Please enable javascript to view this site.

Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

The Latest in ShowBiz News

Jack Rico

By

2010/06/03 at 12:00am

Marmaduke

06.3.2010 | By |

Marmaduke

When I was a kid I used to watch ‘Marmaduke’ on Saturday morning cartoons. This film adaptation is not as entertaining as the former, but nevertheless kids should have a frolicking time with it. Marmaduke is not meant to entertain adults, it’s for children who are 7-10 years old or even tweens at 12-14. So any grown men and women who go to see this film need to understand that the gags and dance moves from these dogs are meant for infants. If you enjoy kids movies, more power to you.

The plot. A suburban family moves to a new neighborhood with their large yet lovable Great Dane, who has a tendency to wreak havoc in his own oblivious way.

This is one of those few cat and dog movies where humans take a back seat to them. I would say it is 80% animals 20% humans. There is hardly any acting from real people in this film, which is why you can’t really knock the acting because there barely is any. Most of the work comes from the voices of Owen Wilson, Emma Stone, George Lopez and Kiefer Sutherland. I thought Owen fit the personality of the star dog perfectly. Lopez I think is always hilarious with the stereotypical Mexican accent as Marmaduke’s cat friend.

The situational comedy in the movie is modestly fun and you can tell director Tom Dey (“Failure to Launch”) makes something of an effort to make it likable. Overall, Marmaduke is what it is – a project using a familiar American brand name to make some money from it. Did it work? Not enough for me to tell you to run to the theater to see it. This is definitely a DVD property.

Namreta Kumar

By

2010/06/02 at 12:00am

Raajneeti

06.2.2010 | By |

Raajneeti

Raajneeti is a lengthy and problematic film. Although it tried to read like a modern Mahabharat, it ends up being a poor man’s version of The Great Indian Novel (by Shashi Tharoor).

 

For starters if you have no interest in politics don’t watch the film for the hype of the star-studded performance. No one truly shines with a solid performance, anyway. For the solid list of character actors the film is predicated on, not one character elicits enough sympathy within the audience. This may be because of the base problem in the script itself: everyone seems to either be playing multiple characters from the Mahabharat or the principal motivations have all been skewed bordering on disbelief.

 

Furthermore without a working knowledge of the Mahabharat it is rather difficult to follow the film. And if you have anything greater than a working knowledge you are sure to be disappointed by the bullet point version of the story. In trying to make a modern retelling Rajneeti lost both the original and the modern. Some of the language will definitely be lost on those who are not Hindi scholars and the rest to those who know little English.

 

Don’t look towards the music to be of any help either. Traditionally Bollywood film length and drama has been broken by the musical song and dance, Rajneeti has one ill placed and rather short rendition. Unfortunately the background score doesn’t win this film any favors either, as it is over dramatic and reclaims the scene for itself.

 

Stripped down to its core the film lacks proper development, however it does make the audience think. If it is true that you learn more from mistakes than success, this film forces everyone who watches it to think about story and character as by products of one another. The best thing about Rajneeti is its literary challenge and that isn’t saying much, considering the other films coming out of India today.

Jack Rico

By

2010/05/28 at 12:00am

George Romero Deconstructs Zombie Films

05.28.2010 | By |

George Romero Deconstructs Zombie Films

Meeting George A. Romero was among one of my many highlights in this profession. As a fan of the zombie and horror genres, I sat down with the 6’4 man who is arguably the creator of the zombie films. 

In the interview you are about to see, Romero opens up about the origins of his cultural roots (Romero was born in New York City to a Cuban-American father and a Lithuanian-American mother), the things he likes and dislikes of the ‘deadheads’, and what his favorite zombie films are. You’d be surprised to hear it’s not one of his own…

Kick back relax and enjoy 5 minutes with Mr. George A. Romero.

Note: There are Spanish subtitles for those Spanish speaking fans of Romero

His new movie ‘Survival of the Dead‘ takes place in a desperate, nightmarish world where the dead walk the earth, relentlessly attacking the living. It is the story of Plum Island – a beautiful refuge whose isolation allows two powerful families to maintain a semblance of order in the wake of the zombie apocalypse. But as the inhabitants slowly die off, the two clans become sharply divided: The O’Flynns believe that the undead must be destroyed without exception, while the Muldoons insist that afflicted loved ones be kept “alive” until a cure is found. Into this situation wander a small group of National Guard soldiers who, after robbing the protagonists of the previous film, have decided to strike out on their own in an effort to survive.

Karen Posada

By

2010/05/27 at 12:00am

Sex and the City 2

05.27.2010 | By |

Sex and the City 2

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.

Jack Rico

By

2010/05/27 at 12:00am

A Man’s Perspective on ‘Sex and the City’

05.27.2010 | By |

A Man’s Perspective on 'Sex and the City'

Note: This article is filled with spoilers. It has in mind the person who saw the sequel. 

I had the chance to see the heavily anticipated screening of ‘Sex and the City 2’ a few days before its release in theaters nationwide. Just so you know, I am a fan of the show since its pilot debut on HBO in the summer of 1998 when the characters used to talk to the camera and men were bashing women. Since then, I’ve been hooked and have followed our four voyagers through the ups and downs of their lives – which is why the two SATC movies have crushed my expectations of what could have been – and am nauseating at a possible third installment.

If you remember, the success of the series was rooted in the most truthful deconstruction of us men to date; from how they REALLY felt about us through love, sex and relationships, to the usage of foul language to describe us. It was truly art imitating life. What about all those Romeo tactics we thought we were getting away with? Those too were microscopically analyzed and ravaged. These truths were so dead on about us guys, that it made me, as well as most men, tune in every week to learn more of us from the most poignant source, the only thing that mattered in the world – women. It was obsessively fascinating, it hit a chord that has had its strings pulled out with these uninventive story lines.

The two films in question lack the ‘sparkle’ that made men call each other at night and ask, “dude, is that what they really say when we put our pants back on?” In the original movie, the writer/director Michael Patrick King didn’t forget the testosterone, but he left out the fantasy and fun from it. It was depressing. The four characters were supposed to bitch, moan and vent about us all while using pithy humour, harsh irony and unrelenting wit. Instead he had the ladies inhabit a world we had never seen them in – reality. It was too real for them and us. Enter the repairing sequel – forget about reality, welcome the outrageous and the absurdity. King went the other extreme now. He left out the testosterone and brought in an extra truck load of estrogen, literally, just ask Samantha. By creating this female drenched story, he left us, the true fans of the original Sex and the City television series, out to dry. Don’t kid yourselves ladies, the show was a hit because us men were tuning in like they had solved the mystery behind penile enlargement or something. If they ever do a part three… oh no… for the love of us fans, I beg the producers, don’t do it! Don’t you dare do it! Why? Well, you left us straight men out of it and dedicated it to all things gay. A mix of both would’ve been fine. But to be explicitly frank, the magical and honest writing just isn’t there anymore and our protagonists are starting to finally show their graceful age. Even though they are fit and muscular, part of the fantasy is where they stay in their 30s’ and early 40’s forever. Take for instance Liza Minnelli. Her performance cover of Beyonce’s ‘Single Ladies’ was admirable for 64, but nevertheless a bit sad. At some point, you have to call it quits and be elegant on your way out. We’ll all remember you for the great times, never the bad ones.  As an example of uninspired writing, take Sarah Jessica Parker’s character Carrie Bradshaw. She is once again confused about her life and she’s what…48, closing in on 50 in the show? By this time, she, or anyone for that matter, should have a resounding sense of what they want and what kind of partner they want. It baffles me that the writers are still, after 12 years, making her seem naiveté (going to dinner with Aiden fully knowing what he had in mind), ungrateful (never being thankful with what she has with BIG, the moments of simplicity just aren’t good enough for her), mentally fragile (her need to constantly go out to forget she is aging, and almost ruining everyone else’s trip because her New Yorker review on her latest book “I Do or Do I?” was a flop). Carrie, you need to get your sh*t together. You have a great life, stop complaining for everything. You really are a walking representation of the old cliché – you don’t know what you have until you lose it.

For those of you that just want the characters to live forever, I suggest a reboot with a new crop of bevy beauties casted with Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Lindsay Lohan and Isla Fisher. This would make everyone happy and the new younger generation of SATC fans can feel what we all felt when the typed words of ‘Once upon a time…” began this crazy and wonderful ride we call ‘Sex and the City.’

Would love to hear your thoughts. Leave your comments below.

Jack Rico

By

2010/05/25 at 12:00am

The Road

05.25.2010 | By |

Rating: 3.5

Rated: R for some violence, disturbing images and language.
Release Date: 2009-11-25
Starring: Joe Penhall
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://www.theroad-movie.com/

 Go to our film page

Jack Rico

By

2010/05/25 at 12:00am

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (Movie Review)

05.25.2010 | By |

Movies based on videogames are usually not very successful in Hollywood as in the case of Max Payne, Street Fighter and Hitman recently. But ‘Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time‘ is perhaps one of the best in the genre and that’s not necessarily a compliment.

The film starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Gemma Artenton and directed by Mike Newell (Love in the Time of Cholera), follows an adventurous prince who joins a rival princess to stop an evil ruler whose plan to unleash a sandstorm could destroy the world.

Although the film is visually stunning and at times entertaining, the film tends to be very childish and not absorbent enough to retain the interest of adults. However, the infantile humor and cheezy romance is perfect for teenage audiences.

Jack Rico

By

2010/05/25 at 12:00am

Agora (Movie Review)

05.25.2010 | By |

One of my favorite directors in cinema is Alejandro Amenabar (The Sea Inside, The Others, Abre Los Ojos) of Chilean-Spanish descent. His new film, Agora, is perhaps his most ambitious movie of his career, but not necessarily will it be his most popular.

The plot centers on the life of the philosopher Hypatia, played brilliantly by Rachel Weisz, who lived in Alexandria in the 4th century AD when Christianity had been adopted by the Roman Empire and was displacing the prevailing paganism as a religion. Orestes (Isaac), a slave who clings to the new religious doctrine with the hope of finding in it the aspirations of freedom he craves and one improtant matter, he loves his master and teacher Hypatia.

The theme of Agora to me is fascinating, provocative and intellectually stimulating, but I will not deny that the pacing is dead slow and its middle arc a bit boring. Technically, the art direction and costume design is breathtaking. The performances are worthy of applause. It contains enough conflict and action to make it commercial. Amenábar has created his Quo Vadis, but I think in the end, it is a difficult film to digest for the masses.

Jack Rico

By

2010/05/25 at 12:00am

Jack Rico

By

2010/05/25 at 12:00am

Woody Allen announces cast for ‘Midnight in Paris’

05.25.2010 | By |

Woody Allen announces cast for 'Midnight in Paris'

Woody Allen announced today the full cast for MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, his latest film in pre-production. The film stars, in alphabetical order:  Kathy Bates, Adrien Brody, Carla Bruni, Marion Cotillard, Rachel McAdams, Michael Sheen and Owen Wilson. Co-starring in the film, in alphabetical order, are: Nina Arianda, Kurt Fuller, Tom Hiddleston, Mimi Kennedy, Alison Pill and Corey Stoll. The film shoots this summer in Paris.
 
MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is a romantic comedy that follows a family travelling to the city for business. The party includes a young engaged couple that has their lives transformed throughout the journey. The film celebrates a young man’s great love for Paris, and simultaneously explores the illusion people have that a life different from their own is better.
 
MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is produced by Letty Aronson, Steve Tenenbaum and Jaume Roures. It is part of a three-picture financing deal between Allen’s Gravier Productions and Mediapro, the Spain-based company which also funded Allen’s “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” and the upcoming “You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger” to be released domestically by Sony Pictures Classics this fall. Imagina International Sales is handling international sales for MIDNIGHT IN PARIS for most territories.

Select a Page