campkllyrsf-1 Reviews

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)

ON STRANGER TIDES treads no new waters

[7/10 · 20 May 2011]

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES is quite a misleading title in many ways. First off, the movie no longer takes place in the Caribbean. While it never actually says which bodies of water this movie takes place in, the two countries involved are England and Spain, so it's safe to say we've moved to the Mediterranean Sea. And second, ON STRANGER TIDES treads nothing but familiar waters.

One thing that OST does do that the previous trilogy did not was to make Jack Sparro—sorry. Captain Jack Sparrow—the protagonist of the film. Take a moment and think: Who was the main character in THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL? It wasn't Jack; it was Will Turner. Will was on a journey to save Elizabeth, and Jack was merely his means to an end. Jack was never really a good guy. He's a pirate, after all. He's out for himself and toys with the characters actually involved with the story for his own personal amusement, only to succumb to his conscience and help save the day. But having Jack as an outside character—with us not knowing his ultimate intentions until the very end—was what lead him to be one of the most recognizable characters of this generation. But he's not a protagonist.

Not all of Captain Jack's charisma is gone. He's still an entertaining character, but the mystery of what he's going to do next just isn't there anymore. I can't really blame Depp for this, as he pulls off Sparrow like he was born for it. But the writers just to have put him in a spot where he doesn't belong. Jack's intentions still aren't clear from the get-go, but the movie sets it up to be his story. And that causes some narrative problems.

The movie itself is easily the worst of the series. To put that in perspective, I LOVE all three previous movies. Even AT WORLD'S END I adore. They're this generation's INDIANA JONES. While some may say it's better than 2 or 3, it doesn't really hold true to the original.

Story-wise, it's pretty straightforward. Multiple groups of people are trying to find the Fountain of Youth for their own reasons. We're just seeing who's going to get there first and who's going to get what they want. Simple as that. But, as Captain Jack says so eloquently in one of his many clever, fourth wall-breaking comments, "It's not so much the destination so much as the journey." Too bad the journey isn't all that interesting.

While the trailer points out both zombies and mermaids, only the mermaids hold any plot significance. The zombies are there because. . . well, why not? The first movie had a crew that turned into skeletons in the moonlight, and the second and third movie had a crew of mutated humans who looked like sea monsters. So why not make the crew of the bad guy's ship "zombie-fied"? I will say, though, the mermaid scene was pretty damn brilliant. Too bad it's the most original and interesting part of the film, and it comes at about half-way in.

Probably my biggest complaint is that many things that happen in OST just seem to be far too reminiscent of the original movie. The first escape scene is far too much like the one in the first movie, and the first sword fight is far too familiar to that of Sparrow vs. Turner—they even fight up on planks on beams of the roof just like in the first movie. Even the final battle takes place in a cavern with rays of light coming down in patches from the holes all around. It's all too familiar and very uninspired—not to say it isn't enjoyable, but it's nothing new. Other than the mermaid sequence, nothing stands out. There's no fight with people morphing back and forth from skeletons. There's no fight on a rolling water wheel. There's no fight on ships trapped in a whirlpool.

One thing the movie never does is become bad. It's just disappointing how mediocre it ends up being. The movie is still enjoyable and has a lot of that humor from the original three. The characters are still fun to follow, and the locations are gorgeous. But it just doesn't go on past decent most of the time and never beyond good. Is it worth checking out? Yeah. Despite my negative criticisms, the movie's still fun to watch. Just don't expect the same magic that the first three had.

Sucker Punch (2011)

Not sure what went wrong with SUCKER PUNCH

[4/10 · 25 March 2011]

Zack Snyder is an interesting director. I definitely think he's a very talented individual with a very good eye for the craft. 300, WATCHMEN, GUARDIANS and SUCKER PUNCH all have a very unique visual style and are all very well made films. However, SUCKER PUNCH is going to make me question anything he has a part in that involves him putting a pen to paper.

I love the whole idea and concept of SUCKER PUNCH. However, ideas and concepts can only go so far. SP is a story about what someone is willing to go through in order to cope with the struggles and obstacles in front of them. How sometimes you have to resort to your imagination just to pull through. And within these imaginary worlds they're able to do anything they want. I like the story, but the entire time I found myself not giving a crap. Snyder fails to do the most important thing when making a story like this, and that's bring the emotion.

It's not the actors' fault either. Every single person on screen brings everything they've got. Even Vanessa Hudgens is good, which feels really strange coming through my finger tips, and Jamie Chung is actually convincing. Everyone really does a fine job. Aside from action, Snyder knows how to work with actors. Unfortunately I can't say the same for being able to write characters.

One thing Snyder has proved in his career is that he's got an eye for action and style. Each set piece is brilliantly put together and visually stunning. Within the imagination of Baby Doll (Emily Browning) everything is amazingly surreal. It's chaotic and really the most impressive part of the entire film. The fights, whether they be gun fights, sword fights, a dragon chasing a plane or 3 girls on a train full of robots, are well choreographed and everything is shot so you can see what's going on. I do think Snyder is a little too obsessed with slo-mo and it occasionally gets to be too much.

What's unfortunate about all the effort and hard work that went into these brilliantly staged set pieces is that I just didn't care. Because of the nature of these scenes, being inside of an imagination, there wasn't much at stake. Characters weren't in any real danger of dying and the lack of emotion had me a bit bored despite how pretty it looked. When I was watching it I was thinking "damn, that was cool" but at the same time I didn't feel the urgency the characters supposedly felt. And after a while the aesthetic of the eye candy wore off and I became fairly bored.

I'm not sure what went wrong here. I usually dig mindless action as long as it's well presented. SUCKER PUNCH is definitely one of the best presented mindless action in years, but something stopped me from really enjoying the movie like I wanted to. It's got everything I could have asked for: Hot girls in little clothing, dragons, sword fights, gun fights, mechs, robots. Everything except emotion. I don't think it was from lack of trying either. It just felt lost somewhere, buried beneath all the "cool" of the movie.

It's hard to say whether I'd recommend SUCKER PUNCH or not. I'm leaning towards a no because from other people's reactions they didn't enjoy it as much as they hoped. It's great eye-candy, but when it's done you'll be craving something more filling. Zack Snyder I still think is a great director, but I don't think he should play around with story too much anymore. I want to see him direct something where he had no hand in the writing process and keeps the story close to the original script. I guess we'll see what happens when SUPERMAN comes out.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

THE DEATHLY HALLOWS is the second best of the series

[9/10 · 20 November 2010]

I was hesitant about THE DEATHLY HALLOWS at first. I was excited, yes, but reserved. David Yates kind of let me down with THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE (my second least favorite) after liking THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX (my second favorite up) so much. Mr. Yates, you've redeemed yourself. THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PT.1 is fantastic and is now my second favorite movie of the franchise.

THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PT.1 carries the descending dark tone of the series further. This movie is filled with tension and dread throughout. From the get-go the stakes are high and emotion is flaring. The pre-title scene does an incredible job setting the tone for the rest of the film. I truly felt genuine sorrow for the characters, especially Hermione.

The aspect of the film I really liked was the sort of genre switch from the previous films. It's still a fantasy film, but this one really feels like a horror movie at times. The way scenes are shot and set up there's a real nerve racking tension to every scene. And seeing these characters grow over 6 films the connection with them really draws a heightened sense of apprehension. Some scenes were so tense you could hear a pin drop in a sold out crowd. And the sweat on the character's forward was a visual representation of the audience's. The effects were incredible and seamless with the story. Probably the only thing that I really felt was fake was the snake in the beginning of the film, but other than that I bought every bit of visuals TDH threw at me. I'm EXTREMELY glad they didn't do this movie in 3D because I don't think the post-conversion 3D would have done any justice at all and would actually detract from the story. The movie is very dimly lit and with the light taken away with the glasses some scenes would have been nearly impossible to see what's going on if any dimmer. I hope they don't post-convert part 2.

There's a fantastic animated sequence in near the beginning of the third act which is gorgeous. It serves as extra exposition but could really be considered a nice short film. It doesn't come off as forced or distracting in the slightest either. It could have been weird since there hasn't been anything like it in any previous installment of the series but actually fits in very nicely.

There are some pretty impressive action sequences as well. All but one set piece were really well executed. The one set piece that kind of bothered me was the only real one that we see the entirety of. It's a chase through the woods and while it is very well shot most of the time, it has a few too many "Bourne shots" where the shaky cam moves around way too much. I understand that they're trying to put you there with the characters, but too much is too much. Aside from those occasional shaky cam shots -- which thankfully there aren't too many of -- the cinematography for that scene and all others are great.

Only thing about most the action is that because the main characters were vaulted out of them so quickly, we don't actually see what happens. We get a taste, but the plate is passed along and we're onto the next entree. I can't fault the movie for this, in fact I actually have to give it a tip of the hat. Some of the bigger battle moments I'm sure would have been spectacular to see, but they would have dragged down the film since the movie is very story driven.

While the series is now in a very dark place, it doesn't get overwhelming. It is extraordinarily uneasy at times and pretty dreadful, but it's got nice bits of very effect comic relief at key moments to lighten things up for some breathing room. The laughs thankfully don't feel at all force but rather very natural. They also really help with some pacing. Those quick moments of laughter fill in for some of the down time.

I heard someone who saw an advance of the film say that they thought it was boring and slow. While I can't agree, I can see how he would think so. The film does swiftly exit almost every fight sequence and there is a lot of sitting around in the woods trying to decide what to do. There is a segment of the film where there isn't a lot going on, and people who aren't drawn into the story will be bored.

TDH doesn't cater to non-fans. There's no flash backs, no retracing steps already taken, no "previously on" moments. If you've been following the movies then you're good, you don't have to have read the books (I haven't yet), but if you haven't paid attention in the previous films you may feel a bit lost. But that's the perfect way to go. This is the seventh film in a series, so making a movie for people who haven't enjoyed the first six would be a silly decision to make.

Being a "Part 1" film, it does end on sort of an ellipsis. There is kind of a climax, but not really. It is kind of like KILL BILL VOL. 1 where right when the story gets to the "oh crap!" point you see "Directed by." It was to be expected. Being a two part finale to the biggest franchise of this era, they're making it as epic as possible. There's a lot of book to include in a single movie. It feels like they filmed one movie then cut it at the half way point. It's either going to make the audience feel ripped off or make the audience extremely anxious to see the final half. I didn't feel ripped off, I'm truly excited for the finale.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)

Scott Pilgrim: 7,000,000,000 The World: 0

[10/10 · 29 July 2010]

"An epic of epic epicness" was the catch phrase of the movie, and really the best way to describe the movie. SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD fully delivers on all the hype that it's built. From the 8-bit Universal logo to the video game form of Scott beating up the "THE END" after the credits, the movie is just sheer entertainment.

At first, I wasn't sure. I saw Michael Cera's name and immediately shrugged it off. I've never been a fan of Cera and he wasn't the selling point for me in the least for this movie. What were the selling points for me were Edgar Wright (Director of SHAUN OF THE DEAD and HOT FUZZ) and the visual style of the whole movie.

SCOTT PILGRIM is the first, true comic book/video game movie. I want to say that it's more of a live action comic book/video game than a movie. Everything from life bars, "WHACKS!" and "SMACK!" coming up in giant letters in the back ground, it is the most unique visual styles I've seen in years, probably ever.

At its core, SCOTT PILGRIM is a love story. What I love about this love story is that neither of the main characters are perfect. Both are extremely flawed characters. Scott is kind of a douche as he falls in and out of love with multiple girls, while Ramona (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) has major commitment issues. And while I found myself disliking Scott from the get go and being fairly indifferent about Ramona when she comes on, they have very good arcs that made me rooting for them when the time came to really care.

I also really like the supporting cast is nearly flawless. I'd say the highlight would be Kieran Culkin as Scott's "Cool gay roommate" Wallas. Every scene with him is gold. He's got this off beat charm and great comedic timing that just feels extremely genuine. While at times it can be a bit stereotypical, it's never offensive. Just slightly exaggerated for the sake of comedy.

Along with him, Julie Powers (Aubrey Plaza) has one very memorable scene that I don't even want to hint at. It's used just enough to get substantial laughs without overstaying its welcome. I do feel that other supporting actors were underutilized like Anna Kendrick who plays Scott's sister. She's not in the movie much, but she's always a pleasure to see.

The story alone is great, and without that, the rest of the movie wouldn't have been nearly as effective. Now I could have seen this as another mindless, hack 'em slash 'em, action fest event movie, but the effective story just makes the fun parts of the movie so much more to invest in. And when this movie gets fun, it holds nothing back. It may be a turn off for some to see the over-the-top action set pieces, but if you've seen the trailer, you know what to expect.

Edgar Wright is a masterful director. If a lesser director had this project I doubt it would have been half as fun. Every set piece and fight sequence is extremely well shot with the camera far back enough where you can actually see what's going on. And there are shots long enough to see several moves be thrown back and forth between 2 or more characters. I can't recall any extremely close up and quickly cut fights in the movie.

What's also cool is that you can actually see that some of the actors throw a portion of the moves themselves. Yes, there were doubles for the flips and stuff we all know Cera can't pull off, but it's not in the least bit distracting. We can buy it because of the universe that's set up for the film.

SCOTT PILGRIM's world is as if they were actually in a comic and/or video game. It's got this surreal vibe and style to it that's fully entrancing and immersive. It helps tremendously with the ridiculous set pieces with high flying maneuvers and normally impossible moments. Really, the best way to describe it is "f***ing awesome!" It's a geek's paradise world. Small things from a "pee bar" and "ding dong" text appearing in thin air or being able to put a hat on that you didn't even have in your possession instantly on a moments notice to being able to leap 15 feet in the air and remain up there for several seconds as you pound the 65 hit combo or survive being thrown 70 feet into the side of a tower falling 5 stories.

I can't really do the film justice for the experience it delivers. Both INCEPTION and SCOTT PILGRIM have given us true innovation. As for which is better is really up to taste. I think INCEPTION is probably a better movie, but I think SCOTT PILGRIM trumps it in pure entertainment value. It is an intelligent, geek fueled movie. I will say INCEPTION does have the greatest single set piece in recent years, but SCOTT PILGRIM has one of the coolest worlds created since TRON.

"F**k yeah!" were the words that I said when the credits came up. SCOTT PILGRIM was one of the most fun experiences I've ever had in a theatre. While I'll wait until further viewings to place this in my favorite movies, I can definitely see this making it in my top movies of all time as far as how much I enjoyed it. It is my favorite film so far in this disappointing year. It's definitely something I'll watch at least 3 more times in theatres, and I suggest everyone see this in one, with a crowd.

Max Payne (2008)

Looks great, but that's all that's great.

[4/10 · 21 October 2008]

I was excited for this movie, but with Fox behind the release, you know something is going to be screwed up.

I tried to watch this movie and separate it from the game, but I was unable to do so. It's alright if they keep the tone of the game, and keep the general plot of the game in the movie. First thing messed up, the rating. How can you take a Mature rated game, with a subject matter such as revenge, and bring it down to a PG-13? If you've played the Max Payne game, I bet you were also worried about the PG-13.

Acting, no one was great. Mark Wahlberg, as much as I like him, did not serve justice for Max. Mila Kunis did pretty well for Mona Sax, but Mona wasn't in the game very much at all, so not really a lot to compare the two. Bridges and Ludicrous were decent, but nothing special. I will say Ludicrous is getting pretty good and is one of the better rapper-turned-actors.

Story, if they would have kept the story from the game as close as they could, it would have been a great one to tell. But here, they take the basics from the game: Max loses his wife and child and is seeking revenge; They're linked to this drug Valkyr... that's pretty much it. Everything else is changed and brought down to clichéd crime stories. It was neither deep nor gripping. About half way through I just wanted to see stuff blow up or people get killed.

Speaking of which, there wasn't a lot of either. Through half the movie, nothing really happens. By the time something does happen, I was going "finally, some action." But, the action wasn't really what I hoped for. The game had such great action scenes, they could have taken any scene from the gameplay and easily made it into a movie. But, some of the best parts of the action in the game, they leave out. They did the bullet time a few times, but it seemed like they put them in the wrong places. And one bullet time was slowed down so much it seemed like it was kind of making fun of bullet time. Unnecessary and ridiculous.

There were things I did enjoy in the movie. First off, cinematography. It was very dark and gritty. It had a visual tone similar to the game, different, but pretty effective. The special effects were done pretty well, and the Valkyries looked cool. I think the valkyries were taken from the graphic novels, which I haven't read, but that's what I've heard. Back on topic, I really liked how the movie looked. Some of the shots were really nice, and the overall look of the movie was impressive. Along with that, while the action sequences weren't great, some of the shots were pretty brutal. When these guys were shot by shotguns, they flew back. It was one of the few things about the gun fights that I thought was well done.

The style of the movie was cool, but only appearance wise. The action was flat, nothing new. The story was nothing of what it could have been. And the acting was average to sub-par. I didn't think the movie was terrible, but definitely not worth the title of Max Payne. Fox adds another movie to it's list of movies they've screwed over. 2/5 rental at best.

Sex Drive (2008)

This decade's "Road Trip"

[7/10 · 12 October 2008]

So there was a screening of Sex Drive at the theatre, so I thought "what the hell?"

From the preview, I thought it could have gone one of three ways: 1. A horrible attempt at an R-rated comedy in the same fashion of a pretty good comedy a decade ago. (Like College tried for American Pie, and failed) 2. A mediocre R-rated comedy with bits here and there. 3. A movie that knows what it's going for and hits its mark.

I would have to say, this movie is very close to #3. The movie isn't a great movie, but it has no delusions on what it is. With the plot of a guy driving cross state just to get some ass, there's not a lot of directions you can go with it. The makers know this, so they make the best of it.

No real need to stress much on the story. It's simple, basic, predictable. Bad? I wouldn't say that. The story is really more of a momentum pusher than anything. It's really only there to prevent this from being a series of jokes and gags just jumbled together. There's no real big twist, a few lessons to be taken form it, but they all have been done before. You can pretty much tell what's going to happen at the end within the first 15 minutes. But the story isn't really the important thing here, so no real points taken off for that.

All the actors are good. Clichéd, yes, but they are likable. The goofy, virgin lead guy who's trying to get some tail is played wonderfully by Josh Zuckerman. Pulls it off flawlessly with all the awkwardness and uncertainty that the character would have. Amanda Crew is also really good at the "BFF" of Josh's character. The two have pretty good chemistry, even with all their awkwardly close moments. It isn't perfect, but being in some of those awkward situations, they were (while pushed a bit) familiar.

A surprise is James Marsden. You may remember him as Cyclops from X-Men, and he pulls off a great punk-ass older brother with a sense of humor of his own. He is the typical ass hole older brother in these kind of movies, but he pulls it over very well. Seth Green just seems like he's cruising through the movie. I think he's got a lot of talent and I knew even if the movie was going to be bad, he would provide a good set of laughs. And as a sarcastic Amish engineer genius, he's just fits in this movie seamlessly.

But I have to give a lot of credit to Clark Duke. His first real movie. He was a party extra in Superbad, if I'm not mistaken, the one who called McLovin' a bad ass. Like Seth Green, he just seems to glide through. He also has great chemistry with Josh Zuckerman. You can tell the two of them just had a really good time together on this. He is the suave ladies man who's guiding his pathetic best friend on his verge of losing his virginity, while getting some action himself. He doesn't have the look of the typical character, but he pulls it off excellently.

I put a lot of emphasis on the characters and actors. They were the backbone of the movie. Not the story, but the characters. There's also a hand full of supporting characters that do a good job at their parts, and an unwelcome (well, for me it was unwelcome) appearance by Fall Out Boy.

There are few things worse than a comedy that's not funny. There have been a serious excess of those as well. Dane Cook just had a movie a few weeks ago, and that was a haggard piece of crap. I actually have to say though, I laughed quite a bit in this movie. With the plot, there are going to be quite a few of the sex jokes, involving spooge, penises and homosexuality. Most of them though actually delivered. I can't actually say there were too many flat moments with the jokes. Yes, there were some, but the jokes that worked out-weighed those that didn't.

The climax got really over-the-top, but it did continue on with the laughs, and was satisfying. The closure did take a bit longer than necessary, but didn't drag. The movie was actually well paced and I was never bored.

This is no Superbad. It's not anywhere in that league. I walked out of this movie saying "This is 2000's Road Trip." No, Road Trip wasn't a masterpiece or one of those comedy powerhouses, but it was really good for what it was going for. An over-the-top, R-rated comedy. See it with a group of friends in the theatre. Definitely see it with a crowd, it will probably make it that much more enjoyable. 3.75/5

Also, if you saw the trailer and had no interest, then you probably would want to skip it. It has it's intended audience, and will probably please those people and few others.

Charlie Bartlett (2007)

Finally, a high school movie that captures what high school's like these days.

[8/10 · 4 March 2008]

Charlie Bartlett

Finally, a movie taking place in a high school that actually captures a lot about what goes on in high school these days.

Charlie Bartlett, played by Anton Yelchin, is a 17 year old kid from a wealthy family, and has pretty much anything he could want, materially. But, he's got a knack for getting kicked out of every private school he's been sent to. This last one, he made and sold a load of fake I.D.s to kids at the school. When asked why, he said it wasn't for the money, just to be popular. His mother tells him there's more to high school than being liked, but unable to answer when asked "like what?" by Charlie.

Charlie is then sent to a public school where he struggles to make friends and become liked. After being prescribed Ritalin for possibly having ADD, he decides to sell it at the school once he finds the "high" Ritalin can give. He then holds sessions in the men's bathroom where he would get students' symptoms and tell them to his own psychiatrist and sell them to the kids at the school.

This was the meat of the trailers and promotions, but it's actually only a small portion of the story. The story all together is just about this kid who tries to become popular in his high school "hell" and in doing so, ultimately tries to find out what's important.

The script is very well written, though some may call it scattered. I am also a very scattered writer when it comes to stories, I bounce around a bit, so I can see how something like that can happen with a story that can go in any direction like this one can. Some may lose interest, or lose track of what's going on, but if you catch the tone changes, it's very clever and thought out.

The best thing about this movie are the characters. Charlie Bartlett is such a likable guy and you stay with him throughout the entire film. His love interest, who happens to be the principle's daughter, played by Kat Dennings, You may have seen her as the daughter in 40 Year Old Virgin, is also easy to befriend. And her father, the Principle played by Robert Downey Jr. does an incredible job. You want to hate him, but you like him at the same time. He also plays a great on screen drunk.

There are a couple clichéd characters, but even so, almost all the characters feel real and like you can pick them out at your own school. Either person to character or a few people to one character, you can spot them.

Unlike most high school movies that have been released in the past, this one doesn't try to be preachy. There's maybe one scene where it does, but it's in a play, so it does fit. It's very accurate on the angst and the view kids now have on the importance of popularity is to them.

Some people are calling this the "Ferris Bueller of our time", I may not quite call it that, but it's close. Let's not forget that this is an R rated movie. I went in thinking this was another PG-13, but when the second F word came out, I immediately re-established my thought on how this movie was going to play out on how much it was going to show and how far it was going to go. And I'm glad it was R, you can't get this realism of high school with those PG-13 movies anymore. HS now has tons of kids cursing a storm and a lot more risqué themes and plain sexual things that go on. This movie doesn't hold back on this just because it's taking place in a high school, and I'm happy they did that.

Final Score: 8.4/10 A very smart and well written and acted movie. If it weren't for the likable characters, the movie would not have worked as well as it did. Not really a first date movie, and if you're going to see it with your parents/child, there probably will be a lot of talking on the car ride home. But that could be a very good thing, because this movie does bring up how important communication is in parent/child relationships. Well worth the full price admission.

Puni Puni Poemy (2001)

WOW!!!!!

[10/10 · 2 July 2004]

WOW!!!!

This is the best way to describe this show. It has got to be one of the most random, funny, disturbing, uncomfortable to watch with parents, weird, and just plain pointless shows I have ever seen.

And funny enough, the main character, Poemi, reminds me of some of my friends. There is also plenty of fan service in this film also. Fans of slapstick comedies will love this show.

Definitely not for the kids, no way, no how. Although I'm only fourteen, I don't recommended this for anyone under 16, o.k., well a few people.

As for the rating, 10/10 or A++.