Please enable javascript to view this site.

Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Movie Reviews and Ratings

Pau Brunet

By

2009/10/18 at 12:00am

Monday Box Office: ‘Where the Wild Things Are’ is #1

10.18.2009 | By |

Monday Box Office: 'Where the Wild Things Are' is #1

After a long and troubled production, Warner Bros.’ Where the Wild Things Are found its supper waiting, and it was hot to the tune of $32.5 million, according to early estimates by Hollywood.com Box Office. The movie was easily the best debut for acclaimed director Spike Jonze, whose two previous films, Being John Malkovich and Adaptation, ended their domestic runs at $22.9 million and $22.5 million, respectively. All eyes will be watching to see how much Wild Things, with its reported $80 million budget, drops next weekend. The film earned a relatively solid “B+” grade from CinemaScore moviegoers, but some families may be staying away as the movie jumped only 2 percent from Friday to Saturday.

The violent thriller Law Abiding Citizen, starring Jamie Foxx and Gerard Butler, attracted an adult audience and captured second place with $21.3 million. Right behind it was the box-office phenomenon of the season, Paranormal Activity, which scared up $20.2 million from a mere 760 theaters. The cult horror film, which Paramount brilliantly marketed by asking internet users to “demand” the movie to come to their town, grossed a spooky $26,530 per screen. That’s all the more impressive considering Paranormal Activity was produced on a budget of $11,000. The movie is expected to reach 1,800 theaters next weekend.

Fourth place went to the Vince Vaughn comedy Couples Retreat, which dropped a respectable 48 percent for a $17.9 million weekend. The thriller The Stepfather, a remake of the 1987 original, debuted in fifth place with $12.3 million. In limited release, Joel and Ethan Coen’s A Serious Man expanded to 82 theaters and grossed $860,257 for a hearty $10,491 per-screen average. And New York, I Love You, a collection of short films dedicated to the city, debuted with a decent $372,000 from 119 theaters. One wonders how many Gotham-loving moviegoers skipped the film to watch the Yankees play postseason baseball instead.

Overall, the weekend was up 41 percent from the same frame last year, when Max Payne opened to $17.6 million.

Jack Rico

By

2009/10/15 at 12:00am

Lionsgate to do Mexican film ‘From Prada to Nada’

10.15.2009 | By |

Lionsgate to do Mexican film 'From Prada to Nada'

Odd Lot Entertainment, Lionsgate and Videocine announced today the start of pre-production on an English-language Mexican-US co-production film, entitled From Prada to Nada.

Cannes Golden Camera-winner and Alma-nominated director Fina Torres (Woman on Top, Oriana) will helm a contemporary, Latina version of Jane Austen’s classic novel “Sense and Sensibility.” Academy Award and Golden Globe nominated actress Adriana Barraza (Babel, Drag Me to Hell, Amores Perros), Camilla Belle (When A Stranger Calls), Alexa Vega (“Spy Kids” films), Wilmer Valderrama (“That 70’s Show”) and Kuno Becker (“Goal!” trilogy) are set to star in this ensemble romantic comedy.

A whimsical spin on Austen’s original, From Prada to Nada follows two spoiled sisters when they are left penniless after the sudden death of their father. Forced to move in with their estranged aunt in East Los Angeles, this is a fish-out-of-water story where the girls ultimately find romance, as well as a love for their culture. Torres co-wrote the script with Chicano dramatist Luis Alfaro (Electricidad).

Odd Lot, Lionsgate and Videocine are production, financing and distribution partners on the film. Odd Lot’s Gigi Pritzker and Linda McDonough will produce, along with Rossana Arau and Gary Gilbert.

“Fina’s decadent filmic style, combined with a socially relevant and hip story, drew together our exceptional and fresh cast,” says McDonough. Continued Prizker, “I believe in telling stories with a cultural basis, and of course I also believe in smart deals – From Prada to Nada does both.”

Alex Florez

By

2009/10/15 at 12:00am

The Maid

10.15.2009 | By |

The Maid

La Nana’ llega a tierras estadounidenses como un mensaje dentro de una botella. Silenciosamente remitido por el cineasta chileno Sebastián Silva, el mensaje es sencillo y sincero.  Es un relato de mucha idiosincrasia y a la vez, un estudio de la condición humana para compartir dondequiera que la corriente lo lleve.

Silva nos cuenta de Raquel (Catalina Saavedra), una mujer agria e introvertida, que lleva 23 años trabajando de nana para una familia de un estrato social alto. Un día, Pilar (Claudia Celedón), su patrona, contrata a otra nana para ayudarla. Raquel, sintiendo peligrar su lugar en la familia, marca su territorio espantando a la recién llegada con crueles e infantiles maltratos psicológicos. A partir de entonces la película toma un tono jocoso y por momentos pierde el norte haciéndonos esperar más de la cuenta para saber como termina todo. No obstante, sale uno del teatro sintiéndose parte de la familia.  

La película se inspira mucho en el ‘cine de realidad’ o ‘cinéma vérité’, el estilo de cine que comenzó a mediados del siglo XX como una reacción europea hacia el sistema clásico de hacer películas. Un estilo que utiliza muchas técnicas naturalistas que muchas veces resultan en una fotografía temblorosa.  Piensen en esos vídeos caseros que tenemos todos guardados de alguna fiesta de cumpleaños donde la cámara no deja de moverse. Les advierto: si fácilmente se marea con los movimientos, ¡aléjense de esta película!  

Realmente es una lástima porque cine latinoamericano como este es raro y no debería arriesgarse a dar pretextos para no verla.

Alex Florez

By

2009/10/15 at 12:00am

Where the Wild Things Are

10.15.2009 | By |

Where the Wild Things Are

The night that ‘Max put on a wolf suit and started doing one shenanigan after another’ marked the moment in my childhood when I let my imagination run wild. I’m referring to the boy in that fantasy book written by Maurice Sendak, who later finds himself in a forest ‘Where The Wild Things Are.’
 
When I found out that the filmmaker Spike Jonze (Adaptation, Being John Malkovich) had the intention of adapting a classic of children’s literature to the big screen, I was easily excited. However, the great expectations that came along with the making of the film were enough to worry me. How loyal would the film be to the book? And most importantly, how would they stretch out a story of just a few pages so that it would work as a movie?
 
For those of you who aren’t familiar with it, the book is about a boy named Max who gets sent to bed early for his bad behavior. But he ends up escaping to a forest where he is accompanied by a family of wild creatures. As is traditional in children’s books, ‘Where The Wild Things Are’ has a moral to its story, but I remember it mostly for it’s surrealist world. Something Jonze’s film also succeeds at, but regrettably as a movie ‘Where The Wild Things Are’ falls short.
 
Here’s the problem: the film doesn’t have enough plot to push the story forward. Since the book is short, Jonze has no choice but to come up with something to further develop the movie. However, the filmmaker doesn’t risk quite enough to make things interesting. Instead he opts to show us filler – like extended sequences of Max playing with his monsters. And that’s just not filmmaking. Although the costuming, the special effects and the wonderful soundtrack do an amazing job of bringing the book to life, the captivating moments are rare. Simply put, the book would have been better served as an exceptional short-film.
 
‘Where The Wild Things Are’ is one of the all time classic bedtime stories, but when it also puts you to sleep in the movie theater, that’s not a good sign.

 

Jack Rico

By

2009/10/13 at 12:00am

The Proposal

10.13.2009 | By |

Rating: 2.5

Rated: PG-13 for sexual content, nudity and language.
Release Date: 2009-06-19
Starring: Pete Chiarelli
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://touchstone.movies.go.com/theproposal/

 Go to our film page

The Proposal is a formulaic romantic comedy that offers nothing remotely fresh or new while following a very predictable outcome. For some people, that’s enough. Some will think its enough, but  the film is mediocre at best and hoping its anything else are just false expectations. 

 

Not much in the sense of a plotline – A pushy boss (Sandra Bullock) forces her young assistant (Ryan Reynolds) to marry her in order to keep her Visa status in the U.S. and avoid deportation to Canada.

 

It should not be considered a spoiler to reveal that the two actually fall in love. After all, that’s the point of the movie, and the only reason any percentage of the population will see it. (Also, once you’ve watched the three-minute trailer, there is no point in seeing the 108-minute film – not only does the trailer tell the whole story, but it includes all the best comedic material.)

 

The problem, which I alluded to earlier, is that the romance falls flat. It has nothing to do with chemistry. Bullock and Reynolds don’t burn up the screen, but they’re nice enough together. The movie doesn’t give us enough to go on to believe that these two have fallen in love. Those who buy it will do so because the formula demands it, not because the movie has succeeded in closing the sale.

 

There are some funny moments, chief of which is the overhyped “nude” scene in which Margaret, fresh from the shower and wearing nothing (but with arms and hands strategically positioned so the rating can remain PG-13) collides with an equally in-the-buff Andrew. It’s more amusing than laugh-aloud funny, and it’s about as naughty as things can get without crossing the line into R territory. Most of The Proposal‘s jokes are like that in that they provoke smiles and chuckles but fail to generate any really good laughs.

 

The cast isn’t populated by heavyweights. It has been a while since Sandra Bullock has been in the fast lane, and it’s been about a decade since she was a prime romantic comedy actress. Ryan Reynolds, who showed flashes of genuine talent in Adventureland, is back to phoning it in. (Although, to be fair, his flummoxed expression when Andrew “learns” he’s engaged to Margaret – which carries through more than one scene – is possibly the film’s funniest element.) 

 

The Proposal will give you a bland taste of romance this weekend. We rather you cozy up to one of the classic Tom Hank romantic comedies on DVD this weekend than endure the regurgitated, cardboard taste of The Proposal.

Namreta Kumar

By

2009/10/13 at 12:00am

New York, I Love You

10.13.2009 | By |

Rated: R for language and sexual content.
Release Date: 2009-10-16
Starring: Emmanuel Benbihy, Tristan Carné
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: USA
Official Website: http://www.newyorkiloveyouthemovie.com/#/home

Go to our film page

New York, I Love You

With a film that has so many names attached to it there are so many places where it can succeed and just as many places where it can fail. New York, I Love You startles on this double-edged sword for so many reasons.

So the basics are that it is a composition of short stories that intertwine together to tell one larger narrative. And as the title suggests the shorts are about New York and about love. Each story focuses on two things: (1) it is inherently a New York moment, and (2) it is about love.

The beauty of this production is that it is designed as a taskmaster and it works that way, if you love New York you get to see the many ways it loves. The worst part of the production is that although the craftsmanship is great, the movie does not connect, which sadly was the principle idea. Independent of the lofty ideas and its predecessor, Paris Je T’Aime, this film just seems discontinuous, which may work for New York but not for the film. On the other hand all the powerful performances of the film should make you think twice before you pass it up. From veteran actor Andy Garcia’s impressive minutes on screen to Natalie Portman’s first steps as an intelligent director, the art of film lives in many degrees with its curators.

The concept and the gusto of the project are endearing, but they never quite hit the mark. The irony is that it truly embodies New York in many ways; when you jump into the film you jump into the rhythm of New York. The intent of the film was to carry forward with the principle ideas of movies like Crash, where everything is connected without straight lines, but what comes across are lines that cross over one another without a big picture.

Essentially this film is one that is worth a watch, but how and when you decide to watch it depends on which side of the sword you fall on. This is a film that tells you to decide for yourself, but because of its approach I think most people will enjoy it more at home with a group of their own loved ones and where they can critically evaluate where this film is leading.

Jack Rico

By

2009/10/06 at 12:00am

Year One

10.6.2009 | By |

Rating: 1.5

Rated: R for some sexual content and language.
Release Date: 2009-06-19
Starring: Harold Ramis, Gene Stupnitsky, Lee Eisenberg
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://www.yearone-movie.com/

 Go to our film page

‘Year One’ was a big yawner, actually, I’m being too nice, it’s competing with ‘Land of the Lost’ for worse movie of the year. The idea of Michael Cera playing a caveman is not funny, just bad, and once again I see myself writing a consistent review on Jack Black, “he has got to be one of the most annoying comedians in Hollywood”. The film has several funny moments at the beginning, but dies out halfway through. It has no real grasp of where its story is going; it feels lost and all over the place.

The premise of ‘Year One’ looked bad from the start – two cavemen buddies (Jack Black and Michael Cera) in ‘year one’ of Earth set their sites to explore the world and end up living the Genesis and subsequent chapters of the Holy Bible – well because of them, holy no longer.

Harold Ramis, one of the original Ghostbuster actors, has teamed up with Judd Apatow (who is producing) to direct this fragmented film which has to do more about the Bible and religious jokes than the primitive man. Indie director Kevin Smith, once experimented with the comical side of religion with a film called, ‘Dogma’ starring Matt Damon and Ben Affleck and it went nowhere fast at the box office. I wonder what will happen with this one? (exuding sarcasm).

I’ll be honest with you guys, religion isn’t everyone’s cup of joe and making someone laugh already is hard enough; combining the two can mean a recipe for disaster. Only Mel Brooks, Monty Python and some of the other greats have managed to do it well, but I’m not sure if anyone today can pull it off with success. Ramis sure didn’t and neither did Bill Maher with his ‘Religulous’. They were forgettable.

But to be fair, the acting wasn’t bad at all (except for vexing Jack Black), and the dialogue was funny at times. The problem, which is too troublesome to overcome, is the   direction and pacing of the story along with the verisimilitude or implausibility of the adventures our protagonists go through. It distracts us from enjoying the funny moments.

When we interviewed Ramis for this review, he seemed like a hell of a nice guy. He possesses tremendous acumen about the history of film comedy and has an awareness of his place in it. That said, I don’t think he an Apatow seemed to be on the same page. Way too many flaws in the film for two very smart icons to get it wrong.

Nevertheless, ‘Year One’ isn’t what you’d expect from a Cera, Black comedy. They look out of place and the subject matter is tough to digest if you’re unfamiliar with the biblical texts. This film needs a rewrite and a recast really bad.

Pau Brunet

By

2009/10/05 at 12:00am

‘Zombieland’ is No. 1 at the Box Office

10.5.2009 | By |

‘Zombieland’ is No. 1 at the Box Office

Sony’s marketing machine marches on: “Zombieland” opened No. 1 at the weekend box office, giving the studio its sixth first-place debut of the year. The horror-comedy hybrid sold an estimated $25 million in tickets at North American theaters, according to tracking services. The entry to watch, however, was Disney’s experiment in using 3-D to repackage the Pixar classics “Toy Story” and “Toy Story 2.” The films, re-rendered in 3-D and released as a double feature, sold an estimated $12.5 million, placed third — behind a three-week-old animated entry from Sony, “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs.” (That movie sold another $16.7 million for a cumulative total of $82.4 million.)

So Disney did a successful job priming the market for “Toy Story 3,” set for release in June, but so far failed to prove any points about the goldmine potential of re-releasing old hits in 3-D. The Ricky Gervais comedy “The Invention of Lying” (Warner Brothers) was fourth with about $7.4 million, while “Surrogates” (Disney) limped into fifth place with $7.3 million ($26.4 million total). The only other wide release, “Whip It,” fared poorly in sixth place. The Fox Searchlight comedy, backed by a months-long marketing campaign and featuring the talents of Drew Barrymore and Ellen Page, sold about $4.9 million.

Ted Faraone

By

2009/10/02 at 12:00am

A Serious Man

10.2.2009 | By |

Rated: R for language, some sexuality/nudity and brief violence.
Release Date: 2009-10-02
Starring: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: USA
Official Website: NULL

Go to our film page

A Serious Man

The brothers Joel and Ethan Coen, a filmmaker duo who have brought to the screen an amazing variety of pics, from the over-the-top “chainsaw massacre-style” “Blood Simple” of 1984 through the extraordinarily annoying “Fargo” to the superbly funny “Burn After Reading,” have at last decided to make a serous pic.  That it opened the inaugural Friars Club Comedy Film Festival in New York does not make it a comedy.  The Friars chose it for the marquee value of the Coens, which was a good move.  “A Serious Man,” for which the duo share director, writer, and producer credit (Ethan is also production designer and editor, credited as Roderick James), is a drama in disguise, a drama performed by comedic actors. That doesn’t make it a bad picture.  It just makes it difficult to review.  That every other notice your critic has read seems to follow the press notes is testimony to that.
 
The Coens have been making feature films for 25 years.  Working for them is almost a right of passage for top-tier Hollywood thesps.  “A Serious Man” is an anomaly in that there are only two publicly recognizable names in the cast:  Fyvush Finkel (who appears only in the opening reel) and (Richard Kind, who ably carries about a fourth of the film).  Remainder of cast turn in excellent, if annoying performances and it is a credit to the Coens that they were able to find such excellent, inexpensive talent – Pic has a reported budget of $7 million.
 
Performances are annoying because of pic’s nature.  It’s about annoying people.  Set, except for opening reel which may or may not be connected to pic’s central action (a device used by Jean-Luc Goddard in the 1985 “Hail Mary” [Je Vous Salue, Marie”]), in a suburban Midwestern Conservative Jewish community in 1967, pic centers on college professor Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), pic’s schlemiel (the fellow on whom the soup is spilled).  Gopnick is surrounded by schlimazels (folks who spill the soup).  They include his wife (Sari Lennick), who leaves him for passive-aggressive neighbor Sy Abelman (Fred Melamed), his kids, Danny, a Bar-Mitzvah boy, and Sarah (Aaron Wolf and Jessica McManus), and brother Arthur (Richard Kind), a mathematical genius with tendencies to moral turpitude.  Gopnick’s quest, if one could call it that, is to find out why his luck stinks.  A real answer to such a question could function on interminable levels and still leave the questioner dizzy.  At least give Gopnik credit for making the best of things between moments of despair. Instead, “A Serious Man” takes the route well travelled by Woody Allen (“Crimes and Misdemeanors”) and author Isaac Bashevis Singer.  The twist is that it is loaded with comedic moments.  It is almost as if the filmmakers were winking at the audience.
 
Gopnick is stymied at every turn.  Not even the elderly senior rabbi at his synagogue will advise him.  Everyone else in pic either talks over him or at him intending either to manipulate (Sy Abelman) or cover their ignorance (his lawyer, ably played by Adam Arkin, and the two younger rabbis).  His kids have their own agenda, and brother (Richard Kind) is a millstone.  Nobody communicates, with the possible exception of neighbor Mrs. Samsky (the smoking hot Amy Landecker) and near the end, the elderly Rabbi Marshak (Alan Mandell).
 
A subplot involving the pothead Bar Mitzvah boy who owes his connection $20, the Hebrew school teacher, and the elderly rabbi, is pic’s Rosetta Stone.  The boy tucks $20 into his transistor radio case in Hebrew school and tries to pass it on to the connection, seated a row ahead of him.  Teacher catches him and confiscates radio.  Boy lives in fear of connection for rest of pic until his Bar Mitzvah, in which his performance and the lensing make one of the funniest stoned-out-of-one’s-mind Bar Mitzvah scenes in filmdom, owing a bit to the wedding in “The Graduate” for the guest reaction shots.  After ceremony, boy is invited to meet privately with Rabbi Marshak.  The old man quotes a Jefferson Airplane tune asking the boy what he’s going to do when everything goes wrong and there’s no hope.  There’s no answer.  He then hands him his transistor radio with the $20 bill still tucked in the leather case.  It’s pic’s most honest moment – a bit like the moment in “Husbands and Wives” where Allen’s documentarian encounters the existential thought of Prof. Louis Levy (Martin S. Bergmann).
 
“A Serious Man” excels in performance, cinematography, set design (they nailed a period piece) and dialogue, if one can call it that.  Editing and direction are economical, except for the opening reel, which begs the question, “Is this family cursed or has the opening reel nothing to do with anything else?”  It’s one of pic’s many loose ends.  Said loose ends both serve a point and annoy.  One learns from “A Serious Man” the idea that life happens and one has to roll with it. One also learns that schlimazels are not immune to bad luck.  One would wish that Hollywood vets the Coens could have tied it up in a tighter package.  One may also wish that the Coens had a slightly lighter touch – the feather duster instead of the hammer – but perfection is a lot to ask.
 
One last note:  There has been criticism of pic’s seemingly negative focus on a Jewish community.  It is unwarranted.  The Jewish community is simply context.  Moreover, it is context the Coens know.  Pic’s message, if there is one, is better told through the intellectually Jewish prism through which both Singer and Allen have worked so well.  It could equally have been told through the French existentialist prism, but that might not go down so well with American auds.  At least viewers reared on sitcoms can understand it.  At 105 minutes this Focus Features release is not rated, but due to nudity, language, and adult situations, it is probably unsuitable for children.

Alex Florez

By

2009/10/02 at 12:00am

Zombieland (Movie Review)

10.2.2009 | By |

With a jaunty title like Zombieland, you know you’re in for a senseless horror comedy. Now that’s just fine, but the surprise here is that it’s more of a buddy road movie with a teen romance sandwiched in between. Come to think of it, this film attempts to do the nearly impossible – get loyal zombie fans and mainstream folk to share the same theater.

For those seeking an alternative to Michael Moore’s latest leftist documentary this weekend, Zombieland is as bipartisan as it gets.  It has a little something in it for everyone.

Here’s the premise: two men have somehow found a way to survive a world overrun by walking corpses. Not surprisingly, Jesse Eisenberg (The Jheri-curled version of Michael Cera) plays the cowardly, anti-social one with a smart mouth. The other guy, the AK-toting, zombie-slaying bad ass is gladly played by Woody Harrelson.

Along the way, these two join forces with a pair of sharp-witted, self-serving sisters (Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin) that can certainly hold their own. These four are then forced to determine which is worse: relying on each other or succumbing to the zombies.

As a horror film, Zombieland won’t scare you. It’s much too glossy and stylized for that.  As a comedy, it packs enough one-liners to keep you from yawning. And as a teen romance, the movie sniffs around the cheese. Lucky for viewers however, the chemistry between the actors is radiant.  The fun they had while making this film is evident and their energy is contagious. Notwithstanding, first time director Ruben Fleischer knows how cliched these movies can be and makes sure to surprise you along the way to make it as memorable as possible.

Select a Page