Archive for November, 2009

X-Men Origins: Woverine

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted November 19, 2009 at 4:13 pm

A Review by Jason L. King

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber
Directed by: Gavin Hood
Rated: PG-13 for action violence and partial nudity
Movie Released: 2009
IMDB Link

Final Grade:

After watching Brett “Rush Hour” Ratner run the X-men franchise into the ground with X-men 3, X-men fans returned to the big screen to see the origins of some of their favorite mutants. Fox promised a new series called X-men Origins, giving us all a behind the scenes look at our favorite mutants before they became the X-men or villains. With plans for Professor X, Magneto and more, the Marvel studios kicked off the origins franchise with one of the most popular of all X-men, Wolverine.

For those not familiar with the character, Wolverine has 3 strange claws the can protrude from his skin when he gets angry. He also has the ability to heal himself rapidly, even from some of the strangest mortal wounds. In Wolverine, we follow Wolverine, originally known as James Howlitt, as he lives through the civil, world and Vietnam wars before finally leaving his war like past behind him. But when his true love is killed he agrees to be a mutant science experiment that will make him stronger and faster than he ever was before. With his new found powers, he now calls himself Wolverine and will stop at nothing to get his revenge on those that took his true love from him.

Fans of the X-men have been waiting for a Wolverine movie for quite some time. The problem is, they were not waiting for this one. Right off the bat, the film gets off to a rocky start. We call Wolverine by the name James or Jimmy and suddenly change to Logan with no real good reason what so ever. You wonder through the opening credits why exactly a young boy with bone claws grows to be Hugh Jackman by the civil war and then just stops aging for the rest of time. You begin to wonder about his brother, Victor “Sabertooth” Howlitt and why he looks so different from the original X-men movies. The film introduces a plethora of characters that they under use and waste horribly. Their cameo screen time is just that, cameo screen time to make nerds drool. The film is so full of plot holes that you would think someone actually lost a good portion of the script and just decided to keep filming any way. I actually left the movie knowing less about Wolverine than I did by watching the X-men films. (For those of you who don’t remember, he has amnesia in the X-men films).

Where this movie does go right is in action sequences. Wolverine with his metal claws slicing through every thing that gets in his path is fun to watch. That’s the summer blockbuster fun that everyone came to see. It’s just too bad it is surrounded by such a horrid plot line that takes you out of the movie.

Also, one thing to highlight in the film is Hugh Jackman once again has nailed the Wolverine character (although he had 3 previous practice movies – all which he did a great job). Our stand out performance really goes to Liev Schreiber, who plays Jackman’s brother, Victor “Sabertooth” Howlitt. While his character is equally horribly set up, Schreiber does a great job with what little he is given once again proving he is one of the lesser known actors that deserves more credit than he is given.

Summing it up, Fox will give you the excuse that this got messed up on the editing floor. They’ll tell you the film’s leak on the net made them have to go back and work on better CG, re-shoots etc to make the film more exciting for its theatrical release. They’ll tell you whatever you want to hear except the honest truth. Fox made a bad movie and got this new franchise off to a very rocky start.

The action portion of the film and my love for Hugh Jackman playing Wolverine is enough to make me tell you this is worth watching, but my mind is telling me to tell you otherwise. I’ll give it a C- and leave it up to you to decide your movie night’s fate.

No Comments
Filed under: Action, Comic Book, Movies

The Hurt Locker

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted at 1:33 am

A Review by Jason L. King

Starring: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty
Directed by: Kathryn Bigelow
Rated: R for War Violence
Movie Released: 2009
IMDB Link

Final Grade:

I don’t think we as Americans take enough time out of our days to say thank you. Sure, everyone whips out an insincere thank you now and then, like when the guy in front of you holds the door for you. But that’s not the sort of thank you I think we as Americans need to do more of. Every day there are American soldiers stationed around the world, away from their families and every thing they love, sometimes dealing with the unthinkable so we can have the freedoms and liberties that we have today. I don’t know about you but I couldn’t think of a person who deserves a bigger thank you than someone who is willing to give their lives for your way of life.

Personally, I know I could never begin to fathom what it is like to be stationed in Iraq and see some of the things these men and women have seen. The old saying goes “War is Hell” and Iraq seems like the hottest, dirtiest, dustiest hell on earth. I had the great privilege of seeing a film over the last week called The Hurt Locker that reminded me of all of these things and more.

The Hurt Locker is a film about EOD agents, also known as the military bomb squad. The film follows a 3 man crew on their last 45 days of their rotation as they work with the military diffusing road side IEDs, car bombs and other high explosive scenarios. One of the team members (the newest of the group after an unfortunate accident) is a bit of a crazed adrenaline junkie who is all to eager roll the dice and taunt death with every call to duty.

I really loved this film because from my understanding it gives the most telling tale of the lives of our soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. After having some conversations with a few old friends that have been stationed there at one point and time, and even after talking with a new found friend on the film’s opening night at my theater, I realized with each passing conversation that director Kathryn Bigelow did a wonderful job of bringing the horrors of war and the heart felt adrenaline to the big screen. Bigelow shoots the film in almost a documentary style, making you feel like you are right amidst the action, keeping your heart pounding in sync with the men sworn to protect us. She finds a way to bring to life the unfortunate, gritty realization that in Iraq, it’s a different way of life. While there are many people who want us there, there are many who do not and are willing to send us to Allah to prove it. From road side bombs buried in the sand, to car bombs, suicide bombs or even a bomb hidden in the trash on the curb, Bigelow helps us quickly realize the dangerous situation not only our men and women are in, but everyone in a Iraq is in daily.

Secondly, I really enjoyed this film because of its main character, Sgt. William James. James is a wild man, adrenaline junkie and every bomb he gets his hands on is one more thrill ride for him. Because of this he is wild and reckless and while he tries to do good, he some times puts his fellow soldiers at risk. He’s the character you want to hate with everything you’ve got in you. But just as that hatred starts to set in, he does something redeeming and you find your self rooting for him again. James is played by Jeremy Renner, an actor who kind of resembles a more redneckish Daniel Craig in this film, whose more notable past performances have been roles in SWAT and 28 Weeks Later. Renner takes the reigns in this one and does a fantastic job with the role. He brings a complexity to the character that just might wind up putting him in a dark horse running for an Oscar.

I would be lying to you however if I told you everyone was going to love this picture with every fiber of their being. Truth is, at times it’s tough to watch. There is gruesome content, and there are some people you aren’t going to like. You’re not always going to like Renner’s character. It has a complexity to it that just doesn’t agree with all audiences. Also, Bigelow’s documentary style makes this film a very realistic view of Iraq, but it also means that the camera runs for long takes and some of the scenes do drag on a bit if you aren’t willing to look close at them and try to figure out what she is trying to do in each scene. Bigelow tries to challenge the viewer with each shot, and some viewers just don’t want to see that in a movie. I’m not going to be a film snob here and tell you that you should want to be challenged by every movie you see (blah blah blah), if that’s not your style, that is fine. Just know then that this film may not be for you. There is nothing wrong with wanting something very different in a film. To each their own I say! None the less, because of the way the film is shot, Bigelow gives us a film that has a 2 hr. 10 minute runtime that is going to go by quickly for some and may seem to drag for others.

One of the other things I personally had no issue with but I think I could see others mentioning is the monotony of the soldiers job. We follow these guys as they go from mission to mission and bomb to bomb. Some may say the parameters change, the bombs change but it’s the same idea just rinse and repeat for two hours. Personally, I beg to differ with that statement but I can see where some people may get that idea and actually be put off by the movie.

When it is all said and done, I really enjoyed this movie. Or at least enjoyed the movie as much as one can when it deals with an all to real scenario. While the year is still young as far as award seasons go, I think The Hurt Locker has a really good chance of giving Summit Entertainment a Best Picture nod. I saw the film twice in three days and while it lost some of it’s effect the second go round (not a film you should watch 2 times really close together) it still really impressed me. When you get a chance to pick this film up on DVD or find it playing at a theater near you, check it out. I think you will be more than glad that you did.

Last but certainly not least, take the time to say thank you. A GENUINE thank you to all the brave men and women out there protecting us daily. Whether it be recognizing a previous war vet on the street and thanking them for serving, or looking up a friend who is serving (or even his or her family) just take the time to thank them for all they do.

2 Comments
Filed under: Action, Drama, Movies, Suspense

Monsters Vs. Aliens

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted November 12, 2009 at 5:44 pm

A Review by Jason L. King

Starring: Seth Rogan, Paul Rudd, Reese Witherspoon, Hugh Laurie
Directed by: Rob Letterman, Conrad Vernon
Rated: PG for sci-fi action, some crude humor and mild language
Movie Released: 2009
IMDB Link

Final Grade:

Finding a good family movie is hard to find, especially when the kids are younger. I don’t know this from experience, after all my 6 year old niece was excited to watch Blood Monkey not too long ago. Still as a film critic, I can see how a parent has a huge task of controlling what their children watch. The ratings system is out there, but it seems suggestive at best. What was R is now PG13 and PG-13 is now PG in some cases. This could prompt a whole separate post about the ratings system, but we will save that for another day. The point is, finding a true PG family friendly movie can be hard if it is not made by Pixar. Well rest assured parents, I think I may have actually found one.

Dreamwork’s Monsters Vs. Aliens is the story of a girl who is hit by an outer space meteor that turns her into a giant monster. Because of her now giant size she is put together with a strange elite group of monsters that are called upon by the government to put an end to a pending alien attack.

This sci-fi animated thriller is a great film for families of all shapes and sizes. For a small child there are a ton of colorfull characters and monsters from B.O.B. a small lovable ooze creature, Dr. Cockroach, to insectasaurus who is a giant (and seemingly unintelligent) furry creature that follows bright lights. Dreamworks animators took the time to create some very unique and creative choices on their monsters, being sure to make them strange but not scary. Most kids will immediately fall in love with B.O.B (voiced by Seth Rogan) the blue slime monster that isn’t afraid of eating or absorbing anything in his blue liquid torso.

If you are out of the small child age I think you will find that the voice actors go very well with the animated characters. Seth Rogan stands out as the perfect voice for B.O.B. although his easily dicernable voice does make him stand out a bit. Aside from Rogan, the only other voice that stands out is Stephen Colbert who has a small cameo as the President of the United States. While Colbert as President was funny, his voice didn’t fit the character portrayed on screen. In all other cases the voice to animation transition worked extremely well and I was very pleased with their decisions on actors in the film.

What I enjoyed the most about Monsters Vs. Aliens is that it had a great message behind it, and didn’t spend its time trying to appease everyone. Previous Dreamworks animated ventures have tried to have a mixture of adult humor, pop culture references and toilet humor for the young ones in order to make sure every audience has something to laugh at. If the dividing lines were in Monsters Vs. Aliens, I didn’t see it. I had a great time just laughing at the characters and the journey- not the intentional side jokes. Kudos to Dreamworks for stepping out of the box.

I do think it is important to mention that this film did come out in theaters in both 3-D and 2-D versions. The DVD version is obviously the 2-D version (unless you get some 3-D pack with a pair of Red/Blue glasses- but that still wouldn’t replicate that REAL D 3-D experience anyway). The 2-D version is just as great as the 3-D. There are a few obvious points in the film where you would see where 3-D is beneficial (like a paddleball scene near the begininng) but you’re more than fine seeing the film in classic 2-D computer animation.

Should you rent Monsters Vs. Aliens or not? I say absolutely. You and your family no matter how big or small will have a fun time with this film. It’s a light heartwarming tale that was a lot of fun from start to finish. If you get a chance for a movie night in with your loved ones, Give Monsters Vs. Aliens a try.

2 Comments
Filed under: Family, Movies

The Taking of Pelham 123

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted November 4, 2009 at 7:20 pm

A Review by Jason L. King

Starring: John Travolta, Denzel Washington, John Turturro
Directed by: Tony Scott
Rated: R for language, violence
Movie Released: 2009
IMDB Link

Final Grade:

I have to admit I was not extremely excited about The Taking of Pelham 123 since I first saw the trailer for it in April. Once I saw the red band exclusive clip with Travolta in, I was even less interested. But, it was directed by Tony Scott, a director who impressed me from his start up all the way to the film “The Fan.” The problem was, Tony Scott hasn’t impressed me since 1996. I’ve been hoping that Tony Scott will once again bring magic to the big screen, so I found myself once again diving headfirst into another Tony Scott film.

For those who don’t know what The Taking of Pelham 123 is, it is a film based off a 1974 film of the same name (except they spelled it out “One, Two, Three”) starring Walter Matthau. It is the tale of 4 hijackers who take over a subway train and hold its passengers for ransom. With only an hour before the hijackers begin killing hostages it is up to a dispatcher to talk them down and get everyone out of the situation alive and well.

First of all, let the record be known that I actually liked what Tony Scott did with this film. Prior to this Scott made films like Man on Fire, Domino and Deja Vu, films that reek of artistic grey-green grainy shots and choppy ADD induced cuts and bright flashes of light. Someone must have pulled him off to the side and told him that it wasn’t doing anything for the film but was causing a few seizures in the theaters. The Taking of Pelham 123 is shot very well. It’s not over artistic and his directing choices actually pushes the storyboard quite well. There were very few moments that I felt he was just doing something to be “arty” or make a statement, but instead just directed a decent scene to scene action movie.

Denzel Washington does an OK job in the film, although his performance is not one that is going to make you stand up and cheer for the guy. In the back ground supporting him you have John Turturro playing a hostage negotiator who helps Washington make it through the scenario, and James Gandolfini who tosses aside his Tony Soprano role and puts on his Rudy Guiliani hat, playing the New York City mayor who is reluctant to deal with the situation. Turturro and Gandolfini do a decent job, but their performances are over shadowed by their co-stars.

Where this subway train film derails (pun intended) can’t be pinpointed down to just one small thing but a compilation of little things that make the film an unsuccessful venture as a whole. The first element that doesn’t work in this film is John Travolta. Travolta hams it up on screen as a handlebar mustached, tattooed hijacker who is willing to go to any means necessary to get his money. The problem is he plays a crazy person like an idiot. He’s not believable, and instead comes off as a crazed supervillian rather than a hostage taker. Mix that in with the amount of money he would owe to the “swear jar” after making this film, you might begin to wonder if he actually got a paycheck at the end of the project. ($1 times 3 million “f-words” = his salary for the film perhaps?) Now, swearing doesn’t normally stand out to me too much unless it is poorly done. In this case it was. Never since the likes of Gigli with Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez have I seen so many useless F words thrown in there “just because.” It was like a team of 10 year old kids who just learned how to swear wrote the script, handed it to the studio and then Travolta threw in a few extra F words for good measure. But you can’t blame Travolta alone, it is a prominent thing throughout the film: every minor character has to get their F word in as well just in case we didn’t hear Travolta do it. Director Tony Scott probably had to clean all their mouths out with soap every night after the shoot!

Secondly we have this messed up car chase scene where they must deliver the money from the bank on one side of town to Travolta’s subway car. We have speeding cop cars trying to deliver the money by the deadline with the help of helicopter air support and the whole time as a viewer I was wondering “Why didn’t they take a helicopter?” Alas, I was not alone in my thoughts as Gandolfini throws out a line in the film that says, “Why didn’t we take the chopper?” Good question James. And I’ve even got an answer for you. The answer is …they tried to take something from the original (there was a scene much like it in the original film) and it gave Tony Scott some time to have fun with a little bit of choppy driving scenes. The problem was that in the original this plot point worked, in this one it seems tiresome, and just a pointless way to try an inject some adrenaline into the plot.

Perhaps one of the corniest parts of the film is a scene where Garber (Denzel Washington) is getting onto a helicopter and talking to his wife. He’s trying to put on this sentimental speech about how she needs to know that he loves her, even if he doesn’t come home and the two start arguing over how much milk he should bring home upon his survival. Half gallon or whole gallon, who cares? If it was a clever attempt to be funny it actually fell flat on its face. Just one more example of the many ways this film went horribly wrong.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the newer version of Pelham 123 is that Tony Scott’s vision was an action film. A high octane action film with over the top characters. He took the original plot and flipped it on its head, only loosely basing the film off the original. Sure, they are both about hijacked subway cars, a dispatcher named Garber and a plot that makes a lot of money but in the end the details have all be re imagined. And sadly enough this version just doesn’t have the same flair to it.

Should you make The Taking of Pelham 123 your next movie night? Absolutely not. In my opinion, it is the best Tony Scott film I have seen in almost 10 years (except for Spy Game perhaps- but I don’t really remember it). But it is still a mediocre film at best that is probably a waste of celluloid and a waste of time.

No Comments
Filed under: Action, Movies

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974)

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted at 4:30 pm

A Review by Jason L. King

Starring: Walter Matthau, Robert Shaw, Earl Hindman and Jerry Stiller
Directed by: Joseph Sargent
Rated: R for language
Movie Released: 1974
IMDB Link

Final Grade:

Digging back into the vault a bit this week, I stumbled upon an online copy of The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. Since the Denzel and Travolta remake made its way out on DVD this week, I thought there wasn’t a more perfect time to pull out the original Pelham and give it a rewatch.

The Taking of Pelham One, Two, Three is the story of four men who hijack a New York subway train and use the hostages as a way to earn a quick million dollars. The thought they had planned their heist perfectly, including the perfect getaway, but first they must get the transit police to follow each of their demands before they start killing hostages.

Pelham One Two Three brings out a great performance by Walter Matthau as Lt. Garber, the transit police’s unwilling and untrained negotiator. Matthau, who is probably more known to my generation as Mr. Wilson from Dennis the Menace or as one of the old guys from Grumpy Old Men, does a wonderful job of stammering his way through the hostage situation. His facial expressions alone make you feel like you are right in the room with him and you almost can see the wheels turning in his head as he tries to wrap his brain around the hijacker’s true sinister plot.

Along side of him acting wise, we see a performance by Jerry Stiller as another transit cop who is helping to diffuse the hostage situation. I realized young or old, Jerry Stiller sticks out like a sore thumb and the man really hasn’t changed much. Having seen far too many episodes of the King of Queens in my life, Jerry Stiller was almost too distracting- I kept laughing at the idea of Arthur being a cop. Also worth noting in the film (because we here at Box Office Boredom.com point out some of the weird things no other credible site would) is a performance by Earl Hindman. Earl Hindman’s name may not be that well known to you, but if you grew up in the 90’s you may remember watching a Tim Allen sitcom called Home Improvement (or Tool Time as forgetful, people call it). Earl Hindman was a regular guest on the show, and played the role of Wilson Wilson who was Tim’s strange but lovable advice giving neighbor. In Pelham, Hindman isn’t the guy you want to chat over the fence with though, this time he is playing Mr. Brown one of the train hijackers. (What other website would be mentioning Dennis The Menace and Home Improvement: That’s what makes us better..right?)

Perhaps the biggest turn off for The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is you only get out of it what you put in. If you build up the suspense of the movie in your head and you try to figure out what is going to happen next, the film sucks you in and takes you on a fun one hour and fourty minute trip. Film that are in theaters now depend on impressing the attention deficit disorder crowd, with bright flashes of light, choppy screen shots and hand held cameras with high action. If you are looking for a lot of intense action, this film is going to let you down. The flick is not high action, instead it’s back and forth between the negotiator and hijackers with the viewer looking on in awe, wondering if deadlines will be met, hostages will die and just how in the world the hijackers are getting out of a surrounded tunnel in the ground.

In the end, I highly suggest checking out the original Taking of Pelham One Two Three. It’s a great film that has held up despite its age. If you’re looking for something to add to your next movie night, why not give the 1974 version of The Taking of Pelham One Two Three a try.

At the time of posting- you can watch The Taking of Pelham One, Two, Three (1974) for free at Sling.com. We’ve actually posted the video below. If for some reason the video is unavailable, you can also try a website like Speedcine.com to help you find other copies of the film for free on the web.


No Comments
Filed under: Drama, Movies
?>