Cole's Take On: WORLD WAR Z

Cole's Rating: ★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Marc Forster 
Year: 2013

Cast: Brad Pitt, James Badge Dale, Matthew Fox

Genre: Action/Drama/Horror

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        I’ve come to realize that whenever I watch any zombie flick—whether it be a movie or television show—that I’ve been spoiled by The Walking Dead. In fact, that may very well be my favorite show of all time (I have the poster hung up in my room). Based on my experiences, what I can say is this: fans of the show will be tremendously disappointed with this dud. As World War Z began, Brad Pitt’s character was established as a family figure, when the zombies began to flood the city like a tsunami with no warning whatsoever. The family then goes through a series of formulaic zombie-apocalypse actions which include robbing a convenience store (which beheld one of the movie’s greatest scenes), seeking refuge, and fightin’ some zombies. Pitt’s character gets recruited to do some of the government’s work to help the country’s effort; go figure.

        Money played two roles in the casting of Brad Pitt; they cast him for money (box office); and he did it for money. I mean he may as well have been a zombie; he had about as much soul as one. Here he gives an astonishingly passionless performance to an already underdeveloped character. It’s unfortunate, too, when he’s the only character you have to care about. I figured that I may as well appreciate the zombie sequences as much as possible, but when they aren’t as scary, or nearly well done, as scenes in The Walking Dead, I was utterly disappointed. So I’ll say this: you couldn’t pay me to care whether or not Pitt’s character lived, or what happened to him. And based on what I saw, it’s entirely deserving of that statement.

        What’s even worse than the deadening performance was the bland screenplay. I never knew a zombie movie could lack vitality like this one did. Everything that they were saying had already been said; everything that they were doing had already been done; and worst of all, both of those things weren’t incredibly exciting—even if they had already been done. This excludes, however, the heart-racing conclusion which contained the only 20 minutes of the movie that kept my attention. A critic from the Boston Herald titled his review on World War Z: “‘World War’ zzzzzz Brad Pitt’s movie is a snore”. Well put.

        I haven’t read the whole thing, but Max Brooks’ novel is a whole-heck-of-a-lot better than this snoozer. And from what I saw, the movie is hardly loyal. A scene I read in the book illustrates lesser-privileged people rioting against greater-privileged people in a battle for safety (shelter) from the zombie apocalypse. Now, I’m not exactly sure why the screenplay writers excluded this from the movie—or if they even read the book—but I guarantee that it could have brought some originality to the table, which is something that World War Z lacks. This goes without mentioning other incredible aspects of the novel. 

        To close, I’ll throw a few extra one-liner descriptions of the movie that I wrote down as I was watching it: 1. When the zombies aren’t on screen, not that they are impressive anyhow, the movie is as dry and bland as Pitt’s performance; I guess you have the screenplay to thank for that. 2. I know that a movie is good—or relatively good—if I can watch it, and forget that I’m watching it and become absorbed into the characters and what’s happening on screen; that didn’t happened once here. 3. Zombie-movie-lovers and fans of the book beware! World War Z is an upsetting disappointment!

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Click here for Jesse's take on World War Z

Jesse's Take On: WORLD WAR Z

Jesse's Rating: ★★★
Cole's Rating: ★★

Director: Marc Forster 
Year: 2013

Cast: Brad Pitt, James Badge Dale, Matthew Fox

Genre: Action/Drama/Horror

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Based on a novel by author Max Brooks and starring the venerable Brad Pitt (he's also a co-producer), World War Z is not your typical zombie movie. It doesn't have tongue and cheek humor like 2009's Zombieland, it's not overly depressing and dark like 2002's 28 Days Later, and doesn't involve a shopping mall (haha). My view on this definitive summer blockbuster is that it is a straight up thriller that takes place mostly in the daylight hours. It takes a much bigger approach on the military front and projects the conflict of events to cater to the whole planet (hence the title), not the confines of a town or village (Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead come to mind).

        Honestly, this might be the most realistic entry in the zombie genre that I can remember, and believe me, I've seen them all. If the happenings in this vehicle occurred in real life, I'm sure that this is how it would go down according to "Z's" make-up (with the exception of the actions pertaining to the Pitt character, I will get to that later). Directed with a nice big canvas and delivering some atomic scares with minimal gore (that might have to do with the PG-13 rating), World War Z is a solid, fierce exercise. However, it's part of a long list of films that have shades of greatness but don't quite make it across the finish line. There is a lack of a build up in the opening ten minutes which renders it less compelling (without hesitation, the zombies attack and you barely get to know the main characters). Then there is the ending which was rumored to have re-shoots. It's got that blatant Hollywood feel and once you see it, you'd think that the studio execs were solely responsible (I may be wrong in saying this, but I'm pretty sure director Marc Forster didn't have a say in the final cut). I will recommend what's on screen though because it does effectively what a lot of scary movies are unable to accomplish. For example, if you saw Jaws back in the day, you'd probably stay out of the water for a while. After seeing "WWZ," I didn't even want to venture out of the theater. I literally thought the undead were waiting for me. This sobering nail biter haunted me (it haunts me right now), and I believe that that's something only a good movie is able to pull off. Notice how I said a good movie, not a great movie. Let's just say that when World War Z isn't chaotic, it's deflating. You anxiously wait for the next fight between Pitt and the crazily possessed. Everything in between is as bland as tap water (it didn't need to be though).

        As the flick opens, we meet Gerry Lane (Pitt), a retired united nations investigator. In the opening scene, he's having breakfast with his wife and two children. Cut to downtown Philadelphia and Lane and his family are caught in rush hour traffic. Within seconds, a hoard of zombies storm down the road feasting on every human in sight. Lane, after observing how long it takes for someone to become a zombie after being bitten (12 seconds from what I remember), gets in his car and somehow is able to drive his family out of traffic and onto a back road. From then on, he gets a call from his U.N. superiors and boom, he's picked up on top of a building by helicopter and told that it's up him to save the world (he's not a doctor or a scientist but what the heck, it's a movie). Basically he has to travel across the globe to find the host (the first attacking agent) and decipher what measures can be taken for survival. He does all this while his family is safely left behind (an odd plot point, but it's not that big of a deal). 

        While watching "WWZ", I learned a couple of things that I initially did not know about the zombie world. For instance, they are drawn to noise. And I'm not just talking loud, Richter-scale stuff. Even the slightest clank or clutter sets them off. Also, they attack only healthy human beings. If you have a terminal disease and are near death, they run right past you. And make no mistake about it, these are the fastest zombies I've ever seen. They really snap to it by almost tackling each other to get to their human targets. If you've seen the trailer, you'll also notice that they climb on top of each other relentlessly to scale a wall. The whole image is hair-raising and disturbing, but brilliant at the same time. Honestly, it was hard at times to see exactly what was going on in a lot of scenes (think the look of the car chase from The Bourne Supremacy). But being that everything happening is so chaotic in these types of modern thrillers, the confusion can work because it's rooted in graphic realism.

        Then there is the Pitt performance which could be played by any professional actor. It doesn't require a whole lot, but I'm certain that the producers wanted a big name star attached to the project (solid box office returns is a plus). Pitt really plays it low key through the entire 2 hour running time. Usually, he's as animated as any actor you'll find. But in "Z", he lets his facial expressions do more of the talking (when he runs from the zombies though, it looks more like light jogging). With this approach, his character has plenty of screen presence to burn (he's looking like 1980's Robert Redford more and more each day, but what's up with the early 90's grunge getup?). The rest of the cast does an adequate job despite the limitations of the script. I'm not sure though if it was the theater I was in (sound might have been a little off), but a lot of the actors mumbled their lines from time to time. It was an observation that I hope was definitively wrong.

        In retrospect, there is a substantial amount of entertainment here. Flawed yet enigmatic and full of unbearable tension, World War Z is tailor-made for the summer moviegoer. It also answers two important questions: can this type of flick with a big name star like Pitt be effective? Sure, why not? And can a PG-13 horror fest with minimal gore and reduced violent imagery still scare and haunt you? You betcha. So to sum up this review, I'll say this: "Z" gets my recommendation. It's a serviceable thriller, and it gets a solid grade of a "B".

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Click here for Cole's take on World War Z

A Look at Alfred Hitchcock's Films in the 40's by Cole

Hitchcock's Films in the 40’s

Saboteur

★★★

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Year: 1942

Cast: Priscilla Lane, Robert Cummings, Otto Kruger

Genre: Action/Thriller

MPAA Rating: PG

        In 1942, Alfred Hitchcock (“The Master of Suspense”) arguably filmed his first masterpiece, Saboteur, taking place for a large part of the film, and for an iconic scene on the top of the Statue of Liberty, in New York City. It’s not Hitchcock’s best work, clearly, but it is very serviceable, and highly enjoyable, thanks in part to a great ensemble of supporting characters that provided the movie’s brightest spots of humor and dialogue.

        A man is framed for sabotage on an American military base, and before long, he is being chased by the police, all the while trying to figure out who actually did it. When he gets mixed up with a group of refugees, things start to get more intense and frightening. Hitchcock has shown us that he can devise a good plot line, cast well, and create the right situations, but like other of his works, this feels incredibly protracted in the second hour of its running time. It turns from a cunning, impossibly inevitable situation to a game of cat-and-mouse, and then ends unsettlingly abruptly. Nonetheless, it’s definitely watchable, especially when you consider its great scenery and sense of humor.

Shadow of A Doubt

★★

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Year: 1943

Cast: Teresa Wright, Joseph Cotten, Macdonald Carey

Genre: Thriller

MPAA Rating: Approved

        What did I miss here? That was my question after viewing Hitchcock’s “personal favorite” of all his films. I didn’t miss the acting, which was the movies greatest asset. But really, I was taken aback by the impressively large amount of time it took to unravel the extremely minimalistic plot line. Shadow of A Doubt is about a young girl (15, I think) who believes that her family is very bland and methodical. So when her super-cool Uncle Charlie shows up, she’s overjoyed, until she begins to expect that he might be a murderer thanks to newspaper clippings, the local police’s suspicions, and her own logic. Sounds pretty good, right? Maybe you’ll like it, if you can stay awake. Between unbelievable characters and countless wasted time, I missed why this should be considered a “masterpiece”. 

Rope

★★★

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Year: 1948

Cast: James Stewart, John Dall, Farley Granger

Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller

MPAA Rating: Approved

        When Alfred Hitchcock filmed Rope, he only did nine takes, and the film had a total of two cuts. The whole thing takes place in one room (aside from the opening credits) as it was based on a play. Alfred Hitchcock, along with a vast majority of viewers, considered Rope a failed experiment. In my mind, it’s as far from that as it could be; it’s a major discovery. Rope is the story of two homosexual (on that note, I found out that it was banned in several American cities because of that immaterial detail) prep-school young men who commit murder on their fellow pal because of inspiration from their former teacher who had a theory/concept that murder could be artistic if done right. For being filmed in 1948, this movie is so far ahead of its time that you may think that Hitchcock had his own little time travel device to travel forth in time to interrogate modern-day psychopaths. And when you watch this movie, you realize that a lot of the character’s basic mindsets aren’t so extraneous, which seems to be a problem with some movies filmed 50-70 years ago. I earlier mentioned that this film is a discovery; and no, I didn’t mean because it’s so old. I meant it’s a discovery that movies don’t require staggering visual effects or inessential crude humor to be enjoyable. It can be entirely dialogue driven, shot in one room, and be 65 years old to be great. That’s exactly what Rope is.

-All Reviews Written by Cole Pollyea

Two Takes on MEAN STREETS

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Martin Scorsese
Year: 1973

Cast: Robert De Niro, Harvey Keitel, Amy Robinson

Genre: Crime/Drama
MPAA Rating: R

Cole's Take: “Ey! Ey! I payed you last Tuesday!”, proclaimed Robert De Niro in his 1973 role that put himself, along with Martin Scorsese, on the map in the film industry. What’s so great about Mean Streets is how personable it all is, and maybe that’s why it’s arguably Scorsese’s best work. The film digs into what he might have experienced while growing up in New York’s Little Italy, which makes it his most delicate movie of all time.

        Characters and dialogue, that’s what Mean Streets is all about. Not too much happens, and it doesn’t rate much as far as entertainment goes, but that’s alright because of how genuine the characters/performances are. Everything is very rawly shot, so it seems as if Martin Scorsese creates a semi-autobiographical reality, then has the camera spy on them in their everyday lives. You witness bar fights that are so sloppy and un-choreographed that you feel as if you’re watching the real thing; you witness low-lives fighting each other over a few bucks; you witness Charlie (played by Harvey Keitel, who gives one of his best performances) deciding between caring for the irresponsible, immature Johnny Boy (played by De Niro who never misses a beat), and working his way up in the small-time mob. You witness these things because you aren’t watching them, you’re living them along with Scorsese. He creates such well-crafted characters that you love and want to care for yourself, and then invents a harrowingly upsetting, yet realistic and highly effective conclusion that leaves the characters walking around with you after the credits role. What he does here is something that every filmmaker yearns to do, and that is make an authentic (and artistic) movie, that is echoed in every single movie by the same director that follows. Seeing as it was one of the first movies to put rock-and-roll into its soundtrack so effectively, there’s much more of that to come (seen in The Departed), as there is shocking cuts that happen from scene to scene (seen very often in The Color of Money), as there is De Niro performing like the cinematic equivalency of a “raging bull” (seen in, well, Raging Bull). I could go on and on. 

        To conclude, I’d say that while Mean Streets isn’t his best work, it’s still an incredible watch if you’re a patient and loving person. It’s not a typical Scorsese movie; it’s the original.

Jesse's Take: Mean Streets is Martin Scorsese's first real foray into his bravado directorial style for years to come. This film is a very personal, very insightful look at what he might of went through as a young man growing up in New York City's seedy district of Little Italy. There's a moderate mob element to the proceedings and an intense character study of Harvey Keitel's Charlie, a man who has to choose between looking out for his troubled friend Johnny Boy (Robert De Niro who's performance is the brilliant equivalent of a charging rhino) and moving up the chain of small time New York Mafia. Mean Streets is raw, somewhat improvised, and carries the feeling that the world's greatest living director saw the future of cinema years ahead of everybody else. The ending (which I could never reveal) is gut wrenching in ways that I can't describe.

        One of the best aspects you could pull from this pioneering indie (it sure feels like independent filmmaking) is that the all the characters make an impression on you. They stay with you long after the credits roll. To add to that, everything Scorsese made after Mean Streets goes back to Mean Streets. It's the blueprint for pretty much his whole body of work. During the first half of the film, Keitel utters the line, "twenty dollars, let's go to da movies!" Yeah, if you go to the movies, make it Mean Streets. It's a keeper.

Two Takes on THE INTERNSHIP

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Shawn Levy

Year: 2013

Cast: Vince Vaughn, Owen Wilson, Rose Byrne

Genre: Comedy

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Cole's Take:

        What’s disappointing in modern day cinema is when a film has an incredible opportunity with the brilliant ideas that the script offers, and when the same film is diluted with what dilutes a large amount of movies nowadays: happy endings, unnecessary crude humor, and sentimentality. The Internship has all that and more, which for me, makes it the biggest letdown so far this year.

        It purports Owen Wilson (who delivers in all of his performances including this) and Vince Vaughn as two old saps who lose their jobs in the sales industry because what they are selling becomes obsolete due to technology. They then desperately attempt to find jobs, and somehow wind up at with an internship at Google, which may very well be the movie’s most ironic element because it didn’t play its cards right. Vaughn’s character is shown sitting at his computer, drinking beer, and typing in “sales jobs for people with few skills”. Next thing you know, he types in Google (because apparently he couldn’t find anything interesting in the previous search results), invents fake college certificates, holds a interview, and boom! The result is an internship at Google which may lead to a job. Forget about the fact that they are 40 years old and have no technological abilities. Seems too good to be true, right? It clearly doesn’t take itself seriously; so why should we? Instead of using this great concept to its advantage, it throws it aside, and substitutes it with the mentioned gag humor and stupid scenes. Not to mention the astounding number of cameos that literally make you say out-loud, “What the heck?”. The only thing missing here is Adam Sandler.

        But as all Vaughn movies do, it had its moments. And again, as all Vaughn movies do, it was really funny for a while, until it, inevitably, started to become sappy; it was also riddled with the most cliche characters you can think of. To our misfortune (because it defies reality) it ends happily, tying all loose ends with double nots, might I add, which makes this another swing-and-miss for him. Just add this one to the list! One of his films that is not on it is The Break-Up (go figure, it doesn’t end happily). Near the end of the movie, Vaughn claims “Not to get too sentimental.” Gimme’ a break, Vaughn!

        I recommend it as a viewer, not critic. It’s a shame that I can’t recommend it as both, but that’s just how so many movies are nowadays. They’re deceptive, and unconditionally enjoyable. They wear a mask, and demand you to like them. The Internship masks what could actually have made it better: its concept of two old men trying (fighting, even) to keep up with modern day society and the technological advances that open up so many jobs and futures (a term dealt with heavily in this movie, which was something I appreciated). It’s certainly not a bad watch, but it could’ve, and should’ve, been a lot better.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Take:

        Slated as an early June release, The Internship tells the story of two guys (wrist watch salesmen I'm thinking) who lose their jobs to the unfortunate medium of technology and decide to travel to California. Their objective: Get jobs at Google and start a new life. The two best friends (Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson as Billy and Nick respectively) are much older than all the interns at the Google factory and feel out of place at first. But they inject a sort of teamwork aspect that their "Big Brother" team somewhat lacks. This sets off a chain of events and brings everybody closer to their goal of getting full time jobs at what Billy states is "the best job in America".

        So after viewing The Watch (unnecessarily rated R junk) and The Dilemma (a dark and restless vehicle trying to pass off as comedy), I was a little skeptical about going to see the latest quote unquote "Vince Vaughn movie". I've been critical of this guy in the past because he relentlessly gives the same performance over and over (it started with Old School and he hasn't looked back since). As a result, I'd be lying if I said I had high expectations venturing into the theater to see The Internship. But wouldn't you know it, this film surprised me. It is a refreshing, lightweight comedy that piles on good, solid, palatable laughs. It's got a lot of characters in it that win you over. And it's got Owen Wilson on board to compliment his best bud Vaughn. Because of this, Vaughn automatically becomes a much more likable actor this time around. The two of them echo back to their Wedding Crashers days by basically playing the same characters (it's like they're always on a mission), having sort of similar adventures (Owen's gets to be smooth with the ladies again), and making all of us laugh wholeheartedly.

        But let's be honest, The Internship is no masterpiece. Much of what happens in it does not permeate to real life (there's maybe a 10% chance these guys would be hired at this particular organization full of genius code breakers). This flick feels more like a fantasy than a dose of surmised reality (the term "it's only a movie" applies here like you wouldn't believe). Overall though, this motion picture just wants to have fun. It tells a good story (not a true one mind you), has an outrageous Will Ferrell cameo, and caters to the whole Vaughn/Wilson chemistry thing. And although The Internship strives to be great but comes up a little short, that's okay because it defines the word "harmless." It also has a breeziness to it that's contagious. With the exception of a little too much improvisation from the cast (they talk real fast like they're in old 50's movies), what's on screen still gets my recommendation. Reason being is that it sets a gold standard for a PG-13 laugh fast. It does this by teetering on the brink of R rated movie fare while thankfully not going over the edge. It's a welcome surprise when you can giggle and snarl in the theater without the abundance of cuss words.

        With the summer movie season in full swing, The Internship doesn't quite fit the mold of a huge bloated blockbuster like we see every year (yes, I'm talking about Transformers). But for what it's worth I enjoyed myself for two straight hours. It's not easy to make a film where everything comes together perfectly (you know script, direction, editing, music, etc.). So to sum up my review, I'd say yes, this film has many flaws, but for laughable escapist entertainment, it undoubtedly does the trick.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

MONSTERS UNIVERSITY (Published in July's FAMILY Magazine ~ Distributed in Michiana)

Cole’s Rating: ★★★
Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Dan Scanlon

Year: 2013

Cast: Billy Crystal, John Goodman

Genre: Animation/Adventure/Comedy

MPAA Rating: G

        When you watch the trailer for Pixar’s MONSTERS UNIVERSITY, you witness two things: an offer to view one of the most clever approaches at a children’s movie in a dozen years (since MONSTERS INC.), and the film’s brightest spots of humor. What was effortless in the former (good humor) is harder for the latter to produce because a vast majority of it takes a much more heavy-handed route of storytelling... But storytelling it does; it tells the story of Mike Wazowksi and James P. Sullivan’s ragtag adventures while attempting to become a “Scarer” in the school they enlisted in, Monsters University. One of the greatest things about MONSTERS UNIVERSITY is how swiftly the story moves along, and how you learn to fall in love with the characters you already knew as it progresses, and as you learn more about the monsters’ origin in 2013’s best kid’s movie to date.

        Now, I loved MONSTERS INC. In fact, that’s probably one of my favorite children’s movies of all time. When I saw that they were making a prequel, I knew it wasn’t going to be as good as the original because of the loss of the little girl Boo that motivated the characters’ actions. It takes out the sentimentality that I cherished so much about the first one; and I’m a sucker for kids, so that’s where this falls short for me. But when you’re watching it, understand that it’s there to tell its own story, do its own thing, and entertain, despite the fact that it requires comparison to its predecessor.

        MONSTERS UNIVERSITY is for everyone in the family. The last recent children’s movie I saw, EPIC, was intended more for kids as it focused more on its visual aspect and entertainment value than anything else. But with this, parents will find themselves reliving their college experiences (whether or not they were majoring in “Scare”) thanks to the incredible production design and well crafted social situations among the monsters (who seem eerily human here). If you’re wondering if it is worth your time, that’s up to you. If you see it as dropping five to seven bucks per person on a movie that only lasts an hour and a half, I’d stay away. But if you’d like to invest your money in a great moviegoing experience by buying tickets to MONSTERS UNIVERSITY, I can’t advise you otherwise. I guarantee that you won’t regret it.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: If you made an animated version of the recent release The Internship and sprinkled it with an edited for content addition of 1984's Revenge of the Nerds, Monsters University is what you'd get. It's a fun, briskly paced cartoon adventure that brings more kid humor to the table than adult humor. That's okay because the adults that take their kids to see it will still laugh and have a good time regardless (after all, it is rated G). I have to admit, this is a sufficient prequel that actually surpasses the original (Monsters Inc.).You get to know all the characters (Mike Wazowski, James Sullivan, Randall Boggs) and get insight into how they came together or met at where else, college. It's clever and though I've never been a huge fan of animated films, Monsters University surprised me. This flick gets things right pretty much the whole time until the ending which is sort of a cop-out. I won't reveal what happens but if I was behind the camera, I'd change it up a bit. Anyways, I will say this, if you want to take in an animated film that tells a straight story and moderately entertains, Monsters University will satisfy. It's "scary" good! 

BLUE STEEL

Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Kathryn Bigelow

Year: 1989

Cast: Jamie Lee Curtis, Ron Silver, Clancy Brown
Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller

MPAA Rating: R

        I've always been a big fan of director Kathryn Bigelow. Her career has expanded to about 20 years plus. Although her style has changed over time, she has only made a handful of films. This woman directs in clumps with Blue Steel (the picture I am reviewing), being part of the Point Break/Strange Days/Near Dark era (roughly 1985-1995). Now, in present day, she's making solid war movies like Zero Dark Thirty, The Hurt Locker, and K19: The Widowmaker. There's always a radical mix of unbearable tension and a visceral violent nature that seems to accompany most of her work. And that's never been more evident than with Blue Steel, a glossy crime thriller that hit theaters with a thud back in 1989. This exercise is effective in how it's about, not what's it's about. Bigelow's direction is confident and she stages gunfights and shoot outs with total aplomb (I get a kick out of the way she loves to film close ups of 44 magnums being loaded bullet by bullet). Seeing that this film came out a couple of years before Point Break, you can definitely tell the similarities. However, where Point Break got away with it's premise based on pure luck, Blue Steel starts out solid and capable, only to dissipate into bogged down action scenes that are predictably tired. What's worse, the villain in this flick is laughable and hammy (oink! oink!) to the point where you have to tell him that's it's only a movie and he should not try so darn hard. There's also the fact that "Steel" feels like a total vanity project for star Jamie Lee Curtis (I honestly don't think this was intentional). What happens in the 102 minute running time is purported on reminding us, the audience, that's she's a female cop. I say, "What's wrong with a woman being a police officer?" Anyway, there's definitely a few things that drive me batty about Blue Steel (I also found it rather strange that Oliver Stone was credited as a producer). One of them is the half baked script. It's got a few juicy lines here and there, but the whole thing feels like a hack job.The other is that the fact that we, as the audience, are supposed to fear a puny Wall Street broker (the late actor Ron Silver) who hears voices in his head and looks like someone who got picked on in school when he was much younger. As the antagonist, he failed miserably. The only problem was that the casting director thought otherwise.

        Here's the gist of Blue Steel. It's about Megan Turner (Jamie Lee Curtis), a rookie in the NYPD who within a day on the job, guns down a ruthless lowlife (Tom Sizemore in his first role. Later on, he became a regular in Bigelow's next couple of films). who is trying to rob a supermarket. When she shoots and kills the robber, he drops his revolver and it is picked up by one of the civilians laying on the ground (Ron Silver as Eugene Hunt). Eugene Hunt, a New York Stock broker, gets off the floor, takes the gun, escapes from the crime scene, and goes on his own criminal, killing spree offing several random people (everyone from a call girl to a friendly, elderly man just walking down the street). Turner's objective upon hearing of this situation is to find out who stole the gun (she doesn't know initially) and arrest this person before more people lose their lives. This is all done with the help of Nick Mann (played by Clancy Brown who for a change, gets to play one of the good guys), a fellow homicide cop who is assigned to the case. Ultimately, you don't get a clear idea of why this Hunt person becomes a psychopath. And the minute he's more and more out there, the movie kind of flies off the handles. With Blue Steel, there are far too many unanswered questions and they seem to present themselves when they rear their ugly head about an hour in.

        For instance, I don't get why Silver's character would go after Curtis at the end even though he has let her live throughout the proceedings and shot and/or killed everybody else. Then there is the awkward love scene (about 20 minutes before the closing credits) between Turner (Curtis) and interim partner Mann (Brown) while Hunt is on the loose (it seemed like they came off more as brother and sister, not romantic interests). And what's the deal with the opening sequence in which Curtis is being tested in the field for cop duty? She's fails miserably, but cut to the next scene or two, and there she is, graduating from the police academy with flying colors. Finally, we get our fearless leader (Turner) being promoted to detective after a serious suspension from her job as just an arresting officer (the film gives us a reason but it feels filtered into the script in order to move the plot along). Yes, overall the nature of events in "Steel" started to get silly. I was no longer absorbing what was on screen. Basically I just made up my mind that nothing could save this mess. But I pressed on, hoping the ending could somehow make things more palatable. Sometimes I'm right, this was not the case. There was a bright spot, however, amidst the muck. Look for Richard Jenkins in an interesting supporting role as Hunt's criminal defense attorney. He gives lawyers a bad name and then some.

        All in all, Blue Steel's flaws are visible throughout (especially toward the last quarter). But you could still see even back in '89 that Kathryn Bigelow was bound for insurmountable success. She's now an A-list director with lots of talent to burn. In the end, what we have with "Steel" is a vehicle with a great look/feel (Tony Scott (TrueRomance) meets Walter Hill (48 hours)), a solid opening hour, and an effective sense of style for action/suspense (very small doses of substance though, especially during the flashback cuts which are well done). The story however, is the culprit. And the script, well it caters to the most simplistic of moviegoers. So to end this review, I'll say this: See Blue Steel for Bigelow's shooting style and nothing more because if you tell yourself that this is a worthy cinematic entry, your mind will be far from a "steel" trap.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Jesse's Take On: MAN OF STEEL

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Zack Snyder

Year: 2013

Cast: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Russell Crowe, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner

Genre: Action/Adventure/Fantasy

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        For the record, I have only seen one of director Zach Snyder's previous films being 2004's Dawn of the Dead. That vehicle was a very small sample size compared to what I witnessed at a screening for his much anticipated Superman reboot Man of Steel. Within two and a half exhausting hours, I realized that this man is truly a visionary filmmaker. Snyder shoots action scenes like no other director I've ever seen (a lot of long shots and extreme long shots). There's a relentless sort of exuberant energy that comes with every frame. He throws a lot at you until you just can't take it anymore. Okay, let's lay it all out on the line, there's enough suspenseful battles/fistfights/shoot-em'-ups in Man of Steel to fill 7-8 movies (I'm not kidding). They are well done and totally eye popping. But this flick is a classic case of a cinematic exercise "living by the sword and dying by the sword". That means Man of Steel's strength is also its weakness. The last 45 minutes consists of carnage and destruction that you have to see to believe. There's an attempt of movie sabotage going on here which does two things: it bogs down the third act (story loses focus) and makes you, the moviegoer, feel like you're watching Transformers all over again (the part that hurts the most is that once the action heightens, the caliber of acting goes downhill and the characters become less dynamic). Now based on my rating, it's apparent that I will recommend this movie. But I am disappointed in the fact that it could have been so much better. The first half is incredibly compelling and invigorating (a possible Best Picture nominee). The second half, well, what can I say? It's a big explosion fest that would fuel the psyche of your typical action junkie. To conclude the first paragraph of this review, I will say this: Yes, Man of Steel is a "popcorn flick". In fact, towards the end, it's popcorn with a pound of butter and plenty of fine, iodized salt.

        Now if you've seen the first two Superman films (Superman (1978) and Superman II (1981)), or you have a love for comics, the story should be very familiar to you (Jor-El predicts that Krypton is going to be destroyed so he sends his son Kal-El to earth where his identity remains unknown. As time marches on, Kal-El realizes who he really is and identifies his possession of superhuman powers. This propels him to maintain and take care of our planet). Man of Steel stays somewhat faithful to the past Superman entries, but at the same time, there is a whole new take on the proceedings. This film has the distinction of being a remake with plot elements of not one, but the combo of both flicks from 78' and 81' (General Zod is a more pivotal character this time around and Lex Luther is non-existent). And let it be known, this is a much, much, darker adaptation. It's more military in nature and the whimsical love story between Clark Kent and Lois Lane is sorely left out. Now, a lot of critics have found the seriousness and darkness of this entry off putting. Thankfully, I have no problem with it. Snyder's new vision is realized and assured. And there's a kind of anti-hero vibe to Man of Steel that makes it surprisingly moving (maybe it's keeping with today's mindset, I can't be sure).

        The cast is mostly all aces. All the actors/actress that show up and contribute, probably could each helm their own movie (Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Amy Adams). Almost everyone on screen delivers, but it's Costner (Jonathan Kent) who's stands out. His performance in a somewhat small role as Kal El's adopted father is quietly powerful (there's a scene with destruction by tornadoes that will give you goosebumps). And then there is Russell Crowe as Jor-El. Listen, nobody is cooler than Crowe. He even fights a little (Gladiator style at the beginning). But his performance doesn't quite match the intensity of Marlon Brando's stint from 78' (I think it was Marlon's voice alone that kind of sealed the deal). As for the lead of Superman, Henry Cavill does a fine job despite what you might have heard. He's no Christopher Reeve (it's impossible to equal Reeve's charm and charisma) but he looks the part perfectly, has a solid screen presence, and caters to the physical demands of the role. He's a little wooden at times, but with the next installment (you know it's gonna happen), I think his acting will probably get better and better. Just a hunch. That leaves the one weak spot in casting which would be Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Now I still think she's a solid actress but her minutes on screen lack a little depth. When Margot Kidder played the part in the original, she did more "reacting" than acting and it made her performance more natural, not to mention more human. Adams is no doubt a movie star, but when I saw her in Man of Steel, I just thought, that's Amy Adams (this tends to happen with a lot of big name stars).

        In conclusion, I found Man of Steel to be a solid entry in the retelling of the Superman franchise. There's shades of greatness that mostly show up early on. Honestly, if this flick had eyes, you'd see in them, a yearning early on, to become a cinematic masterpiece. Sadly, because of the plot going on autopilot late in the proceedings, things don't quite work out that way. But come on, it's going to make a ton of money and there's sure to be a sequel. How do I know? Well, you can painfully tell that the filmmakers do an obvious job of shoving that notion right down your throat. This is done at the very end and I've never seen a film try harder to announce a sequel than this one does. But hey, no worries. You'll probably enjoy the feverishness and relentless swagger that is Man of Steel.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Click here for Cole's written review of Man of Steel

Click HERE to watch the video on YouTube

Follow by Email

Attention moviegoers, specifically those interested in getting email updates from our blog, we have been experiencing some technical difficulties lately with our email subscriptions. However, the issues have just been resolved, and all should be back to normal. The only exception is that you will have to enter your email once more, to ensure that you will receive the reviews via email. Thanks for your time, and sorry for the inconvenience.

STEP BROTHERS

Darius' Rating: ★

Director: Adam McKay

Year: 2008

Cast: Will Ferrell, John C. Reilly

Genre: Comedy

MPAA Rating: R

        Will Ferrell was best on SNL.

        Will Ferrell was a crack up on the show Saturday Night Live. He held up being funny for 5 minutes very well, so well that he made his costars laugh on the stage ON AIR. THAT takes massive talent to do.Then, he branched out from SNL to make movies.

        They were OK.

        He obviously had trouble being funny for over 90 minutes, and the world knew skits were his niche. Most didn't want to see Elf or Ron Burgundy, they wanted to see The Blue Oyster Cult and the Chess Cheerleader. Despite loosing his charm, his movies still turned out OK, and had some nice laughs, for the most part. His silly and often vulgar humour still drew laughs from me occasionally. Although not on his top form, Will Ferrel was still pretty funny.

        Then, they began to get stupid.

        After Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy came out, he released 2 movies, Semi Pro and Blades of Glory, that were just weird and too vulgar. You felt dirty watching them. The laughs for Will Ferrel's movies were wearing thin, his shtick became increasingly predictable and boring, and only teenage kids seemed to find any humour in them. He was rapidly losing the adult and kids market, with dumb R rated comedies children couldn't see and adults didn't really want to see. People liked his 3 previous PG and PG-13 comedies better, and wanted the old Will back.

        Then Step-Brothers came out.

        R.I.P. Will Ferrell.

        This movie is crass, juvenile, and just plain old painful to watch. The story centers around Brennan (Ferrell) and Dale (John .C. Reilly), as they turn into Step Brothers when their parents marry. Even though they hate each other at first, they soon begin to grow fond of each other, and ultimately become buddies. However, their parents are tired of their childish and sexually disturbing antics and force them to get jobs and move on with their lives. Even though that doesn't sound that bad, it is: jokes revolve around licking dog feces, going into uncomfortable detail about their genitalia and sexual fetishes, Richard Jenkins making John C. Reilly and Will Ferrel cry, Ferrel sexually harassing his Therapist, Will Ferrel's maternal brother laughing at his OWN brother's tears, Will Ferrell taking out his testicles, prolonged farts that people taste, and many more disturbing and entirely inappropriate happenings. THAT BAD, PEOPLE. THAT BAD! One thing I can say is that the one liners, as usual with Will Ferrell, are funny. But they hardly make up for all the disgusting things that go on. If you're into it, then fine, but I simply HATED it.

        I have also caught wind of a developing sequel approaching. I read about the plot, and do you want to know what I think?

        It doesn't look half bad.

        In the description, Ferrell said the Brothers would be more grown up and mature. GOOD! He also claimed they almost revert back to their old selves. AN ACTUAL GOOD PLOT! It would be plain old fun and interesting to see these to battle their demons, and I'm looking forward to see if its any better. But for now, Step Brothers sucks. And, if you have time, check out SNL: The Best of Will Ferrell. I would choose Gene Frenkel over Brennan Huff any day.

-Written by Darius Sohrab

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING WOMAN

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: Joel Schumacher 

Year: 1981

Cast: Lily Tomlin, Charles Grodin, Ned Beatty

Genre: Sci-Fi/Comedy/Fantasy

MPAA Rating: PG

        After two obscure T.V. movies, Joel Schumacher decided to helm this torrid misfire as his first feature film. The Incredible Shrinking Woman is a collision of dark, dramatic science fiction undercut with felonious comedic overtones (the font of the opening titles might have been used later on in the flick Wargames). You watch in disbelief as scenes that are suppose to be funny, actually make you queasy. To this day, Schumacher continues to be a director and I'm okay with that. After The Incredible Shrinking Woman, you'll notice that he stayed away from making comedies (unless you count Batman and Robin as comedic, just kidding). Entertaining in spots and sometimes loaded with fanatical wit, this moderately successful release from 1981 was something I viewed as a kid (religiously on cable of course). Fast forward 25 years later, and I realize that I am a much different person now than I was back then (of course, right?). This is one of those flicks in which you take a closer look at what's on screen and find yourself feeling criminal, like you need to be arrested for viewing something so misguided and ultimately, so out of whack. Everyone in the cast seems to be obsessed with wearing bright colors (from what I saw, I'd say pinks, oranges, light reds and yellows), the movie sledgehammers the art of consumerism (could there be a connection? Maybe), and its main character/subsequent hero (Lily Tomlin as Pat Kramer) is so frowned upon, so belittled, that you don't root for her, you just feel sorry for her. Once more, I couldn't figure out why so many great actors/actresses decided to sign on for this thing. One of them was in Rosemary's Baby, one was in Deliverance, and three of them were in Nashville (all movies with a slew of Oscar nominations). I guess even famous, rich movie stars sometimes fall behind in their mansion payments.

        Projecting itself as either a fantasy or possibly a movie that takes place in a dreamlike state (the bright hazy look from cinematographer Bruce Logan might suggests this), The Incredible Shrinking Woman is about suburban housewife Pat Kramer (Tomlin) who's life seems pretty happy. She has lot of friends, a great husband (Charles Grodin, likable as ever), and two cute children (keep in mind these misfits don't really have any lines in the movie, they improvise by giving new meaning to the phrase, "kids say and do the darndest things."). About ten or so minutes into the film, Vance Kramer (Grodin, who's character has a job in advertising) by accident, spills some experimental perfume on his wife and within minutes, she begins the shrinking process. Within a day or so, she goes from 5'7" to 5'5", within a week she's looking over the steering wheel to drive, and within a month, well you get the point. Over time, word gets out and Kramer becomes famous, so famous in fact that a couple of mad scientists (Henry Gibson and Elizabeth Wilson) want to kidnap her, get blood from her, and use it to shrink the rest of the world (I don't get why anyone would want to do that, honestly what would anyone gain from it?).

        

        With special effects that clearly needed to be redone (when Tomlin shrinks down to nothing, everything that appears around her looks bigger and ultimately looks fake, especially food that mistakenly gets dumped on her) and villains that act like they're disconnected from the rest of the cast, there are flaws that run rampant in this exercise. But as I noted in the first paragraph, the movie's ultimate demise for me, has to do with the screenwriter getting the viewer completely involved with the dark storyline and then shifting gears to lighten things up. This is done by the use of forced laughter. It simply doesn't work because we're talking about a woman dwindling down to nothing, being forced to live in a doll house, accidentally falling down a garbage disposal (almost dying, I might add), and being locked in a hamster cage for scientific experiments. What's really strange is that the secretive, scientific lab where she is hidden/kidnapped is right next door to her neighborhood shopping center. What the...? This is not supposed to be funny, and if it is, I must have missed the boat entirely. It certainly doesn't help that Tomlin is also doing the narration throughout the proceedings. Her tone, and the background music that accompanies it, just seems eerie and not fit for what was advertised as a so called comedy. On the other end of the spectrum, and in an almost unnecessary way, there are a couple of scenes in this exercise where melodic human behavior is taken to the extreme (I feel only Chevy Chase does this effectively). It's as if the filmmakers wanted to wring the neck of the moviegoer by taking an uncomfortable situation as far as it will go. I figured it was supposed to be funny but I wasn't completely sure. The camera kept rolling and I begged Mr. Schumaker to yell cut! You'll see what I mean when you witness a confrontation in Tomlin's car with her incredibly annoying children, a mishap with a potent form of crazy glue (it's called "galaxy glue" in the film), and a cringe worthy encounter between Tomlin's ever shrinking character and robotic toys (what nonsense).  

        But let's be fair, the performances aren't all that bad, the storytelling is adequate, and monster special effects guy Rick Baker is entertaining as Sidney the ape. There is also an appearance by Kramer on The Mike Douglas Show in which she is less than a foot tall. The Kramer character is now famous and although a little silly, this sequence as a whole feels stronger and more genuine than everything else in the barely 90 minutes of running time. Still, I can't give this film a positive review because I would have no argument to suggests anything otherwise. I'm not sure if it was intentional, but Lily Tomlin literally gets put through the wringer in more ways than one. She plays four characters in The Incredible Shrinking Woman (the other three are fairly irrelevant) and the one that matters is made to look inferior. It's a shame because I can't get it out of my head that this film could have have been decent. For starters, it seems like a solid pitch for a Hollywood executive to listen to. I'm not kidding. The only problem is this, I think this script might have looked good only on paper. Nevertheless, it's safe to say that things totally went south when the cameras started rolling. The Incredible Shrinking Woman, I'm sad to say, is "the incredibly sinking ship" when it comes to cinematic equivalency.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

See You Friday

        Hello there, fellow moviegoers. I'm going on vacation (it's summer, what are you gonna do?), so I'll be back on Friday, the 14th. I know it's not too long of a vacation, but that's why you won't be seeing any movie blog action until then. In the meantime, enjoy the latest video reviews, and I have an assignment. Those ardent fans of the blog, I ask that you comment (seriously, blow it up) on this post, leaving your name and a list of your favorite summertime movies (everybody has 'em, but they have to be themed). I'll give you a few of mine right now:

Surf's Up

The Goonies

50 First Dates

Ferris Bueller's Day Off

Disturbia

Open Water

        Now that you know a little bit about me, I'd like to know a little about you (I'm feeling inspired by my recent viewing of Pump Up the Volume). I highly encourage you to leave your thoughts... 'Til next time, happy moviegoing!

- Cole's Collective Critiques on Film