Prince of Persia review

Prince of Persia. Well, this is a video game movie. I'm already doubting myself. But wait, this is directed by Mike newell, who directed one of the Harry Potter movies! And it's produced by Jerry Bruckheimer! And Jake Gyllenhaal and Alfred Molina are in it! I'd put Ben Kingsley in that exclamation, but Bloodrayne prevents me from doing so. Needless to say ,this film has a high pedigree in spite of the source material.

Too bad it just doesn't come together like it should have.

The plot is this: a young street child shows extraordinary valor and gets adopted by the King of Persia. When he grows up he helps Persia capture some holy city, where he falls in love with the Princess and must protect her and the Dagger of Time from his treacherous Unlce. It's a lot less confusing than National Treasure or Pirates of the Caribbean, so maybe that's why it felt really pedestrian.

The action sequences are merely decent, sometimes being too fast and sometimes being very obviously stunt doubles. I'd say the action here is overall just entertaining, but not "wow" worthy. Generally that's how the movie ambles on- entertaining, but nothing special. that is, however, until the dialogue and romance steps in.

It's terrible. I hated Gemma Arterton as the stereotypical "liberated" woman cliche, especially in ancient Persia, and couldn't see at all how Prince Dastan could be in love with her. Much of the movie is spent on their witless banter, where they trade insults and inevitably get captured or seperated by various thugs or villains. i wanted to scream "Get moving, Prince! The world's demise is at hands and you stop to banter about what you wear? Seriously, just fight some people!"

Finally, the conclusion to the story was weak. Yeah, the game was pretty weak, too, and made no sense, but it could have been at least somewhat rectified here. It wasn't. So yeah, all in all a pretty average blockbuster that just didn't have enough heart or "OMG" moments to really latch on.

I'm Back!

it seems like this is forever going to be a summer hobby of mine, and something i just don't find time for in the long run. It's the same with my on-and-off YouTube channel, but i seriously feel like I need to exercise my writing skill so as not to get rusty. So I'll be reviewing movies here again! I'll have reviews up for Splice, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and Prince of Persia: Sands of Time up this week.

Ponyo review

I am not a huge Hayo Miyazaki scholar. I've only seen Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke, and enjoyed both a good deal, but it felt like something was missing to push them up to a pedestal they deserve. The same can be said on Ponyo.

This film is admittedly more for kids than the aforementioned films, but it's still a mostly charming, bubbly little film. The voice acting for the American version is quite good, with Liam Neeson, Tina Fey, Bettie White, and the little stars Noah Cyrus and Frankie Jonas all doing a very good job.

It's overflowing with cuteness and will obviously appeal to little girls and very young boys, but I think adults who take them will enjoy the visuals as well.

The visuals are absolutely dream-like, and it's the real reason to go see the movie. It might be a little confusing story-wise to young children, as it does involve a fair deal of magic goings-on, but the whole movie is just too darm cute and infectiously bright to find anything really wrong with it.

It's entertaining in its innocence. Some have found it a bit too simple or think it should appeal to adults more actively, but what if Miyakaki really wanted to simply make a children's film? Does it have to have multiple dimensions to be good? Can't it just be a simple, fun movie? I think so, and it does it's job very well.

It's not amazing, and i like Coraline and Up more in terms of this year's animated films, but i still think its worht a viewing.

Funny People review

Judd Apatow- the name on so many comedies today even though he's only ever directed three films himself (having guys like Greg Mottola and David Gordon Green to do the directing certainly helps). Funny People is his newest film and definitely his most personal.

It's a perculiar fil as it touches on a lot of really dramatic material through much of the second half after bombarding us with gut-busting stand-up comedy material the first half. uneven, yes. But bad, no.

Sandler plays George Stevens, who is obviously based at least partially off Sandler himself. He's an aging, and unfortunately dying, stand-up comedian/actor who recruits Ira (Seth Rogen) to write jokes for him. Ira is clearly based on Apatow's own experiences.

The problem with this film is that the drama stays in the backdrop even though it occasionally comes out for the majority of the first hour and 15 minutes, and then the last 45 minutes go super-drama on us. The last half is virtually laughless unless you find traitorous backstabbing and marital infidelity fucking hilarious. Another problem is that the films goes a little past "only human" character flaws and into "total douchebag/bitch" character flaws a tad too often.

The performances range fro good to great, though, and that certainly helps the unevenness when you have strong performances to carry you. Sandler has perhaps one of his best performances, easily his best since Punch-Drunk Love. Miss Apatow herself Leslie Mann does a good job, as does Rogen, but the real stars are the supporting cast of Jason Schwartzman, Jonah Hill, and Eric Bana. Any scene with them is priceless.

In the end i think this comes down to how well you can find yourself in Apatow's shoes. If you can wiggle into his celluloid life, then it's a good ride. It's flawed, and a few scenes with the children (you'll know when you see the movie) could have been cut, but overall i recommend it.

Orphan review

What's wrong with Esther? It's a somewhat perplexing mystery through much of the new horror-thriller Orphan, starring Peter Sarsgaard and Vera Farmiga as parents who want to adopt a 9-year-old child into the family. They end up with the little demon you see on the left.

"Evil Children" is apparently a subgenere, but aside from "It's Alive," "Rosemary's Baby," and "The Omen," I don't have much exposure to it. There's also "The Good Son," but the least we say about THAT, the better. So, is this film worthy? Well, yes and no.

First, I have to say that the film does a nice job slowly building tension and then using it to explode into a flurry of blood spurts. It's a bit imbalanced, if you ask me, to have so much tension peppered with gore scenes. it does NOT hold back in areas I would think it should. Is this a bloodbath or a tense mystery/thriller? It shouldn't be uneven.

But i must give this film props for having some guts and not wussing out. It definitely succeeds in getting under your skin. i must admit, however, that much of the film is just plain wierd. In fact, the film's opening scene is certainly enough to disturb the most hardened horror fan, not for content but simply how the subject matter is handled.

I applaud Orphan for making us completely despise Esther by the end of the film. Isabelle Fuhrman does an amazing job in the film with what she's asked to do. The two leads manage to do OK, but the other two children are surprisingly great as well.

The biggest problem with this film, unfortunately, is even though it kept me on my toes and I didn't guess the twist until about 5 minutes before the big reveal, it quickly descends into cliche once the twist comes full circle. That and the twist is just plain wierd. it has a good lead-up and the hints are all there. It was actually fun trying to figure out the clues. But i can't say everything is done perfectly when it comes to the plot, just...adequately.

And much of the film is just that- adequate. The performances are good, but the execution is ultimately adequate and sometimes cliched, the gore is edgy but not exactly needed, the twist far-fetched but believable. It's a real pro-con film, for with every good thing there's something to take it down a peg.

But I say go for it if you're a horror junkie. If not, maybe a rental on a lazy day when it reaches the shelves.

The Hurt Locker review

And finally we have a true, solid Oscar contender. It took until July to get one, but now we have a live-action film that stands a chance at the major awards. A Best Picture nomination is probably ensured after the rules were changed to make room for 5 extra contenders.

Kathryn Bigelow is probably most know for her action/sci-fi films like Near Dark, Point Break, and Strange Days. She's a director that concentrates on thrills and certainly delivers here. She succeeds in making a war film set in Iraq that doesn't have the government corruption or atrocities in the area as its focus, but it doesn't feel like propoganda either. It is simply a story of sodliers, their viewpoints, and how they cope with an atmosphere and situations that for some are thrilling and addictive, but for others are a place to let corruption seep out.

People have said this film is without political bias, or apolitical, as Bigelow herself has declared. However, this film is not devoid of message and I'm not sure it's anti-political either. Some soldiers are bad, some are good. Some are emotionally unstable, some are reasonably well-adjusted. Some show kindness, others don't. I've heard various arguments from both sides- some saying it's too gun-ho and is essentially pro-American occupation, some saying it's obviously anti-occupation considering the downfalls and instabilities of the lead character. I think that is a testament to the striking amount of balance this film effortlessly shows, despite the writer having also penned Paul Haggis' heavy-handed "In the Valley of Elah."

Jeremy Renner puts forth certainly Best Actor caliber acting here. His performance is edgy, textured, and still kickass. This film, at its heart, IS an action film, so the protagonist has to be kickass in some way. This film delivers. I also love the supporting cast- Ralph Fiennes, Anthony Mackie, Guy Pearce, David Morse, and Evangeline Lilly all bring something to the table despite having little or diminished screentime. This is Renner's show for sure.

The film is never boring, frequently tense, heartfeltly hilarious at times but certainly disturbing as well. It touches on every range of emotion one can feel towards war while keeping it simple at the center. It just feels like everything clicked and worked exactly as it should have. I extend my congratulations Bigelow and crew and I hope come March next year you have a few statues on your mantles.

Moon review

After putting this on the lower end of my Top 10 of the year so far, I figured I'd put up an actual review.

Moon is the debut of director Duncan Jones, best known as being David Bowie's son. However, he has shown that he has a flair for good, creative ideas with this story he's concocted. It's a future where it's actually bright rather than distopian- a new energy source has been found in sunlight absorbed by the rocks on the moon's surface. One lone man is in charge of the station harvesting these rocks, and the loneliness becomes apparent.

At first this film seems to be about loneliness and isolation and how one person adapts to or fails to adapt to the adverse conditions. But about 30 minutes in it changes to a mystery with some cleevr sci-fi ideas being thrown around.

Unfortunately the execution of the story and the actual writing isn't as good as the ideas, the performance, or the atmosphere.

But I'll be honest, the visuals, atmosphere, and Sam Rockwell's performance are near golden. In fact, Rockwell is certainly good enough for academy awards recognition. The visuals are very uniwue and in no way overdone. The film builds some good tension, but the narrative is a bit confusing at times and a bit too simple at others.

I think Jones also shows his rookie status with some of the ways he chooses to reveal key plot points. I think a few scenes should have been rearranged, but it's still well done most of the time. I don't think it's a visionary masterpiece, but with shit like Transformers 2 and G-Force out, it's a welcome diversion to see something that makes you think.

Overall it's a definite recommendation, but a few kinks keep it from the highest marks in my book. It's only 97 minutes, and it's never boring despite accusations bu others that it moves slowly. i still think it's a smart, well-made sci-fi drama/thriller.

Top 10 of the Year...So Far

Yep, it's July. But l've seen roughly 40 films from this year so far, so let's go through the ten I think are most worthwhile.

10. Moon

Duncan Jones directs Sam Rockwell to one of the best performances of his career, and adds a good amount of intrigue into a visual feast of a film. I wish the screenplay were a bit stronger, but it's still a worthwhile film.

9. The Great Buck Howard

John Malkovich and Colin Hanks star in this wonderfuuly upbeat and quirky film about a grumpy has-been magician who finds friendship in a young writer. The two form a partnership and go through a lot of strife and heartbreak as well as triumph. It's a wonderfully writen film and has a great heart to it.

8. Coraline

This magical animated film really captures some true tension while weaving a hauntingly beautiful tale as well. Henry Selick is a definite stable in terms of animation quality. It also surprisingly uses 3D very well.

7. Observe and Report

Jody Hill is a hilarious writer, and he manages to make one of the most unfairly maligned films of the year. it's dark, unique, truly engaging, and Seth Rogen breaks out of his usual shell to give a performance that rocks the film. It's far more cerebral and sometimes downright creepy than Knocked Up or Superbad, but I like it that way.

6. Star Trek

One slam-bang action film with good writing and a great mind behind it. It's a true crowd pleaser that has some actual talent at the helm and it delivers far more than just loudness or masturbation jokes (looking at you, Michael Bay). Thank you J.J. Abrams, you are my summer movie hero.

5. Drag Me to Hell

Sam Raimi made a horrific film in Spider-Man 3, a film that he tried to insert his Raimi charm into, but it just doesn't work in a story like Spider-Man. He belongs in horror and really surprised me with this fantastic moral tale that grosses you out, makes you laugh, genuinely scares you, and all-around gives one hell of a ride.

4. Watchmen

Zack Snyder's film has been criticized by Moore's fans and shunned by Moore himself for simply attempting to do something most considered impossible- transferring the pages to the screen. I think it was done impressively with great visual flair and impressive storytelling. How much is due to faith to the source material? Does it matter? Good is good, and this film is nearly great.

3. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Check my review to see why I loved this film, but in short I found it amazingly real and the characters are so natural. the fantasy is still there, but it's becoming something so much more than just a kids' fantasy. It's a full-fledged epic.

2. Adventureland

Most people expected Superbad 2, but they got much, much more in my opinion. It's one of the best films about relationships between young people I've seen and I fully expect it to be on my final list as well. It's genuine and funny. I recommend it for anybody. Jesse Eisenberg in particular gives a very good performance.

1. Up

Probably the best Pixar film not involving talking toys, this film made me cry multiple times and took me on a huge emotional trip I never expected a cartoon to take me on. It's again another film that captures humanity in all its hardships and triumphs, which seems to be an obsession of mine right now. Great job, Pixar. I consistently look forward to all your projects.

The Chaser review

I'm having some trouble with Korean cinema at the moment, at least when it comes to modern crime thrillers from said country. It's a problem of believability, something i believe any crime drama attempting realism or hard-nosedness MUST have in order to properly work.

The Chaser is a highly acclaimed film I had heard about from the Indie movie scene and it had been making its way across film festivals and such, and most of the geek and horror blogs (there's a bunch of them) fell in love with the film because of its gritty realism and unflinching violence.

Fuckballs, I say. I say fuckballs.

Not often do I actually get angry at a film, but I was so excited when the film finally made its DVD release that I snapped up the only copy and eagerly watched immediately. What follows is the most boneheadedly obvious "critique" on police ineptitude and some of the phoniest "grit" I've come across in a crime thriller.

We have a thoroughly unlikable p[rotagonist- he's an ex-cop, now a pimp with a problem. His girls seem to be going missing. He takes probably 40 minutes into the movie to do what should have taken 10 to track down who he suspects sold his girls, but when the cops get involved it turns out it may have been bloodier than that. However, there isn't enough evidence. It's now a race to find at least one mising girl before his 24-hour holding period is over and he is set free.

This setup is used to literally make the police look as stupid as possible as NOBODY makes a sane decision in the entire film. You know in horror films when the protagonist continues to make bone-headed decisions like splitting up in the dark woods or having sex in a tent next to the haunted lake? Yeah, imagine that, but in cop drama form. People fail to make basic arrests, interrogate properly, miss key clues, and generally run around with their heads in their ass. This can be used properly if you do it without being ham-fisted or put us in the same shoes as the police, but we as an audience have all the answers from the get-go. We see all the crimes and know all the clues. The film is literally designed to make me feel angry at the police force. Everybody is loud, corrupt, obnoxious, and possibly brain-damaged. The film is hectic, and not in a good way.

I dug the performance of the main villain, but it got one-note after the first half of the film. The film is also purposefully "dark," but it does this by using contrived coincidence after coincidence. I can't but for one second all the coincidences that drive this plot forward. It reminds me of Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Chan-Wook Park's first film is his Revenge Trilogy, in that as an audience we are asked to believe a string of unbelievable circumstances to keep the plot moving. I thought it was generally accepted that this is bad storytelling, but apparently I've been told that it's something Korean thrillers often do, and you have to either accept it or stop watching them. Well, it appears I just don't have the taste for these types of films.

I did like Oldboy, however, which has some storytelling flaws, but the acting, atmosphere, and downright engaging plot structure keep it as one of the most brilliant films I've seen. Chaser just falls flat at every chance it gets to make it right. Apparently this is getting an American remake, as is Oldboy. I'm oddly looking forward to both, because in this case perhaps an American touch is what is needed for such a boneheaded Westerner like me.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Having watched the previous five films all within a span of two weeks, I must say that I love this series with a passion. i was ecstatic to see the new film in theaters with a massive crowd and I fully enjoyed myself for probably only the third time this summer (Up and Star Trek being the others).

Harry is in his sixth year at hogwarts and is still shocked about the events that transpired following the Death Eaters attack on the Ministry of Magic. Hogwarts is still a dangerous place, although Dumbledore stands firm in his belief that they will be prepared for the coming war. He enlists harry to find out from an old colleague exactly how they can kill the Dark Lord Voldemort.

I can safely say this film successfully completes the maturation of the characters and serves as a great bridge to the final battle that awaits in the next two films (considering that deathly Hallows will be TWO films, not one). The first two films were definitely children's tales, closer to Scooby Doo than Lord of the Rings. Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban started to darken the films and both Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix were sort of trials for Potter and friends. Now these young wizards are ready to continue on as they approach adult years, and the maturation process is done so well here.

This film is first and foremost a character study, and a fantasy film second. Compared to the previous two films, there is little action or spectacle in terms of immediately "WOW" material, but the film is still strikingly beautiful to look at and the screenplay is still as humorous as ever. It's a great balance that most of the previous films had as well.

I'd say that I do miss the mystery of some of the older films. That's not to say that this film doesn't have any mystique about it. It's just that I sometimes miss the boyish adventurism of the first two films, and to a slightly lesser extent Azkaban. i still think this film is extremely magical and fun to watch, but it's because of the characters and not exactly the visual effects extravaganzas the last two were. Those expecting dragon duells and great one-on-one battles will be disappointed.

The acting is very good from the cast and the films continue to add on them without seeming forced. I'd say this Potter film is just behind Goblet of Fire as my favorite of the series, and it's certainly one of the best films I've seen this year so far.