Ben’s Review of Super 8
JJ Abrams may very well be his generation’s Steven Speilberg. He was able to provide a fresh take on the Monster movie in Cloverfield and reboot the Star Trek franchise in a way that even non-Trekkie fans could enjoy. So obviously the next step would be to collaborate with Steven Spielberg to give his take on an alien movie. This is not only a good move for Abrams but, judging from the last Indian Jones movie, a great move for Spielberg. With quite a bit of mystery, Abrams backed by Spielberg, brings Super 8 to try and go 3 for 3 on the sci-fi front. But can Abrams pay homage to Spielberg without outright copying him?
Set in 1979 Ohio, Super 8 opens with a funeral for the main character, Joe (played by newcomer Joel Courtney), mother. Joe takes solace with his friends who are filming a zombie movie for the Cleveland amateur movie festival on a Super 8 film camera. Charles, Joe’s friend and director of the Zombie film (played by another newcomer Riley Griffith), reads that movies need more plot to stand out in film festivals. Charles decides to bring in a girl, Alice placed by Dakota Fanning sister Ella, to play the love interest for the zombie hunting lead character. Even though she is not old enough to drive, Alice takes her father’s car sneaks out at midnight with Charles, Joe and the rest of the gang to film a climatic good bye scene at a train station when an actual train comes by. Eager to catch the footage of the train, the kids set up and start filming when a pickup truck drives head first into the train causing a derailment. The kids narrowly escape the train derailment and agree not to speak out the incident. However, strange incidents start happening around town including people disappearing and all the dogs in town running away. Soon the military comes in to investigate and contain the train wreck. Joes father Jackson, played by Friday Night Lights Kyle Chandler, is a deputy police officer who is left in charge when the police chief goes missing. The military is not telling Jackson anything and more and more people go missing. Things really take a strange turn when kids develop the film from the train derailment and catch a glimpse of something very alarming. What is causing the disappearance? Do the dogs comeback? Does the mystery get solved and is worth the wait?
As you may have already heard, this movie has been billed as the new E.T. This movie is much more of homage to Close Encounters of the Third Kind, down to the setting and the time of the movie. This movie is set up for disaster because it revolves around mystery and not letting the public know much of anything before they see it. Additionally, the movie relies heavily on the acting ability of children which, if you have seen anything made by Disney in the past 40 years, you know sarcastic overacting scene stealing children can destroy a film. Fortunately, J.J. Abrams knows what he is doing. The movie is believable because the story is the focus. It has quite a bit of heart without beating you to death sappy scenes. The mystery is very cool and pays off. Additionally, the kids in this movie are funny, quirky, and, most importantly, do not over do it. They swear, goof on each other, and act like kids. The special effects and the actors move this story along. While this movie may not quite rise to the same level of Close Encounters, it is good and a lot of fun to watch.
This movie gets three and a half reeses peeces out of five.
* Something Extra- The next Star Trek script is done and filming is set to begin shooting later this year with J.J. Abrams at the helm.
Elisa’s Review of Super 8
Well, another science fiction movie has come and gone, and I am just thankful it was a movie that was not based on a comic book. JJ Abrams of Alias fame and the ability to make Star Trek tolerable collaborated with Steven Speilberg as director to produce a sci-fi version of “Stand by Me.”
The film is rotten with special effects: huge train derailment scene and about 10 monster-people chases too many. Sans the green screen, the heart of the movie centers around a group of guys who are just trying to get through the late 70’s in middle America. Joe, whose mother just died in a warehouse mis-hap is looking for structure and love from his Police Officer Father. He spends a lot of time at the “Leave-it-to-Beaver” home of his friend Charlie, who is fascinated with producing/directing/writing a Super 8 movie for the Super 8 festival.
Super 8 refers to a type of movie camera used at some point before camcorders arrived. Joe, Charlie and their buddies set about making a zombie movie with a love story. Needing a girl to play a love interest, they seek out Alice, played by Elle Dakota, sister to Dakota. Alice is somewhat of a loaner, drives her father’s car, even though she does not have a license, and has acting ability beyond basic zombie attack skills.
Setting up to film a scene at an abandoned train stop just out of town, the group is filming when an approaching train is derailed by a wild-driving truck racing down the tracks. Train cars go flying, explosions abound, track comes flying off, in the most unrealistic, crazy use of special effects I have ever, I have watched in the last two weeks.
After the train derailment, the Army moves into town and tries to quietly detain whatever was in the train. The audience knows it is something bad, because the Army guys do not smile and are not friendly to Joe, Charlie and his buddies. Curfews are imposed, buildings are locked down, and people are removed from their homes. Similar to the United States Government evacuation of White Bluffs in Eastern Washington during World War II, the town is decimated before the end.
Super 8 is a great date-night movie Monsters and special effects for him, and well-written story of friendship, love and growing up for her. Did I need to see this movie in a theater? Probably not. The special effects seemed over-kill and unnecessary to the actual story line. Although, it is refreshing to sit through a move with a story line. Could I have lived my life without watching this movie? Maybe. The themes of friendship, laughs, teenage angst, and child versus adult reminded me of so many movies I loved growing up, “Goonies,” “Stand by Me,” “Emperor of the Sun” and “E.T.” that I must think “Super 8” is a movie that will hold its own against green screen effects over time.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Friday, June 3, 2011
Hangover II
Ben’s Review of Hangover II
If the first movie is good then why not try duplicating it again. If you bring back the exact same cast, director, and writer then you simply cannot lose. This was most likely the thinking behind the Hangover II. And why wouldn’t a movie studio think this? The original Hangover is the highest grossing rated R comedy of all time and the best selling comedy DVD of all time. This movie also jump started the movie careers of Bradley Cooper, Zack Galifinakis, and Ed Helms into hyper drive. With all of these accolades and a beloved cast, a sequel was merely academic. So a hilarious sequel is guaranteed right? Well….
The Hangover II begins with the revelation that everyone’s favorite Hooker marrying Dentist, Stu once again played by Ed Helms, is getting married in Thailand. Coincidentally, all of his friends from the Wolf Pac are invited, except for Alan, reprised by Zack Galifiinakis. Through some very tough convincing, Stu relents and invites Alan to the nuptials. So the gang goes to Thailand to marry off Stu. Stu, aware of the problems that can be caused by a bachelor party, refuses to partake in any pre-wedding festivities except for a beer with the guys on the beach and, of course, this is when everything goes wrong. The wolf pack wakes up in Bangkok with no recollection as to how they arrived there and must once again piece together the previous night’s activities and find the missing party member, this time Stu’s future brother in law. The three musketeers of debauchery once again have to check their pockets and rely on locals figure to learn the whereabouts of Stu’s brother-in-law. So is the Wolf Pac in Thailand a can’t miss premise?
(CAUTION SPOILERS FOLLOW) The original Hangover was a very original and well put together movie. It was truly hilarious because it had surprise after surprise which kept the audience riveted to their seats to see what would happen next. The problem is that the Hangover II does not offer anything new. It is literally the exact same premise and plot in everyway. Not only were almost all the gags the same but they occurred in the same order as the first movie. There were no real surprises just more of everything. The loan bright spot was a whole lot more Mr. Chow played by Ken Jeong The only real difference between the two movies is that the disturbing events that happen to the characters are truly disturbing to the point where they almost lose the humor.
I truly wanted to like this move but it came across as uninspired and just plain lazy. I give it two roofies out of five.
Elisa's Review of the Hangover II
"The Citizen Cane" of bachelor party movies touted "Rollingstone" magazine, in its review of the original "Hangover." When I meet people who have never watched the movie, I become so jealous that soon they are going to watch and experience each scene and laugh that full-body wet-their-pants laugh that only a first-time viewing provides. I can watch the same scenes, over and over on HBO--Is there anyone who doesn't want to experience Alan asking the clerk at Ceasar's "is there a phone bank in the hotel" for the first time again?
It was this built-up adoration for the antics Ed Helms, Zach Galifan...whatever, and Cooper Bradley, that provided the excitement for the sequel. Could these guys be as funny again? Could Sin City be replaced with Zen-City Bangkok? The answer, I am sad to report, is a solid, and loud, "NO."
It wasn't funny. I laughed in one part out of sheer exhaustion from holding in my cheer for 45 minutes. And, I am pretty sure what I laughed at was a complex penis joke, or a gay sex joke. It was a stretch. It was..not funny.
The studio, actors and writers cannot be blamed. Clearly, large wads of money were thrown at them to make this piece of cinema garbage. It is important to know two of the original writers, out of a team of three, did not participate in the sequel. Evidently, they were the clever and smart duo of the oringal threesome. They should receive an Oscar for "Best Decision Ever made."
The movie is so stagnant and boring, it seems as though the writers went scene-by-scene from the original outlining the movie. Or, it is possible they pulled up the original screen play and did a "Find/Replace" search finding "Las Vegas" and replacing it with "Bangkok." Finding "Tiger" and replacing with "monkey." Replacing "stripper" with "tranvestite hooker."
While the movie feels stagnant and boring, the plot is simultaneously rushed. There is no development as to when/where/how/why the boys are in Bangkok. There is no blury wake-up. It is a fast panic. Face Tatoo? Not that funny. They needed Liam Neason.
The story is canned and the laughs are cheap. Wait to rent it, HBO it, or watch the edited-for-TV version and save your tears. Hopefully, "The Hangover" franchise will not follow the four-peat sequels of another hilarious sleeper hit "Meatballs." There does not need to be a Zach Galifanik..whatever scene with Joan Rivers.
If the first movie is good then why not try duplicating it again. If you bring back the exact same cast, director, and writer then you simply cannot lose. This was most likely the thinking behind the Hangover II. And why wouldn’t a movie studio think this? The original Hangover is the highest grossing rated R comedy of all time and the best selling comedy DVD of all time. This movie also jump started the movie careers of Bradley Cooper, Zack Galifinakis, and Ed Helms into hyper drive. With all of these accolades and a beloved cast, a sequel was merely academic. So a hilarious sequel is guaranteed right? Well….
The Hangover II begins with the revelation that everyone’s favorite Hooker marrying Dentist, Stu once again played by Ed Helms, is getting married in Thailand. Coincidentally, all of his friends from the Wolf Pac are invited, except for Alan, reprised by Zack Galifiinakis. Through some very tough convincing, Stu relents and invites Alan to the nuptials. So the gang goes to Thailand to marry off Stu. Stu, aware of the problems that can be caused by a bachelor party, refuses to partake in any pre-wedding festivities except for a beer with the guys on the beach and, of course, this is when everything goes wrong. The wolf pack wakes up in Bangkok with no recollection as to how they arrived there and must once again piece together the previous night’s activities and find the missing party member, this time Stu’s future brother in law. The three musketeers of debauchery once again have to check their pockets and rely on locals figure to learn the whereabouts of Stu’s brother-in-law. So is the Wolf Pac in Thailand a can’t miss premise?
(CAUTION SPOILERS FOLLOW) The original Hangover was a very original and well put together movie. It was truly hilarious because it had surprise after surprise which kept the audience riveted to their seats to see what would happen next. The problem is that the Hangover II does not offer anything new. It is literally the exact same premise and plot in everyway. Not only were almost all the gags the same but they occurred in the same order as the first movie. There were no real surprises just more of everything. The loan bright spot was a whole lot more Mr. Chow played by Ken Jeong The only real difference between the two movies is that the disturbing events that happen to the characters are truly disturbing to the point where they almost lose the humor.
I truly wanted to like this move but it came across as uninspired and just plain lazy. I give it two roofies out of five.
Elisa's Review of the Hangover II
"The Citizen Cane" of bachelor party movies touted "Rollingstone" magazine, in its review of the original "Hangover." When I meet people who have never watched the movie, I become so jealous that soon they are going to watch and experience each scene and laugh that full-body wet-their-pants laugh that only a first-time viewing provides. I can watch the same scenes, over and over on HBO--Is there anyone who doesn't want to experience Alan asking the clerk at Ceasar's "is there a phone bank in the hotel" for the first time again?
It was this built-up adoration for the antics Ed Helms, Zach Galifan...whatever, and Cooper Bradley, that provided the excitement for the sequel. Could these guys be as funny again? Could Sin City be replaced with Zen-City Bangkok? The answer, I am sad to report, is a solid, and loud, "NO."
It wasn't funny. I laughed in one part out of sheer exhaustion from holding in my cheer for 45 minutes. And, I am pretty sure what I laughed at was a complex penis joke, or a gay sex joke. It was a stretch. It was..not funny.
The studio, actors and writers cannot be blamed. Clearly, large wads of money were thrown at them to make this piece of cinema garbage. It is important to know two of the original writers, out of a team of three, did not participate in the sequel. Evidently, they were the clever and smart duo of the oringal threesome. They should receive an Oscar for "Best Decision Ever made."
The movie is so stagnant and boring, it seems as though the writers went scene-by-scene from the original outlining the movie. Or, it is possible they pulled up the original screen play and did a "Find/Replace" search finding "Las Vegas" and replacing it with "Bangkok." Finding "Tiger" and replacing with "monkey." Replacing "stripper" with "tranvestite hooker."
While the movie feels stagnant and boring, the plot is simultaneously rushed. There is no development as to when/where/how/why the boys are in Bangkok. There is no blury wake-up. It is a fast panic. Face Tatoo? Not that funny. They needed Liam Neason.
The story is canned and the laughs are cheap. Wait to rent it, HBO it, or watch the edited-for-TV version and save your tears. Hopefully, "The Hangover" franchise will not follow the four-peat sequels of another hilarious sleeper hit "Meatballs." There does not need to be a Zach Galifanik..whatever scene with Joan Rivers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)