I watch movies every week and then write down my thoughts. Read my previous reviews!
My rating is simple, Watch It, It Depends, Skip it.
 |
| Despicable Me 2 - An unnecessary sequel. |
Buy Despicable Me 2
Written by: Cinco Paul, Ken Daurio
Directed by: Pierre Coffin, Chris Renaud
Starring: Steve Carell, Kristen Wiig, Benjamin Bratt
Rated: PG
Plot:
The Anti-Villain league recruits Gru to investigate a missing lab.
Verdict:
This is a tired sequel. Everything that made the original great, this one trades in to make a more traditional story. It's not bad, it's just a boring concept punctuated by a few clever plot points.
It depends.
Review:
The first one was unique because a super villain was the hero. This one reverts back to a typical guy trying to save the world. While it pairs him with an oddball side kick, this still feels unoriginal. Why is Gru so bland? The concept is the typical formula which betrays the first film. Gru isn't a maniacal bad guy in this.
The humor from the first is still present. An early scene has two minions hanging from the back of the car. Their plight becomes exponentially sillier from one skidding on his heels to hang gliding behind the car. The progression translate to screen wonderfully.
One of Gru's foes is Mr. Macho. This character supposedly died while riding a shark strapped with TNT into a volcano, because it's the most macho way to die. It'd ludicrous and inventive, but we only get glimpses of the creativity that pervaded the first film.
Why did this move revert to a typical formula instead of just rehashing the first movie? This could have been so much more intriguing if Gru was the mastermind in this movie. He would just need a good reason for it. In this movie, Gru's foe just wants to accomplish world domination with the use of minions. That's it.
While the minions often steal scenes, Minions (2015) (read my review) proves that less is more and that they can't carry an entire movie.
Saving the day involves lots of projectile jelly and jam. It's a clever idea, in an unoriginal movie.
 |
| Lethal Weapon II - Solid sequel and addition to the action movie genre. |
Watch Lethal Weapon 2 on Netflix
Buy Lethal Weapon 2
Written by: Jeffrey Boam (screenplay), Shane Black & Warren Murphy (story), Shane Black (characters)
Directed by: Richard Donner
Starring: Mel Gibson, Danny Glover, Joe Pesci
Rated: R
Plot:
Murtaugh and Riggs are back tracking criminals hiding behind diplomatic immunity.
Verdict:
Lethal Weapon 2 is more action and less story than the first movie, but that's not a bad thing. This is a classic. It manages to stand alone while still being a compliment to the original. Like most sequels the explosions are larger and the writing a little more clumsy, but these characters maintain their chemistry and draw you in.
Watch it.
Review:
This one, compared to the original, is heavy on action and comedy, relying on the fact that we know these characters. Shane Black's original script was rejected for being too dark and bloody despite rave reviews from those in the industry. The studio wanted more comedy, and Black eventually quit.
Murtaugh is the conservative family man and Riggs is the loose cannon.
This is more of an Odd Couple comedy action movie. Both leads are less nuanced, but their chemistry is just as good. Murtaugh and Riggs share a moment with one of them on the toilet, and while the emotion is there it's just a bit sillier and less dark than the first one. That also helps make this more fun. That's what this movie sets out to do and it accomplishes that.
The writing is uneven, with a Chekhov's gun and skill trope coming into play later. This contains less detective work and more contrived coincidences so that we can get to the next action set piece.
It starts with an action packed opening. Murtaugh and Riggs are in pursuit of a suspect, with Murtaugh driving his brand new station wagon and not wanting to exceed the speed limit. Of course Riggs gets to drive and goes crazy.
After the destruction from the car chase, Murtaugh and Riggs are assigned to protect a witness who just so happened to work for the same criminals related to the opening car chase. They uncover the conspiracy through no real detective work and Riggs turns into James Bond, wooing a woman working for the enemy. This just seemed strange. Of course, this was revealed to be a ruse to make the movie emotionally manipulative later.
This is a great action movie. If you like action over story, this improves the original. The ending is over the top and breaks suspension of disbelief. How many times can someone be shot and still live?
 |
| Back to the Future II - A little bit of future, a lot of the original. |
Watch Back to the Future II on Netflix
Buy Back to the Future II
Written by: Robert Zemeckis & Bob Gale (characters), Robert Zemeckis & Bob Gale (story), Bob Gale(screenplay)
Directed by: Robert Zemeckis
Starring: Michael J. Fox, Christopher Lloyd, Lea Thompson, Thomas F. Wilson, Elizabeth Shue
Rated: PG
Plot:
Marty travels to 2015 and must go back to 1955 to fix the future... again.
Verdict:
This trades in on the nostalgia from the first movie. It rehashes whole scenes from the original, with the best part being the brief "future 2015." It's unoriginal compared to the first movie. It's half of an idea without a conclusion. It feels rushed, lacking the subtle easter eggs the first one included. The original Back to the Future (1985) deftly weaves multiple story lines while remaining clever and fun, but this feels like a clumsy remake.
It depends.
Review:
Few movies make it this explicit that you need to watch the first one. This picks up with the final scene of the first movie, but the scene was re-shot with Elisabeth Shue instead of Claudia Wells who did not reprise her role as Marty's girlfriend. Obviously the writers regret having Marty's girlfriend at the end of the first movie. She's rendered unconscious early on basically discarded so she won't get in the way.
Crispin Glover did not reprise his role as Marty's dad. Due to a contract dispute Glover's role was greatly reduced and sole new scene is shot with a look-a-like. Glover stated his pay was half of Lea Thompson's and Thomas F. Wilson's due to his criticisms on the original's ending. Glover did successfully sue Zemeckis and Gale over the re-use of his scenes from the first movie.
The only way to one up going to the past is going to the future. We see an imagined 2015 briefly, but the actual 2015 brought no flying cars, hover boards, or self drying jackets.
As impressed as I was upon re-watching the first Back to the Future, (read my review) I was just as disappointed in this. It's hard to match the first, but this is a clip show of the first. The arc in this is typical, starting with Marty wanting to make a quick dollar with information from the future. The one redeeming quality is the depiction of the future.
The future scenes take queues from the first movie, re imagining the 1955 diner scene and Marty's escape from the original on a skateboard, but this time with a hover board and a retro '85 diner theme. Even grandpa Bif remarks that the sequence "seems familiar." While the future is a fun look at what could have been, and now didn't pan out, it just hides the lack of an original story. This movie trades in subtle humor and clever ideas for over the top slapstick humor.
We even get a reference to Midnight Cowboy (1969), when Marty hits the hood of a car, stating "I'm walking here." Was that needed?
After seeing the future we go back to the past. Grandpa Bif somehow drives the Delorean back to 1955, meets himself without ripping a hole in the space time continuum, and creates a dystopian future ruled by Bif. Marty's girlfriend is rendered unconscious by meeting herself, yet it doesn't faze Bif. The logical answer is that the movie didn't want to include Jennifer.
The movie dodges the obvious paradoxes with Doc Brown mentioning alternate realities. Marty and Doc Brown have to go to 1955 to fix the future.
This doesn't just take queues from 1955, it pulls numerous clips from the first film. When you do it right the first time, there is no need to change it. So why even make this movie with so few new ideas unless it's just for the money?
This really sets up the third with Marty watching a Clint Eastwood movie that will be later referenced in the third film. Part II and Part III were shot back to back and released a year apart.
This isn't a bad movie, it's just such a step down from the first. It's literally a shadow of the first movie, trading big on nostalgia and the love the first movie generated. The big finish for this movie reuses the big finish from the first. It's a conclusion that's devoid of emotion. We get a preview for the third movie, because this one just wants our money and our money in the future.
 |
| Down in the Valley - Just playing a role in life, then again aren't we wall. |
Buy Down in the Valley
Written by: David Jacobson
Directed by: David Jacobson
Starring: Edward Norton, Evan Rachel Wood, David Morse, Rory Culkin, Bruce Dern
Rated: R
Plot:
A man who may or may not be a cowboy begins dating a rebellious teen.
Verdict:
Ed Norton does a great job with a character study about Harlan, a cowboy in California. This is a subdued movie where we wonder if he is living a fantasy or is he really a cowboy? Harlan's story just doesn't add up as we learn more about him. It's a great character played by a great actor.
Watch it.
Review:
I've wanted to see this for a while, being an Ed Norton fan. Norton always provides a great performance, and this is no different.
As the story progressed, I tried to figure out if Harlan (Ed Norton) is delusional or simple. He claims to be a cowboy, wearing boots and a hat, but he works at a gas station. We see him playing guns in his apartment with his dual revolvers, ducking around doors and behind chairs. Is he exceedingly polite to offset his shortcomings or has he turned his life into a fantasy?
He meets Tobe (Evan Rachel Wood) and quits his job on the spot to join her on a beach trip. She falls for him almost immediately, and her father, Wade (David Morse), doesn't approve. Wade is depicted as a bad guy, at least through Tobe's perspective, but he's just a single father trying to cope with a rebellious daughter. Despite Harlan being exceedingly polite and respectful, Wade knows there is something off about him. He's the only one that can see through Harlan.
The harder Wade pushes Tobe away from Harlan, the more she wants to be with him. Tobe and Harlan go horseback riding, and despite Harlan's claim to know the horse's owner, it seems like a lie. We see Harlan write a letter to somebody, and he spins the truth just a bit.
Is Harlan fixated on Tobe because she's one of the few people that didn't laugh him off? All of her friends laughed at Harlan because he is an oddity. He claims to be a cowboy, he has a weird accent, and he's exceedingly polite. That's just not typical in California.
Harlan wants to be somebody, and it begins to seem that he will do something crazy to prove it. He's so far into this fantasy that even Tobe's surprise turns to horror when he urges her to run away with him.
I'm not sure if Harlan was a predator waiting for the right prey, someone to show interest and give him a window to worm his way into their life, or if life is just a delusion and he doesn't see reality clearly. It's never quite clear, and you can argue either way. Harlan isn't as simple as he initially seemed and his situation escalates towards the end.
It's a cautionary tale. Don't believe the people telling you what you want to hear, and realize that the person opposing you may have your best interests in mind. Harlan is a tragic figure, debatable, just trying to cope with life. It's easier to live a delusional fantasy than to face reality.
 |
| Ordet - Faith and family. |
Buy Ordet
Written by: Kaj Munk (play)
Directed by: Carl Theodor Dreyer
Starring: Henrik Malberg, Emil Hass Christensen, Preben Lerdorff Rye
Rated: --
Plot:
An examination of faith through a father and his three sons.
Verdict:
Ordet is moving look at faith of all kinds, from the zealous, the scientific, the apathetic, and the perceived crazy.
With so many diverse characters, you'll find more than one with which you identify. While the movie focuses on Christianity, it's also about life and how you approach belief in the world. Tragedy and triumph go hand in hand.
Watch it.
Review:
Ordet, the word. is widely regarded as a masterpiece. It's a religious film, though not preachy, that examines different levels of faith. This is almost a parable. Which character are you? While it focuses on Christianity, it can be applied globally to belief at large.
This is an older film in black and white. It lacks the slick editing of modern films, but the story and the questions generated are universal and overcome the datedness.
Morten is the patriarch of the farm with three sons. Johannes studied to be a reverend, but went crazy and now thinks he's a prophet. He preaches outside to no one. Morten prayed for his wits to come back to no avail. He believes his prayers weren't answered because he didn't truly believe they would be. Johannes rebukes everyone stating, "People believe in the dead Christ, but not the living." It's worth paying attention to how people treat Johannes. Many just dismiss him.
Anders is in love with Anne, but her family follows a more strict denomination, with Morten forbidding the marriage due to the difference. That is until Anne's father rejects Anders because of his faith. Then Morten demands the marriage occur. Both men want the other to convert, yet neither is willing to give an inch. Morten isn't willing to mix with a lesser denomination, until he realizes the tailor considers Morten's denomination less. Then it becomes a pride issue. Morten feels the need to manipulate the situation. Anders is content to do nothing on the sidelines.
Mikkel is Morten's oldest son, married to Inger. Inger is the only one willing to stand up to Morten and tell him about Anders's plans. She tells Morten it's only out of pride that he won't consent to the marriage. She tells Morten prayers are answered all the time, just quietly so as not to make a fuss. She is the most faithful. Despite Mikkel not believing, she has faith that since he is a good person he will realize the importance of faith.
What do you truly believe? This is the question asked of each character. Morten has a limit to his belief. Mikkel is a good person but doesn't have time for religion. Johannes seems to believe too much and is regarded as crazy. Even the local reverend states miracles can't happen as they would break natural laws. Jesus was a special circumstance. The only person that believes Johannes is a prophet is his niece, Mikkel's daughter.
Certainty, faith, and miracles unite or separate us. Even those with faith can't accept or outright ignore miracles. A tragedy pushes Mikkel farther from belief but causes Morten to become more faithful.
Johannes, who had run off, returns, yet he is no longer wild eyed. He states that no one ever asked God to undo the death. He criticizes their faith and tells them all they had to do was pray, but no one believed prayer would work.
This does what few religious movies can. It makes it's point without having to spoon feed us the message. It keeps the topics broad enough that this doesn't have to pertain to just one denomination or even religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment