bizarrely inhuman abuser.
But perhaps the stand out in the entire production is young Ed Sander's as Toby the abused boy who bounces from one characters service to another. His rendition of "Nothing's Gonna Harm You" is one fo the most haunting, gut-wrenching and honest moments in this entire production. In fact, I would argue young Mr. Sander's performance is worth the price of admission itself. And young Mr. Sander's end moment is haunting and cathartic. As for the Burtonesque visual, here they are in grand display. They generally work well for this film production, but the use of inhumanly colored blood is disappointing. While the killings are effected with accurate images of spurting arteries, the color of the blood merely distracts making the danger of Sweeney's homocide less threatening, and Mrs. Lovett's cannibalistic cooking show less impactful. It should be noted to those who are Sondheim purists, this film version will disappoint. For those who have never met Mr. Todd will be charmed, beguiled, frightened and ultimately moved by this film production. By the way, save your money on the film recording of the songs. You can hear much better singing in local community theatres, than you will witness with this cast of singers. If you like the music, go buy the original broadway cast recording, or the San Francisco Opera version.
Hitman
by
Carey Jarvis
Pretty good action flick!
Brief Nudity in the middle that was unnecessary, but I like how the Hitman handled it.
First action flick in awhile that I didn't leave disappointed after seeing.
It doesn't have some great plot, and it won't win any oscars, but it had some great action, and a couple of twists, and some new fighting ideas that made me happy I saw it when all was said and done.
Definitely recommended viewing!
I’d give it a 3 out of Fordyce
BeoWulf
by
Carey Jarvis
DISAPPOINTMENT.
Was it really necessary for Beowulf to be stark naked to fight Grendel? in 3D??!!
YUCK!!
It was an interesting movie in so far as it being a unique Adult Fairy Tale, and the special effects on the dragon and Angelina Jolie were pretty good, but ultimately I left the movie pretty disappointed.
One of many reasons is the main character is not someone you want to root for. He's Egotistical, selfish, and just looking out for himself. He doesn't even have a good sense of humor, or any likable qualities.
Sometimes the main character in a movie is kind of a bad guy, but you still find yourself rooting for them because they are funny, or you feel for them, or they have some sort of appeal as an "Anti-hero."
I just didn't care about this guy at all.
If I were Jim I’d give it a one out of Fordyce.
Bee Movie
by
Daniel Hogan
I was a VIP at the www.MIEntertainment.biz premiere of Bee Movie on friday right here in Lansing. I need to say at first, I'm an animation snob so I'm really picky when it comes to animated stuff (I studied animation in college). That being said, Dreamworks Animation still fails to impress me with their quality of animation. They still haven't come close to Pixar in terms of nailing great character animation. I was unimpressed by their character design in Bee Movie and how the characters moved, etc. I will say it was better animation than the abysmal Shrek the Third. I also think that their designs didn't work too well with some of the voices used - case in point, Patrick Warburton's character (Ken, the boyfriend). Let me say at first - I love Patrick Warburton, he is one of my favorite voice actors. But, his voice just didn't match the guy it was coming out of (he was too average looking). I also hate this trend in animation since the '90s of characters looking like the person voicing them.
There were a few jokes I really loved, like the Ray Liotta honey joke. That was amazing. Another weird thing about this film is that there is all kinds of subtle (and not so subtle) allegorical things one could look into if they wanted - ex: the owner of the honey farm that keeps all the bees in barren cell-like hives and takes joy in smoking the bees to knock them out, is named Klauss Vanderhayden. Wow. I visibly cringed in the theater when I heard that guy's name - and trust me, that wasn't an accident, he was named that on purpose. Nothing in animation is by accident.
Still, the movie is fun and cute but don't buy into it as the next landmark animated classic (Shrek 2 is still by far their best to date, which really isn't saying that much). Dreamworks has a long way to go, but this film is certainly is a step in the right direction.
Halloween
2007
by
Todd A. Heywood
OK
here's the deal-- if you are a Halloween film fan, a slasher film
fan or a fan of pyschological thrillers-- don't waste your time.
If you are looking for a butchered mind numbing two hours of film
go for it.
The
film, like the title character, is a split personality. It can't
decide whether it wants to be a psychological thriller or a slasher
film. The end result is a failure on both counts.
The
first half of the movie is a fascinating exploration of the creation
of a serial killer. This part of the film gives Halloween fans
the base of the myth of Michael Myers in a new way, providing
viewers with the background on his large knife, his mask and a
look at his home life.
On
the other hand, when this information goes a long way towards
creating an almost sympathatic protagonist as Michael, it is lost
in the second half of the movie when suddently Myers decides to
go nuts and start killing people and break out of his mental institution.
The
resulting blood bath is expected in slasher films, but poor executed,
with no unexpected moments, not shockers and no stunners.
In
fact, we are treated to an odd moment of bad continuity when at
the end of the movie, in the broken down house when Myers spent
his childhood he is chasing a victim who suddently falls in a
swimming pool. Until that moment, nearly three quarters of the
way into the film, no one knew there was a swimming pool. Makes
for slopping story telling.
And
finally, let's explore a little reality. Yes slasher films are
about nudity and blood, and there is plenty of both to satisify
most slasher fans-- but the amount of blood is beyond unrealistic
into the realm of funny. And the violence is lame at best. One
killing happens so quickly we never see how Myers actually makes
a female guard bleed, but bleed she does.
Also,
Myers manages to take four bullets, a 9 mm from a police Glock,
and 3, .357 magnum hits from another gun. Guess what, he keeps
on going like the energizer bunny.
To
be fair, I admit I was fascinated early in the film while we are
treated to the background of the myth of Myers, and are lead by
the hand in the creation of a serial killer. It was well acted
and features some excellent editing. But once that happened and
was done, the film crashed and burned.
Halloween
2007
by
Steve Miller
A
revisit to one of the great Horror movies of all time the saga
of Michael Myers. I have seen the original starring
Jamie Lee Curtis. I may have to rent that one now.
I would wish to say that he is all too human and yes that element
is there. A disturbed child who tortures and kills animals
and then graduates to humans. Some of them did deserve
what they got and didn't mind seeing some die. (OK you can hate
me now) I felt both sympathy and revulsion for Michael.
Why did he kill the people who tired to befriend him.
That is where I feel Michael somehow loses humanity, that and
he can't seem to die. I really liked this movie and would
recommend it to any fan of the Horror genre. Steve
says if he was Jim this would get Three out of Fordyce.
The
Invasion
by
Grant Kenney
The
Invasion starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig is basically
a remake of the classic story of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
In it, Kidman plays a psychologist who begins to notice that a
"flu" virus begins to drastically change the personalities,
though not appearances, of people all around her. The virus takes
control of its human hosts during their sleep, transforming them
into expressionless zombies who still maintain their memories
and previous abilities, although they can't seem to pass off basic
human emotions and stick out like a sore thumb.
Daniel Craig, or 007 as you might know him, plays her doctor friend
who, plays some sort of strange friend/love interest for Kidman.
He does well in the part, but it begs to question how a normal
doctor can muster the courage to do some of the things he does
to save Kidman and her son, who seems immune to the virus and
may humanity's only source of hope.
The movie has good suspense and at times is downright creepy,
especially when you see a human in mid- sleep "transforming."
It builds up its action and has an intense "escape from the
city" scene, although the movie does have a bit of an anti-climatic
ending.
The film touches base on some deep philisophical undertones.
The alien beings claim that under their rule there would be no
war, poverty, or hunger, though Kidman argues there would be no
free thought as well.
This film isn't bad, but by no means is it great. My roommate
Rich, who saw the movie with me brought up a very interesting
revelation about the film when we walked out of it saying, "so...basically
we were invaded by pacifists?"
If I were you I would wait for this one on DVD for which it would
be a good watch, and if I were Jim I would give it a good 2 out
of Fordyce.
The
Bourne Ultimatum
by
Grant Kenney
I
recently had the chance to see the Bourne Ultimatum starring Matt
Damon. For those of you who have seen the last movie, you know
that it stood alone very well in terms of not needing to rely
on past storyline in order to understand and enjoy the film. The
same can be said about this movie-to an extent.
Once again Jason Bourne is out hunting the CIA itself (not to
mention being hunted as well), attempting to get to the bottom
of his past and figure out what role he played in a government
assassin program. Bourne, still suffering from the same amnesia
that plagued him and prevented him from remembering what he actually
did for the government in the last film, travels the world combating
government assassins tracking him called "assets," (with
the way these guys operate, it's no wonder how they earn their
name).
As with the past two Bourne movies, he relies more on his intuition
and cunning rather than gadgets and bad sexual jokes that have
plagued James Bond films for too many years, but I digress.
This film has amazing fight sequences, rivaling some of the best
martial arts films I have ever seen, including a fantastic battle
royale with an asset in very cramped quarters.
The Bourne Ultimatum moves at a good pace and never gets too slow,
it makes references to the last two movies, but explains them
well and never gets confusing.
The only problem I had with this film was the pisspoor camerawork.
It's shot in 3rd person to give an illusion that the moviegoeer
is actually there in the film. This works great for horror films
that try to build suspense or cause tension, but in an action
movie that relies on every second to add to a storyline it just
makes you dizzy with jolting and unstable shots. Even the car
chases are filmed this way, blurring the action far too much to
even understand what is happening.
Despite this major hinderance to the film, the Bourne Ultimatum
includes some very political messages about national security
and just how much the American public doesn't know about secret
government programs. It sends clear messages that security is
important but somewhere a line needs to be drawn in terms of protecting
basic rights (cough cough "Patriot" Act cough).
The director claims this is the last Bourne film he will do, however
with the quality of this and the past two films, we can only hope
Jason Bourne will be spying for a future movie.
If I were Jim, I would give this film three and a half out of
Fordyce.
Hot
Rod
by:
Matt Rydzewski
What
would you expect from a comedy about a stunt man starring an SNL
cast member? Silly tricks? A cheesy romance? Childish jokes? You
get all these fun things with Hot Rod, but in addition, you get
creativity plus the occasional inspired moments of hilarity. And
as an added bonus, simple but well composed shots in the style
of Napoleon Dynamite. Now don't think I'm calling this a good
film, because it's not. Hot Rod is virtually plotless.
You have what is tantamount to a 70 minute training montage. Three-fourths
of the film is Samberg preparing for his jump. Also, for every
laugh-out-loud joke there are three that fall flat. Still, it's
a fun time if you feel like sitting in an air conditioned theater
and turning off your brain for 90 minutes. If I was a less critical
Jim, I'd give Hot Rod a very watchable 2 out of Fordyce.
Hot
Rod
by: Jamie R. Rytlewski
Hot Rod is
a typical movie produced by Lorne Michaels and with the familiar
SNL cast member. Hot Rod was in the same spirit as "Night
at the Roxbury", "Wayne's World" and the "Ladies Man".
Although those other movies were popular characters on SNL,
this movie had a similar formula. I enjoyed the laughs
that were through out the movie, and the many songs by Europe
gave the movie that ultimate cheesey 80's theme. If you
are going into this movie thinking to see a masterpiece, this
is not the movie, but if you go into it expecting little you
should be pleasantly surprised, at least I was. Some of
the "funny" scenes lasted a bit too long, but much better than
expected. I give the movie 2.5 out of 4 stars.
Harry
Potter
by:
Matt Rydzewski
Harry
Potter and the Order of the Phoenix stands out as being the best
acted and best directed Harry Potter film yet. The visuals are
spectacular, and Daniel Radcliffe (Harry) particularly gave a
great performance.
Unfortunately it is also the most inconsistent. The steady dramatic
tone that stretched throughout Goblet of Fire is shattered. Phoenix
holds the dubious distinction of being the silliest as well as
the most serious film of the series. One moment a character is
discussing how his parents were tortured, the next the teacher's
assistant has boils all over his face because of a prank. The
epitome of this duality occurs when kids in the audience where
laughing at a crying teacher because her thick glasses gave her
giant eyes that made her look like a lemur. Despite it's problems
Phoenix ends very strongly and if I was Jim it would get a good
three out of Fordyce.
Rattatouille
Note:
Grant Kenney of the Entertainment Express. MIentertainment.com
staff recenty got to interview and then see this new film from
Pixar. To see his interview go to "Watch
Entertainment Express" and to see Grant with the cast
and lovely intern Stephanie Rea:
click here
Grant's
Review:
During
a recent interview I had with Janeane Garofalo and Patton Oswalt
for their new film Ratatouille they joked and said the movie did
not need any promotion. "It's Pixar and Disney," Garofalo
said. "That in itself will draw crowds."
Ratatouille holds true to its greatly enjoyed Pixar predecessors.
The film is a fun and humorous story about a rat named Remy who
dreams of becoming a gourmet chef in the world's most rodent phobic
profession.
The film is entertaining right from the start and continues its
energy throughout. Spectacular computer generated graphics in
the film allow audiences to see every hair on the cute protagonist
of the film. Every character is well played out, and developed
well. Wonderful morals like pursuing your dreams, and knocking
down social barriers are prevalent and featured in the film as
well.
The voice acting of the movie is also fantastic. Wonderful performances
by Oswalt and Garofalo are further complimented by Peter O'Toole,
Sir Ian Holm, Brian Dennehy and comedian Brad Garret.
Ratatouille could have included a little bit more humor, but the
jokes and puns it does include are hilarious. This movie is not
to be confused as a film for children only. Being a 21-year-old
college student, I greatly enjoyed the humor and could hear laughter
from both the children and adults in the audience in between my
own bouts of laughter.
The food in the film was enjoyable to view as well, with great
detail taken to showcase the variety of dishes. My only regret
after seeing the movie was that I only had a frozen hamburger
thawing in my apartment for dinner.
Ratatouille is a great family film, but would also make for an
enjoyable time for anyone of any age. Though I would not call
Ratatouille a gourmet film, it was definitely worth my time and
left me wanting more.
If I was Jim, I would give Ratatouille a solid 3 out of 4Dyce.
|
