jp_51004 Reviews

Happy Feet (2006)

Entertaining Despite It's Flaws

[6/10 · 18 November 2006]

2006 has turned out to be the year for digital animation. From talking cars to suburban turned forest animals it seems like we've almost seen it all…or so we thought. The fresh and upbeat penguin-filled musical 'Happy Feet' is the thirteenth digitally animated film to be released this year. And as expected, people are eating it up. Some have gone as far to say it's the year's best. There was better this year, but 'Happy Feet' is okay.

In 'Happy Feet' we are given front row seats to the birth and growth of a penguin by the name of Mumble who is voiced by Elijah Wood. He's different from all the other penguins. In a world where finding your "heartsong" is crucial, poor Mumble isn't able to keep a tune at all. Interestingly enough though, he can dance up a storm. Unfortunately this is frowned upon and ends up causing him great distress. Eventually the elder penguin Noah, who is voiced by Hugo Weaving, accuses Mumble of bringing on the famine that is currently afflicting the penguins. Mumble attempts to explain that he believes "aliens" are the real cause. Noah doesn't take him seriously at all and banishes him, claiming that once he is gone, the famine will end. Mumbles then promises that he will return, and when he does he will bring proof that the alleged "aliens" are to blame. He then embarks on his journey where along the way he makes some new friends and learns the world outside his own is much different than he could have ever thought possible.

Visually, 'Happy Feet' is amazing. Almost every landscape down to the smallest icicle look so very real. Even the penguins themselves are highly detailed, but obviously aren't real. Aside from that and the direction from Greg Miller, everything presented in 'Happy Feet' is just okay. Nothing in it evokes a wholehearted wow. The plot itself takes what seems forever to be revealed. There's a forty five minute wait before anything about a famine is even mentioned. Watching the film is a lot like riding a roller coaster. No, I don't mean its a thrill ride. The way the story is set up, it goes up and down. Each time it begins to drag, something comes along to get it going again. And when the ending finally comes, it appears forced. The whole addition of an environmental issue still has me wondering. I guess because without it there would be nothing for Mumble to do on his journey of discovery.

The main issue I have with 'Happy Feet' though revolves around the music. Yes, I know it's a musical, but he music seemed to really exceed the film itself. I'm not sure if this was intentional or not. The reason being is because the films suggests that there actually is a real story behind it all. Either way, it doesn't really matter because it's the singing and dancing that will have people returning to see it all again. So despite having some assuredly bad qualities 'Happy Feet' does indeed have its moments. It does what it was supposed to, and that's entertain.

The Return (2005)

Awful, Bland, & Moronic

[1/10 · 11 November 2006]

I think a round of applause is in order for whoever pieced together the trailer for Rogue Pictures' latest release, 'The Return'. I myself, along with everyone else have been duped into believing it is in fact a horror film. On the contrary though, its actually a supernatural thriller. Too bad it is not the least bit thrilling.

'The Return' stars Sarah Michelle Gellar as Joanna Mills, a young woman who has had personal problems since the age of eleven. It was at that age that she began having haunting visions depicting the murder of a woman whom she has never met. While in Texas on a business trip, she is led by these visions to the murdered woman's hometown, La Salle. There she comes face to face with another person who has frequently appeared in her visions. A man by the name of Terry Stahl, who is played by Peter O'Brien. Joanna is now on a desperate search for answers. A search that could in the end result in her very own murder.

I really don't know where to begin here folks. Which should I mention first? The atrocious acting, hideous directing, or the terribly bland story? No matter which one I choose my point behind each is the same: they simply suck. Adam Sussman's screenplay is downright moronic. Its not interesting. Its not compelling. Its just plain unpleasant. I kept waiting for something to jumpstart the "film" (I've placed quotations around film because I don't believe 'The Return' deserves to be called an actual film due to it's foulness.) and at least give it some slight chance of hope, but nothing ever happened. I was left out in an unbearable cold to freeze. Not even stellar performances from the actors themselves could have saved this disaster. Of course they probably knew this having read the script then agreeing to do the "film". I assume this is why the acting was so awful. At least that's what I'm choosing to believe. I really hope the cast doesn't pride themselves on their performances. They need immediate medical attention if they do.

Now the directing was unmistakably bad, but I can't quite crucify Asif Kapadia entirely. (Well I could, but I won't since I'm such a nice guy.) I look at 'The Return' as a test for Kapadia because for all of you that don't know, this is his first full-length feature "film". He's just getting his foot in the door and still learning. Next time around, well if there is a next time, hopefully he will have improved vastly. The only thing he was able to accomplish here was almost completely duplicating the visual style of Marcus Nispel's 2003 re-make of 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. Now that's nice the "film" was given that, but unfortunately he still won't be receiving any kudos from me for that. Copying someone else's work isn't something I consider to be praise worthy. (Even if it is from a film I very much enjoyed.)

I think Jim Sonzero's American re-make of 'Pulse' will now have to fork over the title of Worst Film of the Year to 'The Return'. It beyond question is deserving of the title in almost every imaginable way. Now I don't doubt this will make a small, and I mean very small, profit. No matter what though, it won't surpass or even parallel the fluke success of Gellar's previous acting effort, 'The Grudge'. On that note, there's one last thing I'd like to add. I can honestly say I had never been embarrassed to have been seen leaving a theater auditorium until seeing 'The Return'. That is something I never wish to experience again, along with the "film" itself.

Borat (2006)

Positively Entertaining Beyond Belief

[10/10 · 6 November 2006]

Borat Sagdiyev (Sacha Baron Cohen) is the top journalist from Kazakhstan's very own television network. His latest assignment requires him to travel to the United States. While there he must learn about American culture and what makes it so "great". Along the way he encounters people from almost every walk of life, all the while shocking and amazing those very same people simultaneously.

First off, I must warn you that 'Borat:' is not for everyone. If you can't take a joke or completely have no sense of humor, stop reading this review right now. Please then proceed to kill yourself. Okay, don't actually commit suicide, but at least hurt yourself in some way.

Now, having said that, it must be known that 'Borat:' is hands down, without a doubt, no matter what, the funniest film of the year. Prior to seeing it I knew it would be hilarious. I figured though that once settled in and it ran for a little while the jokes would become annoying. Then of course there'd be a few cases here and there that were laugh-out-loud funny, but nothing major. How wrong I was. Wrong indeed. From beginning to end its outrageously hysterical. Each time you think it couldn't get any better, it proves you wrong over and over. Cohen deserves much praise for being able to keep a straight face through each scene.

Despite being positively entertaining beyond belief though, there will still be those who insist on disagreeing. Its true, a lot of people probably will be offended by some of the things shown in 'Borat:', but don't let them deter you from seeing it. They're simply too busy trying to get the three foot stick they have up lodged up their ass out, that they can't possibly see its humor. My friend Clay put it best yesterday when he said, "I think its too smart for Americans". For the most part, that's correct. The irony presented won't be noticed by hardly any American because they'll be too busy laughing themselves to death over how they think Borat "doesn't get it". I'm not trying to say everyone in America that sees it is a dumbass either, but that's just the truth.

Well I guess its about time I wrapped this review up. Indeed it was short, but really, there's only three things you need to know about 'Borat:'. One, its side-splitting, two, its brilliant, and finally three, Jews can't really turn transform themselves into cockroaches. Or can they?

Saw III (2006)

Let the Games Begin

[7/10 · 29 October 2006]

Lately Dr. Lynn Denoln (Bahar Soomekh) has been going through some marital problems and the anxiety is beginning to affect her work. Late one night after finishing her shift at the hospital she is kidnapped and taken to an abandoned warehouse. Shortly after waking up, she soon meets the notorious Jigsaw (Tobin Bell). He is currently dying slowly as the minutes pass and Amanda (Shawnne Smith), Jigsaw's sidekick, tells Lynn she has been kidnapped in order to keep him alive. Alive long enough for someone else that's also been kidnapped named Jeff (Angus MacFadyen), to complete his very own game. While telling Lynn this, Amanda places a collar around Lynn's neck that is connected to Jigsaw's heart rate. If his heart rate drops below zero before Jeff completes his game, the shotgun shells on the collar will all simultaneously go off at the same time. Amanda then preps Lynn as Jigsaw explains, "its a test of will. Its a test to see just how willing you are to keep someone alive". Lynn realizes she has no choice, and so the game begins. Jeff must now navigate through a series of tasks where he is promised his chance to get revenge on the man responsible for his son's death. Something he has wanted every day for the last three years. Both Lynn and Jeff are now each tangled in a horrid game of survival. What they don't know is their games are merely stepping stones to the true reason they are involved with Jigsaw's latest puzzle.

First off, I have to admit I was a little turned off to 'Saw III' earlier this week after months of having much anticipation, when I heard it was guaranteed that there would be a 'Saw 4' if 'III' did well opening weekend. I feared then, and still do slightly, that the 'Saw' franchise will become what 'Friday the 13th' did: a series of films where only the first few were considered good. Once I was sitting in my seat at the theater though, and the film began I was vastly interested far more than I imagined I would be. This 'Saw' has so much story in it than the previous two had, and really more than most horror films today do. Much of it is told generally with various flashbacks. Even by following the story closely, the final twist probably won't be known to you until its unveiling. Its in the twist that a tiny smidgen of a problem exists.

Its obvious that the twist was meant to shock the audience in a big way. Maybe it does catch most people by surprise, but for me didn't. Not that it isn't good, it just didn't come across the way it should have. It gave me a, oh...okay feeling rather than a, holy sh*t reaction. This minor flaw doesn't hinder the film's poise at all though. It still remains interesting to the very last minute.

The only real letdown in the film are some of the traps. In all there is a total of six physical ones. These devices of torture and terror are what many of people who love the 'Saw' series look forward to most. Out of the six, only two were what I'd say good. Yes, all of them can kill, but four of them seemed boring and livid. I'm not sure what happened here. Although, this doesn't destroy the movie, in a small way it does take away from it. Even so, the two good traps almost make up for the others.

So basically, 'Saw III' is somewhat better than I expected. It borders very closely to the feel of the first, which is a definite plus. Most satisfying though is that it wasn't the least bit dismal. Never was there a dull moment, even with the few shoddy traps. Now that 'Saw III' is done and over with though, it only makes me question what '4' have in store for us. Yes, Tobin Bell was contracted for five films permitting each is considered a success, but now that director Bousman and writer Whannell have decided to step aside and leave the series alone, I can only wonder two things. Will 'Saw' become a victim of its own game? Just how long can the series go on before it suffers the fate Jason Voorhees did?

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006)

Stolen Spotlight

[5/10 · 24 October 2006]

Brothers Dean (Taylor Handley) and Eric Hill (Matthew Bomer), along with their girlfriends are on a trip across Texas, which will end with Eric getting Dean to enlist in the Marine Corps. This plan is put a stop when the group is confronted and followed by a ruthless biker named Alex (Cyia Batten). She causes the gang of friends to get into a accident which throws Chrisse (Jordana Brewster) from the vehicle and into nearby brush. Just as Alex attempts to rob them, Sheriff Hoyt (R. Lee Ermey) shows up and kills her. As Chrisse watches from the brush Hoyt orders her friends into his patrol car. He then takes them to the Hewitt family's house where Thomas (Andrew Bryniarski), who inevitably becomes Leatherface, is. Now its all left up to Chrisse to save her friends from the horror waiting.

No question goes unanswered in Johnathan Liebesman's 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning'. We find out how Hoyt got the title of sheriff, how Monty lost his legs, & of course how Thomas Hewitt becomes Leatherface. Unfortunately though, Thomas' transition to Leatherface is overshadowed by Hoyt. Unlike the '03 re-make by Marcus Nispel, he doesn't share the spotlight with Leatherface, He steals almost, if not all of it and deservedly so.

R. Lee Ermey's character, although one of the villains, is the most likable featured. I don't think that for even a second during the film did I find myself rooting for the group of friends. With good one-liners and natural heinousness Hoyt proves to be the best part of the revival of the 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' series.

Story wise this pre-quel is okay. It basically tells everything needed to be known about Thomas in the end becomes Leatherface. (Even though it might not be quite as interesting as hoped.) The biggest complaint I hear though regarding the story is that his childhood isn't brought to life. Beforehand I was expecting to see that included in the film. After seeing it though, I realized something. Its actually for the better that it wasn't shown because seeing him at age nine and being ridiculed for his deformities would only make the viewer either pity or laugh at him. This in the end would only undermine Leatherface and get rid of the terror that he supposedly evokes from the audience.

The bottom line is, the movie sets out was it was made to do, tell Leatherface's origin. It's too bad the Hoyt's side story outshines that. And the film's not bad, it just pales in comparison to the '03 re-make. I will say this though. For whoever makes the next one in the series, I have a suggestion: give Hoyt a chainsaw. It'd be far more interesting to watch.

All the King's Men (2006)

Not Quite up to Par, but Still Watchable

[6/10 · 9 October 2006]

Based on the 1946 Pulitzer Prize winning book written by Robert Penn Warren and a re-make of the 1949 film of the same title, 'All the King's Men' tells the story of southern politician Willie Stark (Sean Penn). Jack Burden (Jude Law) is a newspaper columnist in New Orleans who after a deadly school tragedy convinces Stark to take his, at the time small following, and attempt to become governor. It's not long though until Stark realizes his running is but a ploy to "split the cracker" vote so the current governor can be re-elected. He then holds no punches as he takes his own path and wins over every person considered to be a hick. He accomplishes this by repeatedly enforcing the fact that he too is a hick and if elected will do his mightiest to serve them well. This in the end gets him his seat in the governor's mansion. As time passes though, Stark himself begins to travel down the road those he initially spoke against when he starts to take what are thought to be means that are inappropriate to get his way.

Zaillian's reconstruction of 'All the King's Men' starts out decidedly strong with it's nicely written script and marvelous acting by Penn. Shortly after the election of Stark as governor though the film quickly loses it's drive and becomes a bit glum with only, sparse but nonetheless sharp moments. No one except for Penn is able to pull of a believable Louisiana accent. (Hopkins, who plays Judge Irwin, doesn't even try.) It's too bad they aren't able to because the script is actually really good. Of course what else could we expect from Zaillian? He is after all the same person who wrote the screenplays for 'Gangs of New York' and 'Schindler's List'.

Its not entirely the actor's fault that the movie isn't up to par. Where Zaillian's brilliant writing ends, his mediocre directing begins. When a movie is only two hours of length, yet feels to be three, you know something went wrong. The most awful moment would have to be just before the closing scenes, that being the assassination of Stark and death of his killer. It was horribly long, and painfully boring. Once they're dead, they're dead. There's no need for five minutes of aerial spinning around two dead bodies with close-ups here and there of their blood flowing into one stream.

'All the King's Men' isn't totally bad though. As I stated, Penn is great. The screen lights up with intensity and passion when he's speaking to the people. And although the other actors weren't capable of delivering stunning performances, the well written script makes the film good enough to sit and watch. The bottom line is, yes there was much more that could've been done to improve the film, but despite the weak direction and overall acting, 'All the King's Men' is highly underrated and is worth viewing at least once.

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

An Absolute Winner

[9/10 · 8 October 2006]

Olive (Abigail Breslin), Richard (Greg Kinnear), Sheryl (Toni Collette), Dwayne (Paul Dano), Frank (Steve Carell), & someone simply known as Grandpa (Alan Arkin) all make up the Hoover family. Together they are traveling in a run-down yellow VW bus from Albuquerque to Redondo Beach in order to get 7-year-old Olive to the Little Miss Sunshine pageant, where she will hopefully be crowned the winner. As simple a task that may seem, the trip proves to be a difficult, yet enriching one. On their journey the family must deal with heartbreak, shattered dreams, & even death, all the while learning to support and trust one another no matter what life throws their way.

First time directors, Faris and Dayton, have created a remarkably and genuinely excellent film. From the amazing cast and their splendid performances to the hilarious screenplay written by Michael Arndt, 'Little Miss Sunshine' is hands down one best films of the year.

The great thing about each character that is apart of the Hoover family and featured in the movie, is that they're all so very realistic. The most distinctive and memorable members of the family would have to be Olive's older brother, Dwayne and Grandpa. Dwayne presents the characteristics of what many kids today consider themselves today as "emo". As the film advances, we learn he is actually just your average teenager that's simply misunderstood and not "emo" at all. Then there's Grandpa; wisecracking, heroin snorting, kicked out of the retirement home for sleeping around Grandpa. Arkin does a terrific job with this role. He brings not only the character's written personality to life, but adds his own flare as well with his great facial expressions that only fuels the entertaining hoopla presented in 'Little Miss Sunshine'.

The hilarity doesn't seem to stop even when death tries to darken the movie's comedic stance. Grandpa's rantings alone make the movie worth seeing. The irony that Olive's dad, Richard, is a motivational speaker who day in, day out informs people about how to achieve their goals, yet he himself can't accomplish anything is just of the several added bonuses.

After changing my mind three times; first deciding to see 'The Illusionist', then again to 'The Black Dahlia', and finally agreeing upon 'Little Miss Sunshine' I'm really glad I did. There's not a funnier or better cast film out right now. The bottom line is 'Little Miss Sunshine' is an absolute winner and one of the few must-see films of the year. The only reason not to see it would be because it's no longer playing at your theater. In which case you then find another theater in your area that is.