Directed By: Timur Bekmambetov
Rating: R (US) / 18A (Can)
Runtime: 1 hour, 50 min
After having one too many brain cells dismissed by the Love Guru, my husband and I decided to pull a double feature and take in “Wanted” to wash away the foul taste of the Guru Pitka. It seemed that several more of my brain cells were blown away, but this time it was not due to inactivity. Wanted definitely lived up to its trailer, delivering an intense thrill ride with the gritty graphic novel feel that we all came to know and love in Frank Miller’s Sin City.
The film begins with Wesley Gibson, pecking away character by character at his dull life in a cubicle where he is an account manager who suffers from anxiety. His boss won’t let up, his girlfriend is cheating on him with his best friend, and there is never quite enough in the bank account to dig himself out of the rut. And he lets you know it. The narration sets the tone for Gibson’s pathetic life, as he complains about the monotony of it all, and his apathy towards attempting to change.
One fateful night as Gibson is waiting in line for his next round of anti-anxiety pills, he is visited by Fox, (Angelina Jolie) and the thrill ride begins. Fox informs his that his father is one of the greatest assassins who has ever lived, and the man who killed him is staring at them from across the room. A shootout begins right in the pharmacy aisle, that barely ends until the end of the film, spliced with Gibson’s training regime at the guild of assassins called The Fraternity whose mantra is “Kill one, maybe save thousands”, though generally in the killing of the one, there is a tsunami sized wake of injury, destruction of public property, and presumably a good amount of unnecessary civilian death.
The thing that surprised me the most about this film was the lack of emotional response from the lead character. It seems as though anybody who entreats on a physical journey of that magnitude would have somewhat of an emotional response to his new awareness. Though there are glimmers of change as Wesley struggles with the reasons for who he is assigned to assassinate and why The Fraternity exists the way they do, it still seems that no significant change is brought to the surface and Wesley is no better off emotionally at the end of the film than he is at the beginning. Having missed out on the graphic novel, perhaps there is something I am missing about the portrayal of this apathetic frustrated character, or perhaps I am attempting to add emotional depth where it has no business being, in a no-holds barred, intense thrill ride, with a big budget, a big cast and several big guns.
This film will likely do well at the box office, and will appeal to its primarily male audiences with non-stop action and Angelina Jolie’s sexy portrayal of the only female assassin (or so it seems). The violence is plentiful, though not quite as graphic as Sin City, and the language holds up to the Restricted Rating. I would not recommend this film to the faint of heart, or to anyone who is offended by mindless bloodshed. That being said I was entertained in the “popcorn movie” sense, similar to my feeling upon viewing Triple X, or Hitman, worth the watch if this genre is your cup of tea.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
The Love Guru
Directed By: Marco Schnabel
Rating: PG-13 (US) / 14A (Can)
Runtime: 1 hour, 28 min.
We all understand the feeling of the elephant in the room, the one that no one will mention, and yet it’s presence is cripplingly obvious and uncomfortable? While watching Mike Myers latest “The Love Guru” the metaphorical elephant comes to life on screen, while crickets chirp in the theatre.
The story begins with an American-born orphaned son of two missionaries, growing up in India under the tutelage of a cross-eyed guru, alongside the now famous Deepak Chopra. The boy, after undergoing a series of training sequences and donning a chastity belt, turns into His Holiness, The Guru Pitka. Pitka is now the successful owner of his own Ashram, where he gives sutras to B-list celebs, and is second in “the biz” only to Deepak himself. The story begins its climb as Pitka is hired to help the star player of the Toronto Maple Leafs Darren Roanoke, played by Romany Malco, mend his broken relationship with his wife, using his patented DRAMA technique. Jessica Alba plays Jane Bullard, the female owner of the team who is trying to overcome a curse of a long run of Stanley Cup losses. The story follows Pitka through his crazy teachings as he attempts to aide Roanoke back to a healthy marriage, The Leafs to a Stanley Cup, and himself to a fulfillment of his chastity vow, and therefore closer to Jane Bullard.
There is little that I can say positively about this movie. The story is fantastical and completely unrealistic. Albeit those two qualities do not always make an awful movie, however, this film fails to even achieve its purpose of making it’s audience laugh. The only comedy presented in this film was toilet-based for cheap laughs, or anatomy jokes, lacking any ingenuity and giving no credit to the intelligence of the audience. It is clear that Myers was attempting to create an Austin Powers for the next generation, and while the objectionable content remained on par with the Powers movies, the characterization and more importantly, the comedy, fell far short.
Though this movie hints at many spiritual leanings, it does not seem to truly enforce or engage in any. There is no mention of God, or gods, and nothing seems to be worshipped except the concept of learning to love oneself. The Hindu teaching of Dharma is mocked with Pitka’s method of DRAMA, and jabs are aimed at anybody who takes the advice of one man too seriously, as nothing seems to hold any weight.
The majority of the comedy was an attempt to disguise dirty phrases as difficult to pronounce Indian names. Littered with rude and crude dialogue, sexually inappropriate jokes, bathroom humour and tired comedy routines, this movie had very little worth watching, in this reviewers opinion, and the Guru Pitka is welcome to summon $12.00 back into my bank account. I would not recommend this film even to those who are die hard fans of Myers previous classics, as The Love Guru cannot seem to muster the laughs that Power’s effortlessly commanded.
Rating: PG-13 (US) / 14A (Can)
Runtime: 1 hour, 28 min.
We all understand the feeling of the elephant in the room, the one that no one will mention, and yet it’s presence is cripplingly obvious and uncomfortable? While watching Mike Myers latest “The Love Guru” the metaphorical elephant comes to life on screen, while crickets chirp in the theatre.
The story begins with an American-born orphaned son of two missionaries, growing up in India under the tutelage of a cross-eyed guru, alongside the now famous Deepak Chopra. The boy, after undergoing a series of training sequences and donning a chastity belt, turns into His Holiness, The Guru Pitka. Pitka is now the successful owner of his own Ashram, where he gives sutras to B-list celebs, and is second in “the biz” only to Deepak himself. The story begins its climb as Pitka is hired to help the star player of the Toronto Maple Leafs Darren Roanoke, played by Romany Malco, mend his broken relationship with his wife, using his patented DRAMA technique. Jessica Alba plays Jane Bullard, the female owner of the team who is trying to overcome a curse of a long run of Stanley Cup losses. The story follows Pitka through his crazy teachings as he attempts to aide Roanoke back to a healthy marriage, The Leafs to a Stanley Cup, and himself to a fulfillment of his chastity vow, and therefore closer to Jane Bullard.
There is little that I can say positively about this movie. The story is fantastical and completely unrealistic. Albeit those two qualities do not always make an awful movie, however, this film fails to even achieve its purpose of making it’s audience laugh. The only comedy presented in this film was toilet-based for cheap laughs, or anatomy jokes, lacking any ingenuity and giving no credit to the intelligence of the audience. It is clear that Myers was attempting to create an Austin Powers for the next generation, and while the objectionable content remained on par with the Powers movies, the characterization and more importantly, the comedy, fell far short.
Though this movie hints at many spiritual leanings, it does not seem to truly enforce or engage in any. There is no mention of God, or gods, and nothing seems to be worshipped except the concept of learning to love oneself. The Hindu teaching of Dharma is mocked with Pitka’s method of DRAMA, and jabs are aimed at anybody who takes the advice of one man too seriously, as nothing seems to hold any weight.
The majority of the comedy was an attempt to disguise dirty phrases as difficult to pronounce Indian names. Littered with rude and crude dialogue, sexually inappropriate jokes, bathroom humour and tired comedy routines, this movie had very little worth watching, in this reviewers opinion, and the Guru Pitka is welcome to summon $12.00 back into my bank account. I would not recommend this film even to those who are die hard fans of Myers previous classics, as The Love Guru cannot seem to muster the laughs that Power’s effortlessly commanded.
Get Smart
Directed By: Peter Segal
Rating: PG-13 (US) / PG Canada
Runtime: 1 hour 50 min
The "KAOS" theory applies in the 2008 adaptation of the 60’s television show Get Smart. The names of the characters are the same, though the setting is current, and the toys are much more technologically advanced.
CONTROL is a secret organization supplying numbered agents in various assignments around the globe. They are constantly battling KAOS and enemy organization whose diabolical schemes threaten US security. Integrated into the US defense strategy, CONTROL takes on a bit more authority in the film then it seemed to possess in the television show. Steve Carrell brings his famous sense of humour to the modern day Maxwell Smart, who is working for Control as a senior analyst and wants nothing more than to become a field agent. When CONTROL is infiltrated all of the current agents identities are compromised. Max is promoted out of necessity and assigned to partner with Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway), who has conveniently undergone plastic surgery. They are on a mad hunt to uncover a KAOS presence who has infiltrated CONTROL on a senior level.
The chemistry between 99 and Smart is charming and guides the viewer on a journey towards respect and acceptance, allowing Carrell to insert his deadpan style into Smart. As he strives to complete a mission that seems above him he also attempts to impress his partner, an agent much more experienced and capable than himself.
The throwbacks to the 60’s premise are well placed, and I was pleasantly surprised by the abundance of comedy that hadn’t been given away by the trailers. It was a risk for this film to take these beloved characters and turn them into modern day identities, as the film establishes that although Control has existed since the 60’s, Agents 86 and 99 have never previously surfaced. Some of the character changes paid off more than others, and a few interesting choices were made. The addition of two new analysts, who make up for their lack of courage with their tech-savvy inventions, is a good secondary outlet for comedy and compliments Max’s rise to field agent status and the rivalry between analysts and agents. Dwayne Johnson (aka The Rock) is introduced as a hardline CONTROL agent who is out to win at all costs. Agent 99 bears almost no emotional resemblance to the Barbara Feldon’s portrayal, though Hathaway is able to provide a sympathetic character that works for the modern age woman. Carrell was absolutely the best choice to revisit Agent 86, though no one could ever live up to Don Adam’s hysterical ironclad grasp on Maxwell Smart. The film leans more toward the action spectrum, with comedy thrown in wherever it fits, a departure from the original series, which used action only as a tool to enhance its trademark slapstick style. That being said the film is designed to make you embrace the new characters while still enjoying the overall feel of the 60’s good-versus-evil worldview.
I would watch this movie again in a heartbeat, having enjoyed the show as a child. I am pleased with the adaptation, and would expect a sequel to surface in a few years time.
Rating: PG-13 (US) / PG Canada
Runtime: 1 hour 50 min
The "KAOS" theory applies in the 2008 adaptation of the 60’s television show Get Smart. The names of the characters are the same, though the setting is current, and the toys are much more technologically advanced.
CONTROL is a secret organization supplying numbered agents in various assignments around the globe. They are constantly battling KAOS and enemy organization whose diabolical schemes threaten US security. Integrated into the US defense strategy, CONTROL takes on a bit more authority in the film then it seemed to possess in the television show. Steve Carrell brings his famous sense of humour to the modern day Maxwell Smart, who is working for Control as a senior analyst and wants nothing more than to become a field agent. When CONTROL is infiltrated all of the current agents identities are compromised. Max is promoted out of necessity and assigned to partner with Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway), who has conveniently undergone plastic surgery. They are on a mad hunt to uncover a KAOS presence who has infiltrated CONTROL on a senior level.
The chemistry between 99 and Smart is charming and guides the viewer on a journey towards respect and acceptance, allowing Carrell to insert his deadpan style into Smart. As he strives to complete a mission that seems above him he also attempts to impress his partner, an agent much more experienced and capable than himself.
The throwbacks to the 60’s premise are well placed, and I was pleasantly surprised by the abundance of comedy that hadn’t been given away by the trailers. It was a risk for this film to take these beloved characters and turn them into modern day identities, as the film establishes that although Control has existed since the 60’s, Agents 86 and 99 have never previously surfaced. Some of the character changes paid off more than others, and a few interesting choices were made. The addition of two new analysts, who make up for their lack of courage with their tech-savvy inventions, is a good secondary outlet for comedy and compliments Max’s rise to field agent status and the rivalry between analysts and agents. Dwayne Johnson (aka The Rock) is introduced as a hardline CONTROL agent who is out to win at all costs. Agent 99 bears almost no emotional resemblance to the Barbara Feldon’s portrayal, though Hathaway is able to provide a sympathetic character that works for the modern age woman. Carrell was absolutely the best choice to revisit Agent 86, though no one could ever live up to Don Adam’s hysterical ironclad grasp on Maxwell Smart. The film leans more toward the action spectrum, with comedy thrown in wherever it fits, a departure from the original series, which used action only as a tool to enhance its trademark slapstick style. That being said the film is designed to make you embrace the new characters while still enjoying the overall feel of the 60’s good-versus-evil worldview.
I would watch this movie again in a heartbeat, having enjoyed the show as a child. I am pleased with the adaptation, and would expect a sequel to surface in a few years time.
Sex And The City
Sex And The City
Directed by: Michael Patrick King
Rated: R (US) / 18A (Can)
Runtime: 2 hrs 15 min
Remember Carrie Bradshaw, Samantha Jones, Miranda Hobbes and Charlotte York? If you have never watched an episode of Sex And The City, then these names may mean nothing to you, but to thousands of women these four are the soldiers on the front lines for single women everywhere, answering their questions, making the mistakes, and of course, testing out the shoes.
The film adaptation of this critically acclaimed television show picks up several years after we left Carrie and the gals in Manhattan. Carrie Bradshaw is a columnist turned non-fiction author who has made her living writing about the single scene in New York City, focusing on sex and relationships. We left her in an on and off long-term relationship with Mr. Big that despite more than one breakup, has spanned a decade. Carrie and her three best friends Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte are all in various stages of their thirties and forties, as well as in varying degrees of relationships, when Carrie announces that she and Mr. Big have decided to tie the knot.
The film chronicles Carrie as she prepares for her wedding to a man who has been labeled the Mr. Big of commitment-phobics throughout six years of episodic television. When the wedding day arrives, and Mr. Big doesn’t show, Carrie must deal with the aftermath of a very public flop. Samantha, supporting Carrie from distant Los Angeles begins to reevaluate her commitment to her partner, a much younger television star who supported her through chemotherapy. Miranda decides whether or not to try and breathe some life into her failing marriage, while Charlotte faces her fears that something terrible is around the corner, coming to mar her fairy tale happiness.
It is obvious by the title and rating of this film that it deals with some very mature subject matter. Anyone who has caught so much as a glimpse of the episodes will realize that all four characters lead a lifestyle open to many sexual partners with very little relational pretext. These women pride themselves on living in Manhattan in the age of sexual revolution where women treat sex the same way many men do, while still maintaining their femininity..
While it was exciting to see marriage being celebrated in this film, the motive for marriage was not a long-standing monogamous commitment, rather a legal convenience. Even as each party began to realize that they wished to be committed to each other, there was a lack of emphasis on the sanctity of the wedding vows. Relationally, the emphasis on friendship is probably the best thing that this film has to offer (aside from the designer purses). The unconditional love that these four women offer each other is inspiring. It bodes the response that perhaps if they gave the same to their relationships, the outcomes may be a little less bleak. It seems, however, that they are content to rely on each other and treat men as the extras to their four-way love story.
Anyone who is a fan of the television series will enjoy seeing this film, as the characters remain pleasantly consistent, and the dialogue is equally as witty as it was throughout the episodes. The amount of high fashion is phenomenal and the film is a great place to find your next wish-list Manolo Blahnik’s (that’s Vogue for shoes, in case you weren’t sure). The plot fell a little flat at points and the narration (pinnacle in the series) seemed to grasp for substance in some moments. That being said, the writers tackled the monstrous challenge of adapting an episodic thirty-minute TV show for the big screen, and succeeded.
I would not recommend this film to anyone who is easily offended by lude behavior, language, or nudity, as it contains plenty, however, if you are already a fan of the show and are prepared for what you are paying for you will likely enjoy the film for its friendly reprise of familiar and engaging characters.
Directed by: Michael Patrick King
Rated: R (US) / 18A (Can)
Runtime: 2 hrs 15 min
Remember Carrie Bradshaw, Samantha Jones, Miranda Hobbes and Charlotte York? If you have never watched an episode of Sex And The City, then these names may mean nothing to you, but to thousands of women these four are the soldiers on the front lines for single women everywhere, answering their questions, making the mistakes, and of course, testing out the shoes.
The film adaptation of this critically acclaimed television show picks up several years after we left Carrie and the gals in Manhattan. Carrie Bradshaw is a columnist turned non-fiction author who has made her living writing about the single scene in New York City, focusing on sex and relationships. We left her in an on and off long-term relationship with Mr. Big that despite more than one breakup, has spanned a decade. Carrie and her three best friends Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte are all in various stages of their thirties and forties, as well as in varying degrees of relationships, when Carrie announces that she and Mr. Big have decided to tie the knot.
The film chronicles Carrie as she prepares for her wedding to a man who has been labeled the Mr. Big of commitment-phobics throughout six years of episodic television. When the wedding day arrives, and Mr. Big doesn’t show, Carrie must deal with the aftermath of a very public flop. Samantha, supporting Carrie from distant Los Angeles begins to reevaluate her commitment to her partner, a much younger television star who supported her through chemotherapy. Miranda decides whether or not to try and breathe some life into her failing marriage, while Charlotte faces her fears that something terrible is around the corner, coming to mar her fairy tale happiness.
It is obvious by the title and rating of this film that it deals with some very mature subject matter. Anyone who has caught so much as a glimpse of the episodes will realize that all four characters lead a lifestyle open to many sexual partners with very little relational pretext. These women pride themselves on living in Manhattan in the age of sexual revolution where women treat sex the same way many men do, while still maintaining their femininity..
While it was exciting to see marriage being celebrated in this film, the motive for marriage was not a long-standing monogamous commitment, rather a legal convenience. Even as each party began to realize that they wished to be committed to each other, there was a lack of emphasis on the sanctity of the wedding vows. Relationally, the emphasis on friendship is probably the best thing that this film has to offer (aside from the designer purses). The unconditional love that these four women offer each other is inspiring. It bodes the response that perhaps if they gave the same to their relationships, the outcomes may be a little less bleak. It seems, however, that they are content to rely on each other and treat men as the extras to their four-way love story.
Anyone who is a fan of the television series will enjoy seeing this film, as the characters remain pleasantly consistent, and the dialogue is equally as witty as it was throughout the episodes. The amount of high fashion is phenomenal and the film is a great place to find your next wish-list Manolo Blahnik’s (that’s Vogue for shoes, in case you weren’t sure). The plot fell a little flat at points and the narration (pinnacle in the series) seemed to grasp for substance in some moments. That being said, the writers tackled the monstrous challenge of adapting an episodic thirty-minute TV show for the big screen, and succeeded.
I would not recommend this film to anyone who is easily offended by lude behavior, language, or nudity, as it contains plenty, however, if you are already a fan of the show and are prepared for what you are paying for you will likely enjoy the film for its friendly reprise of familiar and engaging characters.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
The Happening
Directed by: M. Knight Shyamalan
Rated: 14A (Can) / R (USA)
Runtime: 91 min.
The theater was definitely happening ('scuse the pun, I couldn't resist) at tonight's 10:50 showing of The Happening, though I have to admit the most boisterous acting was going on in the audience as fans jeered and cheered raucously during some of the more intense moments of M. Knight Shyamalan's latest thriller.
The story begins with Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg), a highschool science teacher asking his students to theorize about certain environmental phenomena. Shyamalan asks the viewer to continually shift and adjust their own theories throughout the movie as we follow Elliot and his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel) on a desperate attempt to escape a biological attack that is making its way through the North-eastern United States.
Dropping disjointed pieces of information, interspersed with Shyamalan's lust for suspense and the occasional horrific scene, the film doesn't fail to keep you guessing on the edge of your seat. Though the stilted distance between the characters provides a unique sense of dramatic tension throughout the film seeming almost like a throwback to the days of Vertigo, there are a few too many moments of awkward pacing and ill-pursued possibilities. On the plus side, there are some beautiful instances of comedic timing that provide some much needed relief from the tightly wound aura pulsing off screen.
In contrast to the overall atmosphere, the acting in the film is surprisingly subdued. The cast seemed to react to the unexplainable and often gruesome events with a reserved disbelief, occasionally ranging into quiet panic. Though this could be mistaken as bad acting, the consistency of the performances and the slightly off-beat pacing is indicative of Shyamalan's trademark style. I can understand why this comes across as melodramatic to some, however, the remoteness of the actors succeeds in amping up the tension of the physical events going on around them, creating a similar effect to the lack of background score in No Country for Old Men.
I would definitely rate Shyamalan's latest attempt above his previous Lady in the Water, and would recommend it if you enjoy his particular brand of suspense, though by no means does it compare to The Sixth Sense, and one must wonder if he peaked on the first try, and will be forever measured by that previous success.
(I would recommend watching the beginning of the final credits for the heartfelt cameo with which Shyamalan credit's himself)
Rated: 14A (Can) / R (USA)
Runtime: 91 min.
The theater was definitely happening ('scuse the pun, I couldn't resist) at tonight's 10:50 showing of The Happening, though I have to admit the most boisterous acting was going on in the audience as fans jeered and cheered raucously during some of the more intense moments of M. Knight Shyamalan's latest thriller.
The story begins with Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg), a highschool science teacher asking his students to theorize about certain environmental phenomena. Shyamalan asks the viewer to continually shift and adjust their own theories throughout the movie as we follow Elliot and his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel) on a desperate attempt to escape a biological attack that is making its way through the North-eastern United States.
Dropping disjointed pieces of information, interspersed with Shyamalan's lust for suspense and the occasional horrific scene, the film doesn't fail to keep you guessing on the edge of your seat. Though the stilted distance between the characters provides a unique sense of dramatic tension throughout the film seeming almost like a throwback to the days of Vertigo, there are a few too many moments of awkward pacing and ill-pursued possibilities. On the plus side, there are some beautiful instances of comedic timing that provide some much needed relief from the tightly wound aura pulsing off screen.
In contrast to the overall atmosphere, the acting in the film is surprisingly subdued. The cast seemed to react to the unexplainable and often gruesome events with a reserved disbelief, occasionally ranging into quiet panic. Though this could be mistaken as bad acting, the consistency of the performances and the slightly off-beat pacing is indicative of Shyamalan's trademark style. I can understand why this comes across as melodramatic to some, however, the remoteness of the actors succeeds in amping up the tension of the physical events going on around them, creating a similar effect to the lack of background score in No Country for Old Men.
I would definitely rate Shyamalan's latest attempt above his previous Lady in the Water, and would recommend it if you enjoy his particular brand of suspense, though by no means does it compare to The Sixth Sense, and one must wonder if he peaked on the first try, and will be forever measured by that previous success.
(I would recommend watching the beginning of the final credits for the heartfelt cameo with which Shyamalan credit's himself)
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Review: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Rated: PG (Can) / PG-13 (USA)
Runtime: 2 hours
When three Hollywood heavyweights who are known to make things happen get together you can expect three things. Big box office revenues, excruciatingly large media hype, and a mediocre sequel. Indy had all three with a vengeance. When George Lucas is one of the three, you can also expect a little too much sci-fi where it doesn't belong. Let me disclaimer the following review by saying that the newest Indy installment will be on my DVD shelf immediately upon it's release, despite my beefs with the genre-mixology.
It was with warm fuzzies that the opening scenes of the Crystal Skull washed over me. I was pleased to be in Dr. Jones Jr's company once again. The aging Harrison only made Jones more appealing and experienced, albeit a bit more subdued. The movie built up the plot and suspense immediately, and drew the audience in. The film introduced some interesting new characters while bringing back the old favorites with a passably natural feel.
My main issue with the film was the introduction of all things alien. The film asked a lot of it's audience as it attempted to bridge the disconnect between the historical and the inter-dimensional. The cross breed of archeology mixed with alienology didn't sit well, as the archeology seemed to take a back seat in this particular case.
Spielberg's visual storytelling remains at it's peak, however, George Lucas' name is all over the CGI monkeys that dance their way across Shia LeBeouf's Tarzan act.
Despite a rather flat ending, and some less than appealing throwbacks to Jar Jar Binks, this film is worth the watch for anyone who is a fan of the Indiana Trilogy, or anyone keeping track of Mr. LeBeouf's sky-rocketing career. All in all, it lived up to my entertainment expectations, though I was secretly hoping to be blown away
Rated: PG (Can) / PG-13 (USA)
Runtime: 2 hours
When three Hollywood heavyweights who are known to make things happen get together you can expect three things. Big box office revenues, excruciatingly large media hype, and a mediocre sequel. Indy had all three with a vengeance. When George Lucas is one of the three, you can also expect a little too much sci-fi where it doesn't belong. Let me disclaimer the following review by saying that the newest Indy installment will be on my DVD shelf immediately upon it's release, despite my beefs with the genre-mixology.
It was with warm fuzzies that the opening scenes of the Crystal Skull washed over me. I was pleased to be in Dr. Jones Jr's company once again. The aging Harrison only made Jones more appealing and experienced, albeit a bit more subdued. The movie built up the plot and suspense immediately, and drew the audience in. The film introduced some interesting new characters while bringing back the old favorites with a passably natural feel.
My main issue with the film was the introduction of all things alien. The film asked a lot of it's audience as it attempted to bridge the disconnect between the historical and the inter-dimensional. The cross breed of archeology mixed with alienology didn't sit well, as the archeology seemed to take a back seat in this particular case.
Spielberg's visual storytelling remains at it's peak, however, George Lucas' name is all over the CGI monkeys that dance their way across Shia LeBeouf's Tarzan act.
Despite a rather flat ending, and some less than appealing throwbacks to Jar Jar Binks, this film is worth the watch for anyone who is a fan of the Indiana Trilogy, or anyone keeping track of Mr. LeBeouf's sky-rocketing career. All in all, it lived up to my entertainment expectations, though I was secretly hoping to be blown away
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
