Film Review - The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (the John Travolta/Denzel Washington Subway Movie)

Fate derails for a NYC transit worker Walter Garber when a former inmate hijacks subway train Pelham 1 2 3, taking hostages, demanding money and to only be in communication with Garber. A remake, Tony Scott’s “The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3” is action packed, and passionate. Both the native New York worker – Garber (Denzel Washington) to the “feeling wronged” ex inmate – Ryder (John Travolta) are fully energized throughout the movie. The cast also includes character actor Luis Guzmán, John Turturro (also in “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” out now), James Gandolfini as NYC’s mayor, Alex Kaluzhsky (keep your eyes out for this guy – he also has one of my favorite lines in the movie), and Gbenga Akinnagbe (“The Wire”). “Pelham” isn’t the greatest action movie ever made, but it’s nice to see these veteran actors, Washington and Travolta, do this kind of flick together.

Pros:
- Denzel Washington – Washington’s last two films, The Great Debaters and American Gangsters, had characters unlike the Walter Garber of “Pelham.” From being a dangerous crime boss to a larger than life, inspiring teacher – Washington’s “Garber” is more of an everyday man – but not perfect, which is what I really like about the character. And only Denzel, only he could give it the sincerity needed to not come off hammy. Would we expect anything else from the classy actor?

- John Travolta – I think the last time we saw Travolta this angry was in “Face/Off” (or was that Nicholas Cage?). Sporting some crazy tattoos, Travolta plays Ryder – the wisecracking, pissed off subway hijacker – to a tee. Glad to see Travolta gracing the movie screen again (and this time, not in a dress).

- The Pacing – It’s really well timed. It’s not too long or too short, the story progresses steadily and doesn’t get hung up in details. It gets to the point, and sticks to the point, and I like that in a film!

- It’s An Action Movie Too – I like "Pelham" because it’s not all talk, it’s not all negotiations with the criminal to let the hostages go, it’s not all “what are they going to say next to make him stop.” They have that element covered, but also there are cars flipping, cop shoot outs, a standoff and it’s great!

- Favorite Moment – Ok, this isn't really a "Pro", but it gets a special shout out because I liked it so much. Remember when I mentioned actor Alex Kaluzhsky had my favorite line in the movie? Kaluzhsky’s “Geo” is on the hijacked subway with his laptop, video chatting with his girlfriend. Of course the connection is cut once underground but the hijackers install routers so Ryder can surf the net. The laptop is on the floor when the connection is restored and the girlfriend can see what’s going on. While Geo is face down on the floor his girlfriend starts talking. She’s sobbing, “I love you.” No response. “Don’t you love me? Why aren’t you saying it back?” Geo angrily crawls up to the computer screen and in a frustrated whisper says, “I’m sort of having a weird day!” This moment was just so relatable and really brought the movie closer to home for me. I loved it, it was really funny!

Cons:
- Secondary Characters – Roger Ebert makes a good point, “This version occupies a denatured action-movie landscape, with no time for local color and a transit system control room that humbles Mission Control. That also may explain the film’s lack of time to establish the supporting characters, even Travolta’s partners.” I agree because, of course I didn’t want anyone to die, but I just didn’t really care about anyone except Washington. However, I think putting more emphasis on the secondary characters may have hung up the pacing a little and if that’s the case then I’d pass on the secondary characters.



- A Little Over the Top – The cars flipping during collisions are a little dramatic, but dang it if it doesn’t make for a good action sequence!

Summary:
“The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3” is certainly entertaining. Now that it’s up against “Transformers 2” I don’t think it stands a chance, but make sure to catch it on DVD because you’ll really enjoy Washington and Travolta’s performances.

"Basically, I'm for anything that gets you through the night - be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniels.” – Frank Sinatra
So may the prayers, tranquilizers and JD be with you and see you next time.
http://moviesworketc.blogspot.com/

Read more!

Film Review – Blindness

“Blindness” is not a happy movie, in fact, it’s kind of scary. Not only does the film depict an epidemic of a contagious illness rendering people blind, but it also depicts the worst of humanity and not in an outlandish way, it’s very, very realistic (which is the scary part). Danny Glover, Mark Ruffalo, Julianne Moore, Alice Braga, Gael García Bernal, Sandra Oh amongst others make up this ensemble piece about a group of afflicted individuals quarantined in an abandoned mental hospital where literally the blind lead the blind – except for one - a Doctor’s wife - who keeps her ability to still see a secret. After watching “Blindness” I just hope that something like this never actually happens, because it won’t be pretty.

Pros:
- Amazing Acting – I love it when actors make an audience hate them, love them, feel sympathy for them, because that’s a sign that they are really great! The actors of “Blindness” brought me into their … well ... situation I guess, so much so that I couldn’t just sit back and passively watch this movie - I was involved.

- Unique Story – There is definitely a portfolio of disease infecting society movies out there, but “Blindness” is different. No one actually dies from the illness that’s causing them white blindness. And it’s rare to have a movie of this genre continue as if there is hope to have a semi regular life after the disease (whether they are blind or not). In this movie, the illness doesn’t equal certain death or life as a zombie.



- The Pacing – The story progresses nicely – we learn about the illness and the reaction to it at the same time as the people and government in the movie learn about it. It’s paced so that the decline of society and the feeling of desperation is believable – we aren’t just thrown into chaos and expected to buy it.

Cons:
- Not Happy Times – There are about 15 minutes of this movie that are happy. I could have used a little more.

- It’s Scary! – I’m a little afraid that something like this could happen and seeing the way people changed and the awful things they did in the movie – I just wouldn’t want that to happen to anyone.



Summary:
“Blindness” is a good movie in the areas of acting and story, but you won’t be smiling when the credits start to roll. I think I just stared at the credits for a while and eventually I blindly turned off the TV.

"Basically, I'm for anything that gets you through the night - be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniels.” – Frank Sinatra
So may the prayers, tranquilizers and JD be with you and see you next time.
http://moviesworketc.blogspot.com/

Read more!

Film Review – Deception

An accountant with a boring life is befriended one day by a mystery man who takes him on a whirl wind of exciting places – playing racquet ball with hot girls, going to the nicest clubs, smoking pot in a conference room - basically turning the accountant’s life upside down (in a good way). But of course it’s all too good to be true and suddenly the accountant is afraid for his life. Ewan McGregor, Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams star in this sexy thriller (although you’ll probably be able to guess how it ends – it’s still entertaining).

Pros:
- All Star Cast – Its tough to top the three stars. McGregor, Jackman and Williams are a talented bunch and this movie emphasizes their best qualities – McGregor – his ability to play sincere and naive; Jackman – his ability to play the mans man and Williams – her subtly.



- It’s Attractive – Shot in Madrid and Bryant Park, NY the scenery couldn’t possibly look more welcoming for mayhem.

- This is How You Do Nudity – I know I complain a lot about unnecessary nudity, so for all the filmmakers in the world – study “Deception.” The nudity is appropriate without going overboard.



Cons:
- “Derailed” Revisited – If you’ve seen the movie “Derailed” starring Jennifer Aniston, Clive Owen and Vincent Cassel – then you’ve seen “Deception” (except "Deception" has more sex).

- People Only Want… - If you judged humanity based on “Deception” then you’d come to the conclusion that the only things people want in life are sex, money and power over other people. Love doesn’t really factor in until all the others are accomplished, there’s no family, no real friends, or other meaningful aspects of life.

- You’re Not Psychic – You’re not a psychic, the end is just that easy to guess.

- Sloooow Down! – It all happens so fast that it’s hard to believe some of the relationships develop that quickly.



Summary:
I’m 50/50 on “Deception.” I didn’t love it, but I didn’t hate it. It definitely showcases some of my favorite actors, but it’s predictable. If you’re interested in a sexy thriller – this movie is for you.

"Basically, I'm for anything that gets you through the night - be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniels.” – Frank Sinatra
So may the prayers, tranquilizers and JD be with you and see you next time.
http://moviesworketc.blogspot.com/

Read more!

Movie Review – Spiral

“Spiral” is a strange movie. I only rented it because it has one of my new favorite actors in it, Zachary Levi. “Spiral” is about Mason, a talented painter working at a telemarketing firm who sketches women and hears voices. At lunch one day a bubbly, bouncy co-worker reaches out to him and he begins to sketch her. They develop a friendship that evolves into a relationship and one morning Amber makes a discovery that changes everything.

Pros:
- Psychological Thriller It Is – Directors Joel Moore and Adam Green are known for stranger films and “Spiral” is certainly not an exception. Although other films, such as “Hatchet,” are bloodier than “Spiral” the creep factor is absolutely at a high level here.



- Unique Characters – I can definitely say I haven’t ever seen characters quite like Mason (the main guy played by Joel Moore [he was in Dodgeball]) and Berkeley (Levi). With Mason you can’t tell if his sketches are out of love, infatuation, obsession, or if it’s just what he does. And Berkeley, we don’t really understand why he’s friends with Mason, why he’s so protective of him and such an [bleep] hole to everyone else.



- Guessing Until the End – I definitely didn’t see the last 10 minutes of the movie coming. It was very M. Night Shyamalan.

- Check out this review – Critic Robert Koehler puts it nicely. He says, “[the movie] offers a momentarily strong slice of psycho cinema to the degree that an intimate camera and heavily designed soundtrack suggest what it's like to be inside Mason's rattled head.” (read the rest of his review)

Cons:
- Again, the Characters – With the exception of Amber (played by Amber Tamblyn) everyone is really unlikable!

- Dark Ages – It’s a little TOO dark.

- End – There were no hints as to the ending, so there’s no way to really guess it until it’s revealed and I don’t really like that. I like to pay attention and put pieces together, but you’re not really afforded that opportunity in “Spiral.”

Summary:
I won’t be recommending this movie to anyone unless they want to watch decent acting (Levi is totally not his usual “Chuck” character!).

"Basically, I'm for anything that gets you through the night - be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniels.” – Frank Sinatra

So may the prayers, tranquilizers and JD be with you and see you next time.

http://moviesworketc.blogspot.com/

Read more!

Movie Review – W.

“W.” is a movie showing the more troublesome times the former President has had both before his days in the Oval Office and during his Presidency. We see a goofier side of the 43rd President who has given this country so many memorable quotes. We get an insider glimpse of what it may have been like to be the Leader of the U.S. during one of its most difficult times – 9/11. Oliver Stone’s “W.” is surprisingly more unbiased than I expected and I did actually learn a lot about GW.

Pros:
- It's Funny – You have to admit that his Presidency was riddled with hilarious Bushisms. The movie takes advantage of that. Thrown in here and there are “misunderestimated,” “Internets,” and other famous word mangles. It also takes advantage of his quirky personality, his odd laugh and unique life experiences.



- The Right Actors - Josh Brolin is phenomenal. He looks like the former Pres, he nails the accent, the laugh, the walk, everything. It’s fascinating to watch! Also, Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush is wonderful to watch. Banks’ subtle humor and goofiness portray a side of the First Lady I’ve never seen.

- Personality – It’s great that this movie isn’t someone else’s opinion of President George Bush’s career. Instead, it’s someone else’s perspective (combined with a ton of research) on GW’s personality and life.



- Relating to the President – Stone chooses moments in Bush’s life that show him in a very relatable light. Bush is self doubting, wants to live up to his parent’s expectations, wants to find love, enjoyed his college days, has some sibling rivalry with his brother, etc., issues that every day folks deal with too. Go figure!

Cons:
- Disrespectful? – If you’re a huge Bush supporter, you might find that the choice of life moments such as Bush’s alcohol usage and funny phrases as President a little disrespectful (although, personally, I think that it is very well done, and more of a humors homage than insulting).

Summary:
“W.” surprised me with how unbiased it presents one of the most controversial leaders of our nation. I kinda think the President would enjoy this movie (he seems to have a fairly decent sense of humor). It’s funny and honest and you can’t help feel for the eldest son of this political family. I’d certainly recommend “W.” to any Republican or Democrat, just keep this in mind, “It's a behind-the-scenes approach, similar to Nixon, to give a sense of what it's like to be in his skin. But if Nixon was a symphony, this is more like a chamber piece, and not as dark in tone.” Oliver Stone.

"Basically, I'm for anything that gets you through the night - be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniels.” – Frank Sinatra
So may the prayers, tranquilizers and JD be with you and see you next time.
http://moviesworketc.blogspot.com/

Read more!

Film Review – Doubt

“Doubt” the movie is based on the play written by John Patrick Shanley called “Doubt: A Parable,” which is a story about stubbornness, misunderstandings and, of course, doubts. Sister Aloysius, a nun stuck in the traditional ways of things in a quickly changing world, is a principle at a Catholic school in the Bronx. One day Sister James brings up an incident, which in turn encourages some suspicions Sister Aloysius has already been thinking and she decides to go out on her own to find the truth behind one the church’s Priests. The cast includes Meryl Streep as Sister Aloysius, Amy Adams as Sister James (a bright eyed and sweet teacher who kinda’ starts the whole thing), Philip Seymour Hoffman as Father Flynn (the suspected Priest) and Viola Davis as Mrs. Miller (one of the student’s mother).


Pros:
- The Words – Since the movie is based on a play it already has a great foundation of words, but in particular the dialogue is realistic. And because the majority of the movie is words (a.k.a – not a whole lot really happens, they just talk about it) it’s a darn good thing "words" is one of its strong suites.



- Great Characters – I’m always impressed when I see an actor in a role that I’ve never really seen them in before. This is particularly true for Streep and Hoffman. But the characters of “Doubt” are very well defined and lifelike yet don’t react in predictable/clichéd ways. It’s a little hard to describe actually.



- Compelling – At first glance the story may seem to be about a single African American student and an inappropriate relationship with a Priest, but that’s not the real story of “Doubt.” But the writer John Patrick Shanley (who wrote both the play and the screenplay) is far more clever and reveals a much deeper social issue.

Cons:
- The Pacing – It’s quite clear that this was originally a piece of theater. It’s a little slower than most movies these days.



- The End Ruins it All – Never in my life has the last 3 words of a movie pissed me off more. Never have the last three words completely ruined a movie for me. That is until I watched “Doubt.” And it’s heartbreaking that they are spoken by such an accomplished actor - Meryl Streep.

Summary:
“Doubt” is very real but complicated. Believable and not cliché. Intriguing but a little hard to watch the potentially career ending events unfold (career ending for a character, not an actor). It’s definitely a character based film. I think writers would really like it. But just do yourself a favor and turn your TV off at the end when Amy Adams sits next to Meryl Streep on a bench in the snow. You’ll like the movie a lot more that way.

"Basically, I'm for anything that gets you through the night - be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniels.” – Frank Sinatra
So may the prayers, tranquilizers and JD be with you and see you next time.
http://moviesworketc.blogspot.com/

Read more!

Movie Review – The Hangover

As much as I would love to think my taste in movies is sophisticated, I have to admit that “The Hangover” in all its testosterone, over done, modern slapstick grossness was pretty darn hilarious and I liked it! Staring Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, and Justin Bartha and from director Todd Phillips who brought us “Old School” and “Road Trip” – this boys-gone-wild Las Vegas flick follows friends Phil, Stu and Alan as they take buddy, Doug, to his Bachelor party in Sin City. Does what they say, “What happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas” apply if you can’t remember what actually happened while there? “Hangover” answers just that question. With a number of key cameos along with the adventure of figuring out what really did happen the night before, I describe “Hangover” as a mystery and comedy all in one!

Pros:

- Location, Location – Las Vegas is the only feasible place for this movie. Where else could offer the sheer potential for the variety of random things to happen and it not seem so random?

- The Right Group of Guys – Although the story is basic – 4 guys take their friend to Vegas for a bachelor party – those 4 guys are anything BUT basic. The actors - Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, and Justin Bartha – bring their own touches to what could have been stereotypical characters. Critic extraordinaire Roger Ebert describes Zach Galifianakis’s performance as, “the kind of breakout performance that made John Belushi a star after "Animal House." Great job guys!



- The “What Next Factor” – As coined by critic Ty Burr of the Boston Globe (read his review) a lot of the hilarity from this movie comes from the unconventional, odd events this group has been through. From stealing a celeb’s tiger, to a small, angry Chinese man, to a hospital visit – the surprise originality yet believability of the events keeps the laughs coming.



- Great Camera Work – The cinematographer portrays a beautiful, scenic Las Vegas that not everyone sees while bustling through the hotels on the Strip. He also uses the camera to literally put us in the moment of waking up after a heavy night of drinking to the point of sleeping face down on a linoleum floor in a Sin City suite. By strapping a camera to actor’s Ed Helms’ waist, we get my most favorite visual moment in “Hangover” with Stu, the first to wake up the morning after, and a wobbly, very close up shot and a quick feel for what this particular hangover actually feels like for these guys.

Cons:



- (I know I say it a lot, but…) Unnecessary Nudity!!! – MAN! This is an annoyance I am seeing waaaaay too often these days and “Hangover” is no exception. There’s plenty of BBB (boobs, butts and balls) throughout the hour and half flick that I REALLY didn’t need to see and didn’t, at all, add to the movie.

- Poor Groom – The groom Doug, actor Justin Bartha, is hardly in the darn movie! His worried fiancé has more lines than he does! It would have been great to get flashes of Doug’s memories of the drunken night to help the story along too.





Summary:
“The Hangover” will make you laugh and cringe in unexpected ways, which I applaud, because it’s kind of rare these days. Also, not all the funny moments are in the trailers, which I LOVE, so you’ll be surprised at a lot of the mishaps these boys encounter. It’s creatively written and not too predictable. So, for me, this makes it one of the best comedies I’ve seen in a long time!

Did you laugh? Where the jokes typical or pretty creative? What did you think of the 4 actors? A good combo or were they lame?

"Basically, I'm for anything that gets you through the night - be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniels.” – Frank Sinatra

So may the prayers, tranquilizers and JD be with you and see you next time.

http://moviesworketc.blogspot.com/

Read more!

Movie Review - Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian

Ben Stiller’s at it again, running around museums with a huge entourage of the best of the best character actors in the biz only this time he’s in D.C.’s Smithsonian Museums instead of New York’s Museum of Natural History. This is a great family movie to start out the summer movie season. “Museum 2” is creative, fun, witty, and actually has a little bit of history incorporated too. Don’t expect career defining performances, but expect to sit back, relax and enjoy an adventure (Amelia Earhart would be proud!).



Pros:
- History Come to Life – I bet every kid has wondered what it would be like to have the exhibits in a museum spring to life. The two “Museum” movies have brought that exciting day dream to the theaters. The highlights of the second film include Amelia Earhart, of course, Einstein, living photographs (this is a really neat effect), Al Capone, Ivan the Terrible, Napoleon Bonaparte, and a lot more.

- The Visuals – Two special effects that I really enjoyed were: 1) the photographs becoming animated and interacting with the events at the museum (also, Stiller and Adams end up in the famous Sailor kissing a Nurse photo and play out a scene in 1942). And 2) is an effect specific to Al Capone and his men – because their exhibit was in black white, the gangsters remained in black and white even when they came to life! It was fun to watch as the black and white Capone stood next to the very colorful Ivan the Terrible and little Napoleon Bonaparte.


- Amy Adams – Stole every scene she was in! She nailed the 1920’s/1930’s era lingo and speech pattern perfectly. She’s the Adams we all love - lighthearted, a little kooky, but smart and self reliant.


- Hank Azaria – Mostly he’s Kahmunrah (big brother to Museum One’s Ahkmenrah), but also adds the voices to Abe Lincoln and the Thinker statue. Azaria’s flexibility is astonishing – he’s great at choosing the comedic quirks of his characters. Kahmunrah has a bit of lisp and throws a fit when people touch his stuff. He and Adams are enough reason alone to watch Museum 2.


- The Character Actor Guest List – Stiller recruited the top funny folk in the movie industry for this movie. The hilarious ensemble includes - Owen Wilson, Robin Williams, Christopher Guest, Steve Coogan, Ricky Gervais, Bill Hader, Jay Baruchel, Clint Howard and about half the cast of “The Office.”

Cons:
- Plot, Not So Much – When it comes to movies with you-can’t-wait-to-see-what-happens-next plots, Museum 2 is not one of those movies. But that’s ok, it wasn’t supposed to be.

- Monkey Slapping – I love monkeys! But the scene where Stiller, the Monkey from the first movie and a new Monkey are slapping each other goes on waaaaaay too long!

- Under Utilizing the Talent – Though the cast is impressive, the most talented of them all Robin Williams and Christopher Guest are the least to speak! Even the Neanderthals have more lines!

- The Jonas Brothers – A better choice for the singing Cherubs would have been Justin Timberlake.

Summary:
“Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian” is a great way to spend the afternoon with your kids (young or in their 20’s as per my case). Historical figures left and right are springing into action and interact with Stiller and Adams to help out in unexpected ways. Is it a history lesson with a funny script? Definitely not, but, as my dad said “If it gets even one kid to go home and Google “Sacajawea” then it’s a good thing” (I’m paraphrasing, sorry dad). But is it a funny adventure film with a huge cast of talented character actors? You bet! It may be a rental, but it’s definitely an entertaining summer sequel.

What did you think of the movie? Cheesy sequel or fun film?

"Basically, I'm for anything that gets you through the night - be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniels.” – Frank Sinatra
So may the prayers, tranquilizers and JD be with you and see you next time.
http://moviesworketc.blogspot.com/

Read more!