Tag Archives: movie review

Screen time: Review of ‘Pain and Gain’

Posted on by
Reply

A couple things about Michael Bay’s new movie “Pain and Gain.”

PRO: Michael Bay FINALLY stops taking himself so seriously.

In one scene, crippled Tony Shalhoub (Monk from “Monk”) tries to pick a bun up off of the floor, insisting he “needs to do this on his own.”

It takes him a long time, and Bay’s choice of music: something sappy with violins.

It sounds simple and a little ridiculous, but I couldn’t stop laughing. Bay must’ve realized  he can make fun of himself AND have fun.

Bro. Pass me the juice.

Bro. Pass me the juice.

CON: Keep your expectations low. 

“Pain and Gain” was awesome because I’ve don’t expect much from Michael Bay movies, and, that definitely heightened my experience.

PRO: The Rock.

Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson plays a born-again ex-con with a penchant for nose candy. He’s a gentle giant, and it totally works. The Rock really shows off his solid comedic timing (in this and “The Other Guys), and I really hope he keeps it up.

CON: It’s based on a true story.

Kinda wish I hadn’t known that before I saw this movie. It get pretty violent, and I couldn’t help feeling horrible for the real-life victims. I eventually eased up and that’s thanks to next up on my list.

PRO: Tony Shalhoub.

I’ve never seen “Monk,” but I’m gonna check it out now. Tony Shalhoub is insanely funny. All of my favorite scenes were with him. (I almost hate to say this about a Michael Bay movie, but) I’ve never laughed so hard at anything that wasn’t a Dave Chappelle sketch. And Shalhoub had a LOT to do with that.

More pros than cons. And, I feel a little gross for saying this, but Michael Bay kinda hit it out of the park with this one. It’s definitely worth seeing.

Check out Herald movie columnist Tim Albrecht’s take on Pain & Gain. http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/262621/group/Accent/

Watch this week’s Screen Time. Tim and I duke it out over “The Crowe.” http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/262560/

‘Cabin in the Woods’: A Gory Shout-out to Horror Genre

Posted on by
Reply

I’m no Joss Whedon expert, but after watching his newest project, “The Cabin in the Woods,” I can say I’m a fan. The movie’s a postmodern homage to the horror flicks that we grew up with. But it turns the genre on its head.

Dude, when a cellar door opens on its own, you DON'T investigate.

We’re all familiar with horror’s archetypes: the jock, the whore, the nerd, the comic relief (joker), the saint. Whedon’s familiar too and his film gives us an “explanation” for the genre’s stock characters.

We’ve got Chris Hemsworth (sans the blonde locks and Thor hammer) starring alongside relative no-names, Kristen Connolly, Anna Hutchison, Fran Kranz and Jesse Williams as the five victims, with great performances by Richard Jenkins (Step Brothers) and Bradley Whitford (The West Wing) as the guys behind the scenes.

Without giving too much away, I will say, if you’re a horror fan, I think you’ll love and at least appreciate “The Cabin in the Woods.” The clown from “It,” Pin Head from “Hellraiser” and a murderous unicorn (I have no idea) all have cameos in a graphic sequence that, at one point, made me look away.

Whedon’s penchant for great dialogue shines. I was equally amused and horrified in between laughs. All those times you’ve screamed at the TV with the obvious questions: “Why is she running upstairs instead of out the front door?!  Why are they needling around in a creepy basement anyway! Didn’t they see “Evil Dead!”

Whedon has his characters questioning, and he gives us a gory, horrific, twisted answer.

‘Contagion’ has all the symptoms but lacks the payoff of a solid flick

Posted on by
1

“Contagion” opened at midnight today, and I was pumped. The trailer is action-packed, thrilling and promises thrills and chills (no pun intended), but the movie doesn’t follow suit. It opens to a black screen and the isolated sound of coughing. (Kudos to director Steven Soderbergh and screenwriter Scott Z. Burns.) It all starts with one contact.

The movie’s jam-packed with Oscar winners and star power, (Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Marion Cotillard, Laurence Fishburne, Jude Law) but there’s little time for them to shine. The movie bounces between story lines and loses momentum.

Jude Law, sporting a false tooth, does a great job as a blogger intent to cash in on hysteria; Kate Winslet is convincing as a selfless medical investigator running to the front lines of a lethal pandemic; and Laurence Fishburne (who arguably hasn’t had such a strong role since “The Matrix” trilogy) slam-dunks as the CDC front-man who’s not immune to bending the rules when his loved ones are concerned.

Oh, Gwynnie! I wouldn't do that if I were you...

We witness hysteria as food and meds dwindle, men knocking down pregnant women, looting mobs and a band of modern-day cowboys who, we can deduce by the sound of gunshots, murder a family to steal supplies. Matt Damon calls 911 only to find an automated message. “Press 4 if you need to dispose of a body.”

We get it. When the fear of apocalypse rears its ugly head, civility is the first casualty. But that seems to be the meat of “Contagion.” (Spoiler) When a vaccine is discovered (thanks to the Nobel-prize seeking courage of a lone doc), we’re on to the next point: “Who will get the life-saving meds first?” And thus begets social commentary Round 2.

The movie is very present-day with talk of pharmaceutical company conspiracies and  H1N1, but it might have been better-suited in the sci-fi genre. It’s a suspense film that loses suspense, but it does a good job of showing that there are no purely good guys or bad guys, especially during a pandemic.

It’s worth seeing if you’re curious. I was at the edge of my seat for the bulk of it, and in the vein of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” or “Night of the Living Dead,” nobody, rich or poor, was safe in “Contagion.”  The movie’s true to its tagline: Nothing spreads like fear, but in the end, you can easily wash your hands of it … though sanitizer will do.

‘X-Men: First Class’ gets a C-

Posted on by
Reply

I was pumped to see “X-Men: First Class.” East Grand Forks’ River Cinema played it on three screens at midnight Friday, and it seemed the attendance only called for one. This kinda describes the movie as a whole. Big budget, big premise, disappointing results.

The screenwriter had the same problem as the creators of “X-Men: The Last Stand.” So many awesome characters (that some of us grew up with) and not enough time to do them justice. Continuing the “X-Men Origins” series might be just the ticket. There is the risk of it laming out, i.e. “Daredevil” spinoff, “Elektra,” but we’d get the back story and the action.

Michael  Fassbender did a great Magneto, Kevin Bacon seemed to channel Christoph Waltz (“Inglourious Basterds” ) as Sebastian Shaw and Jennifer Lawrence overdid it as Mystique. (To be fair, I’d only ever seen her rocking nuance and subtlety in  “Winter’s Bone.”) “Mad Men’s” January Jones fit right into the 60′s time period, James McAvoy’s general likability made him a great pick for Charles Xavier, and hot, young stars Rose Byrne, Zoe Kravitz and Nicholas Hoult were young and hot.

X-MEN: FIRST CLASS CAST

The film did a great job of giving weight to Magneto’s motivation, his relationship with Professor X and the effects of ongoing alienation and persecution. (Spoiler alert) One scene, Magneto shoots missiles back at military men and Professor X says “They’re men with families. They’re just following orders.” Magneto: “I’ve been at the mercy of men following orders. Never again!” (If you’re not keen to Magneto’s back story, he’s a Holocaust survivor.)

I’ve got to cut “X-Men: First Class” some slack. That’s not too bad of a sign when at the end of a movie, I want more. I’ll definitely watch it again and what ever else is released with the “X-Men” stamp.

And no matter how far from adolescence I get, I’m still hoping my mutant powers will kick in.

Here’s the trailer. Click here to read other movie reviews.

Bette Davis knocks it outta the park in ‘Jezebel’

Posted on by
Reply

The definition of “jezebel” per dictionary.com is: a wicked, shameless, scheming woman. I didn’t know that going in, which made the movie of the same name starring Bette Davis all the more alluring. Had I’d known, my experience would have lacked.

In 1938, Davis won her second and (amazingly) last Academy award for her role as tempestuous schemer from the south, Julie Marsden in “Jezebel.” (She would have 8 other Oscar nominations in her career.) The film was based off of a play and was written with Davis in mind, and after watching it, I know why.

JEZEBEL MOVIE POSTER

Davis in many ways paralled her character in that they both aimed to challenge authority and tradition. The film is set in 1856, where unmarried women were expected to always wear white. (I imagine to symbolize their virginity.) Davis’ character creates a scandal when she orders a brazen scarlet gown to wear to the Olympus Ball. You can guess where it goes from there.

“Jezebel” was released in 1938, and two years earlier, Davis was involved in a lawsuit brought on by the big wigs at Warner Bros. Back then, actors were signed to 7-year contracts, which meant exclusivity with that studio and suspension if they declined roles. Davis felt accepting mediocre parts was damaging her career. She was one of the first female actresses to fight to choose which parts to play. The lawsuit didn’t end in her favor, but it paved the way for the 1940′s, where Olivia de Havilland (her co-star in “Hush … Hush, sweet Charlotte) fought and won. It was a major breakthrough for Hollywood.

During the lawsuit, Davis was portrayed by the media as ungrateful and greedy; she underwent much scrutiny but stuck to her guns — just like her character in “Jezebel.” At one moment, Julie Marsden is plotting catastrophe, the next, she is remorseful and yearning for redemption. Davis portrayed this with such acute grace and skill.

BETTE DAVIS

(Spoiler alert:) In “Jezebel,” Davis’ character martyrs herself as a way to atone for her indiscretions (i.e. manipulating a man to his death, attempting to seduce another married man). She uses her will to fight as fuel to seal her fate on an island overrun with lepers and an epidemic of yellow fever. As she’s driven away on a carriage of those nearly dead, she seems to finally be at peace — confident and comforted by her decision. (Eerie.)

With all that Bette Davis and Julie Marsden share in common, it was as if, Davis harbored her own regrets, and it was only through her craft of acting that she could or would allow herself to let them float to the surface.

Pride in self-sacrifice. Never in life for Bette Davis, but she had the will and skill to knock it outta the park in the realm which she ruled: acting. If you want to see one of Hollywood’s greatest in one of her most acclaimed roles, “Jezebel” is well-worth your time.

Click here to watch the trailer.