In Time (2011)

I’m truly sad to say that I expected a lot more from this film. I heard that there was a thriller film with Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried. That never sounds good. But then I saw the four minutes of footage released at Comic-Con, and I was taken aback. In Time quickly shot up from off my radar to right on the spot, one of my most anticipated films of the year. I just wanted a really great sci-fi film of the year to companion Source Code after the disappointment that was I Am Number Four. I still liked it. But a lot of people didn’t, but that is beside the point. In Time takes place in the near future, where science has gotten rid of the aging gene. People stop aging, and instead of people dying of old age, they can die of having their time run out. People are genetically implanted with a clock on their arms, and when the clock hits zero, you do. You just collapse right then and there. In one of the bigger flaws of the film, we see a man named Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), who is apparently the first person to find something wrong with the system, which is still only found out after his mother (Olivia Wilde, which resulted in a very odd scene, one that I thought would go a very different way than “Hey, mom.”) had died. Salas is living in the poor part of town (where every single person still looks like they’ve spent twenty minutes in a trailer getting themselves all prettied up), and he and his friends wake up every day just hoping they’d have more time on their hand than hours in the day. But when he meets a man at a bar with a death wish and over a century on his wrist, Salas ends up with the time, and, through a little lethal gambling, becomes one of the single richest men in the world. After gaining acquaintance with millionaire Phillipe Weis (Mad Men’s Vincent Kartheiser) and his daughter Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried), Salas finds himself accused of stealing the time by timekeeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy), and goes on the run, kidnapping Sylvia to seal it off. And then the sci-fi glory that this premise should have been is thrown to the backseat for a Robin Hood or Bonnie & Clyde film, one that I did not pay for. My biggest problem with this film is that it is not what it was marketed as, and not what I paid for. I know that’s kind of a stupid complaint, and I don’t mean it to the extent of the idiotic lady who sued critically acclaimed action drama Drive for not being dumb loud action film Fast Five (I have not seen either of these films, I am just basing my bashing of Fast Five on the first Fast & Furious film), but I’m still a little mad. But even when I get something else than what I paid for, I can still have a good time at the movies. And I did have a good time at the movies here. There are points of this film that are fun, slick, and energetic. That being said, there are a decent amount of points that just make you groan, or roll your eyes. And sadly, the sci-fi isn’t strong enough to take the film out of those dark spaces. The film jugs sort of lags on, but does have some fun moments, and a concept way too interesting and smart for anyone involved.
7.5/10

Puss in Boots (2011)

To be perfectly honest, I am not a fan of the Shrek films. I like the first Shrek, am tolerable of Shrek 2, don’t like Shrek the Third, and can’t stand Shrek Forever After. So when news got out that they were making a spin-off based on the character Puss in Boots, I was less than enthusiastic, to say the least. In fact, I was just planning to watch this film pass by. I wasn’t even going to see it on DVD, but was taken to go see it for free. I will never pass up a free film. But watching the film in 3D, on the big screen, it really is not a bad film. It is a pretty good film. The best thing about this film, I have to say, is the fact that it completely separates itself from the other films in the Shrek films. There are no mentions of Shrek, Donkey, Fiona, Farquad, the rest. They do not exist in the world of Puss in Boots, only the characters in the film. And aside from that honorable fact, the film is just a really good film. Working actually better as an adventure western than a comedy, Puss in Boots is for me what Rango is for the rest of the world. Featuring the voice of Antonia Banderas returning as outlaw cat Puss in Boots, the film follows Boots as he lives on the outskirts of towns, stealing and lying to make his way in the world. But his world comes to a halt when he meets up with fellow outlaw Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek-I hate that name so much), along with Puss’s estranged friend Humpty Dumpty (Zack Galafinakis), who get him to take part in a ridiculous scheme to take down murderers Jack and Jill, and steal their magic beans, and then be rich from the golden eggs. The film is one of those rare cases where it looks much better on digital fake celluloid than it is on paper. On paper, this film was a dud, an unfunny mess that people just abandoned. I have not talked to a single person who thought that the Shrek franchise had any more to it, including myself. However, I was very wrong. I was expecting a flop, I got a surprisingly enjoyable film that I can recommend as a very fun animated film, one that the entire family should enjoy. The 3D is not necessary, but not painful or distracting. I would recommend Puss in Boots as a fun family rental, but there still is better stuff out there.
8/10

Hugo (2011)

I am being pushed to write reviews for this film, Puss in Boots, and The Muppets, so I am skipping over some of the films on my quota so I can review Hugo, one of the best films of the year. Directed by legendary director Martin Scorsese, Hugo is based off of the Caldecott-winning novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick. Starring Asa Butterfield (who is playing Ender in the upcoming adaptation of the science fiction novel Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card) as Hugo Cabret, a boy who is living inside of a train station in 1930s Paris. Orphaned after his father (Jude Law) was killed in a fire, Hugo spends his days winding the clocks, and tinkering with the last contraption his father was working on before he died, all while trying to stay out of an orphanage by avoiding the people who would put him there, especially toy tinker with a secret Georges (Ben Kingsley) and the train inspector (Sasha Baron Cohen). While living in his magical world, he is caught by Georges, and is forced to work for him, all while having a growing friendship with Georges god-daughter (I’m messing that up somehow, I just know it) Isabelle (played by the absolutely wonderful Chloë Grace Moretz). As Hugo and Isabelle grow closer together, they work through this wonderful adventure played out in front of them. The film is an adventure, a slower one than most of its kin, but an adventure full in form. It’s probably more of an adventure drama, and not a movie for kids. This is a film that may be rated PG, but it is not a film for children. It is a film for people who love film and the art of film, and I am one of those people. Studio analysts say that Hugo is going to scrape the bottom of the barrel box-office wise, and that makes sense. I saw this film in a double feature with The Muppets, and The Muppets was completely packed with small, annoying, screaming children. Hugo was about half-way filled on opening day. Hugo is going to lose money, at least in America. While that disappoints me, I am not surprised. This is a brilliant film, one I believe in and one I will watch many times over. The directing and writing is fabulous (Martin Scorsese will never do wrong), and the acting and visuals are absolutely perfect (Asa Butterfield does amazing, and I’m also kind of in love with Chloë Grace Moretz [also, in case you’ve forgotten, I’m 13 years old, a year younger than she is], so I might be biased, but she and the entire cast are still amazing). This entire movie is amazing, brilliant, wonderful, and magical. Honestly, this is the first movie all year that made me cry a little bit at the end. The only reason this isn’t my favorite film of the year is that it took about twenty minutes until the film won me over, where my favorite film of the year, Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris took about two. The film is slow, and I do not recommend this as a kid’s film. I recommend this as a film for those who love the art and who just want to see a good film, something that seems to happen less often than it used too.
9.5/10

Skateland (2011)

It has almost become a cliché in itself to dedicate a film or work to the late John Hughes. Cliché is definitely not the correct word to use, but it’s all I got. Give me a break. Now, I love John Hughes. He founded modern film, and founded my personal love of film (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius), but so many people have dedicated their work to him, it doesn’t mean anything anymore. I can almost guarantee you that if (when) I make movies, I will dedicate one to Mr. Hughes. But for now, when it’s free territory, I’m gonna complain about it. So, ha. Either way, the plotline of Skateland concerns a boy (Shiloh Fernandez) who just doesn’t know what to do with his life. He’s stuck in the middle of his perfect world, working at this roller rink in the 80s. He has a nice girlfriend (Ashley Greene), and a lot of friends, especially an older one he looks up to (think Matthew McConaughey from Dazed and Confused). He lives his life drinking beer and smoking what people in the 80s smoked. But he slowly stays in his perfect little world, while the world around him moves on. The film becomes less about an homage to the 80s movies, and becomes more like it’s character’s feeling in the film-jumbled, convoluted, and alone-wait. This film is genius! The film is him, and it’s confusing and jumbled because he is-no, never mind. I actually do like this film. I really do. But with a tribute to one of the greatest modern filmmakers ever to grace celluloid, you have to expect more than this. The acting is sub-par, the direction straight out of television, and the writing standard and uneventful. But the film has a charm to it that makes me not hate it. I can’t explain it. It’s just not that bad of a film.
7/10

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

I’ve referenced this film many a night before, and now, after experiencing it once again, this time on the big screen, I bring you Night of the Living Dead, the mother of all modern zombie films. In fact, the inventor of all modern zombie films. Co-written and directed by George A. Romero, Night of the Living Dead placed into our society what we know is a zombie. A diseased or reanimated corpse with minimal brain activity feeding on human flesh and spreading the disease. Sometimes they’re slow, sometimes they’re fast. But they all come from this core model. This wonderful core model. This is wonderful not just as a good model for zombies in the future, but as a terrifying and demented horror film. I saw this movie in reparatory with my 9-year-old brother. He is just growing up into horror films, and loves them so, and soon will as much as I do, I hope. This movie both amazed and terrified him. It was a fascinating sight. He couldn’t keep his eyes away from the screen, black & white, grainy, and beautiful. It is one of those sights that makes me forget that Adam Sandler keeps making money, one of those images that puts life back into my film-loving heart. The plot of the film concerns a group of people (Duane Jones, Judith O’Dea, Karl Hardman, Marilyn Eastman, Keith Wayne, Judith Ridley, and Kyra Schon), unknown to each other, staying inside of a farm house while they attempt to survive an attack from the reanimated dead, started by an unknown cause. But the movie isn’t about the zombies. The movie is about how we would react in a situation of pure pain and destruction-what we would do if we were faced with the end. Many films cover this, I write stories covering this, but this film does it best. The human dynamics of the film are spectacular, and you truly get to see these people fight and crumble to the point of death. This is a masterpiece, George A. Romero’s masterpiece of film. This is a timeless classic, one that should never be missed. “They’re coming to get you, Barbara!”
9.5/10

You Don't Mess With the Zohan (2008)

Finally, another Adam Sandler film I like! YAY! The third recorded film starring Adam Sandler that I like, it truly is a miracle. The first one was The Wedding Singer, then Billy Madison, and now You Don’t Mess With the Zohan. And how many don’t I like? Happy Gilmore, The Waterboy, Just Go With It, among others. So, not a great ratio on Sandler’s part, but still-this movie is good, a fact that truly took me by shock. There was so much that should’ve gone wrong with this film. Still directed by Dennis Dugan, still starring Sandler, still produced by Judd Apatow, so where did this movie go right? An unknown writer named Carlito Cabardo, that’s where. Not even notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page, Cabardo joins writers Sandler, Apatow, and Robert Smigel (who are responsible for films such as Happy Gilmore, Little Nicky, and Eight Crazy Nights) and punches up this film to decency. Not hilarity, but decency. And for that, Mr. Cabardo, I thank you. The plot of the film concerns Israeli counter-terrorist Zohan (Sandler), who is the best in the business, but secretly wants to be a hairdresser and work for Paul Mitchell. So during a fight with The Phantom (John Turturro), Zohan fakes his own death and flees to America. While in America, Zohan finds work at a hair salon run by a Palestinian woman named Dalia (Emmanuelle Chriqui), and finds a friend in Michael (Nick Swardson), all of whom revolve around this completely insane race war (I think) that makes ABSOLUTLEY no sense when I was watching it. But I didn’t care. There were parts of this movie that I wasn’t too fond of, but there were jokes in this film where I was laughing out loud. The only other Adam Sandler movie where that has happened was during the song from The Wedding Singer, and here it happened when Sandler took a shot at Mel Gibson. Since Sandler is Jewish, and Gibson’s anti-Semitic comments have made him truly infamous, the joke in there is just filled with pure hatred, and it is hysterical. I won’t spoil it, but-dang, that joke was hilarious. Either way, the film is filled to the brim with jokes, some are hits, some are misses, but there are more of the former than the latter, something unseen for a Sandler film. You can consider this the light in the cloud. And when Jack and Jill comes out on DVD, I have to watch that, and then the cloud will darken again. YAY!
7.5/10

Real Steel (2011)

Okay, I know that I’m really behind on my reviews, but my Freaks and Geeks binge is over, as all 18 episodes have been digested by my brain (it is the second best drama show out there, behind AMC’s Breaking Bad, not including HBO, SHOwtime, FX, or any other TV-MA [which I cannot see] shows of the like), which makes me so sad. JUDD APATOW, MAKE MORE FREAKS AND GEEKS! I don’t care about if you have to make new characters, just make more episodes! MORE FREAKS AND GEEKS! But it’s time for me to stop ranting about things I love so very close to my heart, this is time for Real Steel. To imagine Real Steel, think Over the Top but with Wolverine and robots. That fight. Hugh Jackman and fighting robots should have been a more exciting film. But it is not. Based off of the Richard Matheson short story “Steel” (which if you even look at the actual plot of the story, which was butchered in the film, you could make a really good movie with this), the film follows down-on-his-luck former-boxer Charlie Kenton, who exists in a world, supposedly nine years in the future (not gonna happen), in which robots have taken over from humans in boxing. So now Kenton is buying robots and making them fight (there is a scene where the robot punches a cow). And when he is down on money, rent, and everybody hates him, he finds out he has a son, and his ex-girlfriend, the mother of the son, is dead. Do we know why? Do we even have any sympathy or previous knowledge? Even a montage? Nope. This is one of the few times where I ask for a montage. Anyway, he decides to take care of the son (actually really wonderfully played by Dakoto Goyo, which, in my opinion, is probably one of the strongest things about the film), even though he doesn’t want him around, I don’t get it. Doesn’t matter. But they find this small sparring robot, who they train to fight, including a terrible and soul-wrenching scene in which the son teaches the robot to dance, which becomes a recurring thing in the film, which is because the film beckons me to hate it. *NOTE* I AM GONNA SPOIL SOME STUFF AFTER THIS MOMENT. IF YOU DO NOT WANT THE ENDING OF THE FILM TO BE SPOILED, DO NOT READ ON. IF YOU HAVE SEEN THE FILM, OR HAVE BETTER THINGS TO CARE ABOUT, READ ON. *NOTE OVER* And then the film just goes for it, and then completely rips off Rocky. I even quote a very funny CollegeHumor sketch, “Overheard at Real Steel”, in which one of the characters states, “Wait, the bad guy won by descision, how is this any different from the end of Rocky?” “The part in five minutes where I ask for my money back.” If I had paid for the film (and I would have paid for Paranormal Activity 3 instead), I would have asked for my money back. The film is lazy, the script uninspired, the director, Shawn Levy, REALLY needs to stick to super-goofy films like Date Night and Night at the Smithsonian, both of which I like, but they’re ridiculous. Shawn Levy needs to be ridiculous, and if he isn’t, he fails. This movie fails. There are some very good moments, like the acting, the visuals, the fight scenes take Transformers to the ground, and some of the scenes are really fun, but the movie is too light at times, too heavy at others, just uneven, unpleasant, and leaving a bitter taste in my mouth. Just go re-watch Rocky.
5.5/10

The New World (2005)

I honestly have no real idea how to start this review off, so…yeah. I just did. Meta. Anyway, me going back and covering all five films of director/writer Terrence Malick has found its second victim in The New World, the epic filmmaker’s fourth flick. Starring Colin Farrell as John Smith, the film chronicles the time when John Smith and others crossed the oceans between Europe and America in 1607 Virginia. While being held prisoner in a Native American tribe, John falls deeply in love with a girl by the name (unspoken in the film) of Pocahontas (Q’orianka Kilcher, who does a wonderful job, just never ask me to pronounce her name. Never). The film, over the course of two-and-a-half hours, covers their relationship, along with the insertion of minor characters played by Christian Bale and Christopher Plummer, but they honestly do not matter. In all truth, John Smith doesn’t matter. The film is about the journey of Pocahontas, who finds people that invade her land, tries to make peace with these people, and is accepted and betrayed by these people. And on that pure aspect, it’s not a bad film. It’s decently unfocused and way too long, but the film is good. Definitely not on par with The Tree of Life, and I can’t vouch for Terrence Malick’s other work, but as a film on an epic scale, it’s very good. The cinematography is amazing, Kilcher should have been nominated for an Oscar for Best Actress, she is purely amazing, but the writing and directing just seem a little off-focus. The entire film is just off-focus. But as long as it’s in the ball park, we’re good.
7.5/10