The Interview (5/10): I guess Seth Rogen and James Franco aren't always hilarious together

“They hate us because they ain't us!”

After teaming up successfully in last year’s This is the End there were high expectations for Seth Rogen and Evan Golberg’s second film. They had the bro-buddy comedy elements entirely right in their apocalyptic film, but this time around I felt some of the jokes miss the target. The problem is that the first time around they basically made fun of themselves and the entire film industry, while now they tried to mix that bro-buddy humor with a political satire focusing on the North Korean government. There are also a few attacks at the way America has handled these interventions internationally which were witty, but for the most part the film felt like it missed on most of the jokes. There were some incredibly funny moments which you know you’ll get from Seth Rogen and James Franco because they have such great chemistry together. This is the sixth time they’ve collaborated together (but really only the third time they’ve both starred in a film together) and unfortunately this is my least favorite. I still think Pineapple Express is their best work and it was there where they first experimented with the bromantic comedy elements. They’ve pushed the boundaries over their next films making the bromance seem gayer. An important issue I had with this film revolved around the pacing which after awhile became a little tedious. I did enjoy some aspects of the film and found the segment where Seth Rogen’s character is looked down upon for not being a serious producer as a witty comment on his own acting, but he knows what he is good at and sticks with it. 

There were a lot of doubts whether or not this film would be released in theaters after the North Korean government threatened Sony, but ultimately freedom prevailed. Honestly, I really didn’t see what all the fuss was about. It ended up getting more publicity and more people watched the film because of it. Unfortunately it wasn’t the best collaboration between Rogen and Franco. I did enjoy some of their scenes together, but I think Randall Park stole the show as President Kim. His scenes with James Franco playing basketball and driving the tank were probably my favorite in the movie. At times the jokes felt repetitive, but the funniest scene of the film for me was the tiger incident with Seth Rogen. Even though I didn’t enjoy the film as a whole I did find sporadic scenes working really well for me, so I still had a decent time with this film. The female characters seem to be the weakest link for Rogen and Goldberg’s film as neither Diana Bang nor Lizzy Caplan get interesting things to say or do. There are some hilarious cameos however and a lot of pop cultural references (mostly from The Lord of the Rings and Katy Perry lyrics) that work half of the time. 

Homefront (4/10): Next time let Jason Statham unleash the beast!

"Whatever you're thinking, rethink it."

I can't think of a better actor to deliver a line in a menacing, yet calm way, than Jason Statham does here.  He is one of the contemporary action stars that audiences will go see without hesitation or worrying about the screenplay. The reason is because there are very few actors that can deliver their fight scenes as well as he does. Audiences can feel every punch or kick from Statham without the need of quick edits or shaky camera movements. Unfortunately, the main problem with Homefront is that director Gary Fleder (Kiss the Girls, Runaway Jury) didn't use his action skills as a means to improve the movie, but rather sticked to the usual way of filming action scenes which involve quick edits, extreme close-ups, and shaky camera movements. Why would you have Statham star in your film if you don't take advantage of his well choreographed action scenes? The few action scenes in Homefront could have been shot with a steady camera and less cuts which would have made this a much more enjoyable watch because Statham has a great screen presence and he's always fun to watch. It's too bad that they decided to hold Statham's character back and didn't let him explode on screen. 

Homefront's screenplay was adapted by Sylvester Stallone from Chuck Logan's novel. Sly had intended to use the story for another Rambo sequel, but decided to put it into Statham's hands instead. The premise of the story is very familiar as you have the main character moving to a small town in order to put his violent past behind him (if you think about it, it is what Rambo has always been trying to do, but somehow he's a magnet for violence). Homefront is just another standard action film that follows pretty much every genre convention so it becomes way too familiar to enjoy it as something other than that, but the problem is that Fleder tries to make a more serious film instead of accepting the fact that it is simply a silly and familiar story. By trying to build character and move the story forward, the film loses its steam because it doesn't accomplish neither and ultimately it drags for most of its runtime. The few action scenes aren't entertaining either because of all the hyper editing going on. The film tries to build character and introduce new elements but it doesn't do it well. Take the romance for instance which is introduced, but it never goes anywhere with the subplots it introduces. We know exactly where everything is leading up to so the least you can do is explode Statham's potential instead of underlying his performance. 

Despite the familiar story and the hyper edited action scenes there are some positive elements to Homefront. First of all the cast is solid. Besides Jason Statham, you have James Franco, Kate Bosworth, Winona Ryder, and Frank Grillo starring together. James Franco plays a very different villain. He is a local meth kingpin who goes by the name of Gator. He might be intimidating in his small local town, but we know he is no match for Jason Statham. There isn't a second in this film where we feel Statham's character is in real danger and all we are waiting for is for him to let his rage loose. The small grudges that the people in this town hold are about to be blown out of proportions and they will soon find out that they are completely out of his league. The second positive thing about this film is Kate Bosworth's performance. She is almost unrecognizable in her role here, but she delivers the best performance of the movie. If your a fan, you will want to check this film out, if not then there isn't anything worth your time in Homefront.

My Review: Third Person (4/10)

"Watch me."

I know that Paul Haggis is a director that not many people like, but I had enjoyed all of his previous films, and especially was a fan of his most recent one, The Next Three Days. So perhaps my expectations were much higher than the average audience member since I am a defender of his work both as a director and a writer. I know that a lot of people were mixed on the Academy Award winning Crash which surprised everyone when it took the award over Brokeback Mountain, and despite agreeing with most critics that it wasn't one of the best films of the year I still enjoyed it and thought it was a strong directorial debut. He followed his debut with In the Valley of Elah, another engaging film with a powerful performance from Tommy Lee Jones (one that was overlooked considering he was also outstanding that year in No Country for Old Men). So before Third Person everything that Haggis was a part of really caught my attention. As a writer he is credited for the screenplay of such successful films as Casino Royale, Million Dollar Baby, and Letters from Iwo Jima. So when I look back at his filmography I kind of don't understand the hate he receives because there are far more worse directors out there. So I am still going to defend Haggis despite the fact that he has made what is in my opinion his first bad film. His first mistake for this project was trying to repeat the success of Crash by telling a multi strand storyline where characters backgrounds seem to overlap each other. The premise is pretty interesting and gripping at first considering the talented cast involved, but the revelation near the end of the film kind of ruins the entire experience as you can't help but feel Haggis was selling out at the end. The film has several silly revelations that don't seem to work, but what truly hurts this film is the fact that you have a lead character who is basically spelling out the revelations for the audience in case they have missed them. There was no need for this and it only makes you feel as if Haggis doesn't have faith in you to understand what he is trying to say through the themes of the film. He should give the audience more credit and let the story reveal itself without using a character to spell out everything for us. Third Person had a strong start but simply failed to connect the characters in a better way and keep the audience engaged with the premise. Third Person is the first film from Haggis that simply didn't work for me.

What Third Person does have going for it is the strong cast involved. It was a breath of fresh air to see Liam Neeson back in a dramatic role after having seen him in so many action films as of recent (although I do enjoy him as an action star as well). He plays an award winning writer who is working on his next novel and in a way he resembles Haggis himself. He has left his wife (played by Kim Basinger) and is having an affair with a much younger woman named Anna (Olivia Wilde). Olivia Wilde gives a solid performance and despite being a flawed character you believe why these two are together. There are several revelations along the way that don't work too well, but the actors give it their best. The other story involves a character played by Adrien Brody who falls for a mysterious woman in a restaurant in Paris. This story was perhaps the weakest in the film although the audience is always second guessing the intentions of these characters. The third story involves a separated couple played by James Franco and Mila Kunis. Kunis is not allowed to see her son and is trying to find a legal way to get visitation rights, while Franco plays a successful painter who doesn't know how to connect with his child. Kunis gives a strong dramatic performance and she stood out for me. Despite the different story lines there is something they share in common which is revealed over time. These characters are all flawed and are hiding some sort of secret, but in a way they are searching for redemption through each new relationship. The final revelation near the end was the main reason why I was disappointed by the film, and I believe the film's strength relies heavily on the audience's reaction to this reveal. It didn't work for me and that is why my recommendation would be not to "watch me."

My Review: Palo Alto (4/10)

"Try not to hang around Fred."

I'm not sure what attracted me to Gia Coppola's directorial debut, Palo Alto, but I do know that 10 minutes into it I was already regretting my decision. Gia is trying to accomplish something similar to what her aunt Sofia did with Lost in Translation and Somewhere. In Palo Alto we also are introduced to the boring lives of the rich although instead of focusing on successful actors this time the focus is on High School teenagers trying to find their purpose in life. Not that I'm not interested in these explorations, because I really enjoyed Lost in Translation, but I just didn't find any of these characters interesting. The entire story seemed pointless kind of like the lives of these characters which was probably the whole point of the movie, but it simply bored and disengaged me completely. I felt like Gia was desperately trying to tell us something through the beautiful cinematography and soulless characters which were portrayed rather authentically, but it just didn't mean anything to me. I couldn't help but feel that I had seen Emma Roberts play a similar character in the past in films which I actually enjoyed more (It's Kind of a Funny Story and The Art of Getting By came to mind). Perhaps I wasn't the intended target audience, but it's hard for me to picture who they really were. I have heard some positive comments about how authentic these characters were and how well the teenagers captured that similar atmosphere they went through in High School, but it really didn't connect with me. The film seems to suffer from a slow pacing and an uneven story considering it struggles to balance the different story lines that the main characters are dealing with. I do have to give this film credit for not falling into the familiar conventions of the teenage romantic genre, but I also felt the lack of a heavier and more dramatic storyline hurt this film because it didn't seem to go anywhere at times.

Francis Ford Coppola's granddaughter, Gia, has impressed critics with her debut film, and there are several similarities with her aunt Sofia's work (which are explored through the similar cinematography and indie soundtrack). Gia not only directed this film, but she also adapted the screenplay based on James Franco's short stories so her dedication to this film was complete. The performances were also pretty strong and as I mentioned before these characters felt authentic and believable. They fight their boredom by searching for love, getting high or drunk, and partying all the time. I didn't really have a problem with the performances, but what really hurt this film was the uneven story and the lack of a tighter narrative. Many scenes felt forced and the story didn't seem to go anywhere at times. There were a lot of things that just never led anywhere. I really enjoyed Jack Kilmer's performance as Teddy, the kind teen who has a crush on April (Emma Roberts) but is too shy to express his feelings. He also seems to hang around the wrong crowd. Nat Wolff plays Fred, the self destructive teenager who is always getting his friend Teddy into trouble. Fred also has a destructive relationship with Emily (Zoe Levin) who he simply uses when he feels like it and pushes her away when not. April is also shy and torn between what she feels for Teddy and her soccer coach (played by James Franco) whose son she babysits during her free time. Franco plays himself really, but Emma Roberts has received most praise for her role. However for me the stand out was Val Kilmer's son Jack, who really proved to have depth and charisma. The performances are earnest and authentic, but the story simply doesn't go anywhere and feels incomplete. It was hard to sympathize with these shallow and overprivileged kids as well, and I haven't even mentioned the lack of a respectable adult figure in the entire film. 

My Review: This is the End (8/10)

¨Seth, that's some of the better acting that I've seen in your last six movies. Where was that in The Green Hornet?¨

This is the End is probably the most fun I've had with a comedy all year; I laughed so hard especially during the first hour of this raunchy/bromantic/stoner comedy. This is the directorial debut for Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg who have both written several screenplays together. Some of their screenplays have been hilarious (Pineapple Express, Superbad, and this one), while others have been a huge failure (The Watch and The Green Hornet). This film is actually based on a short they did in 2007, Jay and Seth Versus the Apocalypse. What I liked about the screenplay here is that they took a lot of risks and went places I`d never think anyone would. They weren't afraid of making fun of each other, some of their failures in movies such as The Green Hornet, but at the same time they also kind of played themselves (and one would imagine this is how they interact with each other normally). These guys were absolutely hilarious and I loved every second they were on screen together, but on the other hand I thought the film had a weaker second half containing some comedy/horror. It went too far for my personal taste, but I still have to give this film a lot of credit because it had me laughing during pretty much the entire first hour. There are a lot of movies and celebrity references that worked really well, and I can imagine that most of the dialogues here were improvised but that worked really well. The cameos were also used extremely well here and I thought they were all great. Some of the standouts here were Michael Cera making fun of himself, Danny McBride being ridiculously over the top with his antics, James Franco playing along with the gay rumors about himself and his pseudo artistic side, Jonah Hill being extremely nice but reminding us all he was nominated for Moneyball, Craig Robinson just being himself and singing along his hit song, Seth Rogen and Jay Baruchel trying to maintain their friendship which has cooled off over time due to Seth`s new posies. There are just so many scenes that had me laughing out loud and so many funny lines that it is hard to pick my favorite moments. Emma Watson also had a great cameo and she looked lovely as always. Movie lovers will love all the references here and if you liked Pineapple Express than you are in for a treat as well as they discuss what the sequel would be about. If you've enjoyed Superbad and Pineapple Express than you`re guaranteed to like this film because it keeps some of the core elements that made those movies so funny: the bromance and the raunchy dialogues. 

This is the End is a film where every actor plays himself. I would say some play complete opposite personalities than the ones they actually have, or exaggerated versions of themselves, and they play along with the way critics or fans have tagged them. The film begins with Seth Rogen receiving Jay Baruchel at Los Angeles airport. Jay doesn't like LA very much, but Seth always makes him feel comfortable at his home. After a warm reception, Seth invites Jay to come along with him to James Franco's housewarming party. Jay doesn't really want to go because he doesn't get along really well with his friends, but goes anyway. At Franco's home there are several celebrities such as Rihanna, Michael Cera, Emma Watson, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, David Krumholtz, Aziz Ansari, Jason Segel, and many others who are all getting wasted and stoned. Seth introduces Jay to his closest buddies: Franco, Jonah Hill (who is extremely nice to Jay, but this just makes Jay feel awkward), and Craig Robinson. All of a sudden there is a big earthquake and a gigantic hole in the ground begins swallowing people. The apocalypse seems to be among us. Jay, James, Seth, Jonah, and Craig seem to be the only survivors at the house and they decide they must stick together and wait for rescuers to come and save them. The next day, Danny McBride shows up after having passed out during the party without having no clue of what happened. Now the six friends must find a way to survive and get along with each other if they want to make it through the apocalypse. 

I know the plot doesn't seem all that exciting, but it really is hilarious to see these guys together. The narrative isn`t the strongest thing about This is the End, what makes this film special is that the guys aren`t afraid to take risks and they take the classical stoner comedies to another level. The movie isn't really about the apocalypse, it is actually more about friendship and self-parody (the guys are extremely narcissist at times). If you want to know what the true definition of bromance is then by all means go see this. The narrative may not work too well in the second half of the movie, but it really has to do with the dynamics between these characters who will do what it takes to survive. Despite the ridiculous plot, it is just so fun to watch these characters interact with each other and make fun of the things we`ve made fun of in their bad movies. The film can be very tasteless at times, but it is really funny. The comedy and horror was well balanced as well so I would have to admit this is the funniest movie of the year so far despite some ridiculous moments.

My Review: Spring Breakers (5/10)

"I got Scarface. On repeat. SCARFACE ON REPEAT. Constant, y'all! I got Escape! Calvin Klein Escape! Mix it up with Calvin Klein Be. Smell nice? I SMELL NICE!"

Spring Breakers begins with its colorful neon lights, its catchy score, and its hallucinatory hedonistic atmosphere in such a way that it draws the audience in from the very beginning. There is no character development whatsoever or an interesting plot, but there was something magnetic about this social commentary on today's youth and search for pleasure. Spring Breakers was written and directed by Harmony Korine, and at first I was really drawn in to this film that had a very unique mood and energy to it. The music and the slow motion allowed for Korine's social commentary to get across pretty easily. But as the film progressed and continued to be repetitive (there are literally several scenes and voiceover narrations that play over and over again) I felt like I was getting more and more irritated with it. By the end it got so repetitive that I felt like I was watching the same music video on repeat several times. Even at the short length of 90 minutes this movie felt too stretched out. This could have worked as a short film, but instead Korine decided to stretch it out in order to get his point across. He focused so much on the hedonistic and immoral side of today's youth that I just felt overwhelmed by this movie. What began as a provocative film slowly began to lose itself into a fluorescent nightmarish dream. I understand that the one dimensional characters were actually intended, but the plot could've used a little more work and less repetition. I preferred Coppola's The Bling Ring, which I felt worked as a better social commentary about today's celebrity and fashion obsessed youth. In Spring Breakers, Korine focuses on this generation's hedonistic search for pleasures such as sex, alcohol, drugs, and violence. Finding one's identity seems to be related with having fun and searching for as much pleasure as one can find. Korine got his point across, but he seemed to be repeating himself too much. At the end it just felt too preachy.

Faith (Selena Gomez), Candy (Vanessa Hudgens), Brit (Ashley Benson), and Cotty (Rachel Korine) have been best friends since they were in grade school. Now they are all studying at the same University and they are looking forward to spending time together during Spring break. They are planning on going to Florida to have a good time and discover themselves. They talk about this event as if it were going to be some sort of spiritual experience and self discovery, but in reality all they are looking for is to party. The only problem is that they never come up with the money to travel. Candy, Brit, and Cotty all have similar character traits, they are very outgoing party girls. Faith on the other hand is a little more reserved as she has a christian background and likes to go to church and prayer groups. The three troublemakers decide to rob a local restaurant in order to come up with the money for their trip. With only a couple of water guns they succeed and are all set for their adventure. Faith joins the girls and together they begin having the time of their life in Florida. But the fun and games don't last too long after they experience some trouble with the law and end up behind bars. A stranger, a gangster rapper named Alien (James Franco), bails them out and invites them to hang out with him. He has some interesting plans for these special girls. 

The film has some very interesting performances here, but the stand out without a doubt has to be James Franco. He plays a very different character from the ones we are used to seeing from him. Despite how much I enjoyed his performance, I still think you could enjoy it from the trailers alone because there isn't much more in the film. Some scenes actually felt like if it were the trailer repeating itself over and over. Selena Gomez also gives a very different performance from her Disney roles as we see her smoking and drinking, although she is a little more reserved then the rest of the girls. The other three girls are very hard to distinguish in this film. They all play similar roles and it was as if director Korine was purposely mushing the three characters into one. They were all hungry for adventure and all they were looking for was to experience as much pleasure as they could having no morals at all. When James Franco comes into play at first we see him as this dangerous figure for the girls, but soon we realize that he might be in for a surprise. I had no problem with the performances here, I enjoyed them. My main issue had to do with the fact that the movie had no plot and it continued to repeat itself over and over. The magnetic appeal it had at the beginning slowly went wearing off on me until I could care less for what was happening. 

My Review: The Iceman (4/10)

"Loving husband. Devoted father. Ruthless killer."

The main issue that I had with The Iceman is that the film never fulfills what it promises in its tagline. The Iceman never seemed like a loving husband or a devoted father. I never felt the chemistry between Michael Shannon and Winona Ryder. Shannon's character was completely detached from his wife, which would make sense considering he was a ruthless killer, but this film promised something different. Someone living a double life with no one ever suspecting him, kind of like what Kevin Costner delivered in Mr. Brooks. That was the film I was hoping to see, but somehow I felt unattached to these characters and this story. I never cared for these people and I felt there was something missing in the way the story was being told. It is a shame because the premise seemed really good and the cast is really talented, but Israeli director, Ariel Vromen, never managed to deliver a thrilling story. As a killer, The Iceman, delivered what I expected. He had no problem killing whoever his target was unless it implied killing women or children. He didn't feel any sort of remorse and all he cared about was not letting his family discover who he really was. It is that family part which I thought wasn't approached well and could have made a difference in a genre like this that is so well known. I didn't feel the balance that this man was supposed to have between his family life and his work, which is what attracted me to this film in the first place. Without that The Iceman felt like an ordinary assassin story. 

The film is based on the true story of Richard Kuklinski (Michael Shannon), a cold blooded contract killer working for the mafia during the 70's. There have been books written about him (The Iceman by Anthony Bruno) and documentaries (The Iceman Tapes directed by Jim Thebaut) which served as a starting point for the screenplay. In my opinion if you want more facts or if its an autobiography you are looking for then check those out because this screenplay only scratches the surface. Richard began working for the mafia as a porn film lab tech. He met the love of his life, Deborah (Winona Ryder), who worked at a local restaurant and an year later they got married. They had two daughters, and no one in his family or circle of friends suspected about his double life. Richard lied about his work with the mafia claiming he worked for Disney dubbing their cartoons, and later when he became a contract killer and started making more money he claimed to be an investor. He was hired by mafia boss, Roy Demeo (Ray Liotta), but when things get complicated he becomes an independent contractor teaming up with the psychotic Mr. Freezy (Chris Evans) making several enemies along the way. James Franco, David Schwimmer, and Stephen Dorff all play smaller secondary roles.

Michael Shannon is a great actor and he has made several mediocre movies worth seeing, but he can't do much here to save this poorly written script that barely explores the psyche of this cold blooded killer because it fails to create tension between his loving family life and his disconnected ability to kill anyone without hesitation. His character is simply one dimensional. At least Shannon has quite some screen time because the rest of the characters in this film are completely cardboard cut out ones. Ray Liotta plays the stereotypical mob boss and there is no backstory to his character. James Franco and Stephen Dorff barely have any screen time and their roles seem like cameos. David Schwimmer plays a rather laughable character, I don't think he was the right person for the role. Chris Evans is a well known actor, but he goes over the top here in his portrayal of the psychotic Mr. Freezy. It is a shame that the screenwriters never managed to create tension between his family life and his profession. They could have used some help from the writers of Dexter which if given the choice I'd rather watch an old episode of this TV show than re watching this movie. The film lacked that balance between the family drama and the mob criminal world. As a character study film it fails as well because the film never explores the psyche of this cold blooded murderer. 

My Review: Oz the Great and Powerful (6/10)

¨I don’t want to be a good man. I want to be a great one.¨

It´s no easy task to make a prequel of the successful and timeless 1939 family classic, The Wizard of Oz, but Sam Raimi (director of the Spider Man trilogy and The Evil Dead) was up to the task. Raimi does pay a wonderful homage to some of the iconic images of the classical movie thanks to some great and colorful visual effects, but the story doesn’t work as well. It is kind of the same problem I had with Tim Burton´s Alice in Wonderland where the story doesn’t match to the wondrous visuals. I still had a fun time with this film as the nostalgia ended up playing a key role here. The screenplay was co-written by Mitchell Kapner (The Whole 9 Yards) and David Lindsay-Abaire (Rabbit Hole), adapted from L. Frank Baum´s novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Despite not having a great story, it does become suspenseful towards the end and hooked my attention. The opening sequences however were slow and lacked a decent pacing. The visuals end up being a distraction over the impoverished story, but kids will enjoy this film nonetheless. Parents will also be entertained and filled with nostalgia like I was; but it will be inevitable to compare this movie to the classical one, and it does fall short story wise. You still have to take your hat off to Sam Raimi who took the risk and came up with a decent film, but somehow in a cinematic world where we are used to seeing visual spectacles like Hogwarts, Middle Earth, and Narnia you can´t carry a film on the visuals alone. You need compelling characters, and unfortunately here the most memorable characters are unlikely ones (a porcelain doll and a winged monkey).

The film focuses its attention on Oz, short for Oscar Diggs (James Franco), a circus magician from Kansas who ends up being blown away by a tornado to the wonderful land of Oz. Once he arrives at Oz, he meets a beautiful witch named Theodora (Mila Kunis) who explains how they have been waiting for him because a prophecy claims that a wizard would arrive at Oz and defeat the evil witch who poisoned her own father, the king of Emerald City. The long awaited wizard could become King if he is able to defeat the witch and protect the land. Oz, who isn’t a very moral fellow, is interested in becoming great so he accepts as long as he can keep all the gold. He ignores telling her that he isn’t actually a real wizard. What Theodora and Oz don’t know is that her sister, Evanora (Rachel Weisz), has lied to everyone in Emerald City about the evil witch Glinda (Michelle Williams). Evanora is actually the evil witch who is trying to get rid of Glinda and take over Oz. During his mission Oz runs into some unlikely allies like Finley (Zach Braff) a winged monkey and a porcelain doll named China Girl (Joey King) before discovering the truth about Glinda and Evanora. This is the story of Oz and how he came to this land and made a name for himself.

  

There isn’t much greatness about Oz, but the story still works as pure entertainment for the family. There seems to be an underlying silly tone to the whole movie and James Franco knows it and plays along with his role. He doesn’t seem to be taking himself too seriously and neither should we. This isn’t a classical film, but it does remind us of the magical 1939 film and that alone makes this worth the while. Disney has us used to these clichés about believing in ourselves and achieving our dreams, and Oz is full of them. The film continually reminds us that it could have been much better, but the magic still seems to be present. The best characters are the ones voiced by Zach Braff and Joey King. They have the funniest scenes and make the movie much more enjoyable. Michelle Williams is also a pleasure to watch as the sweet and innocent Glinda. There isn’t really much more I can say about this film, if you are a fan of the original film then you might want to see this for pure nostalgic reasons but don’t expect it to be as good as that classic movie. It has its moments and overall it is an enjoyable and entertaining movie.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Rise of the Planet of the Apes (8/10)

¨Ape alone…weak. Apes together strong.¨

2011 has brought us yet another sequel/prequel; this time producers decided to reboot the Planet of the Apes franchise which began way back in 1968 starring Charlton Heston, and was based on Pierre Boulle`s famous novel. Since then numerous sequels have been made, but none of them really equaled the success of the original film. Relatively unknown director Rupert Wyatt (The Escapist) was given the task to take charge of this project and try to reboot the entire franchise by directing this prequel. It tells the story of how the apes may have conquered the planet. The script was written by Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver who hadn’t written a script for a movie since 1997 (Eye for an Eye). Rise of the Planet of the Apes may have had all the right ingredients to be a huge failure; I really wasn`t expecting a good movie since I`m not really a big fan of the franchise and the director and writers were relatively unknown as well, but to my surprise this science fiction film worked really well and far surpasses its predecessors. First of all, the story is really well written and I found most of it very believable (taking into account that it is science fiction of course). Second, the effects were great; the apes looked real and the CGI was used perfectly. In the other films the apes looked more like humans wearing ape costumes and makeup. Third and most importantly, the apes are actually the central characters of the film. Humans are simply secondary characters in this film and the apes get all the attention.

Will Rodman (James Franco) is working on an important experiment trying to find a cure for Alzheimer`s disease by genetically enhancing chimpanzees. He seems to have reached a major milestone when one of his apes, Bright Eyes, begins to develop his brain at a much faster rate than the rest. While he is presenting the results to his boss, Steven Jacobs (David Oyelowo), the ape becomes aggressive and has to be put down. They believed that the aggression took place as a side effect of the drug, but Will soon realizes that Bright Eyes was only trying to protect her new born baby which the scientists had no idea about. Will takes the baby home with him and realizes that Caesar is no ordinary ape. The drug seems to have genetically been passed down to him and Caesar becomes much smarter as he grows up. Will realizes that the drug is effective so decides to use it on his ill father, Charles (John Lithgow) who recovers instantly from Alzheimer`s. One day Caesar has a small incident with a neighbor and Will decides to take him to the vet; Caroline (Freida Pinto) realizes that Will and Caesar have a strong bond and she instantly falls in love with them. Years go by and the three enjoy their life and spend a lot of time taking Caesar to the National Park in San Francisco. However, Charles becomes ill again and the drug seems to have lost his effect on him. Caesar has another incident with a neighbor and has to be taken to an animal shelter where he is mistreated be Dodge (Tom Felton). Caesar soon becomes resentful and finds shelter in his new found friends: other apes that live with him in the shelter. Caesar will soon prove to them that he is no ordinary ape and thus the revolution begins.

The thing I enjoyed the most about this film was that the apes became the center of the story. Caesar was actually the main character and Andy Serkis (who also did the body motion for Sméagol in The Lord of the Rings franchise) did a great job at expressing the ape`s emotions. Caesar/Andy Serkis is the true star of the film and the emotional depth his character is given is what makes the movie work. The special effects are great as well. The final scene is your typical summer movie action scene, but the movie is just much more than that. I thought the story worked really well and there were also several small details that were put in the movie that fans can identify as things related to earlier films of the ape franchise. James Franco and Freida Pinto also have good chemistry together although their roles aren`t as important because the true center of the film revolves on the apes. I thought this was a great film and it will certainly reboot a franchise that in my opinion was dead. I don’t know if this is a good thing or not because I really long for some new and fresh ideas in Hollywood, but at least they are improving with the sequels. Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a Summer movie worth checking out.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: 127 Hours (7/10)

¨The minute I was born, every breath that I`ve taken, every action has been leading me to this crack on the out surface.¨

127 Hours is Danny Boyle`s latest film, after his Oscar winning picture, Slumdog Millionaire. His choice was a rather curious one considering the plot is about a man who gets his arm trapped in a crack of a canyon for 127 hours. The plot doesn`t seem to be all that attractive and most of us were already familiar with the true story that the film is based on so there was no real room for surprises. So why has the film been nominated for Best Picture? The answer is simple; Danny Boyle is a great director who happened to cast the right man for the lead role: James Franco. Franco gives one of the best performances of the year. He is just great in this film, which is actually a one man show. 127 Hours is only about 90 minutes long, but Franco`s character is trapped in the canyon with very little room for mobility from practically the very beginning (15 minutes into the movie) up to the very end. The entire film focuses on Franco with extreme close ups and his facial expressions are just all on the mark. James Franco is the reason why this film got so many great reviews and was nominated. Danny Boyle also made the film more interesting by resorting to flashbacks, daydreams, and hallucinations, but Franco is the main reason why this movie did as well as it did. I wasn`t too much of a fan of Boyle`s style of splitting the screen in two or three, but it was still visually stunning and the movie is worth the watch (although I disagree with the nomination for Best Picture).

The movie is very faithful to Aron Ralston`s autobiographical book, ¨Between a Rock and a Hard Place.¨ The screenplay was adapted by Danny Boyle himself and Simon Beaufoy (The Full Monty and Slumdog Millionaire). It tells the true story of an arrogant mountain climber and outdoors person named Aron Ralston (played by James Franco) who goes out as he usually does every weekend after work into the Canyons in Utah. This weekend he happens to be heading towards the Blue John Canyon, and as usual he leaves without telling anyone where he is going. He is a bit of a solitary person who enjoys being outdoors with the nature and is pretty reckless. He arrives to the Canyon on Friday and on his expedition meets two girls Kristi (Kate Mara) and Megan (Amber Tamblyn) with whom he has a good time and teaches them a thing or two about the site. Little does he know that these will be the last two people he has contact with before the accident. He parts ways with them and starts heading towards the Blue John Canyon crack. Once he arrives and begins descending the crack, a rock falls and lands on his arm, not allowing him to move. He gets stuck in the crack without being able to move the heavy rock and knowing that no one will come searching for him because he hasn`t told anyone where he was heading. Aron has hardly any food and only a bottle of water to survive. The title gives away the amount of time Aron remains in the crack, and like I said there are no big surprises because we know the story, but the movie works thanks to Franco.

I do not want to give away too much of the film, but most everyone is familiar with Ralston and knows what he does in order to get out (yes he escapes, because if he didn`t there would be no autobiography or film so no this isn`t a spoiler). I won`t say how he does it in case you aren`t familiar with it, but all I can say is that it is a very strong and difficult scene to watch. It was really well done and I couldn`t help but cringe at the sight of it. It was a very painful scene, but Franco was excellent in it as well. He truly gives a powerful performance, and I won`t get tired of repeating it. I can`t believe it only took Boyle one take to get it done, it was just perfect. The reason why I´m only giving this film seven out of ten is because I really wasn´t hooked by the story. Yes, I liked Franco`s performance, but there was nothing new to the story. This would have made for an excellent short film, it would have been perfect, but in 90 minutes I just felt the film was stretched too long. I really didn`t care too much for the daydreams or flashbacks; although they did serve the purpose of at least changing the claustrophobic environment for a while. The best scenes were actually the ones in which James Franco would tape his video journal of each day. The one where he imagines he is getting invited to an early TV show and plays the interviewer and himself is just great and proves what a good job Franco did in this movie. I recommend this movie, I just don`t agree with the six Oscar nominations it received.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Date Night (7/10)

¨ He turned the gun sideways! That's a kill shot! ¨

(7/10) Tina Fey and Steve Carell are great comedians and both have the funniest shows on TV at the moment, Fey starring in 30 Rock and Carell in The Office, so when I heard they were going to make a film together I knew it was going to be worth the ticket price. This is a movie you won`t want to miss because these two actors are probably the smartest comedians around and can turn any bad script into something funny. Shawn Levy directs Date Night and he is used to working with great comedians as he has worked with Ben Stiller in the Night At The Museum movies and with Steve Martin in Cheaper By the Dozen and The Pink Panther. He is not known for making memorable movies, but they are entertaining nonetheless because he always works with a talented cast. The same can be said with Date Night, it is an enjoyable movie, a good date movie because it mixes comedy and action with a little bit of romance, but it is not a great film, it will just be remembered for the great cast and good chemistry between Fey and Carell. Is it better than what they do on TV? Probably not, but it is still worth the watch. The script, written by Josh Klausner (who wrote Shrek the Third) is not the strongest part of this film, but the way every actor delivers each line with comedic excellence is what makes Date Night a fun movie to watch for the entire family and the supporting cast is just great as well.

Phil (Steve Carell) and Claire Foster (Tina Fey) are a married couple living in New Jersey with two kids. Their married life has become a routine which pretty much consists of waking up early to make the kids breakfast and then head off to work. They manage to have a date night once a week although it also has become a routine since they always end up doing the same thing. They also have a book club where they spend time with their friends Brad (Mark Ruffalo) and Haley Sullivan (Kristen Wiig) who just confess to the couple that they are getting divorced because their married life has turned into just being good roommates. This serves as a wakeup call for Phil and Claire who decide to do something different for their next date night. Phil decides to take Claire to the city to eat at a fine restaurant. The problem is that they don`t have reservations so Phil suddenly decides to take another couple`s reservation when he hears they haven`t showed up. The couple are really enjoying the meal together when all of a sudden two men named Collins (Common) and Armstrong (Jimmi Simpson) interrupt them and ask them to step out. They pull a gun at Phil and Claire mistaking them for the couple who had really made the reservation, the Tripplehorn`s, who happened to have stole from a mob boss named Joe Miletto (Ray Liotta). This is where the action begins and the routine ends for the Foster`s as their lives are at stake.

Date Night combines action with comedy very well thanks to Fey and Carell who have great chemistry together. They both are really good actors, but the supporting cast is also excellent. Some of the funniest scenes come from the small roles played by Mark Wahlbergh playing a security agent who is a friend of Claire`s, James Franco and Mila Kunis who are really the true Tripplehorn`s. The scenes with these characters are probably the funniest ones in the movie. I really enjoyed Date Night although it won`t be one of those memorable movies that I will want to watch over and over again or that I can take something out of, but it is a fun movie to watch with your date or family. It is also good to see Fey and Carell working together and hopefully they will continue to work together because these are two of the most respected actors in comedy. Their chemistry together was great. Hopefully next time they will do something less light, but for now it was just good to see them on screen together. Date Night isn`t a must see movie unless you really appreciate Tina Fey and Steve Carell, but it isn`t bad either. It will entertain you and that is pretty much the goal for most moviegoers and it will make you laugh.