Makootz's Movie Review Site

Review #199 - The Debt

2011-09-11T18:42:00.000-07:00

A bit of casting problem but other than that, a classic, well written spy drama

The Debt (2011), Rated-R, 104min

In 1997, retired Mossad secret agents Rachel (Helen Mirren) and Stephan (Tom Wilkinson) find out about their former teammate, David (Ciarán Hinds)'s death. All three have been praised for decades by their country because of the mission that they took back in 1966, when they (portrayed by Jessica Chastain, Marton Csokas, and Sam Worthington) hunt down Nazi war criminal Vogel (Jesper Christensen) in East Berlin. The team's mission was accomplished successfully...except there is a big secret that those three only know about...

It is nice to see a film like The Debt, a classic, serious spy thriller. Sometime it's fun to watch action packed spy thrillers such as Jason Bourne series or say something like Mission Impossible. But sometime those movies can't beat the seriousness and the heaviness of real spy thriller...like The Debt.

The Debt is serious, can be graphic time to time and is definitely dark. But all those pieces are necessary in order to create that thrilling spy atmosphere from Cold War period - hunt or be hunted. In addition to this great thrilling atmosphere The Debt provides to audiences, the film also shows emotional sides of each character. The film portrays spies' lonely, desperate, sad life overseas so well that it adds another layer of seriousness to the core storyline.

Although the movie switches back and forth between now and 1960s, I would say that the movie is really consist of two main parts. One is lead by Helen Mirren and the others - what the retired spies are doing now, and the other part is lead by Jessica Chastain and the others - young spies on their mission in East Berlin. That being said, if I have to name one negative thing from this movie, then that will be casting. Because of this nature of the film (time-shifting, kind of like TV show, LOST), you see young Rachel and old Rachel back and forth....eventually you end up comparing those two. And the thing is, both of actresses give fantastic acting in this film but....they don't quite match well together. What I mean by that is, is Helen Mirren really a good choice (so as the other characters) for aged Rachel (portrayed by Chastain)? I am not sure. Putting their acting performance aside, if we focus visually more, then I would say...they could have come up with better casting for each character, either young version or old version of each.

Other than that, The Debt is a rare spy thriller you get to watch, especially now days. It is smart, well written and is powered by great acting. If you are looking for a serious movie to watch and want to be satisfied, The Debt will be a great pick!

Overall grade: B+

Review #198 - Insidious

2011-09-04T10:52:00.000-07:00

A new concept but silly haunted house style movie

Insidious (2011), PG-13, 102min

A family moves into an old house and begins to think that there is something wrong with the house when their young son inexplicably falls into a deep coma. Josh (Patrick Wilson) and Renai (Rose Byrne) struggle to uncover the root cause of their son's condition, they start to discover some truths as they experience paranormal activities around the house...

Insidious is based on this new concept of paranormal activity...which I have never seen (in other movies) or heard of before. I don't want to give any spoiler for those of you who haven't seen it yet but it's basically a concept that, some people can "detach" their spirit from their physical bodies and can travel around....and that causes many paranormal activities including getting haunted by evil ghosts...etc

I guess, if you are interested in paranormal activities, then you might be familiar with this concept. That being said, at least from movie point of view, it is fresh and intriguing. And I think the director and the actors did fine job to visualize this new concept - I don't have any problem with that.

The problem is that Insidious forgot what the horror movie is supposed to be. The horror movie is supposed to scare people, correct? Your flesh skin is supposed to crawl, you are horrified, frightened...you name it. And that's exactly Insidious fails to do so. Yea, conceptually speaking, it is fresh and interesting to watch but in this current movie industry where there are simply too many horror flicks (both good and bad) and many of them tend to follow same style/format now days...Insidious is nothing special and it also bring some silliness to your home. There are some "creepy" scenes but that's about it - it gets dumber and dumber as it goes. Visually speaking, it really gets disappointing as the movie goes on. When the movie is powered by all those silly visuals, the concept itself starts to look more stupid as well. So, I'm not going to lie, after I finished watching this movie, all I got was "wow, that was stupid movie" rather than "wow, I won't be able to sleep tonight".

Nonetheless, I would say that Insidious is slightly above average horror flicks, so if you are searching for a new horror movie to watch, it maybe worth a try. However, I can promise you, if you are experienced horror movie watcher like myself and looking for the "real" horror movie, Insidious is far, far away from being satisfactory .

Overall grade: C

Review #197 - Rise of the Planet of the Apes

2011-08-31T20:48:00.000-07:00

More CGI ape actions, less human dialogues.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011), PG-13, 120min

During scientific/medical experiments to find a cure for Alzheimer's disease, a genetically enhanced chimp uses its developed intelligence to lead other apes to...freedom

This one will be a hard one to review. Right off the bat, I will tell you this: despite all those positive reviews it got, I honestly thought it was "okay" movie. Don't get me wrong, it is a good movie and probably, one of good entertaining films of this summer but it isn't a super-fabulous movie. I'm a bit surprised that it got many positive reviews from critics.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (RPA) is nothing close to what we saw in many years ago. There are no ape suits! There are no cheap, fake sets! It's all about next generation CGI effects. In fact, apes and chimps (all other kinds of monkeys you see in this film) look all super realistic that the film will definitely give you "whoa" factor. It is smooth, realistic and natural. I know our CGI technology got advanced but comparing to those old, classic Planet of the Apes movies? RPA can't be even compared.

Now, there are some good actors in this movie, mainly James Franco (and maybe John Lithgow). But as far as I saw, there weren't much of those "human dialogues", rather 80% of the movie is probably made of monkey-talking and monkey gestures...etc So bottom line is this, although the movie seems to deliver some important lessons/messages (don't harm weaker ones, be nice to animals, family love...etc) but this movie doesn't probably require much of actual "acting" to deliver those messages anyway because it is all about...apes. It starts with apes and it ends with apes. Franco is more like a sidekick rather than he is the leading actor (on a paper, yes he is - you can't really name CGI created chimp a leading actor, can you?)

In terms of story, it is very straightforward and pretty much explains everything how the planet of the apes starts. If you feel like the movie doesn't explain much..etc, then you are definitely thinking too much and asking too much from this movie. After all, please remember it is "Planet of the Apes" franchise - we all know how the series goes from previous films. I would say that it is better not to expect something very precise, clear to understand from this movie (or series in general).

Nonetheless, RPA is a fun, entertaining summer blockbuster that many people can enjoy. Splendid CGI effects, engaging story, good tempo...and doesn't destroy good old the Planet of Apes movies from the past.

Overall grade: B

Review #196 - Paper Man

2011-08-31T19:17:00.000-07:00

Good performance but horrible story.

Paper Man (2009), Rated-R, 110min
Richard (Jeff Daniels) is a novelist who still talks to his imaginary friend, Captain Excellent (Ryan Reynolds). As he struggles to write his new book, Richard decides to move to a house near the beach for the winter season. There, Richard meets 17-year-old Abby (Emma Stone) and hires her as a weekly babysitter, even though he has no children. Their friendship soon becomes more complicated as Richard's and Abby gets closer and closer. However, the two must face the reality of their lives, with Abby standing up to her boyfriend and Richard dealing his marriage and bidding goodbye to Captain Excellent once and for all...

Ok. Paper Man. It is a semi-indie film with pretty good casting line up - Jeff Daniels, Ryan Reynolds, Emma Stone, Lisa Kudow...etc. Speaking of casting, Ryan Reynolds is basically an accessory to this film, he doesn't make any significant impact....and honestly, it didn't make any different if "Captain Excellent" is performed by someone else. So don't get excited about Ryan Reynolds (which I did unfortunately...), the movie focuses much more on Jeff Daniel and Emma Stone.

Speaking of Daniel and Stone, they are bread and butter of this movie. They are the main driven forces, their interactions, dialogues and chemistry are main assets and strengths of the film. That being said, their acting performance is above average - they really do have this "odd" chemistry to get this movie going. Usually we see Emma Stone in high school/teenagers dramas and we know exactly how she performs in those environments. So it is interesting to see Stone in this type of indie film (although her role is a high school teenager) and how she reacts/performs with the older actors. And I think she did just fine and like I said, her honest performance (powered by Jeff Daniel) is one of the reasons why this movie is watchable.

Now what makes this movie bad? Well, other than Jeff Daniel and Emma Stone's pretty strong performance (and semi-good casting), Paper Man is directionless, loses its point, is not polished enough....and it's very flat as it gets to the ending. I understand that the director was probably trying to create this sad, depressive emotional environment of lonely writer but there seems to be no ups and downs. It is almost like you are watching a documentary film of lonely writer who doesn't do much other than talking awkwardly. Yea, if that's the point of movie/character development, then I get it but nonetheless, it is too flat overall, it loses your interest very quickly. As for the ending, it answers some questions but many of them are not...and the way it ended the film is mediocre comparing to its progression.

Overall, I would say that Paper Man is less than mediocre indie film. If you are Emma Stone fan, then it may not hurt to check it out...other than that, I suggest you to pass it.

Overall grade: D

Review #195 - Captain America: The First Avenger

2011-08-10T18:04:00.000-07:00

Better than Thor.

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011), PG-13, 121min

Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) volunteers to participate in an experimental program that changes him into the super soldier known as Captain America. Steve joins forces with Colonel Chester Phillip (Tommy Lee Jones) and Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) to find and destroy the evil HYDRA organization...

I am not sure if I were right on this but I assume this is the last installment before they make The Avengers movie next year. They so far got many of the major characters (i.e. Iron Man, Thor, Hulk...etc) and now, it's Captain America's turn. The movie explains how "Captain America" was created (just like other installments) and also explains how the guy from 1940s still looks like...well, a guy from 1940s.

Overall, I have to say that Captain America is definitely better than Thor in terms of the quality and completion of the film. It has more retro feeling (by default) and that actually helps to make this movie more refreshing comparing to the other super hero films. Like I said, in terms of the storyline, it is exactly the same as the other ones - so although it's based on different time period, you can pretty much expect whats coming. That being said, it is interesting to see how Captain America tries to differentiate itself from others...other than using "retro feeling".

One factor is that Captain America is more than a super hero film. If you actually remove those super hero elements from this movie, it is basically a love story between a young man and woman during the war period. It is about the little man who has no talents or skills but eventually romantically involves with his crush by being "genuinely nice". And if you consider this as a love story, its sad ending also helps to generate some sentimental moment and creates a nice dramatic flow.

Nonetheless, be aware that there are some cheesy scenes and you might feel little silly watching the movie. But, remember, it is a comic book based movie and it tries to follow what's on the comic book - if you think that way, Captain America won't make you feel any more silly than reading the actual comic.

As a summer blockbuster, super hero film, Captain America definitely beats Thor and will give you similar satisfaction to X-Men: First class (in a good way). The casting lineup is decent, the story is well written - it's one good comic based movie to watch.

Overall grade: B

Review #194 - The Adjustment Bureau

2011-08-07T18:01:00.000-07:00

Starts out strong....ends with silliness.

The Adjustment Bureau (2011), PG-13, 99min

When he is about to win seat in the U.S. Senate, a politician David Norris (Matt Damon) meets beautiful ballet dancer Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt). But mysterious men try to keep the two apart. David learns he is up against the men of The Adjustment Bureau--who will do everything to prevent David and Elise from being together. Now David must either let her go and accept a predetermined path...or risk everything to be with her...

The Adjustment Bureau is a psychological thriller-romance starring Matt Damon and Emily Blunt. It's based on a short sci-fi story. From what I saw, it was a bit of The Box (Cameron Diaz) and a bit of Butterfly Effect (Ashton Kutcher). It's basically about a man and a woman trying to be together but there is this "thing" preventing them from being together. It may or may not sound typical to you. Nonetheless, its premise is strong, so it should be interesting enough for you to stick with it (at least, you will want to know how this movie will end).

Like my first line suggests, The Adjustment Bureau starts out strong - it's interesting and somewhat addictive. It makes you feel you want to know David Norris' Fate...it is similar to the sense you get from The Box (hopefully, you do), you want to know that the box is so bad. Now. It starts out strong but slowly it gets..."meh". I understand that it is supposed to be a romance movie rather than straight-up psychological thriller but the film becomes really unbalanced as it gets to the ending. It tries to focus more on romance factor, thus the movie roughly covers and tries to explain how this "adjustment bureau" works - there will be lots of unexplained "why"s "hows" and "what"s after you finish watching it. Acting wise, you probably don't have to worry about it but it isn't the best you will see. Matt Damon and Emily Blunt seem to be working well together but other than that, there is nothing special - ok overall acting, ok supporting actors/actresses.

Overall, The Adjustment Bureau is an okay movie. Of course, it somewhat depends on which aspect of the movie you would like to focus more - is it romance aspect? psychological thriller aspect? Or sci-fi aspect? I hate to see a movie starts out strong and has fairly strong premises but...loses momentum, gets off balanced and ends weak.

Overall grade: C

Review #193 - Gulliver' Travel

2011-08-03T17:43:00.000-07:00

Jack Black fails.

Gulliver's Travels (2010), PG-13, 85min

A mailroom clerk, Lemuel Gulliver (Black) discovers an island in the heart of the Bermuda Triangle where he is the biggest occupant in comparison to its tiny inhabitants...

So this modern remake version of Gulliver's Travels with Jack Black...happens to be a failure. It's very lazy and poorly directed/written/produced. I don't think it's Jack Black's fault but all you see is a typical Black unleashing himself in usual manner...and keeps failing. The movie starts out in somewhat good way (I'm talking about before Black gets lost in Bermuda Triangle) but once Black is discovered by tiny people, that's when non-stop failure begins. The movie has lots of unnecessary jokes and plays...and at some point you feel speechless because they aren't even funny.

The biggest disappointment is this movie's take on modern Gulliver's Travels. If by any mean, Star Wars, Transformers like robot, 24, Titanic, Ipod, Guitar Hero are definitions of modernity, then the director/producer/writer all failed to create a movie. It is just so dumb to see Gulliver playing Guitar Hero...or tiny people watching Start Wars...etc. I mean, it can be sometime "cute" but most of the times, it's just plain bad. And if this is the modern interpretation of Gulliver's Travel, then I would call it a complete disaster.

Having Emily Blunt, Jason Segel, Amanda Peet also doesn't help this movie to be rescued either. Their scripts are so cheesy and poorly written, thus they actually help to accelerate the failure with Jack Black's silliness...

So the bottom line is this: if you are looking for some time to waste, wait this movie to come on TV someday, sometime in the future...other than that, it is so horrible that there isn't really a good reason to check it out. Stay away from this junk.

Overall grade: F

Review #192 - And Soon the Darkness

2011-08-03T17:20:00.000-07:00

Re-make of bad thriller stays bad.

And Soon the Darkness (2010), Rated-R, 91min

Stephanie (Amber Heard) and Ellie (Odette Yustman) are traveling in Argentina. After a long night of bar-hopping, the girls get into an argument, and Stephanie heads out alone in the morning to cool off. But when she returns, Ellie has disappeared. Finding signs of a struggle, Stephanie turns to the police for help but the local police has no interest in helping her...

This is a kind of movie that you see very limited amount of time at the very local small theater and a week after, you see it on DVD. And there is a reason for that. Mainly because...it is bad.

And Soon the Darkness is so dull, boring, flat, no surprises...it keeps falling and falling a moment when it starts. First of all, the movie is way predictable - I just can't remember particular names but I definitely have seen movies which got almost exact format. 2 girls traveling somewhere in south American by themselves and they get captured by kidnappers/organ sellers/murderers...you name it, yea sure, I have seen it, you have seen it. And Soon the Darkness is exactly like that.

Now, let's talk about Odette Yustman. Honestly, she's becoming my new unfavorite actress very quickly. I even started think that any movie with Yustman is just plain bad. She can't act, her characters are always bitchy, whining college girl (or some sort) - her acting constantly gets my under skin and I get totally annoyed by her. Although she is almost invisible in this movie (also she dies quicker than I expected), she still brings her usual quality to the movie, thus it automatically becomes "bad".

As for Amber Heard, she is "Amber Heard" - better than Yustman but she is nowhere close to be a lead actress...at least, yet (but she is in this movie, so you can guess the outcome). She brings nothing bright or impressive - only brings typical "whatever" B-movie acting material. And as for Karl Urban, he is almost like a cameo and doesn't really exist in the movie, so there is nothing to talk about.

Overall, And Soon the Darkness is a bad thriller....scratch that, it's a bad movie. It's not thrilling, scary, interesting...it's just bad. IF you are looking for a good thriller or horror movie, I suggest you to stay away from this!

Overall grade: F

Review #191 - The King's Speech

2011-07-31T17:54:00.000-07:00

Colin. Firth.

The King's Speech (2010), Rated-R, 111min

After the death of his father King George V and the scandalous abdication of King Edward VIII (Guy Pearce), Bertie (Colin Firth) who has suffered from a debilitating speech impediment all his life, suddenly became King George VI of England. With his country on the brink of war , his wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), schedules her husband to see a speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush)...

I totally underestimated The King's Speech. Before I saw this movie (finally), I was aware of how many academy ward it won and it was supposed to be the best film of 2010, I knew that. So many critics gave splendid reviews and I heard so many good things about this film. But somehow...I wasn't that interested in watching it. It took me long time to actually put myself into a situation where I decided to watch The King's Speech. It could have been because of how it looks serious/dark/depressing/boring/classic. I don't know.

Anyhow, The King's Speech. You can say that the movie is predictable - it is about the king who regains his speech ability. It is true but I would say that you don't have to worry too much about its predictability. The King's Speech has lots more to offer you. One of the strengths will be its cinematic atmosphere. It is very detailed, beautifully crafted and authentic - it is almost like watching BBC/HBO documentary series on King George VI. And this great atmosphere is powered by well calculated tempo, smart dialogues and great soundtracks (including Beethoven's 7th Symphony 2nd movement, which by the way, perfectly fits to the scene).

But the major driving force of this movie comes from acting. Colin Firth totally steals the show. His acting as King George VI who tries to overcome speech impediment as he faces nation's crisis....is very powerful. Colin Firth's acting in this film is by far his best acting in many many years (or maybe simply the best). It's very genuine and smart - kind of acting that attracts the audiences although his speech can by choppy because of speech impediment.

The King's Speech isn't a casual film but it is a well written, directed piece that everyone should check it out. In order to tackle this rather a difficult topic, the director mixed a bit of comedy into historical drama. The last scene where Firth gives the nation a speech is absolutely powerful and dramatic, you will be emotionally aroused!

Overall grade: A

Review #190 - The Fighter

2011-07-30T17:50:00.000-07:00

A great movie about family.

The Fighter (2010), Rated-R, 111min

Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) is a boxer whose career in the ring was shepherded by his brother, Dicky (Christian Bale) -- an ex-boxer whose career in the ring was nearly sent down for the count due to drugs and crime -- Micky rebounds from a series of defeats and problems to win both the WBU Intercontinental Lightweight title and the WBU Light Welterweight title...

Ok The FIghter. A highly acclaimed, reviewed academy award winning movie (Best supporting actor & actress in 2010). There are so many boxing movies before and some of them are very famous and some of them are just typical sports flicks. So I was very curious to see if what the critics have been saying is truth - if the Fighter can actually fulfill the expectations.

First thing I want say about the Fighter is that it is more about a family bonding/relationship rather than a story about one boxer winning the championship. Don't get me wrong, it is about Micky Ward winning his WBU championship and it has plenty of boxing scenes but its main focus will be family drama - what personal issues Micky Ward went through, brotherhood, relationship with his mother, step dad, girlfriend....etc

I would say that the major strength of this movie is this good balance between family drama and actual boxing scenes. It's not a typical sports flick which you get to see a main character winning all the way to the championship. It is not. If you are looking for a typical sports flick, The Fighter may not be the perfect fit for you, just because the amount of the actual boxing scene it got may not be good enough. Needless to say, it has such a good balance, The Fighter is something both audiences (audience who is looking for a typical one and an audience who is looking for a good drama) can enjoy.

The acting is something you shouldn't worry about. Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Melissa Leo...etc all gave splendid acting performance -- and that is another strength of this movie. Although the movie goes with a good tempo, I would personally prefer to be a bit shorter.

The Fighter is an entertaining, satisfying film from the beginning to the end. It is thrilling, inspirational and dramatic at the same time. If you are simply looking for a "good movie" to watch, then the Fighter will do the job. If you, on the other hand, looking for an inspirational sports flick/family drama, the Fighter also works well!

Overall grade: A

Review #189 - Black Swan

2011-07-27T01:57:00.000-07:00

Intense, wild psychological thriller.

Black Swan (2010), Rated-R, 108min

Nina (Portman) is a ballerina in a New York City ballet company whose life is completely consumed with dance. She lives with her mother Erica (Barbara Hershey) who supports her daughter's ambition. When the director Thomas (Vincent Cassel) decides to replace prima ballerina Beth (Winona Ryder) for their new season, Swan Lake, Nina becomes his first choice. But Nina has competition: a new dancer, Lily (Kunis), who impresses Leroy as well....

It really does make sense how Black Swan became Oscar contender. It is well written, directed and acted out. As a movie, Black Swan offers a rare complete package to the audience.

To be honest, before I saw this movie, I wasn't much interested and also was skeptical about this movie. It sounded "heavy", "dark" and a bit boring. It's not that i don't like (I actually do like) serious, heavy, dark movies but a movie about ballerina's life didn't sound much interesting to me. Well, I was wrong. Black Swan is intriguing in a weird way. Once it starts, it sucks the audience deeper and deeper into this black ballerina world. Just like listening to Tchaikovsky's ballet, Black Swan progresses with a good tempo and it doesn't stop until the "dance" is over.

Although the story sounds complicated, it is actually simple - it is based on Good Vs. Evil concept. It is all about Natalie Portman's psychosocial world - her evil/dark side tries to take her over as she pursues her definition of perfection as an elite ballet dancer. It is a bit similar to what "Fight Club" did to Edward Norton. Speaking of Portman, She completely stole the show. Yea, Kunis and other supporting actors are strong in this film but Black Swan is all about Natalie Portman. Portman honestly hasn't been this good since maybe...Leon the Professional. Her acting is emotional, naive, rich...really fuels this movie to the exact direction they want to take. Portman successfully displays this complicated, weird, crazy ballerina competition world

Black Swan isn't a regular psychological thriller you see. It is a rare kind - it explores a character's psychological state very well and it gets addictive to see how story and characters develop. It isn't an easy film to watch and it certainly isn't a casual pick that everyone can enjoy. However, its experience is visually and psychologically rich, it's definitely worth watching.

Overall grade: A

Review #188 - Sucker Punch

2011-07-24T21:00:00.000-07:00

It Sucks.

Sucker Punch (2011), PG-13, 120min

A young girl, Babydoll (Emily Browning) is institutionalized by her abusive stepfather. She has been locked away against her will but Babydoll is determined to fight for her freedom, she urges 4 other young girls-- Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jena Malone), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens) and Amber (Jamie Chung) --to stick together and try to escape a terrible fate at the hands of their captors, before the mysterious High Roller (Jon Hamm) comes for Babydoll...

Let's start with positive sides. Sucker Punch is visually stunning. You will see lots of cool CGIs, graphics, images...whatever you name it. You get all that. Other than visual effects, honestly, I liked its concept. A girl has been locked in mental asylum and the movie revolves around her imagination and dark reality. So, conceptually and story wise, Sucker Punch was at least interesting.

Ok. Now let's talk about negative sides - why this movie sucks. Speaking of visuals, yea I said they are impressive and they are indeed one of the positives but now days, those visual effects aren't that impressive. You have seen them before - nothing special. It's not like Sucker Punch got something completely different and will blow your mind away. No. Is it something close to what Avatar offers? Nope. Sucker Punch just got stylish, semi-artisic visual...and that's really about it.

The movie is mainly about gun/sword/corset fantasy. It is pointless and directionless. You get to see a bunch of girls wearing short, tight outfits, blasting firearms ...they communicate via cheesy, dumb dialogues. For those of you who like sex and violence, Sucker Punch might not be a bad choice but...other than that, Sucker Punch is ridiculous, incoherent and dull. Although the main concept sounds interesting and original, the entire movie is a collection of scenes from other movies/video games/tv shows...etc Sucker Punch actually does start out quite well - it reminds me of Zach Snyder's other films such as 300 and Watchmen but soon, it gets out of control and becomes "teenage boys' wet fantasy dream". Characters and plots get weaker and weaker as the movie goes on.

At least you don't have to worry about acting because it doesn't really exist.

On a bright side, Sucker Punch isn't the worst movie out there. Certainly there are much worse movies than Sucker Punch. It got good visuals and it seems like its production design isn't bad (if you care). Nonetheless, it will be a tough pick if you are simply looking for a movie to watch over the weekend with friends, family...etc. Just remember, there isn't much more than visual effects!

Overall grade: D-

Review #187 - Unknown

2011-07-21T01:05:00.000-07:00

A Weak ending.

Unknown (2011), PG-13, 113min

Dr. Martin Harris (Liam Neeson) wakes up after a car accident in Berlin to discover that his wife (January Jones) suddenly doesn't recognize him and another man (Aidan Quinn) has taken his identity. Ignored by German authorities and hunted by assassins, Martin tries to get his identity back. Aided by a cab driver, Gina (Diane Kruger), Martin tries to uncover the truth...

Liam Neeson really does like this type of suspense, thriller movie. And I don't know if it's just me or not, I feel like I always see him in Europe getting chased by some sketchy guys and trying to fight back. If you know what I'm talking about and you have felt the same way before...then Unknown will be just another typical Neeson film. Only this time, they try to throw in some surprising elements, EXCEPT they don't work quite well and the movie gets weaker and weaker as it goes on.

Ok. Let's go over some details. First of all, the casting. Like I said, Neeson is...Nesson. Nothing more or less. Whether you like his acting or not, he should match your expectation. What makes this movie waker/mediocre is the use of other actors. It was obvious that the director could not fully utilize this, somewhat gorgeous casting lineup (January Jones, Diane Kruger, Aidan Quinn, Frank Langella). I felt like all the characters in this film were limited. The movie tended to rush through, thus it did not explore each character with much details. For instance, Diane Kruger could have been much stronger "side kick" and she could have added some interesting depths to the story - instead, the movie turned her into a "okay" female character, nothing that special. I wouldn't say that the movie totally wasted the talents they got but those talented actors nearly got wasted.

Other than the casting, its storyline is another factor that makes this film mediocre. Like I said earlier, it tried to throw in some surprising elements as it gets near to the ending (surprising climax). So that, people will not be able to guess why or how Liam Neeson lost his "identity". The problem is that it isn't really surprising or anything, rather, it is disappointing. I don't want to spoil it, so I won't tell exactly what it is but...the impression I got after I found out Neeson's secret was...disappointment. I was like, "what? really? this is what they were saving it for 100min?" I wouldn't say it was guessable but it was really weak "secret" to be revealed. Needless to say, when the secret fails, it really isn't a good suspense/thriller anymore.

Unknown isn't entirely bad or anything but it is definitely a mediocre thriller if you are expecting something good. It may not be a bad choice if you need some movie to watch over the weekend but....if you like thrillers, don't expect anything that great!

Overall grade: C

Review #186 - Fair Game

2011-07-20T02:52:00.000-07:00

Great great political thriller!

Fair Game (2010), PG-13, 106min

It is based on Valerie Plame's memoir. When her cover was blown by the Bush administration, Val Plame (Naomi Watts) was on a covert mission in Iraq for evidence of WMD as part of the CIA's Counter-Proliferation Division. Her husband, American diplomat Joe Wilson (Sean Penn) was trying to verify a claim that the Iraqis had recently purchased "yellowcake" from Niger when the White House began to prepare for the invasion. When Joe wrote an editorial in The NY Times stating the truth about Niger, his wife's cover as a CIA covert operative was blown. This incident not only put Val's career in jeopardy, but also left her various contacts overseas in a dangerous position...

Just like he successfully directed Jason Bourne movies (Identity and Ultimatum), the director Doug Liman did it again - Fair Game is very intriguing, well-directed...it is a great political thriller that you can find in recent years.

The story is obviously based on Valerie Plame's incident back in early 2000s and it is based on her memoir. Unfortunately I have never actually read her book before I watched this movie but let me tell you this, after I saw this movie, Fair Game really made me want to read her memoir and get full details. And I don't get that kind of feeling that often. I may read the original book before I check out the movie IF i'm really into a certain film. I usually don't (most likely) read the book...especially after I check out the film. Surprisingly, Fair Game made me want to check out the book - so you can tell how much I got excited.

Usually, people (including myself) try to avoid political thrillers unless they like those. Political thrillers tend to be difficult, boring, slow, too serious..etc Unless you are into those "subjects", it's possible that people relate some negative aspects. Nonetheless, Fair Game is a different case. It is similar to Bourn Identity, it has good, consistent tempo, is thrilling, realistic/believable and finally, it got great actors. Because of the subject, Fair Game might be too "heavy" for some audiences but comparing to the other political thrillers, you shouldn't get tired from watching it because its story keeps rolling and it does great job getting your attention. More importantly (this might be just my personal preference), it is just interesting that you really shouldn't get bored!

Naomi Watts and Sean Penn bring their "A" game to this film. Their serious, dramatic acting makes Fair Game more than a political thriller - it is also a family/human drama.

If you are looking for a good political thriller - then there is no reason for you not to watch it. If you are looking for a good movie to watch - then there is also no reason for you not to watch it. I would say, Fair Game is a win-win movie for many people out there, so I strongly recommend to check it out.

Overall grade: A

Review #185 - Morning Glory

2011-07-19T17:01:00.000-07:00

A neat comedy.

Morning Glory (2010), PG-13, 102min

When TV producer Becky Fuller (Rachel McAdams) is fired from a local news program, her career begins to become hopeless. Getting a job at "Daybreak", Becky decides to revitalize the show by bringing on legendary TV anchor Mike Pomeroy (Harrison Ford). Unfortunately, Pomeroy refuses to cover morning show materials like celebrity gossip, weather, fashion...etc. He also doesn't want to work with his new co-host, Colleen Peck (Diane Keaton), a former beauty queen and longtime morning show personality. And soon Becky is fighting to save her relationship, her reputation, her job and ultimately, the show itself...

Although people claim this movie as a rom-com, to me, it is more like comedy drama. There are a few aspects related to "romance" here and there but I don't think that's good enough to be considered as a rom-com. So if you are looking for a "rom-com", then just so that you know, Morning Glory may not be the one.

That being said, Morning Glory is one neat comedy. To be more specific, it isn't the same comedy movie as Hangover, it is much more focused on drama elements. In order to do so, the brought in Harrison Ford as a stubborn, legendary anchor and Diane Keaton as a long-time morning show caster. Although the story revolves around Rachel McAdams, the main reason why this movie became from "bad" to "neat" is Harrison Ford. Lately, Harrison Ford has been okay and has been in mediocre movies. I would say that Morning Glory is one of better ones. Ford fits well into his character - it is good to see him in different kind of role from usual. Rachel McAdams isn't bad at all but certainly, she could not carry this movie by herself (if they chose to do so, this movie could have been an epic failure). That is exactly why having Harrison Ford and Diane Keaton on her side helps so much to save this movie from "bad" to "neat".

To get me wrong, Morning Glory is neat but it definitely isn't perfect. There are weak moments - Rachel McAdams can be little "too much" sometime and some scenes can get cheesy. And it slows down as it gets to the ending. However, it's better than many comedies out there, especially now days - it's casual, got talented actors actually working well together, good laughs, okay but not so bad writing/storyline....I would say that it is better than many other dumb comedies out there.

If you are looking for a good comedy to watch over the weekend, I would say, Morning Glory will be a good pick!

Overall grade: C+

Review #184 - I Am Number Four

2011-07-18T17:21:00.000-07:00

Not too shabby

I Am Number Four (2011), PG-13, 109min

John Smith (Alex Pettyfer) is a fugitive on the run from enemies sent to kill him. Changing his identity, moving from town to town with his protector, Henri (Timothy Olyphant), John ends up in the small Ohio town. John encounters life-changing events --his first love (Dianna Agron), powerful abilities and the secret connection to the "others" who share his destiny....

I know so many critics and people out there criticized hell out of this movie....and basically got poor ratings. I Am Number Four is supposed to be the first installment of 6, it is based on a Young Adult book series. From what I heard, because of this poor ratings, they scratched the plan for the next installment...

I Am Number Four is similar to Percy Jackson and other YA book based movies. Personally speaking, I Am Number Four is much more potential and standing out from the rest of YA book based movies. Of course, I have never read the actual book, so I can't really compare the book and the movie but strictly speaking of movie, I enjoyed watching it.

That being said, like I can tell to the other YA book based movies, they may be better suited for TV series. I am not gonna lie, I Am Number Four can be a great TV series. If you don't have any problem watching HS kid discovering his new secret and identity, going out on an adventure.....you shouldn't have any problem enjoying I Am Number Four. And this is the reason why I said, it's more suited for TV series. Its storyline is based on a HS kid and his friend, people around him - just like there are many other HS based-TV shows out there, it seems a natural fit to me. The acting wise, it is also no better than TV show acting. If anyone asks me if I Am Number Four was really worth for big screen adaptation, I am not sure. And perhaps, that's why so many people criticized this movie for its poor...well, poor everything.

I Am Number Four is a part "Jumper", a part " One Tree Hill" and a part " Percy Jackson". It can get slow and cheesy time to time (it is a HS drama after all, so no matter what, you will see those moments) but it is speedy and is intriguing enough for me to stick with it and watch it through. This isn't an award winning movie or extremely well directed/written movie. Regardless, it isn't a bad sci-fi adventure. Don't like HS drama or sci-fi adventure? Then, I Am Number Four must be avoided - it will be 100min of hell for ya.

Overall grade: C

Review #183 - Get Low

2011-07-17T17:39:00.001-07:00

Good acting by Robert Duvall and Bill Murray

Get Low (2010), PG-13, 100min

Few people have seen Felix Bush (Robert Duvall) since he disappeared into the woods 40 years ago. Felix has been the source of many malicious rumors over the years...Some say he's a cold-hearted killer... When Felix walks into Frank Quinn's (Bill Murray) funeral parlor and tells him his intentions to throw himself a massive party before he dies, word quickly spreads through town and anticipation starts to run high...

I actually have never heard about the story before but Get Low is supposed to be based on the true story of Felix "Bush" Breazeale from Tennessee. Get Low got an Indie film atmosphere yet its casting members are so gorgeous. In fact, that's one of the strengths this movie can offer. Robert Duvall as Felix seems to be a great fit (although I have never seen the real Felix before...) and Bill Murray as a cynical funeral parlor director is also a great fit. Duvall and Murray are the two main driving forces in this film. Their acting provides a film extra depth and quality. Those two actors make this movie believable and more realistic than anything. In addition Lucas Black gives extra energy and boost that movie needs in order to make this movie less depressive/sad.

Because of the nature of the story, Get Low will give you this depressive, semi-dark atmosphere. The colors you see in this film are more grey than brighter colors. And...the story takes in winter, so yes, Get Low will naturally give you a depressive atmosphere. But don't get discouraged - that kind of setup is needed for this movie. In order to portrait, mysterious, sad, lonely old man Felix, you need to have this type of atmosphere and it also helps you to understand Felix emotionally.

I personally like Get Low - beautifully directed, written and acted out. But I'm not gonna lie, I was little skeptical about this movie before I watched it and....it can be hard for you to motivate yourself to watch it (if you don't know what it is). It seems depressing, sad, kinda boring....I get that. But don't discourage yourself, I would suggest you to go ahead and give a try (like I did). It can be a slow start but once you get used to this "movie", you won't regret it!

Overall grade: B

Review #182 - You Again

2011-07-17T17:12:00.000-07:00

An epic failure.

You Again (2010), PG, 105min

Back in high school days , Marni (Kristen Bell) was awkward. These days she's a successful career woman, but the memories of being tormented by a popular cheerleader Joanna (Odette Yustman) still make her break into a cold sweat. Flying home for her brother's wedding, Marni finds out that she will soon be sister-in-law to Joanna. And because back when Marni's mom (Jamie Lee Curtis) was in high school, Joanna's aunt (Sigourney Weaver) served up the same kind of treatment...

I don't usually hate rom-coms and I have seen many bads and goods but oh boy, this one was so awful. Thank god I watched it on DVD, I could fast forward a bit by bit. So why is this so bad? It is one of those movies make me feel disgusted as I watch it. The storyline is so awful and its scripts are speechless. It's cheesy, clueless and awkward. Nothing original. It goes all over the place. You know it is bad when you still understand after you skip 1/4 of the movie.

The casting does look good on paper but it turns out to be a failure as well. Kristen Bell is simply not strong enough to carry a rom-com by herself (i.e. she is definitely not Jennifer Aniston caliber....or Heigl). Odette Yustman isn't helping anything to make this film any better....instead, she just pisses the audience off (at least she did to me). I know her character is supposed to be an evil HS cheerleader but she is so flat and un-geninue that she just makes this movie even worse. And Weaver and Curtis? I honestly don't know why they even decided to be part of this movie. Do they have $ problems? Not sure. Nonetheless, their experience and acting resume also could not save this movie from going into madness. Basically, each actor (and each character) brings big " - " sign and no one brought " + " sign. And please, casting Betty White doesn't automatically make a film a good one (people actually should stop using Betty White, too much Betty White out there....really...)

You Again is waste of time and it is an epic failure by casts and director/producer. My guess is, even a late night show skit can make something better than...this.

Overall grade: F

Review #181 - Life as We Know It

2011-07-15T18:30:00.000-07:00

Duhamel x Heigl = ....?

Life as We Know It (2010), 112min, PG-13

Holly (Heigl) and Eric (Duhamel)'s first date was a nightmare, and now they're about to become a family. When their goddaughter Sophie's parents both died in an accident, Holly and Eric are assigned as Sophie's caretakers in the event of an unforeseen disaster. Now, in order to raise Sophie, Holly and Eric must put their differences aside while figuring out the "parenthood"....

Katherine Heigl is sure trying to be the new rom-com queen. She's trying and she is certainly not bad...but her rom-com movies tend not to reach the audiences' expectations. And Life as We Know It is one of them.

Watching Heigl and Duhamel trying to raise a baby and getting sucked into the whole concept of parenthood is funny, cute and sometime heart warming. The pair works fine and I honestly like Heigl x Duhamel pair - they may not be the perfect ones for rom-com but they certainly work good enough to carry a film.

Jokes are essentially all related to raising-baby-jokes. Pukes, poop, diaper jokes....you name it. You will see them. But other than that....jokes tend to be okay at the best and they are weak enough to carry the entire film by themselves (I guess, this isn't really a comedy film, it's a rom-com - a half comedy, so I assume you don't have to count on jokes that much).

The storyline is way predictable. You watch the trailer and you will be able to guess how exactly this movie will go and how it will end up. In a positive way, there are no surprises or disappointments but at the same time, you won't get anything good out of it too. In other word, it does nothing new, so you should warn yourself before you watch it. What I don't like about this movie is that it tries too much to make those "aww" scenes. Too much can be annoying and those scenes will not get your tears. In addition, the scripts can be flat time to time but that can be said to many other rom-coms out there, so I wouldn't worry about that too much.

Nonetheless, Life as We Know It is a casual rom-com that people can spend time watching. It, however, won't satisfy any of hardcore rom-com fans, other than checking out how Heigl x Duhamel pair works on the screen.

Overall grade: D +

Review #180 - Drive Angry

2011-07-15T00:03:00.000-07:00

Please someone give Nic Cage a better agent.

Drive Angry (2011), Rated-R, 104min

With 3 days to go before the ritual killing of his granddaughter, Milton (Nic Cage) tries to save the world with a waitress Piper (Amber Heard) who joins him on his quest...

A long story short, Drive Angry is basically a Ghost Rider 1.5 (or 0.5, whichever you like better). Its storyline is ridiculous as always. Nic Cage basically returns from hell in order to kill his nemesis. And yes, he picks up a hot girl and has deal with devil here and there. So like I said, it really does sound like Ghost Rider...except, in this movie, Nic Cage picks up cool American cars instead of motorcycles. And yes, Nic Cage is a half human, half devil/dead.

Other than that storyline, Drive Angry is really a cheap splatter film with cheesy 3D effects (I saw this on DVD but I could still tell those 3D effects). Lots of shooting, explosions...and pretty much, everyone dies. Some scenes will make you lough out loud although I'm sure that wasn't the intention of this movie. It's rough, it's awful...a kind of movie you can truly enjoy watching when you are drunk...and making fun of it. I really couldn't tell if the movie was actually funny and making me lough OR it was just so awful that it was making me lough (my money is on latter one).

I know many people hate Nic Cage and consider him as the worst actor...or whatever. But hey, I used to like this guy - he used to be in good action movies (i.e. The Rock) back in 90s....then lots of things happened to him...then he started to be in those horrible horrible flicks (He recovered himself a bit when he decided to be in The Bad Lieutenant) . And now, his career is about to diminish. I really hope that he's going to find a new agent to rebuild his career.

If you are looking for something to watch and make fun of while you are drunk .....or looking for Nic cage revenge-car chase-porn, then Drive Angry is the perfect choice for ya.

Overall grade: D (I'm not going to grade it "F" because I hope...someday...Nic Cage will redeem himself)

Review #179 - The Next Three Days

2011-07-10T02:21:00.000-07:00

An okay thriller

The Next Three Days (2010), PG-13, 122min

John (Russell Crowe) and his wife, Lara (Elizabeth Banks), were happily married. However, Lara has been charged with murder, and despite every effort to prove her innocence, the judge sentences her to an extended prison sentence. Determined to save his wife, John gets the advice from ex-convict Damon (Liam Neeson), who staged his own daring prison escape, in order to draw up a plan. Later, John prepares to put his life and sets the escape plan into motion...

Ok. The Next Three Days. What can I say, it's nothing really that different from other prison-escape movies. Although it got good actors such as Russell Crowe and Elizabeth Banks, it definitely doesn't stand out from the crowd either. So what makes this movie okay thriller? Well, one thing will be "lack of urgency". In order to make a good thriller that involves with prison-escape, the movie needs to create this sense of urgency that everyone can feel and...perhaps experience during the movie. It can be some kind of adrenaline rush or real fast tempo..I don't know. The point is, it really needs to be "thrilling" in order to be a good thriller. And that's what The Next Three Days is missing. It isn't that bad as a thriller - thanks to great actors (Crowe and Banks....Neeson doesn't really count, he was more like cameo). Nonetheless, the movie seems like couldn't decide which factor weighs heavier: prison-escape or family love. You need something other than prison-escape but to me, it seems like the storyline spreads out little wider than it needs to be. It tries to touch on many subjects, thus it loses direction and...a bit of consistency.

The other factor will be buildup versus the ending. The Next Three Days keeps building up....as a fact, the majority of movie spends time on planning and the actual escape part is about 1/4 of the movie. The ending gives you closure but it is less dramatic than I expected after I spent watching 100 min Russell Crowe planning his wife's escape plan.

Again, The Next Three Days isn't that "bad". It's definitely watchable and some what enjoyable. However, it is not a Tier-1/ high quality thriller, after all, it is an okay thriller at the best.

Overall grade: C+

Review #178 - Hereafter

2011-07-09T01:53:00.000-07:00

Nice try, Clint Eastwood

Hereafter (2010), PG-13, 126min

In the wake of a near-death experience, French reporter Marie (De France) takes her married lover's advice to write a book about afterlife she has always talked about writing. Meanwhile, in America, a psychic George (Matt Damon) struggles to cease using his powers for profit while his greedy brother forces him to milk his ability for all it's worth. Over in London, a pair of twins is parted by tragedy when one of them dies suddenly...

Hereafter is basically about a psychic who can communicate with dead people.....more like their spirits. And there are a several characters whose lives are dictated by trying to communicate with their beloved dead relatives. At the end of the movie, all those sub-stories somewhat come together to create a big picture. I have to say that Eastwood's concept of afterlife and his take (movie) are pretty impressive. And it is certainly brave of him to make a movie about afterlife...which could go either way.

That being said, don't expect this movie to be like Eastwood's other successful ones. Rather, Hereafter is a failure. He did try...he did try to approach to a difficult topic and make a movie out of it but...his best wasn't good enough. Conceptually speaking, Hereafter is a good movie, at least it is intriguing enough for the audience to check it out and watch it through. However, this movie wasn't polished enough to be considered as a great movie.

1. Length. 126min of people talking and exploring about afterlife is too long. I mean, it's really long. It started out strong, got my curiosity and all that but it was too long. Beside, its tempo is slow and it tries to focus on character's emotional conflicts, thus 126min automatically makes it boring. There are many unnecessary scenes...scenes that kill the flow.

2. Direction. after 40, 50min or so, I wasn't sure what this movie was about. I wasn't sure its focus. Is Hereafter about afterlife? Or is it about people, family and love...? It seems to me that it's talking about little bit of everything - consequentially, it makes this movie weaker in terms of delivering message and it also loses the flow. It doesn't mean it's confusing and hard to understand but I wish they would have refined this movie better.

3. The ending. Uhmm....it was an unsatisfying ending. Honestly, I wasn't sure what this movie wanted to say (goes back to Pt. 2). It does give you a closure but I am not sure that was the closure we were all waiting for. This movie keeps building up...and the ending only gave me a question.

Like I said, Eastwood's take on afterlife isn't that bad. Nonetheless, the problem is its editing. Good materials are definitely there but the movie wasn't refined/polished enough to make it clear to understand and deliver the main message to audiences. Too bad, it could have been much better movie!

Overall grade: C+

Review #177 - Transformers: Dark of the Moon

2011-06-28T21:37:00.000-07:00

This is what the summer blockbuster is about!

Transformers: Dark of the Moon, PG-13, 154min

Third installment of the Transformers trilogy (I don't want to spoil the movie, so that's all I will tell)

For this movie, I am going to try something new. I will try to grade this movie by each category and at the end, you will see the usual, "overall grade" -based on mini grades.

1. CGI/3D/Sound effects

Very impressive. I mean, this is what Transformers series is about! I saw this movie movie on IMAX 3D and it was totally worth it. I strongly suggest you to pay extra $ and go see IMAX 3D version of it. The entire movie is pretty much non-stop action sequence and you will see tons of explosions, gun fights, robot actions...etc (typical "Bayhem" effects). 3D effects aren't that great comparing to Avatar's but 3D effects definitely helped this movie to make it look even cooler. It is always fun to watch all those Michael Bay's CGI action sequences but they are powered by 3D effects. Those action sequences got depth now, so that the audience can experience something new (not so much of "3D" 3D effects, i.e. objects flying at your face and you can almost touch them)

Grade: A

2. Story

It is very similar to 2 previous Transformers movies. It really is what it is. It is straightforward and nothing complicated. In addition to the usual "setup", Transformers 3 took an identical approach to X-Men:First Class. They added some make-believe aspects to the main storyline. As far as I know, this is supposed to be the last installment of the series. Its ending was kind of "meh" considering that this is supposed to be the final Transformers movie. They could have changed the ending and explored more but like I said, it is what it is.

I don't know if you have seen this and you know what I'm talking about but....some parts of this movie totally reminded me of up coming video game blockbuster, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. I only have seen the trailer and some footages online but....they are identical to some scenes in the movie.

Grade: C+

3. Acting/Casting

Same old, same old.....minus Megan Fox. To be honest with you, I really didn't understand the point of having Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. She obviously had no acting skill and she wasn't doing anything...at least to my knowledge. Thank god, Michael Bay barely gave her dialogues. Other than her, you see a few new additions like John Malkovich, Partick Dempsey, Ken Jeong, Frances McDormand...etc But the bottom line is this. Transformers 3 is heavily focused on Transformers...not humans. And when things are happening, you barely get any kind of dialogues because all you see is crazy non-stop action sequence. So...I guess, it didn't matter whether it was Megan Fox or Rose HW after all. Although casting isn't bad, acting is almost non existence.

Grade: D

Nevertheless, Transformers: Dark of the Moon is a real fun summer blockbuster you should watch it at the theater. It's fun, fast, non-stop; it is a great entertaining tool for this summer.

But anyway....based on all those 3 grades, I would give

Overall grade: C+

No Strings Attached

2011-06-28T13:42:00.000-07:00

Haters gonna hate it.

No Strings Attached (2011), Rated-R, 108min

Emma (Natalie Portman) and Adam (Ashton Kutcher) are life-long friends. In order to protect their friendship, they make a rule to keep their relationship strictly "no strings attached." They can do whatever they want as long as they don't fall in love. But soon Adam starts to question- can you have just sex without falling in love?....and their friendship?

Obviously, No Strings Attached (NSA) got two major leading roles: Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher. Is this one of those movies only looks good on paper but actually it sucks so bad? Well, it is and it is not. The movie itself is VERY predictable. There is nothing special or surprising. I felt like it is just like other rom-coms out there. In fact, I even felt like I have seen this movie before. You can pretty much tell what it is and how it goes by watching its trailer. So just know that you won't get no more or less than its trailer. It is what it is.

On the other hand, Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher duo looked good in this movie. As my first like states, NSA is a kind of movie that haters will hate it. I don't think it matters who play leading roles. To me, Portman+Kutcher duo got some chemistry between and working out just fine. And also...both actors are well known and I know their standards from the past...so it was safe for me to watch it and didn't have to worry about say, acting performance. Haters will always say something like" the movie needs to be more than what it looks on a paper" or "having two star leads doesn't mean anything"...etc. Yea, they are right, so that's why I said, haters gonna hate it. The problem about this movie is perhaps the writing....and maybe how this movie was directed. It is just ordinary rom-com to me. When the industry is filled with rom-coms, I know it is hard to come up with a distinguished one but....NSA is pretty much wasting great talents.

Like I said, No String Attached is what it is. Yes, you see two major actors, Portman and Kutcher interacting and they are quite good as a pair but the movie itself lacks originality, ok-jokes, no excitements - it was just flat (kind of watching okay tv shows). It is at least watchable, so it won't "too bad".

Overall grade: C-

Review #176 - Jack Goes Boating

2011-06-27T12:34:00.000-07:00

A pretty good indie film

Jack Goes Boating (2010), Rated-R, 89min

Jack (Philip Hoffman) is a shy limo driver who meets Connie (Amy Ryan) for a blind date set up by Connie's co-worker Lucy (Daphne Rubin-Vega), who is married to Jack's best friend, Clyde (John Ortiz). As Jack and Connie come together, breaking through awkwardness and low self-esteem, Clyde and Lucy's marriage begins to break apart because of Clyde's inability to get over an incident from their past. Meanwhile, Jack tries to learn swimming, so that he can take Connie on her dream date -- a boating trip on the lake...

Jack Goes Boating is another indie film with Philip Hoffman. It is, however, his directorial debut. Needless to say, Jack Goes Boating has very similar effects, atmosphere and sense of humor...etc just like his other films. It is semi-dark, sarcastic, weird, low key and it generally got low energy but it does explores each character beautifully and tries to suck you into "Hoffman world".

Jack Goes Boating can be considered as Hoffman's rom-com. But remember, it's his version of rom com. Don't you expect it to be a normal, high energy, positive, make-you-smile rom com. It's much darker and definitely creates depressing atmosphere. But! this film is very character driven and it's very moving. I know films with Hoffman in them can be off-beat and Jack Goes Boating is one of them but each character is well established, well written/detailed - each character counter reacts to this off-beat tempo in a good way to create unique rom-com atmosphere.

Speaking of characters, I would say that casting was great. Each cast does indeed compliment to this Hoffman world of Jack Goes Boating and each one of them perfectly fits into his/her character. Acting performance is also solid.

But let me remind you that this is a type of movie you may like it or you may dislike it. If you like Philip Hoffman, his movies, his odd sense of humor + semi-dark indie world....then Jack Goes Boating will be a good pick for ya. If not....well, it's hard to say. It can be too "unique" for some people. As an indie film, I would say it's pretty well directed/made film, so it won't hurt to give it a try.

Overall grade: C+

Review #175 - Faster

2011-06-27T11:48:00.000-07:00

Agrr....Dwayne Johnson....

Faster (2010), Rated-R, 98min

After 10 years in prison, Driver (Dwayne Johnson) has a mission - to avenge the murder of his brother during the bank robbery that led to his imprisonment. Two men, however, on his trail - a cop (Billy Thornton) and a young hitman (Oliver Jackson-Cohen)...

I don't know what to say about Faster. First of all, Dwayne Johnson almost had no dialogues. What I saw was him driving a classic american car, shooting/executing target one by one...and occasionally you see that "dwayne johnson thinking face" (a face you see when he's supposed to be thinking or feeling). I was glad to see Dwayne Johnson back in movie industry again but...definitely Faster didn't and will not help his career as an actor.

In terms of story, there is nothing special. It's just like other "a brother seeking for revenge" movies. It's very predictable and there are no surprise elements. When its story involves with driving car and shooting people, unfortunately, it doesn't require any good acting. Therefore, you don't see any good acting in this movie. Its tempo isn't slow but it isn't fast either. It's kind of odd tempo for the action flick. Its energy/adrenaline level throughout the film is....flat. It's one of those movies, things go on and on meaninglessly. From what I can see, Faster was aiming for B-action flick. Like I said, its story is nothing more than "a typical B action movie storyline", they also gathered B-movie ranked actors and the final product (movie) is handled in B movie manner.

When a movie is aimed to be a "B-movie", it will be worse than B-movie. You know how people always say, aim higher if you wanna achieve something big? Like, you will never win silver medal if you are aiming for bronze medal? Faster is just like that. If you try to make a B-movie, then it will more likely to be worse than what you are expecting it to be. Too bad, Faster could have been a completely different movie if they put right assets and effort into it.

Is Faster something you wanna check out? Meh, I would suggest you to pass it.

Overall grade: D

Review #174 X-Men: First Class

2011-06-15T19:20:00.000-07:00

A decent summer blockbuster!

X-Men: First Class (2011), PG-13, 131min

In 1962, Charles Xavier starts up a school and later a team, for mutants with superhuman abilities. Among them is Erik Lensherr, his best friend... and his future enemy...

Before I saw this movie, I got good amount of positive reviews and negative reviews. For the positive ones, I generally agree with them. This fictitious story which takes place in 1960s is real fun to watch, well written, overall good acting/casting and definitely fits into a "good summer blockbuster" category. On the other hand, the negative reviews says that X-Men:First Class (First Class) did not precisely follow the original comic storyline, didn't reveal some necessary info/facts...etc, basically same arguments you hear whenever comic based movies come out. I honestly make any kind of arguments on that. I have never read the actual X-Men comics before (shame on me), so I can, once again, write a review from movie critic perspective. Maybe those negative reviews are right - First Class is missing some pieces but I'm not sure.

Anyway, from a movie critic point of view, First Class is a well made entertaining film. Although the story does sound ridiculous and sometime hard to believe but that is also a good thing about this movie. It is fun to watch a film based on very fictitious storyline. It is entertaining, dynamic and most importantly...fun.

I really liked the casting of this movie. James McAvoy fits into his role of young Professor X well, Michael Fassbender and Jennifer Lawrence are good additions to the movie as well. Not sure if Kevin Bacon was the best fit for his role but nevertheless, he gave solid performance since...whenever. In terms of acting, let's face it. This type of a movie (comic based) honestly doesn't require top notched acting. Each actor did what they needed to do and it was good enough for First Class.

First Class is definitely a must-see summer blockbuster for this year. It fulfills its purpose as a summer blockbuster - it is an entertaining, exciting 130min ride. Is it a "great" movie like...say Super 8? No. Here, I'm talking about completely different "goodness". It is good but I'm strictly talking about "fun" goodness. It might win MTV movie award but it will never win Academy award. Anyway, is it boring? Not at all! Is it worth paying to go see at theater? I would say so!

Overall grade: B

Review #173 - Super 8

2011-06-09T18:43:00.000-07:00

ET + Stand by Me + Cloverfield + LOST = ...?

Super 8 (2011), PG-13, 112min

Summer of 1979, a group of young friends are filming a Super-8 (film) movie when a truck derailed a cargo train. When the locals start to disappear, people started thinking that the incident was anything but an accident. As the truth finally begins emerge, a small town in Ohio will face the madness...

I don't know about you but since the day 1 I saw its trailer, I could not wait to see Super 8 at the theater. It got usual JJ Abraham's mysterious concepts/secrets and the trailer looked very promising. Needless to say, I was very excited to go see this movie.

This review is based on IMAX theater experience. So my review may be different from regular sized screen experience. As my opening line suggests, Super 8 really hist that formula. It's a mixture of ET, Stand by Me, Cloverfield (another alien related movie by JJ Abraham) and of course, LOST. Overall, Super 8 follows JJ Abraham's famous format precisely. It gives you tons of "secretive", "mysterious" feeling, it touches on relationship, human drama...and even background music sounds like LOST (probably composed by Michael Giacchio). Rather than focusing on Sci-fi side, Super 8 is much more focused on human-drama side. It is similar to what you get from watching Stand by Me. A group of young friends discover true friendship, love, family...etc. So in terms of the main story, let's just say that it is somewhat close to Stand by Me...but all powered by JJ Abraham's usual sci-fi related surprises. It gives you some retro feeling since the story takes back in the last 70s. I personally think that setting worked out perfectly for this movie. Sometime, it's easier to use 70s or 60s to focus and explain those basic drama concepts such as friendship, love and family bonding. I'm not saying modern days can't but it can be little complicated, thus it was smart idea to use 1970s as the setting for this movie.

One good thing about Super 8 is that unlike other JJ Abraham products, it has very clear, straightforward ending. Yea, there are few unanswered questions but it is generally easy to understand, no super-twisted secrets, and it's very consistent from the beginning to the end. JJ Abraham loves to use create way of telling story (i.e. LOST) but I didn't sense that from Super 8 - it was easier to watch and understand than the other films by JJ Abraham. BUT! like I said, there are some unanswered questions and mysteries...so don't expect this movie to explain everything to you clearly (just like other JJ Abraham's...)

Speaking of JJ Abraham's other films, Super 8 has somewhat weaker ending. Like other his films, it gets weaker as it gets closer to the ending. Abraham tends to give you this intense buildup but its climax and ending sometime can be..."what...? thats it?" to some people. Super 8's ending is bit cheesy but I rather prefer to see an ending that gives some conclusion. I guess, Super 8's ending did its job.

Overall, I would say it's a good summer movie to go check it out (IMAX version did indeed have awesome audio quality). Whether you like sci-fi movie or not, I can say Super 8 works for both side since it tends to focus more on drama side.

Overall grade: B

Review #172 - Kung Fu Panda 2

2011-06-02T20:13:00.001-07:00

Kids can enjoy it, adults can enjoy it.

Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011), PG, 91min

Po is now living his new life as The Dragon Warrior, protecting the Valley of Peace with his friends and the Furious Five. But Po's new life is threatened by the emergence of a new enemy who knows Po's past secrets...

Finally.....finally I was able to watch a good 3D movie at the theater since AVATAR. After a several tries which all turned out to be failures...Kung Fun Panda 2 was the first satisfying "3D designated" movie to watch at the theater. Of course, it is nowhere close to AVATAR 3D experience but it was good enough for me to finally be happy and walkout from the theater.

Now about the movie. Kung Fun Panda 2 (Panda 2) seems to be upgraded from the first one. I can say that it is one of those successful sequel from the first one. While it keeps the first one's good standard, Panda 2 now becomes much more power entertaining film that everyone can enjoy. The first one had to provide the audience all kinds of background information and it wad necessary to "build up" some foundations for the future installments. Now, since this is the sequel, Panda 2 decided to unleash everything they got to upgrade its entertainment scale from the first one. The film has much, much faster tempos, visually better and far more actions....in addition to all those goodies from the first one.

Some people might say the first one is better but I personally prefer the tempo of the second one. The second one is much faster "roller coaster" ride that everyone can enjoy - both adults and children. Yes, the first one has good parts that the second one doesn't offer. Nevertheless, Panda 2 is made well enough to be consider as a great sequel, so it won't fail to match your expectation level.

Panda 2 is a great film that absolutely everyone can enjoy watching it this summer..... and 3D effects aren't bad too, I don't usually recommend animation films because "it is what it is" but Kung Fu Panda 2 can be one of few exceptions. You won't regret it, so go check it out!!

Overall grade: A

Review #171 - Conviction

2011-06-02T13:48:00.000-07:00

Hilary Swank really likes this type of movie...

Conviction (2010), Rated-R, 107min

When Betty Anne's (Hilary Swank) brother Kenny (Sam Rockwell) is arrested for murder and sentenced to life in 1983, Betty Anne, dedicates her life to overturning the murder conviction. Convinced that her brother is innocent, Betty Anne puts herself through high school, college and, finally, law school in an 18 year quest to free Kenny. With Abra (Minnie Driver), Betty Anne uncovers the facts and utilize DNA evidence with the hope of exonerating Kenny....

Conviction is an overall solid drama. It's nothing fancy and it's not particularly standing out from rest of the crowd but it turns out to be a solid movie - solid enough to consider it as a "good" movie. Conviction is based on a true story. It is all about a sister trying to prove her brother's innocence by doing whatever it takes - I really mean, whatever it takes! (she even got all the educational degrees to become a lawyer to fight for her brother's freedom). It is very inspirational, dramatic and heart-warming at time. One thing I would like to mention is that Hilary Swank really likes this type of "let me be this strong female figure who fights for justice, freedom, love...whatever" movies. Million Dollar Baby? Sure. Amelia? Sure. Freedom Writers? Why not. And now...Conviction. So you can probably see a type of trend on what kind of movie she likes to be a part of. With two academy awards on her resume, we can always safely bet that Swank will show consistent acting performance (to her level). In case of Conviction, Swank shows her solid acting performance to lead the movie.

Swank is also supported by some great actors such as Sam Rockwell, Minnie Driver, Melissa Leo...etc. One good thing about all those actors in this film is that they are not flashy and they don't over-act.

Sometime Conviction can be "dry" and "TV show" like. It might be because of how this movie was directed and how it was written. Nevertheless, it's straightforward and nothing complicated (I'm sure the actual case was 100times more complicated). Yea, it can be dry and a bit boring but....that may be true for all law-related films.

If you are looking for a good drama, then Conviction won't be a bad choice!

Overall grade: B-

Review #170 - A Dog Year

2011-06-01T21:23:00.001-07:00

Just because the movie got a cut dog...doesn't mean it's a good movie.

A Dog Year (2009), Unrated, 80min

Jon (Jeff Bridges) is a writer. His wife has left him because he's emotionally distant. One of his readers sends him a former-abused border collie. Despite a series of challenges, Jon decides to keep the dog and tries to bond with him. As his book agent constantly annoys him, he rents an old farm house to stay away from everything and give the dog room to run...

A Dog Year is basically Jeff Bridges' version of "Marley and Me". I wouldn't say they are the exact same stories but they are somewhat similar. Jeff Bridges is a writer who cannot write anymore. He is facing family issues and relationship issues with others.....eventually he meets this dog which changes his life...blah blah blah. Think it this way: A Dog Year is what Marley and Me might look like if Owen Wilson was 50 some yr-old man and going through middle life crisis.

A Dog Year is low budgeted indie film. Unlike Marley and Me, it wasn't greatly promoted (as far as I know) and I don't think it got that much of attention. Well, if that's the case, then there are reasons why it was that way.

First of all, A Dog Year is such an incomplete film. Everything is so incomplete. Just because a movie got a cute dog, it doesn't mean it's a great movie. Unlike Marley and Me, A Dog Year is VERY inconsistent from the beginning to the end. This movie has extremely weak beginning, middle and end. They are all about the same, thus it makes a movie very flat and somewhat boring to watch.

Second of all, all those dog-related movies have heart warming, will-make-you cry moments. Whether that's the scene where a dog dies....or a dog and his owner overcome a big challenge, a dog-related movie needs to have one of those moments. At least one. Well, A Dog Year seems to have none of those. Yes, they have some moments supposed to be "dramatic" and "heart warming" but they are okay at the best. They are somewhat sad but they are not sad enough to hit your heart or make you say "aww". A part of it is because the movie tends to skip forward - it doesn't spend much time on important scenes.

And finally the ending. A Dog Year has a typical "what the hell was that" ending. It is similar to endings from Sopranos episodes. It's one of those endings where it suddenly gets blacked out and the show ends there. A Dog Year's ending isn't exactly like that but it definitely made me say " wait a second, was that the end of movie??". It was such a vague, unclear moment to end the film. I was feeling that the movie would give me much better explanation and ending at the end but...all I got was a big "?" mark.

Unfortunately, having a great actor such as Jeff Bridges and a cute dog did not help to create another "Marley and Me". I would consider this movie as a failure and wish they could have explored it more.

Overall grade: D

Review #169 - The Hangover Part II

2011-06-01T19:14:00.000-07:00

The Hangover Part II (2011), Rated-R, 102min

Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), Alan (Zach Galifianakis) and Doug (Justin Bartha) travel to Thailand for Stu's wedding. After the bachelor party in Las Vegas, Stu is taking no chances and has opted for a safe, boring wedding "brunch". However, things don't always go as planned....

This review will be probably short one. The Hangover II is exactly same as the first one...except this time, the story takes in Bangkok. It is pretty much safe to say, same kinds of jokes, same storyline, same actors...it is just like the first one.

I would say, that'a the biggest reason why The Hangover II is getting criticized by so many critics. There are absolutely no surprises. To be honest, I don't care what other critics think of this movie. Ultimately speaking, if you think it's funny and feel like you had good time after you watched it, then I would call it as a success in this type of movie. Sure, The Hangover II is exactly like the first one....but in a positive way, that's a sign of consistency. Sometime, you want to choose consistency over something new in comedy film. People might say it is very disappointing to see nothing new in this film ESPECIALLY the first one was a huge success. To me, The Hangover II took the safer path by sticking to the same concept and principles from the first success.

So I would say this. If you liked the actual "jokes" from the first one, then you will have awesome time watching the second one. I personally liked those "jokes" or "sense of humor" from the first one, therefore I had no problem enjoying the second one. It was good to see the same group of actors doing the same things and making me laugh hard. I loved it.

On the other hand, if you liked other pars of the movie from the first one (i.e. actors, the storyline, concept...etc), then i would say you are less likely to enjoy this movie. Like I said earlier, The Hangover II is very similar to the first one, thus it lacks any sensation and freshness that you experienced from the first Hangover.

The Hangover II totally depends on what you are looking for. IF you are like myself, simply looking for some good laughs, then this movie will be a great one to watch - I can guarantee you that you will have some good laughs!

Overall grade: C+

Review #168 - The Winning Season

2011-05-26T13:21:00.001-07:00

Casual indie sport film.

The Winning Season (2009), PG-13, 104min

Bill Greaves (Sam Rockwell) was recruited by the local high school principal to coach the local high school's girls' basketball team. Initially giving up on his team, Bill eventually manages to help the team and its captain (Emma Roberts) ratchet up its competitive spirit, while the girls offer Bill a renewed life focus....

This is the second "Emma Roberts" movie to review. Coincidence? Maybe.

Anyway, The Winning Season. It is another indie film but this time it's a sport flick. The story does sound very cliche...a legendary high school basketball player, Sam Rockwell decides to coach local HS girl's basketball team. And they (coach, players and family...etc) all learn good life lessons from the basketball season. It really does sound like all the other sport related films. And to be honest with you, in terms of story, The Winning Season is absolutely same as other sports flicks.

So what makes this movie different from others? Well, I would say its overall atmosphere. The Winning Season is very very casual and easy to watch. Unlike other serious sports flicks which focus on reality, sports philosophy and winning-losing mentality...etc (you name it), The Winning Season isn't heavily focused on those. It is "casually" approached to the sports related philosophies and family love, so that generally the audience can relax and watch it through. It is the similar feeling I got from "Mighty Ducks" (of course, the total quality of this movie cannot be compared that everyone's favorite, legendary hockey film...). And sometime, I prefer to watch easy sports films - they make me feel more relaxed and they are entertaining to watch.

In terms of acting performance, Sam Rockwell does good work, as always. He is consistent and I didn't have to worry about him performing bad or bringing this movie down. He is the main reason why The Winning Season didn't end up cheesy, sports-cliche crappy film. Emma Roberts, on the other hand, brings this casual atmosphere and makes the audience feel (at least to me) happier and cheerful. So combining those two, although the movie lacks originality, The Winning Season surprisingly brings you a satisfaction throughout the film.

Yes, The Winning Season is not the greatest sport film you will ever see. And I can see that some people might hate this movie for its cheesiness and obvious cliche. Nonetheless, it got few good laughs and good dramatic moments....I would sat that it's a good ride. If you are looking for casual movie to watch over the weekend, then The Winning Season won't be a bad choice!

Overall grade: C

Review #167- It's Kind of a Funny Story

2011-05-26T12:43:00.000-07:00

Pretty good indie film.

It's Kind of Funny Story (2010), PG-13, 101min

A teenager with depression, Craig (Keir Gilchrist) checks himself into a mental health hospital and finds himself placed in the adult ward due reassignment. With a patient Bobby (Zach Galifianakis), Craig tries to endure his mandatory 5 days' stay without completely losing his mind. But his stay changes once he meets Noelle (Emma Roberts), another teenage patient who's struggling to sort out her thoughts....

It's not bad. It's Kind of Funny Story is an indie film with great casting. It got Zach Galiflanakis, Emma Roberts, Lauren Graham...and Jeff Gaffigan. I would say that's a decent line up for indie type of a film. And I have to say, casting was great!

This movie is a part 500 Days of Summer and...a pat One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. But don't expect this to be "A+" movie because it is not. Like I said earlier, its not bad at all, I liked it....but it's far away from becoming "A+" movie.

In terms of the story, it really is like 500 Days of Summer + One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. A teenager semi-accidentally puts himself into adult psych ward facility and he meets a girl. He falls in love. And he find out more about his life, himself and...what he wants. It does sound like a typical indie rom com storyline and it also does sound like this movie took some ideas from other movies. However, in a positive way, this is what you are going to get, so there won't be any surprise. So you don't have to be stressed out about following every single details or paying attention to the information carefully. In other words, you can casually watch this movie and enjoy the overall atmosphere.

Speaking of atmosphere, It's Kind of Funny Story got all those tools that you need to create a "modern indie film". Cool visual effects (semi pop-art), indie rock soundtracks (of course)...and a bit different way of filming scenes (or editing). If you know what I'm talking about then...this movie got all those (try to remember what 500 Days of Summer or...Garden State was like). I wouldn't call this movie a super "refreshing" or "artistic" but it got what it needs to have, so I would say this movie definitely hits satisfactory level. And the acting - I wouldn't call it great but again, it hits the reasonable standard for indie film. I wish this movie utilizes those great actors more in order to make it to the next level. But for now...it stays at "normal to good" level rather than hitting that "great" level of acting.

It's Kind of Funny Story is casually entertaining and gives your some level of freshness when you are tired of watching big budgeted movie...especially during summer season. It may not be the great one but it is certainly not bad and I enjoyed watching it overall. If you are looking for a movie to take break from big titles but don't want to watch that serious indie film? Then this will be a good pick for you!

Overall grade: C+

Review #166 - Stone

2011-05-23T21:41:00.000-07:00

Very ambiguous film.

Stone (2010), Rated-R, 105min

Jack (Robert De Niro) accepts an assignment to reevaluate Gerald "Stone" Creeson's (Edward Norton) case for an upcoming parole hearing. Stone will do anything to get out from behind bars, and his wife, Lucetta (Milla Jovovich), is willing to do whatever it takes to help her husband's freedom -- including seducing Jack...

Stone looks good on paper. I'm not gonna lie. It got De Niro, Norton and Jovovich. By just looking at the actor lineup...it sounds decent to me. And it looks like a psycho-thriller, crime suspense. Why not. Stone does look good on "paper".

But the reality is different. In a good way, I can describe this movie as something very "ambiguous". There is no clear-cut way of describing this movie. There are many way to interpret the dialogues, scenes, and its ending. To me, I would describe Stone as "inconsistent, all over the place" movie. As the movie gets toward to the end, I got more and more of those "wait, what just happened??" moments and had to rewind some to figure out. No. The movie doesn't have any complex storyline or difficult concept to understand. Rather, it is one of those "wait, how did he/she get A from doing B?" moments.

I would say that this inconsistency is coming from the lack of flow. It is all over the place and very disconnecting - I felt the movie was very choppy because I didn't see any clear flow in it. Yea each scenes carries some kind of message and imagery...etc but it was hard to see the connection between the scenes. I could understand the overall story and could "guess" what this movie was trying to tell us but....I didn't get more than that. In fact, as the movie gets closer to the ending/climax, Stone became more ambiguous/confusion/unclear, so that honestly, it was hard for me to understand it.

The movie should have stayed with general psych-thriller direction and it would have been somewhat more successful movie than this. Like I said, Stone does sound good on paper. I'm not saying it's wrong but I don't think they should have thrown in religious concepts because those religious concepts certainly made this movie harder to understand and confusing (to me at least).

If you are curious, I would say go ahead and try this movie. But if you are just looking for a weekend movie, then I would stay away from it.

Overall grade: D

Review #165 - Piranha 3D

2011-05-23T17:48:00.000-07:00

This is what entertaining "B" movie is about!

Piranha 3D (2010), Rated-R, 89min

After a sudden underwater tremor sets free prehistoric man-eating Piranhas, a group of strangers must stick together to survive from Piranha attack...

I have no idea why suddenly they decided to remake Piranha movie from 1970s but...they did. And I have to say, it is quite a success.

Let's start with this: accept the fact that this is a "B" movie. No matter what people say, B-movie stays as B-movie. You are not looking for an awesome acting or great writing/scripts. As a fact, you won't find those in B-movies...and if you do, then that's not a B-movie. All you are looking for is pure fun, entertainment. A kind of entertainment that is ultimately dumb but it's just fun to watch it AND you don't have to think about anything - you don't have to pay attention to details or try to analyze the film...you don't need any of that. B-movie is just for fun.

That being said, I would say that Piranha 3D got all of those aspects. I could not watch it in 3D, so I can't tell how it looks like in 3D. Nonetheless, it was still fun to watch it in 2D. The storyline follows a typical format. A bunch of college kids come to this small lake town for the spring break...and ultimately they all get eaten by piranhas unleashed from...underground (???...lol, right?). But like I said, you don't worry about that. You just go with the flow and you will have great time.

Acting? Sure. You will see a bunch of mediocre actors swimming, screaming, and...they all get eaten buy piranhas. But that's ok. That's the whole point of this movie.

Piranha 3D is, in fact, not trying to be a quality thriller/horror movie or some kind of an award winning movie. They are strictly sticking with good old, "B" movie definition. And that's what I like about this movie and that makes this movie great.

Of course...this is not something you want to see many times, over and over. And of course, you don't want to watch B-movies all the time, then you won't appreciate movies...or you won't even know what the good/bad movie is. But occasionally, it is REAL fun to watch this type of movie and go with it. If you know what I'm talking about then...Piranha 3D will be a great pick for you.

And oh, as a part of B-movie extravaganza, there are lots of nudities. Yea, so I warned you.

Overall grade: B-

Review #164 - Win Win

2011-05-20T13:37:00.000-07:00

Win Win...wins.

Win Win (2011), Rated R, 104min

An attorney/ a part-time HS wrestling coach who schemes to keep his practice from going under by acting as the legal caretaker of his elderly client. Mike thinks that he has discovered the perfect loophole to keep his practice in business by "earning" quick $. But his brilliant plan gets complicated when his client's grandson shows up looking for a place to stay...

Win Win will remind you what good indie, lower budgeted film can bring to you. Win Win is really focused on its story, characters and acting performances. No, you won't see "tier-1" actors - the kind of actors who ask for big $ to be part of film. No you don't see fancy CGI effect or 3D effect. And no, you probably won't see it in a big major theater. But instead, you see a well written story with a set of good actors who perfectly fit into the world of "Win Win".

I would say that the strongest point of this movie will be character(s)/actor(s). I'm not really talking about "Oscar winning" worthy acting performance but it's one of those things that actors fit into the world of movie perfectly and naturally. Each character is rich and powerful - and each actor...Paul Giamatti, Amy Ryan, Jeffery Tambor, Melanie Lynskey...you name it, helps visually to create each character perfectly. Sometime, you don't need to fancy, well-paid, famous actors to create a good movie. Sometime all you need is a good casting choice - the actor who can accommodate the character's world and personality.

In terms of story, it's very honest, moving, warm and insightful. While it can be funny, it is also serious and touching. Win Win is a well written, human drama after all, thus it is primarily focused on "human drama" part. If you are expecting this movie to be one of those Steve Carell comedies (touching but more focused on comedy part)....then it is not. It doesn't mean that Win Win is sad or depressing....it's just honest and genuine to the audience.

If you are looking for a well written, life/ human drama, then Win Win will be a great pick. It may not be the best, perfect movie out there but it's a solid film, worth for you to check it out.

Overall grade: B+

Review #163 - The American

2011-05-20T12:32:00.000-07:00

This is what Bourne Identity looks like after it hits "mid-life crisis"...

The American (2010), Rated-R, 105min

As an assassin/Gunsmith, Jack (George Clooney) is always on the move and always alone. After a job in Sweden, Jack escapes to the Italian countryside. While there, Jack takes an assignment to construct a sniper rifle for a mysterious contact, Mathilde (Thekla Reuten). Stressing out from his job and dealing with Swedish assassins trying to kill him, Jack pursues a relationship with a woman, Clara (Violante Placido). But by stepping out of the shadows, Jack may be facing his ultimate fate...

Conceptual wise, The American is another spy-thriller movie. It is similar to Jason Bourne series in a sense that the place takes entirely in Europe, a male spy (protagonist) getting chased by bad guys while he does his job...etc. That being said, don't expect The American to be like Bourne movies. I don't know if you agree with me on this but one thing I really liked about Jason Bourne series was non-stop action sequences. Non-stop, fast paced, Matt Damon kicking everyone's ass constantly...and he is constantly on the move. I really liked that. And the camera work totally follows him all the time, so like one of my friends told me one day, "it was literally like riding a roller coaster". And...I liked that too.

The American, on the other hand, it got none of those. Rather, it is very much more focused on ambivalence, characters, background/landscape, imageries...etc. In fact, I didn't see many "dialogues" in this movie. George Clooney rarely spoke and and rarely had interactions ( i.e. conversations) with other characters in the movie. When there aren't many conversations, then you have to focus more on "sensual" images - facial expressions, body gestures, overall ambivalence/atmosphere, sound, colors...etc. And that is where The American excels comparing to the other spy-thriller movies.

If you are tired of fast paced spy thrillers with lots of action sequences, explosions, gunshot...etc, then The American will be the perfect fit for you. Some people might say...there aren't much happening and it's very "static" but I felt somewhat "refreshing" after I saw this movie. It is very carefully paced, written and each character is multi-demensioned. And you won't physically and mentally get exhausted after you see a movie....unlike Bourne series. On top of that, The American is powered by beautiful Italian/European scenic places.

Yes, The American is different from orthodox spy thrillers. Nonetheless, it is fresh, interesting and worth giving it a try!

Overall grade: B

Review #162 - Let Me In

2011-05-16T22:50:00.001-07:00

This is what Twilight looks like in real life.

Let Me In (2010), 111min, Rated-R

A bullied young boy becomes friend with a young girl who just moved into his neighborhood...she however has a secret...she is a vampire...

Let Me In is a part horror, a part romance movie. In other words, it is just like the one from Twilight series. However, in this case, a boy meets a girl (vampire), both fall in love. So the situation is kind of reversed from Twilight.

What makes this movie far more unique and interesting from Twilight series is that Let Me In is more focused on the realism and horror side of it. It is much, much darker and graphic than Twilight. In a sense, I got this sense that this is what Twilight movie SHOULD look like in reality. Yes, a young boy (12-year-old) and a young girl vampire (also "looks" like 12-year-old but her age is unknown) do fall in love and there is this cute, sentimental relationship between those two. Nonetheless, this whole romance side of this movie is powered and supported by lots of vampire sucking, eating, killing, spraying blood moments. It's not like I have ever seen the real vampire and lived with them but I can assume that there won't be any "cleanness" or somewhat "peacefulness" you see in Twilight. It is what it is. Dating with vampire comes with huge costs.

Like I said earlier, Let Me In is much darker and graphic than Twilight. After all, its main focus seems to be a horror movie side rather than romance side, therefore its intention is to scare the audience by creating dark, creepy, scary environment. You won't see many colors in this movie. All the colors in this film are somewhat darker ones - black, brown, gray...you name it. The lighting is also contributing to create this creepy yet sad/depressing world in 1980s. Don't get me wrong - it does sound like really depressing horror movie but those are important aspects (uses of color and lighting) of horror movie in order to create the perfect world for the audience. But hey, it's not super scary or anything. It's more like creepy and chilling. So please don't expect this movie to be like Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Paranormal Activity...because it's not.

Let Me In is an interesting film where fear and romance coexist in cohesive manner. We see so many vampire related films now days but honestly, Let Me In is standing out from the others - it is really different (in a good way). Despite what its trailer or box art might make you think, it is a well written and directed movie. I say, it's worth checking it out. That being said, it is definitely not a happy movie and definitely won't make you feel happy/cheerful after you watch it, so please watch out on that part.

Overall grade: B+

Review #161 - Devil

2011-05-15T21:23:00.000-07:00

Bad.

Devil (2010), PG-13, 80min

Trapped in an elevator, five random people find out that the Devil is among them and no one can escape their fate.

I knew it would be a bad movie. Based on many critic reviews and friends' comments, i was 99.9% sure that Devil is a horrible movie. But well, somewhere deep inside of me.....I was still counting on that 0.1 % to give it a chance...I was thinking that you never know, who knows, Devil can be my new favorite horror movie.

I was wrong.

Now days, everything M, Night Shyamalan touches turns into a piece of crap. Unfortunately, he completely lost his movie mojo. He had some great moments but....now? well, those are all past now. Shyamalan didn't direct Devil but he was still associated with this movie as a writer. I have seen many horror flicks by now and "horror" is one of genres that I feel like I can provide a good, strong suggestion on which movie to watch (I hope so). A long story short, I strongly suggest you to avoid Devil if you haven't seen it. The story is very predictable, boring and flat. In fact, this movie didn't give me a single moment that scared me of gave me those "nervous", "anxious" strange feeling. None. The movie kept going on and on and ended miserably. If the horror movie failed to do its ultimate job: scaring the audience, then that's an universal sign of saying "avoid it at all cost". You might ask, "well maybe, you are more experienced in horror movies and your sense of fear is different from ours??" - well, you can be right but I tell you what, I'm trying to review this movie without any biases and I'm only using "general sense of fear (guessing what majority of people would think something scary)" as a measure stick. So, bottom line is, my sense of fear might be different but I can say...Devil isn't that scary.

If the movie isn't scary, then is it thrilling? Not at all. Like I said, it's very flat. A part of its failure is because of casting, I believe. I understand that this movie was supposed to be low-budgeted but I really wish they could use different casting. Individually speaking, maybe (I mean, maybe) those actors aren't that bad but collectively, they sucked so bad. Each character and actor were completely mismatched. Therefore, it is really hard for the audiences to connect themselves to the characters and get into the world of Devil.

My question is this: why couldn't they make this movie into a TV show instead? I felt like Devil was much suitable for short summer mini series on....NBC, FOX, ABC...you name it. You know one of those short TV series/season, usually you see them during the summer but they also get canceled, so they are fairly short ( they are for "fill-in" purpose anyway)? Devil is exactly like that. Except you get to see it on a big screen (or DVD, at this point). In other word, Devil is exactly at that level of quality - it isn't much different from low budgeted TV show. Devil could be better if it was meant for TV series. Then, it would have a several episodes, so they can explore the concept more. The actors and their performance would make more sense because they are "TV" actors. And...it's choppy and flat....because it's a TV show (likely to be canceled).

Anyway, if I were you, I would stay away from it. If you are a horror movie fan, then don't even try to waste your time. If you are not a horror movie fan but looking for something to watch, then try to watch some random TV shows instead - it won't be that different,

Overall grade: F

Review #160 - The Disappearance of Alice Creed

2011-05-10T17:05:00.000-07:00

It's not that "fresh" thriller and it's not that good...

The Disappearance of Alice Creed (2009), Rated-R, 98min

On a suburban street, two masked men snatched a young woman, Alice Creed, a daughter of millionaire. They take her to an abandoned, soundproofed apartment. Her kidnappers, Vic and Danny have worked out a meticulous plan. But Alice is not going to play the perfect victim - she isn't about to let her captors use her as capital without a fight...

The Disappearance of Alice Creed is not a typical Hollywood big budgeted thriller movie. Some people might say, its more story driven, focused on acting, artistic, explore more on emotional side of the character...etc. I can see many people say things like that about this film. Unfortunately, I personally didn't feel that way, Rather I felt, this movie wasn't that fresh or stylish. I mean, yea I liked the fact that this movie only focuses on 3 characters and really tries to explore each character's emotional, personal conflicts. And yea, I liked that it was very simple storyline to understand (other than a few twists).

But you know what...? I'm not gonna lie, I kept losing my interests as the movie went on. It's probably because I have seen so many thriller films at this point. To me at least, the storyline and twists were "meh" - really, they were okay. It gets somewhat predictable too. I also didn't feel this movie that "fresh" because I felt like I have seen movies in similar format before. A girl gets kidnapped by two men, there are only 3 characters in the movie and really focuses on emotional/personal conflicts? And predictable ending....? Does it sound like a movie you already have seen before? Of course, like I mentioned earlier, it's not an usual Hollywood type of thriller movie - so you won't see many intense car chase or shooting scenes...or lets' trying to escape from this live-or-die situation.....no, not so much. The Disappearance of Alice Creed is more realistic, maybe the director was trying to say "this is what the real kidnapping, hostage situation looks like". So definitely, this movie is for adults.

The acting wise, I didn't see anything particularly standing out. It was very normal, average acting in thriller film. All those 3 actors are talented and they are somewhat proven to be good actors but...in this film, they were all "ok".

Finally, the ending. I personally didn't like it because I felt like it could be much better than that. The way I felt it was...instead of exiting from "highway" by proper taking the right exit, you pretty much decided to stop your car by the side of the road. It doesn't mean this movie won't give you a clear-cut ending but I would just say, it is not satisfying.

Sorry, The Disappearance of Alice Creed, I'm not buying it!

Overall grade: C-

Review #159 - Unstoppable

2011-05-08T22:05:00.000-07:00

Good old Tony Scott action flick!

Unstoppable (2010), PG-13, 98min

A runaway train is carrying a cargo of toxic chemicals. An engineer, Frank, and his conductor, Will, are in a race against time. They're chasing the runaway train in a separate locomotive and need to bring it under control before it derails on a curve and causes a toxic spill that will decimate a town in PA...

This is what good old Tony Scott action movie is about. Fast, loud, dynamic and thrilling. Unstoppable got all of those. I haven't seen a satisfying action movie w/o having a single shooting scenes...for a very long time. Unstoppable reminded me of how good action movie doesn't require any CGI effects, 3D effects...or special forces blowing stuff up in the middle east.

The storyline is very simple: 2 men have to stop a runaway train that is about to destroy a town w big population. 90% of the movie takes place on the actual train. There are side stories here and there but the majority of the movie is really focusing on 2 men (Washington and Pine) trying to stop the train. In this case, that worked out well. It creates this urgent, thrilling race against time environment - you don't really have to focus or get destructed by other materials (i.e. family backgrounds, romance, politics...etc). Unstoppable touches on those briefly but just enough so that the audience can get the whole situation and move on. And I really like that. Simple, straightforward action flick is sometime good enough to be a "good" action flick. You won't see any villains or Matrix kind of action sequences in this film. Rather, you will see more realistic, high tension scenes that will keep you on the seat for 100min and you will definitely feel some adrenaline rush.

Some people might say it's very predicting and there is nothing more than camera constantly shooting at the train(s). Well, that's somewhat right. Nonetheless, Unstoppable is a highly effective entertaining blockbuster that will get your attention (despite what you might predict from the premises).

If you are looking for a good action movie and also a fan of Tony Scott's, then there is no reason not to check this movie out. I highly recommend this film if you haven't seen it yet!

Overll all grade: A-

Review #158 - Tron: Legacy

2011-05-07T22:14:00.000-07:00

It's bio-digital jazz, man!

Tron: Legacy (2010), PG, 127min

Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund), 27-year-old son of Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), looks into his father's disappearance and finds himself pulled into the digital world of Tron where his father has been living for 25 years. Quorra (Olivia Wilde), Kevin and Sam try to escape from Tron universe that has become far more advanced and extremely dangerous....

It's visually stunning. Let's start with that. I don't know how much Disney spent to produce this film but it is visually stunning and you should be impressed by this. It's hard to explain but it's semi-artistic, semi-beautiful, semi-futuristic...and lots of LED lights. Majority of visual effects comes from CGI (I assume), nevertheless, Tron's visual is amazing, If the entire world of Tron is created in CGI, then it is basically the same as AVATAR. AVATAR's visual was also amazing but you get completely different effect from Tron's visual effects. Even if you don't like sci-fi movies or little "nerdy" sounding movies, Tron is still worth checking for just visual purposes.

The storyline is very confusing, I'm not gonna lie about that. I have never seen the original ones and I did not have any kind of Tron backgrounds before I saw this movie for the first time. The basic storyline follows this format of son trying to find his father...in this weird digital world. Many other details are very confusing to me, at least. i had many "huh?" or "wait a sec, what did you say?" moments. Tron:Legacy might have rushed in terms of covering materials w/o providing enough depths for the audience to fully understand what's going on. At one point, I decided not to worry about details and simply enjoy the ride. Thankfully, Tron has good, fast tempo, so it didn't matter that much to understand all the details. As long as you get the overall sense of what's going on, you should be okay. If you feel like you are lost (if you were like me, you will be), just "go" with it - good tempo with techno soundtracks and cool visuals will get you through easily....It worked for me! Nevertheless, as the title shows, I assume Disney will try to expand this franchise...so I expect the sequel(s) will explain further in the future.

Acting wise, meh, there isn't any. Yes, you will see Jeff Bridges but it's nothing more than that. Tron is one of those movies that focuses heavily on visual and audio effects, thus they seem like forgot about good old "acting". And sorry Olivia Wilde, you look gorgeous as always but...I personally don't think you are ready for big films yet....you should have finished your "intern" period with House a little bit longer first.

I have no idea how Disney will proceed from here (i.e. sequels) but I'm sure they will try to get as much as $ they can from Tron series. I mean, why not? after all, there are so much potentials out there to create this movie (or series) even better. Let's just say, the first one was the first one - take it as an introductory film to Tron world. It isn't the greatest sci-fi film and certainly, there are many negative aspects that make this movie like "crap" to some people and critics. However I think Tron did good job creating foundation for the future. If you are looking for a good roller coaster ride with stunning visuals, and love techno music? Tron: Legacy is the way to go!

Overall grade: C+

Review #157 - Love and Other Drugs

2011-05-07T13:39:00.000-07:00

Potentially good but "meh".

Love and Other Drugs (2010), Rated-R, 113min

Maggie (Hathaway) is a free spirited woman who won't let anyone - or anything - tie her down. But she meets her match in Jamie (Gyllenhaal), whose charm serves him well with the ladies and in the world of pharmaceutical sales. Maggie and Jamie's evolving relationship takes them both by surprise, as they find themselves under the influence of love....

Love and Other Drugs (LOD) is a typical rom-com you see now days...it's not particularly good or anything but it's not extremely bad either. On a bright side, you get to see two somewhat proven to be successful actors (Hathaway and Gyllenhaal) instead of watching some random mediocre actors falling in love. But don't get me wrong, is this a good sample that shows how good those 2 actors can be? Not even close to. But like I said, I personally rather choose to watch Hathaway&Gyllenhaal pair over the other couples. So ultimately, it will be your choice to decide. Just remember, LOD isn't their greatest.

LOD is a little of comedy, romance and...I would say a little bit of critic. What I mean by that is...I can see LOD trying to criticize the current healthcare industry (mainly focused from a patient side of view, of course). So LOD isn't a simple rom-com that you see a man and a woman searching their love and at the end...they get united...well, it is what it is (like I said earlier, LOD is a somewhat typical rom-com you can expect) but...let's just say that you can definitely tell, they are trying to do prove this movie to be more than that. But the reality is, it's really not "hitting" anything...to me at least. Nevertheless, it's an interesting topic and also it's a interesting approach to a rom-com industry. Unfortunately, so-so screenplay and ok acting don't make this movie stand out from the rest of crowd.

Again, I would say, LOD isn't a mess. I could definitely watch it through, it's somewhat enjoyable but....it's really sloppy. Sometime it's sad to see those talented actors get wasted because of mediocre screenplay and production. If I were you, don't expect anything great from this movie. LOD is a good example of a movie that you can talk and get distracted while you watch the movie -- and you won't miss that much.

Overall grade: C

Review #156 - Thor

2011-05-06T18:42:00.000-07:00

2011 summer kickoff movie!!!

Thor (2011), PG-13, 130min

Thor, a powerful but arrogant warrior whose actions reignite an ancient war. As a result, Thor is exiled to Earth where he is forced to live among humans. When the most dangerous villain of his world sends its forces to invade Earth, Thor learns what it takes to be a true hero...

Ok. Thor. Let me begin by this. I was betrayed by IMAX 3D experience....AGAIN!!!!!! Yes...I know, it's probably my fault that I always ended up paying $15 or so to see a movie in IMAX 3D, maybe that's my weak spot, who knows. I don't want any of my readers to waste money, so I will tell you this now: go see Thor in 2D. There is no need for 3D. I honestly didn't see any obvious 3D effects. So save your money and watch it in 2D. As for IMAX? Well, I love the sound system. I'm not gonna lie. So, ultimately, I will let you decide if you want to see it in IMAX but personally, I didn't think it was that big of a deal. Ok, so that's that for Thor vs IMAX 3D. Moving on...

Am I the only one feels like whenever you see a big budgeted Marvel Comic related film...you feel like your summer is about to start? I sure do. It is becoming a tradition for me to see a superhero from Marvel Comic kicking some asses to start my summer. Just like recent Marvel Comic related films (i.e. Iron Man), I would say that Thor successfully fulfilled my expectation. I wouldn't say this is the best super hero related movie that I've seen thus far. But it is certainly a great entertainment and a great way to start your summer (or I should say, Summer season?) as well.

Rather than seeing a complete package, Thor was more of an introductory movie. It covers basic background story introduces new characters. There is no definite ending in this movie, you will see one of those "To Be Continued" ending (duh). I can say that Thor 2011 is more of a setup for the laster installments and...other Marvel related franchises (I will talk about that in a minute). The movie really focuses on Thor and his home (wherever and whatever that is...sorry, I don't know much about comic, so I can't give info that much). Thor does spend some time in earth with Natalie Portman and rest of "human" crews but that's really not the main part of the movie. Don't get me wrong - there are lots of actions once Thor gets exiled to earth and he develops relationship with Natalie Portman (just like a trailer shows). So there are enough materials to talk about but once again, these are all sets up. I guess..a good way to summarize Thor is..."Thor 101". It's an introductory, setup movie that you need to watch in order to understand "201", "301" and....the other possible franchise (i.e. The Avengers).

Thor got a good tempo, good action sequences, clear/simple storyline. Even if you are not a comic book fan or never actually read the comic before, I would say that Thor is a kind of film that many people can enjoy. You will probably not see any "great" acting performance or Oscar-winning materials but that's not what you are going after when you go see Marvel Comic movies. You are looking for good entertainment, right? Well, then my friend, Thor can give you that no problem.

Just like all the other years, why don't you hop on the bandwagon and kickoff your summer season? You won't regret it.

Overall grade: B-

Review #155 - Hanna

2011-04-10T11:40:00.000-07:00

A stylish, a new style of action thriller.

Hanna (2011), PG-13, 111min

Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) is 16 years old. Uniquely, she has the strength, the stamina, and the smarts of a soldier; these come from being raised by her widowed father Erik (Eric Bana), an ex-CIA man, in the wilds. Erik has taught Hanna to become the perfect assassin by teaching her how to hunt, self-defense skills, and home-schooled her with only an encyclopedia and a book of fairy tales. But out in the world there is unfinished business for Hanna's family, Erik realizes Hanna can no longer be held back...

Hanna. Hanna. Hanna. First of all, if you think Hanna is some kind of Bourne Identity type of fill, then you are wrong. Hanna is far more than simple fast paced action movie - perhaps, I might not even consider Hanna as an action flick. Why is that? Well, don't let the trailer fool you. I originally had feelings that this would be an awesome action flick....just like Bourne Identity (by watching trailer, of course). It turns out to be, Hanna is much more "artistic"...and at the same time, it involves with awesome killer action sequences.

The director, Joe Wright created this mysterious, stylish and artistic atmosphere by using lots of "colors", "imageries" and...soundtracks. It is one of those films, it is hard to digest and explain every single details by watching just once. There are simply sooooo many little details (i.e. imageries, cues, dialogues...) that you need to understand. I assume that, Hanna gets better and better as you watch once, twice, third time and so on.

Now, I don't want to ruin your Hanna experience by giving you lots of spoilers, so I will do my best to explain what Hanna is like w/o getting into any details. One thing I can tell you is that, consider Hannah as a modern fairy tale. "Fairly tale" is one of important themes in this film. Like I said, there are many way to interpret this movie and it will be up to you to decide what your "Hanna" experience is. To me, Hanna was like reading/watching modern fairly tale - 21st century's fairy tale. Try to think what those like Brothers Grimm fairy tales will be like in 21st century....well w/o having those ridiculous cheesy stupid things (you can probably name a few movies like that, interpreting fairy tale in modern taste and you feel like WTF...?). I can definitely see Hanna as a modern interpretation of fairy tale - it uses lots of "colors" and "imageries". Those can me sometime hard to understand or interpret but those also creates this mysterious atmosphere which perfectly fits to Hannah theme.

Regardless of how I interpret this movie, Hanna is a well directed, well written, awesome stylish film. I haven't seen this type of film for a while and honestly, it's hard to find one like Hanna now days. It's a great movie to check it out, so I strongly suggest you to go and see it but...again, don't expect Hannah to be another Bourne Identity!

Overall grade: A-

Review #154 - Source Code

2011-04-09T14:33:00.000-07:00

Jake Gyllenhall version of Deja Vu.

Source Code (2011), PG-13, 94min

When Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up in the body of an unknown man, he discovers he's part of a mission to find the bomber of a Chicago commuter train. He eventually learns that he's part of a government project called the "Source Code," a program that enables him to cross over into another man's identity in the last 8 minutes of his life. With a second, much larger target threatening to kill millions in downtown Chicago, Colter tries to gather clues each time, until he can solve who is behind the bombs and prevent the next attack...

First of all, Source Code really reminded me of Deja Vu (2006) with Denzel Washington. Ok, the main concepts aren't the same, I get it but generally speaking, I would say that the two movies are somewhat identical. Whether it's Deja Vu....or Source code, the main protagonist can travel back in time by using this top-notch technology...and he needs to save the world from the terrorist.

Let's talk more about Source Code. It's a fact paced action thriller. Although the main concept sounds cheesy, it is very well written and the movie goes very smoothly. Does it get repetitive watching Gyllenhaal tries to save the word every 8min? No. At one point, you can roughly guess what will happen next and how Gyllenhaal gets closer each time to save the world. Nevertheless, it is paced right with right amount of action sequences at right tempo, Source Code is a very thrilling, entertaining movie to watch. One good thing about this movie is that it has good momentum to carry the movie all the way to the end. Sometime, action thriller can make you tired, bored, confused...etc - all those are because the film lacks good momentum. Unfortunately, the director did a great job on creating good momentum from the start to the finish.

The other thing about this movie is that it has great castings. I honestly feel that the director did an awesome job on choosing right actor for each character. Gyllenhaal was the perfect fit for his role and the other supporting roles were well chosen as well. They are all not too "flashy" but they do what they are supposed to do to create a good movie.

Finally, the ending. It's one of those endings that you feel like "whoa" and get that "connecting all dots" feeling at the end. It's nothing complicated like other thrillers, so you don't have to worry about understanding the complicated scientific backgrounds that much. Yes, I know, the whole concept of Source Code sounds complicated and a bit cheesy but don't make that underestimate this movie. It's entertaining and nothing better than watching a good action-thriller for 100min and feel "good" at the end.

It may not be necessary to watch it at the theater but I do suggest you to consider as one of your choices if you are having difficult time picking one at the theater AND definitely watch it on...DVD...or Bluray.

Overall grade: B+

Review #153 - New York, I Love You

2011-04-08T16:26:00.000-07:00

It's an artistic film but it has a major consistency problem.

New York, I Love You (2008), Rated-R, 103min

Ten vignettes in New York City: a pickpocket meets his match; a young Hasidic woman reveals herself to an Indian businessman; a writer tries a pick-up line; an artist seeks a model; a composer needs to read; two women connect; a father takes a child to Central Park; lovers meet; a couple takes a walk on their anniversary; a kid goes to the prom with a girl in a wheelchair; a retired singer contemplates suicide...

New York, I Love You (NYILY) is a very unique film. It is one of those films that is made of mini episodes. However it's not one of those movies that all those mini episodes get connected somehow at the end and you find out some big truth at the end....well no, not in this case.

Like I said, this movie is an unique one. Consider this movie as a visit to your local art museum. When you walk into an art museum, you get to see a bunch of paintings - some are beautiful, some are very "artistic" and some are....well you don't even know what they are. NYILY is just like that. You will see a short 10 stories. Each one is directed by a different director, so each episode shows different filming style, themes and "colors". I'm not going to get into details on each episode. Actually it's really hard to tell what each episode means, it's totally up to your interpretations.

If you like this type of movie, then NYILY will be a great one. If you, on the other hand, are someone who needs more consistency in a movie, I can guarantee you, you will get bored after you watch first two episodes or so. Remember, it is made of 10 different "episodes" but it's not like watching a television series/season. It's rather a series of artistic piece, each director is trying to express their thoughts and feelings under this one giant them (I guess I can call that), "NEW YORK". In other words, you will either love it or hate it. Again, if you like a movie that is expressed in more artistic form, then you will love it. If you prefer more like a standard movie...then more likely, you will hate it.

On the bright side, you get to see lots of talented young actors and actresses in this film. You may see them for like 10, 15min for each but if you wanna see your favorite actors in a bit if unusual format, then this might be a good one for you.

Overall, it is very artistic and well directed. However, unfortunately, it will be a hit-or-miss movie based on your preference.

Overall grade: C+

Review #152 - Easy A

2011-04-02T13:21:00.000-07:00

Easy A's "E" stands for Emma Stone's "E".

Easy A (2010), PG-13, 92min

After a little white lie about losing her virginity gets out, Olive (Emma Stone) sees her life paralleling Hester Prynne's in "The Scarlet Letter," which she is currently studying in school - until she decides to use the rumor mill to advance her social and financial standing...

Thanks Emma Stone's great acting performance, Easy A becomes more than a typical high school teenager comedy. By just looking at the storyline, I honestly thinks that there is nothing so special about Easy A. I mean, yes, there are some twists and some may say that there were no movies like Easy A before...then that may be true, but overall tone, atmosphere, scripts...etc just sound like another high school sex comedy (like...Mean Girls).

So what makes Easy A different from the others and slightly better? Well, I would say that it's all about Emma Stone. Thanks to Stone's smooth acting and charming personality, Easy A becomes something more than a mediocre movie. Clearly, I would say that Stone sets a new standard for her acting career and I mean it in a good way. Obviously, Olive was the best role that she has ever gotten and she nailed it. Stone perfectly portrayed herself as this likable teenage girl who is funny, intelligence and sarcastic but not in "Juno" way. I would say that many people who have seen this movie will agree with me on this, yea Emma Stone was the best part of this movie and frankly, it was all about Emma Stone.

Other than that, really, to me, Easy A isn't that special. I mean it has good flow and most importantly, its entertaining and fun to watch but is this going to be a high school comedy that people will remember in say, 10 years? Probably not. A part of it is because there are simply so many movies out there that take similar stance as Easy A and kind of follow the same format.

Nevertheless, Easy A still beats many other high school comedies out there and it is definitely worth watching it. But again, it is what it is after all - it is a high school comedy, so if you don't like one of those...well, I would stay away from it.

Overall grade: B-

Review #151 - Tangled

2011-04-01T13:00:00.000-07:00

It may not be the best Disney film but it is more than enough to enjoy.

Tangled (2010), G, 100min

When the kingdom's most wanted bandit Flynn Rider (Zachary Levi) hides out in a mysterious tower, he's taken hostage by Rapunzel (Mandy Moore), a beautiful teen with 70 feet of magical, golden hair. Flynn's curious captor, who's looking for her ticket out of the tower where she's been locked away for years, strikes a deal with Flynn and they set off on an action-packed escapade, complete with a super-horse, an over-protective chameleon.....

You know, it's funny that every time I watch Disney film, it makes me feel happy (feel silly at the same time...well considering my age now...). It may be real dumb and there may be too much singing and dancing....but somehow Disney films always cheer me up. Tangled is another one like that. Certainly, Tangled may not be the best Disney CG cartoon movie but it definitely fulfills your expectation and it's really fun to watch it.

Tangled is based on a German fairly tale by Brothers Grimm. Very original version is apparently very sexual and graphic...it's more like rated-R. Of course, Disney changed the storyline and other details, so that it can create Disney's famous "everyone can enjoy watching it" feeling. Just like other Disney cartoons, the storyline is very straightforward and its central message/takeaway message is very easy to tell. It's guaranteed that you get to see happy-go-lucky characters go out on a quest to find out...true love and friendship...etc. On top of that, the characters are emotional, multi-dimensional and very "colorful". This is kind of Disney's forte to create well developed characters and throw them into a nice storyline.

Visually speaking, Tangled got stunning visuals and animation. I wish I could see it in 3D and give you reviews but regardless, it was good enough on 2D format...well, on DVD (I probably should have watched it on Bluray to get max. visual effects). It's very colorful, smooth and you can tell right off the bat, Tangled got high quality visuals - just like say, Up!.

Tangled is a safe pick for anyone who is looking for a movie to watch over the weekend. Like I said, it can be described as a "everyone can enjoy watching" movie. I can say that no one will get disappointed. It's very smooth, visually stunning and most importantly, it's fun to watch! Other than that, you will be surprised how talented Mandy Moore can be...I honestly didn't know she had that much of talents. Only a downside of this movie - Zachary Levi's singing...well....I will let you decide what you think. The other thing is that whenever he spoke, the only thing I can think of was Chuck (NBC) - so to me, it was more like Chuck talking and Chuck in Disney film.

Overall grade: B+

Review #150 - Buried

2011-04-01T11:47:00.000-07:00

A brilliant concept.

Buried (2010), Rated-R, 100min

Paul (Ryan Reynolds), a civilian contractor in Iraq, wakes up 6 feet underground with no idea of who put him there or why. Buried with only a cell phone and a Zippo, his contact with the outside world and ability to piece together clues that could help him discover his location are limited. Poor reception, a rapidly draining battery, and a limited oxygen supply become his worst nightmares in a tightly confined race against time - Paul has only 90 minutes to be rescued....

Buried is another low-budgetd masterpiece directed by Spanish director. This movie essentially only required a box (wooden coffin) and Ryan Reynolds....other than that, it's all about camera works, sound systems, lightings and scripts. Even if the title pretty much explains the whole concept of the movie and it looks little "dumb", please don't underestimate this movie - it turns out to be a great one.

The way this movie starts reminded me of the first time when I saw "SAW" (a man wakes up in the bathroom, chained himself to whatever it was). Remember that "wow, what the hell is going on???" feeling with lots of curiosity and weird excitement and a bit of fear? That was the exactly same feeling I got from Buried. Reynolds wakes up and has no idea whats going on around him and soon...he discovers that he is buried in the coffin. And just like SAW, Buried is pretty much that's it! - it's all about Reynolds trying to escape from the coffin before he dies. But unlike SAW, Buried gives you more details and tools to understand whats happening to him, thus you won't puzzeled that much.

Other than simple storyline, I would say that the best thing about this film is how it is filmed. The director did a great job on creating claustrophobic environment by implementing awesome lighting system and sound system. Lighting and sound system are key components for this type of film - you want to make thing "realistic" as possible, so that you also get to feel like you are buried with Reynolds....but at the same time, you don't want to "over-do" it or make things too complicated, then you won't understand...or simply it will make a film look silly. Buried has this perfect balance between realism and entertainment (as a film). One example is Reynolds constantly uses his Zippo to light inside the coffin, so he can see whats around him. By using tiny zippo flame as a tool, this movie was filmed, so that you sometime can see a part of coffin, sometime you can see Reynolds' face...or sometime flame goes out (just like real zippo), so you get to see none....but you can still hear sounds. Other than Zippo, this movie uses other tools like...Chemlight stick, cellphone screen light....etc, each tool contributes to create this "buried" feeling and atmosphere.

I'm a big fan of low-budgeted film like Buried, so obviously, I suggest you to check it out. Some people might say it's a silly concept with dumb storyline but overall, I think it's a decent film to at least check it out. And oh, similar to watching SAW (the first one), try to guess the ending.

Overall grade: B+

Review #149 - Battle: Los Angeles

2011-03-17T18:53:00.001-07:00

Call of Duty meets Independence Day

Battle: Los Angeles (2011), PG-13, 120min

In 2011, Earth is attacked by unknown forces from the outer space. As people everywhere watch the world's great cities fall, Los Angeles becomes the last stand for mankind in a battle no one expected. It's up to a Marine staff sergeant (Aaron Eckhart) and his new platoon to fight back as they take on an enemy unlike any they've ever encountered before......

For those video gamers and for those who love first person shooters, Battle: LA is like an early Christmas present for you. It's non stop acting-shooting movie for...well about 120min or so. Once the movie starts, it keeps rolling and rolling till the end. It doesn't really explain much about the background information on how those aliens came, why they are attacking us (other than very general information), it doesn't really give you personal character backgrounds or whatever.

Do you need those? Not for this movie. Like I said, Battle:LA is basically like a video game, you will feel like you are with Marine platoon and fighting against those aliens in LA. Lots of shooting, explosions and constantly engaging some kind of actions. Many soldiers and civilians die along the way but there is no time for sympathy, the movie keeps moving...just like those first person shooters. Battle: LA is much more focused on "panic" aspect and "action" aspect of the movie. As a result, many critics are showing their hatred by giving horrible reviews. In my opinion, I do understand that....but what do you really expect from Alien vs human action movie anyway? Love and sympathy and human drama? Well, that's one way but I can guarantee you, those things will slow down the movie and cut some action sequences. You just have to accept that Battle:LA is one of "those" movies, if you wanna see something like what the critics are expecting, then go find another one. This one won't be a good one for you. But! if you are looking for 120min fast paced alien invasion movie with full of action, then Battle:LA is the perfect choice for ya.

Acting? What do you expect? Other than Aaron Eckhart, there is almost none. The majority of main character in this movie are Marines, thus they are constantly engaging in battle throughout the film. So in a sense....you really don't need acting in this movie. I wish they would give us more details so that we can understand better about what's going on.

And oh, the ending was totally "Black Hawk Down"....so don't expect something fancy at the end.

Overall, I would say, Battle: Los Angeles is very entertaining and fun to watch....but like I said, that is only if you have the right expectation. I personally like this kind of movie and i tend to enjoy it but it's ultimately up to you!

Overall grade: C+

Review #148 -The Last Exorcism

2011-02-20T11:08:00.000-08:00

Half mockumentary horror movie, half regular horror movie.

The Last Exorcism (2010), PG-13, 87min

In Louisiana, Reverend Marcus agrees that the filmmaker Iris and the cameraman Danielmake a documentary about his life...particularly on the exorcism. Cotton believs that exorcisms are frauds but the results are good for the believers because they believe it is true. When Cotton is summoned by the farmer Louis to perform an exorcism in his daughter Nell. Soon they learn that the dysfunctional Sweetzer family has serious problems....

How many exorcism movies have you seen by now? A quite many, I believe. Starting from the classic, the Exorcist to something newer like....Emily Rose? Honestly, I had low expectation on this film - it just sounded like other exorcism related films.

The Last Exorcism is considered as a mockumentary horror film. But! unlike other mockumentary horror films that stick with "reality" factor, The Last Exorcism got some BGM and sound effects...so you will definitely sense more " regular movie" aspects. It is good because it makes easier to watch and follow, comparing to the other realistic mockumentary horror flicks.

Now, how is it exactly different from other exorcism films? Well, I would say that there is a major difference in the storyline. Rather than, a young girl gets possessed by Demon (why is it always a girl? I don't know) and a priest comes to the house and do all kinds of exorcism activities...The Last Exorcism gives this documentary touch to the storyline. First of all, a priest (main character) doesn't believe in the exorcism - I would say, that is a big difference. First half of the movie goes based on this guy's belief that the there is no such a thing as exorcism, it is what it is, it is up to what people believe. So I would say that the first half kinda goes slow but it builds up good foundation. As the movie progresses, it gets more intense, tempo gets faster....and reveals some secrets. At the beginning, I said that The Last Exorcism gets more like regular horror movie at the end. Yes it does. You will hear some BGM/sound effects and it gets more "roller coaster" like. And bang. There is a big surprise at the end.

It was interesting to see that The Last Exorcism turns out to be a mix of The Exorcist, Blair Witch Project...and a bit of Catfish (read my previous review, I'm more talking about a documentary film aspect here). Overall, it seemed like it was just another exorcism movie but I would consider it as an original, fresher horror film. The storyline goes smooth. The acting isn't that bad (well, you actually don't need that much of acting in horror movie, at least this kind of topic). It doesn't give me constant chill or surprise but it's good enough to watch at night and gives you a couple scary moments. If you are looking for a solid horror movie and don't wanna watch low-budgeted, cheap horror movies, then The Last Exorcism will be a good pick! It is at least good enough that you can enjoy your night.

Overall grade: C+

Review #147 - Catfish

2011-02-20T10:14:00.000-08:00

It is not a mockumentary horror flick.

Catfish (2010), PG-13, 94min

In 2007, filmmakers Ariel and Henry sbegan to film the life of Ariel's brother, Nev. They had no idea that their project would lead to the most unsettling and the saddest months of their lives.....

Ok. So Catfish. Initially, I thought that this film is one of those mockumentary horror flicks (Paranormal Activity, REC...etc). As far as I saw the trailer a couple months ago, I really couldn't tell what this film was about...other than the fact that it gave me some weird chill at the end. The bottom line, I originally thought that Catfish can be an indie horror movie and needless to say, I was excited to watch.

Now. As my headline says, turns out to be, Catfish is NOT a horror movie. I will say it again, it is not a horror movie, so if you were like me, thinking that this film is a horror movie, well it is not...just let you know. Instead, Catfish is a documentary film. It is a kind of documentary film that you can't really tell if it's real or not. According to some sources, it sounds like that Catfish is a well made, fake documentary film although the film director/producer denies about it.

Just like many other movies now days, the movie uses that handy camera and the story really goes like "documentary film". Catfish is basically about this guy who lives in NYC met a woman online through Facebook, soon they became attached. Instead of keeping the relationship "as is", this guy decided to go and meet her. So you can kind of tell where this story is going and how some people (like myself) confused it as a horror movie. I really don't want to ruin the movie, so I can't discuss any more details than that. But I can assure you, Catfish is really well directed, written "mockumentary film" (I am not sure what the truth is but let's just say it's fake, for now). You might think that documentary film is boring, flat and long but Catfish doesn't make you feel any of that. Tempo is constant, it's very "natural"--so that you won't feel like it's fake and won't see any of those cheap, written scripts. The characters/actors are very natural, just like watching your friends talking to you. I got this feeling that I was a part of film crew throughout the film, so that was good.

I'm sorry to disappoint you that Catfish is not a horror movie. Nevertheless, it is very well directed, indie film. It certainly delivers a message to you at the end.....and it will make you rethink your digital social life. I would say, just give it a try, it is less likely to fail your expectation....as long as you know it's not a horror movie :)

And by the way, why "Catfish"? Well, watch it all the way to the end and it will explain why. The ending is perhaps the most memorable and touching scene in this film.

Overall grade: B