Secretariat
01.25.2011 | By Jack Rico |
Rated: PG for brief mild language.
Release Date: 2010-10-08
Starring: Mike Rich, William Nack
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://disney.com/secretariat/
Go to our film page
01.25.2011 | By Jack Rico |
Rated: PG for brief mild language.
Release Date: 2010-10-08
Starring: Mike Rich, William Nack
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://disney.com/secretariat/
01.20.2011 | By Jack Rico |
The modern romantic comedy ‘No Strings Attached‘ starring Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman is surprisingly not as bad as I expected. The film benefits from an interesting premise, good chemistry between the stars and appealing situations that will easily engage romantic couples looking for a fun time at theater.
The plot centers on Adam and Emma (Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman), childhood friends who try to maintain a strictly sexual relationship, but it’s not long before they both discover that love is impossible to resist.
The romantic comedies of today, a.k.a rom-coms, tend to be very formulaic, predictable and unoriginal, but this one, because of its R rating, takes advantage of it by being mischievous. Of course, you’ll experience all the typical ploy devices inserted into these movies such as the irritating best friends, the poppy soundtrack, and of course, the ultimate declarations of love at the end of the movie. Nevertheless, the film aims to reach adults, in particular those who have been through experiences like this at some point in their lives. The movie has shades of the recent ‘Love and Other Drugs’ (Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway), whose plot also involved a woman who just wanted a purely sexual relationship. Her reasons were different and legitimate as opposed to Portman’s character. The tone was also more dramatic and not as playful as this.
Much of the upbeat tone of ‘Attached’ comes from the cerebral dallyings of screenwriter Elizabeth Meriwether, who has built a real and authentic narrative that reflects the times we live in today – an ode to a sexual revolution that has become part of the natural order of things. The dialogue is another matter. Phrases like, “I’m warning you… if you come closer one more step, I might never let you go”, sound like scratching nails on a chalkboard. To be frank, no right-minded man would dare say something like that in real life because he runs the risk that the woman who hears it will throw up on him. Defects like these run rampant in every rom-com, but here you get over it because Portman’s and Kutcher’s charm is irresistible.
Portman, a soon to be Best Actress winner at this year’s Oscar for Black Swan, is exploring a new genre with great results. She plays a sexy, beautiful, confident woman who is not shy in proving she has a fun side to her. Mix that in with her dramatic strengths and you have an actress who won’t keep on embarrassing the genre any further. Do not be surprised if we see her in more romantic comedies in the not too distant future. Kutcher on the other hand, is overshadowed by Portman’s screen presence and skill. Even though he looks the part perfectly, his limited acting range fails him time and time again in the climactic moments of the finale.
The director Ivan Reitman, creator of such classic films as Ghostbusters, Stripes, and Twins, in this instance chooses to leave vulgar comedy to the side and focus on the psychology of the principle relationship. As a result, the film feels adult and less silly.
‘No Strings Attached’ is not compelling as ‘When Harry Met Sally‘ or as savvy as ‘500 Days of Summer,’ but it achieves its objective of being a pleasant diversion for a couples night out at the movies.
01.18.2011 | By Karen Posada |
Rated: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, a sexual situation/partial nudity and some language.
Release Date: 2010-08-27
Starring: Peter Allen, Gabriel Casseus
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://www.whoarethetakers.com/
TAKERS is highly entertaining but it is in no way original and because of this it is very predictable. The action scenes are what makes the movie worth watching, especially the one with CHRIS BROWN. This film is like a roller coaster one second you are thinking it is one of the best movies this year the next it is one of the worst, so it ends up just being a mediocre film. The film is easy to follow which gives it a nice easy flow. It is organized, but the fact that there are so many characters and so little character development it doesn’t give the audience time to connect with them although there is sympathy towards the gang of high class criminals.Â
The film shows us the workings of a gang of high class criminals that play by their own rules, such as doing one job a year and not killing anyone; specifically cops. They mean no harm, just gain which makes them likable. The gang love each other like brothers and are successful at what they do by working out every single intricate detail of their jobs in a timely manner. Their leader Gordon Betts or “G” (IDRIS ELBA) is the one to give each of them tasks and they take his advice seriously, but unfortunately he has a downfall his sister Naomi (MARIANNE JEAN-BAPTISTE) a drug addict trying to go clean. His right arm is John Rahway (PAUL WALKER) he executes the important parts of the dirty work. The brains of the operation is A.J. (HAYDEN CHRISTENSEN) he works out the gritty details with great results. Jake Attica (MICHAEL EALY) is the sweetheart of the group, he is the heart of the gang and gives them a human touch; his biggest worry is his brother Jesse (CHRIS BROWN) their father is in jail and he feels terrible for bringing his little brother into the business and therefore wants to keep him out of harm’s way. The bad influence and outsider of the group is Ghost (T.I.), on their last job he’s the only one that got caught and as soon as he’s out of jail he’s ready to execute a new plan. The gang doesn’t trust him but decide to break their one year rule to go along with his risky plan to rob an armored car carrying over $12 million; they only have 5 days to plan the heist.Â
Jack Welles (MATT DILLON) a cop for the LAPD becomes obsessed with catching the criminals after they pull off a $2 million heist leaving very little traces. He brings his troubled partner Eddie Hatcher (JAY HERNANDEZ) along and although Eddie is incredulous, as a best friend he’s trying to help Jack cope with what seems abandonment from his wife because he is so absorbed by his job; this is never clear in the movie.Â
The acting leaves very little to be desired, it was hard to believe Dillion and Hernandez as cops; Dillon does look like he’s going through a major life crisis throughout the movie but he may look like that in real life. One doubts Elba’s British accent when in fact he is a real Brit. Walker plays the same white boy ghetto wanna be as he does in most of his roles. T.I. plays T.I. there are no skills there. I do have to give Brown props for his awesome Parkour performance, that was one of the best scenes of the movie. Finally, our very popular dominican actress Zoe Saldaña was in the film for very short periods and she was just eye candy for the guys; us girls have plenty of eye candy all throughout the movie.Â
The movie picks up right in the middle when you start getting your hopes up but it is killed with a couple of montages that are super corny especially because of the music that accompanies them. The movie reaches its goal, to entertain and although at some points it is overkill it still does the jobs. If you go to watch it knowing that the well developed action scenes are the only things to take from it, then go right ahead otherwise wait to watch it comfortably from your couch.
01.14.2011 | By Jack Rico |
For those moviegoers expecting to see the same ol’ Vince Vaughn rambling nonsense for kicks and giggles, you’re in for a surprise that might make you rethink paying to see one of his films again. ‘The Dilemma’ is a comedic drama that has more drama than one would like from their Vaughn films. There are some hard laughs, but very quickly you’ll experience that this isn’t what you paid for.
The movie centers on a commitment-phobic guy (Vince Vaughn) who struggles with two dilemmas: whether to pop the question to his long time girlfriend (Jennifer Connelly) and whether or not to tell his best friend (Kevin James) that his wife (Winona Ryder) is having an affair.
‘The Dilemma’ seems to be an experimental project for Vince ‘The Rambler’ Vaughn. Here he revisits his old dramatic chops, and even though he doesn’t shame himself, it’s clear that he cannot excel within the frames of the genre. Interestingly enough, Vaughn has worked in various dramatic films before (Psycho, A Cool Dry Place, Return to Paradise, South of Heaven, West of Hell), but never with real success. The harsh mashup of comedy and drama here never really finds a harmonious balance and instead seems abrasive and distracting at times. The Coen Brothers are masters at merging both categories masterfully (Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona), but director Ron Howard (Apollo 13 The Da Vinci Code), a virtuoso in his own right, seems astray at best. When you look at his body of work and you look at this movie, it is as if they are two completely different directors. The Howard touch is nowhere to be seen.
Screenwriter Allan Loeb (Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps) concocted a script with some hilarity, uncomfortable drama and much unwelcomed filler. The stuffing throughout the second act was blatant and just intolerable. There was no need to over-flesh the obvious theme of the film.
The cast had some highlights and some low lights, one of the lows being Channing Tatum. The up and comer, who plays the lover to Ryder, had no business working in a comedy, even if it was one with dramatic tones. Each scene where he had to sound funny or look funny was amateurish. A definite miscast. Vaughn, James and Ryder were very good when they dealt with their independent scenes. In Vaughn’s case, the toast scene monologue was a classic. His rambling, though old and unoriginal, had a nasty and hostile bite to it this time around. That was fun to watch. Â
Comedic dramas are populating theaters more than ever and we as audiences are going to have to get used to our comedians wanting to expand their range to include drama (remember Ben Stiller doing the awful ‘Greenberg’ or Adam Sandler doing Funny People). Therefore we have to choose wisely and The Dilemma is definitely not a wise selection.
Follow Jack Rico on Twitter.
01.11.2011 | By Jack Rico |
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/
Although ‘The Social Network‘ isn’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 80’s and ‘Reality Bites‘ in the 90’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 is 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 wasn’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!
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.
01.7.2011 | By Jack Rico |
Rated: R for strong bloody violence throughout, language, some sexual content and nudity.
Release Date: 2010-09-03
Starring: Robert Rodriguez, Ãlvaro RodrÃguez
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://www.vivamachete.com/
01.6.2011 | By Karen Posada |
Rated: PG-13 for sequences of crude and sexual content, some partial nudity and language.
Release Date: 2010-07-30
Starring: David Guion, Michael Handelman
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://www.dinnerforschmucks.com/
One thing I can say about Dinner for Schmucks is that it was well developed. It is not sloppy in a way a lot of comedies tend to get, but it is a bit too long for a comedy. It was funny although its humor is not clever, it is more ridiculous and idiotic than anything. Nonetheless, it will make you laugh and maybe even crack up a few times. I wouldn’t rush to the movie theater to watch it, waiting for it on DVD would be the smarter option. It is inspired by a French comedy Le Dîner de Cons, which was quite successful.
The movie develops with Tim Conrad (Paul Rudd) who is working hard to get a promotion and making his almost perfect life completely perfect. He steps to the plate when one of the main guys at his office is fired and he is offered his position after a bold presentation; the catch is that he has to join his boss and the other big shots at a secret dinner to get the new position. This isn’t just any dinner, everyone must bring an extraordinary person a.k.a schmuck meaning idiot and whomever brings the most strangest specimen wins; while their idiot gets a trophy and is “released back into the wild”. Tim’s better half, whom he’s proposed to several times Julie (Stephanie Szostak) is appalled when Tim tells her what he has to do and she puts some sense into him. Unfortunately, by a chance encounter Tim is blessed with one of these rare people, Barry Speck (Steve Carell) and he is not able to turn away from this easy opportunity. Barry is an amateur taxidermist, he uses dead mice to create art pieces and his naivety pushes him over the edge to idiocy.
Barry takes over Tim’s life, he’s trying to help him but he ends up destroying every aspect of Tim’s life and plans. The more Barry “helps” the worse things get for Tim. The easy promotion is not so easy anymore. Barry forces his friendship upon Tim and teaches him that nothing is more important that sticking to one’s values and appreciating someone for who they are.
I don’t believe Steven Carell to be one of the funniest comedians of today, in this role he is the same character as in Anchorman and a bit less clever than his character in The office. The same goes for Rudd, he’s always the passive aggressive guy with a girlfriend that has to put up with the dummy. Although these are not refreshing roles for them they do fill the shoes well, Carell does a great innocent idiot. Another comedian that appears here and always does a great psycho is Zach Galifianakis. Finally, Jemaine Clement from Flight of the Concords completes the movie with his wild character.
If you’ve seen director Jay Roach‘s work such as Meet the Parents and the Austin Powers movies then you probably know what to expect. It is not a hilarious movie, except for a couple of scenes/jokes but it will give you a good giggle all throughout with its silliness and absurdity. If you want to watch a witty comedy then this would be the wrong movie to choose.
12.28.2010 | By Jack Rico |
Rated: R for sequences of strong violence and language.
Release Date: 2010-09-10
Starring: Paul W.S. Anderson
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/residentevilafterlife/
I have seen some really putrid films in my life (i.e: Punisher: War Zone, Miss March, All About Steve, I Love You Beth Cooper, Year One, to name just a few). ‘Resident Evil: Afterlife’ is not one of them. It is a highly stylized movie that borders on the absurd, yet it has moments of pure entertaining 3D sci-fi action bliss.
This time around, Alice (Milla Jovovich) fights off mean deadheads and continues on her journey to find survivors and lead them to Arcadia, a safety zone somewhere in the Arctic.
This is the fourth installment of the Resident Evil series and it can still deliver a good dose of action. This one, unfortunately, didn’t indulge as much in that department as the previous efforts. We got more dialogue than needed. The 3D experience was top notch though and it made up for the sluggish and sedate middle act. It was definitely the highlight. If you are still interested in seeing the film after this review and were wondering on spending a few more extra dollars to see it in 3D, I say go for it. It is money well spent.
As for the rest of the film, let’s be honest – you don’t go see these films for their cinematic achievement. You go see it to laugh with your buddies at the ridiculous over the top posing done by B and C list actors (obviously requested by the B director). Oh and yes, how could I continue without mentioning the obligatory relentless mass killings, death defying jumps, inconceivable far-fetched escapes and slow motion backflips. A great example of those delicious and ludicrous, cheezy, risible scenes include Ali Larter’s character Claire Redfield. She flees a giant wielding axman to only do a backflip at the last second, against a wall, and land perfectly on the floor with a smile as if she was posing for a Maxim magazine cover – oh wait, didn’t she already do one of those? Nevertheless, that scene alone merited a hearty laugh out loud moment on my behalf. There were a plethora of those scenes throughout the film that doomed it from being the best of the four. But alas, this is the type of movie that Paul W.S. Anderson creates. Interestingly enough, he was the director of the first Resident Evil film.
Perhaps one of the most laughable characters of the film was Albert Wesker – the villain. I’m not sure if actor Shawn Roberts was deliberately trying to do his best Agent Smith impression from the Matrix movies or what, but it was embarrassing. Once again, I laughed, laughed, laughed every time he came on the screen. Be original for christ sakes! Then there is the issue with the token Latino (Sergio Peris-Mencheta) and black guy (Boris Kodjoe). From those two, I dare you to take a wild guess at who dies and who lives. Most likely your first gut answer is right.
Yes, most of this review harps on the bad. But as you can tell, the bad is adjoined with laughter, good laughter that serves a purpose – to escape reality for a bit and share the lampooning with your friends. ‘Resident Evil: Afterlife’ is a good bad movie. Go see it and stay for the credits – there is a surprise if you’ve seen the previous three parts.
