Taken 2

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

by Frederick William Springer III

 

Taken 2

Release Date:   5 October 2012                                                        Runtime:  93 Minutes              

Review Date:  9 December 2012                                                       Rating:  5 (of 6)

As a sequel, Taken 2 is pretty decent, though not as good as the original.  I had been skeptical going in, to retread the premise of the first without making it seem totally unbelievable was a concern I entered with.  It was a concern I need not have.

My gripe comes in the small details.  In the first film, Kim (Maggie Grace) had just turned 17 and shortly thereafter left for Paris on summer vacation.  This film ultimately takes place almost a year later during her spring break—I say “ultimately” as the opening, setting up the plot of this film, shows the bodies of the men Bryan (Liam Neeson) killed in the first film being shipped home and buried as revenge is vowed and I’m sure it didn’t take that long after the first film took place for that to transpire.

The problem here is that Kimmie is just going for her driver’s license NOW.  For one, California residents can get their license at 16.  From the first film, we know Kimmie lives with her wealthy step-father who showers her with expensive things—a life of luxury.  So, why then didn’t she get her license back then, she nearly being 18 now?  And why wouldn’t she have her very own car, too?

That aside, the driving issue rears its head again while they’re in Turkey.  Early in the film it’s established that Kimmie has now twice failed her driving test, which she was taking in an Escalade.  Yet, when called for, she’s not only driving a car through the narrow roads in Turkey, avoiding many obstacles as though she were an experienced driver but the car is MANUAL!  While they don’t actually show her shifting gears, the numbers on the stick along with the three pedals on the floor establish that it’s manual transmission.  If she couldn’t pass her driving test, TWICE, how does she automatically know how to drive manual?

An otherwise good film, my mind just kept coming back to this and doing laps, distracting me from the unfolding story.  I guess the film is tailored more for the ignorant and unobservant.

Conveniently, Bryan’s ex Lenore (Famke Janssen) is going through a rough patch and separated from her husband, however, all indication in the first film was that there were no problems and they were happy.  The separation didn’t bother me though, it was the instant familiarity Bryan had with her, calling her “honey” several times when she arrived for a completely platonic vacation with their daughter.  Yes, we get his character still loves her but also know the distance that had come between them and while one could pass it off as him easily falling into old patterns, that’s not something I’ve come to expect from his very disciplined character.

Other than that, the story itself was good and the fast paced editing did help move us past these oversights.  Well, those of us that weren’t “like a dog with a bone” once we noticed.

Sinister

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

 

Sinister

Release Date:   12 October 2012                                                           Runtime:  110 Minutes  

Review Date:  9 December 2012                                                            Rating:  4 (of 6)

Sinister, while may not be the best movie, lives up to the horror name and is plenty creepy.  The musical score definitely enhances the piece and I’d recommend this one to anyone looking for a scare.

The only issue here is the scorpion that appears in the attic.  Ellison (Ethan Hawk) seems pretty nonchalant about finding it and the officer he relays the encounter to wasn’t fazed either.  Yet, this took place in PENNSYLVANIA. 

As someone who spent his first 26 years in New Jersey, I can tell you if a scorpion was found in your house in New Jersey, New York or Pennsylvania, you’d be scratching your head and nervously asking, “what the fuck?”  Scorpions are not indigenous—they only live in the southwestern states—and aren’t regularly seen unless you work in a pet shop.  While its presence can easily be explained in the context of the movie, the characters’ reactions cannot.

House at the End of the Street

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

by Frederick William Springer III

 

House at the End of the Street

Release Date:   21 September 2012                                                     Runtime:  101 Minutes              

Review Date:  9 December 2012                                                          Rating:  3 (of 6)

Not a bad flick, but House at the End of the Street gave me a case of the blahs.  Now, had the entire movie been what the last 15 to 20 minutes were, they would have had more of a hit on their hands.

Without giving anything away, I'll simply say there were surprises I didn't see coming.  One plot hole that bothered me early on was explained near the end so it wasn't a plot hole at all.

The only thing I really didn't buy was the secret room in a secondary basement below the regular basement.  If the house was previously built, I don't see how the parents could have had it constructed secretly.  And during the course of the movie, we find out it was actually the grandfather's house inherited by the parents, which makes it even more of an anomaly.  Maybe they'd be able to pass it off somehow if it took place in Kansas and it was supposed to be protection from twisters but the setting is Pennsylvania. And, all in all, it didn't look up to par to pass as a bomb shelter either.

But, if it's a rainy blah day, you might not mind sitting through this movie.  If you want some eyecandy in the form of Jennifer Lawrence, you've got it, but I'd say if that's your pleasure, Hunger Games is more enjoyable.

Looper

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

by Frederick William Springer III

 

Looper

Release Date:  28 September 2012                                                      Runtime:  119 Minutes              

Review Date:  25 November 2012                                                       Rating:  4 (of 6)

Looper is different and interesting.

Make-up on Joseph Gordon-Levitt to make him appear as a young version of Bruce Willis was well done.  In fact, if I wasn’t familiar with Gordon-Levitt, I would believe he really looked that way.  Sharing very little screen time, it was also amusing to see that Gordon-Levitt adapted many of Willis’s facial expressions, many of which weren’t even used by Willis himself in this film, which makes me imagine Gordon-Levitt sitting and studying old Willis flicks to get them down pat.

The identity of the ultimate villain, The Rainmaker, is predictable as is the method The Rainmaker used to employ his success.  Not that predictability is necessarily a bad thing--one does want such things to be realistic within the context of the story.

There is one fatal flaw that defies common sense, but corrected would demise the entire storyline:  Knowing your employees might even have the slightest aversion to eliminating their future selves, why not have someone else carry out the deed?  Hypothetically, send future Looper A to present Looper C to be killed.  Then send future Looper C to present Looper A for him to assassinate.  Little to no sentimentality there and no potential problems.

The logic to the film’s resolution is also off kilter.  Present Joe imagines the outcome of the world Future Joe came from as having been a result of things they are both currently experiencing.  That is nonfactual, as we’ve seen a flashback/flashforward of how Present Joe originally became Future Joe and nothing in that timeline was due to the course they are both on now.  As such, Present Joe’s sentiment and resulting solution are misguided and I imagine do not have the effect he intended, though that is left up for the individual viewer to contemplate.

Wreck-It Ralph

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

Wreck-It Ralph

Release Date:  2 November 2012                                                           Runtime:  101 Minutes  

Review Date:  13 November 2012                                                          Rating:  3 (of 6)

 

A Toy Story it is not, Wreck-It Ralph strays and could use a Fix-It-Felix to get it back on track.

The trailer was misleading—seemingly, a villain wants to become heralded as the good guy, as lamented to a video game character cameo-laden support group, and he goes game hopping to do so.

However, in actuality, Ralph only hops into two—the fictitious Honor’s Duty and Sugar Rush.  The cameos seen in the trailer are pretty much the extent, the support group scene extended and the scenario returned to a second time.  There was one other clever prolonged cameo that lasted a scene that I won’t spoil but other than that, a second here, a glimpse there is the scope of the others.

Don’t get me wrong, I get it—Disney wants to merchandise their own original creations, not someone else’s.  They make more money that way.  I had just hoped I’d be seeing more of the likes of Q*Bert.  I mean, Sonic the Hedgehog is on their movie posters but not even really in the movie at all, only appearing briefly on a TV screen, not even in person if you will*.  And since you’ve got at least 5 games of yesteryear represented on the movie posters, you’d think they’d have a larger role.

While you’d expect a movie titled “Wreck-It Ralph” to be about Ralph’s journey, at one point you begin to feel it’s just as much Vanellope’s story, at times even more so, overshadowing Ralph’s.  I get the intention and sentiment that in order to redeem himself he needs to help someone just as much a misfit and put them first but the way it’s executed just feels like wandering.

Not a bad flick, but not quite the one I wanted to see.  And certainly not the one I wanted to hear—the soundtrack was very annoying.  I think maybe they’d term it “saccharine” but I believe in the past that label applied to some music I actually like.  Instead, it was more like nails on a chalkboard.

I did, however, enjoy the 3D aspect.  I also liked the animated short that preceded the movie.  I didn’t see Tangled in the theater to see if this is a reoccurring thing for the new Disney Animation Studios, but it’s a welcomed page from the Pixar playbook.

*I have read others noting he appeared two other times as well, but that just goes to show how easily missed/forgotten these spots were.

Frankenweenie

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

by Frederick William Springer III

 

Frankenweenie

Release Date:  5 October 2012                                                               Runtime:  87 Minutes              

Review Date:  11 November 2012                                                           Rating:  2

 

More bland than ParaNorman, Frankenweenie lacks momentum right out of the gate.  Slow and steady does not win this race.

ParaNorman

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

by Frederick William Springer III

 

ParaNorman

Release Date:  17 August 2012                                                            Runtime:  92 Minutes              

Review Date:  2 November 2012                                                          Rating:  2 (of 6)

 

More trick than treat, I walk away from ParaNorman with a sense of “blah.”  I cracked a smile at the vending machine scene and left all but completely emotionless throughout the rest. 

The rest of the audience laughing away here and there leaves me wondering if I have such a great disconnect with common man or if the rest of humanity is so easily amused.