Sunday, December 26, 2010

Review: "The Green Hornet" (2011)

 

By Melissa Hanson

It's nice to go into a movie thinking it will be terrible and have it turn out to be pretty damn good. That was my thought as I left the screening for first of two "green" superhero movies. (The first is this one, The Green Hornet, the next is Green Lantern with Ryan Reynolds.) Seth Rogen/Evan Goldberg (Superbad, Pineapple Express) wrote as Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) directs, and between the writing and directing, give a fresh approach to the superhero movie genre. After seeing the trailers for it, I have to say, I was not expecting much. The dialogue looked terrible and the action scenes generic. Just viewing the clips, the movie looks hokey and cookie-cutter, but after seeing the entire movie, you realize that it really works.

Seth Rogen is Britt Reid, a typical rich playboy type. His unapproving newpaper  mogul father, James Reid (Tom Wilkinson), dies suddenly and leaves it all up to him. He really doesn't care much about anything and fires the house staff, but suddenly realizes that he is now without his sacred cappuccino and seeks out who makes it. He discovers Kato (Jay Chou) and the two form a friendship out of mutual hatred of the elder Reid.

The supporting characters are also not your typical superhero movie types. Christophe Waltz is quite funny as the villain and Cameron Diaz is thrown in and actually contributes to the story. There are other great cameos and you'll find yourself chuckling many times at the dialogue and antics of all the characters.

Even though you knew good would conquer evil (duh) there were many twists and turns along the way to surprise you. The action scenes were ridiculously exaggerated in the best way. Witty dialogue and fun action, not a bad combination.

So, go see it. I think you'll be surprised.

Monday, December 20, 2010

Review: "True Grit" (2010)


IMDB link 

by Stephen LaRose

Joel and Ethan Coen have been notorious for delivering bizarre and strange narratives from their own twisted minds. True Grit, their latest film is a remake of the 1969 film of the same name, starring John Wayne, falls short of being up to traditional Coen standards. The film follows Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) a 14-year-old independent girl who has just lost her father to a man named Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). Wanting to bring Tom Chaney to justice, she hires a man with “true grit,” named Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) and with the help of Texas Ranger LaBouef (Matt Damon) they search for Chaney.

I had the chance to check out the original True Grit, thanks to Netflix. I find this film to be a charming and fun ride. John Wayne, although rough and tough, has a bit of wit, and the story is lighthearted enough to be enjoyable. The Coens have taken this story and given it a darker tone and that’s about all they’ve done with it, aside from a few narrative changes. The narrative does not offer the freedom to be able to add the Coen touch without drastically changing the story. The most interesting thing is watching Steinfeld hold her own up against the two Hollywood heavyweights of Damon and Bridges, who don’t really offer much to begin with. The entire film I felt as if I was watching the actors, and not the characters. I didn’t care when certain things happened to characters, I felt as if they were just happening. Bridges attempts to deliver that same charm we get from Wayne, but with his delivery, and the tone of the film, it seems out of place. The same goes for Damon, and any other attempts for comic relief aren’t necessary. Had the Coens played this completely dark, with no comedy, I feel it would have been much more effective. Instead these moments do more hurt than help.

The film moves along pretty well and doesn’t slow down for a second, with each scene being necessary for the plot. However, it isn’t too interesting until the group is well along on their journey. It isn’t until the film gets violent that we see the Coens add their own voice into the film. Other than that, it is pretty bland. Also, the cinematography doesn’t give the characters room to breathe. The film is very tight, and close, as opposed to the original. We don’t see that landscapes which are so essential to westerns. We simply watch the characters move around to different places, and don’t really understand where they are.

Maybe it’s my own fault for expecting so much from this. I mean, the trailer was pretty exciting. The narrative and actors presented a lot of potential for the Coens to take this film to the next level, but instead it falls. Unfortunately the Coens needed to do more than change the tone, and add a few big names to make this a worthy contender for this year’s Oscar season.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Complaining at a free screening, really???

By Graham Malin

I have been to my fair share of screenings over the years and have noticed something that has becoming more and more apparent while attending. Let me start however, by describing the experience of a screening for the people who haven’t had the opportunity to attend one. Usually these events are put on by studios, radio stations or other promotions to treat people to a special early screening of an upcoming film and/or sometimes get feedback from the attendees about the film.

The best part about these screening are that they’re “FREE” and cost you nothing, which is a great deal you would think. Usually you need to arrive about an hour to an hour and a half early to ensure you get a decent seat because they do over book these events to guarantee a full crowd. This is where things get a little tricky though because along with the people who have received passes to see the screening, the press is also allowed to come and they have reserved seats which are usually roped off. On average, they usually mark off between two to six rows for the press based on how many have RSVP for the screening (which is fair because these are the people who opinions will be heard about the film and advise the general public about the quality of the film).

Unfortunately, this is where the biggest issue arises, because these sections are marked off for the press and only leave a very limited amount of seating for the people who have passes. In a decent size theater that seats about 300 people, the only available seating for people with passes is usually in the front rows or a few rows at the very top, and the rest is for press. This is where greedy people come in and things turn from enjoyable to uncomfortable and annoying. They start complaining to the people running the screening that they don’t have a seat because there are so many press seats reserved and they are very furious.

My most recent encounter of this happened this week when I attended a screening for “The Fighter”. We arrived early, like usual, and were able to get a decent seat right in front of the press and even congregated a bit with a few bloggers and film critics attending. Within three minutes of being let into the theater, most of the seating had filled up besides the six rows that were reserved for press, and the complaining began. I heard at least ten different people complain and become upset because of the reserved seating and how they didn’t have a seat and they wanted to be compensated for this and allowed to sit there. Now normally these people are not the classiest ones and usually are the ones that show up late and feel a sense of entitlement when it comes to life. These people bitched and complained for nearly ten minutes before they finally left, or should I say asked to leave.

People, these are “FREE” screenings, you are not paying a damn thing for them therefore you have no right to complain about the seating because you failed to arrive early or plan accordingly. If you want to see the film that bad, then wait a few days and pay to see it, or show up early next time. I can not stress how annoying it is to everyone around having to listen to these moronic crybabies when it’s not going to change a thing. So the point I’m trying to get at here is, if you go to something that is “FREE” do not complain, it’s free, just make the best of it and if you don’t want to sit in the front row then take your ass back home and stop ruining the screening for the rest of us.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Trailers: Transformers: The Dark of the Moon

Trailer

by Stephen LaRose

Michael Bay has given us hours of dumb fun with his two previous installments of the Transformers franchise. This last week we got the first glimpse of the third chapter from Bay, Transformers: The Dark of the Moon. I’ll admit it, that’s a pretty ridiculous title, but the trailer has potential. Right off the bat, the trailer highlights The United States’ achievement of landing on the Moon, which gives us all that warm, proud patriotic feeling. We also see stock footage of Mission Control to further the authenticity of that feeling. But alas, we soon discover, that “we are not alone.” Who I assume is Neil Armstrong descends from the lunar Lander and bounds over a ridge to reveal a gigantic spacecraft. Inside he discovers a secret that the US quickly covers up. The trailer concludes with a shot of Alpha Trion, which morphs into the Transformers logo. All of this makes up for the lack of awesome that came with last film.

This franchise is not known for having a deep, thought provoking narrative. With this teaser trailer, I don’t see that changing at all. The entire trailer only shows us that the US found aliens on the Moon in 1969, and that Steve Stevens (you know who I’m talking about if anyone watched Even Stevens) was a part of it. Although it is incredibly awesome with everything taking place on the Moon, it scares me a bit. We don’t see any recurring characters, so we don’t know how awful Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is going to be, or if Shia Lebouef will give us his signature, “Nononononono!” However, it is only a teaser trailer, so it succeeds in that sense. I couldn’t be more excited for this film than I am now, despite the utter stupidity of Revenge of the Fallen. I even let out a shout of joy when I saw the “In 3D” text pop up.

Cinegasm Episode 018

Episode 018 - Click to listen in your browser
or right-click and "Save Target As" to download

Host:  Brian J Blottie
Co-Hosts: Stephen LaRose, Graham Malin, Kevin Brotman


  • Topic of the Week: The decline of Christmas movies

Friday, December 10, 2010

Review: "The Fighter" (2010)


IMDB link

by Melissa Hanson

The Fighter follows a typical underdog storyline, but director David O. Russell made it compelling, real and raw. Mark Wahlberg and Christian Bale play half-brothers Micky and Dicky from Lowell, Massachusetts. Dicky was a former fighter who's claim to fame was knocking out "Sugar" Ray Leonard. He has since become addicted to crack and trains Micky, an up-and-coming fighter. The always impressive Melissa Leo plays Alice, the mother and manager of Micky, while Amy Adams shakes up the family as Micky's girlfriend, Charlene.

The handheld shots give it a documentary vibe, but more than that it really just makes you feel like you are actually there. Instead of edits and cutaways, the camera moves back and forth between characters so you really get a sense of the moment. There are several close-up shots that give a very emotional connection to the characters.

Every character is complex and in most cases, not shown in their best light. Each character is portrayed as a real person; their dialogue is more about how they say something rather that what they are saying. There are no good guys and bad guys but instead shades of grey.

Mark Wahlberg was Mark Wahlberg. He didn't show us anything we haven't seen him do before. Christian Bale on the other hand was fantastic. He transformed himself so much that I had to remind myself that he was Batman. His mannerisms, speech and attitude complete his character. When I first saw him cast in this, I wondered why he was playing second fiddle to Mark Walhberg, but now I see that he knew he could really dig deep for this role and he delivered.

Now for the fun. The movie is set in 1993. Without being too blatant, the wardrobe and hairstyles are spot on. Micky and Dicky have eight sisters and they all have the rockin' 90's hair and jean jackets. Alice steals the show with her leopard outfits and white jeans, but Micky runs a close second with oversized geometric-printed button up shirts.

I liked the movie mostly because it didn't turn into a cheesy, feel-good story. Sure it had that aspect at times, but it was more natural and really felt like it actually happened to someone. This is not just a boxing story. This is not just an underdog story. It's a story of a guy trying to balance everyone in his life and still do something for himself.

Cinegasm Episode 017

Episode 017 - Click to listen in your browser
or right-click and "Save Target As" to download

Host:  Brian J Blottie
Co-Hosts: Stephen LaRose, Melissa Hanson

  • Topic of the Week: What is the most important aspect of a blockbuster film to you?

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Blu-Ray Review - 2001: A Space Odyssey


2001: A Space Odyssey - Blu-Ray Review


by Stephen LaRose

Stanley Kubrick’s science fiction epic, 2001: A Space Odyssey is without a doubt one of the most intellectual, and beautiful films ever made. It only makes sense that this film be given the blu-ray treatment. Seeing Kubrick’s vision in 1080p gives the viewer a blu-ray experience like never before. The film continues to blow me away with repeat viewings. The crisp, clear and flawless quality of the picture alone makes this worth a buy, but for the die hard fans, there are a few extras that make this disc even more valuable.


The disc includes nine exclusive features that include a “making of” documentary, narrated by James Cameron, and several featurettes highlighting Kubrick and his legacy. Another few featurettes take a look into the technical side of 2001, and the possibilities of what could exist beyond the infinite.

2001: The Making of a Myth

A simple, but very informative “making of” documentary. This is a must watch for anyone interested in filmmaking, and gives the viewer a glimpse of Kubrick’s unique process. Through interviews with Arthur C. Clarke, Keir Dullea, and others, many of Kubrick’s secrets, and technical tricks are revealed and add more too the enjoyment of the film. Furthermore, the documentary looks into Kubrick’s themes about the evolution of technology, and the accuracy of his futuristic vision.

Standing on the Shoulders of Kubrick: The Legacy of 2001

Stanley Kubrick is, without doubt, one of the greatest directors of all time. He belongs in an elite category of filmmakers that few will ever reach. In this featurette, Steven Spielberg, Sidney Pollack, George Lucas, and others give their testimonies of Kubrick’s influence on them. They also tell of the impact 2001 had being released in the midst of B-movie science fiction that was common in the mid-1960’s. For anyone who’s a fan of film history, and any of the directors mentioned above, check this out for sure.

Vision of a Future Passed: The Prophecy of 2001

This featurette discusses how Kubrick was able to successfully create a vision of the future, even though that vision proved to be inaccurate. We also get some information regarding the historical context of the film, such as how it influenced, and was influenced by the space race. Most importantly, it reflects on how Kubrick’s consistency and detailed methods were able to pull off a film that will continue to stand the test of time.

2001: A Space Odyssey – A Look behind the Future

You know how every now and then we see some old film footage of informative videos, which give a walkthrough of an old factory, and explain some kind of scientific theory? Well, this is actually one of those old videos. Viewers are given details, and evidence to support Kubrick’s vision of the future. We see how he makes different choices, and get some behind-the-scenes footage of the art department. Essentially, this is a “making of” documentary before they got super popular. Well worth the watch.

What is Out There?

This featurette had the potential to be the most interesting; however, it is poorly executed. Keir Dullea, who plays Dr. Dave Bowman in 2001, reads from a script for 80% of the time, while occasionally cutting to some cover footage. He questions some of the ideas in the film, and breaks down Kubrick’s theories on the existence of Gods, or extra terrestrial beings. Along with that, we do get a few excerpts of Arthur C. Clarke and his personal beliefs on lesser, and higher beings in the Universe. Now, although Dullea just reads the entire time, he does present some interesting ideas that still make this worth the time.

2001: FX and Early Conceptual Artwork

Here, we’re given a breakdown of the artwork and design of the sets in 2001. This is remarkable to any upcoming filmmaker. The complexity, and simplicity, put into the sets and artwork is truly amazing to observe. Although pretty short, we’re given enough to be satisfied.

Look: Stanley Kubrick!

This is simply a short montage of Kubrick’s early photography that was taken for Look! Magazine. His subjects are great, and it is interesting to see Kubrick’s earliest work.

Interview with Kubrick (audio only)

Although pretty long (about an hour and twenty minutes) this interview with Kubrick is by far the most entertaining and engaging feature on the disc. He discusses his early life, through his first interests in filmmaking, and how his career had gone up until the release of 2001. He tells stories in such a friendly, and inviting tone, that we feel as if we’re hearing the old stories of a close relative. This is something to throw on in the background, and listen to while you sit around the house.

Commentary

The commentary for 2001, given by Dullea and Gary Lockwood, who plays Dr. Frank Poole, is not the best, but not the worst commentary out there. While the two actors recount their experiences while making the film, and provide a different perspective in Kubrick’s process this is not nearly as informative as it could have been. Of course, it’s the best we could get considering it was probably recorded after Kubrick had passed. However, I think anyone who is a fan of the film would love the stories shared by the actors. Besides, it shares even more facts that aren’t heard in the other features on the blu-ray.

This is a must buy for anyone who loves 2001, simply because the quality of the picture is simply breathtaking. However, all of the features give the film buffs something more to enjoy. Each featurette adds to the enjoyment of the film. This blu-ray release of this classic science-fiction film is one for everyone’s collection.

Friday, December 3, 2010

Review: "Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader" (2010)


IMDB Link

by Casey O'Connor

2008's "Chronicles of Narnia" sequel, "Prince Caspian" had a comparatively disappointing turn-out, making less than half what it's predecessor had ($141 million to the original's $291). So I must admit I was a little surprised to see Walden Media had decided to go ahead with "Voyage of the Dawn Treader".

This installment, the third in the 7 book series, begins 1 year after the conclusion of "Prince Caspian". The world is still at war, and the youngest Penvensie siblings, Edmund and Lucy, have been sent to Cambridge to stay with family while their mother and older siblings have followed their father to his assignment in America. While discussing their wish to return to Narnia, and especially to escape their unpleasant cousin Eustace, Lucy notices a painting on her wall. Within moments, the painting comes alive, and pulls Lucy, Edmund, and the horrid Eustace into the water. The three are soon rescued by their friend Caspian, now King of Narnia. Three years have passed, in Narnian time, and Caspian has brought peace to most of Narnia. He recruits Edmund and Lucy to help find the seven lost lords, who have not been seen since before the death of Caspian's father years earlier. Of course, nothing is as simple as it seems in Narnia, and before long the children are on a quest to reunite the lords' magic swords and save Narnia from a mysterious evil.

While this film is definitely more action packed than the previous installments, it remains essentially a character driven film. With heavier material, it is not unusual for young actors to stumble their way through a performance. Georgie Henley and Skander Keynes, returning as Lucy and Edmund Penvensie, have happily avoided this pitfall. For Henley, especially, this film brings a higher level of emotional depth. Lucy, previously portrayed as a naive, though brave, child is growing into a young woman. The 15 yr old actress deftly handles the emotional ups and downs of a teenage girl fighting extraordinary circumstances while dealing with the very average concerns of self-image all girls face. I look forward to seeing more of Henley.

The failing of this cast seems to be Will Poulter, portraying Edmund and Lucy's annoying cousin Eustace. Poulter appears to be much younger than his 17 yrs, both physically and in maturity. It is difficult to tell if the problem lies in the character, or Poulter's portrayal. Each time he appears on-screen it is difficult to focus on the story, as I was continually distracted by what appeared to be a bad case of over-acting. As the film progresses, Eustace undergoes several changes, both magical and otherwise. In his later scenes, he appears to have found some realism in his character. It's just a shame it took an hour and 20 minutes to accomplish.

The film, shot in Queensland, Australia, is beautifully shot, truly taking advantage of the wonderful locations. What it lacks, however, is the utilization of the full potential of Real-D 3D technology. This does not feel like a film shot in 3D, rather it appears to have been hastily added in post-production. Scenes at the beginning and end of the film, the entrance to and exit from Narnia, are breathtaking. The rest falls quite flat, no pun intended. This is the kind of film 3D technology is made for. Fantastical creatures, fierce battles, and magic could have all benefited from being presented in 3D. In "Narnia", these elements are virtually ignored.

At 1 hour and 52 minutes, this is by far the shortest of the "Narnia" films, coming in a full half hour less than "Prince Caspian". This is truly a blessing, as it manages to avoid the dragging feeling so evident in the first films. Over all, I found it to be a thoroughly enjoyable film. Given the chance, I would recommend it be viewed in traditional format. But the plot is strong, the characters are generally well developed, and even the religious references so common in all of Lewis's works are kept to a minimum. For Narnia fans, this could absolutely become a quick favorite.



Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Cinegasm Episode 016

Episode 016 - Click to listen in your browser
or right-click and "Save Target As" to download

Host:  Brian J Blottie
Co-Hosts: Stephen LaRose

    • Topic of the Week: Genre cross-over we'd like to see
      • Stephen - Sci-Fi Western
      • Brian - Sci-Fi Sports

    Wednesday, November 24, 2010

    Cinegasm Episode 015

    Episode 015 - Click to listen in your browser
    or right-click and "Save Target As" to download

    Host: Kevin Brotman
    Co-Hosts:
    Brian J Blottie, Stephen LaRose, Melissa Hanson


    • Topic of the Week: The advent of solely streaming content (Hulu+, Netflix's new shindig, Redbox, etc.)

    Review: "The Next Three Days" (2010)



    IMDB link

    by Melissa Hanson

    Life is good with husband and wife John and Lara (Russell Crowe and Elizabeth Banks) until she is convicted of murder and put away for life. Their son is three years old when she goes to prison, and through the next three years, (see a pattern?) life is tough as John tries to scrap by filing appeals and focusing on his son. Things take a turn for the worse when the last appeal is denied and Lara attempts suicide. I think you can guess how it goes from here.

    I am a big Russell Crowe fan, but I had a hard time buying him as a school teacher not knowing how to put bullets in a gun. I really didn't feel he was right for this role. He's a great actor and he can play so many characters so well. He was amazing in A Beautiful Mind as well as The Insider. His character didn't developed subtly, he seemed to all of a sudden be a badass. It could be that there were crucial scenes cut from the movie that filled in the gaps, but as the final theatrical cut, I didn't see it. I think he was trying to keep it low-key, but it just didn't work for me. Unfortunately, neither did Elizabeth Banks. I also really like her work, but this felt very cardboard to me. I could tell that I should feel more sadness for her character, but I didn't.

    I really did enjoy the last third of the movie and how it played out, but, it was very difficult for me to understand how John set it all up just by having one enlightening conversation with ex-con, Liam Neeson. We see John planning and going to the library, etc, but no other help from there. Nothing on how his emotions are breaking down. Just LOTS of dumb luck in situations.

    The saving grace is that it keeps a good pace and has some very tense moments. It's not a waste of time, but I think it's doom is acting as though we don't know how it's going to turn out.

    On a side note, can I just say that Kevin Corrigan is in EVERYTHING.  He's one of the most entertaining and employable actors in Hollywood. From the first shadow of his hair, I knew it was him and I was happy.

    Friday, November 19, 2010

    Review: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part One" (2010)



    IMDB Link

    by Brian J Blottie
    For nine years, Harry Potter has been one of the most successful film franchises in the history of film. As the years passed, and it's core audience has grown up, the movies themselves grew up with them, taking on a darker and more foreboding tone with each release. Finally, the end is near, as the first half of the two part conclusion, "The Deathly Hollows", has been released, and it continues the progress from light-hearted to dread-filled series successfully.

    This is, by far, one of the darkest, most despairing fantasies to be put to film. The sense of wonder is gone, replaced by an almost Nazi-like narrative, in which Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) and his cohorts go to great lengths to hunt down Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and his friends, taking over the Ministry of Magic and Hogwarts through fear and murder. A great deal of the film sees Harry exhausted, uncertain of what to do next, while Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) try their best to support him, though their own doubts and fears slowly tear the trio apart. This is not a children's film, as the dark story combined with the frightening characters and graphic depictions of violence and death are closer to Pan's Labyrinth than the initial offerings. With that said, this is a much stronger movie than any of the Harry Potter series before it, as you truly do feel the sense of hopelessness that pervades the film.

    The supporting cast is fantastic, from Ralph Fiennes horrific Voldemort to Bill Nighy's Head of the Ministry, with Rhys Ifans' portrayal of Xenophilius Lovegood particularly great. But the real star of the show is Rupert Grint, who brings more depth and emotion to Ron Weasley than ever before. While Daniel Radcliffe will forever be known as Harry, and Emma Watson has grown into a beautiful but passable actress, Grint is the actor who has the brightest future ahead of him. When he is gone from the screen, you realize just how powerful his acting is, as things seem to fall flat when Watson and Radcliffe are left to carry scenes on their own. This is no knock to either star, as they still carry it well, but instead is praise for Grint.

    From scene to scene, there is very little light, further enhancing the gloomy narrative with a realistic but almost overwhelming apprehension. This is not the world that left you breathless with awe in the first few films; it's a lonely world, filled with whites and grays, as the trio of heroes are left for the first time to fend for themselves. The special effects are incredible as usual, but do not take anything away from the story told. Rather, they enhance each scene, guiding you from place to place in the narrative.

    Splitting the film into two might actually be a great idea in this case, as the end of the film actually feels like an ending and a beginning. What felt originally like a money grab by the studio instead feels like a completely natural end point of the film, and leaves you wanting for more. Eight months is a long time between movies, but in this case it's actually worth the wait; it'll take that long for all of the symbolism and complexities presented to really settle in on subsequent viewings.

    The darkest film in the series, the first part of a story that finally concludes the tale of Harry Potter, "The Deathly Hollows" is finally here. Some will see it as too depressing, as a film meant to scare rather than impress. Others will see it as the finest film in the series, a slow build to what is sure to be a spectacular conclusion. Whichever side of the fence you are on, this film will stick with you for longer than it's two-and-a-half hour running time, which only the best films in cinema do.


    Thursday, November 18, 2010

    Review: "Morning Glory" (2010)



    IMDB Link

    by Casey O'Connor
    For decades, "chick flick" has been a part of the American vernacular. Those feel-good movies that make us believe anything is possible. In Morning Glory, Rachel McAdams plays Becky Fuller - a spunky morning show producer. It takes less than five minutes to establish Fuller as an ambitious, if personally scatterbrained, workaholic. It's clear the script follows the same vein as, well, just about every female empowerment movie of the last twenty years. McAdams fires off stuttering, self-deprecating monologues with a speed that can only be considered exhausting.

    The premise is fairly straight forward; instead of getting the expected promotion, Becky Fuller is laid off due to budget cuts. So she takes the only job she can get, as executive producer of a failing morning show. Thankfully, things pick up at this point, with the introduction of the supporting cast.

    Harrison Ford, as an aging newsman essentially blackmailed into taking a co-anchor spot, is inconsistent at best. The one true high point of the film is Diane Keaton. Her determination to keep the show alive provides most of the film's positive moments.

    At the core, the problem with Morning Glory is not it's predictability; many well-made films follow well trod paths. The real problem is that the film can't decide what it wants to be. With quick shifts between romantic comedy, to self-discovery story, and every stereotype in between, the script simply fails to find a nice.

    If you're looking for a light-hearted comedy, grab your Working Girl DVD and save the ticket price.


    Wednesday, November 17, 2010

    Cinegasm Episode 014

    Episode 014 - Click to listen in your browser
    or right-click and "Save Target As" to download

    Host: Brian J Blottie
    Co-Hosts: Stephen LaRose, Graham Malin, Chris Perkins, Melissa Hanson


    • Topic of the Week: Favorite movie snack
      • Melissa - popcorn & Milkduds
      • Stephen - Peanut M&Ms
      • Graham - Sour Patch Kids
      • Chris - Movie Pretzels, Bon Bons
      • Brian - chocolate covered raisins & popcorn

    Review: "Today's Special" (2010)



    IMDB link 

    by Melissa Hanson

    It's a familiar story of a father and son, but director David Kaplan manages to keep the audience engaged and entertained. He directs Aasif Mandvi (The Daily Show on Comedy Central) and a first rate cast in this lovely indie comedy.

    Samir (Aasif Mandvi), a sous chef in a Manhattan restaurant is passed over for a promotion by the head chef, Steve (played by the charming Dean Winters) because he doesn't see the passion in Samir's cooking. Samir impulsively quits his job and tells one of his co-workers, Carrie (Jess Weixler), that he's moving to Paris to apprentice. This, of course, backfires as Samir ends up taking over the family business, an Indian restaurant in Jackson Heights, (Queens) New York.

    He enlists the help of a taxi driver, Akbar (Naseeruddin Shah), whom he struck up a conversation with days earlier. Yeah, it's contrived, but in a most indelible way. The new chef is completely opposite of him and soon Samir is embracing his roots, falling in love and rediscovering his passion for food. Aasif' gives an amazing dimension to the role with subtle gestures and pitch perfect timing while Naseeruddin's performance makes even the most non-cooking people (myself included) understand the passion of chefs.

    The film is refreshingly authentic and close to home. Instead of mocking or exploiting the various aspects of Indian culture, it celebrates it and shows the audience a family. You will leave this movie happy and hungry.

    Opens in limited release November 19th, 2010.

    Review: "I Love You Phillip Morris" (2010)



    IMDB link

    by Melissa Hanson

    My sister: "So how was the movie?"
    Me: "Jim Carrey was hilarious."
    My sister: "Haven't heard THAT in a while."

    I gotta say, it's really awesome to see a funny Jim Carrey movie. He plays Stephen Russell, who's true story was adapted by Glenn Ficarra and John Requa, the first-time directors of the film. Stephen is a cop in Georgia, married to a lovely wife (Leslie Mann) with a daughter when he has an experience that causes him to start living his life to the fullest. He comes out as a gay man and develops extravagant tastes to the point where he starts conning people to pay for it all.

    There are so many "bait and switch" moments in the movie that you're never quite sure when you'll be hit again. Stephen is flawed, but completely likeable. Even when he does terrible things, we forgive him, as we see his intentions weren't entirely selfish. Stephen showers affection on his new boyfriend, Phillip (Ewan MacGregor) and goes to great lengths to sustain their lifestyle. At one point he pays to have a guy beat up, just so Phillip can sleep through the night. Now that's love.

    At the core, it's a love story. It's a hilarious love story that happens to be between two gay men. Jim Carrey is back to being a charming and ridiculous character. This was a perfect movie for him. He also does some physical comedy which is completely valid for the story and almost nostalgic.

    It reminds me of Catch Me If You Can, but sillier. It's a good movie. I quite enjoyed it.

    Opens in limited release in New York and Los Angeles on December 3, 2010.

    Wednesday, November 10, 2010

    Cinegasm Episode 013

    Episode 013 - Click to listen in your browser
    or right-click and "Save Target As" to download

    Host: Brian J Blottie
    Co-Hosts: Stephen LaRose, Melissa Hanson



    • Topic of the Week: Are star or number ratings truly representative of a movie's quality, or do they "dumb down" the process of criticism to the point that most people don't read the actual criticisms, instead just glance at the numbers. Tell us what you think!

    Tuesday, November 9, 2010

    Review: "127 Hours" (2010)


    IMDB link

    by Melissa Hanson

    Here's the facts: Aron Ralston was climbing in the canyons of Utah when he fell and got his hand wedged by a rock, and cut it off to escape. Knowing this going into the movie already creates a level of anticipation to keep you on the edge of your seat. So how do you keep that level without losing the audience? Danny Boyle's style and James Franco's Aron, manage to show us the progression making us realize how it could happen to anyone.

    Aron is up for an adventure through Blue John Canyon in Utah one Saturday and he packs up his gear and heads out. During his hike, he meets two young women who are semi-lost and shows them a remote area. They think he's a guide, but as he puts it, "I'm an engineer, but this is what I really want to do." After he leads them in the right direction, he continues to the canyon.  He finds the canyon and as he's repelling himself down, a boulder shifts and pins his right hand. Now for the next 127 hours.

    Soon after he gets pinned, you start feeling claustrophobic as the camera moves and gives you his unique perspective. With every angle change, you feel like you are maneuvering yourself out of the space. It's really uncomfortable, and almost interactive. The camera zooms out wide and the shot of the canyon amplifies his feeling of helplessness. As time progresses, you begin to realize that small tasks like taking off a watch are now feats to overcome.

    This is not really a movie that you "enjoy," it's more of an emotional experience. Hearing the story you think to yourself that you could never to what Aron Ralston did. However, with each small event happening on screen, you begin to imagine how it could. The level of realism really pulls you in and can be difficult to watch at times.  Like any true story, the point isn't what happened necessarily, but more of how it happened. I liked that it didn't go for the cheesy "inspirational" angle, just more about how, when faced with adversity, you do what you got to do. Big lesson from this movie: tell people where you are going JUST IN CASE.


    Saturday, November 6, 2010

    Review: "Tangled" (2010)

    IMDB Link

    by Brian J Blottie

    Once upon a time, Disney Animation Studios were considered the masters of animated film. What they did with cell animation was breathtaking to behold, and the stories they wrapped around that animation were as compelling and bold as any motion picture being released at that time. Slowly, cell animation gave way to CGI, and Pixar rose as the masters of this new style. Disney Animation Studios tried to keep up, releasing "Meet the Robinsons" (2007) and "Bolt" (2008), which were made when Disney and Pixar were "on the outs". Sadly, these films didn't live up to the quality that came out of Pixar, nor did they live up to the quality expected of Disney Animation Studios. Fast forward two years, and Disney once again dips their toes in the CGI animation pool, this time with much more success.
    This is, as all the best Disney films are, a retelling of a fairy tale; Rapunzel. In this particular retelling, Rapunzel is the kidnapped daughter of the King and Queen of the kingdom, and is trapped in a secluded tower by the woman she thinks of as her mother, an old witch named Mother Gothel. Rapunzel has magic hair, which heals and rejuvenates anyone who touches it when she sings. Mother Gothel uses this to keep herself forever young, and convinces Rapunzel that to leave the tower is certain death, as the world is full of "thieves and murderers". This, of course, does nothing to dissuade Rapunzel, who wishes on her eighteenth birthday to see the "lights in the sky" that fill the night on each of her birthdays. With the introduction of the thief, Flynn Ryder, who is running from the kingdom, his partners in crime, and a very cunning horse, Rapunzel sees a way to finally escape her tower. Needless to say, Flynn Ryder and Rapunzel's adventures begin from there.
    The movie takes some time to build up steam, as the first few songs (yes, songs make their triumphant return, and to great effect) and minutes of the film seem to stammer along, but once Flynn Ryder is introduced, the action picks up, as does the storytelling. As usual, Disney changes large portions of the fairy tale, but in this instance, it's actually for the better, as the story is more about finding one's self and allowing yourself to rely on others than it is about a girl with really long hair. The music is for the most part great, drives forward the narrative, and in one particular instance (the scene on the lake) will actually bring tears to your eyes. I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention the animals in the film, which like the best Disney side characters, are hilarious and don't at all detract from the story.
    Mandy Moore voices Rapunzel, and does a wonderful job of it. You can hear the sense of wonder in her voice as she discovers the world around her, and also the dread of breaking her mother's heart at having left the tower. Emotional resonance through vocal inflection is incredibly important in these types of pictures, and of all the actors, Mandy seems to understand that the best. This is to take nothing away from Zachary Levi, who is more known for his role in television's "Chuck" as the geek turned spy, than the talented voice actor he is, as he plays Flynn Ryder with gusto, doubling as both the aforementioned character and the narrator of the movie. He's funny, dynamic, and the perfect vocal foil to Mandy Moore's youthful exuberance. The only failing in the voice acting actually falls on Donna Murphy, who plays Rapunzel's captor, Mother Gothel. Rather than trying to create a character of her own, she seems to instead emulate Pat Carroll's "Ursula" from "The Little Mermaid", and while she does so with zeal, it makes the character seem less original and more a carbon copy than anything else. Otherwise, this is a fantastic voice cast, down to the assorted extras (notably Brad Garrett, Jeffrey Tambor, and Ron Perlman), and they all breathe life into the fantasy land they inhabit.
    One of the things that made Disney so good at what they did was the breathtaking way in which they presented the worlds they created. Beast's castle in "Beauty and the Beast", the gorgeous ocean in "The Little Mermaid", and most spectacularly the desert world of "Aladdin" all were amazing achievements, and left you in awe at what was accomplished. For the first time in years, Disney does this again with "Tangled". There isn't a single scene that isn't filled with the little touches that have made Disney's animation the most respected in the world, and you can feel the love the creators had for their creation. The water effects in particular are stunning, with a sequence featuring a dam breaking down causing goosebumps it is so well done. This is a triumph, and for once Disney Animation Studios has matched their "little brother" in Pixar in CG-animation. Even if the movie itself was not great, it would be worth it to see just what Disney has done here.
    The most important aspect of a Disney film is one that many people forget; will parents be as enthralled with the world, the story, and the characters as their children are. One of the reasons Disney has been so successful in the past is that parents of all ages grew up with these pictures, and passed them onto their kids. With each release, Disney could count on parents who grew up with "Cinderella" to bring their children to see "The Little Mermaid". Parents who loved "Bambi" as children brought their own to see "The Lion King". Seeing a Disney film with your child was almost as important a step in life as teaching them to read, or getting them ready for their first day of school. It was a moment the parent could share with their child that they themselves experienced with their own parents, and it was special. Up until now, Pixar has become the Disney subsidiary that creates those moments, but they are not as profound as seeing a fairy tale you once loved brought to life by animators who cared about every hair on every head. For the first time since "The Lion King", Disney Animation has created a film that truly feels like something special. You'll laugh, you'll tear up, and you'll believe in the magic of Disney.
    Pixar finally has a challenger to the throne, and while this isn't quite up to the level of "WALL-E" or "Up", which I consider to be Pixar's masterworks, it can certainly sit on the same shelf as the Disney classics that we grew up loving, and not at all seem out of place.



    Friday, November 5, 2010

    Review: "Teeth" (2007)

    by Stephen LaRose

    Three minutes into Mitchell Lichtenstein’s Teeth, I knew I would be in for a good time. In case you aren’t aware of the premise, it’s about a girl, Dawn (played by Jess Weixler), who has “vagina dentate” or teeth in her pussy. I know, right? Jess lives a life of purity and abstinence, until one high school hunk decides to rape her in a cave, only to have his dick bitten off by her demon honey pot. This is when she discovers her “power”, so to speak.
    The first half of this film seems to take itself a bit too seriously. I feel that Lichtenstein fails to deliver a gripping character piece about Jess; it seems like he wanted this character to follow a tremendous arc of self discovery. Which she does to an extent, but not to the extent which I believe Lichtenstein desired. The plot drags along until the half way point. The change of pace comes when Jess throws her purity ring into a lake. This is where the fun begins. Everything becomes much looser in tone. Lichtenstein gets his own joke, and turns Weixler into some kind of anti-male super hero.
    Dawn follows a path similar to that of Bruce Banner and his Hulk powers. She discovers her power, and can’t help but chomp on wieners. Then, after learning about her problem, she is able to control it. By the film’s end, we see her desire to want to use her “power” for good. Although, given the odd and twisted circumstances, Lichtenstein gives us something we’ve never seen before, and will probably never see again. Now, don’t get me wrong, Teeth is a pretty awful film, but it has its moments.
    The film hints at a subplot between Dawn’s step brother (John Hensley) and her step father (Lenny von Dohlen). This never plays out, and lacks the complexity it needs to mean anything. I guess they left this in to pump up the runtime, a whopping 93 minutes. Also, the score seems to be written more for a b-roll of footage of the Sahara desert; although, in the latter half of the movie, it adds to its cheese factor. All problems aside, with the right mindset, anyone can have a few laughs with Teeth.

    Wednesday, November 3, 2010

    Cinegasm Episode 012

    Episode 012 - Click to listen in your browser (sorry, it's a bit robotic at times!)
    or right-click and "Save Target As" to download

    Host: Brian J Blottie
    Co-Hosts: Stephen LaRose, Graham Malin

    Special Guest: Ben Brown from One Man's Film Tangent 

    Sunday, October 31, 2010

    Here's..............Johnny!

    by Melissa Hanson

    http://www.deadline.com/2010/10/johnny-depp-fancies-another-go-at-the-thin-man-and-writers-are-lining-up/#more-77305

    Apparently Johnny Depp is taking on The Thin Man franchise that is dearly loved by me and many other William Powell/Myrna Loy fans. This news both excites and terrifies me.

    The Thin Man series is based on the book by Dashiell Hammett and the original movie was released in 1934, starring the fabulous duo of William Powell and Myrna Loy playing Nick and Nora Charles. Nick is a retired detective with a socialite wife, Nora and the two of them always seem to find themselves smack dab in the middle of murder. (Ala, Jessica Fletcher in Murder, She Wrote.) They have an incredible chemistry and their story almost overshadows the murders.

    One might think that The Thin Man refers to Nick Charles, however, it actually refers to the nickname of the case of the murder. Since the movie was so successful, however, they decided to continue the franchise and thus had to refer to The Thin Man in future titles and eventually eluding to Nick as The Thin Man.

    The Thin Man
    After The Thin Man
    Shadow of The Thin Man
    The Thin Man Goes Home
    Song of the Thin Man

    Ok, back to Johnny Depp as Nick Charles. Can he do it? Of course he can. He seems to have a genuine love of the original and I think it is highly possible this can turn out well. However, it could also be a colossal mistake. It probably all does rest on who plays Nora. There needs to be incredible banter and chemistry. Only time will tell.

    p.s. Check out After The Thin Man to see Jimmy Stewart in a little appreciated role.