0
[postlink]https://fantasymoviereview.blogspot.com/2010/02/httpwww_7869.html[/postlink]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHS7EyzszeUendofvid
[starttext]
With the release of 2009's moderate hit "He's Just Not That Into You", audiences proved that with enough star power, even the most mediocre of films could make a smash at the box office. Following the trend, 2010's first romantic comedy 'When In Rome' hopes to achieve the same success with similar tactics. Sadly, if it's level of quality were indicative of how far it's legs will take it, the film may have been better off as a straight to DVD release.

The star powered film stars such front-line actors as Josh Duhamel, Kristen Bell and Danny DeVito, with an ensemble of B-listers that seems to never end. Focusing on Beth Harper, played monotonously by Bell, the movie is a meld of fantasy, comedy, and a lack of fresh ideas in Hollywood. The film begins the moment that Bell's lead character drunkenly delves for coins in the bottom of Italy's 'Fontana De Amoure', a poor choice which leads to five would-be-stalkers falling in love with her. The rest of the film is devoted to her trying to discover whether the one man she does love, Nick Beaman (Josh Duhamel), is truly her match, or merely the same as the rest of the crazed lunatics she's trying to avoid.

While the film maintains it's good intentions of romantic comedy lore, there are simply too many wincing moments that seem so terribly dated, quite often put on display with use of Duhamel's character and the poles that he repeatedly walks into, as example. In terms of overall acting, audiences may prove genuinely surprised by the lead male's performance, as the ex-Transformer star manages to successfully portray himself as the flawed charmer he is - all despite the massive chasm of chemistry that he shares (or doesn't) with Bell. In terms of the acting from the 'Veronica Mars' star, Bell's fifteen minutes of fame seem to be quickly drawing to a close, as she continues her simplistic, emotionless portrayal of a girl that is just ever so unique, or at least wishes she was.

In regards to the nearly non-existent script, there are a few genuine moments that play out as the Director most-probably intended them too - that is to say that they managed to get a laugh from the audience, a sad rarity throughout the flicks 91 minutes - a run-time that seems to drag on for at least half an hour too long. Without a doubt, slapstick is the ruling theory of comedy in this film, but if one manages to pay close enough attention, they may find themselves appreciating some of the more subtle jabs. Likewise, the observant viewer will undoubtedly take notice of the plethora of cameos speckled across the film - keep an eye out for the 'Napoleon Dynamite' nod, Pedro included.

With all this said, the film is by no means the worst thing to hit screens in recent memory - said trophy belongs to the more deserved 'Toothfairy' - but it definitely has it's niche audience. A definite date movie, movie buffs may want to take a pass on this for the time being, particularly with the multitude of Oscar-Bait movies making their way to to screen. For those truly unsure about the flick, take a safety - wait until it's release on DVD to give it a go; if you play by the rule of 'Kirsten Bell Looks Confused Again," it could even make a half-decent drinking game.
[endtext]

When in Rome

0
[postlink]https://fantasymoviereview.blogspot.com/2010/02/httpwww_9824.html[/postlink]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvRdGKxsmD8endofvid
[starttext]
I saw this movie at an early screening and was delighted.

I give this movie three stars out of four, or 8 of ten points for great characters, intrigue, and some startling action scenes. It looses the 2 points because it does tend to slow down a little and become more dramatic at times but if you are a Mel Gibson fan you probably won't mind that at all. This movie reminded me a little of Taken, with a whole lot of Enemy of the State, and just a touch of Jason Bourne. Mel Gibson is engaging in his first acting role in years, although he definitely looks older now. It's hard to watch Gibson here without thinking of Martin Riggs in Lethal Weapon and there is some carryover but here Craven played by Gibson is the older, caring, Father who is also a cop although there is still some of of the craziness that made Mel so dynamic in a number of his roles. In some ways Mel reminded me here a little of Clint Eastwood in movies like Absolute Power and In the Line of Fire as the more mature protagonist who combines maturity and cunning with a fierce side that comes out in battle.

It's not giving anything away to say that the story is about Mel Gibson's character trying to find out who killed his daughter as that much is in the trailer. Mel plays a veteran detective and so has skills and resources we civilians don't. The movie takes a while to develop and takes great pains to show the love of Craven for his daughter in the opening scenes and then periodically remind us in flashbacks. There are a lot of characters which seem to be critical to building the intrigue of the movie; activists, defense contractors, government officials and various henchmen. The movie does a good job for a while of hiding who is working for whom. Suspense does build for most of the movie but a good bit before the end it is evident what is going on and the movie shifts from an action thriller to more of an pure action movie.

Ray Winstone plays an intriguing role as Jedburgh, deftly showing protagonist and antagonist sides at different times in a mysterious role. Danny Huston plays a multi-dimensional character, Jack Bennet, that is fun to watch. Bojana Novakovic as Emma Craven is a sweetheart. Jay O. Sanders plays a solid role as Detective Whitehouse.

The movie is definitely heavy on violence and acting independent of authority although I don't remember any swearing or sex scenes. Still it requires a mature audience as the hero's actions are probably not ones you want your kids emulating in your house. As with so many movies it portrays sides of business and government at their worst. So,since it is light on sexuality and vulgarity I would suggest that if you let your older kids go that you still discuss the extreme portrayals of the police, use of force, business and government.

It's good to see Mel back in action.
[endtext]

Edge of Darkness

0
[postlink]https://fantasymoviereview.blogspot.com/2010/02/httpwww_1192.html[/postlink]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0349E7kFEMendofvid
[starttext]
In his directorial debut, Scott Cooper adapts Thomas Cobb's Crazy Heart, the story of Bad Blake, a washed-up country star with an alcohol addiction. The film stars Jeff Bridges, in the lead role, and Maggie Gyllenhaal as Jean, a young reporter is taken in by Blake's heartache and pain.

Cooper's direction is of subtle greatness. The film is quiet, slow-paced, but works. It's never meant to be loud or over-the-top, which some may be expecting; it's a beautiful written song about life thrust into a two-hour sympathy riot. Bridges, who will surely receive Oscar attention, is reserved, charismatic, and raw. Bridges' 58-year-old Blake is one of the better performances of the year. There are obvious comparisons to Robert Duvall's performance Tender Mercies, with critics believing a possibly similarity to Mickey Rourke's work in The Wrestler, which is certainly not the case, this is unique in its own way. Bridges doesn't overcook the role which would have been easy, he's effortless and sings quite well.

Maggie Gyllenhaal, Oscar snubbed for her works in Sherrybaby and World Trade Center, is nearly average in her work. She's coy with Jean and underplays her, but unlike Bad Blake, her role doesn't call for it. Jean is a bruised, kindhearted, and devoted mother to her four-year old son Buddy (Jack Nation, as cute as can be), but uneven in narrative forming.

Robert Duvall is brief, and nearly ineffectual. As the bar owner Wayne, he offers a humanity for Blake outside of woman, which is needed in the film, but in the end is unmemorable. Also sharing this boat is the talented Colin Farrell, who's both likable and adequate, but upstaged by scenes with Bridges.

The only thing more beautiful than Bridges' performance is the song "The Weary Kind," which is submission for Best Original Song for the Academy Awards. This is one of the best songs written for a film in the last ten years. Delightful lyrics and exquisitely executed, the song one of the rare occasions of the perfect song for a perfect film, given the film's nature.

While Crazy Heart doesn't offer anything insightful to the realm of cinema, it's simple, uncomplicated, and honest, which you can't appreciate. For a first time out, Cooper does an admirable job.
[endtext]

Crazy Heart

0
[postlink]https://fantasymoviereview.blogspot.com/2010/02/httpwww_6273.html[/postlink]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIkPz-b8fZQendofvid
[starttext]
You never know what you are going to get. With From Paris with Love, you see two distinctly different marketing strategies. One set of trailers and TV spot bills it as a hard-boiled action flick, with Travolta unleashing a fury of bullets. The other focuses on the much lesser known Jonathan Rhys-Meyers as he deals with the comedic situations placed on him through the Travolta character. If you can go in with an open mind, you'll see that both approaches ring true for better or worse.

Our story starts with a long dose of James Reece (Jonathan Rhys Meyers). He's the personal aid to the U.S Ambassador to France. Known for book smarts, his side task of spying for his country affords him the opportunity to place bugs and switch plates. At his flat, his girlfriend Caroline (Kasia Smutniak) has to deal with being kept in the dark. When the opportunity for more dangerous work presents itself, Reece is given a partner in the form of Charlie Wax (John Travolta). Wax is a fast-talking, trigger-happy, manic whose order to do as he pleases may just be too much for Reece.

The two J's make for a great team. On one end you have Reece leading the audience into the underground world of mayhem while trying to keep his wits about him. On the other there is the everyman's adrenaline junkie who may not be too old just yet. And for what it's worth, in a throwaway action flick, there's a genuine sense of fun in the air. However, the emphasis on mindless chaos puts a damper on the mood. There are numerous moments where the pace hiccups all the way to 11. I sure would have appreciated a briefing of sorts instead of a simple kill everyone mentality. Even with the agenda to smite the terrorists, there is an explosive moment near the end that exists for zero narrative purpose. Maybe Wax was having so much fun flirting with diegetic sound that he forgot to fire his bazooka, opting instead to save it for a more dramatic moment. You just can't have the kill happy hero abort and purse a target at the same time.

From the director of Taken, Pierre Morel, comes a tale based on a short story from Luc Besson. I'm not sure what that's going to mean to the average moviegoer, whether you factor in Morel's short resume at the helm or the sporadic nature of Besson's screenplays. What I saw from a crew standpoint was a throwback to the '80s and '90s action genre. Gun use doesn't provoke bullet-time effects. You can bet Travolta has a stunt double. Most importantly you can understand what's happening during the fights. I can't even count how many films edit around the action these days to the point that you have no honest idea of who's still standing. If you are sick of The Dark Knight method of shooting fists juxtaposed with fallen bodies, From Paris with Love will be a good movie for you.

Wax is a character that is unfortunately placed in the narrative's backseat. To better understand what I'm talking about, look at Lethal Weapon. In that film the two cop buddies have a developed background. We see their homes, we see Murtaugh's family and Riggs' dog. Well in From Paris with Love the only character you get to know the history of or see the private love of is Reece. At 92 minutes, there certainly could have been time allotted to explore Wax, but the screenplay shuns it. Maybe some time to cool down with his side of life would have helped reduce the jerky pacing. Man, I feel the love for you Paris but I'm not sure that I'm getting it back.
[endtext]

From Paris with Love

0
[postlink]https://fantasymoviereview.blogspot.com/2010/02/httpwww_6794.html[/postlink]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqnjK79fGSwendofvid
[starttext]
Trying to level any serious criticism at director Michael Lembeck's Tooth Fairy is like four hardened grizzled WW II vets hand-cranking one of those rotating anti-aircraft guns with four different barrels pointing at a bunch of screaming Japanese Zeros around so they can blast an orange kitten out of a tree. Except the kitten is kind of an asshole and it's 1956 so we're not actually at war with Japan anymore, so you know... maybe it's not the worst idea in the world.

Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson plays Derek "the Tooth Fairy" Johnson, the beloved bruising left-winger on the local minor hockey team. He started as a skill player, a dangler, an offensive prospect that had his dreams dashed by a shoulder injury, and he's now happy to play a couple of minutes a night, hammer the opponents' star player, and spend the rest of the game in his custom recliner in the penalty box. He's a cartoon pragmatist, dispensing hard truths about the impossibility of dreams coming true to young hockey players wanting to be just like him.

As a result, he is summoned to Fairyland, and sentenced by head fairy Lily (Julie Andrews) to two weeks' duty as a Tooth Fairy, a real-deal winged creeper with a bat-belt full of spy gadgets and a lanky, awkward case worker with fairy aspirations of his own (Stephen Merchant, co-creator with Ricky Gervais of The Office). Lessons are learned, a whole bunch of obvious groaner gags are hatched, and everything, eventually, from a guitarist kid's fear of failure to a single mom's love to a future hockey star's cockiness and on and on is resolved in a Really Pleasant Way.

It's a kids movie, pure and simple, endlessly saccharine and full of pratfalls, Healthy Moral Lessons and magic fairy dust. It's also incredibly dull, and a massive waste of what's actually a great cast - Merchant is consistently funny and Billy Crystal is in vintage form as Fairyland's gadgetmaster Q equivalent, and Johnson is as charming as ever. Six year old kids will probably laugh their six year old heads off, but the dullness of the script, the predictability of the gags and the moral convenience and simplicity of the story is going to bore anybody not actually invested in the "ok wait is there actually a tooth fairy or not, dad" debate.

You want this film to be better, just because it could have been. It's stuffed full of legitimate talent and it remarkably doesn't feel like a cynical cash-in, it just feels diluted. It is going to accomplish its ostensibly stated goal, entertaining children, but outside of a few laughs here and there it's not going to do much for anyone else. 4/10
[endtext]

Tooth Fairy

0
[postlink]https://fantasymoviereview.blogspot.com/2010/02/httpwww_9680.html[/postlink]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH7Bv0Jg1W8endofvid
[starttext]
Director Lasse Hallström and screenwriter Jamie Linden collaborate to adapt author Nicholas Sparks' novel about a young soldier who falls for an idealistic college girl. Savannah Curtis (Amanda Seyfried) was on spring break when she first met John Tyree (Channing Tatum), who was home on temporary leave. For the smitten soldier it was practically love at first sight. Over the course of the next seven years, when each deployment seemed more treacherous than the last, the love letters that Savannah sent to John were one of the only things that kept him going. However, those loving and heartfelt correspondences would ultimately yield consequences that neither the brave soldier nor his one true love could have ever foreseen. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
[endtext]

Dear John

0
[postlink]https://fantasymoviereview.blogspot.com/2010/02/httpwww_6289.html[/postlink]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiYWgkJzjkkendofvid
[starttext]
THE Wolfman is a remake of the 1941 Lon Chaney Jr-starring original horror about a man bitten and cursed by a werewolf, with the furry role filled this time around by Benicio Del Toro.

He plays American Lawrence Talbot who returns to his ancestors’ home in Victorian-era Britain after his missing brother’s fiancee Gwen (Emily Blunt) seeks his help.

Lawrence’s transformation is steeped in family history and things are not helped by a determined investigation by Scotland Yard’s Inspector Aberline (Hugo Weaving).

The Wolfman arrives on the back of a pretty cursed production. Original director Mark Romanek left the movie because of “creative” differences and Joe Johnston (Jumanji, Jurassic Park III) took the reins.

The film was due out late last year and I am always wary of work that has suffered from changes and rescheduling issues. My concerns were partially justified.

This is Universal Pictures’ second attempt at resurrecting their classic horror icons after the entertaining, but bloated and critically-panned, Van Helsing and whilst rarely dull, The Wolfman is unlikely to usher in a new era of creature features.

It aims for Hammer Horror with dark, grey, misty locations and pub chats of legends, but adopts the same tactic as most modern ‘scarefests’; The louder the better.

Classic scores (Psycho, Halloween) have been replaced by big bangs and jump scares. The Wolfman even features scenes with two loud jump scares in a row. Is it scary? You might be startled once or twice but there’s little tension or enough material to get under your skin.

The acting is perfectly fine. Del Toro is a little bland but looks the part as a tortured soul. British beauty Blunt puts in the best work but isn’t required to do much. Anthony Hopkins (Sir John Talbot) brings some ham, but doesn’t overdo it, and Weaving, with a perfect appearance for horror, sounds like a Cockney Mr Smith from The Matrix.

The special effects are OK. In full wolfman mode Del Toro looks pretty good but the CGI transformation is quite poor, and nowhere near as good as the more practically done transformation in 1981’s An American Werewolf in London.

There’s a surprising amount of visceral gore on show. Severed limbs, intestines and blood and guts fill the set floors. Strange asylum-set scenes also feature torture and you get the impression that Johnston may be trying to cater to the Hostel/Saw gore-loving crowds.

A slightly OTT fur-filled finale is predictable but quite fun. I just feel, though, that this film would’ve benefited from a less ‘show and tell’ approach.

The best horrors let your imagination, not on-camera bloody slayings, do most of the frightening for you. The Wolfman may have claws but they feel a little blunt.


[endtext]

The Wolfman

0
[postlink]https://fantasymoviereview.blogspot.com/2010/02/httpwww_6412.html[/postlink]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xko1Mx5w4tgendofvid
[starttext]
The critical verdict on “Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief” boils down to this: Percy Jackson, you’re no Harry Potter.

The new movie tells the story of a troubled boy who finds out he’s actually the son of Poseidon, which makes him a demigod, which is pretty cool. What’s not so cool: all sorts of mythological monsters want to kill him, including Medusa, the Minotaur and a Fury. The film stars Logan Lerman as Percy and former James Bond Pierce Brosnan as a helpful teacher/centaur. The film, based on the book by Rick Riordan, was directed by Chris Columbus, who helmed the first two Harry Potter movies, which means, of course, that every fantasy adventure film he ever makes from now until Doomsday will be compared to Harry Potter.

“Percy Jackson” was produced by Fox 2000, which is owned by News Corp., publisher of the Wall Street Journal.

Speakeasy took one of our kids and a friend to see this film and they loved it — but apparently seven-year-old boys who have actually read the “Percy” books aren’t as knowledgeable about what young people want to watch as surly middle-aged movie critics who probably didn’t even put candy out for Halloween and think a PS3 is R2-D2’s cousin. Just sayin’.

Most movie critics gave the film mixed reviews, and more than a few lazily came up with some sort of pun riffing off the word “Lightning” in the title — like, “‘Lightning’ Lacks Electricity” or “After ‘Potter’ ‘Lightning’ Doesn’t Strike Twice” or “‘Lightning Thunderous Bore.” Hmmm. Now that we’ve done a few, that’s actually kinda fun! “Harry Steals ‘Lightning Thief’s’ Thunder.” Had to get one more in there.

[endtext]

Percy Jackson and the Olympians

0
[postlink]https://fantasymoviereview.blogspot.com/2010/02/httpwww_18.html[/postlink]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSS-QPdiiiYendofvid
[starttext]
Valentine's Day (PG-13) Warner Bros. (120 min.)

Directed by Garry Marshall. With Julia Roberts, Anne Hathaway, Jennifer
Garner, Bradley Cooper, Ashton Kutcher. Now playing in New Jersey.

review: One and a half stars

Rating note: The film contains sexual situations and strong language.

Movie Review: These are the jokes, folks.

Both of them.

Garry Marshall's "Valentine's Day" doesn't skimp on the stars, though. A supersized ensemble features just about everybody who ever made a Marshall movie, or maybe watched one on TV.

Julia Roberts is the big "get" here, but there's also Anne Hathaway, Jennifer Garner, Jamie Foxx, Shirley MacLaine, the Jessicas Biel and Alba and the doctors McDreamy and McSteamy.

That's not a cast, it's a Zip code.

Unfortunately, this overstuffed movie doesn't take time to really focus on any of them. It's a kind of "He's Just Not That Into You and You, and You, and Especially Not You," with plot twists piling up like six-car collisions.

Hathaway is a struggling actress who moonlights as a phone-sex worker. Garner is a schoolteacher getting two-timed (and oblivious to best friend Ashton Kutcher). Roberts is on a plane. Foxx is on TV.

The movie is on life-support.

Marshall's credits go back to the early '60s; before he went into the movies he was responsible for some of the funniest moments on "The Dick Van Dyke Show" and "The Odd Couple." But this film feels more like one of his episodes for "Love, American Style."

Some of the performers are winning. Biel, who has a big hungry grin and no fears about physical comedy, continues to outshine her material.

Garner still radiates tomboy charm, and Hathaway looks for the real moment in every scene.

And, yes, I guess there's a certain gossip value now to seeing Taylor Swift and Lautner - then still a couple - on screen together. And some bad and accidental topicality, in playing an airport security breach for laughs.

But that's it. Tiny, tangerine Alba seems interested only in beating Rosario Dawson's record for most bad movies in a career. Swift's film debut is more torturously abrasive than her Grammy performance.

And Kutcher? Please. Stop tweeting for a second and comb the hair out of your eyes, would you? You're 32 already, man, c'mon.

Give the film some credit for at least having a gay and an interracial romance in the mix; take away a bit of that for its easy gags about "funny" accents. (And give yourself 10 points if you remembered Marshall started his showbiz career writing jokes for Bill Dana's made-up Latino character, "Jose Jimenez").

Not that there's any real harm in "Valentine's Day." In fact, there's nothing remotely real in it at all, and certainly no surprise. (If you don't see the "twist" coming in the Julia Roberts/Bradley Cooper seatmates-on-a-plane story, you've already fallen asleep). And the jokes? At a $10 ticket price, they average out to $5 a piece.

The film will probably make millions anyway, based on that cast. (A follow-up film has already been announced.) And the release date doesn't hurt either. I know plenty of nice people who are desperate to see a good romantic comedy this weekend.

And they still will be, even after they see "Valentine's Day."
1
[postlink]https://fantasymoviereview.blogspot.com/2010/02/httpwww.html[/postlink]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bfGIA-fnl4endofvid
[starttext]
Movie Review: “Avatar”; Cast: Sam Worthington, Zo Saldana, Stephen Lang, Sigourney Weaver; Director: James Cameron; Rating: **** -”Avatar” is a film that leaves you ‘nishabd’ (speechless).

James Cameron may have placed this story on a moon called Pandora with alien characters (known as Na’vi) that could have belonged to human race if not being double the size, a longer face, sharper features, blue body, white fluorescent marks on the face and tail at the back.

Still, emotions felt are just the same where Na’vis fight for their land, people, pride and right to live.

In a way, the story is no different from what locals may feel in any part of the world when outsiders make an attempt to make inroads into their land to gain hold of their resources. This is what happens to Na’vis as well when their peaceful existence is challenged with American troops entering their world to gain hold of precious minerals worth billions.

While they send one of their men (Sam Worthington) to Pandora by turning him into a Na’vi avatar so that he can understand the way of the natives and talk them into handing over their land, they also nurture a plan of their own.

With round of talks merely being a cover to understand how Na’vis feel and react, there is a deadly operation brewing in the background that would has a single point agenda of destroying and winning.

“Avatar” is an admirable effort because not even once viewers feel that it’s an ‘alien story’ (pun intended) being told. There is a love story brewing between Sam’s Na’vi avatar with the Pandora princess (Zo Saldana) and soon he discovers an altogether new world. Literally. He wages a battle of his own with support from a handful of friends from ’sky people’ along with tribe members and animals belonging to all shapes and sizes.

The story conveys that Cameron is a big fan of Bollywood films from the 60s and the 70s. Just like his last effort “Titanic” which was as Bollywood as it gets, even “Avatar” has quite a few Hindi film references if one starts plotting them on paper.

After watching “Avatar”, the question of paramount importance is – what does one pick and what is it that should be left behind the experience that goes by the name of “Avatar”?

Does one admire Cameron for the sheer vision that he has put to tremendous use in the making of “Avatar”? Does one pick up each and every frame in the film and start bisecting it for every pixel which has been designed to perfection? Or does one silently nod in approval for the familiar world of love, brotherhood, attachment, greed, misunderstandings and the ultimate reunion where spirit of togetherness is the ultimate winner?

In short, “Avatar” is not a film to be seen and then talked about. It’s one to be experienced.
[endtext]