Tag Archives: movie critics

Say it isn’t so

This is my final Twilight saga movie review.  No doubt my friend Tina is already poised to type the words “Barf.”

I wonder if she is feeling sentimental, too.

I saw Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 last night at a special early screening.  I was curious if director Bill Condon could pull together a fitting end to the series, since he  had already used in my estimation all the ‘good stuff’ from the final book in Part 1.

The audience at the early show was pumped, but there was none of the mania of years past.  I’d like to think we’ve all matured a little.

The film has, too.

The screenplay has a sense of humor.  It was funny…on purpose.  And at times also sweet and sad.

Part 2 also features vampire Bella.  For all the critics who have slammed her character for being weak and codependent, come see her being seriously bad-ass. To everyone.  All she needs is a bow-and-arrow and ‘luck forever in her favor.’

Most importantly, Part 2 is action-packed and full of surprises.  I haven’t made this much noise watching a movie in ages — the vampire battle is shocking and strewn with death.

Even if you’re not a big Twilight fan, I strongly recommend you come see how it all ends.

Epic?  Indeed.

Scared for life

Halloween weekend is here.

The pumpkins are carved. Parties planned. Costumes conceived.

And now critics on-air and online are recommending what horror films you should include in your Halloween movie marathon. The expected have risen to the top — the Halloweens, the Nightmares on Elm Street, the Screams, the Exorcists.

Your basic nightmares.

And while Paranormal Activity 3 has been advertised to have 15 minutes that will “mess up your life,” I’ve already “been there, done that.”

The Town that Dreaded Sundown (1976)

I saw this film in the theatre with my sister, mom and her good friend Jeanean who loved horror movies. (The rest of us really didn’t know what we were getting ourselves into.)

Based on a true story, The Town that Dreaded Sundown follows a Texas ranger’s hunt for a serial killer who terrorized the people of Texarkana, Arkansas in 1946. The killer wore a pillowcase over his head as he preyed on the residents of the town, primarily young people parking in the woods.

He was brutal and cruel and terrifying. And he was never captured.

Suffice to say no one slept in our house that night. Actually, I’m not sure any of us slept much that week, even knowing he was probably long dead. The imagine of his face covered by that pillowcase — breathing in and out like an animal — will haunt me for the rest of my life.

If you like really scary movies, I recommend it.

But it will mess you up.

Not again

Making movies cost the big bucks, it’s true.

So perhaps we shouldn’t judge producers too harshly when they remake blockbusters from years past to ensure box office success…like The Great Gatsby or Footloose.

This may also explain ‘sequel-itis’…although quality seems to figure less in that equation.

Case in point:  New Year’s Eve from director Garry Marshall.

New Year’s Eve is the sequel to last year’s horrible Valentine’s Day, a romantic comedy jam-packed with stars, cliched story lines and performances that were shallow to say the most.

(Sorry; it was that bad.) 

I’m not surprised actors are drawn to the sequel; it’s the easiest money they’ll ever make.  And Garry Marshall probably just used the Valentine’s Day shooting script and changed the California locations to New York City.

But why do it at all?

Critics skewered the first film, and audience reviews were only slightly warmer.  And while Valentine’s Day did break $100 million at the box office, there were a lot of celebrity salaries to pay.

Well, after seeing the trailer, I think I’ve figured it out.

Garry has directed a train wreck of a film…and we all know how hard it is not to look at one of those.

Cha-ching!

Fight club

In yesterday’s Egg, I mentioned I was looking for a fight.

Today, I found one.

I am going to defend — almost a year after it hit theatres — the critical and audience pounding of the action film Knight and Day, starring Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz.

It’s available on HBO OnDemand right now.  (I assume that means it’s available on Netflix as well.)

I saw it in the theatre last summer and really liked it.  I remember being surprised that the reviews were so lackluster.  A quick visit to RottenTomatoes.com confirmed the movie was 53 percent fresh — not awful, but not great.

What was even more surprising was that the audience felt the same, judging the movie 52 percent fresh.

I’ve already watched it twice OnDemand, and I respectfully disagree.

Tom Cruise is at his action star best in this film, but the action is purposefully over-the-top, making it one of his best comedic performances.  Snaps to Tom for being willing to make fun of a genre that has been his bread and butter.

Cameron Diaz is the perfect foil for Cruise, too.  She has the energy and the presence to match him shot for shot.  Even when she is in damsel in distress mode, she is his equal on-screen.

The movie uses a lot of CGI to make the impossible possible.  Again, I found that as funny as the rest of the comedy in this film.  Maybe 48 percent of the audience members didn’t get the joke.

But you will.  I know it.

And if you don’t…we can just fight about it some more.

Funny man

The hubbub over Steve Carell leaving The Office this season has in many ways belittled the talent of the actors that remain.

Last night I was reminded of this in a big way.

I saw the movie Something Borrowed starring Kate Hudson, Ginnifer Goodwin, John Krasinski and Colin Egglesfield.

I didn’t have huge expectations going in.  The critics had pretty much slammed the film, but the trailer looked cute and word-of-mouth was pretty good.  (Critics can be so grouchy when it comes to romantic comedies, am I right?)

The one positive note in most of the otherwise ‘grouchy’ reviews was praise for John Krasinski.

Boy, did they get that right.

We are used to seeing John as Jim in The Office — the everyman, playing jokes on Dwight, outsmarting Michael, making takes to the camera.  He almost seems like a part of the audience.

Which makes it easy to take what he does for granted.

Then you see him outside of that world — in a movie like Something Borrowed or in 2009′s  It’s Complicated  — and you realize just how good a comedic actor he really is.

Admittedly, his character is, once again, the smartest person in the room.  But there are no takes to the audience…just solid character work and ‘real’ reactions that are both believable and hilarious.

Now unlike the critics, I liked the film.  While I think they took their sweet time getting to a conclusion that we all saw coming, I still enjoyed the ride.

Oh, and John?  Thanks for driving.

Star quality

“Charlie St. Cloud,” Zac Efron’s new movie — and his latest attempt to distance himself from his “High School Musical” persona — hasn’t gotten much love from the critics.  The reviews on rottentomatoes.com were 75% rotten, finding it ‘shallow and cloying.’

Bummer.

I guess it’s not that surprising.  The promo had “tearjerker” written all over it.  But I am curious to see Zac’s performance…because those same reviews were much more generous to him.

“The vehicle may get a little jacked up along the way, but its passenger arrives in style:  The kid’s a star.”

“It could be a one-note characterization, but Efron finds competing emotions in Charlie, and he conveys all of them to us.”

“Zac Efron can act and has a very large emotional arc.”

Personally, I’ve been a fan since I saw the hilarious “17 Again” starring Efron, Leslie Mann and Matthew Perry.  Using a very familiar switcheroo story, “17 Again” was funny because Zac was funny.  He carried that movie with his comedic timing and knock-out charm.

And the boy can take a slap with the best of  ‘em.

Yep, that kid’s a star.

A critical difference

Poor film critics.  Where’s all that popcorn-fueled power today?

Pretty much every one of you trashed “Sex and the City 2″ — the plot, the puns, the performances, even the Patricia Field ensembles — and that garment bag of a movie still looks to rake in the big bucks.  Deadline Hollywood reports “SATC2″ took in $17 million in its first day alone and predicts a $75 million haul for the holiday weekend.

That’s with only a 16% ‘fresh’ score on rottentomatoes.com and some of the most ridiculous looking trailers ever.

What were they thinking taking “SATC” out of New York City?  Manhattan is the fifth major character in the franchise; setting a majority of the movie elsewhere is like leaving Samantha to dry hump the West Coast.

And why the deserts of Morocco?  Did they see “Ishtar?”  (If they didn’t, here’s a hint:  sucked.)

No, “SATC2″ will prevail, critics be damned…for the very reason that films like “Twilight”  set box office records after being dismissed as the lowest form of dime store drivel.  “SATC2″ comes with a ready made fan base from the TV series  just as “Twilight” had its base of teenybop readers.

Even if the girls trip and skewer themselves on their stilettos in “SATC2,” their fans wanna watch.  Hell, I’m not even a fan, and I wanna watch….maybe even more so.

Don’t worry.  You can ruin some really good film’s chances one day very soon.

Wiiging out

Kristen Wiig is on the talk show circuit.

She’s promoting the MaGruber movie, which opens in theaters May 21st.  Critics say it’s the funniest movie to come out of “Saturday Night Live,” and the trailers I’ve seen so far support that.

It’s great to see Kristen doing more film work.  She’s one of — if not the – funniest women on television today, and has managed to steal scenes with the small roles she’s had to date in movies like Knocked Up and Ghost Town.

So, I was excited when she told Jimmy Fallon last night that she is shooting a movie this summer that she co-wrote.  I could only imagine the hilariously creative starring role that Kristen would write for herself.

Get this — it’s a wedding movie.  Circa Bride Wars.  But she’s not the bride.  She’s the friend of the bride, fighting to plan the wedding for her bride friend.

Wow.  That’s amazingly original.  It’s so original, I used a recent, poorly rated and received movie to describe it.

Don’t get me wrong — I want it to be amazing.  With Kristen and Maya Rudolph as her co-star, it has tremendous talent and potential.

I just hope the movie can transcend its very tired stereotype.

Eyes clinched shut

I hadn’t been to the movie in a couple of weeks, which is an eternity in Carla years.  So I was excited to be able to see not one, but two movies this weekend.  I followed the critics recommendation for my first choice, “Greenberg,” and went counter to their advice for my second, “The Bounty Hunter.”

Both made me cringe.

When did movie makers decide that creating characters that audiences hate is a good idea?

I know that every person I watch on the big screen doesn’t have to be like me, or make the same kind of choices.  But I do think, at some point in the story, the audience has to care about them and the choices they are making…or why would we want to sit there and spend two hours of our lives with them?

In “Greenberg,” Ben Stiller plays a New York City carpenter who goes to his brother’s Los Angeles home to recover following a mental breakdown.  We get to watch him mistreat and belittle every person (and animal) he comes in contact with for the balance of the film.

It kinda made me miss blood and gore.  At least that’s more honest.

“The Bounty Hunter” just proved that bad writing can sink good actors.  I hated everyone in that movie, especially the writer Sarah Thorp.  She should be whipped for what she did to poor Jason Sudeikis (of “Saturday Night Live”) who had a ridiculous supporting role.

I realized when the movie was over that the funniest part of the evening was the trailer for “MacGruber.”

Now, there’s a character I get behind.

Lovely vision

“I am in awe.”

I heard these words as I was filing out of the theater last night after seeing “The Lovely Bones,” and I thought that simple phrase kinda said it all.

I read Alice Sebold’s disturbing novel soon after its release in 2002 on a friend’s recommendation.  Although the subject matter is a bit gruesome  — a teenage girl brutally raped and murdered by a neighbor — seeing death and its effect on the survivors through the eyes of the victim was somehow life-affirming.

Now, anytime you love a book, the film will usually disappoint, and the critics have leapt upon Peter Jackson’s interpretation with claws unfurled.  “The Lovely Bones” movies had been declared only 40% fresh on rottentomatoes.com. Critics have chastised Jackson for both overdoing the visual effects of the “inbetween” — where victim Susie Salmon watches her family struggle with her murder before going on to the afterlive — to underdoing her rape and murder, which he alludes to onscreen but never shows graphically.

Personally, I was relieved Jackson didn’t show us a blow-by-blow account of her death; the more subtle ways he pointed to it were infinitely more chilling.  And, if you think about it, would Susie have taken those memories with her into the next life?  Wouldn’t she choose to leave the most horrendous details of her murder behind?

I certainly hope so.

“The Lovely Bones” movie honors the book by honoring the vision of Susie Salmon.  Jackson told the movie through her eyes, as the book told the story in her words.  It is a moving interpretation, made real by the amazing performances of Stanley Tucci and Saoirse Ronan.

Ignore the critics and see it. Then, go home and hug your family.