All of us know that the French do romance the right way with Paris making all its love magic. The French hone the most romantic city on earth, while the rest of the world helps glorify it. The rest of the world helps uphold its image as THE place to find love through romance film after romance film. The Eiffel Tower gets old, don’t you think? If you are looking for a simple “love in Paris” flick, you won’t find it in this French foreign film Love Me if You Dare that was released in 2003. Love Me if You Dare, originally titled Jeux D’Enfants, shows that the French are just as confused with love as the rest of us. The film is a diamond in the rough when it comes to dark comedy. Yann Samuell has mixed dark comedy and romance into a film both genders can enjoy. Gentlemen, don’t run away just because the word romance is being thrown around here. I recommend Love Me if You Dare to anyone with a love for foreign film and a sense of humor.

The film begins with a pretty tin circular box given to Julien Janvier by his sick mother. The box becomes the center of a game that must never be played with your best friend, according to eight year old Julien. When he sees a new classmate from Poland, Sophie Kowalsky, having a hard time with the other children, he gives the box to her. Then he asks her to lend it sometimes. Sophie won’t give it back. She says if Julien wants the box back he has to prove it. Next thing you know, a bus full of panicking children (the same children making fun of Sophie) is sent rolling down the street in neutral. Once Julien has the box, he can dare Sophie to prove she deserves the box. The box becomes a never-ending game of dares between the two best friends. As Julien and Sophie mature, their friendship becomes blurred with fits of love for each other. However, neither will actually admit to loving the other. They would rather drag out ridiculous dares that only end up hurting the one being dared.

The characters develop into interesting and complex adults. Both characters come from backgrounds that have shaped them differently than your average Bourgeois family child. Sophie is raised in a family where her sister helps with a lot of the parenting. From the beginning, Julien carries more weight emotionally, in turn, making him a more complex character by the end of the film. You may hate the characters the youngsters turn into. When you consider the circumstances, you begin to understand they are only trying to understand the world that has been put in front of them. They have to deal with it, even if it isn’t appropriate in the eyes of society.

The roles of Julien and Sophie are cast for childhood and then cast again for young adult to adulthood. Both casts are phenomenal! As children, Julien is played by Thibault Verhaeghe and Sophie by Josephine Lebas-Jolly. They do an exceptional job playing the adorable yet mischievous children that are every parent and teacher’s nightmare. As young adults to adults, Julien is played by Guillaume Canet, and Sophie by the ever popular, Marion Cotillard. The adults are amazing talent that continues the film flawlessly after the ten year lapse. They did homework on understanding the complex adult characters and give beautiful permances. As a viewer, you can’t help but love the pair even when you hate them.

Something many people don’t know about Marion Cotillard, is that her role Love Me if You Dare is helped her get the recognition in to star in other high-profile French films like La vie en rose, which she of course won an Oscar for in 08′. For Love Me if You Dare, she won the Jury Award for best actress at the Newport Beach Film Festival. If it were not for this film, she may never have been cast in La vie en rose, or Public Enemies, or Inception, thus never giving us her outstanding performance as Mal. If you liked her performance in Inception, you will love her performance in this film.

Furthermore, for those of you who are unfamiliar with Yann Samuell, he is a respected director in film advertising and music videos. He does short film and he does it well. It was a surprise in 2003 when Love Me if You Dare became Samuell’s first ever full length film. If the movie tanked, it would be all on him. However, he knows how to captivate short film audiences with pictures and he doesn’t sell himself short in Love Me if You Dare. As you watch this movie, you can tell he constantly “sells” the image of love between Julien and Sophie. He makes it look like Julien and Sophie are meant to be together, even when they are denying it through other actions. He shows people that love can continually be captured in life, even if it defies Bourgeois societal values. People should be accepted for who they are, not discarded for who they are not. Today, values and boundaries have been blurred in relationships. Julien and Sophie are his representations of people trying to live that struggle with what they know best, each other.

Well, there is only one thing left I can demand of you at this point. I dare you… to watch this movie, while reading the subtitles, with your fullest attention. Are you game?

What Do You Think? Discuss.

RELATED POSTS

• Trav’s Review: Star Trek Just Friggin’ Rocks! (12)
• Trav’s Review: Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince Is Phenomenal (22)
• Trav’s Review: G.I. Joe Is Average At Best (1)
• Trav’s Review: “Angels & Duds” (4)
• Rabs’ Review: The Hangover is Very Funny, But FOR ME, Lacked LOL (4)

The Expendables: C-

I definitely did not walk into this screening expecting much. This movie is loaded with a bunch of actors who are better at pretend fighting than pretending to act. So, consider my pre-screening feelings skeptical. However, my cautious perception of the movie was not mirrored by the movie-going American public. The Expendables ended up pulling a decent take with $34.8 million in its first weekend, $16.5 million the second, and finishing atop the box office both weekends

The true crime here is that so many viewers skipped the best movie to hit theaters the past two weeks, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. The Edgar Wright concoction of American culture has been a box office dud, finishing 5th its opening week ($10.6 million) and 10th its second week ($5 million). I am truly baffled at how Scott Pilgrim vs. The World could be completely missed by so many with such a positive reception from critics and buzz from those who have seen it. But some internet folk point to the marketing campaign used by Universal as the true reason The Expendables has flourished and Pilgrim has floundered. In a last ditch effort, I will reiterate how great Pilgrim is. Anyone reading this should go and support this unique film, it is actually worth the price of admission.

Speaking of not worth a lofty admission price, The Expendables! My driving motivation to see the Stallone creation was to understand why it took the weekend box office crown two weeks in a row. The answer resides in the simplicity of the concept (guys, guns, babes, MURDER!), the “big” names attached to it, and the wonderfully violent fight scenes. Sad thing is, Scott Pilgrim is a much better product and features its own uncommon blend of exciting fight scenes.

For me, The Expendables was worth seeing simply to catch some of the better choreographed action I have seen this year. Even with the bombardment of action, the viewer is unfortunately forced to sit and watch the actors try to carry out the mostly mindless plot that is almost devoid of any real meaning. The Expendables pretends to be a complex story, but with a weakly written screenplay it falls flat on its face. It is not only very basic in nature, but more importantly it isn’t written well enough to even work as simple story. The ending standoff between “good and evil” is moronic to say the least. I was in disbelief when I realized the reason for these soldiers going on their final mission in the movie.

The movie almost seems abstract for how little it focuses on itself. The vague construction of the characters, their relationships, and the story itself leaves the viewer sitting and waiting for more action to kick in so the blandness in between adrenaline rushes doesn’t lull them to sleep. Don’t misinterpret vagueness for absence of these pieces in the project, but they are so poorly defined I had no interest in the parts bridging the action sequences. Yeah, I know its a “mindless” action movie, but it still needs a strong reason for the story to motivate the audience to follow along.

Another thing bothering me is the inclusion of names like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis in the film’s previews like they would play a part in this movie. But in reality, both were included like cameo actors in a seemingly forced scene where Stallone has a secret church meeting with the two. The dialog did have some comical jabs at Arnold’s new career as a politician, but nothing to make the scene worth including or featuring “The Governor” in the tag line. I was mildly surprised to see how terrible an actor Arnold has become in his absence. He was pretty bad before his new career with his typical flat, difficult to decipher delivery, but in The Expendables he was next to atrocious. The biggest casting disappointment comes from the talented Mickey Rourke playing such a small role as Stallone’s tattoo artist.

While I do believe Stallone has talent as a director, his credit as a writer and actor is scraping the bottom of the bowl. Especially his laughable acting attempts in The Expendables as he tries to show some emotion with his stale, stiff face. His top lip looks permanently controlled by two fish hooks as he struggles to spit out words. He could definitely survive as a supporting character, but he cannot carry a film. It is hard to rally around an actor who seems like an emotionless idiot outside of the action scenes.

The only worthwhile character was Jason Statham’s role of Lee Christmas. The role seemed to hold the story like fresh Elmers Glue (not well), but his character wasn’t given the chance to bind the narrative together. What the film really needed was Statham’s character to narrate the story to help the audience better understand him, his environment, his fellow characters, and most importantly, give the film so needed emotional value. A perfect example of a stone-faced character showing emotional range with narration is one of the best shows on television, Dexter.

Speaking of Dexter, the actor who plays Angel, David Zayas, had a role in this movie as General Garza. He most likely will not get consideration for other big movie roles because he was terrible as this hardened General torn between allegiance to his country and love for his family. He was way too soft for this role and I was thoroughly disappointed with his delivery of this character.

The rest of the supporting cast like Jet Li, Terry Crews, Dolph Lundgren, Steve Austin, and Randy Couture all seem like shadows in this project. Austin did a fair job as the lead henchman and had a decent amount of screen time. The only reason I can imagine why Jet Li took this role is because he isn’t getting any other film offers. He just seemed to pop in every four scenes to be a part of the team and sometimes muddle his sketchy English.

Overall, The Expendables possesses awesome action that made me fret with excitement, but the rest of the movie was mostly garbage. The supporting cast all take a backseat to the un-dynamic duo of Stallone and Statham, which is surprising considering the previews proclaiming love to all the actors involved. Stallone should be prevented from writing, directing, and starring in his own movies from now on. It probably is the only way he will ever be cast in a movie again though, only by writing himself as the male lead. The Expendables contained terrible acting, sub-par writing, and a laughable story-line. It truly is a shame this movie was the box office king two weeks in a row.

What Should You Do? Don’t waste time unless you are an action junkie looking for thrill for a matinee price. But with the quality movies in the theaters right now (Inception, The Other Guys, and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World), you will be less disappointed with one of those choices.

RELATED POSTS

• Trav’s Review: Star Trek Just Friggin’ Rocks! (12)
• Trav’s Review: Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince Is Phenomenal (22)
• Trav’s Review: G.I. Joe Is Average At Best (1)
• Trav’s Review: “Angels & Duds” (4)
• Some Quick Tidbits (1)

GRADE: B+

This is a movie probably unlike any other you have seen in your lifetime. It is a combination of many forms of entertainment in our culture, seamlessly combining film, music, video games, and comic book elements. This was my second most anticipated late summer movie (after Inception), and it measured up to all my expectations. Not expecting a high dose of comedy, I was surprised to laugh as much as I did throughout this movie. Many of the laughs weren’t blatant like the Will Ferrell brand, but a quieter and less dramatic form of comedy. This contribution to the overall product was something that I thought boosted this film’s already high value.

So, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World stars Michael Cera playing his typical unsure, confidence lacking, nerdy character. Or does he? Initially Scott Pilgrim appears to be a reprise of Cera’s character from Superbad (and every other role), but as the movie progresses he grows stronger in his resolve to defeat the seven evil exes of woman of his dreams, Romona. The details on why the exes all align against Scott is pretty well defined. This made the narrative easier to understand and rallies the viewer to Pilgrim’s cause for victory and rightful claim to his dream girl’s heart. Having all the angles explained may not be of the utmost importance in a film like this, but it is nice to have some understanding on why these throw downs are taking place.

I found it interesting to see the supporting cast members dutifully watching these battles between Pilgrim and the exes like it was just part of their regular lives. It helped the viewer mimic the characters and become entranced by the unfolding action. The battles between these adversaries was some of the most fun I have had experiencing action in a movie. It was not only well choreographed and exhilarating to watch, but entertaining with all the video game like additions to the scenes. Any gamer will be lost in pure enjoyment during these sequences.

The people involved with the creation of this project are another plus that make it a must see on your summer movie list. Edgar Wright (Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead) co-wrote and directed the project giving it his own comedic touch of greatness. His use of visuals were beneficial to the story and unique in almost every way. Un-touched shots were a rarity in this film as many of the visuals featured plenty of computer assisted graphics. Sometimes this type of addition was a little overwhelming, but for the most part it was complimentary.

The only rip I have on the Wright/Michael Bacall screenplay is the relationship between Scott and Romana. The two jump into the relationship so fast that you don’t really feel the reason for their connection besides what we are told, she is the girl of Scott’s dreams. No real emotion seems to resonate between the two until later in the movie when I felt it should have also been heavy in the beginning. Scott awkwardly gets Romona’s attention and then later makes an ass of himself; but with the snap of a finger he is on a date with her. Soon after he is risking his life for her. I really wanted some more buildup to this relationship so I was 100% on board for Scott’s plight to defeat the exes. Don’t tell me these two have a connection, show me. Their chemistry had some question marks, but not to the point where you can’t buy into their story.

The editing for the large part was well done as it embraced comic book split screen shots and unfurling sequences featuring written words of the action taking place. With the type of fast paced editing employed in this movie, some scenes spliced together translated to confusion early on as it takes the viewer some time to get used to the unconventional abrupt scene changes. The flashing lights, gimmicks, and especially hyper paced cutting make this movie one that can only be truly appreciated by those who enjoy the music video look and a video game feel.

The cast was also a treat to behold. I always get a kick out of watching Jason Schwartzman in any role he fills, and in this movie he plays a huge part as the most difficult ex of Romona. The cast also boasts Anna Kendrick, Chris Evans, Kieran Culkin, Brandon Routh, Alison Pill, and the endearing Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Live Free Die Hard) as Ramona. Lastly, and very importantly, I wanted to praise the awesome original music featured in Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. The music rocking from Scott and his band Sex Bob-omb was so great I already bought the soundtrack for the movie and have it looped on my play list. Every time music was featured in this movie it was fitting and induced foot tapping to the catchy beats.

Overall, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is definitely in the top five movies I have seen this summer. The fun starts early with the production logo of Universal Pictures being flashed like an old Sega game. The party rolls on as this funny movie is full of unique action and amusing animations, features likable characters, and has a clear established purpose for the story. The editing may be confusing at times and bombards the viewer with lightning cuts paced like an ADD child’s attention span, but it rarely felt overbearing. The two lead characters aren’t developed as much as I thought necessary for this movie being about these two literally fighting to be together, but great premise though.

What Should You Do? I had a blast at the theater full of people, and recommend you give this film the box office receipts it deserves.

AND! After seeing the Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, if you wanted to get a closer look at all those movie posters for the star character Lucas Lee, click here. Check out the taglines. They are so hilarious.

RELATED POSTS

• Kendogg Billionaire, The Indie Masher: Paper Heart Review (0)
• Hilarious Fake Movie Posters for Chris Evan’s “Lucas Lee” Character in Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (0)
• Trav’s Review: Star Trek Just Friggin’ Rocks! (12)
• Trav’s Review: Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince Is Phenomenal (22)
• Trav’s Review: G.I. Joe Is Average At Best (1)

GRADE: B-

This movie is very similar to Dinner for Schmucks in that it is a comedy featuring a tag team of lead actors who together form the only soluble piece for the entire film. Instead of the comedic duo of Carell and Rudd, The Other Guys features the mostly unfunny Mark Wahlberg and the most often funny Will Ferrell. I am going to try my hardest not to let my disdain for Wahlberg shine through in this review, but I cannot promise anything.

The story follows Wahlberg and Ferrell working as detectives who have failed to establish any credibility amongst their peers. The two go out of their way to crack a case that upon first look has no standing with the glamorous type of detective work from the department’s top cops played by Dwayne Johnson and Samuel L. Jackson. With the doubt of their fellow detectives to drive them, the pair works to solve a case of white collar crime. They soon discover the deeper they investigate, the thicker the muck surrounding the case becomes.

The Other Guys was directed and written by Adam McKay who brought us Step Brothers, Talladega Nights, and Anchorman. McKay collaborated to compose the scripts for all of those projects with Ferrell himself, but this 2010 project is not the same. Ferrell was not part of the writing team, and that may have hurt the overall effort. As many will deduct from the above list of movies, the comedic genius of McKay is showcased in Anchorman and Step Brothers, both R-rated flicks. Talladega Nights, just like The Other Guys ended up having a PG-13 rating; something I believe hurt these movies drastically. The inability to use vulgarity and the typical raunch in many of the situations that arise in The Other Guys leave the laughs at chuckles when they could have been tear jerkers.

Some of the best pieces of comedy this decade come from those R-rated flicks. Many of those are so good because McKay pushes the boundaries and doesn’t worry about keeping a PG-13 rating. Swear words can be overused in film, but they can also make dialogue more comical. I believe this is something McKay and Ferrell are very good at which they have shown with their R-rated projects. Barrett and I both felt this movie needed to be R-rated to be great like it could have been. Now, don’t get me wrong, the movie was very funny. It had what Dinner for Schmucks lacked, the big laughs. All I am saying is this movie could have been closer to par with Step Brothers had it used the same formula that brought that classic its success.

Fans of Will Ferrell will love this role as he portrays the nerdy but enthusiastic detective looking for respect amidst all the testosterone driven police force. I know a lot of people who feel that Ferrell just doesn’t do the job for them comedic-wise anymore, but I personally think he is still hilarious. However, I can see how people could feel his antics are getting old. If you are one of those who don’t love Ferrell, skip this movie. Quick interjection, Michael Keaton played a supporting role in this film as the police chief. He surprised me with his ability to convey a character who takes charge but also is quietly strange.

Ok, on to Mark Wahlberg. First things first, I don’t hate Marky-Mark. He has a lot of roles I think he really killed like: The Italian Job, The Departed, Fear, Three Kings, and Invincible (and his involvement in Entourage gets him brownie points). He was decent in other projects, and horrible in many others. My biggest problem with Wahlberg is his inability to chose projects that are good for him. His mistakes include: Max Payne, The Happening, The Lovely Bones, Planet of the Apes, and many more. These films don’t turn out well for him because he just doesn’t seem to fit into those roles. So blame his agent or Mark himself, but The Other Guys is yet another film I don’t think fits this 39 year-old actor.

Mark’s role in this film never seems to pick up any speed as his character Terry is seemingly normal in one scene and then invading his ex-girlfriends ballet practice calling her a stripper while also showing he himself has his own set of elite ballet skills. While some of this is the fault of the writing, the role was not carried out by Wahlberg very well either. Wahlberg has one of the movie’s worst lines (unfortunately it is repeated many times), “I’m a peacock, let me fly.” I seriously could not understand the inclusion of that laughable (not in a good way) dialogue several times in this movie or the horrible looking CGI peacock at the end.

The tag team of Ferrell and Wahlberg together were entertaining to watch which helped squander most of my dislike for Wahlberg’s role individually. These two are the only focus of this film’s narrative minus feeble attempts to incorporate Eva Mendes and a love aspect into the plot. Why she chose to be involved in this movie is not obvious to me. My guess is her agent can’t find her any quality work, because this role was a waste of her time, and mine (even though she is very attractive). From my perception of Wahlberg being the weaker portion of this two piece puzzle, it hurt having the film only focus on these two characters.

Much of this film’s shortcomings can be attributed to sub par writing (minus most of the comedy). I stated above how this film teetered on the necessity of an R-rating, but The Other Guys lacked quality writing in many other facets of the script as well. I will start with the inconsistent characters both Wahlberg and Ferrell are meant to portray. Both these leads switch from utterly insane to straight line police officers with the flick of a switch. This huge variation from scene to scene makes it difficult to grasp who these characters really are. Granted, perfectly constructed characters are not necessary for a simple comedy, but quality constructed characters are.

My biggest problem with this movie is the fairly complex plot that seems squeezed into the seams of the plot in between the laughs. The mystery the two detectives are trying to unravel is a white collar crime that has so many different twists it can leave the casual viewer scratching their head at who the real bad guy in this case really is. Not that this type of storytelling shouldn’t be attempted in movies, but with a reletively simple comedy like this one, why try? Try McKay and co-writer Chris Henchy did, and failure was the outcome.

McKay tries too hard to make this movie stir thoughts of dissent against white collar crimes. This certainly was the most confusing part to me expecting nothing more than to laugh at the typical comedic proceedings from McKay and Ferrell. I can see an important message trying to be conveyed in a movie where some type of seriousness is relevant; but in a ridiculous comedy far from where an audience would expect a serious message, I think trying to incorporate one here is tomfoolery (Yep, I went there). As the credits roll, we are presented with facts about the corporate bailout and wrongdoings from the tyrants of the corporate world. WTF right?

Overall, The Other Guys is full of big laughs and definitely could be considered the funniest movie of the summer. It has some outrageous moments, hilarious dialogue, and an intriguing narrative. I can gripe about the smaller things that bothered me like character inconsistency or wasting time incorporating a story arc of love for both characters. But where this movie really came up short was by trying to push a message in a setting not fit for serious discussion, with a plot that doesn’t really seem to fit with a simple comedy like this one.

What Should You Do? It features the big laughs, but probably isn’t worth the price of admission unless you are going to a matinee. Fans of Ferrell should not miss this, but it will not blow you away like many of his classics.

RELATED POSTS

• Hilarious Motion-Poster for The Other Guys (3)
• Anchorman Sequel Ready To Go, Waiting for Studio Green-Light (1)
• Trav’s Review: Star Trek Just Friggin’ Rocks! (12)
• Trav’s Review: Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince Is Phenomenal (22)
• Trav’s Review: G.I. Joe Is Average At Best (1)

GRADE: C+

My feelings about this movie can be described easiest by simply saying, I expected more. This movie of course features the talents of Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, Zach Galifianakis, and Ron Livingston. With that cast, viewers go into a movie like this and expect to laugh hysterically. But this movie did not feature much of that. Sure it had its funny parts, but it lacked the kind of belly busting laughter a viewer would expect from a comedy like this. Even minus my high comedic expectations, this movie just did not do anything to really establish itself amongst other films in the genre. The movie stars Rudd as a businessman Tim looking to further his career by impressing his bosses on the floor above him. A profitable pitch at a business meeting impresses the hierarchy at his company which gets him an invite to the special dinner that features idiots parading their bizarre talents for all to make fun of. Tim in need of a zany dinner guest, has a chance run in with Barry (Steve Carell) and realizes that he could be the perfect guest to impress his boss at this dinner.

Barry is a character right out of the pages of ridiculousness. While it can be funny at times, Barry almost doesn’t seem like an actual person with his non-stop destructive behavior towards Tim. Dinner for Schmucks is a goofy comedy, but the movie very much tries to portray Barry as a normal guy who behaves strange and not just a personification of wacky behavior.

A perfect example of the right combination of an idiotic personality still seeming like a normal person is Carell’s character Michael Scott from The Office. I am not saying Dinner for Schmucks should have written Michael into this movie, just that the Dunder Mifflin boss is the perfect mix of believability and funny. Michael is a moron in most regards, but the audience can identify with him because he still seems like someone we could or do know in our lives. Barry is just too much absurdness all the time to ever resemble something believable. Of course I am nit-picking, but this was how the movie was written, so I am going to put in my two cents.

The progression of the narrative was predictable like most comedies where you can see what is coming before it happens on screen. However, most good comedies, while predictable, feature plenty of laughs from many angles. Dinner for Schmucks did not have the laughs expected and never left the beaten path story-wise. Even while boasting a strong cast, this film is not going to stand out or really be remembered five years from now.

Dinner for Schmucks lacked the comedic bombs that are going to leave your eyes watering and your gut hurting. But there are plenty of little doses of laughter that could make this movie for you. Comedy is usually hit or miss with audiences. I can see people enjoying the laughs in this movie more than I did. Along that thought, the comedy in this movie will work for some better than others. I am among the others, but maybe you will be part of the some who thinks this movie is indeed funnier than I did.

The script was written by David Guion and Michael Handleman. These two could not come up with any dialogue that was really funny or even memorable. Even though I said this earlier, how, with a cast like this, can these writers not come up with some memorable dialogue for these comedic juggernauts to deliver? Funny dialogue is so important, and Guion and Handleman spend all their time concocting new outlandish situations for the characters to interact in. This movie features a lot of situational comedy, which is funny, but gravitates toward overkill when these unreal circumstances never stop.

The two main characters Tim (Rudd) and Barry (Carell) are given some development which helped the movie as it progressed. Getting to know the characters in a comedy always puts more enjoyment on the platter. A movie like Dinner for Schmucks especially needed this aspect as it lacked the big laughs a comedy like this should deliver. The chemistry between Rudd and Carell becomes more apparent as the two characters grow closer together, but that really isn’t enough to make this story float. Dinner for Schmucks lacks the quality secondary characters like the two boys Augie and Ronnie provide in Role Models.

Overall, Dinner for Schmucks is a solid effort, but fails to deliver on the biggest piece of this film’s draw, the comedy. I chuckled quite a bit in this movie, but never belted out with laughter. With the talented cast featured in this movie, the lack of “LOL” made this movie average. I wanted to love this movie as I had been excited to see it since I saw the first trailer. But as I walked out of the theater all I felt was disappointment, and my feelings were mirrored by the people I attended the showing with.

What Should You Do? It’s worth a matinee showing or a rental, but don’t spend the big bucks to check out this lackluster comedy. The best movie in theaters is still Inception; if you haven’t seen it, get out and do so.

RELATED POSTS

• Matt’s Review: Despicable Me is Another Animated Classic (1)
• Matt’s Review: Date Night, Best Movie of 2010 Thus Far? (3)
• Trav’s Review: Star Trek Just Friggin’ Rocks! (12)
• Trav’s Review: Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince Is Phenomenal (22)
• Trav’s Review: G.I. Joe Is Average At Best (1)

GRADE: B-

Angelina Jolie headlines this project as a character that isn’t a stretch from her usual sexy but deadly roles (Wanted, Tomb Raider, Mr. and Mrs. Smith). This 2010 film directed by Phillip Noyce seems to exist in a world close to our own reality where Jolie is an actual vulnerable human being. The previous mentioned films all put Jolie in a world of her own, on a pedestal of elite combative prowess. My perception of Salt early on was Jolie working her tail off to narrowly escape capture. Then the action sequences kept unfolding with Jolie coming out on top and unscathed. I began to question the film’s integrity to reality as it slipped closer and closer to mindless action.

Granted I understand that movies take place in a constructed reality that characters live in, but with each project the filmmakers ask the viewers to buy into this world. The world can either be different from our reality (V for Vendetta), shown to be similar to ours (Eagle Eye), or be exactly like ours (Bourne Trilogy). This is an important distinction to make so the viewer can decide how to interpret the information being presented to them and whether or not to suspend their disbelief because this is just an action movie. Salt pretends to be serious, but then shows a reality that is too much to believe in. The inability to establish a genre, either a hardcore action movie or a thriller with some action, really hurt Salt in my mind.

Speaking of the Bourne Trilogy, this film tries so hard to be just like those three movies that equated perfection. Unfortunately, when you are trying to mimic perfection you will most often come up short just like Salt does. The action reminds me of the Bourne movies, but not near the quality. Much of the sequences seemed practical early on and were believable for Jolie’s character in this movie. But as I stated above, the action kept piling on and getting more ridiculous causing me to appreciate and believe the action less and less.

Even Jolie’s character seems to resemble Jason Bourne as she appeared detached from emotion for most of the movie. However, the similarity stops on the surface as Evelyn Salt features no depth compared to Bourne. Ten minutes into the film Jolie was already on the run from the government which brought me to think, “I don’t know anything about her, why do I really care what happens?” I at least need something to make me side with Evelyn Salt or root for her and not just watch mindlessly as she thwarts the law. I need a reason to hope she escapes capture besides the fact she is the main character. I need to feel something is at stake and not just watch thoughtless action to be truly enthralled.

The supporting cast features the always great Liev Schrieber and Chiwetwel Ejiofor (Inside Man). These two kept the non-Jolie pieces of this narrative flowing. While none of the characters got any real development besides Evelyn Salt, it was still great to watch these two hunt her down and try to unravel the mystery of her shrouded character. Watching the drive from Ejiofor’s character to apprehend Evelyn Salt was what really made this movie for me. Sure it has Jolie escaping every which way, but watching the close pursuit from Ejiofor and his team made the cat and mouse chase exciting from the “cat” end.

The most surprising thing for me walking out of this movie had to be the absence of Jolie being used as a sex object. In almost every movie featuring the 35 year-old actress her sexuality is exploited (minus Changeling). Salt is devoid of any sort of that. This is not necessarily a knock to the filmmakers, but it is Hollywood (where sex is used to sell), and Jolie is one of the finest women on the planet. I was surprised to say the least. As for Jolie’s portrayal of her character, she did a convincing job. She seemed like a shell of a character we could care for, but the mediocre character development is not her fault.

Overall, Salt was a movie that can be enjoyed but not truly loved. It has semblance to the Bourne Trilogy, but fails to discover what makes that series really great, attachment to the lead Jason Bourne. The character Evelyn Salt never really develops a personality or creates audience attachment to her cause. We see the reasons to do so and all the action, but I never felt the emotion of it. Instead of trying to impress me with storytelling, the filmmakers kept pounding unbelievable action into my head. While the action was good for the most part, it took up too much time from the narrative when I should have been learning about this complex character.

What Should You Do? Salt is worth seeing, but only if you have already seen Inception. I recommend seeing Inception twice or three times before seeing this movie once. Wait for the rental.

RELATED POSTS

• Trav’s Review: Star Trek Just Friggin’ Rocks! (12)
• Trav’s Review: Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince Is Phenomenal (22)
• Trav’s Review: G.I. Joe Is Average At Best (1)
• Trav’s Review: “Angels & Duds” (4)
• Sarah’s Review: ‘Jeux D’Enfants’ (Love Me If You Dare) (3)

GRADE: A+

My brain; melted. My eyeballs; popped out of their sockets. My heart; ripped apart and then glued back together with an adhesive comprised of unadalterated joy. That is what happened to me for 148 minutes this week when I watched Christopher Nolan’s Inception for the first time. It is without a doubt the best movie of 2010, the best movie of the past 10 years, and IN MY OPINION, the best movie ever made. I know these gushing sentiments may be met with releuctance and skepticism for those of you who have followed my year-long obsession leading up to the release of this film, and for that I apologize. But I am just letting you know that, even with the highest, most ridiculous level of expectations that I had for Inception, Christopher Nolan exceeded them, resulting in the most unforgettable movie experience I’ve ever had.

The genius of Christopher Nolan is his ability to suck the audience into the multi-layered story web that he weaves, compelling the audience to think and feel as the characters proceed on their journey of self-discovery. Inception is a culmination of all his previous films, even though he had the idea for it when he was 16 years old and wrote the first draft of the script in 2001. Following, Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige and The Dark Knight have acted as a cinematic batting cage for Nolan, allowing to hone his writing and directorial skills, with Inception acting as the grandslam home run at the bottom of the 9th in game seven of the World Series. Inception is Nolan’s Sistine Chapel, his Mona Lisa. It’s a film that is going to change how other films are made, and how Hollywood approaches fresh, edgy ideas from promising young filmmakers.

The plot of Inception is so dense, that even if I tried to explain every detail, you still would have no idea what I am talking about. Having said that, I’ll give you the simpelest breakdown of the plot, as you should try to view Inception for the first time with as little knowledge as possible (so, sorry for posting every trailer and picture over the last year :/).

Leonardo DiCaprio stars as Dom Cobb, the most skilled man on Earth in the art of “extraction,” using a device to go into people’s minds via their dreams to steal/”extract” secrets and information. Cobb cannot return home, which he desperately wants to get back to, and is then offered a job opportunity that would allow him to do so. Except this is no normal job, Japanese businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe, who is perfect in the role), hires Dom and his team to perform “inception,” where instead of extracting an idea from someone’s mind, they would be planting one in the most extreme act of coroporate espionage. Dom then assembles his team of dream stealers for this one last, extremely dangerous job. That’s about as spoiler-free a description of Inception that I’m going to give you. That plot may sound extremely complicated, and in some aspects it is, but once you are fully immersed in this dream heist, you feel like you are apart of the team, while grabbing on for dear life.

Nolan would be classified as an “old school” filmmaker. He has publicly discussed his love for in-camera special effects as opposed to the oversaturation of CGI that most blockbuster directors seem to prefer. The imagrey and action in Inception is breathtaking and thrilling; whether there’s an intense gun battle on a downtown street in the pouring rain with freightrains speeding past, or a high-speed ski-chase on a snowy mountain after an avalanche. Nolan also sets the bar in innovative and  jaw-dropping fight sequences that have never been seen before. I am of course talking about the hallway scene featuring Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s character Arthur, duking it out with a bad guy while the hallway spins with zero-gravity, causing their fight be literally all over the place. Nothing, and I mean nothing, can prepare for that scene. It’s one of the coolest, most-badass things ever put on screen.

A complaint that some critics have of Christopher Nolan’s films is that they’re “too cold,” meaning that they lack a pallatable element of emotion within the characters or story. While I strongly disagree and consider many elements in films such as Memento and The Dark Knight to be incredibly moving, I can see why they would have that impression about Nolan’s films. However, there is absolutely no way that anyone can say that Inception lacks emotion. Cobb’s haunted past, his love for his wife and his determination for redemption are the #1 driving forces of this story. There were times that I teared up because of the tragedy and loss we see Cobb had to endure. The special effects and razzle-dazzle of Inception are just supporting the central emotional core of this film.

The performances from every single actor in this film is top-notch in every degree. Leo is ace as always, featuring one of the best performances of his career. Ellen Page steps out of the Juno shadow, giving a lovely performance as Ariadne, the architect student Cobb recruits, but ends up being his theraputic guide throughout the film to help him deal with his past and realities. Tom Hardy and Joseph Gordon-Levitt steal the show in Inception. The sibling rivalry chemistry that they have on screen, even though they’re not brothers, is so enjoyable and provides some much-needed bright and funny spots in this otherwise very serious and tragic film. Tom Hardy in particular portrays one of the coolest combinations of elegant-charasmatic-badassery for a character that I’ve seen in years. And if Marion Cotillard doesn’t get nominated for Best Supporting actress as Cobb’s wife, Mal, I think I’m going to shoot someone. I’m not going to describe specific instances of her performance as that might give away some of the plot, but suffice it to say that she completely knocked it out of the park.

And I cannot forget to mention Hans Zimmer’s score. It’s some of the most thrilling and beautiful pieces of music I’ve ever heard from a film. During the inense action, the music thumps with danger and excitement. And during the dramatic, emotional scenes, Zimmer strikes right at the heart with truly beautiful music

Inception is a film that comes around once every 25 years. It’s a movie that’s so inventive, so imaginative, so original, so thrilling, so emotional, so compelling, so thought-provoking and so exciting, that it makes every other movie to come before it look like the worst movie ever. It also features THE BEST ending in film history. That is all I will say, you’ll just need to see it to know what I’m talking about. People will be talking about Inception for years to come, and I guarantee double-digit Oscar nominations, if not wins. The Dream Is Real.

What Should You Do? See it now, see it tomorrow. Just see it. See it as many times as you can. Go. NOW!

RELATED POSTS

• WB “Reportedly” Announcing ‘Batman 3′/Christopher Nolan Plans in January (5)
• Video: DiCaprio Says Inception Literally Has “Multiple Narratives Simultaneously” (2)
• Truly Amazing Second Teaser Trailer for Inception Finally Arrives Online (4)
• The Movie Preview Critic Analyzes Inception; Declares It “THE Most Important Film of 2010″ (3)
• Some Quick Tidbits: Another Inception Poster & Filmmakers React to Avatar (0)

GRADE: A-

An animated movie like this will always have the looming comparisons to the juggernaut on the playing field, Pixar. Heck, some people out there think every animated movie that comes out is a Pixar creation. But they aren’t all from Pixar, and these type of family orientated computer generated creations rarely own up to the might of the Disney owned company. Despicable Me showed that not all animated gems come from Pixar and that it too can bank at the box office.

The film took down the box office this past weekend with $56 million and is worth your attention at the movie theater. While the release of Inception is just days away now, don’t count Despicable Me out of your theater going equation. After you see Inception two or three times, switch it up with some laughter from Despicable Me before seeing Inception again. If you were on the fence about Despicable Me, take my guarantee this movie is entertainment for all ages.

This film voices Steve Carell as the protagonist, the strange looking and intelligent Gru. Strangely enough, he plays one of the world’s elite super villains and a man who seems to have a Scrooge-like heart. His ego is slighted as an unknown thief steals the Pyramid of Giza. He feels the need to plan an even bigger heist to establish himself as the world’s best villain. In order to carry out his new plan, the idea to adopt three adorable girls comes to Gru as he desires entry into a seemingly impenetrable fortress of an adversary named Vector (voiced by Jason Segel). Gru exploits Vector’s sweet tooth as the girls are allowed into the fortress to sell Vector cookies.

As the story began to set in, I realized the simple and, in some regards, predictable nature of the setup. While the target audience is kids, where simple and predictable work, no story is too complex for some creativity. As this movie neared completion I was settling on a grade of a (B+); then the writers threw predictable out the window as the adventurous and energetic ending unfolded. Just like Toy Story 3, the Despicable Me writers add some heavy emotion into the batter and mix it in real good. During this showing I was choked up a bit as I rooted the story onwards.

On top of that, the writers created real characters the audience can identify with, and more importantly, characters we care about. The three adopted daughters are so cute they melt your heart. Each girl has different characteristics that help them survive at the orphanage and even Gru’s dangerous super villain house post adoption. They band together to make it in a world that has not been kind to them. The youngest girl, Agnes, has to be one of the cutest animated children I have ever seen (Boo from Monsters Inc. is number one). She not only draws you in with her huge brown eyes, but she is downright funny in this movie. I can remember many times when she cracked me up with the words from her soft little voice.

A big piece to this project’s success is the talent voicing the animated characters besides Carell and Segel. Featured are: Kristen Wiig, Will Arnett, Julie Andrews, Danny McBride, Jack McBrayer, and Russell Brand. It took me awhile to figure out what character Brand voiced because of his voice sounding so differently than I am used to. I won’t tell you his character so you can figure it out for yourself, like a little game. Another huge plus is the light humor Gru’s Minions provide. All of you have seen these nondescript yellow creatures in the film’s promotions. In Despicable Me, these little Corn Nut creatures are hilarious. Even though you might not think it, the Minions instantly cause attachment to their cuteness like a new puppy.

Overall, Despicable Me is another animated film that ranks in the top movies of 2010. It has been awhile since I have truly enjoyed an animated film that didn’t come from the minds at Pixar. This project has lovable characters, great talent voicing them, an easy to enjoy narrative, and laughs coming from all angles. Another thing I want to quickly mention is how wonderful the music in this film is. The score was composed by the great Hans Zimmer and Heitor Pereira, as well as Pharrell and Lupe Fiasco contributing with their own original music.

What Should You Do? This was definitely the best movie this weekend, and the box office receipts show it. Don’t hesitate to check this one out, just make sure not to forget about it once Inception hits theaters.

RELATED POSTS

• Matt’s Review: Dinner for Schmucks Lacks Big Laughs (0)
• Matt’s Review: Date Night, Best Movie of 2010 Thus Far? (3)
• Trav’s Review: Star Trek Just Friggin’ Rocks! (12)
• Trav’s Review: Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince Is Phenomenal (22)
• Trav’s Review: G.I. Joe Is Average At Best (1)

GRADE: B

This review will be similar to my Nightmare on Elm Street critique in that I have seen the original, but don’t remember the 1987 Predator well enough for comparison. Even with that said, the 2010 Predators played homage to the original in many aspects. The music, some of the dialogue, and of course the gritty looking alien creatures that thrive for the hunt. The story in Predators is much different than the original, but I think that helps put this movie in a class of its own.

This film was produced by Robert Rodriguez (Sin City) and directed adequately by Nimród Antal. I used adequately to describe his work because some shots were really well constructed and other shots just didn’t work. The producers don’t try to mimic the original Predator story-wise, but they seem to have an idea of what made the original a success. Pitting both alien and human elite killers against one another seems like a can’t miss, but marketing to a new audience while also appeasing an established fan base is never an easy task. I think the producers found a decent mix between the two, and successfully created a fresh start to a possible new series of films.

This movie begins with Adrien Brody in free fall towards the ground. An advanced alien parachute opens just in time for him to land on the ground safely. He soon discovers he is not the only human trying to find his bearings in this unfamiliar territory. He crosses paths with other humans who seem to have one standout similarity like himself; they are hardened killers. Alice Braga plays the lone female among the group as a skilled shooter with her sniper rifle and Topher Grace plays his usual neurotic self. The movie picks up steam as the group realizes that the unknown terrain masks the presence of vicious hunters who see them as the prey.

The tension was established when the movie began. Brody dropping into an environment with no knowledge of what is going on or his location causes the audience to identify with his character off the bat and want to discover the answer to these questions with him. Knowing what is lurking in the jungle evokes anxiousness to viewers because the characters do not know what they are in for, but we do. As the movie progresses, the tension continues to rise as the group discovers why they are there and how much stronger and more advanced the Predators are.

All the characters in this movie seemed to bring something to the table, but some much less than others. Each character was given at least some screen time helping to create more tension when the audience senses danger for the group members they like or identify with. The humans discover defeating the enemy might be impossible making their effort to ward off these Predators that much more interesting.

That solid writing is partnered with some good action. The combat between the humans and Predators created a powerful sense of pride each of these sides had to defeat the other. I loved to see the “predator” mentality from each camp as the two tried to hunt each other down. The Predators put their malevolence on display as they gruesomely executed their victims.

One thing I did not particularly enjoy was the quick peaks into the point of view of the Predators. The story starts off from the human perspective and stays that way mostly throughout. Then deep into the movie the audience is thrust into the mind of the Predator. We are forced to try and interpret this perspective which seems little more than a peak into the Predators acute visionary tactics. What is the point here? We already know they are more advanced than humans, why change the point of view in the story? Though this element is used in the original, I thought it felt displaced here.

Overall, Predators had an old school feeling wrapped in a new package. The story, though very basic, had very strong characteristics of a well drawn out narrative. The tension especially was always being escalated by the actors, the situations, the setting, or most importantly the score. This movie was hurt drastically by two plot twists that came across as misses in my book. They hurt the simplicity of the narrative and personally I thought they were the worst parts of the movie.

What Should You Do? This movie is worth the price of admission if you were a fan of the other Predator films or enjoy a decent action flick. Predators fared decently at the theaters this weekend taking in $25 million, but if you want to see the best movie over the weekend that would be the box office champion Despicable Me.

RELATED POSTS

• Sneak Peek at Robert Rodriguez’ Predators (0)
• Trav’s Review: Star Trek Just Friggin’ Rocks! (12)
• Trav’s Review: Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince Is Phenomenal (22)
• Trav’s Review: G.I. Joe Is Average At Best (1)
• Trav’s Review: “Angels & Duds” (4)

GRADE: C-

First off, I did not go and see this movie in 3D. It was converted to the third dimension by the controversial and horrid looking post production process and I was not about to give three more dollars to a movie studio. I will not support this price gouging via the post production conversion that lacks the quality of films shot in 3D, but cost the same. I was looking forward to this movie because it had potential to be a good film with a intriguing story set in a wonderfully creative world. Unfortunately, it was not a good movie and probably marks the end of M. Night Shyamalan’s big budget movie career.

Personally, I blame Paramount Pictures for funding this project and green-lighting this script. How they read the screenplay and thought it was worthy of production baffles me. Of course, the script was written by Shyamalan himself who has plagued his own movies by doing just that. He is not a great writer. His inability to get help composing scripts almost destroys his movies before they begin. What I do not understand is how a studio that reads thousands of scripts a year could read The Last Airbender and not see the many flaws ingrained in the pages. The story had decent flow, but the characters were all flat and much of the dialogue was funnier that a Nick Swardson stand up bit (not good mind you).

One thing that particularly bothered me was the story being told from the point of view of a girl named Katara. I have never seen the cartoon series, but I am informed this is the perspective in which the original cartoon is told. For a movie, especially this movie, it did not work one bit. I think the narrative needs to be told from Aang’s point of view so the audience knows whose story is being told. This is the tale of The Last Airbender, the title of the damn movie, and yet he isn’t even the main character? It isn’t like Shyamalan is a purist either as I am told the pronunciation of Aang in the movie is different from the cartoon. Aang needs to be the focal point of the narrative but this is sidetracked by the one dimensional supporting characters.

On top of the piss pour script, the acting was absolutely atrocious; even worse than the work from the cast in the Twilight Saga. I had such difficultly fully paying attention because I was shaking my head and even laughing at how bad the acting was. Bottom line, the casting director should be tarred, feathered, and never allowed to work in the business again. The project essentially cast unknown actors to play many of the main roles, but for some reason actors with almost no talent were chosen.

Again, I will reiterate my lack of understanding for how the production team could watch casting calls or screen tests and hire the actors who played Aang, Katara, Sokka, Princess Yue, and Prince Zuko. All these main roles were bombed by the actors which caused me pain to watch as opposed to the feeling of being lost in a fictional world created by the filmmakers. Zuko is played by Dev Patel, another mistake from the casting crew as Patel does not fit the bill as a slighted Fire Nation Prince who also possess elite martial arts skills. This role requires someone who looks threatening, not the happy go lucky dork from Slumdog Millionaire.

The only quality execution of their roles comes from the elders in the cast. Shaun Toub, Aasif Mandvi, and Cliff Curtis all do well in their supporting roles. The boy cast to play Aang is an unknown actor named Noah Ringer who won the part in an open casting call. So essentially, he displayed his “acting talent” in front of the filmmakers and won the role. How this can be, it truly is baffling. My guess is bribery was a part of the equation. He has to be towards the top of my list as worst actors I have ever seen. WORST. How he was chosen for this role, I will never fully understand. One thing is for sure, his career will be very very short.

The one thing that blew me away from The Last Airbender was the fight scenes and the visuals. The way the benders controlled the elements was some of the coolest on-screen visuals I have ever seen. I not only love the concept of someone being able to control the elements in this manner, but the way it was executed was also top notch. The methodical movements used to unlock the power of the environment looked awesome and seemed to fit with what the benders were manipulating the elements to do.

Watching Aang dissect through the enemy defenses was something to marvel at. While I was blown away by the execution of this facet of the movie, it suffered greatly from the PG rating. This movie definitely needed some hardcore violence; but the movie was geared for wider audiences. Yeah, I know, the source material is a children’s program on Nickelodeon. All I am saying is with some actual violence, this movie would have been much better. Heck, minus Shyamalan this movie would have soared!

Overall, The Last Airbender had so much potential to succeed but does not possess the necessary essential elements to make it good. Bad writing and directing from the now Hollywood joke Shyamalan, some of the worst acting from most of the main characters, and a lack of feeling for what is really important all hurt this project. Aang should be the focal character. His story of avoiding his peace keeping duties as the Avatar should be paramount. But like I said, Shyamalan wrote the script so he missed all those angles. Strangely enough, I would watch this movie again just to see the amazing visuals and exciting fight scenes; even though it entails having to cringe through the duration of the movie to do so. I cannot believe I am saying this, but Eclipse is actually a better movie than The Last Airbender.

If you like action movies, you will appreciate pieces of this project. The movie is not as bad as the reviews will lead you to believe, but Shyamalan proves once again his ineptitude as a filmmaker.

What Should You Do? See it if you really want to, but don’t even think about wasting money on 3D.

RELATED POSTS

• Two New The Last Airbender Clips Stimulate Anticipation (0)
• Interview: I Sat Down with Nicola Peltz and Jackson Rathbone to Chat About The Last Airbender, M. Night, Kung Fu, and More (0)
• Trav’s Review: Star Trek Just Friggin’ Rocks! (12)
• Trav’s Review: Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince Is Phenomenal (22)
• Trav’s Review: G.I. Joe Is Average At Best (1)