Please enable javascript to view this site.

Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Movie Reviews

Ted Faraone

By

2010/11/10 at 12:00am

The King’s Speech

11.10.2010 | By |

The King's Speech

There are several delicious ironies about “The King’s Speech,” billed as an historical drama and directed by Tom Hooper from a screenplay by David Seidler.  The first is the title.  The King’s Speech is given at the opening of the British Parliament.  To your critic’s knowledge, it has been The Queen’s Speech since 1952, when Elizabeth II ascended the throne following the untimely death from lung cancer of her father, King George VI, one of pic’s principals ably played by Colin Firth.  Since the next three in line for the throne today are men, the Speech is likely to be the King’s again.  George VI had a terrible stammer, which made it difficult for him to perform many of his public duties as Duke of York, younger brother of David, the Prince of Wales, who would later become Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor.  The latter is played by Guy Pearce in a rather one-dimensional portrayal of a self-indulgent royal.  George VI, who had a more down-to-earth understanding of his duty, was known as Bertie to his family.  His wife is a legend of 20th Century Britain, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (Helena Bonham Carter), who, when she was still the Duchess of York, set out on her own to find a speech therapist for her husband.  This brings up pic’s second delicious irony:  Helena Bonham Carter is the great-granddaughter of Herbert Henry Asquith, English Prime Minister from 1908 to 1916, the first prime minister to serve under George V (played here by Michael Gambon), father of pic’s subject, and great niece of Violet Asquith, a Liberal member of Parliament for many years and close friend of Winston Churchill, who is played by Timothy Spall in a less than ideal bit of casting.  The goings on in this pic had to be gossip at her family’s dinner table.  For those who care, the shapely Carter was most certainly padded to play the matronly Elizabeth, who, during pic’s action, never passes her 40th birthday.

 

The Duke of York put little stock in speech therapy.  Treatments of the day (Pic’s action covers the period from the mid 1920s to the outbreak of war in September 1939) were both appalling and humiliating.  One doctor even advised the Duke that smoking cigarettes relaxed the throat and calmed the nerves.  It was no surprise that when the Duchess finally encountered Australian ex-pat speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush, who also gets executive producer credit) that the Duke offered resistance.  Logue’s methods were unorthodox to say the least.  He is self-taught, a former actor, who got into speech therapy helping traumatized Australian soldiers returned from the First World War.  There was no textbook.  He had to make it up as he went along. 

 

Now enters the buddy-film aspect of this period piece.  Logue won’t treat the Duke unless the His Royal Highness submits to his rules on his turf.  He insists that the Duke call him Lionel and that he will call the Duke “Bertie.”  The Duke grudgingly submits to acting as the social equal of his speech coach.  Unwilling to divulge much private information, the Duke does admit that his stammer began around age four or five and that his father, the King, encouraged his brother David to tease him about it.  Michael Gambon’s George V is the gruff, remote father and family man of the history books.  But as King, he has learned one important modern lesson:  Radio has turned royalty into actors.  His annual Christmas broadcast to the Empire drives the point home.  His advice to Bertie is like a Nike slogan barked by a drill sergeant.

 

A friendship between King and subject can never be normal, no matter how high the regard each holds for the other.  The dynamic between Rush and Firth captures this delicate balance.  In matters of speech, Logue is in charge.  His methods include exercises, encouragement, and provocation.  Provocation proves to the pupil that the stammer has a non-physical component:  When his temper is aroused the Duke spits out words in continuous flow.  But when Logue steps over the line, more out of enthusiasm for his pupil’s ability than anything else, the Duke accuses him of treason and cuts him off.  His offense?  With George V having passed, David has become King, and he is making a mess of the job.  The abdication crisis of 1936 looms, and Bertie is next in line.  David has already teased him about wanting to usurp the throne, an idea that Bertie abhors.   The last thing he wants to be is chief of state in an era when the chief of state has to speak in public.  Logue’s enthusiasm (“You can outshine David”) in that instant is impertinent and incisive — too incisive.  Logue’s attempt to apologize is rebuffed.  Give helmer Hooper credit for knowing how to use the close-up to good effect with pros like Rush and Firth. 

Eventually, with a coronation to perform, Bertie (now George VI), recalls Logue to his service.  A scene in Westminster Abbey with Derek Jacobi as a presumptuous Archbishop of Canterbury reveals the esteem in which Bertie is held by the British establishment.  Zero.  He is accorded deference because of his position.  His years of stammering and failed public appearances have cost him respect.  His courtiers think they can manipulate him.  Thanks to Logue’s help in mustering the courage he had as a naval officer in the First World War, George VI overcame what studies say is the greatest fear people in civilized nations face:  the fear of public speaking.  In overcoming that fear he became the King whose grace under pressure during the bombing of London inspired a quarter of the world’s population to resist the Axis.  Logue would continue to assist the new King in rehearsing all his wartime broadcasts, and he was rewarded in 1944 with an honor for service to the monarch.  The King, who most certainly was unaware of it, also inspired a young Australian boy who also had a stammer.  The boy listened to the King on the radio and thought, if the King can beat his stammer, so can I.  After almost 50 years writing for film and TV, David Seidler would write pic’s screenplay.  He was fortunate to have the cooperation of Logue’s descendants, who kept many of his period diaries.  He was also fortunate to have the cooperation of King George VI’s widow, by then the Queen Mother Elizabeth, who asked only that the film not be made until after her death — the memories were too painful.  It was a long wait.  She lived to be 101.  The rest is history.

 

It is impossible to delve into the entire nuance “The King’s Speech” packs into 118 minutes.  Pic is rated R due to language.  It seems that profanity trips off the tongue of the stutterer with ease.  But it would be a mistake for readers to think that “The King’s Speech” is entirely without comic relief.  Logue repeatedly snatches cigarettes from his star pupil as the latter is about to light them.  It would have been to George VI’s advantage to heed him and kick the habit.  A scene in which Myrtle Logue (Jennifer Ehle) arrives home unexpectedly early only to find the Queen taking tea in her dining room is priceless.  It is at pic’s ending that its neatest irony unfolds.  It follows George’s radio broadcast to the Empire at the outset of war.  It may be a tad difficult to believe, but it is true.

Ted Faraone

By

2010/11/05 at 12:00am

Due Date

11.5.2010 | By |

Due Date

“Due Date” from helmer Todd Phillips, who dumped “The Hangover” on innocent, unsuspecting auds, follows the former’s formula.  This 100 minute R-rated piece of cinematic phlegm, involves a road trip, drugs, many smashed automobiles, inappropriate sexual situations, extraordinary vulgarity, and a totally underused female lead, Michelle Monaghan (as Sarah Highman), in a role that is the polar opposite of her groundbreaking work in “Trucker.”  “Due Date” is a crummy picture punctuated by pasted-on jokes.

 

Much of the objectionable material is presented courtesy of Zach Galifianakis, who did the same for “The Hangover.”  Galifianakis plays essentially the same objectionable character he played in “The Hangover.”  He annoys. 

 

Premise, like that of “The Hangover”, is simple:  Planes, Trains, and Automobiles.  Robert Downey Jr., who rises above the awful material, is Peter Highman, a high-strung yuppie architect on his way back to Los Angeles from Atlanta to attend the birth of his first child in a scheduled Cesarean section three days hence.  Monaghan plays his pregnant wife.

 

A chance encounter — thanks to a traffic accident — with Ethan Tremblay (Galifianakis) at the Atlanta airport touches off a series of disasters.  The pair are escorted off the plane and put on a no-fly list largely thanks to Tremblay’s indiscreet language.  It is not a good idea nowadays to talk about bombs and terrorism while sitting in the first class section of an airliner about to depart.  Tremblay is a would-be actor on his way to Hollywood.  He travels with a small dog, Sonny, who has an annoying habit of using his left front paw to rub his male organ.  That sums up the humor in “Due Date.” 

 

From that point forward, plot is Murphy’s Law on steroids.  The unlikely pair are cooped up in a rental car which Tremblay demolishes about half way through the road trip by falling asleep at the wheel.  He flips the car off a freeway bridge, giving Highman a broken arm, and putting his dog in a lampshade head protector.

 

A bit about Tremblay’s dad’s ashes in a coffee can stretches the plot a tad with the most extraordinarily predictable results. 

 

“Due Date” is a buddy picture about a schlemiel (Highman) and a schlimazel (Tremblay).  How Highman progresses from loathing to loving Tremblay is one of pic’s major flaws.  It is both too sudden and not properly set up by either backstory or events.   Jamie Foxx appears mid pic as Highman’s best friend and a former boyfriend of wife Sarah.  Schlimazel uses the ancient relationship to put a bug about infidelity into Highman’s head.  If your critic were the object of that nonsense he’d have strangled Tremblay even with the broken arm.  A word about Galifianakis’ performance:  Much of it looks improvised and not in a good sense.  It is as if he were told to come up with the most socially inappropriate way for Tremblay to play a scene that was only sketched out, not written, and then did it.

 

It is at this point that pic sheds any semblance of plausibility and heads straight past farce into fantasy land.  Said fantasy involves Tremblay, high on dope, taking a wrong turn toward the Mexican border with California, thinking that the “MEXICO” sign was “TEXACO” — the car is low on gas.  Said gag could appeal to a naughty six-year-old, but children are not allowed to see R-rated movies.  A couple of Federales give Highman a hard time about his vicodin (for the broken arm) and Tremblay’s weed.  Tremblay then hijacks a Mexican police pickup truck, hitches it to the trailer in which Highman is held by the Federales, and takes off back across the US border, Federales in chase.

 

This is allegedly a comedy so auds can imagine the rest. 

 

Situations are so implausible that it appears as if Phillips, who also gets writer credit along with three others, took a pile of gags out of his file, threw them against the wall, and picked what landed on top to paste into his picture.  Galifianakis’ performance is especially annoying.  He affects a prissy walk which suggests homosexuality, but it a loose end.  There are a few inside showbusiness jokes, largely uttered by Downey, and they are among pic’s few elements that work.

 

There are a couple of attempts at pathos which end up as bathos and a Hollywood ending which makes absolutely no sense.  Pic’s sole highlight, other than Monaghan’s pretty face, is Downey’s acting chops.  The guy does more in a closeup than Galifianakis does in the entire picture.  Galifianakis runs the risk of being typecast time after time with different co-stars and sets.  The guy is more than a one note actor.  He proved it in “It’s Kind of a Funny Story.”   This garbage probably offered a bigger paycheck.  For Downey, who killed in “Good Night and Good Luck,” “Due Date” is a comedown. 

 

Tech credits, as one would expect from a big-budget Hollywood effort, are adequate.  Its vulgarity, however, is repulsive.

Ted Faraone

By

2010/10/31 at 12:00am

Saw 3D

10.31.2010 | By |

Saw 3D

James Frey, whose fictional autobiography, “A Million Little Pieces,” got him roasted on Oprah Winfey’s sofa for 48 minutes, got off easy compared to Bobby Dagen, ably played by Sean Patrick Flanery, who is tortured (along with the audience) for 90 minutes for concocting a fictional best seller about surviving the Jigsaw killer in “Saw 3D” or “Saw VII” — depending on one’s point of view.

 

Horror thriller’s plot is simple.  The late Jigsaw John (Tobin Bell) who appears in flashback, had an accomplice, which everyone who saw “Saw VI” knows is crooked Detective Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) whose career has not exactly soared since his stint on David E. Kelly’s “Picket Fences”.  He may be best remembered by some as the fellow in HBO’s TV series, “Sex and the City,” with a male part too big even for Samantha (Kim Cattrall) to handle. 

 

Bobby Dagen is raking in cash on his book tour.  Hoffman gets upset about this (why is anyone’s guess) and sets out to right matters.  He also has a beef with Jigsaw John’s widow, Jill (Betsy Russell), who has fingered him to the cops as her late husband’s accomplice and tried to kill him.  At least that makes sense.

 

Like the rest of the Saw series, “Saw 3D” relies on about one dead body every ten minutes, cheesy special effects, and relentless villains to achieve suspense.  The vics are also not guilt free.  They mostly (with a few exceptions) did something bad…. In other words, they’re human. 

 

This alleged thriller relies on an extraordinary suspension of disbelief.  Hoffman’s traps depend on perfect timing, amazing mechanical perfection, and a puppet showing up on TV at exactly the right moment to move the plot along.  The money such a setup would cost would be far beyond the means of a policeman.  It would be the kind of cash that would make Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke apoplectic. 

 

By now everyone who knows anything about the Saw franchise knows that its central premise is that life is about choices.  Unfortunately for those caught in Jigsaw’s traps, said choices are Hobson’s on steroids.  Pic’s second scene is set in an urban storefront in which two guys, both dated by an attractive women held overhead in a sling which emphasizes her most excellent endowments, are chained to circular saws.  In order to save the girl, one of them must saw the other to death.  If they save each other, the girl gets sawed to death.  This is classic Saw.  It is also a tad unfortunate since the unaccredited actress is sort of righteous.

 

“Saw 3D” also plagiarizes other works.  Hoffman stitching his face after Jill’s alleged murder attempt is straight out of Spanish pic “Pan’s Labyrinth.”  A bit in which Bobby has to shove hooks into his pectoral muscles was used to much better effect by Arthur Kopit in “Indians,” both on stage and on screen.

 

3D is a gimmick that Hollywood tried about 50 years ago.  It coincided with the Hula Hoop.  There is nothing new under the sun gear, as “Road & Track” magazine founder John Bond said.  Hollywood is reviving the gimmick to get bodies to shell out money to see subpar films.  It will work for a while.  Thus far your critic has seen only one picture that benefitted from 3D:  It is “Despicable Me” (which is reviewed on this site).  Heck, even CBS Sports is toying with 3D to get folks to watch its depleted roster on television.  Note to programmers:  3D does not make up for crummy material.  A compelling work can be shown on a 13-inch black and white TV screen and hold one’s interest, if not one’s breath.

 

Helmer Kevin Greutert was an editor on many of the Saw pictures and directed
“Saw VI”.  Tech credits, save for the cheesy special effects, are adequate.  So is sound recording, although “Saw 3D” could be a silent picture and be none the worse for it.  Dialogue is at best banal.  Performances are almost universally awful.  Only Flanery rises above the material, which is not saying much.

 

“Saw 3D” is billed as the end of the Saw franchise. That would be a good thing.   With No. 7 it has jumped the shark.  But your critic fears otherwise.  Pic leaves a number of dangling participles on any of which can be hung “sequel.”  Auds do not know if Bobby dies or if Hoffman dies.  And it is revealed that Jigsaw John had a second accomplice, a blond haired physician (Cary Elwes) who cauterized his stump after amputating his own leg — pic’s opening scene.  Near pic’s end it is revealed that Jigsaw John made the guy his “executor” of sorts.  The future will depend on the box office that “Saw 3D” does.

 

Released just in time for Halloween, “Saw 3D” is rated R according to its press materials “for sequences of grisly bloody violence and torture, and language [sic].”  Take a pass.  Put the Jigsaw guys out of their misery.

Karen Posada

By

2010/10/25 at 12:00am

Sex and the City 2

10.25.2010 | By |

Rating: 3.0

Rated: R for some strong sexual content and language.
Release Date: 2010-05-27
Starring: Michael Patrick King
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website:

 Go to our film page

They weren’t kidding when they said SPARKLE. Sex and the City 2 was completely extravagant and exaggerated, which is what in a way made it fun. This movie does more justice to the series than the original movie did. It is not full of ‘Carrie’ drama, like the last one. Instead we get to go away on a fabulous trip with the girls. It is a Cinderella story, they have to live and enjoy their time quickly before the clock strikes midnight. We travel to a world of fantasy, it is predominantly what we go to the movies for anyway, to dream and live vicariously through others.

It all starts with Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) taking us back in time to when she met each one of her girlfriends; Charlotte York-Goldenblatt (Kristin Davis), Miranda Hobbes (Cynthia Nixon) and Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall). The first main scene reunites them at a fabulous gay wedding. To describe it as a sparkly dream wedding is an understatement. We see how the girls lives have changed, Carrie living the Mr. & Mrs. Married life, which to her is getting boring and she wants to bring the sparkle back in the relationship. Charlotte has 2 little girls, that are driving her crazy and has a super hot nanny that makes her worry her husband might stray. Miranda is still the same workaholic she’s always been, but soon realizes what she’s missing out on. Samantha is fighting off menopause by taking 1.000 natural pills and keeping up with her sexcapades. The only man in the movie that doesn’t have a short appearance is Mr. Big (John James Preston) (Chris Noth); we see how he’s still trying to please Carrie even after they are married. The other men are barely showed in the film at all, it is after all about the girls. The best guest appearance was the one of Liza Minnelli; it was perfect; she does a fun dance performance. Penélope Cruz also does a cameo, she looks gorgeous and sexy more so than in her own movies. 

I think what this movie gives the true fans of the show is a chance to spend more time with the girls, get away with them without all the drama. They go on a trip to a foreign land – Abu Dhabi, where Carrie bumps into her old flame Aidan (John Corbett), Samantha has a new set of hot boys to go crazy after, Charlotte gets a chance to rest from stressful motherhood and Miranda finds her fun self again. This trip brings them closer together and strengthens not only their relationship but the ones with their loved ones as well.  One of the most interesting scenes of the film is when the girls are discussing how they perceive Muslim women as well as themselves. There’s a hint of feminism with a sprinkle of humor, which makes the subject light hearted.

There are several aspects that take away from the movie, there are a lot of ridiculous scenes, which might be meant as just fun, but it makes one laugh out loud sarcastically. The characters have become pretty predictable, which is the reason why there should have been no movies after the show ended; it takes away from the element of surprise. The women have become a parody of themselves, which takes any essence of reality left away from them. Lastly, although there is character growth the sole purpose of this movie is to make money; there was no need for a sequel, there’s nothing new that we learn from the characters.

If you were a fan of the show I recommend you watch it but you can certainly wait for it to come out on DVD, unless you have the time and the money to kill at a movie theater (it is pretty lengthy, maybe a little too lengthy). Samantha is definitely what makes this movie fun; if it wasn’t for her friends restraining her, the movie would be hilarious! Truth is that we all have girlfriends that are like any one of these women, which is what made the show so successful and it is what makes it so fun to watch. Just take the movie for what it is, a world similar to ours except that it is nearly perfect and beautiful but it was created for the sole purpose of entertaining. Ladies my only advice is not to torture your boyfriend with this film, go watch it with your girls.

Ted Faraone

By

2010/10/24 at 12:00am

Monsters

10.24.2010 | By |

Monsters

It has been reported that “Monsters” was made for $15,000.  That would put it in company with the awful “Paranormal Activity.”  It’s also a lot of baloney.  Helmer Gareth Edwards feature debut is not a big budget effort.  The most credible press report your critic has seen pegs shooting at $100,000 and post-production, which is where pic was really made, at $450,000.  That should astonish no one who has looked at Edwards’ resume.  He made his name as a visual special effects man.  Edwards and backers got a lot of bang for their buck.  Heck, Edwards even worked three more jobs — as writer, cinematographer, and special effects guru.

 

Backstory is handled quickly.  Six years prior to pic’s action, a NASA probe carrying life forms from outer space, crashed over Central America on re-entry to the Earth.  The northern half of Mexico is now quarantined as an “Infected Zone.”  It turns out, about halfway through pic’s 94 minutes, that the Infected Zone is so named because that’s where the alien “creatures,” which look like giant squid (about 150 feet across), float through the air, and sound like elephants with sinus trouble, lay their eggs.  Said eggs are attached to trees and glow when touched.  US and Mexican military fight their advance mostly with air strikes and a giant border wall, the sight of which would probably put anti-immigration zealots into a state of ecstasy.

 

Enter Andrew Kaulder (Scoot McNairy) a news photographer with a touch of sleaze, who is ordered to rescue the daughter of his publisher, Samantha Wynden, a cute blonde played by Whitney Able.  This is the last thing a guy who gets $50k from Wynden’s dad for shots of blood and gore, wants to do, but do it he must.  His job is on the line.  Meanwhile, the “creatures” show menacing signs of branching out from the Infected Zone.  They also seem to be attracted to light at night, a tidbit auds should bear in mind.

 

A dangling participle requires almost total suspension of disbelief.  Why can’t Samantha simply get on a plane and fly back to the US — and what was she doing in Mexico in the first place given the nation’s chaotic state?  And what about going south, to an airport or ship terminal far from danger?  That would be too easy, and there wouldn’t be a movie.

 

No.  Kaulder and “Sam” have to take a train to the gulf coast and from there board a ferry to the US.  Neither cares much for the other.  Due to trouble ahead, the train stops and reverses course.  The pair set off on foot, hitchhiking to the coast, which they finally reach late at night; pay an exorbitant amount for ferry tickets, and crash at a local hotel — in separate rooms.

 

Herein lies pic’s turning point, where action finally achieves liftoff.  Perhaps it is a lesson of sorts.  Kaulder suggests that he and Sam bunk together.  Sam vetoes the idea.  He also suggests they go do tequila shots.  She’d rather sleep.  The ferry leaves at 7 am.  Sam closes door on Kaulder.  Kaulder hits the bar, does tequila shots, and picks up a prostitute.  She steals the pair’s passports and money while hungover Kaulder, in his underwear, chases a ticked off Sam who has walked away in disgust after paying him an urgent wakeup call.  Note to girls:  If your life depends on a guy, keep him in sight.  Note to guys:  1. Don’t be so obnoxious that the girl you are to protect refuses to let you do so, and 2. Don’t get drunk and pick up a whore on the eve of your escape.  The pair miss the ferry.  No refunds.

 

A price gouging ticket broker, who had charged the exorbitant sum of $5,000 for ferry tickets — It had better be the Queen Mary II at those prices — now wants an additional $5k per person to get them a river boat passage through the Infected Zone to the US.  Sam pays with her diamond engagement ring.

 

Despite a few close encounters with “creatures,” pic never really develops the suspense common to the genre as the pair claw their way to the US border.  Here, too, pic takes some liberties with geography.  Northern Mexico is not jungle terrain.  Riverboat scenes were shot further south, in Guatemala.  The genre issue is a tad complicated.  Edwards is a special effects man who set out to shoot a love story.  You send a special effects man to make a love story, and what you get is a love story pasted over a sci-fi thriller.   It’s not quite one or the other.  Sharp-eyed readers will note that your critic made no mention of Sam having to be persuaded to pay for the trip through the Infected Zone with her diamond engagement ring.  Perhaps hers is not a match made in Heaven. 

 

The ending, which comes almost unexpectedly — “Monsters” was edited crisply by Colin Goudie — is a tad loopy.  It involves a pair of “creatures” mating.  At least that’s what Edwards says they are doing, and one sort of gets the idea, but it is not entirely clear from the material.  There is a parallel to be drawn, however, and Edwards draws it.  But it also begs the question as to whether the “creatures” are pernicious, which is pic’s premise.

 

“Monsters” carries an “R” rating.  Your critic would give it PG.  There is little objectionable language, no drug use, and no sex between humans.

Jack Rico

By

2010/10/22 at 12:00am

Paranormal Activity 2

10.22.2010 | By |

Paranormal Activity 2

Paranormal Activity 2, the sequel to the already labeled cult classic original of the same name, offers more scares than the original, yet, it lost some of the genuine feeling of originality and authenticity that the first so frightfully showcased. It did add a Latino element… more on that later.

The plot line, which was so carefully concealed from the perusing press, is a prequel that leads into the sequel, and eventually is left open for a second sequel, meaning part three. In order to understand this movie, you must have seen the first one in order to appreciate the dialogue, specific occurrences and the appearance of a couple of characters.

From the opening frame, we witness a home video of a suburban family moving into a new household with their new born baby, Hunter, three weeks before the grim events of the first film. Rather quickly, we are informed that the mother and wife just so happens to be the sister of the vanished and possessed female victim (Katie Featherston) who was the lead actress from the original movie. Many allusions are then referenced to the previous film more than once throughout movie, even until the very end. The family, unfortunately, begins experiencing what they think are a series of ‘break-ins,’ but even their security cameras around their home only serve to realize that the events unfolding before them are more sinister than they seem.

Before I continue, it must be said how much the original weighed over this sequel. The first one was as good as they come. It felt real, much like The Blair Witch Project did. The supernatural incidents were filled with the simplicity and freakish genuineness that one can believe as true. Even the cast was perfect. Ms. Katie Featherston, large chest and all, had the characteristics that typifies the genre. This sequel didn’t necessarily sell the physical attributes of its female cast.

Speaking of females, one actress that really stood out to me, not necessarily because of her acting, but because of the her heritage, was the Latina nanny (note: Paramount has not given press any production notes on the film so many of the actors are uncredited). She speaks only in Spanish, no subtitles, and she mostly talked about how she kept on feeling an uncomfortable, malign presence in the house. It’s funny, Latino actors, for better or worse, are now becoming Hollywood’s go-to authorities on everything paranormal. If you remember Drag Me To Hell, Adriana Barraza played the exorcist and most recently, Jacob Vargas in ‘Devil’, was the first to detect the devil’s presence in the film. I guess it’s a jump up from gangsters and thieves. It makes sense though, Latinos do come from a long line of spiritual traditions that make them more knowledgeable about the ethereal world.

The film is a mockumentary directed by Tod Williams, and written by the original scribe, Orin Peli and newby Michael Perry. The production budget soared close to 3 million dollars for this one but you can barely tell where it went compared to the $11,000 version of the original.

Overall, Paranormal Activity 2 delivers the thrills and chills one looks for in horror films. The IMAX version also is a welcoming option if you can afford it. Go see it, you won’t be disappointed.

Karen Posada

By

2010/10/21 at 12:00am

Hereafter

10.21.2010 | By |

Hereafter

Hereafter is a dramatic film that has many elements that make it worth watching, its strongest being the storyline. Don’t’ be fooled by the trailer, if you are expecting an action flick it has been advertised wrong; it is about death and the possibility of an afterlife and trying to understand what happens after we die. The first scene does a nice job in taking you in and wanting to explore more, the fact that it is split into three stories carried out by completely different characters in various parts of the world makes it all the more interesting. The subject matter might make some skeptic and want to turn away; as well as the feeble romance which takes away from the film. The film does convey it’s message well which is to raise questions and curiosity no matter how you feel about the subject.

Hereafter deals with mortality and how three strangers who have completely different lives are affected by it. George (Matt Damon) has a gift or curse from which he’s desperately trying to get away from, Marie (Cécile de France) is completely happy with her perfect life until a near-death experience changes all of that and Marcus (George Mclaren & Frankie McLaren) has to face death as well as separation at a young age. We get a very in-depth look at each one of these characters lives and we get to comprehend each one of their stories which have death, mortality and loneliness as underlying themes that connect them. They each toy with the idea of an afterlife and each one is on a path that they have to travel alone and despite of having some family members or friends it is on this lonely journey that they find their answers or closure and are matured by the process.

The screenwriter Peter Morgan told us a funny story on how after a long process his script, which was inspired by a book he read and the loss of a friend, ended up on the hands of one of the executive producers Steven Spielberg; he then went on to give it to Clint Eastwood who decided to direct it. Eastwood’s name is all over the film, everything is so well thought out and organized that we can see it was done by a top notch director. Here he tried to work with special effects on a well developed sequence which runs through smoothly, but I would not say is the best CGI work I’ve ever seen; it could have been much better, throughout most of it you could pick out the CGI elements easily which took away from it. Also, the final scene has some of the corniest music i’ve ever heard; not only is it cheesy but it changes the storyline as well; I found the romance unnecessary and desperate for a happy ending. The twin brothers in this movie were amazing, knowing that they are non actors made me appreciate their scenes even more. Their story is so touching that it was hard to keep my eyes from watering, close enough to tearing. De France’s strong character shows us that after a storm the sun always comes out with some perseverance and she portrayed that beautifully. It was interesting to see Damon in such a ‘push-over’ role, most of the time he’s kind of being told what to do and he follows along; it shows the quality of his acting and how diverse it can be.

Besides posing questions the film teaches us one thing about death no matter what our beliefs are about it: we need to learn to let go and move on. I appreciated the film for kind of poking fun at one of the themes it promotes, but also because it shows us how deep human relationships go, how easily we are tied to one another and how hard it is to move on from that to be our own individual selves. It deals with the ‘hereafter’ not the idea of heaven or hell, so there’s more of a spiritual tie to it than religious which makes it easier to swallow.

Jack Rico

By

2010/10/18 at 12:00am

Predators

10.18.2010 | By |

Rating: 3.0

Rated: Not available
Release Date: 2010-07-09
Starring: Alex Litvak & Michael Finch
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://www.predators-movie.com/

 Go to our film page

Predators, a re-invention of the film that was made popular by Arnold Schwarzenegger in 1987, is what should have been Predator 2 from 1990. For me, Predators, with an ‘S,’ is a cross between a remake and a sequel.

The plot is very similar – a group of murderers are best hunted in a game by three aliens known as Predators.

The film is not as good as the original version. While for DVD it’s entertaining, I hope you didn’t spend your money for it in the theater.

The action is a bit weak and there are no charismatic characters as Arnold was. Not much here to please.

The film features a modest cast: Topher Grace, Laurence Fishburne, Danny Trejo, Alice Braga and Adrien Brody.

Jack Rico

By

2010/10/18 at 12:00am

How To Train Your Dragon Movie Review

10.18.2010 | By |

How to Train Your Dragon is a moving, charismatic 3D animated film that is sure to draw smiles, wonderment and a few tears from most of you. The voices couldn’t have been better cast, the story’s family and friendship themes are on mark and the 3D flight experiences are to applaud. Kids are going to love this film and parents will too, but they’ll be doing most of the sobbing. Read More

Jack Rico

By

2010/10/14 at 12:00am

RED

10.14.2010 | By |

RED
Select a Page