Skyfall

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

by Frederick William Springer III

Skyfall

Release Date:   9 November 2012                                                     Runtime:   143 Minutes              

Review Date:  12 December 2012                                                      Rating:  5 (of 6)

While many are heralding Skyfall as the best Bond ever, I’m left wondering if they’ve seen Casino Royale.  While it’s a good installment to be sure, I’d say the poorly received Quantum of Solace even edges it out.

Quantum of Solace was slower paced and perhaps had less action than its predecessor (which I think is part of the reason the audience didn’t take to it), but Skyfall is painfully sluggish—you’re 80 minutes in before you even meet the villain.  Keep in mind, some movies are only 80 minutes long!  Yet, here you’ve practically watched an entire film and still don’t know who the antagonist is and, in his absence, the antagonizing wasn’t as strong as it should have been.

Once Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem) is introduced, things do get more interesting, he being a formable opponent that’s fun to watch, and the pace then does pick up for the remaining 63 minutes.  If the movie had just been edited to start in the second half, then I might have jumped on the second coming band wagon but with the first half intact it has a lot to make up for.

The only personally clear cut thing that Skyfall did better than Quantum of Solace was their title sequence.  Skyfall probably also does slightly more character developing, but barely a noticeable difference on this front, and adding shades of Home Alone at that.  And on that note, if all that was saved from an estate sale was one rifle, would they really have had kept as much ammo around that was accessible?

*SPOILER ALERT*  What Skyfall does do is introduced 007 mainstays that have since been absent from the rebooted series.  Both are reinvented and refreshingly so.  Kudos!  Unfortunately, while filming, I had read they were casting the parts and it would have been more fun not knowing their involvement and being surprised when they appeared.  In fact, one is particularly molded to be a surprise but those casting notices mentioned the big difference from the old and I was able to pick the character out immediately.  Not to say it wasn’t still enjoyable, just not the big surprise they were building up to for viewers of the original series.  Actually, I don’t know why I’m talking in code because any 007 fans of the originals know exactly what 2 characters have been thus left out and will have figured out who I’m talking about by now (hence my spoiler alert).

One thing that did disappoint me was realizing they weren’t exploring an opportunity I momentarily thought they were.  In the You Only Live Twice novel, Bond had gotten amnesia and recouped, shacked up with a native, far away from the UK, everyone he knew thinking him dead.  I was excited to think they were incorporating this into the new series, only to find out that here Bond was only merely brooding before returning to work.

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.

The Expendables 2

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

by Frederick William Springer III



The Expendables 2

Release Date:  17 August 2012                                                             Runtime:  103 Minutes              

Review Date:  14 October 2012                                                             Rating:  4 (of 6)

     If you're into action movies, and some of the biggest names in the genre, then you might enjoy yourself at The Expendables 2.

     I must say, I liked the sequel more than the original.  Why that is could be a combination of many factors.  Of all the stars in the original, Bruce Willis (Church) would have been the lure to get me into the theater but there he's limited to a one scene cameo alongside Arnold Schwarzenegger's Trench's also one scene, even briefer cameo.  Here, Willis's role is slightly expanded--since he is CIA and not a member of the Expendables team, he only has limited screen time.

     Introduced in this film, Chuck Norris makes a guest appearance as the lone wolf mercenary Booker.  Like Willis and Schwarzenegger, his time is short (but poignant), which is a shame because I wouldn't mind a movie with just these 3.  There were also jokes poking fun at Schwarzenegger, Willis and Stallone's past films as well as Norris's "Facts" popularity that were fun in a way that didn't pull you out of the movie you were watching (though, the Terminator ones did become overdone and corny).

     Overall, I think I liked the story more.  Whether that has to do with new writers, a new director bringing it to the screen or some other factor, I don't know.  The only problem I found with the movie was the scene where, not to give too much away, the Expendables lower their weapons in a hostage situation.  It didn't feel right, particularly due to the opening scene in the original film.  Some might bemoan that with Jet Li's Yang not on this mission that, in his absence, the CIA cohort that Church forces on the team is also Asian, like some quota is being filled.  But, despite this, I found Nan Yu a welcomed addition as Maggie.

     Now, for the 3^rd installment of the series, all they need to do is add Steven Seagal to the roster…Kurt Russell, Mel Gibson and Harrison Ford would be kind of cool too.

Total Recall (2012)

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

by Frederick William Springer III

 

Total Recall

Release Date:  3 August 2012                                                              Runtime:  118 Minutes              

Review Date:  2 October 2012                                                              Rating:  3 (of 6)

 

     The Total Recall remake stands on its own two feet but falls short of the original.

     I recently (within the last 6 months) rewatched the Arnold Schwarzenegger version and, 20 years later, it still holds up as a great flick.  In preparation for the upcoming reboot, I also read the short story the original was loosely based upon, "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale," by Philip K. Dick.  The story, only about 20 pages in length, probably wouldn't translate well on the big screen, particularly the ending, which might work better as an episode of the Twilight Zone.  So the new isn't any more grounded in the source than the original, this really being a new interpretation of the film only, keeping many of the new characters created in that incarnation.

     One thing a big deal had been made of was keeping the three-breasted woman of the 1990 film.  However, this served absolutely no purpose here and was completely out of place in this version.  In the Schwarzenegger movie, she was encountered on Mars, where Mutants were commonplace and so, it was at least a somewhat feasible genetic defect within the parameters of the story.  Here, Colin Farrell runs into her on Earth, where no such mutants have developed.  (And, in fact, none of this movie takes place on Mars at all.)

     The acting was good, no problems there.  The role of Lori was much expanded from Kate Beckinsale's Sharon Stone counterpart with good results.  The premise was alright and it was action-packed, maybe more so than the original.  However, I think the element of fun present in the original was absent here, which made this less interesting or, at least, less engaging (both on the level of a comparison and, more importantly, as a standalone film).

     Also, probably a production design choice to convey societal despair and the dullness that made Colin Farrell's Quaid want to escape his life by going to Rekall, the overall color scheme, wardrobe and architectural structures were so dull, uniform and ominous that nothing really stood out or popped on the screen.  Again, less interesting, less engaging.

     While not a complete bomb, for a more satisfying experience I'd recommend cutting 5 minutes off your viewing time and watching the original instead.

Brave

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

by Frederick William Springer III

 

Brave

Release Date:  22 June 2012                                                                Runtime:  100 Minutes              

Review Date:  2 October 2012                                                              Rating:  4 (of 6)

     I must say that there was a disparity between the movie I thought I was going to see based on the trailer and the actual film itself when I sat down and watched Brave.  Normally, I'd give kudos for this bit of misleading presentation, annoyed when all the good parts are shown in the trailer leaving no real reason to see the piece in its entirety. 

     But here, instead of being an interesting adventure of a young girl who defies being a party to an arranged marriage and seeks her own way in the world, it is really about a misshapen spell that can tear Princess Merida's family apart and her trying to rectify it.  Which, too, could work well, but I found the results of the spell a little hokey.

     That being said, I think the Pixar fanatic crowd will love it nonetheless, though I myself would rate it in the lower half of the Pixar motion picture library.  It goes without saying that the animation and graphic design are all fantastically done, candy for the eyes, as we've become accustomed to expect.  And, as has become the norm with many Pixar films, Brave does have its moments where the heartstrings are successfully pulled, too.



Hit and Run

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

Hit & Run

Release Date:  22 August 2012                                                            Runtime:  100 Minutes              

Review Date:  16 September 2012                                                       Rating:  4.5 (of 6)

     I've become a fan of Dax Shepard, watching him in Parenthood, and here's a fun little film that he not only stars in but wrote and co-directed as well.  It also stars his real life girlfriend Kristen Bell of Veronica Mars, of which I'm also a fan, as his girlfriend and his Parenthood on-screen wife Joy Bryant as his ex-fiancé.  Rounding out the cast is Tom Arnold, playing a more bumbling, incompetent version of his True Lies character and Bradley Cooper, whom I first took a shining to back on the short-lived, underrated Jack  & Bobby, playing the ex-best friend out for vengeance helped in his quest by Smallville's Michael Rosenbaum, not to mention Beau Bridges and Kristin Chenoweth in minor roles and a cameo by Jason Bateman.

     The gist of the story is that Charles Bronson (Sheppard) is in the Witness Protection Program, Randy (Arnold) his protector, in the middle of nowhere when his new girlfriend Annie (Bell), who knows little of his past, is offered a dream job in L.A. where his criminal exploits took place.  He doesn't want to lose her but doesn't want to hold her back, so he offers to take her there.  Craziness ensues when her ex Gil (Rosenbaum) tries to keep the two from leaving together and contacts the guy Bronson helped put away, Alex (Cooper), to arrange a trade-off.

     The only thing a little distracting to me, who notices the little plot holes that make no sense, is when the County Sherriff (Gil's brother) of the original county, after a full day's hot pursuit of the traveling Charles and Annie, at night fall pulls over a vehicle (which happens to be Randy).  After even a quarter's day travel, they wouldn't have been in the same county anymore and wouldn't have had any jurisdiction.  But, other than that snafu, it's still quite enjoyable.

The Amazing Spider-Man

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

 

The Amazing Spider-Man

Release Date:  3 July 2012                                                                    Runtime:  136 Minutes              

Review Date:  2 September 2012                                                           Rating:  4.5 (of 6)

     While not a bad movie, an alright way to pass the time, The Amazing Spider-Man lacks the magic--depth of story and heart of character--that Sam Raimi's successfully captured.

     It's always good to see Martin Sheen who I haven't seen much of since The West Wing but he didn't bring much to the character of Uncle Ben in the short screentime he had.  I was also happy to see Denis Leary, who didn't have all that much more screentime in comparison, but I think he made the role of Captain Stacey more his own.

     Spider-Man's costume was neat and I was amused to see it was created by Circus Du Soleil.  (Though, I always have trouble believing that, in addition to their superpowers, that superheroes suddenly develop the expert ability to suddenly design and sew an entire costume together with the perfect fit.)

     I did like that this version of Peter Parker was portrayed more of as a smart ass which I believe is probably more true to the comic book character.  I also liked that he wasn't as mopey as Toby Maguire's incarnation and that he didn't have the heavy burden of having to keep this secret, that he actually had confidants.  However, it is arguable that that sense of aloneness and despair was one of the key ingredients that helped the original Spider-Man create lightning in a bottle.

     Andrew Garfield was likeable as Peter, I bought him in the role.  Likewise, Emma Stone's Helen felt real and I liked the character.  The two together worked well; again, not as well as Toby and Kirsten, a different dynamic, but enjoyable.

     If I could only pick one superhero movie to see this summer, it would still be The Dark Knight Rises but in a distant second, I just might pick The Amazing Spider-Man over the overrated Avengers.

Katy Perry: Part of Me

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

by Frederick William Springer III

 

Katy Perry: Part of Me

Release Date:  5 July 2012                                                                      Runtime:  93 Minutes              

Review Date:  12 August 2012                                                                Rating:  4.5 (of 6)

 

     Evaluated as a documentary, an inside look at the person behind the musician, Part of Me delivers, though that isn't to say it still isn't a publicity, marketing tool to package her "live" music to fans as well.  This isn't on par with a more in depth look provided by 45 minute biographies done by cable networks that usually do this kind of thing, so if that's what you're looking for you should look elsewhere.

     Going in, I didn’t know very much about Katy at all other than that I liked her songs, thought she had a fun personality (conveyed in music videos and interviews) and that she was cute.  Based off that, though I may have learned more about her, it still can be summed up in a paragraph:

     Though she seemingly exploded onto the scene, there were many years that Katy was working hard before that first firework was finally set off.  She was raised by preachers (her first album was actually gospel music) and maintains close contact with her family--her sister even working for her, accompanying her every step of the way.  She loves her Grandma and I can only imagine the feelings of joy Katy must have when her Grandma is in the audience observing the success she has achieved and what she has grown up to become.  Katy works hard to achieve the goals she sets for herself in all aspects of her life.  And she is best friends with The Riches actress Shannon Woodward.

     Now, do you have to see the movie to learn all this?  No, obviously I was able to convey it to you in a matter of less than a minute (depending on the speed you read).  I'm sure her mega-fans and cyber-stalkers already knew this as well.

     What I can say is that the fun personality shines through but she is humanized too.  She has bad days but doesn't pull any diva moves--she still goes to work like any other mere mortal.  She's shown stripped of the wigs, costumes and make up, how she'd look as an ordinary woman rather than superstar (and you just might not recognize her on the street).  However, other than her cover of "I Wanna Be Somebody," her "live" music isn't as pleasing to my ear as the versions I know and love.

     And, it being produced by her own company, one does wonder how slanted the perspective presented potentially is.  My own account of Katy backstage at an award show where she was a presenter--pretty in person, striking eyes as she looked into my own.  But I also happen to know, minutes before the show was set to film, she sent in last minute changes of her dialogue that had to be rushed to all appropriate parties (no other presenter pulled that).  So how much of that goes on not shown is anyone's guess here.

     I'd say, ultimately, it's a movie for fans because she cherishes them and it shows.  Anyone with a remote curiosity or interest in her, there are worse ways to spend 90 minutes.

     [On a side note, I love how her assistant on tour says it's her first job in the music industry.  So many people vying for positions in the entertainment realm, including those with experience in their respective industries and/or position, something--mind you--that is normally required to be an assistant to a celebrity, and here she is her first job in the industry.  It makes me wonder who she's related to or dating.  Can you sense bitterness? Haha.  But that's a tangent for a whole other editorial…]