Rating:
“The Change-Up” is frequently repugnant, occasionally misogynistic, sporadically racist and thoroughly stupid. This is a loathsome movie not because it aims for the lowest form of crass comedy, but because it aims for the lowest form of crass comedy… and misses. Depressingly humorless, the film falls apart at just about the same rapid rate as an Adam Sandler comedy.
“The Change-Up” revisits the drained formula of the Body-Swap movie, where two people of contrasting lives end up within the body of the other, and vice versa. Here, our duo is comprised of hard-working husband, Dave (Jason Bateman), and weed-smoking bachelor, Mitch (Ryan Reynolds). In a night of cursing, fantasizing, and alcoholism, the two head off to the nearest magic fountain to take a piss, one that’s long enough to refill the Fountain of Life. Dave and Mitch wake up the next morning and are distressed to discover a reality similar to the fate of the heroes of “17 Again”, “Freaky Friday”, “The Hot Chick”, etc.
Friday, November 11, 2011
The Change-Up Movie Review
Friday, November 4, 2011
Puss in Boots Movie Review
Rating:
“Puss in Boots” is both a spin-off and a prequel that expands the Antonio Banderas character from the “Shrek” films. As a sidekick to Shrek, Puss only stood in the background as a portrait of cuteness. Now, he has taken command of the lead role, seizing its privilege by familiarizing us with his diverse life as a skilled fighter, dedicated lover, and excellent dancer. This is an eager and cheerful animated film that humors its way through its vibrant animation.
“Puss in Boots” remains in the same world that’s occupied by Shrek, where fairy tale characters share the same space and time, where The Gingerbread Man could bump into the Big Bad Wolf, where Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella could talk about the Prince Charming in their lives. It’s a delightful and nostalgic concept, one that’s been forgotten by the last two “Shrek” installments. But Dreamworks has recaptured its essence in “Puss in Boots”, reimagining and merging some fairy tales that have occupied the bedtime stories of our childhood.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
The Thing (1982) Movie Review
Rating:
The elusive, amorphous villain in “The Thing” boasts a potent quality long lost in the tradition of post-modern horror movies. Its creature operates in sadistic stealth. It invades the body of its living prey, sucking the life of its unfortunate host from the inside until there is nothing left of him except for his outside physical appearance. Each organism, whether man or animal, who has been victimized by The Thing all have one thing in common: They all ended up as a mere disguise to this intrusive, merciless freak.
The setting is in the barren, icy lands of Antarctica. An American research team is compelled to investigate a Norwegian facility after the remainder of its occupants die in a frantic attempt to assassinate… a dog. Inside the facility, our heroes find that the building has been through what your average C.S.I. would refer to as, “a struggle”. Outside, they discover a cadaver of abnormal shape and size. They notice that it was intentionally set on fire. And based on the empty containers of gasoline near it, whoever ignited the bastard wanted it to burn real good. Because our heroes are a group of curious researchers, they omit the instinctive response of leaving the body alone by bringing it back home with them.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Paranormal Activity 3 Movie Review
Rating:
The demon in the “Paranormal Activity” movies doesn’t just go bump in the night. No. It also likes to yank your hair, possess your kids, move your furniture, drag you across the floor, and beat the hell outta you. What a douchebag.
Like its predecessor, “Paranormal Activity 3” winds back in time in an attempt to further trace the origin of its supernatural mysteries. The year is 1988. Sisters Katie and Kristi are young and naive. When their father, Dennis, begins to suspect that an entity might be roaming around their house, he sets up some cameras to catch the bastard on the act. Turns out, videotaping on an excessive scale runs in the family. If these folks went out more often, they’d probably end up with priced footage of Big Foot and the Easter Bunny.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Friends with Benefits Movie Review
Rating:
Romantic-comedies have become such a static routine in Hollywood that even the two lead characters in “Friends with Benefits” have memorized its blueprint. Earlier scenes present us with mild optimism when we learn that our impending couple is considerably aware of the genre’s most common clichés. But their advantage leads to no benefit when they go right ahead and implement the things they were formerly trying to rebuke.
By the movie’s unsatisfying end, we get the feeling that the purpose of the references was to inform us that what we are watching is no different from the rest of its pack. Instead of utilizing its awareness as a stepping stone for improvement, “Friends with Benefits” lingers in mediocrity by idly pre-apologizing to the faults it plans to commit. What’s the point?
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Drive Movie Review
Rating:
One scene that defines the stylish and disciplined vigor of “Drive” transpires inside a slim, narrow elevator. Our heroes enter the elevator; the doors slam shut. By the time they open again, we have been taken through a hint of suspense, a moment of intimacy, and finally, a burst of ultra-violence. That the movie was able to depict and contain three different moods in a limited space and time astounds me. This is the rare kind of movie that fully values its existence, using every second of its running time for its benefit.
“Drive” stars Ryan Gosling, the Oscar-nominated actor who was given more international appreciation in his previous work as Jacob Palmer in “Crazy, Stupid, Love”. Here, a name eludes him as promotions only refer to his character as “Driver”. The inquisitive effect of a screen name like Driver reminds us of Edward Norton’s character in Fight Club, who was only identified in the credits as “Narrator”. Both evoke the same aura of ambiguity, although the Gosling character is more subtle and composed.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Green Lantern
Rating:
Of all the second-rate comic book movies that has occupied most of 2011’s summer, “Green Lantern” is the only one of its crowd without a saving grace. “Captain America: The First Avenger” saw a true hero in Steve Rogers, giving as much attention to his human character as with his superhuman attributes. It was the goofy playfulness of “Thor” that made its overall silliness acceptable. “X-Men: First Class” was a prequel that founded itself on prior knowledge, instead of avoiding it. “Green Lantern” doesn’t have a singular thing that could make it more than what we already expect. It fulfills the requisites of the superhero genre, then immediately stops trying.
Millions of years ago, long before the nuisance of 3-D, an assembly of aliens called the Guardians formed an intergalactic peace-keeping organization. Each member, called a Green Lantern, was assigned to protect one of the 3,600 sectors of the universe. We’re not sure how many planets or galaxies each sector covers, but we trust the judgment of the Guardians. With the whole universe accounted for, the blue, big headed Guardians have decided to spend the rest of their immortal lives in a planet called Oa. This peace is interrupted when a colossal, evil force named Parallax figured that it would be real evil if he started to eat planets; Earth and Oa are on his menu.
