Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake hit all the comedic high notes in this summer's R-rated romantic comedy, Friends with Benefits.
Jamie (Kunis) -- a corporate headhunter -- and Dylan (Timberlake) become fast friends after she convinces him to take the job as artistic director for GQ in New York City. Neither one of them is good in relationships -- she's emotionally damaged, he's emotionally unavailable -- but they both really like sex, so after an alcohol filled night of watching romantic comedies they decide that they're going to be friends who have sex with each other.
Ground rules are firmly established to prevent them from developing feelings for each other -- because that always works so well. Soon, they're shagging morning, noon and night, but things get complicated when Dylan takes Jamie home to L.A. to spend a weekend with his family.
There's a fight, another fight, and -- just when you think they're going to solve things -- another fight. But eventually Dylan makes the grand romantic gesture and the two get together.
Friends with Benefits was a lot of fun to watch for a number of reasons. For starters, I'm a big fan of the R-rated romantic comedy movement happening. It moves the whole genre into a more adult -- and consequently realistic -- zone. It's easier to believe the characters are real people when their conversations are vulgar and unpolished.
FWB's cast does an excellent job of bringing together a hilarious script. Kunis and Timberlake have great chemistry, and it's easy to believe they're really good friends. Woody Harrelson makes a brilliant showing as Tommy, Dylan's gay coworker, and Richard Jenkins is great as Dylan's father who suffers from Alzheimer's Disease. Shaun White even makes an appearance as a bizzaro version of himself.
The movie has a lot of really funny moments. From an R-rated urination sequence -- I know it sounds weird, but trust me -- to something as simple Dylan trying to do math in his head, the laughs keep rolling for the entire movie.
I know a lot of people thought Friends with Benefits was going to be exactly like No Strings Attached -- the January romantic comedy starring Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher. I haven't seen No Strings Attached, but there's no way a d-bag like Ashton Kutcher could make a movie as funny as FWB. Even if you like No Strings Attached, Friends with Benefits is hilarious.
In a summer dominated by brilliant R-rated comedies -- Bridesmaids and Horrible Bosses among them -- Friends with Benefits' holds its own thanks to its hilarious cast and script. This is definitely a romantic comedy worthy of your time and money.
7.5 of 10
Friday, July 29, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II" review
The question: Is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II a conclusion worthy of the most successful film franchise in movie history? The answer: Hell yeah, it is!
SPOILER ALERT!
Part II picks up right where Part I leaves off -- Harry, Ron and Hermione, having been rescued from Malfoy Manor by Dobby, continue their quest to discover and destroy all of Voldemort's horcruxes. The search takes the trio to Gringott's Bank -- to Bellatrix Lestrange's vault -- and, eventually, to Hogwarts. This is where the action really picks up.
Shortly after Harry's return to Hogwarts, Voldemort and all of his forces arrive and vow to lay seige to the castle unless Harry is turned over to him. Rather than surrender, the professors and students -- under the leadership of Professor McGonagall -- take up the defense of Hogwarts while Harry searches the castle for the remaining horcruxes.
What happens next is one of the most epic battles in movie history. Thousands of Death Eaters, trolls and werewolves laying seige to Hogwarts is one of the coolest things I've ever seen, but the filmmakers have to be commended for focusing on Harry's quest to stop Voldemort instead of the battle. As much fun as the special-effects orgy was, it was better to maintain the heart of the story.
The whole series boils down to a final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort where *gasp* Harry defeats him once and for all. Big surprise there. But we don't watch Harry Potter to be surprised -- we've always known Harry was going to win. We watch the movies because it's about how he wins. It's always been about the journey, and let's be honest, it's been one helluva ride.
Deathly Hallows: Parts II hits a lot of great highs. Forget about Voldemort dying, Ron and Hermione finally kiss! Not only that, Neville Longbottom finally shows himself as a complete bad-ass; he's been leading the resistance inside Hogwarts since Harry's been away, and he kills Nagini! Plus, few moments were as satisfying as seeing Molly Weasley waste Bellatrix Lestrange.
The movie also provides plenty of emotion, particularly the reveal of Remus, Tonks and Fred's deaths -- though I think they could've spent a little more time with those moments.
The actors -- especially Radcliffe, Watson and Grint -- continue to demonstrate a maturity of talent beyond their years. I've no doubt we'll see bright post-Potter careers for all of them.
My only real question is: Will Part I and Part II work together as a single movie? Considering they took one story and turned it into two movies, it'll be interesting to see if the two movies will flow together as one story.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II is a fitting conclusion to the decade-long film franchise that has enchanted audiences around the world and changed movie history forever. Well done, Harry Potter. Well done.
9 of 10
SPOILER ALERT!
Part II picks up right where Part I leaves off -- Harry, Ron and Hermione, having been rescued from Malfoy Manor by Dobby, continue their quest to discover and destroy all of Voldemort's horcruxes. The search takes the trio to Gringott's Bank -- to Bellatrix Lestrange's vault -- and, eventually, to Hogwarts. This is where the action really picks up.
Shortly after Harry's return to Hogwarts, Voldemort and all of his forces arrive and vow to lay seige to the castle unless Harry is turned over to him. Rather than surrender, the professors and students -- under the leadership of Professor McGonagall -- take up the defense of Hogwarts while Harry searches the castle for the remaining horcruxes.
What happens next is one of the most epic battles in movie history. Thousands of Death Eaters, trolls and werewolves laying seige to Hogwarts is one of the coolest things I've ever seen, but the filmmakers have to be commended for focusing on Harry's quest to stop Voldemort instead of the battle. As much fun as the special-effects orgy was, it was better to maintain the heart of the story.
The whole series boils down to a final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort where *gasp* Harry defeats him once and for all. Big surprise there. But we don't watch Harry Potter to be surprised -- we've always known Harry was going to win. We watch the movies because it's about how he wins. It's always been about the journey, and let's be honest, it's been one helluva ride.
Deathly Hallows: Parts II hits a lot of great highs. Forget about Voldemort dying, Ron and Hermione finally kiss! Not only that, Neville Longbottom finally shows himself as a complete bad-ass; he's been leading the resistance inside Hogwarts since Harry's been away, and he kills Nagini! Plus, few moments were as satisfying as seeing Molly Weasley waste Bellatrix Lestrange.
The movie also provides plenty of emotion, particularly the reveal of Remus, Tonks and Fred's deaths -- though I think they could've spent a little more time with those moments.
The actors -- especially Radcliffe, Watson and Grint -- continue to demonstrate a maturity of talent beyond their years. I've no doubt we'll see bright post-Potter careers for all of them.
My only real question is: Will Part I and Part II work together as a single movie? Considering they took one story and turned it into two movies, it'll be interesting to see if the two movies will flow together as one story.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II is a fitting conclusion to the decade-long film franchise that has enchanted audiences around the world and changed movie history forever. Well done, Harry Potter. Well done.
9 of 10
Thursday, July 14, 2011
"Transformers: Dark of the Moon" Review
The Transformers franchise looks for redemption with Transformers: Dark of the Moon, and actually finds it.
The movie picks up three and a half years after Transformers 2 and Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf) is having a hard time finding his first post-college job. To make matters worse, he's living off of his girlfriend, Carly (Rosie Huntington-Whitely), who works as a personal assistant for the more-than-sketchy d-bag Dylan (Patrick Dempsey).
Meanwhile, the Autobots are still working with the NEST team and Lennox (Josh Duhamel) to protect the world from the Decepticons. A Russian informant leads the team to Chernobyl where they find a fuel cell from an Autobot ship that crashed on the moon in the 1950s.
Sam discovers the real purpose of the Apollo missions were to beat the Soviets to the moon to examine and recover technology from the crashed alien ship. After uncovering the conspiracy, he once again finds himself thrust into the middle of the war between the Autobots and Decepticons.
The real question is: Did the world really need another Transformers movie?
After the abomination that was Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, I lost all interest in Transformers -- Shia LeBeouf dying and going to Autobot heaven was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. Honestly, how can you come back from something that stupid?
Well, a lot of things happen in Transformers 3 to make it better than Transformers 2. For starters, even though Transformers is about giant alien robots, Dark of the Moon is the most human of the franchise. I give a lot of credit to writer Ehren Kruger for using the extreme circumstances of the movie as a way to explore human emotions and relationships.
Another improvement is the transition into much darker subject material. There's a particularly poignant scene depicting the aftermath of a full-scale Decepticon attack on Chicago.
And, possibly the biggest bonus, Megan Fox is gone -- fired by Steven Spielberg after she said director Michael Bay was like Hitler.
Of course, Transformers: Dark of the Moon is still victim of the same pitfalls of the other movies. Michael Bay tries too hard to infuse the movie with humor that feels completely forced -- especially given the more serious subject matter. Shia LeBeouf seems incapable of playing a single scene without sounding like a complete smart-ass. At least there aren't any giant Decepticon balls in this one.
And, as always, the movie is like watching one really long special-effects orgy. Not that the effects aren't good -- it honestly looks like there were real giant robots on the set. The problem is that there is so much going on visually that you can't even begin to process everything on the screen. It is sensory overload, especially in 3D.
All in all, Transformers: Dark of the Moon manages to not only bring the franchise back from the Vortex of Suck that was Transformers: Rise of the Fallen, but it is the best movie in the series.
6.5 of 10
The movie picks up three and a half years after Transformers 2 and Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf) is having a hard time finding his first post-college job. To make matters worse, he's living off of his girlfriend, Carly (Rosie Huntington-Whitely), who works as a personal assistant for the more-than-sketchy d-bag Dylan (Patrick Dempsey).
Meanwhile, the Autobots are still working with the NEST team and Lennox (Josh Duhamel) to protect the world from the Decepticons. A Russian informant leads the team to Chernobyl where they find a fuel cell from an Autobot ship that crashed on the moon in the 1950s.
Sam discovers the real purpose of the Apollo missions were to beat the Soviets to the moon to examine and recover technology from the crashed alien ship. After uncovering the conspiracy, he once again finds himself thrust into the middle of the war between the Autobots and Decepticons.
The real question is: Did the world really need another Transformers movie?
After the abomination that was Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, I lost all interest in Transformers -- Shia LeBeouf dying and going to Autobot heaven was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. Honestly, how can you come back from something that stupid?
Well, a lot of things happen in Transformers 3 to make it better than Transformers 2. For starters, even though Transformers is about giant alien robots, Dark of the Moon is the most human of the franchise. I give a lot of credit to writer Ehren Kruger for using the extreme circumstances of the movie as a way to explore human emotions and relationships.
Another improvement is the transition into much darker subject material. There's a particularly poignant scene depicting the aftermath of a full-scale Decepticon attack on Chicago.
And, possibly the biggest bonus, Megan Fox is gone -- fired by Steven Spielberg after she said director Michael Bay was like Hitler.
Of course, Transformers: Dark of the Moon is still victim of the same pitfalls of the other movies. Michael Bay tries too hard to infuse the movie with humor that feels completely forced -- especially given the more serious subject matter. Shia LeBeouf seems incapable of playing a single scene without sounding like a complete smart-ass. At least there aren't any giant Decepticon balls in this one.
And, as always, the movie is like watching one really long special-effects orgy. Not that the effects aren't good -- it honestly looks like there were real giant robots on the set. The problem is that there is so much going on visually that you can't even begin to process everything on the screen. It is sensory overload, especially in 3D.
All in all, Transformers: Dark of the Moon manages to not only bring the franchise back from the Vortex of Suck that was Transformers: Rise of the Fallen, but it is the best movie in the series.
6.5 of 10
Thursday, June 30, 2011
"Bad Teacher" Review
Bad Teacher brings together a funny and talented cast—including Cameron Diaz, Jason Segel, and Justin Timberlake—for a fresh take on a familiar character.
Elizabeth Halsey (Diaz) teaches middle school and is quite possibly the worst teacher in the history of bad teachers. The tagline for the movie reads: “She doesn’t give an ‘F’,” which is pretty much the case.
Instead of teaching, she shows a myriad of movies— Dangerous Minds and Scream among them. While her class watches movies, she either sleeps or sneaks shots from the secret stash of alcohol in her desk.
The only thing Elizabeth Elizabeth
When Elizabeth learns that the teacher whose class performs the best on the state standardized test gets a $5700 bonus—and that Amy wins every year—she resorts to any means necessary to win that money, even going so far as to teach. GASP!
The reason I say Bad Teacher is a fresh twist on a familiar character is because we’ve all seen the I-don’t-care-about-kids teacher character a hundred times, but this is the first time we’ve seen a woman in the role. And Cameron Diaz shines.
This character is a huge departure from the bubbly characters Diaz usually plays that it’s a blast to watch her here, even if she is completely despicable. I have to say, this movie did make me wonder if this is what all teachers would be like if they removed their filters for a day…
I’m also excited about Bad Teacher because it follows along the same lines as Bridesmaids, showing women as much more complex characters than they’ve been portrayed in Hollywood comedies. Women are usually the voice of reason, and it’s a lot of fun to watch them when they’re not.
If you want a movie with a solid moral and life lesson, Bad Teacher isn’t for you. But as something hilariously unapologetic, with a brilliantly funny cast, Bad Teacher gets definitely gets an “A.”
7.5 of 10
"X-Men: First Class" Review
After the abomination that was X-Men: The Last Stand, and the underwhelming X-Men Origins: Wolverine, you may be asking yourselves: do we really need another X-Men movie? After seeing X-Men: First Class, I can tell you the answer is a resounding yes.
Rather than continuing the story of the first film trilogy, X-Men: First Class takes us back to 1962 and the origins of the first group of X-Men. Charles Xavier—Professor X—is a new doctoral graduate of Oxford; Eric Lenssher—Magneto—is a globe-trotting Nazi hunter, determined to track down the man who murdered his mother in a concentration camp.
The film is set against the backdrop of the Cold War as mutant Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) orchestrates a plot to begin a nuclear war between the United States and Soviet Union. His goal is that the radiation from the nuclear fallout to create a new race of mutants, with him as their ruler. The CIA recruits Charles (James McAvoy, Wanted) and Eric (Michael Fassbender, Inglorious Basterds and Jane Eyre) to form a team of mutant operatives to stop Shaw.
The climax of the film takes place during the Cuban Missile Crisis as Charles and the X-Men face off against Shaw’s mutants with the entire world at stake.
The best thing about X-Men: First Class is that, despite the dramatic setting, it’s a story about the characters and their struggles to find a place in a fearful and suspicious world. The movie spends a lot of time building the relationships between the characters—especially Charles and Eric. Their friendship is both fun and painful to watch because they build a strong bond, but we know it’s doomed from the start.
It’s a lot of fun to see these familiar characters as young men—instead of the incredibly serious Professor X, for example, Charles is a fun-loving, hard-drinking womanizer when we first meet him. There’s also a great scene where the younger mutant recruits spend a drunken night showing off their abilities.
The most refreshing part of X-Men: First Class is that it doesn’t rely on special effects or spectacle to try to drive the story, which was the major pitfall of the other X-Men films. Instead, it’s the humanity of the characters, their personal struggles, and their relationships that drive the plot and make the audience invest in the journey.
It’s this approach to storytelling that makes X-Men: First Class a first-class film, and the best in the franchise.
8.5 of 10
"Jane Eyre" Review
It’s a daunting task to adapt one of the greatest literary works of the nineteenth century into a two-hour film; and while the cast brilliantly brings these classic characters to life, the overall execution of the story left me underwhelmed.
To be fair, my background is in English literature and I’ve recently participated in a discussion of Jane Eyre, so the novel is pretty fresh in my mind and I’m probably being overly critical because of that. A friend of mine, for example, saw the film and thoroughly enjoyed himself.
For those of you who haven’t read the novel, Jane Eyre—set in 1820s England—is about a young woman who is hired as a governess for the ward of a temperamental master named Mr. Rochester. Jane hears rumors from the other servants that the manor—Thornfield—is haunted by the ghost of a woman. During her time at Thornfield, she and Rochester fall in love and decide to marry.
The novel does a really good job of balancing gothic—a haunted house, dangerous secrets, etc.—with romantic elements. The film, however, flip-flops between the two parts of the story without ever finding the appropriate balance, and in fact winds up abandoning the gothic components altogether—much to my dismay.
Before I get too down on the film, I want to mention how fantastic the performances were. Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) captures the humble, confident, quick-witted Jane from the novel; Michael Fassbender’s (Inglorious Basterds) Rochester is dark, ill-humored, but romantic; and the brilliant Dame Judy Dench lights up the screen in her portrayal of Mrs. Fairfax, the housekeeper. Without this cast, sitting through Jane Eyre would’ve been a chore.
Unfortunately, the rest of the adaptation leaves much to be desired. There were several details from the novel that were either changed or omitted, and my favorite scene—where Jane sees the ghost for the first time—was entirely absent from the film. Also, the decision to abandon the gothic elements once the romantic plot took off destroyed the tone that had been created from the beginning and gave me the sense that I was watching two different movies.
Again, I understand that omissions have to be made when a 400-plus page novel becomes a two-hour movie, and for what it was, the film wasn’t bad. But, it could’ve been so much better.
6 of 10
"Scream 4"
Just so you know, the original Scream trilogy are some of my favorite movies, so my review is probably not going to be the most objective thing in the world, but I’ll do my best.
Scream 4 takes place 10 years after the events of Scream 3. Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) returns to her hometown of Woodsboro on the anniversary of the Woodsboro Murders—the events of Scream—as the last stop on her book tour. Naturally, her arrival is the catalyst for a new series of murders that rock the small town.
The Scream movies take place in an interesting universe because the “real” murders are the inspiration for a slasher-movie franchise called Stab. By the time Scream 4 takes place, Stab 7 has been made, and the entire world knows about Ghostface and his modus operandi of calling his victims before murdering them. There’s even a Ghostface smartphone app that transforms the caller’s voice into the voice of the killer.
The reason I like Scream is that it’s post-modern, self-deprecating brilliance. The movie is aware of itself as a horror film, makes fun of the standard horror movie devices, then either uses or subverts those same devices. That’s what made the originals so much fun, and that’s what keeps audiences coming back over and over again.
Scream 4 follows the franchise’s successful formula, but this time the target is reboot/remakes. It mocks the recent trends in horror films—torture porn, for example—while also making fun of its own existence as a reboot. The fun is that, while Scream 4 is a reboot of the Scream franchise, the new murders in Woodsboro are a remake of Stab, the original movie based on the Woodsboro Murders. (It all gets awfully meta in a really fun way.)
I feel like I’m rambling a little, but I get really excited about Scream.
Here’s the skinny on Scream 4: the movie does its best to stay funny and relevant—sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. The kills are original; the social commentary is scathing—particularly the bits about America’s current obsession with internet fame—; and the Who-Dunnit? aspect keeps you guessing until the very end.
Not that there aren’t problems—the ending is pretty silly, for example, but it’s hard to be upset because even the characters in the movie comment on the ridiculousness of the situation.
Scream 4 can’t hold a candle to the original—as Sidney makes abundantly clear in the movie. Its faults aside, however, it has enough scares—and laughs—to keep you entertained and make it well worth the trip to theater.
7 of 10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)