Archive for July, 2003

Tomb Raider The Cradle of Life

A Film Review By The Mike

Rating:RATED PG-13 for violence and lots of pointy things under tight things
Starring: Angelina Jolie, Gerard Butler
Directed By: Jan De Bont

Final Grade:

There haven’t been a lot of times that I’ve seen a previously created character brought to the screen that I agreed with the casting of. Usually filmmakers make uninspired star choices that don’t fit the previously existing character (i.e. – Jim Carrey as The Grinch, J-Lo as Karen Sisco (a blond in the novel) in Out of Sight recently — though the trend traces all the way back to Boris Karloff as Frankenstein). A lot of these trades work out (i.e. – Karloff’s Frankenstein was extremely effective on the big screen, although Robert DeNiro’s creature in the 1994 version is the best representation of the book’s monster…but by far not the best film about him). I will say however, that Angelina Jolie as Tomb Raider heroine Lara Croft is a rarity, an absolutely brilliant choice that represents the established character perfectly.

Granted, it’s a little easier to represent a video game heroine than a heroine of the written word or of a precious film. Regardless, watching Angelina as Lara reflects the spirit and look of the animated character perfectly, and the films around her seem like the games they’re based off of. Despite this the first film failed, due to too much story and too wild of direction. Now, with The Cradle of Life, the vision of Lara Croft that the games created is fully realized in a film that knows its place better than its predecessor did. It doesn’t try to be too complicated, witty, or stylish. Director Jan De Bont sets out to make a fun action film, and does so with decent results.

There’s a lot to dislike about this film, most notably the plot development. Early scenes seem to be forcing things down our throats, with a word for word description of what is happening in each scene coming from the mouths of the characters in it. Little time is wasted on things like character development, however. Most of the characters we meet are returning from the original, so the lack of detail is allowed. The biggest new addition, Croft’s male partner turned imprison mercenary (Butler) is touched upon a lot (more force-fed plot details), but the villain, played by Ciaran Hinds (The Sum of All Fears, Road to Perdition) is simply introduced and set free. Besides the obligatory scene where he kills a traitor as an example to others not to screw with him, his character is never really given depth, except that he’s the bad guy.

Of course, none of that really matters to the filmmakers, as they simply set out to make a film that looked great and functioned well. They succeed quite greatly in that aspect. The action scenes are very well done, the stunts look cool, and the settings look excellent. Of course, it’s hard to make a film look bad when it’s two hours of a busty babe that totes a pair of pistols.

That would be Jolie, whose performance is the basis of the film. She does what she’s supposed to, looks great, and doesn’t do anything stupid that would mess with the film’s style. Too many stars these days throw in little tricks that don’t fit their character, but Jolie simply makes herself the character, instead of making the character herself.

The film also boasts a pleasant addition in the casting of Gerard Butler as Croft’s male equivalent. The Scottish-born big man has a spectacular screen presence and plays the role of the cocky hero quite well. Jolie and Butler have great on-screen chemistry, and their relationship really works well. I can’t wait to see more of Butler, who’s next slated to star in the Michael Crichton flick Timeline, and then will headline a musical adaptation of The Phantom of the Opera in 2004. I’m drooling at the thought of it.

The Cradle of Life is not a high quality film in any shape or form, but it suffices as a time-passing, popcorn action flick. If you want a fun film, you could do a lot better with some recent releases, but you could do a lot worse as well. It’s not as well crafted as something like The Italian Job, but it’s not as pointless and showy as something like Charlie’s Angels. It’s simply a middle of the pack ride that will keep you entertained and leave your mind soon after. At the very least, it’s not a pointles T & A festival like the first film, which it greatly overshadows, and shows off a lot of Jolie and the future-star Butler’s “talents”, which almost make the film very enjoyable.

Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over

A Film Review By Jason L. King

Rating: Rated PG for action sequences and peril.
Starring: Sly Stallone, Daryl Sabara, Alexa Vega
Directed By:Robert Rodriguez

Final Grade:

In a world filled with digital technology that the average moviegoer can’t begin to comprehend, and a world where box offices are dominated by movies that are special effects and no longer a plot, it is a surprise and a joy to find a film that can be both a visual treat as well as a enjoyable movie experience. I was lucky enough to get the chance to see a film such as that this weekend.

Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over opened this week, the 3rd film in a series of Spy Kids movies that have brought people back to the box offices year after year. The series is basically James Bond for little kids; an action packed spy movie, where a brother and sister team is our heroic duo. They are part of a family of spies working for the OSS, a secret organization that fights the world’s most evil villains. This film is no different than its predecessors, as our mini spies this time fight an evil computer programmer named “The Toymaker” who plans to enslave all the children of the world by brainwashing them with his newest video game. It is up to our micro sized heroes to stop the Toymaker by entering the “world of the game” and shut it down, before it goes online for the entire world.

The nice thing about this flick is that Director Robert Rodriguez has a special power, and is able to bring back everyone, and I do mean everyone from the previous two films at least for a few minute cameo shots if nothing else. Although the film instead chooses to focus on the real heroes, the kids, instead of introducing a large colorful cast of characters into the mix.

Daryl Sabara does a great job and you can almost tell that his acting ability has matured from the first film. However his performance is easily overshadowed by that of Sylvester Stallone who plays the Toymaker. I don’t know about you guys but up until this film, I never thought of Stallone as a computer programmer. But amazingly enough the role works well for him. Stallone as a demented Toymaker who wants to dominate the world is both humorous because it is Stallone, and just plain fun, because of the character. If nothing else any fan of Stallone should be able to get a kick out of his performance, which is far from his trademark Rocky or Rambo of the past. And if nothing else, the cameo by George Clooney (and the film’s outtakes at the end) make the flick worth a few good laughs.

Sadly enough the one thing that really let the film down was Rodriguez choice of going 3-D. Although the idea was a blast from the past, and I am sure many of the kids of this generation don’t remember the days of goofy looking 3-D glasses, and the grey scale feel of 3-D movies, for those of us who have outgrown that stage of our lives, the 3-D is almost annoying. It downgrades the color of the movie, which is something all the Spy Kids films have always done a great job with. Never the less it is fun to see something return to it’s roots and go back to the old elements of 3-D in a world of computer technology. Like I said, the kids of this generation don’t remember those movies, so to them this new experience of things flying out of the screen at them makes for a really fun movie experience.

Our plot is nothing great either, it’s a little kid trapped in a video game who is trying to beat it before the Toymaker creates havoc on the entire world. Its plot is about as bad as a James Bond flick, nothing shy of pointless action scenes, and cool gadgets. In fact the only thing this film doesn’t have that a bond flick does have is sexual innuendoes. (But then again, would you really want those in a kiddie flick?)

In the end though Rodriguez’s newest flick turns out to be a success. Filled with fun and enjoyment for the little ones, Spy kids 3-D does exactly what it is supposed to do for its intended audience. It aims to entertain and does that fairly well. It follows perfectly in suit with the Previous 2 films and make for an enjoyable family day at the movies. And for those of us, who just want to kick back, have some fun and relieve our childhood days of 3-D and laugh at some fun cameos, well this little flick just might be up your alley too.

Seabiscuit

A Film Review By The Mike

Rating:RATED PG-13 for mild swearing, violence, and sexuality
Starring: Tobey Maguire, Jeff Bridges, Chris Cooper, Elizabeth Banks
Directed By: Gary Ross

Final Grade:

Hollywood doesn’t seem to churn out films like they used to. But I’ve still believed that that Hollywood magic is still alive, that the studios will manage to produce an old-fashioned classic film that will stand the test of time. They’ve tried greatly over the last year, with disappointing results from films like Gangs of New York, Chicago, and Road to Perdition. Well, the wait is over, and Hollywood has struck gold again with Seabiscuit, the best film yet this year.

Let me get something out of the way now. We all know what has been said prior to this film’s release. Seabiscuit isn’t a film that’s going to surprise you with a slick plot turn. It’s not filled to the brim with catchy dialogue. It’s a film about horse racing, for crying out loud! I’ve heard many disregard the film after only seeing its trailer, usually saying things like they “saw it all in the trailer”, “can’t imagine sitting through a movie about horse racing” or “have seen the actors play that character a dozen times”. It’s definitely not an overly original premise.

Then again, Seabiscuit did surprise me with a plot turn. It did have great dialogue, and more importantly characters that we identify with enough to care for what they’re saying. The story’s based on truth, but – unlike most films that say this – it really does feel true. Even I was skeptical, and agreed with a lot of the complaints in the previous paragraph. But, just like all the others who said those things, I was wrong. Seabiscuit is a film that proves the cynical filmgoer wrong easily.

The film is great in every aspect. For starters, it looks absolutely gorgeous in every shot. Every setting is perfectly drawn up, and the film captures a slice of Americana perfectly at all times. The cinematography is amazing, along with the direction, the editing, the sound…everything is technically amazing, without having to rely on gimmicks and effects.

The casting also couldn’t have been better. Tobey Maguire is perfect as the young jockey, while the aged duo of Bridges and Cooper each give performances that are worth the price of admission. Coming off a well-deserved Oscar win, Cooper gives another Oscar worthy performance, but Bridges outshines him, and I’d bet will be in the running for the award come next February. This trio of stars makes the film live and breathe, but they also get some great support. Elizabeth Banks isn’t famous yet, although some may recognize her from Catch Me If You Can, and her bit appearance in last summer’s Spider-Man. She’s set for a bigger role in that film’s sequel, and after seeing her work here I’m sure she’s destined for great things. A bigger surprise was real-life jockey Gary Stevens as Maguire’s jockey friend/opponent. He doesn’t steal the show, but for someone who’s not really an actor it’s an excellent performance. The film’s best performance might be from the always great William H. Macy, in a comical and brilliant turn as the radio announcer following Seabiscuit’s story. I didn’t look up the horses involved in the film, but they pulled off their roles as horses so well that I couldn’t tell that they were acting. We’ve definitely found the front runners for the Best Performance by a Horse in a Lead Role Oscar category.

Seabiscuit is inspired by a true story, which was then written into a book by Laura Hillenbrand. I don’t know how much of the film is actually true, but I’d like to dream that everything in it is accurate. Interviews with the author that I’ve read say that the film was exactly as she thought it should be and more, another Hollywood rarity.

I can’t think of anything I didn’t like about Seabiscuit. It’s the kind of life-affirming testament to the human spirit that provides a smile to the viewer in every moment. I was truly enamored by every shot, every line, and every sound that the film contained, despite my early reservations. I expected a soggy drama that would be soon forgotten, but what I got was a film that will live in my mind forever as one of the feel-good films of all-time and that should be remembered in most categories come Oscar time (Although I’m sure the Academy will screw it up, they always do). If you’re looking for a chance to get away and to be amazed for a couple of hours, head to the theaters and check out Seabiscuit. It’s just what you’re needing.

Bad Boys 2

A Film Review By The Mike

Rating:RATED R for Lots of Violence, Blood, Sexuality, Language, and Cadavers 
Starring: Will Smith, Martin Lawrence, Joe Pantoliano, Gabrielle Union, Dan Marino 
Directed By: Michael Bay 

Final Grade: 

What was I to think upon entering the theater for Bad Boys II? I’m one of the original film’s biggest fans, and for my money I’d never seen a better action partner pairing than Smith and Lawrence in that film. Bad Boys was the springboard for Jerry Bruckheimer’s slew of 90’s action epics, most notably launching him and Director Michael Bay into The Rock, which is for my money the best Action film ever made. But now, after allowing 8 years to pass and making two blockbusters – the first of which was the lackluster Armageddon, the second being the horrible Pearl Harbor – Bay is back at the helm of his breakout material. But could he and Bruckheimer make it work again? I had doubts.

With Smith and Lawrence in the fold, it looks like Bay has put his romance epic penchance to bed (at least for now) and decided to give us what he does best. Bad Boys II is a sweeping action spectacle, a film that moves so fast that it gives us whiplash. The film runs for nearly two and a half hours, but it’s two and a half hours of non-stop thrills and laughs. It looks good, sounds good, and feels good; despite its over-violent nature.

The film opens with Smith’s Mike Lowery and Lawrence’s Marcus Burnett back together, working undercover on the Miami PD’s “Tactical Narcotics Team”. In the opening sequence (and in the trailer) it’s explained that, since the events of September 11th, drugrunners into Miami are now going underwater instead of over it. I only note this because, at least to my knowledge, this is the first film I’ve seen make note of the 9/11 tragedy as a plot device. I’m not sure how this matters, I just thought I’d mention it.

Anyways, the Bad Boys are soon on the trail of a psychotic Cuban druglord. The villain, played by Jordi Molla, has a strange resemblance to the image of Jesus Christ, a resemblance that the film refers to long after I’d noticed it. Again, I don’t know what this means, I just thought I’d mention it. Apparently the filmmakers think a villain is scary if he looks like Christ. I definitely would give the edge to Tcheky Karyo in Bad Boys as a villain, even if he didn’t look like Christ.

I should talk about the film. Bay’s action sequences are perfectly paced and well done, with an early chase sequence being as good, if not better, than the great one we saw earlier this month in Terminator 3. Either way, it’s one of the two best action scenes we’ve seen in this “Summer of Explosions”. The film is packed full of shoot-outs and chases, which are separated by arguments and jokes between the leads. It’s the same formula as the first, with less tension and plot.

The key is the performers, and Smith and Lawrence don’t disappoint. They share the same chemistry they had in the original, and it makes this film just as watchable. The gags are more forced, and sometimes not as funny while sometimes being sidesplittingly hilarious. They get some help in a few scenes from the marvelous Joe Pantoliano as their screaming Captain who steals each scene he’s in. Peter Stormare is also well cast in his usual “creepy Russian dude” role, and adds several laughs in his final scene. The gorgeous Gabrielle Union joins the fray as Marcus’ DEA agent sister/Mike’s love interest, and is pleasant enough to fit the film.

I’ve thought through all the bad things I could say about this film – and there’re enough of them to fill a 20-page essay – but it’s not worth it. Bad Boys II comes off the screen as a ton of hilarious and heart pounding fun. It’s a violent, foul-mouthed explosionfest that never fails to entertain – a guilty pleasure that fills 150 minutes quicker than any other film of it’s length in the last decade. If you’re a fan of Bad Boys, you’ll be more than pleased.

Johnny English

A Film Review By The Mike

Rating:PG-13 for all the things most PG-13 comedies have in them
Starring: Rowan Atkinson, Natalie Imbruglia, John Malkovich
Directed By: Peter Howitt

Final Grade:

Johnny English is the tale of Britain’s most accident-prone spy. I didn’t really relate with the character, until I was driving home from the movie when I myself got in an accident. That has nothing to do with the movie, but it’s a little ironic, don’t you think?

As for the movie, Johnny English is a comedy that tries too hard to be original while having a plot that is completely unoriginal. There are many who say it loses its punch due to its similarities to the Austin Powers series, but I liken it more to a film like Dumb and Dumber. Austin Powers wasn’t an inept spy, he was simply a different one.

Then again, my biggest problem with Johnny English is that the character was not really inept or different. There are moments when the film goes out of its way to make the character look silly and idiotic, but there are also moments where he suddenly pulls off an amazing feat. When seeing English swerving neatly through traffic seconds after having his clip fall from his gun while pointing it at a villain, my thoughts ran wild. Why would the filmmakers make him look like an idiot for a laugh, and then place him in a scene where he makes something great happen? Usually just to develop the plot. It’s a cheap cop out, one that puts the entire movie’s purpose in question.

Despite its inequities, Johnny English serves up some good laughs. The problem is that the script is pretty predictable, and a lot of jokes lose power due to this fact. Who would have guessed that Johnny would get covered in poop while climbing up the drainpipe from the toilets? Or that the tattoo on the bottom of an unused impostor would lead Johnny to depantsing a priest? Pretty much anyone over three, that’s who.

The biggest thing going for Johnny English is Rowan Atkinson, who again proves to be a comic genius. Fans of him as TV’s Mr. Bean (or even the failed movie) will not be disappointed by the comedic performance. With better material, he could be one of the greatest comic stars we’ve seen. But unfortunately he continues to make bad decisions that lead to films like Scooby-Doo. The rest of the cast is forgettable, with pop star Natalie Imbruglia playing the female spy/love interest and John Malkovich playing the French villain. The greatly talented Malkovich is a major disappointment, he’s wasted playing a character that any actor could have. The silliness of his accent and the creepily long hair are not funny either, and we’re left with a big empty feeling by his performance.

It sounds so far like I hated Johnny English, but really there’s no reason to condemn it. Atkinson’s star power alone makes the film watchable, and I almost enjoyed it. It’s a forgettable comedy that will leave your mind soon after you see it, especially if you’re in an accident on the way home. And if you are in that scenario, never admit you were just went out of your way to see Johnny English…the cops would probably say the wreck was your fault!

?>