Comic-book films have become quite popular in this past decade with some examples being "Spider-Man", "X-Men", "Iron Man", and "Batman." But at the start of 2009, we started to see what I call "the next generation" of comic book movies ("The Book of Eli," "Watchmen," "Kick Ass"). The films I speak of are more unique, much different, and they show us heroes aren't the perfect people that some movies make them out to be. "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World," which stars the both funny and geeky Michael Cera is a good example.
Meet Scott Pilgrim (Cera), the 22 year old who is in a band named the Sex Bob-ombs (ode to Super Mario Bros) that isn't getting anywhere, is dating a 17 year old high school girl, and has to share a mattress with his gay roommate who most of the time has company. All around Scott doesn't have the best life...that is until he meets the magenta haired girl of his dreams. Say good-bye to the 17 year old and say hello to Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). When her and Scott begin to hang out, she seems to be pretty up tight about who she is and her past. That's because Ramona happens to have seven evil exes and soon Scott realizes that in order for him to date Ramona, he must defeat all of them. Most of the exes have some sort of power, while Scott just has his love for Ramona, but that just might be all he needs to win his battle (plus he has some awesome karate skills)
Being a lover of video games, my favorite thing in "Scott Pilgrim" and what makes it even more unique than probably any comic book film I've seen (almost all of them) is that it is made to look like you are watching a video game. This is demonstrated in popular music from video games, health bars on characters, extra lives, and even a pee bar when Scott uses the restroom. A fun example was at the start of the film where, instead of the traditional Universal Studios introduction, the intro moved and sounded as if it were in a Donkey-Kong game back from the 80's.
Along with the many video game references, my other favorite thing about "Scott Pilgrim" is the fight scenes. Like in video games, each fight begins with the camera panning out on each character and a "VS." shown in between them. "FIGHT! " is shown and each character dives into wonderful choreography of martial arts, sword fights, or just a classic fist fight. Of course the fights would not be complete without the many pows, crashs, and bams that are shown literally every time someone gets hit. Don't worry, "Scott Pilgrim" is not a bloody film; instead the bad guys explode into coins that give Scott bonus points.
Now don't think "Scott Pilgrim" is all about video games and fighting. The film also has plenty of laughs caused by the humorous Michael Cera who can never seem to get out of his usual funny/nerdy roles that he is famous for. It's almost seemed like anything he said made the crowd laugh but that can be attributed to his good timing and line delivery.
The single problem I found with "Scott Pilgrim" is that it is at times hard to follow because of it's very fast paced. Scenes flew by very quickly and I found it hard to process all that I was watching, The good thing was that this was only a problem at the start of the film. Besides that, the combination of video-game connections, comic-book style, action, laughs, and romance made "Scott Pilgrim" a very unique film that sets the standard for the new kind comic-book movie.
"Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" has a running time of 112 minutes and is rated PG-13 for stylized violence, sexual content, language and drug references.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Monday, August 9, 2010
The Other Guys
By now it is a known fact that when director and writer Adam McKay teams up with Will Farrell, a good comedy is about to be created. Together the two have brought us films like "Talladega Nights", "Anchorman", and "Step Brothers." Now the two have teamed up again, with the help of Mark Wahlberg, to bring us another memorable comedy about two very different cops who might be in way over their heads in, "The Other Guys."
When it comes to the N.Y.P.D., their are two cops who everyone wants to be and that is Highsmith and Danson (played by Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson respectively). When it comes to fighting crime, there is no one who can do a better job than these two and when it comes to fighting crime, no one would ever expect Allen Gamble and Terry Hoitz (Ferrell and Wahlberg) to succeed. Hoitz has a bad reputation from when he shot a baseball player during the World Series and Gamble...well he's just made fun of all the time. Soon the time comes when these two partners have the chance to take on their own case and have a chance at being taken seriously like Hoghsmith and Danson, but to do that they are going to have to learn to get along with themselves first.
In "The Other Guys" we are presented with two very different characters with very different personalities. On one side we have Ferrell's character who is very calm and is happy to do what he does which is sitting at his desk everyday doing paperwork. On the other side we have Wahlberg's character who is very anxious to get out of the office and do something exciting instead of sitting at his desk. He gets very angry with his partner who insists on not leaving and strives to redeem himself for the time he shot that baseball player. With the combination of Wahlberg's anger and seriousness and Ferrell's monotone humor and stupidity, the two make an enjoyable and amusing pair.
There is no doubt that "The Other Guys" is a very humorous film. The two leads do a great job of working together to create many laughs for the audience. With Ferrell as the classic dork/funnyman and Wahlberg as the straight man, both bring their personalities together that equal out to create a memorable team. Wahlberg, who is more known for roles in dramas and action films, works great as the straight man with his good timing, facial expressions, and funny reactions to anything stupid Farrell might say or do. Farrell would probably have to work harder to not be funny as his infamous monotone line delivery and stupidity he brings to many of his roles makes him one of the best in the comedic business.
"The Other Guys" is filled with laughs and gives us a brilliant comedy that no doubt surpasses early March's "Cop Out" (another cop comedy) and last week's "Dinner for Schmucks" making it one of the funniest films this year. I give it three stars out of four.
"The Other Guys" has a running time of 107 minutes and is rated PG-13 for crude and sexual content, language, violence and some drug material.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Dinner for Schmucks in a Nutshell
You know those comedies that come out every so often that, though very stupid, are hilarious? Some examples are "Napoleon Dynamite", "Nacho Libre", and the best of all..."Dumb and Dummer." Well "Dinner for Schmucks definitely fits in to that category. With the mix of Steve Carell's crazy character, his many mice-art collections, and an IRS worker who thinks he has the power of mind control, this movie conatins some of the weirdest, most random things that could all be together in a film. But, sometimes that's just what a good comedy needs.
When Tim (Paul Rudd) needs a promotion, his boss says that the only way he can get it is if he comes to a dinner. Now this is no ordinary dinner because each guest must bring someone that all the other guests can make fun of. For example: a lady who can talk to dead animals or someone that thinks his wife is a ventriloquist doll. Well when Tim meets Barry, who collects stuffed mice and puts them together in different scenes like "The Last Supper," Tim believes he has found his fool. But when he starts to spend a little more time with Barry, a friendship starts to grow and Tim might realize he was wrong about his new pal.
Bottom line...this film made me laugh almost the entire two hours. Slapstick comedy, funny lines, or just downright "so stupid it's funny" elements were scattered throughout the movie and it's probably one of the funniest films I've seen this year.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Charlie St. Cloud
By now most people in America have heard of the teen-heartthrob, Zac Efron. Since 2006, where he sang his way into fame with the immensely popular High School Musical series, Efron has been making his transition from the television screen to the silver screen and now in 2010 it is clear he is trying to be taken seriously as an actor from last years drama, "Me and Orson Wells" and the new, "Charlie St. Cloud."
If you have seen the trailers for this film you will already be expecting that it has the potential to be utterly depressing and this plot description isn't going to change your mind. The film starts with Charlie and Sam on the final stretch of a sail boat race in which the two win resulting in Charlie earning a scholarship to Stanford University. At the start of summer, Charlie makes a promise to his little brother saying that he will practice baseball with him everyday at sunset until he leaves for college. That night, Charlie and Sam are driving down the road when a drunk driver hits them into the intersection where a semi-truck collides with the car killing Sam. But for Charlie, Sam isn't dead, in fact when Charlie travels to the spot they practiced baseball, Sam is standing right in front of him. Sam reminds Charlie of the promise he made and they begin to practice everyday.
Five sad years later, Charlie has given up his scholarship and has been working at the graveyard near he and his brother's practice spot. Since he believes his brother is still alive, he occasionally talks to other dead friends as well. Every single day for the past five years Charlie has played baseball with Sam and can never seem to accept the truth that his brother is gone. Until he comes across a girl from his high school. Tess (Amanda Crew) also sailed in the race Charlie won and has continued to sail for the past five years. When Charlie sees Tess again he starts to feel like he might actually want to pursue her. But then a choice is given to Charlie...be bound to his dead brother, or be with Tess and finally learn to let go.
"Charlie St. Cloud" has two major flaws; it lacks depth and emotion. That's probably the flaw that the film doesn't want to have being that it is an EMOTIONAL drama. "Charlie St. Cloud" is one of those films designed to make you cry, I had no such feeling. The film did not do an impressive job of making me feel bad and sympathetic for Charlie. This is most likely because the film makers don't take the time to dive into Charlie's character to explain his emotions towards his problems (something of which I'm sure the book does a better job). Because of this, instead of feeling for Charlie, I found myself saying, "Wow, just get on with your life and let go." I went into "Charlie St. Cloud" hoping for an interesting story with intense character development and heart but I was let down.
The second flaw as a mentioned before is the lack of depth. The film fails to answer important questions like, why does Charlie choose to stay, why does he not want to move on, etc. Instead the film focuses more on the plot and moving the story along than on the meat and heart of the storyline.
Now everything about "Charlie St. Cloud" isn't bad. The premise itself is an interesting one along with some shocking plot twists. Thankfully Efron is a good actor because if this wasn't the case, the film would be a complete letdown. Efron has shown us in his past three films (including this one) that he is a talented actor that can pull off several different role types (musical, comedic, and dramatic). He is the biggest factor that keeps "Charlie St. Cloud" alive.
Efron is definitely trying to show the world that he can do more than just musicals (since his first four films were just that) but now its just a factor of choosing the right films in which to act. "Charlie St. Cloud" is not one of those films and though Efron gives it his all, the lack of depth and emotion in the script held him back from what could have been a terrific and even Oscar worthy performance. I give it one and a half stars out of four.
"Charlie St. Cloud" has a running time of 100 minutes and is rated PG-13 for language including some sexual references, an intense accident scene and some sensuality.
If you have seen the trailers for this film you will already be expecting that it has the potential to be utterly depressing and this plot description isn't going to change your mind. The film starts with Charlie and Sam on the final stretch of a sail boat race in which the two win resulting in Charlie earning a scholarship to Stanford University. At the start of summer, Charlie makes a promise to his little brother saying that he will practice baseball with him everyday at sunset until he leaves for college. That night, Charlie and Sam are driving down the road when a drunk driver hits them into the intersection where a semi-truck collides with the car killing Sam. But for Charlie, Sam isn't dead, in fact when Charlie travels to the spot they practiced baseball, Sam is standing right in front of him. Sam reminds Charlie of the promise he made and they begin to practice everyday.
Five sad years later, Charlie has given up his scholarship and has been working at the graveyard near he and his brother's practice spot. Since he believes his brother is still alive, he occasionally talks to other dead friends as well. Every single day for the past five years Charlie has played baseball with Sam and can never seem to accept the truth that his brother is gone. Until he comes across a girl from his high school. Tess (Amanda Crew) also sailed in the race Charlie won and has continued to sail for the past five years. When Charlie sees Tess again he starts to feel like he might actually want to pursue her. But then a choice is given to Charlie...be bound to his dead brother, or be with Tess and finally learn to let go.
"Charlie St. Cloud" has two major flaws; it lacks depth and emotion. That's probably the flaw that the film doesn't want to have being that it is an EMOTIONAL drama. "Charlie St. Cloud" is one of those films designed to make you cry, I had no such feeling. The film did not do an impressive job of making me feel bad and sympathetic for Charlie. This is most likely because the film makers don't take the time to dive into Charlie's character to explain his emotions towards his problems (something of which I'm sure the book does a better job). Because of this, instead of feeling for Charlie, I found myself saying, "Wow, just get on with your life and let go." I went into "Charlie St. Cloud" hoping for an interesting story with intense character development and heart but I was let down.
The second flaw as a mentioned before is the lack of depth. The film fails to answer important questions like, why does Charlie choose to stay, why does he not want to move on, etc. Instead the film focuses more on the plot and moving the story along than on the meat and heart of the storyline.
Now everything about "Charlie St. Cloud" isn't bad. The premise itself is an interesting one along with some shocking plot twists. Thankfully Efron is a good actor because if this wasn't the case, the film would be a complete letdown. Efron has shown us in his past three films (including this one) that he is a talented actor that can pull off several different role types (musical, comedic, and dramatic). He is the biggest factor that keeps "Charlie St. Cloud" alive.
Efron is definitely trying to show the world that he can do more than just musicals (since his first four films were just that) but now its just a factor of choosing the right films in which to act. "Charlie St. Cloud" is not one of those films and though Efron gives it his all, the lack of depth and emotion in the script held him back from what could have been a terrific and even Oscar worthy performance. I give it one and a half stars out of four.
"Charlie St. Cloud" has a running time of 100 minutes and is rated PG-13 for language including some sexual references, an intense accident scene and some sensuality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)