Movie Reviews – “Eagle Eye”

Contacted by a stranger, Shia LaBeouf and Michelle Monaghan are now considered “activated,” which means they have to complete a series of tasks in order to help the greater good and see their loved ones again. This absurd plot has some well written dialogue and is convincingly acted by the lead and main support cast. I was impressed, I have to say, even though I was continuously thinking “that could never happen.”

Pros:
- The Acting – Shia LaBeouf rises to the occasion to show audiences a multidimensional character. Not only does he kick some bad guy booty but he also sheds some believable tears. He’s showing real promise especially under the wing of veteran Steven Spielberg. Michelle Monaghan’s “Rachel” is a divorcee with a son. Called to action while out with girlfriends, she’s motivated by the threat of her son being killed. Monaghan is gorgeous (a little too much if you ask me because by the end she’s still got perfect make up on and her hair isn’t flat – amazing how that happens, huh?) as well as genuine.

- Billy Bob Thornton - He adds a lot to the movie (and admittedly I am not a Billy Bob fan) but I liked him here. As the head of the FBI, he doesn’t deliver the conventional formulaic one liners. He has funny lines and delivers them without us laughing at how ridiculous he sounds.

- They Don’t Do it All on Their Own – You know in a movie and Mr. Bob Smith is randomly picked to help with the county’s largest heist, hostage situation, disarming a Presidential assassin, etc and he accomplishes the task unaided and without dying?! Well that doesn’t happen in “Eagle Eye.” Without whoever is on the other end of LaBeouf’s and Monaghan’s phones these two would be in for it. But because the voice controls the traffic lights, arranges for transportations, makes sure they have directions, and other helpful hints, these two actually have a chance at getting to their secret destination.

- The Action – And there’s A LOT of it. Cars flip, explode, cranes move on their own, there’s jumping onto barges, jumping out of buildings onto busy metro tracks, and more. Most of the scenes require a stretch of the imagination, but they are well shot.

Cons:
- Some Unanswered Questions - The voice on the phone at first refers to Monaghan’s character as “the female” and not by name. LaBeouf’s character makes a point to distinguish how odd that is, yet we never find out why.

- A lot of Innocent People Die – This is another movie pet peeve of mine, where there are just an extraordinary amount of random people who die because of car chases, planes flying through tunnels or bombs intended for someone else. “Eagle Eye” is no exception to that. A lot of those innocent victims are cops in this movie (I’m not saying the movie makers are doing that on purpose or anything – I think it just happened that way), but cop cars are launched in the air left and right, getting rolled over, you name it.

- Can Shoot a Gun – Another pet peeve to add to the list is movie character who have no experience with guns shoot them with accuracy. Even small guns give a lot of kickback and it’s very hard to control. So in movies when people just pick up guns and know how to use them and shoot their intended target and don’t get knocked on their butts, I laugh (quietly and to myself). But it takes any sort of realism out of the situation.

- The Action – As mentioned above, there’s a lot of it and with a cast of great actors, some of their talent goes to waste because they’re constantly shushed by the concentration it takes to shoot a moving vehicle, jump out of a car, evade the enemy, and other “look but don’t speak” conditions.

Unique Qualities:
- The Characters – LaBeouf’s character could just be your everyday 20 something year old slacker, rebellious guy, but he’s not. Monaghan’s character could just be another “feeling guilty” single mom, but she’s not. Thorton’s character could be as cliché as CSI Miami’s David Caruso, but he’s not.

In the end, I found myself wondering “What crazy, outrageous thing could happen next?” as opposed to “Wow, I wonder where this story is going.” That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but “Eagle Eye” did leave a little to be desired with its lack of a cohesive, semi-plausible plot.

Are the stunts outrageous? Is there a real plot to this film? What did you think?

“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!

“My Best Friends Girl” – Movie Review

“Good Luck Chuck” meet “How to Loose a Guy in 10 Days” – you two will get along and make a baby and call it “My Best Friend’s Girl.” “Girl” stars Dane Cook, Kate Hudson and Jason Biggs playing the same characters as every other movie we’ve seen them in. Yes, it’s funny, in a very vulgar way, I confess I laughed, but the rest of the film is uninspiring and pretty insulting to women. There are overly romantic, could-never-happen-in-real-life moments as well as bland dialogue with the exception of some jokes. Overall, this is really a wait until its on cable type of movie.

Pros:
It’s funny – kind of: I really like Kate Hudson and Dane Cook and I like them together, but man, I wish they had done a different movie. The potential is there for them to make a great flick together. I like “How to Loose a Guy…” and I REALLY like “Mr. Brooks” where Cook doesn’t play the usual comedic lead, he actually acts, seriously and is pretty good at it. This pair does have chemistry too, so hopefully they will try again, just with a better story.

Alec Baldwin – This was a pleasant surprise. Although, I could have done without his description of a certain escapade with his secretary the night before. He’s a talented comedic actor and brings a different element to the film. Portraying Cook’s character’s father, his character gives the audience an insight into the behavior of Dane Cook’s character.

Cons:
The story – It’s cliché, it’s been done a handful of times and it’s just unoriginal. The end isn’t a surprise, and neither are the events that lead to it. The only surprises are the words each actor says and the ridiculous stunts Dane Cook pulls to push women away.

The Dialogue – Boring, only funny because of the shock, offensive, etc.

Unique Qualities:
None

I’m not sure if I would even recommend this film for video. Sorry. I love Kate Hudson, she’s cute and funny! Dane Cook’s standup it terrific, wonderful social commentary! Jason Biggs is vulnerably adorable in every thing he makes. Alec Baldwin is a comedic genius on 30 Rock. So it doesn’t make sense why this movie sucked so badly. I’m terribly disappointed and once this posting is up I’m going to forget I even saw this movie.

What did you guys think of it? Was it really that funny and I’m just loosing my sense of humor or something?

“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 Reviews – “Burn After Reading”

I saw “Burn After Reading” before “No Country for Old Men” (I know, it’s a shame it took so long) but seeing “No Country” helped explain some of the aspects of “Reading” that caught me off gaurd. The Cohen Brothers certainly have an imagination, don’t they? “Reading” is a goofy tale acted out by some of our favorite serious actors and I just love that, ya know. This hilarious ensemble flick is as good as they come these days with talented crew from the editing room to the extras. Beware though, all is not funny in the world of Cohen, but the surprises make a second trip to the theater to see “Burn After Reading” worth the extra money.

Pros:
The Cohen Brothers – I think I’m an official fan. They are great with humor and violence as well as catching you off gaurd (I wonder if one brother is more violent/funny than the other?). There is always a certain off balance aspect to their films too, making them so distinctive.

The laughs – There’s a lot of them, some that aren’t in the trailers either. Go figure!

The cast – Brad Pitt’s hair is great, well, and, yeah, so is he. He doesn’t say a whole lot but it doesn’t matter, he’s still a big personality in this tale. George Clooney is the most complex character – happily married/cheating on his wife, wants to please everyone/chronic liar, creative & can built things/destroying his life. His is the most interesting storyline. This is possibly the most angry role for John Malkovich that I’ve ever seen, yet somehow still hilarious like when he stands up to his boss and in shock and pissed off confusion and blurts out “WHAT THE (BLEEP) IS GOING ON HERE?”, which ends up being the theme of the movie. Tilda Swinton plays cold and sexy very well and leaves the question “Why is Malkovich’s character married to her in the first place? She’s kind of a (“b” word).” And Frances McDormand, our leading lady who could lead any comedy with her wide eyed banter. She’s sweet and likable and very funny. She makes head slapping mistakes without the obvious and squeamish mishaps seen in movies like “Meet the Parents.”

The Surprises – Have I mentioned how much I love when huge plot lines AREN’T revealed in the trailers? And I wonder how many times I’ve said “surprises” in this review.

The Ending – It ends with head of Malkovich’s CIA department stating something to the effect of “I don’t know what just happened,” which is what the movie feels like by the end.


Cons:
The chair – there is a devise introduced briefly in the middle of the movie and it just throws the whole pace of the movie off. It’s so random, that I remained bewildered for the rest of the movie and completely changed the good way I was feeling about it (it later redeems itself, but at that moment and for a few after, I was completely put off by it.)

The F Bomb – Again, the overuse of the “f word” gets annoying by the time the credits roll.

Unique Qualities:
It is undeniably a story never heard or seen before and one of the most important characteristics of a “good movie” is originality. “Reading” certainly steps up to the plate. It’s a “need to see it twice” kind of movie simply because of the surprises. Personally, they threw me off and I wasn’t able to laugh at that time because I was recovering from the shock.

In the end, yes it’s violent, yes it’s hilarious and how can anyone not check out a movie with such an incredible cast with such reputable writers and directors? In comparison to a lot of the other movies that are out right now, this one is better than most and ranks in my top 3 of current films.

Do you think the surprises are too over the top? Did they catch you off guard like they did me? Comment, please, even if it doesn’t answer those questions :)

“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!