The Green Hornet

Review in a sentence:

Seth Rogen is funny; Jay Chou is entertaining and Asian; Cameron Diaz is as annoying as ever; Christoph Waltz is incredibly fantastic; Michel Gondry is on the interesting side of mediocre; and no other part of this movie is worth mention.

7.5/10

Enjoy your day. :]

Top 10 movies of 2010

With the Academy Award nominations less than 2 weeks away, everybody is thinking about their favorite movies from 2010 (or at least I am). here's my 10 favorite movies, 5 movies that are definitely NOT on the list, and 5 good movies I never got the chance to see:

Top 10 Movies of 2010:

1. Kick-A--:

Dark and satirical, this movie handled mature subjects such as death, revenge and morality with confidence and--dare I say it--integrity. While the content quite questionably outweighed the morals, this movie made some very valid points about morality and human nature that couldn't have been made in another way. Add some clever filmmaking and a few new faces, and you have a sure-fire ticket into my heart.

 2. The Social Network:

Very nearly my favorite movie of the year, I can say with pride that director David Fincher still has what it takes. Easily relatable, yet complex characters; a well-written, well-balanced script; and hopefully the ushering in of the Eisenberg era of acting--you can't go wrong with that. And hopefully former Zombieland star Jesse Eisenberg truly IS Michael Cera's replacement. That kid annoys me.

 
3. True Grit:

While there's a lot to be said for the higher art of filmmaking, a nod needs to be cast to the pure entertainment value that makes "lesser" movies great. And this film is just filled with entertainment. And some just plain good filmmaking.The Coen Brothers live up to their nearly-divine reputation, Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon light up the screen, and the world it creates feels not like the stretching of reality, but rather a separate, almost more real, alternate reality.

 

 4. The Runaways:

Who wouldn't love a gritty, harsh rock-n-roll biopic on one of the most ground-breaking and iconic bands of the '70s? Apparently a lot of people. But despite it's lack of fanfare and polish, "The Runaways" hearkens back to a greater age of filmmaking, where when a story needs to be told, it's told with all the frankness reality, and none of the reserve of fiction. I can even forgive it for starring Kristen Stewart and Dakota Fanning, who just happen to be two of my least favorite people.

 
5. Shutter Island:

Don't worry, Scorsese, I haven't forgotten you yet, although I can assure you the Academy Awards have. Intense, psychological, provocative, and well-balanced, this dark thriller still leaves me just a little confused. But through the confusion, everybody seems to have realized that this is just a good movie, and I'm inclined to agree. Two thumbs up.

6. How To Train Your Dragon:

This year was dominated by the world of digital animation. From "Alpha and Omega" to "Megamind" to "Despicable Me" to "Toy Story", it seems that not only children, but the entire world cannot get enough of these sugar-coated adventures into an alternate reality, one where pain doesn't hurt, broken hearts mend, and in the end, everything just turns out right. "How To Train Your Dragon" was not only fun, but also was enjoyable, well-cast, and refreshing.

7. The Lovely Bones:

Unfortunately, like "Shutter Island", we can expect this one to be overlooked in the Academy Awards as well. Timing, timing, timing. This imaginative story combines all the intrigue and wonder of a fairy tale combined with the harsh reality of real life with such a perfect precision, that one really cannot complain. I hope Jackson takes the hint and keeps directing, and that Stanley Tucci's career-on-the-mend revives itself.

8. Knight And Day:

This is fun. It's an adventure. It's an escape. And it's great. No thanks to great acting, a great script, great directing, or really a great anything, somehow "Knight And Day" it's good without being made good by any part of it. Nothing more needs said.

 9. The A-Team:

Ok, this wasn't that great of a movie. But Liam Neeson proves that he actually has the acting substance everybody hoped he did, Bradley Cooper asserted himself in an entertaining role, Sharlto Copley shows off his diversity, and Quinton Jackson proves that not ALL ex-wrestlers are also horrible actors. just most of them.

 

10. Devil :

M. Night Shyamalan is probably the only person to kill and resurrect his career in my eyes within less than half a year. Proving that he's better off in the producers chair than behind (or in front of) the camera, "Devil" is clever, unique, and freaky as "hell", in the most literal sense possible. It's rare for a story of salvation and redemption to be tied in to one of death and chaos so closely, but it's pulled off magnificently, leaving just the right aftertaste of hope to the overtones of despair. I wouldn't say it's a "must see" by any measure, but there's no hiding the Christian morals or the excellent filmmaking. Shyamalan: know your place.

5 Movies That Aren't On The List, For Good Reason:

Inception:
I would like to find a cliff to stand on, and scream "OVERRATED!" at the top of my lungs. A nice piece of work by Nolan, supported by a solid, if not impressive, acting foundation, but the hype was enough to push it off the top 10. It's a nice movie, just not the quality I know I can expect from Nolan. Worth seeing once or twice or five times, but not worth cherishing and pledging devotion to.

Salt:

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. ok i'm done.

 

Robin Hood:
Ridley Scott found the balance between "fine filmmaking" and "entertaining filmmaking" perfectly in Gladiator, a movie him and Robin Hood star Russel Crowe will always be remembered for, but lost it in Robin Hood, throwing the balance off enough to push it into filmmaking limbo. You lost me.


 

Toy Story 3:

Eh. The only thing that makes this movie great is its predecessors, and it's ability to make people cry even when nothing sad happened.

 

Legion:
Just too much. Too creepy, too strange, too pseudo-religious. And then not enough. Not exciting enough, not interesting enough, and just not good enough. Waste of 2 hours of my life.

5 Probably Great Movies I Never Saw:

127 Hours:
As a James Franco sorta-fan, I can only hope that he can carry this movie all by himself as well as general opinion seems to say he has. An interesting story with all the potential of an all-time great.

 

The King's Speech:

For anyone who thought John Adams would have been truly great had it not been so long (hint: me), this is your movie. I'm eagerly awaiting the day when I can see this.

 


Black Swan:
Natalie Portman has her reputation to make, Darren Aronofsky has his reputation to live up to, and ballet has some explaining to do. Oscar-fodder for sure.

 

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World:

A lot of great movies have been made from graphic novels ("300", "Red", "Watchmen", "Jonah Hex", and the list goes on and on), and Michael Cera's last stand looks enjoyable and entertaining. Plus, any movie with a tagline like "an epic of epic epicness" can't be that bad. I'm sold.

 

Let Me In:
Nobody likes a remake, and those film lovers with final taste wince at the thought of a remake of a highly-acclaimed Swedish film, but Chloe Moretz (with an already impressive history and a phenomenal line-up ahead of her) sold me on it. A fresh director, a flourish actress, an interesting idea, what could go wrong? Ok, a lot could go wrong. But I'll give it a shot.





Like my choices? hate my guts? Let me know in the comments. :]

True Grit

This is what Hollywood needs. In another western-set take by the film-royalty brothers Joel and Ethan Coen, the nail could not have been hit more squarely on the head. Every character is a character, and every action has a calculated easy-going nature to it. While many will complain that it strays too far from its 1969 predecessor, James Fraiser of whatwouldtotowatch.com best sums it up when he says, "The Coen Brothers’ “True Grit” isn’t a remake of the 1969 Western that won John Wayne an Oscar, but an incredible work of its own based off the same source material."

While on the surface this appears to be a brutal, rambunctious frolic in the grimy world of the Coen Brothers' unparalleled imagination, at the core, this is a well thought-out, character-driven satire to the tune of simple, yet multi-faceted performances, pleasantly convention-defying direction, and a pleasantly convention-embracing storyline.

What was most appreciated about "True Grit" in particular was their take on violence. In our action-packed, fast-paced, entertainment-starving movie culture, violence is fun, cheap, and so highly contrived that the audience is desensitized to pain. "True Grit" violence had an almost lighthearted quality to it, but always very real, and never fun. My only criticism is the light they made of death, especially considering the many opportunities to make a legitimate emotional impact they had. Pain was felt, but never feared.

On the whole, this was a highly enjoyable film. It was unique, gripping, interesting, and visionary. Jeff Bridges' brilliant performance offset Hailee Steinfeld's shameful debut, especially in light of his recent "Tron" escapades, Matt Damon seemed a little separated from the rest of the movie, but more refreshingly separated from his previous roles, every character was intriguing and unique in a way unlike any movie I've ever seen, and the movie's many weaknesses were made light of and forgiven. I give it a healthy 8.5/10. It might not be the Oscar darling it was shaped up to be, but the pure entertainment value of this movie is sure to win it the audience an Oscar never could

The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader

As a child, C.S. Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia enthralled me. I remember my mom reading them to me before I could even read, and re-reading the series several times after I could. In particular, The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader was always my favorite. I had it on a dramatized audiobook that I would listen to over and over again. There was action, suspense, dragons--it was anything and everything a child could want from a book.

Whenever I go to a movie made about a book, I try to keep an open mind. Sure, Lord of the Rings might have missed a few plot elements, and no, you really shouldn't get me started on Eragon, but I find that while movies are different from the books, they are seldom really terrible adaptations. In this sense, I really have no complaints about The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader. It had all the elements the books did, even if they weren't necessarily in order or context, but they really didn't do a bad job. My biggest problem was how much was added to the story. In fact, the entire basis of the story was changed. Rather than a personal quest to find Caspian's father's councilors, it became a quest to collect swords to destroy some kind of mist demanding of human sacrifice. Sure, none of this was in the book, but who's going to notice?

That's not my problem. This is my problem: Where is the spirit?? When I walked into the theater, I was hoping, praying, to catch even a glimpse of the emotions I felt as a child. The horror of the unexpected and the terror of the unseen; the satisfaction when life is ok and the unease when life's not--this movie fails to give the moral or emotional impact that I adored from the books. Alas, the world is not as it was.

But really, I can't complain about this movie. The special effects were satisfying, if just barely, the acting had it's ups and downs, but nothing bad enough to spoil it, and the story was highly skewed and de-humanized, but not detrimental. When you pay for admission, you expect 2 hours of nice family entertainment. Maybe some surprising scenes that will thrill, but not scare your kids? Maybe a few chuckle-worthy scenes to keep you interested? That's what you get. Nothing more.

With a solid $24 million opening, it looks like we're getting a sequel with even less of the characters that make these movies beloved by its fans. yay.

A nice story to enliven your mind; a nice cookie-cutter message to warm your heart; a nice visual journey to keep your eyes open: all in all, a nice movie. 7/10. Disappointing, but worthwhile.

TRON: Legacy

Daring. Vivid. Brutally real. Visionary. Joseph Kosinski's dystopian debut pushes boundaries and defies convention, but once grasping our attention and fastening our eyes to the sleek fiction unfolding on the screen, we realize that this movie is more of a dated facade designed to rake in profits than it is the perspective-changing vision were were lured into watching.

Even the best of movies can be corrupted by even a few bad lines, or perhaps a few good lines that are poorly delivered. Needless to say, this was neither a dialogue-driven, nor a performance-driven film, to say the least. Garrett Hudland was less than perfect (almost unlikable, even) and even a respected actor like Jeff Bridges failed to deliver. "Crazy Heart" Jeff Bridges was infinitely more satisfying than "Tron: Legacy" Jeff Bridges. And while I'm sure Tron is a boost to Olivia Wilde's up-and-coming career, it certainly didn't boost her credibility as an actor. And don't get me started on Michael Sheen. He should just be ashamed of himself.

On the bright side, Daft Punk's music left nothing to be lacking. Bravo.

Not to discredit the whole movie, it did have a few redeeming aspects. The graphics were gorgeous, and the pure imagination of the movie was nearly astounding. It is quite unfortunate that once the "box" was thought outside of, the producers couldn't think of any better message than the stereotypical "bittersweet happy ending." No revelation of truth, no affirmation of the importance of family, no worthwhile message of any greater good. What a shameful waste.

Sadly, there's really nothing more to be said in this movie's defense.

On the whole, this is a "nice" movie. Beautiful, different, but unfortunately shallow. I give it a generous 7/10 on merit of the visual mastery, soundtrack, and imagination behind it.

Salt

Before I start, I should probably say that this entire review will be covered with spoilers from top to bottom. now. to begin.

Here's the plot of Salt, according to IMDb: "Evelyn Salt is a CIA agent and highly respected by all, including her boss, Ted Winter. Out of the blue, a Russian spy walks into their offices and offers a vital piece of information: the President of Russia will be assassinated during his forthcoming visit to New York City to attend the funeral of the recently deceased U.S. Vice President. The name of the assassin: Evelyn Salt. Concerned about the safety of her husband, who she cannot contact, she goes on the run. Winter refuses to accept that she is a mole or a double agent but her actions begin to raise doubts. Just who is Evelyn Salt and what is she planning?" does this sound like a decent movie? Yes, it does. It's simple, new, and mildly intriguing. is this even vaguely what this movie is about? Of course not.

Were I to attempt to sum up the plot of Salt, I would say something like this: "A secret Russian agent, working for the CIA as a cover, and pretends to kill the Russian president, because she's actually a triple agent, working for America, because apparently, America's just inherently good. after she succeeds in pretending to kill the president, she murders her Russian leader, although she has every reason to remain loyal to him, helps save America from nuclear war, kills another double agent, and escapes to who knows where after she convinces a government friend that she's a triple agent." did that make sense? No, of course not. Why? Because Salt (the Russian agent, played by Angelina Jolie) had no motivation whatsoever. She was trained since birth to work for Russia, endured no end of hardships for her country, did everything exactly how she was supposed to, and then, seemingly without cause, switched sides. Could it be because she loved her husband? no. Her husband was German, and uninvolved until near the end, when he was killed. could it be that she became attached to her colleagues? doubtfully. she killed several of them, and ran from the rest. Could it be that she was angry at the Russian society for killing her husband? doubtfully. she was a triple agent before they killed her husband. If she had a motivation, it is quite beyond me.

Additionally, the plot was really a two-movie story. Anyone who has seen "The Box" understands what I mean. The concept, expected due to the trailers, set up in the movie, and completed convincingly, was that Salt, a Russian spy, was going to kill the Russian president. That's all very well. There was a huge set up for a twist, but by the end of this particular section of the plot, the result was more or less "yup. that's it." after that, the plot spiraled downward, crashed, and burned. This is hauntingly similar to the plot of The Box. This movie was written by Kurt Wimmer, writer and producer or Law Abiding Citizen, who really should have known better.

But lets move on. I am pleased to say that I have never in my life seen more people killed by being hit with guns. No, not by being "shot" by guns.... being "hit" by guns. A pleasant break from the overplayed "shoot everybody really fast" routine that action movies seem to favor, or the "a secret agent can kill anybody with anything" routine Hollywood has recently fallen in love with.

But while the action was commendable and the plot was detrimental, perhaps the acting can save this movie? Ha. don't be silly. Jolie and Liev Schreiber (best known as Sabertooth from X-Men Origins: Wolverine) did awfully; terribly; horribly; almost unforgivably. Chiwetel Ejiofor (known for his work in Children of Men, American Gangster, and 2012), while not a terrible actor, is seemingly unable to act more than one character. However, almost seemingly in a feeble attempt to redeem the movie, August Diehl (known from a minor role in Inglorious Basterds) and Daniel Olbrychski (this being his first major American film role, but with a more than impressive television resume) did excellently, particularly Olbrychski, who I would enjoy seeing in more roles.

So on the whole, this was a mindless, pointless, wasteful movie. The plot was almost unbearable, the acting was shameful, and while the action was interesting, these things just don't add up to a "good" movie. If all you're out for is 2 hours to sit in front of a screen and mindlessly take in action and stereotypical plots, you'll find what you're out for. So maybe this movie isn't really pointless, just misdirected. It serves it's purpose: cheap action with a mindless story. for that reason, I give it a generous 4/10

Inception

Everybody loves a good "thinking movie." From the reality-bending conclusions of movies such as Shyamalan's "Sixth Sense" or  Scorsese's "Shutter Island" to the psychological torture of Nolan's "The Dark Knight" or Kubric's acclaimed classic "A Clockwork Orange," to the familiarly bent reality of Fincher's "Fight Club"--people love to think at the movies. More than to think, people love to understand something new after a movie. While mindless films such as Transformers or Avatar grab sizable portions of the box office, who can ignore the legacy of what is generally agreed to be a "good" movie; a movie that lingers in the viewers mind, that can be reflected on and admired long after leaving the theater. What people love is ingenuity. "Inception" literally means "a beginning" or "the start of a new idea", and a new idea is what it delivers. Without question, Nolan has lived up to his golden reputation once again.

In fact, this is a movie in which I found very few flaws. Nolan directs enchantingly and magnificently, if not in the "high-art" style many similarly acclaimed movies share. DiCaprio delivered one of his better performances, and Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins, Dark Knight, Peacock) was very nearly flawless in his role. The one real problem I had with the acting was the relationship between Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Eames (Tom Hardy.) While Nolan obviously tried to create a sort of teasing witty rivalry between the two, it wasn't pushed enough to become secure. The result was a half-hearted chemistry that was neither convincing, or added to the movie.

Now for the story...  It was an enchanting and clever story, but was slightly flawed. The genius of this movie lies in the fact that it pleases the audience by showing them something new and makes them think they understand it, while at the same time, it leaves enough open-ended and unanswered questions to leave them wanting to come back and experience it again. It's flaw lied in the fact that there were so many unanswered questions. For instance, the very first scene in the movie showed Cobb (DiCaprio) washed up on a beach. He's taken to the home of a very old man, where he proceeds to try to steal a secret from a younger man's safe. At the end of the movie, he goes back to the exact same scenario, is taken to the house of the very same old man, but this time, the old man IS the younger man, grown up. so who's the old man the first time? It's the questions like these that brings the audience back to see this film again and again, but no matter how many times they see it, the question will never be answered. But even though I have pointed it out as a "flaw," perhaps it is really a clever device... after all, it DOES accomplish great things for the movie.

Visually, this movie was striking, but not quite all it could have been. The slow-motion bits were nice, but could have undoubtedly been better. Without giving too much away, by the climax of the film, there were 4 or 5 levels of reality, each one of which were relatively 20 times slower than the level before it. so a minute in one level could be as long as over 100 years in another level. this leads to some wonderful level-jumping slow-motion shots, but were never pushed as far as they could have been, never going more than 2 levels in either direction. Additionally, the visual spectacle of the film wasn't exercised enough. While it was a wonderful story with occasional striking imagery, it was never as visually spectacular as it could have been.

As I've mentioned above, the story was really the strong point of the film. However, the dialogue left much to be wanted. Nolan certainly wouldn't have hurt anything to have brought someone else in to polish the screenplay, maybe insert some clever lines, and add a bit of charisma to the characters. It's the dialogue that makes movies like Richie's "Sherlock Holmes" tick, and Inception could have greatly benefited from it.

But after all, this is all nitpicking. On the whole, this was a highly-entertaining, intellectually provocative, visually mesmerizing (if not striking), film. While it may not be life-shattering or world-changing, it is easily one of the best films of the year, very nearly living up to it's "perfect movie" reputation. I would give it a 9.5/10, and plan on seeing it again when it is released on DVD