Real Movie Review-Movie Reviews, Movie Quotes, Movie Trivia

Director: Peter Berg

Starring: Will Smith, Charlize Theron, Jason Bateman, Jae Head, Eddie Marsan

What if a super-hero was also a hard drinker with anger management issues and nonexistent social skills whose crime-fighting choices often lead to heavy property damage and courtroom subpoenas? Director Peter Berg answers this original question in an action/drama/comedy starring box office hero, Will Smith who flexes his money-making muscles in an entertaining story with several laughs and a couple of innovative twists.

Will Smith is Hancock, a sullen alcoholic nursing hidden pain who would have been ignored as he slipped through the cracks like all too many of our unfortunate fellow citizens, except Mr. Hancock also happens to have Superman-like abilities and a reluctant but consistent habit of fighting crime and rescuing people, on his terms. This leads to an image problem that Ray Embry, played by a well-cast Jason Bateman, offers to help him with, as a thank you for saving his life. As he helps Hancock to try to get control of his life, he also invites the socially awkward Things may sound funny, simple and fun and they are, but the plot takes a couple sharp turns that while catching the viewers unawares, they are also a little hard to buy, but the whole thing is still fun.

Hancock is an interesting twist on the recent popular genre of comic book hero movies. Smith and Bateman show their considerable acting skill, as well as good chemistry, and do a commendable job with a creative script that packs one of the few real cinematic surprises of 2008.

Director: M. Night Shyamalan

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel, John Leguizamo, Ashlyn Sanchez, Betty Buckley.

Writer/director M. Night Shyamalan seems to have unfortunately become the Hollywood version of a brilliant rookie of the year winner, who slips into obscure mediocrity after. The Sixth Sense, his early masterpiece shot him to a level of prominence that he has been sadly unable to maintain. The Happening is ironically titled, since after the big hook at the beginning and some early developments, nothing happens. Shyamalan, who showed the courage to make a subtle, slow-paced film with Unbreakable, which I enjoyed a great deal, takes that tact here, as well, but he just does not give us enough. We learn little more about the either the phenomenon, or the characters that it is affecting after the first half hour. The story premise is imaginative, but seems like it was not sufficiently developed. The acting is pretty good, but sometimes the script has character actions that seem silly and forced, as it limps along to a fizzle of an ending.

Mark Wahlberg is Elliott, a calm, NYC high school teacher, who finds himself fleeing the Big Apple after people start dying (or killing themselves to be more accurate) in Central Park, and the strange psychological phenomenon starts popping up all over the city. He is accompanied by his wife, Alma (Zooey Deschanel), his friend, Julian (John Leguizamo), and Julian’s 8 year old daughter (how many times are we told that she‘s only 8?), Jess. As they and masses of others try to escape the city, they learn that the strange, lethal event is popping up all over the American northeast. What can they do? Where can they go? What is causing this?

The Happening has a great premise that seems like it was never properly finished, and a hasty script that feels lazy and slow, take what had the promise to be an interesting movie and turn it into a napping opportunity for insomniacs. There is an admirable theme of environmental respect, but its just not enough. We want something to happen, to watch this imaginative scenario unfold and be filled with dread, or wonder, or something. I guess I did get filled with wonder. I left wondering how a half-finished movie like this gets made.

Directors: Jon Hurwitz, Hayden Schlossberg

Starring: John Cho, Kal Penn, Rob Corddry, Neil Patrick Harris, Danneel Harris

This effort is the second installment in what is apparently becoming the new standard in stoner movies. Like it predecessors, Cheech and Chong and Half Baked, the Harold and Kumar movies have a very apparent central theme, pot makes everything funny. Although that may be true, unlike the others in this genre, this movie might even be funny if you are not fried!

John Cho and Kal Penn star once again as(in their only leading roles to date), straight laced, stick to the plan Harold Lee or Roldy and this is bullshit my dad is a tyrant, damn the man Kumar Patel. Two lovable also rans, who despite their very different personalities are best friends, probably because of their mutual adoration of ganja. The two decide to take a week off, Harold from his job at the bank and Kumar from whatever it is he does to pay for weed, and head to Amsterdam to meet a girl who is apparently (although it is never actually explained) Harold’s long distance girl friend and of course smoke weed. After some trouble at the security checkpoint the boys run into Kumar’s ex Vanessa played by Danneel Harris who is on her way to Texas to marry her new boyfriend in Texas. Obviously since he is from Texas he is the dream son in law for any parent, tall, handsome, rich and connected (and of course according to Kumar, a douche bag) While on the plane Kumar decides that he can’t wait for 6 hours to get his smoke on and busts out a smokeless Bong. Since the he is darker skinned but not African American or Mexican, he is already under suspicion and when he breaks out this strange contraption the has some kind of blinking light (i have seen a lot of bongs in my time and even i was not sure what this was) and rhymes with the word bomb, you can imagine what happens next. Thanks to an wildly over zealous Homeland security agent played by Rob Corddry and the patriot act, the boys are shipped off to G-bay with their only hope being Vanessa’s connected boyfriend in Texas.

This movie, unlike so many before it, surprised me in a good way. Having seen the first Harold and Kumar movie which centered around having the munchies, I had a pretty good idea of what to expect walking in. It would be filled with random scenes that have nothing to do with the story but have everything to do with what happens when you are stoned. It would also have some unexpected cameos that would be entertaining and perplexing. Moreover, it would be predicated on a story that is as thin as craft paper. This is all true but the difference with this movie is that the writers took the things that made the first one almost unwatchable and replaced them with more of the stuff that made the first one extremely funny. Now, I am not going to say that this is Forrest Gump because it isn’t and the story has some obvious holes (you might be able to park in a few of them) like sure it wasn’t a bomb, but they were still smoking pot on a plane!!! But taken for what it is, this movie has enough humor to keep you laughing. It also has some very funny political humor with it’s pokes at stereotypes. And like the first one, it has a great sequence with Neil Patrick Harris playing himself, you will never look at Doogie Howser the same way again. If you combine half baked with Jay and silent Bob strike back, you will get a decent idea of how this movie will feel when you try it on.

Director: Xavier Gens

Starring: Timothy Olyphant, Dougray Scott, Olga Kurylenko, Robert Knepper, Ulrich Thomsen, Michael Offei

Little known director Xavier Gens joins the auspicious club of directors whose career has been reduced to movies based on video games. As far as that sorry film genre goes, this effort is not bad. It offers plenty of imaginative slo-mo action and is thankfully sparing with the handheld scenes. The graphic violence is framed by a minimal story that is a blatant Bourne rip-off, that runs out of steam before they fun out of film. The dialog and characters are standard fare for the genre and the overall result may please action fans and few others.

Timothy Olyphant plays a cranium-tattooed man of few words who has been raised with a number (47) instead of a name to become part of a lethal Hair Club For Men, each of whom is yet another perfectly trained killer, blah, blah, blah. You know the story. It’s nothing new or innovative. However, this time out, something goes wrong, when the man whose brains he has blown out, turns out to still be alive. This somehow leads to a bunch of people trying to kill poor number 47, while he tries to figure out why the man he killed isn’t dead. He meets a girl (they always meet a girl), who helps him figure things out, and find a little humanity, while he’s leaving dead bodies all over the place.

Hitman is a run of the mill action film, that is long on body count and short on substance. If you like these high-energy shoot-em ups, then you will still find this to be a pleasant, but unmemorable motion picture, but if you have seen all the Bournes and the latest Jason Statham release, then i guess you have to watch something.

Director: Irwin Winkler

Starring: Samuel L. Jackson, Jessica Biel, Brian Presley, Curtis Jackson (50 Cent), Christina Ricci,

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a favorite condition for the characters in touching Hollywood dramas and we have seen former soldiers showing its effects on film many times. This is a well-acted drama from that genre, though, here there is a female soldier suffering after her return from combat. That is something new, at least. The story would have been better with fewer characters, with more development, and with a little more going on with them. The story is thin here.

An American unit is Iraq is scheduled to go home after a long tour, but before they pack their bags, they are sent on a humanitarian mission and get ambushed. It gets messy, and the survivors head home to deal with the loss, pain and guilt. Christina Ricci is wasted in a small, inconsequential role, but 50 Cent shows some ability in his second on-screen performance. Samuel L. Jackson is as talented as ever, and Jessica Biel continues to impress me, but there is just not enough to work with here and make this film stand out.

This idea has been done many times before and often finds its way to the podium at the Academy awards, but this film, as well crafted as it is, just made me depressed. Strictly for fans who pine for the return of such works as Born On The Fourth of July, and Coming Home. Its not as good as those Oscar winners, but it is cut from the same cloth.

Director: Rob Zombie

Starring: Malcolm McDowell, Brad Dourif, Tyler Mane, Scout Taylor-Compton, Daeg Faerch

Musician Rob Zombie is pretending to be a filmmaker, again. For all of our sakes, can’t he find a new hobby like golf, or something else where reviewers like myself aren’t obligated to observe his dismal efforts? This remake of John Carpenter’s 70’s suspenseful bloodfest, is just as gory, exploitive and utterly ridiculous, as the original, but lacks the style and craft that made Carpenter’s film a classic among the fans of grotesque movie killings. The acting ranges from mediocre to weak, and the story starts out as mildly interesting and gradually becomes strongly idiotic, though I did enjoy many of Zombie’s song choices.

The story here is close enough to the earlier version, to the best of my memory, except that Michael, as a prepubescent murderer (played by Daeg Faerch) is 10 years old, instead of 6. Young Michael is locked up for his misdeeds, which included killing off most of his family, and spends 15 years growing into a silent zombie-like mental giant, who hides behind countless masks, of his own construction. Eventually, he escapes (there’s a surprise!), and embarks on a yawning series of violent attacks, mainly on copulating teenage couples. He is of course drawn back to his old home, now abandoned in the same neighborhood, where his now teenage sister lives with a foster family, with no knowledge of her past.

Fans of slasher films of the 70s and 80s may find this to be a pleasant stroll down memory lane. The formula mix of blood, and opportunistic sex scenes, is as familiar as the regenerating one dimensional bad guys. If you enjoyed the remake of The Hitcher, earlier this year, then this one may be for you.

Director: Bobby Farrelly, Peter Farrelly

Starring: Ben Stiller, Malin Akerman, Michelle Monaghan, Jerry Stiller, Rob Corddry

This is the lastest in the trend of remaking classic movies with this generations hot stars and an updated edgier feel. Like many of their predecessors, the heartbreak kid and the Farrelly brothers prove that just because an idea was good in 1972, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will translate in 2007.

Ben Stiller plays Eddie Cantrow, a 40 year old single successful man with a serious fear of making the wrong decision when it comes to picking a wife. Because of this, he has a history of ending relationships with pretty good choices because he is not sure that they are his perfect match. He bumps into Lila one day (played by Malin Ackerman) while trying to be a good samaritan and help her retrieve her handbag from a purse snatcher. They start dating and soon after, unique events lead Eddie to be put in a position where he has to marry her or lose her. Prompted by his own fear that he is letting another winner slip away and the incessant digs from his father played by appropriately and believably by Jerry Stiller and constant coercing by his best friend Mac played by Rob Corddry, Eddie decides to take the plunge. Almost within minutes he realizes that it was not the correct decision.

Movies that involve the Farrelly brothers and movies that involve Ben Stiller usually run a pretty similar path, not everyone will like them and they will not winner a lot of Oscar’s but generally you can count on a couple of times per hour that you are in a full “belly laugh”. Now, those laughs are not always of the highbrow variety, they are often jokes involving strange noises, inappropriate sex or bodily fluids, but heartbreak had none of those moments. Well that isn;t entirely true, there were jokes about weird noises and inappropriate sex but they more disturbing than funny. Additionally, it just was so obvious that they were trying to mimic the successful formula of “There’s Something About Mary” (right down to using a female lead that could pass as Cameron Diaz at Cameron Diaz’s own family Christmas) that it was almost uncomfortable. Now, I can buy the idea that all “romantic comedies” have to have some sort of a “musical interlude”, fun activity montage to show how the relationship is developing, however, no movie goer should ever have to endure 2! The truth about Ben Stiller is the true heartbreak. As much as I really want to love his movies because I really like him in the right roles, unless he is surrounded by real talent, like the Deniros , Dillons and Robin Williams’ of the world, he cannot carry a movie.
Skip the 7 dollar ticket, go to 7-11 buy an extra big box of junior mints and a big gulp and go home. If you flip channels long enough you’ll probably find “There’s Something About Mary” on TBS.

MMM says:

The Farrelly brothers, who brought us such entertaining hits as There’s Something About Mary and, Dumb and Dumber, as well as junkers like Fever Pitch, are back at it with another disappointing Stiller film that is as hit and miss as a 70s sitcom. The premise is a little shaky to begin with, but they manage to hold it together and get an equal number of giggles and groans until the last half hour, which is as fun as a summer road trip through Iraq. It’s a mess and took away any generous feelings that I had toward the film. This film isn’t really much different than what we have come to expect from the always crude, and sometimes funny, Farrelly brothers, but I spent so much time grimacing in the last half hour that if felt like a dental appointment.

Ben Stiller is Eddie Cantrow, a sports store owner who feels like the only single man left in America when he meets a gorgeous mid-twenties good hearted dream girl, Lila, played by Swedish-born Malin Akerman. The pressure of circumstances, friends and his crude father, played real-life Pa, Jerry Stiller of Seinfeld fame, leads to a sudden wedding after six weeks of dating (during which time, Eddie apparently learned absolutely nothing about his bride-to-be). They set off on a Mexican honeymoon, during which Eddie learns that his beautiful, new bride is a sexual pretzel with attachment issues like a whiny puppy and a past with as many issues as a Nazi war criminal. Things get more complicated when he meets a smart, funny and beautiful lacrosse coach, Miranda, played by Michelle Monaghan. So what happens when you find your real true love while you are on your honeymoon? Can you say awkward? What ensues is an uneven story that unfolds like one of those sitcoms where the main character has two dates at once. The wheels fall off in the last half hour, but there is a ballsy, slightly non-formula ending.

The usual Farrelly brothers crowd will like this one. This crowd usually consists of the same adolescent minds that like Ben Stiller movies, but if you are not already a fan of these guys, then this one is sure not going to win you over.

Director: Richard Shepard

Starring: Terrence Howard, Richard Gere, Jesse Eisenberg, Ljubomir Kerekes

Richard Shepard wears the hats of both writer and director for his first major release. The story, which seems to be more or less true, is compelling, though the script is uneven. It builds tension well in several scenes, but drags through others. There is a real Eastern European authenticity here, though the ending is sudden, and only semi-satisfying. Gere handles his role with his usual natural skill and charisma, while Terence Howard continues on the path to becoming a familiar, and respected, star.

Terence Howard is Duck, a war zone cameraman with a daring, reckless partner, Simon, played by Richard Gere. When Simon has an on-air meltdown, they go their separate ways. Later, the upwardly mobile Duck runs into the down-and-out Simon in post-war Bosnia, and agrees to accompany him on a tip to a great news story about a missing war criminal known as The Fox (Kerekes). Soon, along with Benjamin, a rookie looking to prove himself, they are off to find The Fox, in areas where law and order don’t reach.

This is not a bad movie, here, and should appeal to would-be/wannabe journalists and conspiracy buffs, as well as fans of taut, realistic espionage. Its closest movie relatives would be flicks like Salvador or Syriana.

Director: Akiva Schaffer

Starring: Andy Samberg, Jorma Taccone, Bill Hader, Danny R. McBride, Isla Fisher, Sissy Spacek, Ian McShane, Will Arnett

This is the first big screen effort for director, Akiva Schaffer and star, Andy Samberg, both of whom are best known for their years on Saturday Night Live. This is silly even by SNL alumni standards. Still, it does generate some laughs, even if it is aimed at viewers somewhere around puberty level. The project is written with some kind of crazy symbiotic relationship to 80’s films including a montage spoofing a Footloose montage to the same song that its intended audience will never get, but I got a kick out of spotting those.

Andy Samberg is Rod Kimble, a lovable loser who is, without a doubt, the world’s worst stuntman and probably the only one that performs on a Moped. He does have a group of loyal friends who serve as his crew and a possible romance with girl-next-door, Denise (Fisher). When Rod’s hated step-father’s life is dependant on an expensive transplant, Kimble wants to perform the ultimate stunt to raise the money to save his life, just so he can have yet another chance (he has already had many)to beat the tough old guy (Ian McShane) in a fight and earn his respect. Its all nonsense, but some of the jokes work. Sadly, you can find Oscar winner, Sissy Spacek, in a small role as Rod’s mother. Hard to believe. I hope it was a good payday.

This will have the junior high boys all over the world rolling in the aisles with its physical Jackass-style humour. The shame is that its extensive 80s references will be lost on that crowd. SNL fans and lovers of Hollywood’s most basic comedies will find this effort to their taste. Despite the occasionally pleasing 80’s spoofs, I can’t, in good conscience, thow it out there as one of my picks. Catch if for free on TV one day.

Director: David Yates

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Gary Oldman, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Imelda Staunton, Michael Gambon, Matthew Lewis, Evanna Lynch.

It’s here! It’s here! With the long awaited book #7 on the verge of release, Harry Potter mania was at frenzy level when this movie, based on book #5 was released. It may be the adolescent girl in me, but I am a Potter fan. I have read all the books (okay, okay, yes, more than once) and book 5 is my favorite, so my expectations may have been a tad high going into this one, but this is the weakest of the Potter movie efforts, thus far. Although, still an enjoyable film, the editor’s knife was a little sharp here. Although, it is already just over two hours, this is the longest Potter book and has been made into the shortest Potter movie. The result, in some spots, are short, almost choppy scenes that seem more suited to the trailer than the main feature. If Yates had put in another half hour or so, this effect may have been eliminated. The story is good, however, and the young cast is improving. The effects are good but also missing are the slow tacking shots that gave Hogwarts much of its wonder.

Harry, Hermione and Ron are all back and times at Hogwarts are hard. The Ministry For Magic is denying the return of evil incarnate, Lord Voldemort, and is out to discredit both Harry and Dumbledore who is played by Michael Gambon, like he has never read the Potter books. The Adult characters have formed a secret society (The Order of The Phoenix) to combat Voldemort’s followers, the Death Eaters, while Harry and friends prepare to defend themselves in these dangerous times, and battle against the new ministry-approved (and anti-Harry and Dumbledore), Hogwarts presence, Delores Umbridge (played very well by Staunton), by forming a secret defense against the dark arts club. The characters are getting older and teenage romance is here, as well. it is in these areas that Yates seemed to want to save the most time, and his method is the use of montages and short, quickly cut scenes. This hurts the end product, but it is difficult for me to gauge how this affects non-Potter readers’ ability to follow the story.

Potter fans will support this film, of course, and enjoy seeing another book brought to life on the big screen. The story here is darker and more about conflict than mystery. The growing numbers of characters compete for screen time, but it’s still an entry in a top-notch fantasy adventure series. I’m sure that many of the legions of Potter fans will take issue with any criticism and I certainly have been critical here. This is still a good movie. I just can’t help thinking how much better it could have been.