Movie Reviews and Ratings

Official picture of Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man!

2011/01/13 at 12:00am

Official picture of Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man!

01.13.2011 | By Jack Rico |

Today I received in my email, a nice little arachnid gift from my contact at Columbia Pictures – the first image of Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man. This is without doubt, one, or if not, the, most anticipated movie photograph of 2011.

A few days ago we posted the first photographs of the set where Garfield and Emma Stone, who plays Gwen Stacy, were kissing. In those pics, Garfield looks happy, excited. But this time, Garfield, I should say Peter Parker, is miserable, sweaty, scratched up and contemplative as he walks through a dark alley. The tone of the picture is bleak and dismal letting us know that the film will not resemble at all a Disney movie. The scratch on the left of Garfield’s face must belong to Dr. Curt Connors a.k.a The Lizard, one of the fiercest archenemies of Spider-Man (that’s our speculation). We think that this photo was taken during, or after the supposed first battle scene with Connors.

The details are slowly being revealed, but the synopsis still remains a secret. On the other hand, don’t even think you’re going to see an official trailer until mid-summer or later this year. The director Marc Webb just started shooting this month and it would be illogical for any visual effects footage to be finished in order to preview already. The poster for the film could very well be this picture, but obviously, with the titles of the film, etc.

The other actors, Rhys Ifans, Martin Sheen, Sally Field, Denis Leary, Julianne Nicholson, Scott Campbell, Irrfan Khan and Annie Parisse, will join the film in the coming weeks. The official release in the US of ‘Untitled Spider-Man Reboot’ will be July 3, 2012 in 3D.

By Jack Rico

2011/01/11 at 12:00am

DVD Reviews Reviews

The Social Network

01.11.2011 | By Jack Rico |

Rating: 4.5

Rated: PG-13 for sexual content, drug and alcohol use and language.
Release Date: 2010-10-01
Starring: Aaron Sorkin, Ben Mezrich
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://www.thesocialnetwork-movie.com/

Â Go to our film page

Although ‘The Social Network‘ isnâ€™t a masterpiece, this film will undoubtedly be the film that defines our generation. Each decade had a film that captured the zeitgeist of the times such as ‘Saturday Night Fever‘ in the 70’s, ‘The Breakfast Club‘ in the 80â€™s and ‘Reality Bites‘ in the 90â€™s. ‘The Social Network’, based on the origins of Facebook.com, the popular global social network, possesses clever dialogue, entertaining performances, and a captivating and inspiring story that draws you in. Director David Fincher (The Curious Case of Benajmin Button, Fight Club, Panic Room) and writer Aaron Sorkin‘s brilliant script have created a biopic that will easily be nominated for several Oscars including Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Picture.

The plot is about the origins of Facebook, through conflicting viewpoints of two of the most intelligent young people who claim to have been there at the moment of its conception – Mark Zuckerberg and the Brazilian financier Eduardo Saverin. The result is a drama full of creation and destruction, intentionally avoiding having a single point of view. The characters are Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg), the brilliant Harvard student who designed a site that seemed to redefine the social fabric of our days overnight, Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), who used to be the best friend of Zuckerberg and provided the money to start the new company, the founder of Napster, Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), who led Facebook to venture capitalists in Silicon Valley, and the Winklevoss twins (Armie Hammer) who claim that their idea was stolen are suing Zuckerberg for their intellectual property. But the chaos of creation leads to conflicting passions about how it all happened and who deserves recognition for what isÂ clearly is the most important idea of the century. Tensions reign that divides friends and unleash legal action.

I must say that the real magic of the film does not come from the actors but from Fincher and screenwriter Sorkin. Fincher’s direction is refreshingly consistent. He has always been obsessed with antisocial and rebellious characters, but now, in mid-career, he has become more subtle, more eloquent in their arcs, both comic and tragic. Sorkin on the other hand, is a master of the written word. His script is smart, witty and absorbing. He made an impressive amount of research to get to the core of the story. He read legal statements, court documents, which offered the best possible material. The only thing that could be a detriment to the film is that it might have felt long in some parts.

Among the performances, actor Armie Hammer impressed. His role was a tough one. He played the Winklevoss twins – by himself (courtesy of special effects). Two of the best lines in the film, and perhaps of the year, were delivered by him. Another one that stands out is Jesse Eisenberg, who has undoubtedly done the best work of his career. His role as Zuckerberg – full of awkward moments, quick and extended philosophical monologues – was fierce, sad and brave. Basically, he gave us a soup of personalities and emotions that ultimately proved difficult to decipher – was Zuckerberg a hero or a villain?

Many are curious to know how things went with Justin Timberlake. I say this with all sincerity, he wasnâ€™t so bad. The role fit him like a glove. His performance did not cause any kind of hysteria in the theater I saw it in – unlike his musical performances. His performance is modest at best, nothing to criticize.

Our new Spider-Man, Andrew Garfield, who played Eduardo Saverin, shows that has the acting chops to become an excellent actor for years to come.

I’m sure you’ll like ‘The Social Network’. Why? Because it moves quickly, no scene is wasted, the theme is current and compelling, the performances are magnetic and riveting and the dialogue is engrossing and unforgettable. What more do you want from a film!

By Jack Rico

2011/01/09 at 12:00am

Reviews

Season of the Witch

01.9.2011 | By Jack Rico |

‘Season of the Witch’ is Nicolas Cage’s (Oscar winner) new check. He sleepwalks through the whole film with a narcotized stare yearning for someone to yank him and offer him Leaving Las Vegas all over again. The movie’s premise is modestly interesting, but the disjointed and uninspiring dialogue, the sparseness of an absorbing material, and the monotone and mechanical acting leaves much to be desired of Dominic Sena’s fifth effort.

Here’s the plot: Nicolas Cage plays an heroic Crusader with his closest friend, Felson (Ron Perlman) who return home after decades of fierce fighting, only to find their world destroyed by the Plague. The church elders, convinced that a girl accused of being a witch is responsible for the devastation, command the two to transport the strange girl (Claire Foy) to a remote monastery where monks will perform an ancient ritual to rid the land of her curse. One by one his fellow travelers meet with misfortune, and the embattled Crusader finds himself facing his most terrifying adversary.

‘Season of the Witch’ is an action adventure film that is inconsistent; it has its highs and very deep lows such as the incredulousness of Cage playing a religious Crusader prompting some inner chuckles on my behalf. There are some intriguing ideas that never fully follow through such as Claire Foy’s witch character which shows up whimsically without any explanation. The film goes hot and cold very frequently and then reaches, during the trip to the monastery, absurdity. No return from there.

Nonetheless, I did, apologetically, like the entertainment value of the action sequences, enough for me not to pummel the film into paper ash. So then, is ‘Season of the Witch’ bad or good enough to eek by and watch? It belongs in the ‘don’t spend your hard earned cash to see this at the theater,’ but if it’s on HBO one night, you can get your kicks and laughs out of Cage’s and Perlman’s Batman and Robin routine without guilt.

By Jack Rico

2011/01/07 at 12:00am

Movies

‘Knocked Up’ will have a sequel

01.7.2011 | By Jack Rico |

Don’t know if you remember the comedy ‘Knocked Up’ from director Judd Apatow back in 2007. The film became part of the new Apatow comedy movement in Hollywood and grossed worldwide approximately $150 million at the box office, something extraordinary for a film in the genre of comedy. Now comes news that the sequel, Knocked Up 2, is being prepared by Apatow himself where he will helm and write the script.

In an interview with Hitfix, Apatow talked about whether he saw the film as a prequel or sequel, “It’s just a story about the current lives of Pete (Paul Rudd) and Debbie (Leslie Mann). Many people identified with these characters and their problems. I felt there was much to explore in them both. We we will be shooting in July and it will be released next June,” said Apatow.

The exact release date will be June 1, 2012, and Apatow has plans to spread the information little by little. “There are some fun details that I will not reveal yet, but I’ll let you know slowly. It’s more fun that way.”

Although it is unknown if Seth Rogen will return in a cameo (we’ll ask him personally today since we’ll be interviewing him for The Green Hornet), what will be a surprise is to see Katherine Heigl back. She blasted the film back in the day and might be persona non-grata. Let’s see.

Video: Seth Rogen wants to do ‘Knocked Up 2’

By Jack Rico

2011/01/07 at 12:00am

Movies

Video: Seth Rogen wants to do ‘Knocked Up 2’

01.7.2011 | By Jack Rico |

The mere idea of Seth Rogen being a part of a sequel to any of his movies sounds a bit too sudden. I mean his first real movie was ‘40 Year Old Virgin’ in 2005. Nevertheless, that is exactly what he might be doing in July of this year on the set of Judd Apatow’s ‘Knocked Up 2.’

Rogen was in New York to promote ‘The Green Hornet’, his new movie about a rich playboy who fights crime and injustice with Kato, his masked sidekick. I had a chance to chat with him, and of course, ask him about Apatow’ sequel to ‘Knocked Up’ with Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann (Apatow’s wife) as the leads. Is Rogen to be part of the cast? Was he coming back with Heigl? If he does return, would it be a cameo? To clear up the uncertainty in the air, I asked him if he would be a part of the sequel.

“It’s a good question,” said Rogen. “I just heard about myself. He mentioned it to me, like a year ago maybe, that he was gonna start writing it, but I literally haven’t talked to him about it in any way.”

When I asked if he wanted to do it regardless of not having official talks with Apatow so far, he said yes. “Yeah, I would like to, why not, I’ve done anything Judd asks”.

Tell us what you’d like to see from a ‘Knocked Up’ sequel in the comments section below and on our Twitter!

Roger Ebert announces new host for ‘At The Movies’

By Jack Rico

2011/01/04 at 12:00am

Movies

Roger Ebert announces new host for ‘At The Movies’

01.4.2011 | By Jack Rico |

CHICAGO, January 4, 2011 – Ebert Productions is proud to announce that Ignatiy Vishnevetsky has joined the team at Ebert Presents At the Movies. Vishnevetsky will accompany the previously announced Christy Lemire of The Associated Press as co-host on the new weekly program. The show is scheduled to debut on January 21st on public television stations across the country, representing almost 90% national coverage and will be produced in Chicago at WTTW, where Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert began taping the legendary “Sneak Previews” some 35 years ago. It will be distributed by American Public Television (APT).

Fans of the original shows will be pleased to find that in addition to serving as co-producer of the show, Roger Ebert will also host a special segment each week and had direct input into the selection of the show’s host critics including Chicago-based Ignatiy Vishnevetsky (Ig.nah.tee) (Vish.na.vet.ski). Hearing him discuss films in the Lake Street Screening Room used by Chicago critics, Ebert said, “I was struck by the depth and detail of his film knowledge, and by how articulate he was.” After reading his work online, Ebert was sold.

Vishnevetsky is a critic and essayist for Mubi.com, a new multi-national streaming online cinematheque. Ignatiy moved to America from Russia when he was not quite 9. He graduated from high school in Milwaukee and then moved to Chicago, “because I could find more films to see here.” He is a co-founder of the acclaimed Cine-File.info, and continues to write criticism for it on a weekly basis. He is also a contributor to The Chicago Reader, and helps program the current Cine-File Selects series at the University of Chicago’s Doc Fims, the nation’s oldest film society. Prior to becoming a film critic, Vishnevetsky, who is multi-lingual, worked as a translator for Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, Russia’s premier literary journal.

Vishnevetsky will go head to head each week with Christy Lemire, who has been reviewing movies for The Associated Press for 12 years and was named the first full-time film critic in the news organization’s history in 2004. Christy filled in for Roger Ebert several times on “At the Movies” in 2007 and has appeared on “The Charlie Rose Show,” “Good Morning America” and “The View,” to name a few. She also covers the Oscars, Golden Globes and many other awards shows each year. A third-generation L.A. native, Christy is a member of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association. Of Lemire, Ebert says, “I admired the way she reviewed with Richard Roeper when she co-hosted our show,” Ebert said, “and I respect her criticism. On television, Christy is a natural.”

Ebert Presents At The Movies, marks the rebirth of a dream for both Roger and Chaz Ebert, who will serve as executive producer of the show. Chaz Ebert says she is happy to have this rare opportunity in television to bring back a show that started 35 years ago at WTTW, had a successful run at Tribune Entertainment and Disney, and is now once again being embraced by public stations nationwide.

ABOUT EBERT PRESENTS AT THE MOVIES

Ebert Presents At the Movies will be executive produced by Roger his wife Chaz Ebert, and will be directed by Don Dupree, who logged 15 years as director of “Siskel & Ebert” and “Ebert & Roeper.” Joining Christy and Ignatiy from time to time will be an impressive line-up of contributing critics on various aspects of the movies, from business issues to social media. The first shows will include Kim Morgan (sunsetgun.com) and Omar Moore (popcornreel.com). It will be distributed nationwide by APT (American Public Television).

By Jack Rico

2010/12/27 at 12:00am

Movies

The Top 10 Worst Movies of 2010

12.27.2010 | By Jack Rico |

Most film critics around this time of year set out to accomplish the tough task of narrowing down their Top 10 Films of the year. Even though I will be doing the same before the end of year, I thought it’d be more fun to just scorn and cast aspersions on the The Top 10 Worst Films of 2010. Why? Why not.

So many moviegoers waste their hard earned money on such deplorable films that a forum to vent is in order. So here is my top 10 worst based on movies that have enraged me to the point of kicking my goldfish out of its bowl (just kidding PETA) and pulling the beard of my face. That part hurt.

Go ahead and feel free to chime in. Tell us what heinous films we left out of our top 10 in the comments section below and add your thoughts.

Here is our The Top 10 Worst Films of 2010:

10. Splice
‘Splice,’ is in this critic’s opinion, one of the worst, if not arguably the worst movie of 2010. The story sounds compelling and gripping, piquing ones interest of the outcome. Regrettably, when you finish experiencing this disjointed effort, the results are baffling and incomprehensible. There are numerous leaps of logic – instances when the protagonists act in a fashion that only characters in a comedy would. It’s as if the screenwriters wanted to hammer home how idiotic these scientists really are. Ultimately, our heroes actions in the second act are aberrations of consistent implausibilities. Not once was I scared (unlike The Strangers or The House of The Devil recently). I kept placing my hands on my face, but in disbelief for the inanity unfolding before my very eyes.

9. Burlesque
If I can highlight one component that kills this movie over and over again is the tired and shameful setups that lead to repeated and unrelenting risible clichés. To be frank, the barrage is interminable. Cinematically, Burlesque is a mess, whether that is intentional or not is a future conversation. The acting was subpar to abysmal, the dialogue was criminal and the script was 75% old, stale tricks that have been worn out for decades. Burlesque will win many Razzie nominations, but as bad as it is, somehow history will tell how ‘bad’ made cult status.

8. Gulliver’s Travels
This one crippled me, literally. I have a torn ACL that got worse after I saw this movie. Part of why this film is so bad is because the adaptation is ridiculous. The script gaffes, the absence of verisimilitude, logic, rationale, and most of all dialogue, are all unacceptable. None of the members of this cast has the chops to overcome such vile dialogue. It truly is a kids film, not a family film. Adults would walk out… without their children. The age range for a kid to enjoy this film? 2 years old. The 3D experience is pure thievery. $17 a ticket for 4 people, plus parking and concession treats are not justifiable for a film of this caliber.

7. Dinner for Schmucks
Just like the regressing of Jack Black’s career, so too is the career of Steve Carrell. Some of his choices exemplify the deterioration of his decision making – ‘Dan in Real Life’ and ‘Evan Almighty’. But in Dinner for Schmucks, Carrell and Paul Rudd hit all time lows. The humor is not clever, it is ridiculous and idiotic and the characters are vexing and loathsome. The pacing drags and the predictable resolution, is misery.

6. Grown Ups
In the 1980’s successful comedies seemed like a dime a dozen. Now a days, we have to settle for ‘Grown Ups,’ where the laughs are few, but the apathy is plentiful. One of the issues I had with it was the marketing. The reputation some of the actors have are that of R rated comedians. The mere sight of Chris Rock is worth a hard R from a mile away (“tired of this sh*t, tired, tired, tired of this sh•t,” as his foul mouthed stand up routine goes). Secondly, I had issues with the tame dialogue of the script. The stars, mostly known for their profanities and uncouth behavior in films, seemed out of their element. Such a talented cast, but no creativity in the script.

5. Valentine’s Day
When it comes to romantic comedies, Valentine’s Day has to go up there as one of the worst rom-coms in the history of movies. So many stars, so much talent and the flimsy script just desecrated them. Some will never work again. The big challenge here was to have a writer parcel great material for 15 stars for about two hours. It is extremely difficult to do, but not impossible. The Ocean’s 13 films from Steven Soderbergh did it with success and some critical acclaim, so why couldn’t this one? This one is all on the screenwriters Katherine Fugate, Abby Kohn. The futile attempt to create interesting and dynamic scenarios were struck down with hyper speed resolutions and uninspired acting. This one isn’t even worth the DVD time.

4. The Last Song
Of his six titles sent to the big screen, ‘The Last Song’ is Nicholas Sparks worst film. Most of the drawbacks hinge on Miley Cyrus’ acting. She is officially on my list for a 2011 Razzie for worst actress. But perhaps the biggest problem with the film is the calculated, manipulative script that delivers phony, inorganic moments that don’t seem plausible enough for any teenager or adult to believe. It has some feel good moments, but not enough to deserve praise. This is definitely not a date movie adults will enjoy, but rather a transitional primer young fans of Cyrus will be expecting from her in the near future. She isn’t ready to act in these roles that demand so much of her limited emotional range. As a result, the scenes where she has to push and drive the emotional guts of the film fall flat. Bottomline, you can find this schmaltz for free on Lifetime or Oprah.

3. When in Rome
‘When in Rome’ is a complete disaster and echoes everything that is wrong with movies today. A romantic comedy with a recycled and absurd premise, vacuous humor, and a script as predictable as the weather in LA. These are the types of movies that you should never pay to see for many reasons including a lack of soul, depth or real substance to any of these characters. Everything seems to be a fantasy passed off as reality and the producers must think we are the fools that will buy it. Perhaps a DVD pick? Not even. This IS one of the worst movies of the year.

2. The Tooth Fairy
‘The Tooth Fairy’ was just bad cinema. The Rock is a simpatico guy, but with a ludicrous plotline, uninspired dialogue, the worse camera editing I’ve seen in years and a paltry supporting cast, there was no way he was saving this sinking ship. He wears a ballerina dress when first becoming a fairy and instead of it being a funny moment, it was embarrassing. Director Michael Lembeck, mostly a TV director, shouldn’t be doing movies. His camera shot selections were not flattering to the actors and showed the many audio dubbing flaws caught by the lens. Just intolerable. Adding to the demise of the movie was seeing a New York legend Billy Crystal in a pajama like costume regurgitating screenwriter Lowell Ganz’s stale and infantile dialogue.

1. Vampires Suck
And the worst film of 2010 is hands down ‘Vampires Suck’. ‘Horror-ble’ and painful comes to mind when I think of having watched this. Absolutely nothing can be praised from this film. I like a good spoof movie here and there (The Naked Gun, Hot Shots, Scary Movie) but the level of creativity to get this film off the ground is elementary, nothing seems to be out of the box thinking and 10 year old girls must have been consulted as ghost writers. For the sake of your mental sanity, stay away from this film full of dreadful inept jokes, paltry pop culture references and repugnant dialogue. This is one ‘vampire’ I’d like to stab in the heart over and over and over and over and over……â€¨â€¨â€¨â€¨â€¨â€¨â€¨â€¨â€¨â€¨

‘Little Fockers’ is #1 at the box office

By Mack Chico

2010/12/27 at 12:00am

Movies

‘Little Fockers’ is #1 at the box office

12.27.2010 | By Mack Chico |

Little Fockers, the third in a series of Ben Stiller comedies playing on the nightmare in-laws theme, has topped the Christmas weekend box office in the US.

Despite a lukewarm response from critics, the flick grossed $34 million over the three-day weekend.

That was less than the debut of the 2004 sequel, Meet the Fockers, which opened to $46.1 million, but more than the original, Meet the Parents, which made $28.6 million in its opening weekend.

Oscar-winning brothers Joel and Ethan Coen came in second with their remake of the John Wayne western True Grit.

Jeff Bridges plays drunken, hard-nosed US Marshal “Rooster” Cogburn in the new version of the 1969 classic, which took in $25.6 million, giving the Coen brothers their best ever opening. The filmmakers’ previous top debut was Burn After Reading, which earned $19 million in its first weekend in 2008.

Bridges also stars in last weekend’s top film – TRON: Legacy – which captured $20.1 million in ticket sales in its second weekend, slipping down to third in the rankings.

The sequel to the 1982 sci-fi cult hit stars 61-year-old Oscar-winner Bridges appearing opposite a computer-generated version of his younger self from the original movie.

The original TRON – about a hacker transported into a computer game world – was one of the first-ever computer animated films. It did well at the box office and became a cult for a generation of budding sci-fi fans.

Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at US and Canadian cinemas:

1. Little Fockers, $34 million

2. True Grit, $25.6 million

3. Tron: Legacy, $20.1 million

4. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, $10.8 million

5. Yogi Bear, $8.8 million

6. The Fighter, $8.5 million

7. Gulliver’s Travels, $7.2 million

8. Black Swan, $6.6 million

9. Tangled, $6.5 million

10. The Tourist, $5.7 million

‘Juan de los Muertos’: Cuba makes its first zombie movie

By Mack Chico

2010/12/26 at 12:00am

Movies

‘Juan de los Muertos’: Cuba makes its first zombie movie

12.26.2010 | By Mack Chico |

A flesh eating zombie film is being produced in Cuba with a budget that is huge by Cuban standards but quite modest almost everyplace else. Juan de los Muertos — “Juan of the Dead” , is the only zombie flick to have ever been produced in Cuba since the 1959 revolution in that country. The film flirts in a comical way with sensitive topics in Cuban life such as private enterprise and Cuban exiles. The film is due to be released in spring or summer of 2011.

In the film, zombies have taken over Havana. The response of the state controlled media is to blame their presence on Cuban exiles backed by the US government. In addition to the politically sensitive issue of Cuban expatriates, “Juan de los Muertos” touches on the issue of Cubans who work in private enterprise to make ends meet. Yahoo News reports as follows.

“State-run media blames the whole thing on government opponents backed by Cuba’s archenemies in Washington, but Juan knows better — and comes up with a plan.

Together with his sidekick, Lazaro — described by the filmmakers as “just as lazy, but twice as stupid” — Juan puts out the word that he is open for business.

Has your grandmother been turned into a zombie? Is your uncle stumbling about with blood coming out of his mouth?

Juan and Lazaro promise to get rid of your undead loved ones for just 15 Cuban convertible pesos ($16) a pop, and to clean up the mess for an extra 20 ($21).”

The film, which is a joint production of Spain’s La Zanfona Producciones, two Spanish television channels, the government of Spain’s Andalucia region and the state-run Cuban Institute of Art and Cinematography, is going into production this week, with shooting scheduled for October. It will be promoted in Spanish speaking markets abroad, as well as Europe and the United States.

The film shows a desire in Cuba to tolerate a wider range of artistic and political expression. Cuban music, art and other forms of entertainment have long had the potential to be marketable commodities abroad. There is an overlap in Cuban musical tastes with some American markets as well as a fanatic devotion to baseball in Cuba that could make for some interesting business possibilities.

Will Cuba evolve in a pragmatic manner towards a market economy? Perhaps freedom will come to Cuba through evolution rather than revolution. “Juan of the Dead” may be a movie about zombies, but it could be very interesting to those who are interested in taking the pulse of contemporary Cuba.

Check out the trailer and poster below: