Machete

Title: Machete (2010)
Director: Robert Rodriguez, Ethan Maniquis
Genre: Action
Lead Actor(s): Danny Trejo, Jessica Alba
Rating: R
105 minutes

This is a crazy movie. At one point Machete (Danny Trejo) swings out one window and into the window one floor down with a man’s intestines. This was originally seen as a fake trailer between Planet Terror and Deathproof. Basically Machete is an ex-federale who was burned by a drug pin, Torrez (Steven Seagal), and emigrates to Texas trying to work as a day laborer when he is offered $150,000 to kill Senator John McLaughlin (Robert DeNiro). It turns out to be a setup to bolster the senator’s poll numbers. Now a massive manhunt is looking for Machete and Machete is looking for the men who hired him. This is basically a 2010 mexploitation.

I love Cheech Marin as Machete’s brother, a gun-toting priest. He was incredibly funny in the part and oddly convincing when blowing people’s heads off. He is a fallible priest who knows he is fallible.

Danny Trejo is a badass. That is all that really needs to be said about him and his character.

There is footage from the original Grindhouse interspersed in the movie, sometimes it is more noticeable than others. There is gratuitous blood and gratuitously bloody shots. Really this is just a fun movie. You can have a good time watching it and it is different from just about any movie that has been released recently.

If I judged this movie based on quality and cinematic value, it would be ** 2/10
If I judged it based on how much fun you can have and how much enjoyment can be had while watching it, I give it a ********* 9/10

Easy A

Title: Easy A (2010)
Director: Will Gluck
Genre: Comedy
Lead Actor(s): Emma Stone
Rating: PG-13
92 minutes

Easy A is told through an internet stream as Olive Penderghast (a fairly awesome last name) (Emma Stone) and flash backs as she tells her side of the story in chapters. It begins when she lies about having a date with a college guy in order to get out of going on a camping trip with her friend, Rhi (Aly Michalka), and Rhi’s hippie parents. Her friend becomes convinced that Olive slept with the guy and when Olive sarcastically agrees, the school goody-goody, Marianne (Amanda Bynes), tells the whole school and now Olive is branded as a slut. Olive decides to embrace this view of her by channeling The Scarlet Letter and letting guys say they did something with her in return for gift cards. The only people who really seem to be consistently are her parents and Mr. Griffith (who I knew was going to hit on her, but you will have to see it to find out if he does) (Thomas Haden Church).

This movie is built around Emma Stone. She is able to display the wit and stamina needed for the role. The one-liners, some of which are seen in the trailer, would not have been nearly as funny if Bynes had been in the role instead. Stone has a dryness about her that differentiates this movie from so many of the other recent high school movies. She really is a funny and self-assured actress. There is a montage of her weekend that I have now watched twice on youtube just because it’s a quick funny thing to watch during dull commercials or breaks from dull studying. Should you want to watch it, search for Easy A pocketful of sunshine.

Besides Stone’s performance, there aren’t a lot of strong performances. The exceptions are Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson as Olive’s parents and Lisa Kudrow as Mrs. Griffith, the school guidance counselor. I have by now realized that Tucci is one of those actors who I am just ridiculously biased for. I love his performance and personality and energy. This was one reason I did not want to see him play a child murderer in The Lovely Bones. I doubt I will ever see that movie, even though I am sure Tucci was wonderful in that as well. Here he is over-the-top and funny. Clarkson as her mom is a little more reserved, but still hilarious and Clarkson and Tucci have great timing and chemistry with each other. They could be seen as too exaggerated, but the town that this is supposedly taking place in is supposed to be very small, so instead their performances help us understand why Olive is so different from her classmates.

Lisa Kudrow plays her guidance counselor very similar to her character on her character on “Web Therapy,” Fiona Wallace. Both are more interested in themselves than their charges and have no understanding about how to interact with those who seek their help. She is very funny in the view parts she has, especially when we first meet her visiting her husband in his classroom.

The rest of the characters are very lacking. Bynes’s Marianne is by no means Mandy Moore’s Hillary Faye in Saved. She lacks the dimension and her actions and conviction come off much more artificial than Moore’s. I think the character of Rhianna or Rhi was almost an afterthought. Olive doesn’t really seem to like her “best friend” and they quickly split for the majority of the movie. I also don’t really understand the point of Woodchuck Todd (Penn Badgley) character. Would it be bad for Olive not to find someone in this small and ill-fitting town to have a crush on?

My final issue with the film is a very stupid and petty one, so forgive me. Olive is almost thrown out of school for calling a girl, who called her a slut (or some synonym), a twat. She never gets in trouble for wearing clothing she literally bought at a lingerie store. I find this baffling. They try to wave it off by saying that her pants are always longer than her fingertips, but I would like to know of one school that would not take action when one of their students is essentially just wearing a whole bunch of corsets.

My favorite parts are the ones where it is just Olive talking to her computer. They are simple, but define her character and avoid the majority of unnecessary characters. The directing is not noticeable in a good or bad way. There are moments where it makes the action more fun (the montage comes to mind) and there are moments that are really very cliché (Olive walking through a crowd in slow motion once she decides to embrace her inner Hester Prynne). Overall, it is a fun movie with good wit and great performances from Tucci, Clarkson, and Kudrow and a stand-out one by Stone. If the rest of the Easy A world was as good as these actors, it would be a great movie.

****** 6/10

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Title: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)
Director: Edgar Wright
Genre: Action, Comedy
Lead Actor(s): Michael Cera
Rating: PG-13
112 minutes

Again this is a movie based on a comic book I have not read. The movie centers around Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera). He sees a girl, Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and becomes utterly infatuated with her, despite the fact his is dating a high school student, Knives Chau. Despite the protests of members in his band and his sister, Pilgrim pursues her and ends up dating her. Unfortunately she has 7 evil exes, with super powers, determined to destroy Pilgrim for the love of Flowers. Pilgrim must fight and destroy each one in order to win the right to date Flowers.

I know that several people love Michael Cera, but I don’t think he is strong enough to carry a movie on his own. Despite Scott Pilgrim being the protagonist, I found myself enjoying the supporting character far more than the main character. That being said, I did like seeing this lanky nerdy guy in these crazy action sequences. It is the aftermath of the battles and the scenes leading up to it that are lacking. His character is very much like every other character he has played, and that is fine because they work in supporting roles, but the personality is not strong enough to base a movie around. I have not seen the other movie where Cera plays the lead, Youth in Revolt, but I didn’t really feel a need to see it.

The supporting characters make this movie. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is subtly funny as Flowers. She has a whole festival of crazy going on around her and she is still very calm about it all. Kieran Culkin plays Pilgrim’s gay roommate, Wallace. He is probably my favorite character in the movie. His character is the funniest and the ego he has is fitting for the character, whereas Pilgrim’s seems inflated and aggravating. The drummer is his band, Kim (Alison Pill), also has a very strong character that is funny without pushing it down your throat. I also love all the exes, particularly the last one. There were times I was almost rooting for the exes because they were far more interesting than the main character.

I also particularly liked the style of the movie. It is very old school video game-y. Pilgrim gets points for each ex he defeats and they shatter into coins. There are also flash back sequences that are apparently in the style of the comic. It is a somewhat romantic film, but it is unlike any that I have seen. In basically every genre, the movie is unique. The movie was also really funny. I think it could have been funnier and significantly better, if someone besides Cera were cast. It is still a fun and geeky and good movie. I will probably buy it, but due to the style I think this would be a great one to see in theaters.

******* 6/10

Inception

Title: Inception (2010)
Director: Christopher Nolan
Genre: Drama, Sci-fi
Lead Actor(s): Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page
Rating: PG-13
148 minutes

Christopher Nolan is quickly becoming one of my favorite directors. Inception is trippy and thinky and great. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Cobb, the best “extractor” around with a very preoccupied subconscious. Extractors go into people’s dreams to unlock secrets for other people. Cobb and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are recruited for a big job and they must build a team including a forger, Eames (Tom Hardy), an architect, Ariadne (Ellen Page), a chemist, Yusuf (Dileep Rao), and the benefactor, Saito (Ken Wantanabe) to go deep into a mark’s mind.

Cobb has the most story in the movie and it is very complicated. DiCaprio handles such an intricate character with the taut skill he has become adept at. That being said, I would like to see him as a lighter character. His recent choices for characters never have a chance to smile and he was just as good at characters that smile. Back to his performance in this movie, I completely understand why Nolan only intended for DiCaprio for the role. This character is constantly tormented by personifications of his subconscious. He literally faces his evils in a more concrete way than the average person can dream. Cobb, however, feels that he has to continue. It doesn’t matter if he puts his whole team at risk. This gravity ways on DiCaprio as heavy as an anchor. Every movement, facial expression, every inflection is defined by this evil.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is absolutely magnificent. He is half of the comedic relief (the other being Hardy as Eames) and also a more balanced and level person than Cobb. He is more dimensional than Cobb as well. Gordon-Levitt is just fun to watch in the movie. DiCaprio is tormented and marvelous, but Gordon-Levitt just helps pull the audience away from a constant and sharp decline with Cobb. Gordon-Levitt has really grown into a fun and talented actor.

The one actor I was probably most disappointed with was Ellen Page. She was great the first 20-30 minutes, but as soon as she started discovering Cobb’s back story, I thought she dropped the ball a bit. I know that Page can do serious, even frightening. She proved this in Hard Candy. As such I am not entirely sure why when things got darker, she distanced herself from the character. I think Gordon-Levitt’s character would have been just as effective in the role this character had to play.

The directing and writing, both done by Nolan, were interesting and made the movie more of an experience. I am dying to know how he did those hallway scenes. I also want to say I loved the villain. There were times where it was so utterly unsettling. The villain really bumped the movie to the next level. I am trying not to give too much away because it would ruin the movie and the ad campaign was so careful to reveal so little. That is how I like my trailers. They need to leave some mystery so I don’t come out of the theatre feeling like I could have saved my money and just watched all the trailers to get to the end.

If Inception is not recognized for certain elements come award season, I will be very disappointed and it will probably just make me like Nolan more. I urge everyone to see this movie. This is what great movies can be. They don’t have to be in 3-d, if they have a good plot, fun and interesting characters, and the director can use his imagination. Too many directors are relying on 3-d to make their movies. If Avatar had not been in 3-d, there is no way it would have made the massive amounts of money it did. It certainly would not have been nominated for Best Picture. I will now get off my soapbox and give one last plea to see this movie. There have been practically no good movies, not made by Pixar, out this summer and finally this arrived. If it were not for Ellen Page, this movie would have gotten a 10.

********* 9/10

Toy Story 3

Sorry for my prolonged absence I was feeling horrible last week and spent the majority of it curled up in bed.

Title: Toy Story 3 (2010)
Director: Lee Unkrich
Genre: Animation
Lead Actor(s): Tom Hanks, Tim Allen
Rating: G
103 minutes

Pixar cannot do a bad movie. Every movie they have made has had redeeming qualities even if I am not a fan (the only one I am not a fan of being Finding Nemo). This sequel is no exception. Andy (John Morris) is packing for college and must decide what to do with his beloved toys. Eventually he decides all but Woody (Tom Hanks) would be saved in the attic, while Woody would go with him to college. Andy’s mom mistakes the bag of toys as trash and puts it on the curb. The toys, of course, escape and end up in a box headed to a daycare. Woody had tried an unneeded rescue mission so ended up with them. Although it seems like a dream come true for the toys, They soon realize the truth about Sunnyside Daycare.

I am not going to talk about the actors of the main cast as anyone who has seen the previous movies knows how adept the voices are for the part. Instead I want to focus on the new members, starting with the villain, Lotso. His character is a mix of a kindly grandfather and Al Capone wrapped in a Teddy Bear package that smells like strawberries. The voice obviously has to replicate the former while being able to deliver the hints of evil. Ned Beatty was the perfect choice.

Although he only appears in a few scenes, another character that stuck out for me was Mr. Pricklepants, a hedgehog in leiderhosen voiced by Timothy Dalton. Mr. Pricklepants sees himself as a serious thespian who must stay in character at all times, including when the child is out of the room. Dalton is so perfect in his over-the-topness. The only actor that could have come close would have William Shatner. Dalton made a throwaway character quite memorable.

Part of the brilliance of Pixar is their ability to tap into the human condition in a way that is totally unexpected. They make grown men cry over toys. They make a robot seem like the sweetest, most romantic guy. They make a cooking rat fun instead of disgusting. There was a moment in the movie where our heroes seem so trapped that there is no way to get out and I actually thought, “this could be the worst ending to a kid’s movie ever.” They make it out, obviously, but to make moviegoers older than 10 truly worry about this motley group of toys, speaks to the ability of the screenwriters, director, actors, animators, etc.. I also love how the solved the problem of Andy getting older and what to do with the toys now that their owner is grown up. I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a Toy Story 4. Hopefully though, we won’t have to wait a decade for it.

********** 10/10

P.S. My favorite toy is Jesse and I loved what they did with Buzz’s Spanish setting.

Edge of Darkness

Since it was father’s day, I watched this movie with my dad instead of going to see Toy Story 3. I am hoping to see it sometime this week so the review should be up soon, although I am sure it is amazing.

Title: Edge of Darkness (2010)
Director: Martin Campbell
Genre: Crime, Drama
Lead Actor(s): Mel Gibson
Rating: R
117 minutes

I am not the biggest Mel Gibson fan. He is a decent actor, but I strongly believe there are better ones out there. This, however, is Gibson’s first leading role since Signs. The movie begins with his character, Thomas Craven, a Boston homicide detective, at the train station to meet his daughter, Emma, a trainee at a nuclear energy facility. She gets horrible sick during her first dinner home and as they head out the door to go to the hospital, a man yells, “Craven” and blasts her away with a shotgun. Although initially thought to be the intended victim, Craven eventually realizes that it doesn’t make sense and delves into his daughter life to find her killer.

As I said I am not a huge fan of Gibson and I have not been around too many Bostonians, but it seems like he did a good job replicating the accent, especially considering he was raised in Australia. I also have to admit the man can stare blankly. He only did it immediately following his daughter’s death, but it seemed the perfect reaction. There were times I questioned his cop personality and part of it was the actor and part of it was the director (for instance when he finds his daughter’s apartment was broken into, he immediately rummages through her stuff without gloves, not very cop-like). His reactions to certain other moments are also a bit too civilian for a veteran homicide detective. He isn’t bad, just not great.

The actor I loved in his role was Ray Winstone as Jedburgh. I can’t completely explain what the character does. He seems like a cleaner, but I can’t be sure. He has his own sense of morality and seems to thoroughly enjoy his job. He had this perfect quietness about him. I love actors that seem to hold this immense power while sitting perfectly still, sipping Brandy. I also particularly liked how he threw the line “Pills, pills, pills – not like when we were kids – it was pills, pills, pills of a very different context” to straight-laced, Catholic Craven.

I had a problem with the editing and some of the choices made by the filmmakers. There were a lot of editing missteps, in my opinion. It felt like they got rushed on time and then decided to cut the last hour of story into 30 minutes. I also feel like they pushed Craven seeing Emma after his death too much. There were also a lot of simple inconsistencies that could have easily been taken care of.

It isn’t a bad movie. It’s not particularly good, but not bad. Not for the queasy due to the particularly gory scenes. I wouldn’t own it, and wouldn’t pay to see it. It was nice to watch with my dad and grandfather for father’s day though.

***** 5/10

Iron Man 2

I will be going to New York next week and doubt I will be able to update. Sorry about that. So the next update will be up May 24th.

Title: Iron Man 2 (2010)
Director: Jon Favreau
Genre: Action, Comic Book
Lead Actor(s): Robert Downey Jr.
Rating: PG-13
124 minutes

Although there are several new characters in this sequel, the shining star is once again Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark. The main drive of the movie is the dissolution of Tony’s health and the desire of the government to take control of the Iron Man suit. The palladium core of the suit is slowly poisoning Tony and causing serious health problems. Obviously he also has a new villain in Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) and a less promoted villain in Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell). He also has a new ally in Natalie Rushman or the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson). Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau), and Col. Rhodes (Don Cheadle) all return.

I personally think that the best way to describe Downey’s performance is as a lovable asshole. He brings the same humor that made his initial performance so memorable to this movie, but there is also more of the self-destructive behavior that is critical to the character. Downey is able to play both parts with skill and consistency. I honestly cannot think of another actor who would be able to play the part with the same attitude.

Justin Hammer is meant to be a less successful business adversary of Stark who absolutely hates Tony. Rockwell is once again wonderful. He has the ability to make the audience hate him with a passion, but in another role feel hugely sympathetic to him. He is a sniveling guy who wants to be Tony Stark, but will never achieve his greatness. I am not entirely sure how I feel about the other villain’s performance. There are elements I really like about Rourke’s performance, but there are quite a few times that feel forced and overdone. The best parts of his performance are when he is battling Iron Man and I don’t think that is a good thing.

Pepper seemed a bit whinier and shriekier in the sequel than the first and I don’t particularly like that. I would like to see Pepper be a bit stronger than she has been so far. I think Tony’s attraction would also be a bit more understandable if she were able to fight his will more. I did, however, love Johansson’s performance as Black Widow. The character is not referred to as Black Widow in the movie, but that is who she is. She is able to play the stereotypical assistant before her true purpose is revealed, but she also plays a total badass ignoring Stark and thrashing several security guards. I think the film of her incapacitating the guards had to have been sped up. She moves with an agility that was a bit shocking to me.

Nick Fury made some more substantial cameos in the movie and it is little surprise that he excels portraying the character that was based on him. It will be interesting to see his character continue to appear in the Avenger related movies.

The most controversial performance is obviously going to be that of Don Cheadle as Col. Rhodes. He replaces Terrance Howard in the role for undisclosed reasons. I personally adore Cheadle. I think he is a fabulous actor. I also have to admit I do like Cheadle’s performance more than Howard’s. Cheadle’s performance is more fluid and natural than Howard’s. I have always felt that Howard was a bit hard and robotic in his performance, which given Stark’s personality seems odd for his best friend. Cheadle’s performance seems more conducive to a relationship with Stark.

Favreau does better as both a director and as the character Happy Hogan. The action scenes are more cohesive than before. Because less of the origin had to be told, more of a story could be told and Favreau took advantage of that to go a bit higher and more adventurous in his settings and dressings. I also like the development of the character Happy. I believe that he is setting up the eventual relationship between Pepper and Happy and I love that. I like when trilogies or sets of movie have different aspects that evolve into later developments.

This is once again one of the better comic movies. It has the fun of the first while also having some of the more serious traits of the comic. It has several character from the previous movie while also deftly integrating the new ones. The biggest detriments are those of Pepper and Vanko. One of my favorite parts has to be the quick cameo of Stan Lee as Larry King. I thought that was absolutely hilarious. I definitely recommend going to see this in theaters because unless you have an enormous television the experience won’t be the same.

******** 8/10

Kick-Ass

I saw Kick-Ass this weekend and although not the best comic book adaptation/inspired movie, I feel like doing a week of comic book based movies. By the way, I am a total geek.

Title: Kick-Ass (2010)
Director: Matthew Vaughn
Genre: Comic Book, Comedy
Lead Actor(s): Aaron Johnson, Chloe Moretz
Rating: R
117 minutes

I have not read the graphic novel, so maybe some of my issues are actually loyalties to the comic. Kick-Ass is about a comic book nerd, Dave (Aaron Johnson), who decides that superheros should exist in the real world and orders a neoprene diving suit for a costume and decides to fight minor crime by himself. When he is telling a drug dealer to leave his crush alone and ends up with several weapons pointed at him, he is saved by Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz) and Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage), a father-daughter team that has actually trained to fight crime. Big Daddy and Hit Girl have a vendetta against Frank D’Amico (Mark Strong), a mobster who framed Big Daddy and sent him to jail. Kick-Ass ends up joining them after meeting another superhero wannabe his age named Red Mist (Christopher Mintz-Plasse).

Aaron Johnson is decent as Kick-Ass/Dave. There are certain times where he isn’t completely believable and I think it is a mix of Johnson and the choices with the character. I am very glad that on his first run out he gets shanked and then run over by a car. This caused several of his nerve to sever so he has a much higher pain tolerance. Although Dave seems to need glasses, Kick-Ass, however, never needs them. At the beginning of the movie, Dave is saying how he isn’t like any of the superheros or their alter-egos, but he seems a lot like Peter Parker prior to the radioactive spider bite. Johnson just doesn’t really seem like a comic nerd. I believe his friends as comic geeks, but just putting a character in a comic store doesn’t make him an actual comic nerd.

Chloe Moretz is already a great actress. She has a very mature quality about her. Hit Girl is the coolest character in the entire movie. She is also the most lethal. After having seen the movie, her character might be more controversial than Mathilda in Léon. She has the foulest mouth in the movie and the most kills. She also fits the character the best in my opinion. The filmmakers are also very good about never showing a physical hit land on Hit Girl. She does get shot (she wears a vest), but the actual punches and kicks are never shown making contact. Moretz is uses the perfect inflections, excitement, snarky looks, etc. in the right situations.

I actually didn’t hate Nicolas Cage in this movie. His over-acting was limited. For some reason, he chose to speak like William Shatner when he was Big Daddy. According to imdb.com, he was trying to sound like Adam West. His costume looks like a mix of Batman and Nite Owl II. His interactions with his daughter are really interesting and actually pretty well acted. I could understand very little of what he said in the middle of his final scene which was pretty annoying.

I liked the little ins for us comic geeks. When Dave and his friends go to the movie, the theater is showing “The Spirit 3.” When Dave is in the hospital, he only has comics, including Watchmen. The mobsters keep saying that Big Daddy is dressed like Batman. The opening monologue is full of comic references. I would have liked if some of the twists were a little more surprising. I also think Red Mist’s car should have been a lot cooler. A car that Tony Stark would own would have been nice. It annoyed me that Dave didn’t mind that Katie, his crush, only became interested in him as a person when she thought he was gay and it took him showing her he was Kick-Ass to get her to like him back. The end of the final fight scene is annoyingly ridiculous as well.

This is not on anywhere near the same level as The Dark Knight. It is also not as horrific as Ghost Rider. Usually comic movies are really good (The Dark Knight, Iron Man, V for Vendetta) or absolutely awful (The League of Extraordinary Gentleman, Batman and Robin, Constantine, Howard the Duck). This one is one of the view that is just ok. I don’t have any huge desire to see it again immediately or buy the movie. I really don’t feel a connection to the lead character. I like Hit Girl and Big Daddy better (although the name Big Daddy is a bit creepy). It is a fun movie to see once for those of us who love comics and it would be a good movie for those who like action movies.

****** 6/10

Repo Men

Title: Repo Men (2010)
Director: Miguel Sapochnik
Genre: Action, Sci-Fi
Lead Actor(s): Jude Law, Forest Whitaker
Rating: R
111 minutes

I saw this over spring break when there wasn’t really anything good out. I probably would not have seen it otherwise. The premise is pretty interesting. In a near future, manufactured organs have eliminated the need for donor lists and messy transplants. They cost an arm and a leg, but can save your life. Of course, several people buy them and take out preposterous loans. When they fall more than 90 days behind the company sends repo men to get the organs back, effectively killing those that fall behind. As the plot of the movie progresses, Jude Law’s character, Remy, is pressured by his wife to get out of repossessions and into sales. Something goes wrong on his last job which requires one of the company’s hearts. He, of course, falls behind. He then begins to run from those he used to work with. Along the way he meets a girl Beth whom has something like 12 of the manufactured organs. They are instantly attracted to each other and go on the run together.

Jude Law is uncomfortable in such a brutish role. This observation is probably bolstered by the fact that the last movie I saw him in was Sherlock Holmes. Jude Law though just isn’t an action star and he should really stop trying. He can be the ladies’ man and he can be the suave man and the intelligent man, but he is not good as the high school drop out brute who seems to enjoy tasering people to reclaim organs for a corrupt company. I was always distinctly aware that I was watching Jude Law and that it was bad.

Forest Whitaker was more believable, but it still wasn’t a very good fit. I like him in the more intelligent characters, as well. His character, Jake, was a good character. He went from palling around with his friend to becoming worried about Remy’s inactivity to hunting him as his benefactor requested. I still think that Whitaker did the best job he could, but there must have been a smarter choice.

The character who was spot on and the one I most enjoyed watching was easily Lief Shreiber’s Frank. He is the head honcho of the store that the other characters work at. He is an asshole. From his first appearance, I was dying to see him get punched. You’ll have to see it to learn if he actually does. Schreiber plays an asshole so well and apparently easily. He was funny and had all the qualities needed for a good used car salesman. If it weren’t for his character, I don’t think this movie would have a good thing about it.

The script and directing are clumsy and corny. I think I rolled my eyes about three times at some of the ridiculous and clichéd lines that we were subject to. The director tried too hard to make the movie interesting. Instead it came off overdone and ridiculous. It is one of those movies that might become a cult classic. It is so bad that some may find it funny and enjoyable. It didn’t quite cross into that area for me, but I can definitely think of some of my friends who will buy it just to make fun of it. Unless you are like them and love bad movies, I wouldn’t see it.

**** 4/10 (without Liev Shreiber it would have been a 2 or 3)

Alice in Wonderland (2010)

Title: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Director: Tim Burton
Genre: Adventure, Family
Lead Actor(s): Mia Wasikowski, Johnny Depp
Rating: PG
108 minutes

I am a bit surprised that it is rated PG. I think the only way it got this rating was because the darker, more sinister parts were a bit ambiguous. In the explanation of why it was PG, “a smoking caterpillar” is listed. I find that very funny.

This is a much darker film than your average Disney movie. For a Tim Burton movie, it isn’t that dark, but it is very surprising it is a Disney film. The most surprising point is the moat filled with the severed heads of the Queen’s foes. I saw this in 2-D, not 3-D. The reason for this is that several reviews I saw said that the 3-D was not very good. It was not filmed to be in 3-D, but manipulated in post-production. Unlike Avatar where it envelops you in the world, Alice seems more superficial in 3-D according to what I have read. Also based on what I saw there are only a few instances where I think the 3-D would be cool.

Mia Wasikowski portrays Alice and she doesn’t do a bad or wonderful job. She seems more comfortable in the real world than in Wonderland. Truthfully, Alice seems like two different characters depending on where she is. I think there could have been a better choice for Alice. It may have been that the script didn’t have a good progression for Alice, but instead I think Wasikowski was just stiff in her role.

Johnny Depp was wonderfully mad in his role as the Mad Hatter. I think the make-up and costuming really helps the character. There were times where it was a bit hard to understand his accent, but I think he did excellent in a very difficult role. He maintains the insanity that we all love and want in the Mad Hatter, but he still has a progression and arc in the movie.

I think Helena Bonham Carter and Crispin Glover stole the show. Carter as the Red Queen is just as demented as the Hatter, but fantastically ruthless. Her court is ridiculous, but so is she. Her sibling rivalry is an all-consuming rage. She could have made the Queen a one-trick pony who is just a ridiculous fascist, but instead she gave one of the ultimate villains depth. Crispin Glover is her Knave of Hearts and is really creepy. The way Burton manipulated his proportions really adds to the character. Glover plays the Knave as the ultimate sycophant and it works well. The pair have great chemistry and rapport.

Anne Hathaway as the White Queen does fine with a very bizarre character. I am sure there are some actresses that could have done better, but it could have been worse. Michael Sheen was wonderful as the voice of the White Rabbit. Tweedledee and Tweedledum are much less creepy in action and speaking than in their first poster. The acting really was very good all around.

The soldiers for the Red Queen, playing cards, and the White Queen, chess pieces, are beautifully done. I think the playing cards are more impressive. They are reminiscent of robots and just visually interesting characters. The entirety of Wonderland is visually impressive. Burton really let his vast imagination go in this story. Every background is meticulous. I will be shocked if this film is not nominated for best visual effects next Oscars. I also think it has a chance at best make-up, costuming, and score. The score fits the movie so perfectly. Danny Elfman really outdid himself.

I think this was a wonderful new take on these classic characters and world. Tim Burton made Wonderland his own and it was wonderful. After leaving the theater, I found myself wondering what he would do with other classic Disney tales, particularly Peter Pan. This is a classic example of Burton’s work, but an atypical Disney movie. I suggest seeing it, but only in 2-D. If the movie had been shot and envisioned as a 3-D movie it might be worth shelling out the extra money, but I don’t think it is worth it now.

******* 7/10