Movie Review - "Iron Man 3" (2013) **1/2

     I was fairly late to the Marvel party. The original Iron Man was the only movie in what they consider Phase 1 of the Avengers series that I saw in theaters. I didn't see Iron Man 2 until well after it was released and I did not see Thor, The Incredible Hulk or Captain America until a week or two before The Avengers was released. I knew I wanted to see The Avengers so I thought I might want to catch up. I never fell in love with any of those films leading up to The Avengers but I didn't think any of them were horrible either. Most fell in the 2 1/2 - 4 star range. I did however love The Avengers and gave it 4 1/2 stars and I think it was one of the best movies of 2012. Flash forward to the present and I was very excited to get Phase 2 of the Avengers series underway with the release of Iron Man 3. Apparently I was not the only one excited about it as the films grossed $174 million in its opening weekend, good for second best all-time....Unfortunately, I don't feel it lived up to the hype at all. I came away feeling pretty empty.

     Robert Downey Jr. returns as brash industrialist, and egomaniac, Tony Stark. Stark is suffering anxiety attacks resulting from the incidents that took place in The Avengers. He gets very little sleep and spends much of his time tinkering with his Iron Man suits, of which he has assembled many to occupy his time. The stress has put a strain on his relationship with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), who continues to stand by her man but is becoming incresingly worried about him. Pepper is also dealing with Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce), the founder of Advanced Idea Mechanics (AIM), which funds research for a serum called Extremis, which can cure the physically disabled. Stark's security chief, Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau), is skeptical of Killian and begins keeping a watch on him. Hogan however is severly injured in an explosion masterminded by a terrorist known only as the Mandarin, who has learned how to take over the television airwaves of the US to spread his propaganda and threats. Tony Stark, angered by the attack that injured Hogan, calls out the Mandarin and even gives him his home address so the Mandarin can find him. This backfires as Stark and Pepper are attacked at their house, an attack which many believe kills Stark, but actually sends him across the country to track down the Mandarin.

      What I described to you is basically the first hour or so of the story, and if everything had ended there this would be a much better movie. I was into this opening act and was intrigued by all the characters and their motivations. However, soon after this, there is a plot twist and from then on the story just completely falls apart for me. It becomes convoluted and we end up jumping from location to location and I end up forgetting where we are at. By the end of the film, I no longer cared. My biggest issue with this movie is something I would really like to rant about but unfortunately it could be considred a bit of a spoiler so I won't go there. But I was very disappointed by it. There is also a section of the movie where Tony befriends a 10-year old boy (Ty Simpkins), and while I understand why this is put in here, presumably to pull in a younger audience, I feel it is out of place and does not work. I don't feel the movie is a complete waste, I really like the Tony Stark character and I enjoy Robert Downey Jr. playing this character. I like the wit and charm he brings, he definitely is the character and that is a good thing. But this story and even his performance in some parts, just feels mailed in. They knew this was going to make a fortune (which it has already) so they rested on their laurels. I look forward to more Tony Stark/Iron Man, I'm just finished with him in his own world. I want to see more of him in the broader world of The Avengers. I give this movie the very slightest of recommends, but only to die hard fans. Everyone else can safely wait for cable or video.

Movie Review - "42" (2013) ***1/2

     I love baseball. Sports in general are probably my biggest passion, or hobby, but baseball stands above all others. In the past decade, I have not been a fan of many of the changes made in baseball. Call me a purist I guess. But one of the things that was mandated that I really love, is the fact that the number 42 has been retired by all major league baseball teams and one one day each year, every player in the majors wears number 42 for that game. There's just something special about seeing all the players lined up for the national anthem and all you see is number 42's on the back of the jerseys. That is done in honor of Jackie Robinson, who on April 15, 1947 started a game for the Brooklyn Dodgers, effectively breaking baseballs long standing color barrier. He was the first black player given the opportunity to prove he was among the best players in the game...not just one of the best black players. The fact that he is considered one of the greatest second basemen to play the game proves he was the right man for the job and paved the way for black athletes everywhere. 42, written and directed by Brian Helgeland, and starring Chadwick Boseman as Robinson, is a new film detailing the events that lead to Robinson's introduction to the major leagues and the trials and tribulations that he endured along the way. While not the greatest film ever made, or even one of the best baseball films, I considered it a film everyone should see.

     The film is as much a story about Brooklyn Dodgers owner Branch Rickey as it is about Robinson. As the movie opens, Rickey (Harrison Ford) has made a decision to risk being an outcast in his own profession and bring a black ballplayer to white baseball within the next year. He and his assistants pour over the files of players in the negro baseball leagues and settle on Robinson, a multi-sport star at UCLA. Rickey knows that Robinson has teamed with white players before while at UCLA and he feels that will give him a better chance of fitting in and being comfortable with what is likely to be an uncomfortable situation. Robinson is summoned to Rickey's office where he is told of the plans and Robinson is thrilled with the opportunity to be the man who breaks the color barrier. Rickey tells him, in one of the better scenes of the film, that he is looking for someone who has the guts NOT to fight back when faced with adversity. Robinson has a bit of a reputation for sticking up for himself, but Rickey wants him to keep quiet and accept the abuse that will come. Robinson marries his girlfriend, Rachel (Nicole Beharie), after finding out the news and it isn't long before the two are expecting their first child. The movie follows the first two years of Robinsons' career, the first with the minor league team in Montreal, and the second with the Dodgers. Jackie faces many coaches, teammates and opponents along the way who refuse to associate with him, and even try to hurt him on the field. The primary antagonist of the story is Philadelphia Phillies manager Ben Chapman (Alan Tudyk), who constantly berates Robinson with derogatory statements. It's these scenes, including one where Robinson has a breakdown in the hall leading to the clubhouse, and another where teammates stick up for Jackie, that the movie really shines.

     While the movie does have it's moments that are great, overall something just felt lacking, and I wanted more. Oddly enough, I felt the same way about Red Tails last year, another film about African-Americans being accepted in situations where they generally have not been. I felt that movie should have went for it more, and taken itself more serious. I feel the same about 42. That was a tough time and I can't imagine what Jackie Robinson suffered through. The hatred for him was overwhelming and death threats were a common thing. That is touched on here but it's almost like it was handled with kiddy gloves. It has a family movie-of-the-week vibe to it, and perhaps that is what it was going for to make it accessible to all age levels. But I think the movie could have been great if it went deeper into the hate he experienced. For that reason, I have to knock its rating down a bit. But don't get me wrong, I do recommend this movie, especially for younger black people. I was happy to see that on a Tuesday night, when the movie has already been playing for a couple of weeks, that I was in a theater with about 20 other people, 3/4 of whom were black. There should be more films like 42 and Red Tails which are there to inspire young people. Hopefully this trend will continue.

Movie Review - "End Of Watch" (2012) ****

     In my previous review, for the 3D re-release of Jurassic Park, I mentioned that 1993 was the year in movie history that turned out the best movies on a consistent basis. I'd have to do a little comparison (which I will eventually) but I think 2012 may be close, if not better. There were so many great films released last year, this on the heels of a pretty weak run during the previous handful of years. I thought I had seen most of the top films from last year and felt confident I wouldn't see anything else that would garner a four star review or higher. Well, I missed one. After hearing some positive things about End of Watch, I was curious about it, yet skeptical. I'm not a big fan of cop-buddy films, so I didn't go out of my way to see it and was waiting for the cable run. But a friend had a copy of the blu-ray and let me borrow it. I'm glad he did. I should have seen this film a lot sooner, the praise it has received is warranted.

     The premise of the film is pretty basic. It follows the day-to-day work of two cops in the dangerous south central area of Los Angeles. Officers Mike Zavala (Michael Pena) and Brian Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal) risk their lives every day to protect the citizens of the streets they patrol. They routinely run up against people who do not respect them, and even some who attempt to kill them. They run into burning houses to rescue kids when the fire department arrives late. They enter buildings not knowing what dangers lie around each and every corner. They are true heroes of our country. They also live fairly normal lives while not on the job. Zavala is married to Gabby (Natalie Martinez) and the couple is expecting a baby soon as the movie opens. Taylor is tired of going from woman to woman and thinks he has finally found someone who is right for him in  Janet (Anna Kendrick). As Zavala and Taylor drive around time waiting for the next call, they spend time discussing their relationships with each other, showing the trust they have in each others opinions. They are put to the ultimate test when a Mexican drug cartel that they have had a couple of run-ins with targets them for execution. The duo will need to utilize all their skills to escape the wrath of their ruthless pursuers.

     End of Watch is written and directed by David Ayer, who is best known for writing the film Training Day, which landed Denzel Washington a Best Actor Oscar. I was not a big fan of that film at all. It just didn't seem real to me and I can think of several other performances from Washington that should have netted him the award, but not that one. I think that was more of a career achievement Oscar. (He should have won this past year for Flight) What Training Day was lacking though is very prevalent here in End of Watch. This movie feels very real. I'm not a cop, never have been, never even really knew one, but the relationship between the two main characters seems like it is very authentic. They joke around with each other and can talk to each other about anything. When trouble calls though they are at the top of their games and have each others back. This is all a success because of the brilliant acting of Pena and Gyllenhaal. I don't think I've seen Gyllenhaal better since October Sky. I'm less familiar with Pena's work but he has been a few films I have seen, I just don't remember those films for his performances. I WILL remember this one. He is superb. Natalie Martinez and the lovely Anna Kendrick have smaller, but important, roles as the love interest for our main actors. Both do a great job leading us to care about what happens with these guys during their jobs, because we want them to get home to their loved ones. This movie will not be for everyone. The violence is excessive at times and there are enough F-bombs here to make a mechanic blush. It is a very gritty film and hard to watch at times. Also, much of the film has a documentary feel to it based on the fact most of the shots are filmed with handheld cameras, which is a plot device used in the film. If you are not a fan of shaky camera syndrome, it may be another roadblock to viewing this. But if you can get past those things, what remains is a wonderful story and one of the most underrated films of last year. I highly recommend it.

   

   

Movie Review - "Jurassic Park: An IMAX 3D Experience" (2013) *****

     For me, 1993 will always be a memorable year in cinematic history. I was in my senior year of high school, when most kids my age are out partying or going to clubs on the weekends. Not me. I spent most of my weekends in the theaters seeing everything that looked even the least bit interesting. The film industry rewarded me by putting out many great films during this year and I have said on more than one occasion that 1993 was the best year for movies, in my humble opinion, although I think last year, 2012, may give it a run for its money. Two years ago, when I put together a list of my 100 favorite films, I was not surprised to find that 1993 was the most represented year on the list with nine films (1996 and 1995 were right behind with eight and seven films respectively). Out of all the great films released that year, one stood out as a little...well, bigger....than the rest. That film was the Steven Spielberg project, Jurassic Park, adapted from a novel by author Michael Crichton. It would go on to dominate the box office that year, raking in $357 million and picking up three Oscars for Sound, Sound Editing and Visual Effects. It re-wrote the book on special effects and was one of the few times when I have been in complete awe with what I was seeing on the big screen. These were not your grandfathers dinosaurs, which often looked cheesy on film, these things looked REAL. It is still to this day one of the major achievements in special effects in the movies, and it has stood the test of time well.

     Flash forward to twenty years later and Jurassic Park has been re-released, complete with an IMAX 3D overhaul. I think by now most people have seen the film at least once, either during its original theatrical release or on video (although I know of at least one friend who just saw it for the first time last week!!). For that reason, a plot summary really doesn't seem necessary, but I'll give you a very brief one. An eccentric millionaire named John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) has created a new theme park on an island off Costa Rica containing real dinosaurs that scientists have engineered through a cloning process from the blood of  insects during that time. Hammond summons two scientists, Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and Dr. Ellie Satler (Laura Dern), to the island along with a mathematician, Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), a lawyer (Martin Ferrero), and Hammond's grandchildren (Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello). Hammond is wanting everyone's backing so he can open his park on time. The guests are in complete awe when they first witness the extinct creatures, but it isn't long before they start questioning the dangers of mixing these animals with humans. During a tour of the park, a tropical storm moves towards the island, while at the same a disgruntled employee (Wayne Knight) shuts off the parks power, allowing him to escape with stolen dinosaur embryos. These two issues set off a chain reaction of events that throws the island into chaos. When the large Tyrannosaurus Rex escapes it's pen, and the crafty velociraptors are set loose, our human friends find themselves on the run for their lives, to avoid their own extinction.

     So, is this film worth seeing again after 20 years? Absolutely!! I think there are certain films that are just meant to be seen in theaters, and this is definitely one of them. The 3D conversion, while not on the level of  Avatar, is still very well done. One of the best I have seen. I think the biggest compliment I can give it is that after about the halfway point, I had forgotten I was wearing 3D glasses. It was just so natural looking and I had to remind myself a couple of times that I had glasses on. It was that well done. I don't think I have to talk to much about the special effects, we all know that Jurassic Park was a pioneer in the evolution of digital effects and it continues to be just that. I don't think the film gets enough respect though for its story and acting, which are much better than expected. Everyone thinks of the effects first, and rightfully so, but don't overlook the quality performances here. Sam Neill, Jeff Goldblum and Richard Attenborough all give solid performances, and Laura Dern has always been so underrated. Even the children, while not great, are much better than what you would normally find for similar roles. I don't think this movie would work as well as it does if we didn't care about the characters, it would be more of a standard horror film. But we do care, and for that kudos must go to Spielberg. He has made better films than this one, but I don't know that he has made one bigger. And while bigger is not always better, in this case, it deserves all the credit it gets. Take the time and see it again. It's not often you get to see a film like this on the big screen. Don't let the opportunity pass. 

Inspired By An Icon - Remembering Roger Ebert

    It's been a long time since I posted on here. Judging by the lack of questions regarding this, I'm assuming most people were perfectly fine with me going away!! LOL   That's okay, I still love each and every one of you who at least gave me a chance and checked my blog out. I seriously doubted that I would come back to it as it does take up a lot of time and I am very critical of myself so if I see what I think is poor quality, I find it easier to just stop working at it instead of improving myself. Isn't that the American way these days?? Unfortunately, it does seem that way, even though I try to prevent myself from doing that. So I really thought my blogging days were over. But something happened a few days ago that has caused me to do a bit of soul searching. Late Thursday, April 4th, Roger Ebert, arguably the most influential and well-known movie critic, lost his long battle with cancer and passed away. I, like many movie fans my age, grew up watching "At The Movies" with Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. Even though I had absolutely no clue what 90% of the movies they reviewed were, I was captivated by the back and forth banter between the two and I would wait anxiously to see if the movie they were discussing would get Two Thumbs Up, Two Thumbs Down, or best of all, the split vote which would sometimes lead to some spirited exchanges between the two hosts. I loved it and would try and watch every week. I can remember in the early days being a pro-Siskel fan, I always liked him better than Ebert for some reason. Granted, I wasn't even a teenager at this time so my preference was likely based on discriminatory factors. Hey, we learn as we grow up.

     I had always been a movie fan growing up, but I didn't understand the term "movie appreciation". I was like a lot of kids growing up, give me non-stop action or a good fantasy movie over the Oscar-caliber drama that was popular at the time. I enjoyed raunchy romps that my parents wouldn't have approved of, such as Porkys, over films like Raging Bull, Gahndi, or Chariots of Fire. Who didn't?? That started changing though as I entered my teenage years in the late-80's and early-90's and Roger Ebert played a big role in that. I was browsing through the Bookland store at Regency Square Mall in Jacksonville (a store that would become a place of employment for me in the mid-90's) around 1990 or 1991 and I ran acrosss this title, "Roger Ebert's Movie Home Companion". Inside was a review of 100's of films over the years and I had to grab me a copy. I loved Ebert's star rating system in the book, it was so different than the more general Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down. I remember browsing through and making note of all the Four-Star reviews. For the first time I heard of such films as Citizen Kane, The Third Man, and 2001:A Space Odyssey. I had not even heard of a good 2/3 of the films reviewed in the book, but for the first time I was interested in learning about them. I became even more interested in the tv show because of Roger's book and it was during this time in the early-90's when my love for movies really took off. Prior to my high school days, we maybe saw a movie in the theater once every few months. But from 1990 until I graduated in June of 1993, I hardly remember a weekend I wasn't in the theaters.

     More importantly, I started watching movies for the first time with a critical eye. Films like Silence of the Lambs, JFK and The Man in the Moon are among my top 10 favorite films and all came out during this timeframe. All are also critically-acclaimed films. It was also during this time that I couldn't stop talking about films with other people. Whether it was friends or family, I also had to know what you had seen recently, and I was ecstatic if you returned the favor and asked me what I had seen. I couldn't wait to tell you about what was out there in the theaters. These times inspired me to want to be a film critic. I've always said, if money were no object and I could do any job I wanted to, I would be a film critic. The internet was just a fledgling thing at this point and I wonder if maybe I was just a few years too early. I think it's something I may have actually tried to pursue had the internet been more prevalent in that time. Instead, the only audience I had was friends and family. Either way, I went on with my life and while things haven't always been great, I've been thankful for the 37 years I've received and I hope I can live at least another 37 more. But the love of movies has never left me since those early days, and I hope it never will.

     That love for film though I'm not sure would be there had it not been for Roger Ebert. Finding that book by accident changed my life in a way. Not a major, spiritual way or anything like that, don't get me wrong, but I love movies more than just about anything else out there and Mr. Ebert taught me how to appreciate them. I've often said I'm not a fan of art, but that's not true. What I mean is I look at the Mona Lisa painting and I see a woman, that's all I see. But an art scholar can break it down and tell you why it's one of the great paintings ever made. I just shrug my shoulders. The same with music, photography, etc. All of those are forms of art. And many people love those forms. Movies are my art form. I can watch a great movie and be sucked in just as much as an Art major touring the Louvre. When those house lights come down and the screen starts to flicker, I love the wonder that awaits me each and every time. At the end, sometimes I'm happy, sometimes I'm mad, sometimes I'm indifferent...but I'm just happy I was there to experience it.

     I had stopped blogging for a long time, and I thought it was for good. But Roger Ebert's passing has made me re-think things. I'll never be on the same level as Mr. Ebert when it comes to his writing style. The man was a Pulitzer Prize winner for crying out loud. And I'll never be able to fully appreciate films the way he has. But I hope I can continue growing in that regard. But why should I stop writing and talking about movies when it's something that I enjoy doing? I shouldn't. If only one person stops by on a consistent basis to read what I'm thinking, hey, that's one more person than most. I will miss Roger Ebert. He's one of the few people that I didn't know that has caused me to shed tears at hearing of his death. The last time I can remember doing that was when Charles Schulz passed away in 2000. Thank you so much for teaching me about movies, and to not be afraid to have a different opinion than everyone else. I know somewhere up there in the balcony in the sky you are reunited with Mr. Siskel and you are no doubt breaking down a good one.  Rest in peace Mr. Ebert.

 

    

Movie Review - "The Sitter" (2011) 1/2 star

     Why Jonah Hill? Why? I sang your praises so much in Moneyball and felt you were by far deserving of the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for that performance. It was brilliant and I want to see more of it. But then you go off and do something like The Sitter and it's such a waste of talent. Leave this dreck for the likes of Adam Sandler and others of his kind. I'm not going to do a full review of this movie, I just don't have the desire. Jonah Hill stars as a slacker who ends up having to babysit three kids and the foursome end up running around the streets evading drug dealers just so Hill can get to his girlfriend for a booty call. Yes, that's the plot summary. It's as mindless as it sounds. It could have been somewhat interesting, a cult film the likes of Adventures in Babysitting, but no, that's not the case. It's way too raunchy for kids to see even though that's who it should be targeted to. It's just a mess pure and simple and I could have gone with it had it been funny. I like raunchy when it's funny. But it's not, instead it's very boring. I'm not even sure why I'm giving this even a half star. I guess I just like to save my No Star reviews for a special kind of film. This is close. At least it's quick and finished in under an hour and a half. So for that, it gets a half star. Skip this people.

Movie Review - "Straw Dogs" (2011) **1/2

     Rod Lurie's Straw Dogs is a remake of a 1971 Sam Peckinpah film that has a bit of a cult following due to it being considered very violent for the time. Even though the violence was too harsh for many, the film is widely considered to be one of Peckinpah's finest movies along with The Wild Bunch, another film known for it's violence. I have not seen the original, which stars Dustin Hoffman and Susan George, but I have heard a lot about it over the years and that is what interested me in checking out this remake. After seeing this remake, I don't feel inclined at all to go back and watch the original. Maybe if I catch it on one day I'll give it a look, but I don't think I will actively seek it. The story just simply isn't that compelling me to in the end.

     James Marsden and Kate Bosworth play David and Amy Sumner, a happily married screenwriter and actress from L.A. who have returned to Amy's childhood home in the deep south in order to fix up the home of her father, who has passed away, to sell. The couple drives a fancy car and have a bit of a Hollywood snootiness to them that immediately has the locals (rednecks) watching them closely. When they stop by a local diner for a meal, Amy runs into her ex-boyfriend Charlie (Alexander Skarsgard) who tries to make a pass on her but she declines. Complicating matters, Charlie and a group of his friends are the ones repairing the family home to sell. Tension between the couple and Charlie's group slowly start to build when they upset David by leaving the job early, inviting themselves into the house for beer and food, and playing music loudly while David is trying to work. When Amy is attacked by two of them men, all hell breaks loose leading to a violent confrontation that will have the couple fighting not only for their house but for their lives.

     Straw Dogs isn't a terrible movie by any means, I just wouldn't make it a viewing priority. This is a fine movie to catch on cable on a Friday or Saturday night when nothing else is on, just don't expect it to leave any last impressions. It's a movie that will be easily forgotten in a few months. The finale is pretty violent but it's nothing you haven't seen before, although there is a scene with a bear trap that will make you cringe for a bit. The acting is passable, if nothing else, with one exception. James Woods has a supporting role as one of the locals and he gives a chilling performance. Woods has played some bad characters in the past, but this one may take the cake. Marsden, Bosworth and Skarsgard are okay, but I felt each role could have been cast a little better. I can see how someone more like Dustin Hoffman would be more believeable in the main role, so maybe I should give that original a shot. There's nothing much more to say about this. Nothing earth-shattering but you may find a decent distraction with this picture if you are looking for a thriller. You can do worse.