In the theater

Tarantino does WWII: Inglourious Basterds

September 7, 2009
By

Overall Rating: B+
Filmmaking/Artistic: A−
Storytelling: B
MPAA Rating: R (Extreme violence)

The pitch

You know how Tom Cruise stunk up the place in Valkyrie trying to do history?  Well, what if we changedhistory and made a group of renegade Jewish-American soldiers who scalped the Germans (you know, like in Dances with Wolves or Nurse Betty) into submission?  And what if the lead were a Southerner, just to make fun of Cruise’s accents?  Someone like Brad Pitt doing an accent?  Hey, can we get Brad Pitt?

Overview

A brutally violent Jewish revenge fantasty set in World War II, Inglourious Basterds sets up a “what if” scenario, and plays it out with Quentin Tarantino flair.  What if we could have knocked off Hitler, Goebbels, and all the Nazi big wigs while they were watching Cinema Paradiso?  A master of dramatic tension, Tarantino delivers a film that keeps viewers on the edge of their seats, in a story that is of course improbable, but engaging.

Full review

Your Movie Monkey was one of those rare audience members who liked, but didn’t love, Pulp Fiction.  The dialogue was of course fantastic, and the chronological sequencing fascinating, but the mix of violence and comedy just didn’t sit completely right.  Perhaps some of the issue was the moral mixing of gangsters and thieves as heroes, but The Monkey just couldn’t find it at all comic when an innocent young man in the back of a car was accidentally shot, and the movie turned to the clean up of the “mess”, even though the following scenes were intended as comedic.

Inglourious Basterds on the other hand provides a fictional setting where the motivation for the violence is the horror inflicted on the Jews (and others) by the Nazis.  The opening scene of the film involves a German colonel, Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), investigating a French dairy farmer suspected of hiding Jews.  Landa’s slow, methodical, non-threatening examination of the farmer, with his calm, almost happy demeanor, creates dramatic tension in a way almost difficult to describe.

As with Pulp Fiction, the stage has been set with this interchange, and Landa’s actions will be reflected later in the film.  In the meantime, in another chapter of the movie (literally), we learn that Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt, doing a decent Kentucky Fried Accent) has established a Jewish-American guerrilla squad of soldiers (the Basterds) whose job is to each obtain 100 Nazi scalps (again, literally).   Those Nazis who are captured and are released (no prisoners are taken) have swastikas carved into their foreheads, so the world will always know what they did, even when they remove their uniform.

The rest of the plot is fairly complicated, although it involves a chance to take out Hitler through the power of the movies.

Through it all, the Tarantino formula of long discussions building to an intense, violent climax is successfully implemented.  If you like the formula, you’ll probably love this movie.  If you are squeamish at all, stay at home.

Christoph Waltz is brilliant as Col Landa, and clearly the show acting wise, although Brad Pitt also does a decent job in his role.  The strangest bit of casting (stunt casting?) was Mike Meyers as a British army officer.  His makeup was such that he wasn’t instantly recognizable, but Your Movie Monkey kept thinking, “why is he talking like that?”  And then… “0h, that’s what they did with Mike Meyers.”

Your Movie Monkey did find the movie revolved around a kind of theme… “What we shoulda done back then to the Nazis”.  The actions of the Basterds and others whose intentions are to thwart the Nazi regime are definitely presented as heroic.  Even Raines carves up one Nazi’s forehead after making a deal for his release, and when the guy insists “but we had a deal–you’ll be thrown out of the army”, Raines says something like, “No, I’ll just get yelled at, and I’ve been yelled at before”, the message is that this retribution… this torture. .. is “what’s right”.   Is it?  If this is right, then what about  the interrogation methods we are now discussing as a nation (of which waterboarding seems to be the worst, clearly far less than carving swastikas into a forehead) for our military services?

It has long seemed to the Movie Monkey that the message of Hollywood is mixed.  Popular film depicts acts of physical retribution as positive, and yet the same folks that make these movies fight hard against any form of “rough” interrogation in a prospective way in a real life situation where some have threatened death to Americans.  The Monkey isn’t sure what he thinks about the whole issue (mixed feelings, of course, and he wishes we lived in a world where the discussion wasn’t even necessary), but he is sure that our popular culture and our political discourse reflect nearly opposite opinions.

Fly Me to Joburg: District 9

August 22, 2009
By

Overall Rating: A−
Filmmaking/Artistic: A+
Storytelling: B
MPAA Rating: R

The pitch

Imagine that The Fly had an alien friend to guide his transformation (like the alien in Enemy Mine), and could turn into a Transformer to protect his buddies from an evil corporation, and that it was all set in South Africa for that “socially conscious” thing.  And imagine Peter Jackson lent us his name.

Overview

Although Peter Jackson’s name is attached, it’s really an unknown director shooting a very interesting mix of mockumentary and sci/fi action with moral undertones that hit close to home, especially since the film is set in Johannesberg.  Brilliantly acted, at times moving, the film occasionally seems like bits and pieces of other movies (so not quite as groundbreaking as reviews would have you belive), but overall it’s well worth seeing.  Way too violent for those who are squeamish, and definitely not appropriate for those under 14.

Review notes

A departure from typical summer fare, District 9 is an interesting take on familiar themes.  A giant spaceship began to hover over Johannesburg 20 years ago, and after a period of inaction, officials cut into it and found these aliens who were malnourished.  The aliens, who are called “prawns” due to their crustacean appearnce, were herded off into a ghetto called District 9.  But over the course of time (as would be expected with a million aliens in a ghetto) tensions rose, and the movie really begins, in mockumentary style, with the resettling of the prawns to a new (and far worse) area called District 10.

The resettlment is under the control of MNU, the archetypical evil corporation.  The main character, Wikus Van der Merwe (Sharlto Copley), is selected by his company to be in charge of the resettlement.  The prawns have “rights” (in name only), and must agree to the resettlement, but it’s a farce, because MNU can kill them if they refuse to give their permission.

During the resettling procedure, which is broadcast round the world on through CNN-esque organizations, Wikus is “infected” with an alien substance, and begins to transform into a prawn.  At which point, MNU’s nefarious schemes become quite clear, and poor Wikus becomes the target of lies as he tries to escape from MNU.

Along the way, Wikus is befriended by a fairly smart prawn named “Christopher”, who has goals of his own.

The action part of the movie unfolds along fairly standard, but still interesting lines.  But the theme of the movie that makes it so interesting is that Wikus’s evolution in thinking about the prawns.   In the beginning, as he finds an “unauthorized” prawn eggs, he laughs as they are set on fire, describing with amusement to the camera how these little ones “pop like popcorn” while being destroyed.  But he becomes more sympathetic when he himself becomes victim to the same treatment he was dishing out.

The movie is more complicated than the review indicates, but it’s well worth watching.  The obvious Apartheid metaphor is well done, always in the background but never so overpowering as to seem stilted.  The theme of the movie is universal: the inhumanity and depravity humans have inflicted on each other, once one group decides that another group is somehow “less than human”.  True, in the movie, the prawns are non-human.  But they are sentient, intelligent, and clearly have come from a place with better technology than on earth.

It’s also interesting how the space ship hovers above the city constantly throughout the movie.  It’s like the problem of racisim… it’s always there, even if you try to shove it in a corner.

Copley, who apparently is new to acting, does a brilliant job as Wikus.  He carries the entire movie, and is incredibly believable. 

Your Movie Monkey did have a few quibbles.  First, in Hollywood Code, there is no greater evil than the corporation.  In this film, the corporation was willing to remove a man’s heart (live) for their own profit motive.  It seems universally true.  About half the crimes on Law and Order, at least when The Monkey was watching it, were driven by coroporate greed.  (And drug companies… their CEOs are always ridiculously portrayed as being willing to sacrifice innocent lives to make money.  Ridiculous!)  Even the ridiculous movie Bulworth, which has Warren Beatty pantsing around to run for political office, even doing things like rap, has an evil corporation kill him because his ideas were becoming too popular.   District 9 is no exception to the “corporations are evil” bandwagon.  It’s just, at this point, a very hackneyed theme.

Second, Wikus’s transformation into a prawn was very, very reminiscent of The Fly.  Losing fingernails, losing teeth, etc., it all felt a little familiar. 

But overall, despite a somewhat slow first half, the movie is fantastic.  It is violent, and the treatment of the prawns is very disturbing, but the theme is universal, and the action is well worth the monkey’s few complaints.

“Lost” in Space: Star Trek

May 10, 2009
By

Overall Rating: A
Filmmaking/Artistic: A+
Storytelling: A
MPAA Rating: PG-13

Overview

Clearly the best Star Trek movie ever made, this movie is a stand out, for both fans and non-fans of the original late 60′s series.  JJ Abrams, the wizard behind the TV show Lost, skillfully combines action, humor, and character development in this two hour thrill ride.

Full Review

First, the biases.  Your Movie Monkey is a fan of the original Star Trek series, and a fan of Lost, the brainchild of JJ Abrams, who directs this movie.  But Your Movie Monkey saw the film in the company of 9 other people, some of whom were not fans of neither, and all found it riveting. 

The film opens with the birth of James Kirk… but, in true JJ Abrams fashion, in a way that is both contradictory to, and consistent with, the original series.  For those other Lost fans out there, one can immediately feel the pleasant familiarity of  what you like about the TV series… the emotion mixed with action, the camera shots, everything.

This particular film depicts Kirk as a rebellious kid, who ends up joining StarFleet after a barfight with new recruits.  Brilliantly acted by Chris Pine, Kirk is a believable version of the overacted character we all know from Shatner.  Smarmy and sarcastic, possessing all of Kirk’s confidence without the distracting method acting pregnant pauses, Pine portrays a street smart fighter, overconfident with youth, yet clearly leader material.

At the academy we meet the younger versions of Dr. McCoy, Uhura, and the (in)famous green girl.  We also learn more about the backstory of Spock, as he grew up to the prejudice of being of mixed race, even on logical Vulcan.  Captain Pike (of the one-vs-two blink full body wheelchair for those of you familiar with the original series) also plays a good role in the film, and we get to know the young Sulu, Chekov, and (although not nearly as young) Scotty.

The magic of the movie is how it references the old films, but not in a corny way, while being completely unique.  The action makes the story interesting, and the “sci fi” elements are present, but not overwhelming (no takion fileds, Krieger waves, etc.)  It’s easy to follow, and yet Abrams gives us plenty of reason to be in suspense, because, for reasons Your Movie Monkey won’t give away, it is not guaranteed that any of the film’s characters will survive.  (Think Lost, but not so complicated, and no smoke monster.) 

There’s no real sense in describing the story here.  It’s not a terribly original storyline, but it doesn’t matter, because characters and action drive the movie.  Fans of action type shows will likely love it, as will fans of the original series, and pretty much movie fans everywhere.  The acting is fantastic, (Simon Pegg absolutely steals all scenes as Scotty), for the most part better than the original, and the story keeps you intrigued for the entire two hours.   Even Eric Bana is, for the most part, tolerable.  (The weakest link for sure, but it won’t be too distracting.)

Your Movie Monkey hasn’t gone into as much detail as he usually would, but thinks you should see it for yourself.

In terms of objectionable material, if they cut maybe 40 seconds, it could be PG instead of PG-13.   Some brief objectionable language, and a brief “adult situation” render this show inappropriate for kids under 13, at least IYMMHO. 

Your Movie Monkey hopes that those of you who see it will truly enjoy this nice opening to the summer action season.

Great acting.  Great

The New Jack Nicholson?: The Wrestler

February 28, 2009
By

Overall Rating: B+
Filmmaking/Artistic: B
Storytelling: A−
MPAA Rating: R

Overview

An interesting story by (eclectic? unusual? atypical?) director Darren Aronofsky, The Wrestler presents the gritty, realistic drama of the life of a has-been wrestler.   Mickey Rourke plays the wrester, and much like the extremely over-rated Jack Nicholson, has won accolades for what appearst to be essentially playing himself.  The relationship between Rourke’s character and an aging stripper played by Marisa Tomei seems quite believable, and the relationship between the wrestler and his estranged daughter is the basis for an Oscar-deserving scene, but if you’re uninterested in the story of  a wrestler, this won’t be your cup of tea.

Mini-review

Your Movie Monkey has some interest in wrestling, having watched it for about 3 years in the late 90s.  Watching these weekly programs, which Your Movie Monkey found much more creative than most TV sitcoms, YMM never considered that there was entire circuit of semi-pro (or even non-pro) wrestlers out there who play to smaller crowds.  It’s kind of a circuit.  (Contrarian’s wife Bella claims that all circuit folks are far more similar than they are different, be it wrestling, monster trucks, or dog shows.)

In this film, Mickey Rourke plays Jack Nicholson playing Mickey Rourke playing a washed up wrestler, Randy “The Ram” Robinson.  The kind of wrestler who, literally, has a staple gun used on him in the ring, and then gets so little money that he can’t afford rent on his mobile home  (or steriods).  The Ram was so popular in his heyday that he was the star of an Atari game.  But now, although respected by his fellow wrestlers, he has a farily horrible life.

The Ram has a heart attack during one of his matches, and begins to re-evaluate his life.  He has a relationship with a local stripper, played by Marisa Twomei, who is also an actor of sorts, in that she keeps talking about the separation of her stage life and her real life (which involves a young son at home).  He also has an estranged daughter, with whom he now feels that he should  re-unite.

Bascially we learn that wrestling is all that the Ram knows, and his relationships aren’t that great.  We also learn that Mickey Rourke has a very muscly body with a really, really strange face on top, due to many plastic surgeries.

The story is very well written and realistic and gritty.  But it won’t be for everyone.  If you have no interest in wrestling, don’t see it.  Also, Rourke’s performance is very over-rated.  He basically plays himself, like Jack Nicholson.  But if you love Jack Nicholoson, perhaps you’ll like this too.

Marisa Twomei is excellent, and Rachel Evan Wood, who plays his daughter, is phenomenal, and perhaps the best part of the show.

The show is, in short scenes, graphically violent, and has some graphic sexual content, and therefore is not family-friendly.  The relationships presented seem realistic, that is, realistically empty.  The consequence of shallowness and a life lived only for one’s self is also realistically, and sadly, depicted.

What You Didn’t See: Doubt

February 28, 2009
By

Overall Rating: A
Filmmaking/Artisitic: A-
Storytelling: A+
MPAA Rating: PG-13

Overview

The best movie Your Movie Monkey has seen in at least 6 months, Doubt leaves you talking afterward, much as Memento did, about what actually happened.  Your Movie Monkey expected a bashing of the Catholic church due to their recent scandals.  The scandals somewhat set the scene, but the movie is complex and thought provoking, without taking sides (except, of course, that the needs of the kids in a particular Catholic school should outweigh the personalities and methods of the adults who are tasked with guiding them–of that, the movie leaves no doubt).

Full Review

As a teenager, Your Movie Monkey remembers seeing a story on 20/20 or 60 minutes or some similar show, about a priest who had dedicated his life to working with boys (troubled, if memory serves), and  who was accused of having inappropriate relationships.  The angle of the show was that the priest was very likely innocent, and at the time, YMM thought “how sad that this priest can’t have a heart for kids without being accused of something terrible”–specifically, at this tender age, YMM thought that the world was in general so self-centered that any act of selflessness was misunderstood and ascribed to sinister motives.

Your Movie Monkey believes he remembers the name of this priest from the show (although he will not publish it), because it was a priest who was later convicted of the crimes similar to those which had been described.

So what do we, as a society, do?  Ascribe every selfless motive as sinister?  Set up rules so stringent that the actual acts of service become exceedingly difficult to perform?  Doubt attempts to address this question, or at least, leave the viewer free to discuss it.

Meryl Streep plays a very strict nun who is the head of a catholic school in the 1960s.  She reports to a priest played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman.  The priest is young, and of a new tradition… a tradition more about meeting people’s needs where they live than a kind of blind adherence to rules.

An new, young, optimistic nun (Amy Adams) arrives, and is taught to be tough as nails by the head nun.  The new nun has a strange experience where a student of hers is called to the priest’s office, and comes back with a somewhat strange affect, and smelling of alcohol on his breath.  She also sees (later), the priest returning a t-shirt of the boy’s  to the boy’s locker.

That’s it.  That’s the facts.  The rest is conjecture.

The head nun suspects the priest of wrongdoing.  The priest of course denies it, but his method of denial (basically saying “I’m the preist, this doesn’t concern you”) of course doesn’t fly with her.  And what follows is exactly the world of contecture, the world of interpretation, and the world of the male-dominated catholic church.

So what does one do with little information?  Is the priest a misunderstood innocent, or a very clever liar?

It is because of the wrong doing of what is hopefully a minority in the priesthood that these questions must be asked.  How far does one go in the pursuit of the truth?  Is it ok to deceive, to accuse without evidence, to outright lie, in order to get there?  Doubt leaves these questions open.

The movie is very well acted (although Mery’s Streep’s accident changes a lot as the show goes on), and the characters are like those in Spike Lee movies, neither all good nor all bad.  The actress who played the mother of the boy had maybe 10 minutes of screentime, but those minutes were powerful.  She was nominated for an Academy Award for the role, and deserved it.

Your Movie Monkey does not want to give too much away, so he will stop here.  He fully recommends Doubt for those old enough to understand the content.  For younger children who cannot understand the crime of which the priest is accused, it should probably be avoided.

Your Movie Monkey will close his review with his favorite commentary from the movie, a sermon given by the priest upon being accused by the head nun.

A woman confesses to her priest that she is guilty of the sin of gossip.  The priest tells her that, as penance, she should take her finest pillow to the top of her building, and cut it with a knife.  She complies, taking her very best pillow to her roof on a somewhat breezy day, and cuts it, with the mess of feathers floating all around.  She then returns to her priest who tells her that as the last bit of her penance, she should gather the feathers that had spilled, return them to the pillow, and sew it up.  The woman protested, noting that the feathers had by now spread on the winds to many different places, and that gathering them all together would be impossible.

“And that,” said the priest, “is gossip.”

Forrest Gump Part Deux: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

January 5, 2009
By

Overall Rating: C+
Artistic/Filmmaking: B
Storytelling: C-
MPAA Rating: PG-13

Overview

It’s Forrest Gump all over again, but (unbelievably) longer, slower paced, and less interesting.  The main character ages backward, but just as no one blinks an eye in the campy old Batman series whenever a woman dressed in a slinky catsuit and henchmen dressed as tiger cubs walk into a jewelry store, no one seems to notice or care.  There’s almost a 1-1 connection for everything in Forrest Gump, there’s even a “sitting in a hospital at a dying woman’s bed” bookend equivalent to Forrest Gump’s “talking to strangers at a bus stop” bookend, and a “Ya Never Know What’s Comin’ For Ya” to match “Life is Like A Box of Chocolates”.  There’s great acting (although it was IYMMHO one of Cate Blanchett’s rare misses), and it’s very fun to watch the period piece aspects, and there are some positive moments.  Oh, and, for some inexplicable reason, there’s Hurricane Katrina.   

Full Review

The story hook promises more than it delivers.  A man (Benjamin Button) ages backward, and experiences life from about 1920 to 2000.   We start with a woman dying of a Hollywood form of cancer… you know, no pain unless we need to call a nurse for a scene change or other plot device.  She is speaking in this kind of loud mumble to her daughter, and they are clearly southern (turns out to be New Orleans), and she tells the story of a man who lost his son in World War I and, in his grief, made a clock that ran backwards to symbolize the time we want back.  And then disappeared.  Then, she mumbles at her daughter to read a diary out loud, so she can hear the daughter’s voice.  It’s the story of Benjamin Button.

Read more »

I’ll take depressing stories for $800 Alex: Slumdog Millionaire

December 19, 2008
By

Overall Rating: B-
Filmmaking/Artistic: A-
MPAA Rating: R

Overview

A well-acted, beautifully shot, interesting story about an Indian youth named Jamal who grew up in the slums of Mumbai (a slumdog), who is–against all odds–in the middle of winning the big money on the Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.  The question is, how?  Turns out that the answer is a long, unbelievably depressing (and fictional) story of  Jamal’s life in the slums.  Violent, perhaps realistic, the question is whether this movie is how you want to spend 2 hours of your time.

Full Review

The subject of intelligence has been of interest for quite some time, especially the concept of innate intelligence.  But of course, the problem is that the natural definition of intelligence (can he figure stuff out) becomes difficult to assess without a frame of reference.  “If there are 3 birds on a fence, and you shoot one, how many are left?”  To a kid who grows up knowing birds only as an abstract concept (that picture in the book is a bird), without being exposed to live birds, the answer might reasonably be two.  But to anyone who has been around a bird (or other animal) when a loud noise goes off (especially a loud noise that fatally wounds a buddy on a nearby fence), the right answer is of course zero.  So which answer shows more intelligence, two or zero?  The answer is, one probably can’t tell from this assessment, which is a lot of the controversy with achievement tests like the SAT.  (Perhaps a better term for these is college preparedness tests… it’s not what one can achieve, it’s how prepared one is for the very specific tasks required in college.  But Your Movie Monkey, as always, digresses.)

Read more »

When San Francisco is just too darn conservative: Madagascar 2–Escape to Africa

December 8, 2008
By

Overall Rating: C-
Filmmaking/Artistic: C
MPAA Rating: PG

Overview

A very strange, somewhat disturbing follow-up to the original Madagascar, this sequel makes no sense unless you’ve already seen the first one, and has a bizarre “anything goes” morality that will probably go over the heads of really young kids, but give pause for those who are older.  An uninteresting story, plus stolen bits from The Lion King, make this a “skip it” movie.

Mini-review

Your Movie Monkey somewhat enjoyed the first Madagascar, especially the penguins, but this second journey definitely goes downhill.  Alex the lion, Marty the zebra, Melman the giraffer, and Gloria the hippo are back, and while attempting to fly back to New York, crash land in Africa.

While there, each has a kind of separate story.  Alex is in the middle of a remake of the lion king, complete with Mufasa-esque dad and Scar-esque evil uncle.  (Producer: What should we do with Alex’s character?  We’re 15 minutes short.  Writer: Hey, I know, there’s this other animated lion movie…)  Marty finds that in Africa, he’s indistinguishable from all the other zebras, because they all look like him (and talk like him, since Chris Rock does all the voices).  It bothers him that Alex can’t tell him apart from the other zebras, so somehow, captivitiy was a good thing.

Gloria falls in love with a very big hippo named Moto Moto, and Melman professes his undying love for Gloria.

The movie is not very interesting… even Your Movie Monkey’s favorites from the first, the penguins, fall a little flat.  They are still somewhat amusing, except for the bit about the doll.  Somehow, the lead penguin has fallen in love with a bobble-head doll.  There are even “incriminating” pictures of him with the doll used as blackmail.  This was a very strange, inappropriate turn for a kids’ movie.

As was Gloria’s relationship with Moto Moto.  Firstly, Gloria and Moto Moto hang out in some form of pond that is clearly meant to look like a hottub.  Moto Moto is even drawn to look like a naked human, as he has chest hair drawn in on his skin in this hot tub scene.  His entire attraction to Gloria is admittedly physical.  Your Movie Monkey found these scenes creepy, and not altogether appropriate.

Plus, there’s a wierd subtheme about making a sacrifice (of Melman) to the “volcano gods”, in order to get water flowing again.   (Melman does this to save Gloria.)  This idea dreamed up by gender-bending King Julien of the lemurs, who at one point pops out with coconut bosoms and asks “Now who’s attracted to me?”   The movie at first makes it seem like Julien is just crazy, and the audience knows the real cause of the water shortage is a logjam upriver.  But when the jam is cleared, and Julien hints that maybe it wasn’t the volcano gods, the volcano kind of spits lava, as if to say “yes it was”.  Strange.

The best part of the movie (IYMMHO) was the return of Alex’s old lady nemesis from New York.  In her fight against the wild beasts of Africa, the beasts had better watch out.

Overall this is a morally ambiguous film that does not portray very good messages.  For a better review than Your Movie Monkey’s, check out the  Decent Films Guide.

Travolta and Cyrus do us proud: Bolt

December 3, 2008
By

Overall Rating: A
Filmmaking/Artistic: A+
MPAA Rating: PG

Overview

Fantastic action, great humor at Hollywood’s expense, and the joy of being a dog.  Bolt has it all, and is fun for kids and adults.  Could be a little scary for kids 5 and under, but overall a great film, well worth seeing.

Full Review

Your Movie Monkey had his doubts.  John Travolta has admittedly a great, familiar voice, especially for those of us old enough to remember Vinnie Barbarino.  (For those of you for whom Welcome Back Kotter was before your time, as a young actor, Mr. Travolta had the power to make us elementary school kids use the phrase “up your nose widda rubber hose” as an insult.  Seriously.)  But as an actor, he’s hit or miss, with one strong hit for every 25 to 50 misses, it seems.  And Miley Cyrus, well, some of us are still smarting from Billy Ray. 

But Bolt came highly recommended from friends, and it certainly did not disappoint.  As promised in the previews, the story revolves around a dog named Bolt who is the star of a popular action show on television.  But as we learn from the oh-so-Hollywood director of the show, Bolt has been raised from puppyhood to think the show going on a round him is real, and that he really does have his superpowers.  (And, wonderfully, the reason for this ruse is a form of method acting: he wants to be able to get shots of a dog who really believes he is an action hero, so it will be realistic.)

Read more »

As Unintelligible as its Title: Quantum of Solace

November 27, 2008
By

Overall Rating: C-
Filmmaking/Artistic: C-
MPAA Rating: PG-13

Overview

Daniel Craig as James Bond and Judi Dench as M succeed despite the pretty bad movie going on around them.  Herky-jerky editing makes even the action sequences almost unwatchable, and the plot is almost unintelligible, even for a Bond film.

Full Review

Your Movie Monkey was quite a fan of the first installment of the James Bond series starring Daniel Craig, Casino Royale.  In fact, he finds this current Bond actor to be the most, um, believable.  (OK, they are all completely unrealistic and quite un-believable, but Mr. Craig certainly is the most believable as the character.  Not quite as smarmy as Sean Connery (although Sean Connery was able to say the four-syllable word “Moneypenny” with three and a half syllables in a way that was quite distinctive, something like “MON-uh-PEN-uh”); not near as old as Roger Moore; not so Shakespearean as Timothy Dalton; and clearly more believable as an action star than the prim-but-amusing-and-likeable Pierce Brosnan.

When discussing the new Bond with various folks, you invariably get anyone over 50 saying something like “no one will ever be Bond except Connery” (with one noted exception from a colleague in my office who I believe is over 50 but who [rightly, IYMMHO] claims that Mr. Craig is the best).  However, Your Movie Monkey has found that younger folks have taken to this new, more detached Bond.  When recalling Casino Royale, most guys seem to say something like “great movie, liked the poker”.  Women, on the other hand, seem to have their eyes go slightly out of focus as they reminisce about a speedo-clad Bond walking around in the surf; luckily, only a few have actually drooled.

Read more »

Archives

Critics
Marvel's The Avengers93%
Dark Shadows42%
Think Like a Man51%
The Hunger Games84%
The Lucky One20%
The Five-Year Engagement63%
The Pirates! Band of Misfits86%
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel76%
Chimpanzee74%
Safe55%
Critic ratings from
Audience ratings from