Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes (2009)
The Sunday following Christmas, a few friends and I got the chance to join what seemed to be approximately a million other folks crammed in the sold out theater to see the new Sherlock Holmes movie starring Robert Downey Jr, Jude Law, and Rachel McAdams.
After several hours of reflection, I find myself at a loss for many words.
See? At the heart of my issue, like any fan of the genre, I had grown up on the TV and movie versions of the mid-twentieth century played by heavyweights such as Christopher Plummer in 1979′s “Murder By Decree” and most famously by Basil Rathbone in almost a dozen movies throughout the 1930′s, and 40′s.
In each of these earlier incarnations of Holmes was a puzzle solver who solidly preferred the “brain over brawn” approach. Enter this brilliantly done “reimagination” for the 21′st century and we find a Sherlock who’s just at home in a boxing ring as he seems to be in solving crimes.
… an action hero if you will, since that’s all the kids of today seem to be willing to pay for in the theater.
Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes (right) with director Guy Ritchie (left)
Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes (right) with director Guy Ritchie (left)
A story of many turns.
As anyone who’s ever watched a Sherlock Holmes movie — or even a Charlie Chan movie — can tell you, the plots and storyline are pretty deep and heavy, requiring the watcher to actually pay attention. This in stark contrast to most fluff movies of today and in my opinion, some of the best writing comes out of whodunnits.
2009′s Sherlock Holmes flick, directed by Guy Ritchie of “Snatch” and “RocknRolla” fame doesn’t disappoint. While you have the sneaking suspicion that you’ve figured it all out, there are still moments throughout the film with enough twists to keep it interesting.
At 2 hours and 14 minutes long, there are scenes which feel a little drawn out, but in the end, you’ll discover that each moment seems to be very much a part of the big reveal, which VERY reminiscent of the exact formula used quite successfully throughout the Basil Rathbone years.
Character Play…
Simply stated, Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, and Rachel McAdams were almost perfectly cast in their respective roles.
Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law struck a perfect chord as the somewhat arrogant Holmes and the begrudging brother-in-arms, Dr. Watson. You could easily feel both the near disdain and absolute reliance between the characters on screen.
McAdams came along and helped to complete the set, lending both a “double cross” and quasi-love-interest into the mix.
If I were to have one little quibble, it would be that there were moments where Robert Downey Jr. seemed to mumble his way through lines, but as others in my group pointed out, it was more than likely his interpretation of Holmes, as a brilliant strategist on the verge of insanity.
Either that, or I’m getting old…
In the end…
Even with all the “reimagination” going on to update the character to what we — as an American society — would accept in the theater, I really, really enjoyed this movie..
Much of the objections I expected going into the theater — such as it being more action movie than mystery whodunnit — were addressed, much the same way that 2009′s Star Trek presented us with acceptable reimagined versions of Spock and McCoy.
On a scale of 10, I could easily give this movie an 8. Subtracting 1 point for mumbling, and another for its sometimes lengthy scenes.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=299c7562-1ba5-40cc-892d-4c94cb2d9e17)
loading...
Movie Review: Avatar
I saw the film this weekend and thought I would share my thoughts on the latest epic by James Cameron.
THE QUICK
The latest CGI meets “Dances With Wolves”. It won’t be a memorable film for me in terms of story but the visuals set a new standard for everything that follows. This film is worth a view if only for the visuals (in 3D).
PLOT SUMMARY
Our hero, Jake Solly, a former marine who has lost the use of his legs in combat, has replaced his dead brother in an effort to use his “Avatar” (a genetically grown alien which combines human an Na’bi DNA) to learn about the local population on an alien world called Pandora. His goal is to influence the locals to leave their home so that a very valuable (on Earth) mineral can be strip mined from beneath their land. In the process, Jake goes native as he learns more about them and ultimately helps the Na’bi defeat the evil corporate types and return Pandora to “the people”.
THE GOOD
Visually, this film is quite simply stunning in its scope. Cameron and his team have created an alien environment from the ground up and remade the Amazon on steroids. For this, I have to say “thank you” to everyone involved. The variety of wildlife, flora and people (the Na’bi) restores my faith that at least someone in Hollywood is still capable of creating something new. Cameron has also (for the first time as far as I can tell) seamlessly integrated live action and the 3D world of cinema in a perfect way. If this film does not win all of the technical Oscars this coming year then that award is obsolete and useless.
THE BAD
Unless you are a tree hugger or an anti-corporate / anti-capitalist type, the visuals is where the magic of this film ends. There is nothing new in the story of this sci-fi epic. As I stated earlier, this film’s plot is basically an updated version of “Dances With Wolves”.
Had this film been released before the Costner blockbuster, I wouldn’t be writing this part of my review but it didn’t so let me simply sum it up… “civilized” man (broken and battered) needs to start over, winds up at a distant post, meets the “noble savage”, learns the savage’s ways, becomes one of them and ultimately helps the “noble savage” defeat the “civilized” man.
Actually, now that I think about it, were I to place Avatar and Dances With Wolves beside each other for comparison of story and related plot devices, I would prefer Dances With Wolves. It really is that simple.
Don’t get me wrong, Cameron’s use of sci-fi tech and the brilliant visuals are up to his usual first rate standards but even this rock solid portion of Cameron’s skill set cannot overcome the tired and well known cowboy and indian theme. In fairness, this isn’t the first film to use the classic literary tale as plot but it ultimately falls flat (IMO). It also doesn’t help that this plot is easy to spot, early on in the film. While the visuals easily draw the viewer into the movie, the plot does not.
THE UGLY
This film is so heavy handed in its (unhidden) messages about corporate greed, protecting natural resources and (IMO) thinly veiled anti-war sentiment that the viewer should expect constant (virtual) slaps in the face. I was unaware of Cameron’s personal / political views and really don’t care but the media critics were absolute correct on this accord. It’s too bad because in my opinion, these heavy handed messages only further drag down the already tired plot.
THE VERDICT
Were it not for the BAD and UGLY portions mentioned previously, I would easily and readily give this film a 9.5 out of 10. But, since I did mention the BAD and UGLY, my final score drops to a 6.5. This film is worth going to see (for the visuals) but I won’t see it again (gee wiz effects only work once) and it won’t be on my Blu-Ray list since I don’t have a 3D TV. I’d also add that even if I did have a 3D home theater, you have to see the 3D version of this film on the big screen to really appreciate what you are looking at.
Your mileage may vary.
Regards,
Ltstanfo
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=acf9b6e4-38be-4805-9ffe-241a964ad63c)
loading...
Movie Review: 2012
Snuck out to see the movie 2012 on Friday the 13th. Hey, it seemed appropriate at the time.
Highly publicized for months if not a year or so, 2012 is Roland Emmerich’s latest “the world’s going to end, we are all going to die unless you happen to be rich and/or popular” flick.
The Plot
The plot of the movie is not really a great deal of a surprise. We pick up on screen in 2009 with a seismic event in India. It’s explained that massive solar flares have caused an exponential rise in the neutrinos passing through the planet. In their words, “think of it like cooking the Earth in a microwave”. Through a well sequenced set of scenes, we flash forward to see the world making preparations for the inevitable end.
We also follow along with a moderately unsuccessful author, Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) trying to keep his family together despite his separation from wife (Amanda Peet). Bingo, Bango, Bongo, within a few more scenes, we find ourselves on what seemed like a whirlwind two hours+ of Wylie Coyote chase scenes with the main characters playing the Roadrunner.
Casting and acting
I should probably learn to wait 24 hours before posting my thoughts on a movie that I see in the theater, but I don’t seem to share the concerns of other reviewers. It’s my unofficial and initial opinion however that the movie was well cast (and heavily laden with Hollywood stars) who each did an admirable job of playing various characters who were literally scared bleepless and running for their lives.
Of special note in my book is Woody Harrelson’s portrayal of the hippy dippy conspiracy nut “Charlie Frost”.
Visual Effects
A leisurely flight through downtown Los Angeles (2012)
In a word, stunning. In two words, absolutely overwhelming. We all know going in that the biggest part of this movie is going to be the Visual Effects, and I won’t hesitate to tell you that some of them look a little cheesy. I keep hearing that “in 5 years we won’t even need actors” but that’s simply not going to happen any time soon.
On the other hand, unlike movies such as “The Day After Tomorrow” (Also — coincidentally — a Roland Emmerich production) the computer generated scenes (with few exceptions) were actually believable.
I noted the use of a blue screen (or are they using green now?) in three scenes. In the interest of preserving the movie and not spoiling it, I won’t share them here, but unless you’re going to see the movie just to pedantically kvetch about such details, those few scenes don’t prove to be that much of a distraction.
(on a personal note, I was more distracted by the rude moron in front of me as well as her boyfriend who wouldn’t shut up during the whole movie than I was by anything on the screen)
My hastily-written yet sleep-deprived opinion
As I may have mentioned before, at $9.00 to $15.00 these days for a movie ticket, I find it difficult to suggest that ANYONE pay to go see a film unless it’s a matinee. This is perhaps an exception to the rule. Despite the often-talked about reservations about the holes in the plot and the intentional omission of certain scenes and “end of the world” mojo, this was a fun film to experience on the big screen.
Is it the best movie ever? Not even close. There are more holes in the plot and the physics behind some scenes than you could ever hope to fill, so just throw the silly bucket in the water and enjoy the swim. After all, 2012 is a Roland Emmerich “end of the world” movie. Please tell me you aren’t going to see it for it’s meaningful subtext. You’ll go to see it because you wanna see crap “get blowed up” and at that, Emmerich is a master.
Besides, it’ll make a fantastic Blu-Ray on the 60″ Sony next Christmas.
The Good
- It’s a great action movie once it gets rolling
- The acting and scenery are great
- While taking on a huge, weighty subject, it’s not 1/100th as preachy as Emmerich’s earlier efforts to teach us all how much we suck as human beings. I speak, of course, of what I commonly refer to as “The Greenpeace meets PETA” movie, “The Day After Tomorrow”. Instead of “the world’s going to end, but we stupid humans could fix it”, 2012 comes across very much like a judgment day flick where we’re all fubar regardless of whether or not we choose to recycle.
The Bad
- At 2 hours and 38 minutes, it’s a bit long but nowhere near as painful as sitting through the “3000 hours” that the last Lord of the Rings movie seemed to have lasted.
- There seemed to be an intentional decision to show the utter destruction of the core of all the major religions, EXCEPT the politically incorrect ideas of destroying anything Islamic or something central to world politics such as the Wailing Wall. In interviews, Emmerich is quoted as saying in essence that they avoided such targets on screen out of “fear of a fatwa“. With respect, this seems exceptionally chicken {bleep}. Either it’s the end of the world, or it isn’t.
The Trailer
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=53eb47c5-a628-413c-b810-bd102fc0daf5)
loading...
Movie Review: “The Men Who Stare At Goats”
The Men Who Stare At Goats is the comedy movie adaptation of the 2004 book of the same name by Jon Ronson about a Top Secret US Army experiment into psychic warfare.
Starring George Clooney, Ewan McGregor, Jeff Bridges, Kevin Spacey.. and a bunch of goats.
After several months of previews and strong media push, I finally got a chance to see the latest George Clooney flick “The Men Who Stare At Goats” today for an early matinee.
Based on Jon Ronson’s 2004 book of the same name (The Men Who Stare at Goats), the story follows romantically jilted reporter Bob Wilton (McGregor) who stumbles across a “story” that he initially passes off as the imagination of a crackpot (played by Stephen Root).
Afterwards, having been jilted by his wife for a co-worker, Wilton finds himself in Kuwait at the start of the Iraq war hoping to prove himself in battle to regain her love.
Army SSgt Lyn Cassady (Clooney) turning to the dark side
Enter a chance encounter with Lyn Cassady (Clooney) who – throughout the movie – elaborates the story of what he calls “Project Jedi” which began as a US Army experiment into psychic warfare in 1980 and continued throughout the Iraq War.
The real curiosity of the movie is in the debate over how much of it is actually “based on a true story”. To that end, I can only present the following Wikipedia page for your entertainment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Earth_Army
As with most movies which undergo the sledgehammer-like media blitzkrieg, I found it to be a movie which had almost limitless potential but ultimately solicited little more than a hearty laugh at a few of the inside jokes (mostly references to being “Jedi Warriors”). It was funny. It was quirky in a “Burn After Reading” kinda way, and the acting by everyone involved was actually near perfect yet somehow it missed the mark of being a movie that people will remember.
As expected from the previews, Clooney carried most of the movie, and I have to say that this is the closest he’s been to one of my personal favorite movies (O’ Brother, Where Art Thou?) in years. McGregor made a fantastic skeptic, Bridges a great mentor/hippie, and Spacey an admirable villain. No complaints at all, but somehow I just can’t help but think I’ve seen each respective actor play the same role in other movies.
All in all, I’d have to give it a strong B-
Good enough for a matinee, maybe not for DVD.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=9cded095-194a-496a-ad8b-c32c56b1631e)
loading...
Star Trek (2009) : An "exit poll" review
I am a Trek fan. There, I said it. It’s out there. Grew up on it, learned it, lived it, love it. Trek fan, somewhere between “Trekkie” and “Trekker” I guess, if you want to put it on the Boy Scout merit badge scale.
That being said, when the idea of this “re-imagining” movie came out, all I could think was “OMG… Why don’t the people in Hollywood ever come up with new ideas?” and “Great.. here comes another Battlestar Galactica style reboot, replete with sex-changed characters I’ll bet”.
Clearing that out of my head, and being the fanboy that I am, a friend and I went to see an afternoon matinee today, and I thought I’d share my quick thoughts on immediately leaving the theater, rather than letting it sink in and depress me that they can’t make “real” Star Trek movies any more.
———-
Storyline
———-
As other critics have said, “meh…” The storyline in “Star Trek” was your typical “pissed off Romulan going back into the past to exact revenge and change the future” thing. It’s sad that they couldn’t use another type of storyline, but it works out ok. ESPECIALLY when they’re trying to intertwine all these legendary characters that we’ve known and loved for decades… Just don’t expect too many Oscars.
————
Special Effects / Sets
————
The special effects team did a good job, better than I might have expected, but the problems I had are as follows;
- When there was an action scene, it was often TOO much happening on the screen at once to really get a feel for what was happening.
- This is supposed to be more of a remake of the 60′s era Trek, right? So why did all the ships and sets look like something out of, oh, I dunno, Deep Space 9″?
- The ICONIC bridge of the Enterprise now looks like the bastard stepchild of an 80′s discoteque and an Apple store.
——————-
Actors / Characters
——————-
Bruce Greenwood … Capt. Christopher Pike
A *perfect* choice to play Christopher Pike, and a GREAT way to give us the back story on the history between Pike and Kirk.. Excellent.
Zachary Quinto … Spock
Rumored to be Nimoy’s own choice, Quinto did a 100% phenomenal job at portraying a younger, half-Vulcan, half-Human Spock. I cannot imagine anyone outside of inventing a time machine and kidnapping Leonard Nimoy who could have done a better job at this role.
Karl Urban … Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy
When I first heard Karl Urban in association with this film, my mind immediately went to the near-straight-to-video “Doom” starring Dwight “The Rock” Johnson. ‘Nuff said about that… Of all the “old characters” portrayed by “new actors” in the movie, I have to admit that Urban absolutely 100% NAILED IT and it was a pleasure to watch his portrayal of a younger Dr. McCoy
Zoe Saldana … Nyota Uhura
Unfortunately, not surprised here. According to the IMDB profile, she didn’t even bother to watch the original series before taking on the role. Despite her naivety as an actress, making a character your own is one thing, but ignoring the history of a virtually household name character… that’s simply something you do NOT do. She did ok, but again zero insight into Uhura’s character didn’t help.
Chris Pine … James T. Kirk
Imagine an ego like Shatner’s Kirk growing up without a father figure and subject to a more turbulent childhood, and you get the cocky, arrogant, want-to-kick-his-ass-yourself James T Kirk that Chris Pine portrayed. Accepting the context in this new “re-imagining” that James T Kirk’s past was change, I can accept his portrayal of a bar-brawling Kirk. Decent. Not much else.
Eric Bana … Nero
Seriously, Eric Bana was in this movie? Where? (haha). Good job playing the bad guy, but — aside from being totally unrecognizable throughout the film — I can’t say much else, as the story really didn’t seem to actually go anywhere with his character.
Simon Pegg … Scotty
I am a fan of Simon Pegg. I’ve seen almost every movie he’s done, and own almost every one I’ve ever seen. That being said, I think it’s more a matter of writing that the role of “Scotty” in this film was turned into far more of a comic relief role. I’m sad to report that while Simon got a lot of laughs out of me as “Scotty”, I think Paul McGillion (the doctor on Stargate: Atlantis) would have done a more respectable job at playing the whimsical mechanical genius that is Montgomery Scott.
Leonard Nimoy … Spock Prime
Always an honor to see the master himself. Truly high points in the movie were his sheer presence on screen. Nimoy is literally what pulled the movie together for me, and for that, I say “thank you”.
John Cho .. Hikaru Sulu
Anton Yelchin … Pavel Chekov
Both excellent choices for their respective roles, and I honestly want to see more of them. Sorry to be so short, but you’re getting tired of reading, and we’re almost at the end.
Ben Cross … Sarek
Winona Rider … Amanda Grayson
Spock’s parents. Again, excellent choices, though I somehow feel old watching Winona play the role of Amanda. I’m shutting up now before I spoil it.
————————————————-
Summary — aka, Thank God he’s finished talking.
————————————————-
Like the eternal Spock, I am a divided soul on this movie.
On one hand, I openly and weepingly mourn the past that no longer exists. This is not the Trek that we know and love. On the other hand, I sincerely cannot fault Abrams and his team because I think they did a fantastic job with the almost Herculean task of revamping what has always been a legendary TV series.
Yes, I have my misgivings and a few issues with the film (such as the idea that a Fiberglass 1960′s Corvette could survive 200 years) but overall, the only real question I could ask of them is this:
– Did they *really* have to go “where no man’s gone before”?
Then again, as Lee would point out, I actually liked the reimagined Battlestar Galactica series… So there… (pfffft…!)
loading...
Movie review : "He's just not that into you".
Ok, everyone who reads this knows of my penchant for romantic comedies so I owe no one an apology for it 
That being said, Sunday afternoon after lunch, I snuck off to see “He’s just not that into you” which is being billed as a romantic comedy about dating, breaking up, and coming together.
There are “chick flicks (which sometimes masquerade as date movies)” and there are “girl movies”. “He’s just not that into you” falls clearly and strongly into the latter.
While I certainly admit that I laughed a few times, adding the word comedy to the promotion is kinda misleading. Instead, what we get is a — sometimes funny, sometimes painful — look into situations that both women and men encounter while dating, or even in a committed relationship.
- The obsessive woman who goes on what she considers a great date with a guy who never returns her phone calls.
- The married man who got married out of a sense of obligation, and now finds himself attracted to another woman.
- The dating couple who’ve been together for 7 years but aren’t yet married because he doesn’t want to.
etcetera.
I have to say that the casting in this movie is absolutely phenomenal, from Aniston, to Cooper, to Barrymore, to Affleck, to well.. Just everyone in what seems like a 20 member cast. I don’t mean to leave ANYONE out, because EVERYONE did such a great job with their roles, I just would spend the entire blog talking about each individual cast member, and that’s not what it’s about.
What it is about, if I “get it”, is looking at what we — as human beings — put ourselves through to find the perfect soul mate. Presented in “chapters” or better yet, “scenarios”, the movie takes a while to put each couple through the “whyzzat” of how they got to where they are. Trouble is, and the reason I use the word “painful” is because every single one of us has gone through one or more of these scenarios on a very personal level.
Like I said, the obsessive, the cheater, the liar, the “can’t commit” guy, the user, and so forth. Sometimes, especially in my case, watching what appears to be a VERY honestly written movie can strike close to home, but in a good “substitute shrink” kind of way.
Would I recommend this movie?
Yes. I already have recommended it to a friend, but as a matinee.
Will I remember this movie after six months?
Unknown. While the subject matter was phenomenally presented, there’s just something there that is more “art film” than entertaining.
Would I buy this movie?
Yes, probably on DVD (not BluRay) because of the cast and high level of acting and the fact that ya never know when I might want to bundle up on the bed and cry myself to sleep..
loading...
Movie Review : Seven Pounds
I’ve said it before. I’m a fan of Will Smith. Always have been, with two notable exceptions, “Six Degrees of Separation” and his later “Hancock” movies. That being said, I can only summarize his latest, “Seven Pounds” in one inextricably speechless word…
WOW…
The premise of the movie isn’t exactly earth shattering for those of you who’ve seen the previews, but to say that you “figured it out” before the last 45 minutes or so would be surprised.
In a nutshell, “Ben” is an IRS-agent on a mission. Whether to pay his penance of to cure his soul, we don’t know, but for the first 2/3 of the movie, what you see seems a bit disjointed but is a very intriguing overview following Ben anonymously helping what he discovers to be good people where he sees himself as “less than ordinary”.
As the story unfolds, you get more and more of the “why”, but never in enough detail to truly understand what’s going on until the very end of the movie.
Frankly, I haven’t seen a better, or a more emotional movie in any time frame I can think of. This movie is amazing. It’s emotionally intense, and it proves once and for all that Will Smith (and Rosario Dawson) has an almost limitless gift for acting that’s just now being scratched at the surface.
If Will Smith, Rosario Dawson, and Barry Pepper don’t walk away with Oscars, there simply is NO credibility to the Academy Awards.
I’m going to go for 5 out of 5 stars here, and it moves to the top of my “Buy it Now” list when out on Blu-Ray.
loading...
Costner's Swing Vote
Been a long couple of weeks. Went on business travel at the end of the month, got home and was pretty much wiped, which meant an entire weekend spent pretty much asleep in my bed. Kinda funny, my internal voice was having an argument with my conscience over whether or not to get up and be motivated. Found my way out of the house a couple of times, but it was too bleepin’ hot, so the “crawl back in bed” voice won.
This, much to the chagrin of my lawn which desperately needs my attention..
… Anyway, went to see the new movie “Swing Vote” this weekend.. You know, the new “Kevin Costner has a message about politics” movie? Well, despite the potential to be heavy handed and left-coasty, I have to say that it was really a good movie to watch and while lots of messages were presented, none of them seem to be aimed at the viewer and more at the politicians and media, which I’m ok with skewing…
As for the rest, Kelsey Grammar and Dennis Hopper were GREAT as the respective incumbent and challenger hopeful who went out of their way to pander to Bud Johnson, Costner’s “below average, recently unemployed, beer guzzling, every-guy-with-a-heart”.
To me, the real standout of the entire movie was Molly Johnson, Bud’s 12 year old, politically conscious daughter, supremely played by Madeline Carroll who — according to the IMDB — has been acting about as long as she’s been able to talk coherently. Well done Ms. Carroll. Well done.
Are there any surprises in this movie? Nah. It’s exactly what you’d expect from Costner and crew, but it is well done, and surprisingly fun to watch. Sort of like the same guilty pleasure you get from watching Bill Maher without all the angry, self-righteous subtext.
loading...
Movie review : Hancock
After what feels like 9 months of waiting since I’d seen the first trailer, I finally got to see the new Will Smith movie, Hancock last night.
For unknown — yet appreciated reasons, the local Regal movie theater began showing it pretty much non-stop at 7pm last night. They also didn’t have it up on the marquee, nor were the showtimes listed anywhere in public view — I found out about it on Fandango — so that meant I had the pleasure of sitting through an opening night blockbuster with no more than 20 other people in a large theater..
Will Smith as the reluctant superhero Hancock
Without wanting to get into spoilers, what was billed as an “anti-hero superhero movie” got off the ground to a flying start. Lots of action, lots of laughing, lots of faux pas being committed on the part of our grouchy anti-hero. Destroying the streets and buildings of LA to stop criminals, then inserting one criminal’s head up another criminal’s rectal cavity is a great start and exactly where we thought everything was going from the trailers that we’d all seen for months. Lots and lots of fun for moviegoers.
All that being said, much like the well-publicized train derailment in the trailers (and not much afterwards in the movie), where Hancock lost me as a fanboy was about half-way in, when the “anti-superhero movie” turned into “the quest to fit in and be accepted movie” and later the “where is Hancock from?” movie which seemed to drag on forever.
The explanation of the latter being extraordinarily weak at best.
Jason Bateman was great. Will Smith as always was really, really great. Charlize Theron was even great in the movie, so it’s not the acting that rubbed me the wrong way. It was the heavy-handed attempt to be an emotional movie with a point.
I do honestly expect that later when the disappointment subsides, this might become one of those movies you really love, even if you’re not impressed when you initially see it in the theater. (The original Addam’s Family movie comes to mind) It just didn’t live up to the initial hype of a movie which kept you laughing from start to finish with a light-handed (if even tangible) sense of morality at the end. Instead, it could be considered one of those “character studies” that you see on the Lifetime network..
loading...
Movie Review: "Don't mess with the Zohan" — a week later
As the two people on planet earth who read this blog know, I did a “Movie Quickie” review last week of Adam Sandler’s latest movie, “Don’t mess with the Zohan”… In said review, I did admit that it had me laughing through most of the scenes.
That being said, as with most movie Quickies, now that I’ve had a chance to think about it for a week, let it sink in, and even catch a few minutes of it again, I have to wonder, what kind of crack was I smoking?
After seven days or so, I’m sitting here trying to recall the scenes that had me chuckling throughout, and I really, really can’t. As with lots of these “number 1 movie in America” (of the week) movies come and go with the best parts having been shown in the previews. I try specifically to avoid previews whenever possible, but you know how it is. This movie is proof positive that a first impression isn’t everything
A good movie introduces something into the social consciousness. Something that can be remembered, whether it’s Meg Ryan’s infamous diner scene in “When Harry Met Sally“, or something spoken which invades our public lexicon like Dr. Evil’s “One Biiiilllion dollars“… Zohan a week later, proves to have none of that. Instead, despite my initial guffaws, there is very little redeeming value to the entire movie.
Maybe it was the accents, maybe it was the over-the-top nature of it all, but in quick, rambling summation, this one is coming off of my “to buy” list, until it hits the $2.99 shelf.
loading...
