
In Inception, we have a movie that uses the Cartesian dilemma as a chance to examine ideas, rather than as a plot point. True, the half of me that’s saying this is the half of me that is majoring in philosophy, but Inception is good enough (and pretty enough) that it should satisfy anyone who is willing to examine their cogito for 2 and half hours, which, in truth, may not be that many people. However Inception is received by audiences at large, there’s no denying that it’s indubitably the strangest $200 million film ever made. Hell, it’s probably the strangest $100 million film ever made. Most of the film’s action takes place in dreams, and some of it takes place within dreams within dreams within dreams. Thankfully, Christopher Nolan, the auteur behind The Dark Knight, knows how to create a trailer-friendly money shot, or he never would have had this chance, regardless of his last film’s success.
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: action, Christopher, DiCaprio, Leonardo, Nolan, Thriller
Posted in Review | No Comments »
This entry was posted
on Friday, July 16th, 2010 at 12:42 am and is filed under Review.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Walking into the new Platinum Dunes horror remake is a bit like walking into a cheap brothel; you don’t know what you’re gonna get, but it’s probably gonna suck. But that’s not to say there won’t be any little pleasures. Take, for example, last year’s reboot of the Friday the 13th franchise. The majority of the movie consisted of a bunch of boring teenage characters getting killed by Jason Voorhees in various not-all-that-thrilling manners. But it was buoyed by a 25-minute opening sequence that acted like a typical horror movie, but without all the boring, unnecessary scenes. It cut out all the pointless exposition, all the poorly written attempts at character development, and gave us 5 inventive murder scenes in succession. The rest of the film had nowhere near the efficiency, and even the kill scenes lacked invention, but it was aided by a generous dose of gratuitous nudity and weird Judd Apatow-inspired humour (especially when dealing the token minority characters).
I’m sad to say that this new incarnation of Nightmare on Elm Street is a step down. It’s competently shot and edited, but most of the movie is exposition about bland characters in bland houses talking about their bland feelings. The small pleasures come in the performance of the extra creepy Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy Krueger, who is given precious little screen time in the first hour of the film. Haley delivers his one-liners with aplomb, making the lamest jokes sound creepy as all hell. He’s not the wisecracking Freddy Krueger that Robert Englund (who played Krueger in eight previous films) created, but he’s a worthy alternative. He even gets a chance to act without the make-up in a series of flashbacks.
But other than that, there is nothing new to offer in this film. Even two of the kill scenes are stolen wholesale from the original film. The actors are poor, even by slasher film standards, with the exception of Kyle Gallner, who is merely sufficient. Even all the goodwill brought about by a relatively thrilling final act is ruined by one of the most ill conceived Pulp Fiction homages ever put to film. I’m not really sure what else to say about the film, other than that it’s probably exactly how you expect it to be, but with less nudity and a decent villain. The idea of a serial killer haunting one’s dreams is really quite intriguing, but this film doesn’t utilize the premise’s inherent potential. One could argue that Craven’s film didn’t either, but it’s more acceptable when the film in question works. But in this film, the nature of the nightmares doesn’t even adhere to the logic of the movie, which is always a bad move.
- Alan Jones
Tags: Earl, Elm, Freddy, Haley, Horror, Jackie, Krueger, Nightmare, Street
Posted in CINSSU, Review | No Comments »
This entry was posted
on Friday, April 30th, 2010 at 12:01 am and is filed under CINSSU, Review.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

It’s kind of hard not to like <i>The Losers</i>, despite the forced humour, mediocre special effects, and poorly edited action sequences, it’s got an infectious energy that’s hard to dismiss. Part of that energy is probably due to the insanely likable cast, and the other part is probably due to the bright comic-inspired colour scheme that permeates the entire movie. It’s not a deep movie by any standards, but its aided by an awareness of its limitations. I can’t bring myself to recommend the movie, but there are far worse ways to spend the first weekend of the summer.
The movie (which hops all over the world before it finishes) begins in Bolivia, where our team of military experts saves the lives of 25 children from an American air strike ordered by the mysterious “Max”. When the helicopter taking the children to safety is destroyed by another aircraft, the team of “losers” throw their dog tags into the wreckage, realizing that it was meant for them. And thus, they plan their revenge on Max, who is portrayed as one the most hyperbolically evil megalomaniacs to hit movie screens by Jason Patric. Does it make sense that the team (correctly) assume Max is a CIA agent? Probably not, but don’t think about it too deeply. It’s probably more drawn out in the graphic novels the film was based on.
As I mentioned before, one of the main charms of the movie is the cast. The team is made up of Clay (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), Roque (Idris Elba), Jensen (Chris Evans), Cougar (Oscar Jaenada), and Pooch (Columbus Short). Morgan does well as the charismatic leader of the group, and despite being in his mid-40′s, could go on to become a movie star anyways. Elba does well as his main opposition in the group. Evans makes a lot of the comedic material work, wven though it really shouldn’t, as the annoying motormouth tech nerd, Columbus Short is suitably charismatic for the least characterized member of the ensemble (or “the guy with a pregnant wife at home”). Jaenada is the only weak spot, but he has very few lines, so it doesn’t really matter all that much. They are joined in Bolivia by Aisha (Zoe Saldana), who introduces herself to Clay in a violent meet-cute that, again, makes little story sense, but is kind of fun to watch, and offers them the information they need to find Max. I should also note that Patric is great as Max, whether he’s explaining to his henchman the difference between a “break this guy’s fingers” nod of the head and a “throw this guy off the building” nod of the head, or bathing in a hot springs with a number of exotically clad women, which, again, has nothing to do with the story.
But the game actors can’t make up for the script by James Vanderbilt and Peter Berg (the team behind The Rundown), which unwisely attempts to force the chemistry out of the characters. This method unfortunately results in a lot of hit-or-miss jokes and one-liners, and a feeling that the movie is trying way to hard to get you to like it. It’s a shame, screenwriters should have relied on the cast to create appealing character moments, rather than on forced moments of “cleverness”. Director Sylvain White (You Got Served) shows promise. The goofy colour-scheme of the movie is endearing, and the more the film plays with comic book conventions, the better. But his weakness is in the action scenes, which adopt the unfortunate approach of using handheld cameras and editing way too quickly. Granted, unlike a lot of contemporary action films, you can actually tell what’s going on in this one, but it’s still disappointing to see a movie as visually interesting as The Losers go for the crappiest method of shooting an action scene.
As for the story itself, it’s nothing impressive. You can see the inevitable twist from a mile away, and the usual twists and turns of plot are used. In fact, the quality of the story is a bit like the quality of the movie itself, it’s decent if your expectations are suitably low. In other words, it ain’t much, but for what it is, it ain’t terrible.
-Alan Jones
Tags: action, Book, Bros., Chris, Comic, Dean, Evans, Jeffrey, Losers, Morgan, Saldana, Warner, Zoe
Posted in CINSSU, Review | No Comments »
This entry was posted
on Friday, April 23rd, 2010 at 4:02 pm and is filed under CINSSU, Review.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The 1981 version of Clash of the Titans is actually a pretty good movie. Granted, the film’s effects, sets and dialogue are cheesy, but everyone from the actors, director, production people on that project seemed to have embraced these qualities and it gave that film a charming presence that you do not see in the average bad movie; and like great cheese, it just gets better over time. This is the charm that director Louis Leterrier’s remake does not have and turns what could have been a great time at the movies into a forgettable experience.
Perseus (Sam Worthington), is the mortal son of Zeus (Liam Neeson), who goes on a mission to prevent Hades’ (Ralph Finnes) from unleashing the Kraken on mankind and saving the princess Andromeda from being the beast’s sacrifice. Our hero learns that the only way to achieve this is by taking Medusa’s head and forcing the Kraken to look at it, turning the beast into stone. Joining him on this quest includes Perseus’ guardian Io (Gemma Aterton) and a group of soldiers lead by Draco (Mads Mikkelsen). Leaving Perseus with the choice whether or not to take his place with the gods or continue living life among normal men. Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: action, Clash, Fantasy, Fiennes, Leterrier, Liam, Louis, Neeson, Ralph, Sam, Titans, Worthington
Posted in Review, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
This entry was posted
on Friday, April 2nd, 2010 at 4:34 pm and is filed under Review, Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The most difficult movies to write about are the movies that are good… but you wanted them to be great. When you either love or hate a film, the words naturally flow. When a film is disappointing, even its strengths become a painful reminder of how much better it could have been. This is where Tim Burton’s adaptation of Alice in Wonderland belongs, an enjoyable film but the talent behind it had the potential to provide much more substance.
Taking elements of Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is now nineteen years old and is about to get engaged… when she spots a white rabbit wearing a waistcoat and pocket watch. Alice follows the rabbit down its hole where she falls down into Underland. (Commonly referred to as “Wonderland” by its inhabitants) With the help of the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) and his friends, Alice learns that she is destined to defeat Red Queen’s (Helena Bonham Carter) Jabberwocky (voice of Christopher Lee) and return the throne to the White Queen (Anne Hathaway).
The film’s strongest point is its style; say what you will about Burton, but the man undoubtedly has a colorful gothic sensibility that fits the the story perfectly. Underworld looks magnificently imaginative and even though some major changes in the overall plot are made, you still get a sense of Carroll’s vision leaking through.
Unfortunately, Burton seems to focus so much on the CGI and 3-D technology that someone forgot about all those old-school techniques like plot and characters. It is not that these elements of the film are terrible, just by the numbers. There are so many compelling and complex themes within Carroll’s work about growing-up and death that fit so well into his thematic narrative style, that you could make a compelling picture with a faithful adaptation. It makes seeing Carroll’s work turned into a Disneyfied, clichéd “Girl Power/Fantasy Action” movie all the more disheartening. As for 3-D, I am not against the idea of technology, as it does add to the theatre-going experience but I need something more compelling within the story to keep my interest. Otherwise what stops films from being amusement park rides instead of works of art?
Though it is not fair to say that the overly simple plot and characters are the technology’s fault. As a die-hard fan of Burton, I will admit that his blockbusters commonly suffer. (Batman, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) While they are fun and still have his visual signature, they lack the personal human touch he brings to his masterpieces. (Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood) Despite what seems to be an obvious pairing, the film would have been better suited to Burton’s storytelling abilities had it stayed closer to the source material.
I realize that this review is starting to sound negative, so I want to state that I can never truly hate a film where Christopher Lee voices a dragon. Alice in Wonderland is a visually beautiful film, the 3-D technology while slightly distracting is still a lot of fun. The performances are uniformly terrific, particularly Depp and up and comer Wasikowska. As Alice, Wasikowska brings a great deal of charm to the role and gives us an likeable character that keeps the story grounded and focused on the lead, despite all the craziness surrounding her, the craziest thing being the Mad Hatter. Depp knows how to create a fun character that is distinctive and the right amount of zaniness. The two have a great brother sister chemistry that helps to overcome some of the weak characterization and plot.
So there certainly is a lot to like, just nothing that’s particularly amazing. I guess the best way to get across my feelings for “Alice is Wonderland” is that it is like expecting a pony but only getting a puppy. No one is going to complain about a puppy… but you really wanted that damn pony.
- John Debono
Tags: Alice, Burton, Carrell, Depp, Johnny, Lewis, Tim, Wonderland
Posted in CINSSU, Review | No Comments »
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, March 10th, 2010 at 3:50 pm and is filed under CINSSU, Review.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Valentine’s Day is a treat, however the film Valentine’s Day not so much. The film borrows the theme and structure of 2003’s Love Actually, mixing intertwining stories of love and friendship producing the (tired) theme that love is all around us – even when we least expect it.
The film features many of Hollywood’s most popular stars; Jessica Alba, Ashton Kutcher, Taylor Lautner, Taylor Swift and brings back some greats like Kathy Bates, Julia Roberts, Hector Elizondo, and Shirley MacLaine. However the film fails to impress. The love stories feel as fake as the city they’re set in (Los Angeles). The characters gestures of love and affections seem too over the top and trite. Not enough time is given for the characters to develop their back stories that are needed for their relationships to appear anything more than shallow. The viewer is forced to believe the characters are in love, yet does not offer any cute flaws, loveable quirks (or chemistry) that make romantic comedies believable or at least tolerable. The stories of love appear insincere, forced and sometimes desperate. But Anne Hathaway’s character has an interesting job and Taylor Lautner’s character can do an awesome backflip so…
Happy Valentine’s Day!
-Al Einstein
Posted in Review | 1 Comment »
This entry was posted
on Friday, February 12th, 2010 at 11:32 pm and is filed under Review.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.