Kick-Ass 2 By Brenton Thom KICK-ASS 2 is the sequel to KICK-ASS, the movie about regular people going out and dressing up as superheroes to stop crime and make their environment a better place. KICK-ASS 2 picks up right after where the first one left off - Kick-Ass, portrayed by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, and Hit-Girl, played by Chloe Grace Moretz, both continue training to defeat the bad guys... but there are some changes. Hit-Girl been taken in by her father’s friend, Detective Williams (Morris Chestnut), and he wants her to have a normal life. So, he forces her to attend high school. Along the way, she tries to fit in at school with the popular kids and their social networks. In a way, it’s a coming of age story for her and kind of a “fish out of water” story. On the other hand, we have Kick-Ass trying to get back in the game and joining other masked heroes that were inspired by him. He joins Colonel Stars and Stripes, played by Jim Carrey, in creating the Justice Forever team. At the same time, Chris D’Amico (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) has sworn to get revenge against Kick-Ass for killing his father back in the first film. He becomes an arch-villain, and dubs himself “The Motherfucker,” which is a pun, as he accidentally kills his mother in the beginning of the movie. The MoFo tries to get other bad guys to join his evil league and take down the good guys (and kill Kick-Ass). Overall, this is a solid sequel. Most sequels are weak, but this one has definitely a more serious tone to it. Yes, there are some laughs in this movie, but the film as a whole feels more like a hero drama than a comedy. So that was one of the first unexpected aspects of this flick, but the drama makes the characters more emotionally engaging and the consequences all the more impactful. Moretz’s character is a teenager going through high school (complete with cliques and popular students) and just trying to fit in. It reminded me of Stephen King’s CARRIE or MEAN GIRLS. She does her best to follow her father’s wishes and do what is right. One thing that was off, though, was that Kick-Ass’s girlfriend dumps him in the beginning of the movie due to miss-communication (she thinks he's now “with” Hit-Girl), but that subject is completely forgotten. We never once focus on his relationship with women. His emotional arc revolves around his father, with whom he has an important relationship. His father wants him to stop fighting crime, but at the same time, Kick-Ass wants to be his own man and be an adult, which are normal thoughts of any teenager; they want their independence. His father just wants what is best and safe for his child. The visuals for this movie were good, too. The action and choreography is that of a superhero comic, but grounded in a way where everyone and everything in this movie are real. So, when people punch, they feel pain in their hands. Overall, KICK-ASS 2 is a solid movie. A solid sequel too, I might add. I think if you didn’t see the first movie, you could still watch this movie solo, but watching the first movie would definitely make the storyline whole. Again, there are some funny moments, but the movie has a more serious tone and feels more like a drama with some funny bits thrown in it. But all-in-all, I’d recommend this movie to teenagers, comic lovers, and people a bit older too. I’d see it in theaters on the big screen. BUT... I wouldn’t recommend this movie to younger kids. This is definitely not any kid movie, with the graphic violence, gore, blood, nudity, and let’s not forget the strong profanity. You know... fun for the whole family!
0 Comments
JOBS By Brenton Thom JOBS is a biopic about Apple Computers founder Steve Jobs, played by Ashton Kutcher. The film chronicles Jobs from his time spent at Reed College (from which he dropped out) to the invention of the iPod. After dropping out of college, unsure of what to do with his life and wanting his independence, he travels to India and experiments with LSD. This was the 70’s, mind you, so it must have been a common thing. Jobs eventually gets a job at Atari and works in developing games for home TV’s. Irritated by working with others (and with people not having higher expectations), he takes a new game design on by himself. Frustrated, he turns to his childhood friend Steve Wozniak (portrayed by Josh Gad). During their collaboration, Jobs discovers Wozniak’s pet project - the home computer. Still a prototype, Jobs persuades Wozniak to move forward with this project, and after many failed pitches and attempts, Jobs and Wozniak find someone interested in it. From there, they are off to the races. Over time, Jobs begins to alienate his friends and loved ones. He obsesses over his work. That’s the story in a nutshell, with character conflicts, corporate rivalry, and obsessions with work. I have to say the strongest thing in this flick is the performance by Josh Gad. Wozniak is by far the most interesting character in this film, and Gad’s performance is excellent. He brings emotion, and you connect and care for his character. Ashton Kutcher’s performance is another story. Although I don’t think Kutcher is a bad actor, I think he's only okay here. On the plus side, his imitation of Jobs is spot on. He has the mannerisms and even body language down, but my problem with that is it feels more like an impression or a copy effect. We don’t actually get to see Kutcher portraying or using his acting skills. It feels like he is just copying someone else – Steve Jobs. Again, I thought his “impression” was good, but that’s all it really was. Kutcher played a good young Steve Jobs, and even older Jobs when he introduces the iPod, but it’s the middle-aged Jobs where it gets a bit dicey. The stuff Jobs says and does at this point in the story just doesn’t feel right. Kutcher is just too young in his life to say some of the things that maturity/wisdom gives at that point in life. For example, Jobs pokes fun and says “How anyone could sleep that much,” referring to his daughter sleeping through breakfast, and yet in the beginning of the movie, we see Jobs sleeping all day. One of the cool touches was they showed the famous 1984 trailer for the Apple Macintosh in the movie. That very trailer was shot by director Ridley Scott. So this biopic had that going for it! Overall, the film was okay. If you are a die-hard Apple brand fan, I’d say check out the movie so you can see how much this product means to you. If you are the everyday person, kind of like me, I’d say wait until DVD. This movie isn’t anything fancy and nothing terribly ground breaking. You can get the complete bio story in a magazine biography or Wikipedia page. But it’s interesting to see it portrayed on the big screen. My only issue is if this guy was such a big deal, why did they only make a movie about Steve Jobs? There should be a counterpart movie (not sequel) that follows Bill Gates. Those two have been rivals since the beginning of home computers. But again, I think this is a movie that can wait until DVD. PLANES By Brenton Thom PLANES is a Disney film that takes place in the universe of Pixar's CARS series (though Pixar itself was not involved in the production of this film). The story follows Rusty, a countryside crop duster who dreams of racing the skies against the fast fighter jets. His dreams are shattered by the people around him who say he doesn’t have a chance to fly high and fast. He goes out and trains with a friend and enters in a preliminary for a race around the world with other prop planes from various parts of the world. He competes with determination, and after another competitor gets caught with fuel mixing use and is disqualified, Rusty gets to spread his wings. The only trouble is that Rusty's afraid of heights and prefers to fly low to the ground. Rusty trains with an old World War II fighter plane and uses his training to slowly crawl his way up the ranks. Rusty is voiced by comedian Dane Cook and various other seasoned actors take on the supporting roles. At first I was a bit reluctant to see this movie. I was never a fan of CARS, but in my opinion, PLANES is a better story and a step up from CARS. I have never seen the sequel, CARS 2, so I can’t say if that had a better story, but so far what these two movies have in common is the main character wants to race and voice actor John Cleese has a performance in there as a British car and plane (respectively). One of the things PLANES has going for it is that it’s an underdog story. Rusty - an unlikely flyer, being a slow crop duster – makes friends along the way and uses special flying techniques to inch his way forward to the finish line. We get to see a lot of cool visuals in this movie; flying to exaggerated foreign lands, we get to see a lot of interesting locales. We also meet some very colorful characters along the way. I can’t really get into much detail of the movie without spoiling it, but it’s a true underdog story. It gives the message that you can do more than what you were “meant or built to do.” It gives a sense of hope that we can all go out and make our lives great. It takes determination and a never-quit attitude to make it. One of the things that did disappoint me about this movie was the buildup of military history in the flick. We see fighter jets and some cool aviation stuff, but I thought we’d see more with fighter jets, or even maybe touch on WWII veterans, or something (though there is some of that with Rusty’s trainer being a prop fighter from WWII). I was hoping there were going to be old bombers in there, or old military planes that where phased out. But alas, with all the aviators in this movie, it’s hard to fit them all in. So I guess this movie is basically a big moral fable and motivational booster. Overall, I actually enjoyed the movie. For most movie fans, I'd recommend waiting until it’s on DVD, but for the family and kids, I’d say take ‘em to the cinema. It’s fun to see on the big screen. They do a good job balancing kid humor and adult humor in there (I did laugh at some moments the kids didn’t laugh at, for instance). All in all, I enjoyed it. By Brett Blake Great mysteries, mysteries that hold up under total scrutiny, are extremely hard to come by, particularly in cinematic form. The best ones typically present a puzzle of a plot, line up some possible explanations and potential red herrings, and then deliver a solution that makes sense not just “in the moment” as you’re watching the film, but also after the fact, when you’ve gone home and continue to mull over the plot. PRISONERS doesn’t quite cleanly pull this off, but it comes very close, and it’s one of the year’s best thrillers. The bare-bones version of the labyrinthine plot involves the abduction of two young girls, their parents’ (Hugh Jackman & Maria Bello, and Terrence Howard & Viola Davis, respectively) attempts to deal with the situation, and the ensuing investigation by the dogged detective assigned to the case (Jake Gyllenhaal). As I often say in these reviews, I don’t really want to get into much more than that, and that’s especially true for this film. DO NOT go looking for additional information about this movie if you plan on seeing it, because it would be criminal for the film’s secrets to be prematurely revealed. Suffice it to say some pretty dark, upsetting things transpire before the end credits roll. Director Denis Villeneuve (he of the Oscar-nominated foreign film INCENDIES) creates a stunningly taut mood for the film; it’s a tightly-wound coil of tension, and Villeneuve never eases up, piling on the sense of dread and unease, and ratcheting up the suspense to nearly unbearable levels at times. There are at least two sequences that are as “edge-of-your-seat” tense as anything I’ve seen in recent years, and are pitch perfect examples of suspense filmmaking, from the shot compositions, to the editing, to the musical score. Speaking of shot compositions, I’ve got to single out this movie’s director of photography, the great Roger Deakins, for his beautiful work. There’s nobody in the industry as dependable as Deakins; when you hire him, you know your film is going to look superb, and PRISONERS is not an exception. It’s gorgeously shot, taking a rain-soaked and snow-swept suburban/rural setting (which in lesser hands could have looked downright ugly) and lensing it in a truly atmospheric and textured way. It’s one of the best-looking movies of 2013 so far. The mystery plot of the story itself - the question of what happened to these girls - takes off in several different, seemingly unconnected directions, and it’s a real pleasure to watch as the mysteries get deeper, weirder, and more complex. On a purely narrative level, the script (by Aaron Guzikowski) is totally absorbing and compelling, and while it might sound like a cliche to say it, the plot really does keep you guessing. Even deep into the third act (well past the two-hour mark of this 148 minute film), I still had no idea exactly where things were going to lead. That is not to say the screenplay is perfect, however. If I had anything negative to say about it, it would be that it feels stuck between two different kinds of stories: the police procedural and the somewhat more flamboyant serial killer-ish thriller. Most all of Gyllenhaal’s material falls into the procedural vein; films like ZODIAC are certainly recalled as we watch his character struggle to put the pieces together. However, the collection of weirdos and creeps who come to make up the suspect list would be right at home in movies such as SEVEN, or even SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. They feel, frankly, unrealistic when looked at against the backdrop of the procedural elements. Luckily, director Villeneuve straddles this line as well as could be hoped, so it’s not that big of a deal. Also, the ultimate resolution of the mystery, while perfectly acceptable and enjoyable on a “movie logic” level (as a yarn, if you will), is ultimately completely preposterous and implausible if viewed through the kind of realistic prism most procedurals strive for. For some, this will be a major problem; for others, such as myself, it’s nothing that can’t be overlooked because the movie is so interesting and engrossing. The final pieces of the puzzle are the actors, and Villeneuve has assembled a pretty incredible cast to bring the story to life. Howard, Bello, and Davis deliver naturalistic, completely believable performances that really help to ground the anguish their families are undergoing, and even people like Paul Dano and Melissa Leo do a lot with characters that - on the page - could have seemed a bit flat. Dano, particularly, is on the receiving end of some of the story’s more brutal moments, and he sells them completely. All that being said, the film really belongs to Jackman and Gyllenhaal. For Jackman, this is certainly one of the more unique roles he’s tackled, and he’s great; his character is constantly on edge, seething with pent-up rage and frustration that are just waiting below the surface. It’s a demanding role, one requiring its actor to go to many different emotional areas, and Jackman pulls them all off. Gyllenhaal, at least on paper, seems to be a more one-dimensional character (the dedicated detective doing everything he can to crack the case), but he brings all kinds of little character ticks and unconventional choices to the part that really flesh out an inner life; it’s some of his finest work. Also, while the movie is almost entirely humorless, Gyllenhaal does have a few personal asides that supply a couple well-needed chuckles in what could have been an otherwise totally oppressive experience. PRISONERS is the kind of intelligent, mainstream, adult thriller that Hollywood used to make all the time - good scripts with interesting directors starring fine actors. Somewhere along the line, this type of film has grown more and more scarce, so when one does come along, it does feel like a pleasure to be able to revisit this sort of genre. It’s not a perfect film, but as a neat mystery and an atmospheric mood piece, it’s first class. 2 GUNS By Brenton Thom 2 GUNS is an action comedy starring Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg. The story of this action flick is similar to many other action movies - some guys get involved in something over their heads, there are explosions, people are killed, and there are more explosions. I’m just kidding. 2 GUNS is the story of Washington and Wahlberg robbing a bank after a drug deal gone wrong. Unbeknownst to Wahlberg, Washington is a DEA agent, undercover for 3 years, who plans to rob the bank of a big shot drug dealer to get him for money laundering. The twist is that Wahlberg works for Navy intelligence and was hired to take out Washington and use the money to fund covert operations. The story involves confusion and betrayal on many different levels. But don’t let this convoluted plot confuse you, this movie is anything but grand. Granted it's entertaining, but I found myself bored 3/4th the way through it. The movie reminded me of THE BIG LEBOWSKI and THE DEPARTED. There was a constant sense of “this person works for this person, and this person works for this person” type stuff going on. Constant double crosses and betrayal. The movie also has consistent trouble finding the proper tone. Part of it plays off like the trailers show it: a light action movie with comedy, similar to a Michael Bay flick, and it is that way to some extent; Wahlberg certainly brings the comedy, but it's also a dramatic movie with death/executions, back-stabbings, and brutal drug lords. In some ways it also reminded me of the drug movie SAVAGES. Washington carries this dramatic section of the movie. Now, I’m not knocking the performances, which are pretty good, as are the lighting, the music, and sound design. The cinematography did have me lost at some points, however. The way they have the camera positioned and certain angles had me confused, in terms of spacial awareness; I wasn’t sure which way things were moving or where I was at some points. Granted, this works for some movies where you are supposed to feel geographically lost like THE SHINING, but this isn’t that movie. This is a straight-up action movie. Other parts of the cinematography were good, like the lighting and movements, so this is really all nitpicky stuff. But if I’m picking at or paying attention to things like the lighting, we know there is something wrong. The story lost me. It all comes down to the characters. Now, I liked the characters and they were charismatic and fun at points, but it was just a bland story for me. It felt so clichéd, what with someone betraying another and someone else was working for some other higher power. In a way it was a watered down version of the more intense and constantly-escalating THE DEPARTED. On a side note, I think it’s interesting that the leading lady, Paula Patton (playing one of the agents that has Washington go undercover for the money and is his contact) has performed with Washington before - DÉJÀ VU. Coincidence? I think not. Maybe Denzel suggested they act together. Again, I’m getting off course. Back on the subject of the film. I think it’s clear that I didn’t enjoy this movie that much. Now, how would I rate it? Well, it was an okay action movie. People who are die-hard action flick fans could check it out. Those who like the performances of the leading men (or even fans of Bill Paxton, who has a fun supporting role) should check this film out. When it comes to story, however, it just felt bland and “done before.” If you like seeing that stuff on the screen, I say check it out in cinemas. Otherwise, wait until DVD or on TV. Sorry folks, but this film really didn’t do it that much for me. WE'RE THE MILLERS By Brenton Thom WE'RE THE MILLERS is a comedy starring Jennifer Aniston as Rose and Jason Sudeikis as David (oddly both actors were in the film HORRIBLE BOSSES). The story involves David, a local drug dealer, dealing dime bags. He gets robbed and owes money to a higher power (Ed Helms). David ends up being forced to smuggle drugs across the border, and to protect himself from being caught and going to prison, he hires his neighbor Rose, a stripper, his quirky neighbor Kenny (played by Will Poulter) to be his son and a homeless girl, Casey (played by Emma Roberts) to be his daughter. The basic story follows the shenanigans the “family” gets caught up in while trying to deliver the drugs on a deadline. Director Rawson Marshall Thurber brings the goods to this project. With very few films under his belt (the most well-known one being DODGEBALL), Thurber does a good job in terms of comedic timing and storytelling. Might I add it visually looks good in terms of the camera and lighting? It was well done. The story had good pacing and I cared for the characters... no matter how goofy they act. They feel like real people, caught up in an extraordinary situation. One of the comedic elements I noted in this film, as well in Thurber's previous work, is the excessive and over-exaggerated scenarios that blow out of proportion. For example, there's a scene when the family is about to cross the border back into the U.S.; the van in front of them is pulled over, and this Willie Nelson-looking character gets caught with a small, half-burnt “roach.” A little joint, if you don’t know the lingo. The border patrol shouts “JOINT!!” Immediately the man is jumped, beaten by guards with clubs, and attacked by dogs. So while the family has an RV full of drugs, they watch with worry as this man is almost beaten to death over a little joint. What’ll happen to them?! Those types of things are what make up the movie. There also those little moments where the characters break the fourth wall and nod to the audience, realizing the situations they are in are too extreme to be even real. There's also plenty of dirty humor that deals with sexuality and miscommunication. Everything builds up and has great comedic timing. With various actors from the SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE crew, the players do a good job bringing the comic gold. Be sure to stay for some of the credits. Immediately after the film, there are outtakes from the movie, and not those corny outtakes you might see in PG films, either. For being a behind-the-scenes guy, it’s neat to see alternate takes that are equally funny, and how actors act and change dialogue to make something funny. Of course, the elements being too funny, the actors can’t hold their composure so they crack and laugh. It’s a lot of fun. I haven’t laughed this hard in a while. I also haven’t squirmed and felt this awkward in a while. It was a good time. People might argue the humor is too crude or lewd, but it’s an R-rated film. What are you expecting? There are plenty of sex jokes and references and occurrences (even involving incest and swinging!). This film is a barrel of laughs and is well worth the movie ticket price and great to see with a crowd or even a group of friends. THE WORLD'S END By Brenton Thom THE WORLD'S END is the third installment of the “Cornetto Trilogy.” If you don't know what that is, in plain English terms, it’s the third film in the loose trilogy that compliments SHAUN OF THE DEAD and HOT FUZZ. All three films are made by the comedy trio of Edgar Wright (director and co-writer), Simon Pegg (actor and co-writer), and Nick Frost (actor). The story follows Gary King (Pegg), an alcoholic who sets on a mission to finish a pub crawl from his youth - "The Golden Mile" of 12 pubs - with his old friends, one being Andy (Frost). As each of the gang has grown up and has lives of their own, it is clear to all of them that Gary has not grown up at all; he's more determined to finish and drink at all the pubs than the rest of the gang. To make matters worse, they quickly discover their old home town is secretly being invaded by an alien race. That's the the story in a nutshell. There is more to it than I'm revealing, but I don't want to give any spoilers. Comparing this movie to SHAUN... and HOT FUZZ wouldn't be fair, because they are their own movies and parody their respective genres in their own ways. But of the three films, this one is definitely the darkest, and by darkest, I don't mean in terms of lighting (although a majority of this movie does take place at night, so you could argue it is, in fact, literally the darkest). What I mean by darkest is in terms of subject matter. While there are plenty of jokes, a fast-pace, wit, humor, and quick dialogue, the film does deal with some serious issues. Our main character Gary King is an alcoholic and continues to drink just to re-live the "glory days" of his youth. Alcoholism is touched upon as Andy refuses to drink because he gave it up. Director Edgar Wright should be given praise for his style. Both the visuals and audio are superb. Like all of his movies, he creates a great blend of score music and source music that reflects the film and the era that's being evoked. Also touching on the visual style, Wright has his signature camera movements and sped-up actions to emphasize particular moments or show a passage of time. His other signature technique - and I guess story-telling hallmark - is to have his characters caught up in something they don't fully understand. There are always perfectly timed walking beats and head movements and all these eyes looking you, and you recognize something strange is going on, but you don't know exactly what. You first see this in SHAUN... with everyone moving in sync with each other. It carries over to THE WORLD'S END. That, I think, is one thing Edgar Wright never gets praised enough for: his visuals and sound designs in his films. They are seamless and are perfectly fitted into each of his films. This film was very similar in style to Wright's past films, but is also a great standalone film in the sci-fi parody genre. INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL are two films that are clearly an influence on this one. If you are a fan of sci-fi movies, you will see references and homages to these (and other) past films. I'd recommend this movie to anybody over the age of 18. I've always been a fan of British humor and this trio has failed to let me down in both humor and story. RED 2 by Brenton Thom RED 2 is the sequel the film RED (2010), which is an acronym for “Retired Extremely Dangerous.” The film stars Bruce Willis as Frank Moses, Mary-Louise Parker as his girlfriend, Sarah Ross, and John Malkovich as Marvin. There are also roles for Catherine Zeta-Jones as a Russian, Helen Mirren as the British assassin, Victoria (also from the previous film), Lee Byung-huh as a private hit man, and Sir Anthony Hopkins as a kooky scientist, Bailey. To top it all off, we also have Brian Cox reprising his role from the first film, too. The movie starts out as Bruce Willis (and who really cares what the character names are, it's the Bruce and other actors) and Mary-Louise are shopping at a store (in a snapshot of their “normal” lives), and they are surprised by Malkovich showing up telling Bruce, the government needs him again. So does Mary-Louise. They both need action in their lives. So Bruce is at it once again, this time Mary-Louise is along for the ride and wanting to get her hands dirty. In some ways, this movie reminds me of THE WHOLE NINE YARDS. It’s an action comedy with a bunch of big players but a kind of bland story. Basically the plot is about a secret bomb was discovered by some leaked files on the internet and the group has to break out the very person who created the bomb (Anthony Hopkins, who did a marvelous job playing a scientist locked up for 32 years). At the same time there's a hit put out on Bruce Willis by another contract killer (Lee Byung-huh) and Helen Mirren. So Bruce, Mary-Louise, and Malkovich are on the run from these killers, while trying to find the scientist and find the bomb before anyone else does. The movie has an over-the-top action feel to it; people are flying and crashing, there are explosions and Bruce walks away with out scratches. A very comic book feel. And they try to emphasize that, too, with comic book-y stills and transitions in the film. Which I guess makes sense, as the movies are based off the comics/graphic novel of the same name. I wish I could give more insight into this flick. I haven’t seen the first one or even read any of the comics, but overall the movie was fun and had its moments. Would I recommend this movie to others? Maybe if you are looking for something to do. I could wait until it comes out on DVD versus paying for the movie theater ticket, but I enjoyed it, all things considered. R.I.P.D. by Brenton Thom R.I.P.D. - The Rest In Peace Department - is a secret organization that rounds up and "arrests" dead souls that refuse to go to judgment. Upon seeing the trailer for this, my first thought was that this movie was going to basically be MEN IN BLACK, but with spirits and the afterlife instead of aliens. I assumed that Jeff Bridges' character, Roy, would be "training" a partner to replace him so he could go into the afterlife (just as Tommy Lee Jones' character did in MIB). Boy was I wrong. And I'm glad for it; the story was original. Ryan Remolds as Nick and Roy team up in the afterlife to take out the deados - dead soles that refuse to leave the living world and pass over from after life to judgment – leading to a big climax and world-ending scenario. Mary-Louise Parker is in the flick, too. She plays the Proctor, the “police-chief” of the afterlife, similar to Rip Torn as the head honcho in MIB. If this movie has any big similarities, the climax would be similar to TRANSFORMERS 3 and THE AVENGERS with the other world trying to pass into our world and raise "hell." Oh, did I forget to mention Kevin Bacon is in this movie? That should be selling you to see this movie, too, and he does a good job too. He plays Nick’s police partner, Hayes. My first thought of Kevin Bacon in this movie comes to two other movies. STIR OF ECHOES and X-MEN FIRST CLASS. SPOILER ALERT: It's not really a surprise that Bacon becomes a villain. But he's not the villain that we follow throughout the whole movie; he actually has a smaller role and places a small part in a bigger scheme. END SPOILERS. Sorry about that, but I'd like to talk about Kevin Bacon's performance without spoiling anything. Let's just say this: they make use of his talents and stunning looks. A nod to his cameo in the beginning of PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES. The director, Robert Schwentke, does a good job in visually telling a story. The one thing I thought of right off the bat was the great cinematography and camera movement. My first thought was that the director took a page from action director Michael Bay's playbook. The camera movement is fluid and helps create the atmosphere and other "world" in this movie. Jeff Bridges does a fun job playing his character. I haven't see Bridges have fun with a character like this since THE VANISHING. Granted he played a psychopath in that flick, but the accent alone was funny. Bridges feels like a character back from that time. If I could bridge MIB and RIPD together: Ryan Reynolds was the Tommy Lee Jones character and Jeff Bridges is the Rip Torn and Will Smith character. A character that always has some wise cracking witty to say. One thing I noticed in the movie was how they poked fun of and objectified women. Jeff Bridges' human world cover is a well curved woman with large proportions, and the people, mainly men, would ogle her. But this isn't a thesis/sociological study. This is a review of a movie and whether the audiences should watch it. Overall I enjoyed the flick and would recommend this movie to people of all kinds. It was a light comedy with a touch of drama for people to connect with, but not a die-hard drama or comedy. It was a nice blend. A perfect movie to watch on a weekend or hang out with family or friends. Check it out. Now...or forever rest in pieces... By Brett Blake The home invasion genre is, relatively speaking, an old one. Straw Dogs, Funny Games, The Strangers, even elements of Night of the Living Dead and Signs (heck, Home Alone is basically a home invasion story) all bear the hallmarks of the genre: a group of people - usually in an isolated place - are besieged by external forces, be they serial killers, aliens, or zombies. Some of these movies (the above-mentioned ones, for example) are good, but most are, frankly, bad. You’re Next falls squarely into the “good, even great” category. It’s an energetic, funny, creepy genre exercise that - while it doesn’t reinvent any wheels - feels fresh and exciting in an age of standard (read: BORING!) horror movies. Directed by Adam Wingard from a screenplay by Simon Barrett, You’re Next tells the story of brothers and sisters (and their significant others) returning home to celebrate their parents’ anniversary at the family’s secluded mansion. They soon discover that they’re being stalked by a group of dangerous killers, then death and bloodshed ensue. There’s a bit more to it than that, but part of the pleasure of the film is watching how certain elements of the plot unfold, so I’m not really going to say anything more about the nuts and bolts. That’s not to give the impression that the movie is hiding some big, left-field twist, because it isn’t (well, not really, anyway...), but I’d still say the less you know about the story going in, the better the viewing experience will be. On a technical level, Wingard does a tremendous job of orchestrating the mayhem that transpires. The isolated family home is well-realized and even better utilized; there’s enough of a sense of geography to the location to aid in building the tension and suspense, and the creepy, unsettling feeling of being alone with no help nearby is a key element of the movie’s effectiveness. This is complimented by some moody cinematography, and forceful, detailed sound and music design, which seem to build off each other in a neat way. All of the tech specs are first-rate, even despite the relative low budget of the production. What really sets the movie apart from most stories in this genre is its sense of humor, which is considerable. There are sequences in this film that are masterful blends of horror and humor, being both frightening/shocking and incredibly funny. It’s a tough balancing act that most “horror-movies-that-are-trying-to-be-funny” never really pull off; go too far in either direction (fear or humor), and neither will be effective. You’re Next does pull this off, and it’s kind of amazing that, in the middle of scenes of true suspense, the script will throw out a fully laugh-out-loud line of dialogue that manages to not take away from the effectiveness of the scares. In a similar vein, the characters we are presented with are legitimately interesting and fun; the family dynamics at play provide some great fodder for both humor and conflict, and there are no broad caricatures in sight (well, maybe save for one, but there’s an incredible pay-off to that, so I’ll let it slide). The actors all do a great job with their roles, but none leave as strong an impression as Sharni Vinson, who plays Erin, our de facto lead character. Without getting too specific, she’s awesome; a strong, textured heroine that puts most female horror characters to shame. She’s the most compelling female lead this genre’s seen since… well, I don’t know when, exactly. Maybe we’d have to go all the way back to Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley from Alien. Also, from a purely visceral standpoint, the violence is well-handled. At times it feels very realistic, while at other times it feels quite over-the-top, and these styles are utilized to punctuate either moments of humor or moments of fright. And as a horror fan, I’ve gotta say: there are some pretty memorable kills in here, and I think fans of the genre will be more than satisfied with the carnage. There are some nitpicks, of course, and most of these relate to the ultimate revelation of what, exactly, is going on with the invaders doing the killing; the movie provides pretty explicit motivations where a sense of mystery might have been scarier. There’s a “fear of the unknown” element that disappears from the story at a certain point that, in my opinion, could have been sustained a little while longer with some minor re-arranging of scenes at the scripting stage. All things told, however, I can’t overstate just how much of a fun experience the film is. So many horror movies feel the need to be morose or overbearingly intense (like they're compelled to prove how frightening or EXTREME! they are, or something), and while there’s certainly a place for that, we don’t get very many “fun” horror movies anymore, so You’re Next is very welcome in that regard. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|