Recently some of my more faithful blog readers have advised me that I need to review more of the “classics.” Well to acquiesce, I recently watched the 1982 favorite of many, Tootsie starring Dustin Hoffman and Bill Murray. Many consider this one of the defining roles of Hoffman’s then somewhat young career. The premise of the movie is that Hoffman dons blouse and heels in an attempt to pull his way out of unemployment (did I just hear a plan for ending the recession?) as an actress. Even though the plot was did not supremely pique my interest, I felt it my duty to see such a popular film.
First of all I am hesitant to categorize this film. As strange as it may sound, I feel that the genre that it may best fit under would be romantic comedy, which brings me to my first problem with the film. Call me immature or simple, but some of the strange relationship dynamics kind of weirded me out. The fact that a man dressed as a woman had a crush on a female whose dad tries to propose to said woman while yet another male costar tries to make a move on the man dressed as a woman who is trying to hold a friendship with another woman together who thinks that there is more than just friendship after the two spent the night together from when he was a man didn’t sit well with me. While even though in one scene they are trying to recap the whole scenario and it seems quite comical, as for driving the plot, certain points become a little awkward.
Don’t get me wrong, Dustin Hoffman is great. His female portrayal is very convincing and not nearly as frightening as John Travolta’s in Harispray. Another part that I got hung up on was the differentiation between Dorothy Michaels (Hoffman’s character as a female) and Emily Kimberly (her character on the soap opera). When Hoffman is trying to land the role he make a commotion in an attempt to grab the director’s attention. The director, seeing through his ploy, asks if it was authentic or if it was an attempt to audition. This exemplifies how I felt about the Michaels-Kimberly relationship. They were one in the same person. The woman Hoffman acted as of screen seemed to be the same he tried to be off screen. Had the two had much different personalities, I would have even been more impressed with Hoffman’s performance.
I don’t want to be all down on this movie. I was still amused and entertained. One of my favorite aspects was Bill Murray’s character as Hoffman’s roommate. He supplied a couple of great lines that recognize how strange some of the situations are in actuality. Hoffman should be applauded for his performance and insofar as his performance goes I can understand (don’t necessarily agree, but understand) why people deem this a classic. Because of the movie in its entirety, I would just say that it is an average movie with some impressive acting.
2.5 stars out of 5.
Again, sorry for the lack of recent posts. I promise the new website is close! Please e-mail us with your suggests and ideas for our new home! Thanks for being a loyal reader during our time of growth.
Out on The Town
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Sorry for the absence of reviews. Big things are coming from Joe Claw and I, and we have been spending our time working on our new website (she’s close to up and running!).
What are two guys to do when their lady friends are out of town? You guessed it, go on a mid-week movie date. For our MANdate, Joe and I saw the new Ben Affleck film, The Town. Set in a town on the outskirts of Boston, the movie follows a group of blue collar bank robbers on their criminal expeditions.
The movie opens with a bang as the foursome, clad in Skeletor masks, hit a bank in Boston. The team has the heist down to a science and the efficiency with which they work is an intriguing element of the movie. As they “work” it becomes apparent that they are not violent in their burglaries, presumably an attempt at encouraging the viewers to root for the convicts. The first major conflict between the groups leaders Doug MacRay (Affleck) and James Coughlin (Jeremy Renner) further drives this home as their opinions differ on the extent to which violence should be employed. It also exalts Affleck as the film’s protagonist.
Affleck’s character has a depth that drives much of the plot (and he is absolutely shredded, ladies, shield your eyes). His bond with Coughlin and his good heart serve to endear him to the viewer. Like most films in this genre, the plot focuses on the attempt to stay one step ahead as the FBI close in on our criminals. However, as aforementioned, the development of Affleck’s character differentiates this film. His character’s inner struggle stems from the conflict between a desire for a new life and the feeling of being shackled to the life that has been given to him as a result of his upbringing and circumstances out of his control (real Freudian for you psychology nuts). An interesting scene at some type of self-help group meeting may be overlooked, but it brings some of this struggle to the forefront. The discussion at the meeting raises some interesting religious/moral questions and seems to be a catalyst for Doug’s desire for reformation.
As the film is written, directed, produced, and starred in by Affleck, it is no surprise that his character plays such an integral role. But he skillfully carries the plot in such a way that it is not a case of shining the spotlight on himself just for the sake of it. The Town is an ok story that becomes a good movie because of great character development. I don’t want to get to crazy (remember Gigli was atrocious) but Ben may have put himself back on the map.
What are two guys to do when their lady friends are out of town? You guessed it, go on a mid-week movie date. For our MANdate, Joe and I saw the new Ben Affleck film, The Town. Set in a town on the outskirts of Boston, the movie follows a group of blue collar bank robbers on their criminal expeditions.
The movie opens with a bang as the foursome, clad in Skeletor masks, hit a bank in Boston. The team has the heist down to a science and the efficiency with which they work is an intriguing element of the movie. As they “work” it becomes apparent that they are not violent in their burglaries, presumably an attempt at encouraging the viewers to root for the convicts. The first major conflict between the groups leaders Doug MacRay (Affleck) and James Coughlin (Jeremy Renner) further drives this home as their opinions differ on the extent to which violence should be employed. It also exalts Affleck as the film’s protagonist.
Affleck’s character has a depth that drives much of the plot (and he is absolutely shredded, ladies, shield your eyes). His bond with Coughlin and his good heart serve to endear him to the viewer. Like most films in this genre, the plot focuses on the attempt to stay one step ahead as the FBI close in on our criminals. However, as aforementioned, the development of Affleck’s character differentiates this film. His character’s inner struggle stems from the conflict between a desire for a new life and the feeling of being shackled to the life that has been given to him as a result of his upbringing and circumstances out of his control (real Freudian for you psychology nuts). An interesting scene at some type of self-help group meeting may be overlooked, but it brings some of this struggle to the forefront. The discussion at the meeting raises some interesting religious/moral questions and seems to be a catalyst for Doug’s desire for reformation.
As the film is written, directed, produced, and starred in by Affleck, it is no surprise that his character plays such an integral role. But he skillfully carries the plot in such a way that it is not a case of shining the spotlight on himself just for the sake of it. The Town is an ok story that becomes a good movie because of great character development. I don’t want to get to crazy (remember Gigli was atrocious) but Ben may have put himself back on the map.
More Blue than Green: A Review of Green Zone
Monday, August 30, 2010
More Blue than Green: A Review of Green Zone
Political themes have long found their way into film. In a film class I took at Northwestern, our instructor pointed out many of the anti-communist aspects prevalent in the 1960 film, Spartacus. Fifty years later, politics are just as heated and people feel that movies are great way to express their opinions. While I do see the benefits of using film to convey political messages, Green Zone goes too far.
The entire plot of the film is straight from the headlines. Matt Damon is the head of an army regiment that is saddled with the task of finding WMD’s in Iraq. Of course, they can’t find any, and of course the intelligence they have is faulty. We’ve heard this all before. In the end, (SPOILER ALERT) it turns out that a bureaucrat intentionally lied to force troops into an unnecessary war in Iraq. The liberal agenda is not a undertone in the film it is the very plot.
Regardless of your political persuasion, the movie lacks depth. There is no twist, no exciting new information, no intense fight sequences. The plot is predictable because it is what the media has been telling us for years now (speaking of media, Amy Dayne’s somewhat corrupt journalist character happens to work for the Wall Street Journal, go figure). Furthering the ties to actual occurrences, the film’s producer takes an open shot on President Bush as he is shown given a speech to military in the film, thus tying him to the conflict.
The cinematography is intentionally shaky and curt, presumably to give it more of a documentary type feel. It is just another step in trying to convince people that these are actual occurrences. The average civilian has no idea what life is really like in the camps in the Middle East and so however they are portrayed in movies is often the picture that is cemented into our minds.
I wouldn’t go as far as to say that this type of filmmaking is dangerous (although some might), but it does seem lazy. At least the liberal message in Avatar was shrouded behind intense images and an entirely new civilization. Again, it is clear that those who tend to vote blue will be more likely to agree with the film’s overall message (that Bush and his administration knowingly started a war in Iraq on faulty if not manufactured intelligence), but even then I have a hard time believing anyone will be entertained by this lack of creativity.
1.5 out of 5 stars
Whether you voted for Obama, McCain, or even Perot, you should definitely follow us on Twitter @clawtomicbaum and make sure to post our links on your Facebook. Let me know what you think of my review, I promise I won’t bite. And keep the requests coming. Don’t forget get to comment below if you think Joey should write a review before the year is over. Thanks for checking us out.
-Nuss
Political themes have long found their way into film. In a film class I took at Northwestern, our instructor pointed out many of the anti-communist aspects prevalent in the 1960 film, Spartacus. Fifty years later, politics are just as heated and people feel that movies are great way to express their opinions. While I do see the benefits of using film to convey political messages, Green Zone goes too far.
The entire plot of the film is straight from the headlines. Matt Damon is the head of an army regiment that is saddled with the task of finding WMD’s in Iraq. Of course, they can’t find any, and of course the intelligence they have is faulty. We’ve heard this all before. In the end, (SPOILER ALERT) it turns out that a bureaucrat intentionally lied to force troops into an unnecessary war in Iraq. The liberal agenda is not a undertone in the film it is the very plot.
Regardless of your political persuasion, the movie lacks depth. There is no twist, no exciting new information, no intense fight sequences. The plot is predictable because it is what the media has been telling us for years now (speaking of media, Amy Dayne’s somewhat corrupt journalist character happens to work for the Wall Street Journal, go figure). Furthering the ties to actual occurrences, the film’s producer takes an open shot on President Bush as he is shown given a speech to military in the film, thus tying him to the conflict.
The cinematography is intentionally shaky and curt, presumably to give it more of a documentary type feel. It is just another step in trying to convince people that these are actual occurrences. The average civilian has no idea what life is really like in the camps in the Middle East and so however they are portrayed in movies is often the picture that is cemented into our minds.
I wouldn’t go as far as to say that this type of filmmaking is dangerous (although some might), but it does seem lazy. At least the liberal message in Avatar was shrouded behind intense images and an entirely new civilization. Again, it is clear that those who tend to vote blue will be more likely to agree with the film’s overall message (that Bush and his administration knowingly started a war in Iraq on faulty if not manufactured intelligence), but even then I have a hard time believing anyone will be entertained by this lack of creativity.
1.5 out of 5 stars
Whether you voted for Obama, McCain, or even Perot, you should definitely follow us on Twitter @clawtomicbaum and make sure to post our links on your Facebook. Let me know what you think of my review, I promise I won’t bite. And keep the requests coming. Don’t forget get to comment below if you think Joey should write a review before the year is over. Thanks for checking us out.
-Nuss
Weekend With Steve: Reviews of Dinner for Schmucks and Despicable Me
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
My girlfriend and I were trying to decide whether to see The Other Guys or Dinner for Schmucks this past Friday night. I shot Joey a text to ask his opinion. His response, “Do you like Carell or Ferrell more?” Being huge fans of The Office we both replied Carell and Joey told us our decision was made.
Things that would have been more worth our time:
Watching Steve Carell in The Office reruns.
Watching Steve Carell in Date Night after we rented it from the store.
Watching Steve Carell sleep.
Seriously. If you remember my Date Night review, you know that I was not overly impressed. Let me assure you that it was markedly better than Carell’s latest big screen endeavor. The humor in this film is derived mainly from misunderstandings that arise from the idiocy of Carell’s character, Barry. Paul Rudd’s character, Tim, meets Barry and henceforth nothing that he does goes according to plan. The two continue to find themselves tangled in awkward situations that cause problems for Tim. It may sound similar to the premise of the Meet the Parents franchise but they are world’s apart. Even if you disregard the terribly shallow characters (Larry Wilmore’s character is literally one of the worst I have ever seen) and plot, you are still left with situations that are based solely upon entirely unbelievable characters.
Some of Barry’s quirks (such as the fact that he creates scenes with taxidermic mice) are plausible and funny, but the go overboard in many occasions and make his character a total dolt. Many of his actions do not mesh with the rest of what we know about his character and he is taken from tremendously socially awkward to complete and utter idiot, which seemingly contradicts itself.
Furthermore, the writer appeared to be torn on whether one should feel sorry for Barry and empathize with him or just find him totally laughable. The dynamic between the two does not work well and makes for a feel good ending that leaves you with a confused and dumbfounded feeling. This is one of the worst comedies I have seen in recent memory and certainly the worst work I have seen from Carell. As he transitions away from The Office, hopefully this is not a sign of things to come from Steve Carell’s live action movie projects.
.5 stars out of 5
The reason I say live action projects is because Saturday brought a new day, and I decided to give Steve another chance as I went to see the new Dreamworks animated blockbuster Despicable Me. When you come out with an animated film weeks after the largest grossing animated film to date (Toy Story 3 if you live under a rock and haven’t read this), your expectations have to be tempered. The same must be true when going to watch such a film. If you do, you will be pleasantly amused with Despicable Me. The film’s plot is fairly original as super-villain Gru (voiced by Carell) learns to father three young girls that he has adopted in order to use for his dastardly plan to become the greatest thief of all time. The story is entertaining for both young and old. Children will enjoy the gentle humor and goofy minions while adults will sympathize with some of Gru’s lot and will appreciate some of the jokes intended for a more mature audience (including a jab at the company formerly known as Lehman Brothers).
The difference between this film and Carell’s other recent ones is that it is not based solely upon his character. Gru is in no way similar to Michael Scott and so Carell can successfully create a character that has no ties to what made him big.
Despicable Me is a fun movie that does not try to do too much, but lets Carell break away from what seems to be a patterned typecast. Its humor is driven by good writing, and I’ll say it again, good stories make good movies.
3 stars out of 5
Moral of the story, Joey cannot be trusted. Just kidding. If you haven’t been able to tell by now the two of us have slightly different movie tastes. Hope you are still enjoying the blog, and please feel free to share this link on Facebook or post it on your Twitter. We would greatly appreciate it. Speaking of Twitter be sure to follow @clawtomicbaum for the latest from the minds of two geniuses. And don’t forget to send us requests!!!!
-Nuss
Things that would have been more worth our time:
Watching Steve Carell in The Office reruns.
Watching Steve Carell in Date Night after we rented it from the store.
Watching Steve Carell sleep.
Seriously. If you remember my Date Night review, you know that I was not overly impressed. Let me assure you that it was markedly better than Carell’s latest big screen endeavor. The humor in this film is derived mainly from misunderstandings that arise from the idiocy of Carell’s character, Barry. Paul Rudd’s character, Tim, meets Barry and henceforth nothing that he does goes according to plan. The two continue to find themselves tangled in awkward situations that cause problems for Tim. It may sound similar to the premise of the Meet the Parents franchise but they are world’s apart. Even if you disregard the terribly shallow characters (Larry Wilmore’s character is literally one of the worst I have ever seen) and plot, you are still left with situations that are based solely upon entirely unbelievable characters.
Some of Barry’s quirks (such as the fact that he creates scenes with taxidermic mice) are plausible and funny, but the go overboard in many occasions and make his character a total dolt. Many of his actions do not mesh with the rest of what we know about his character and he is taken from tremendously socially awkward to complete and utter idiot, which seemingly contradicts itself.
Furthermore, the writer appeared to be torn on whether one should feel sorry for Barry and empathize with him or just find him totally laughable. The dynamic between the two does not work well and makes for a feel good ending that leaves you with a confused and dumbfounded feeling. This is one of the worst comedies I have seen in recent memory and certainly the worst work I have seen from Carell. As he transitions away from The Office, hopefully this is not a sign of things to come from Steve Carell’s live action movie projects.
.5 stars out of 5
The reason I say live action projects is because Saturday brought a new day, and I decided to give Steve another chance as I went to see the new Dreamworks animated blockbuster Despicable Me. When you come out with an animated film weeks after the largest grossing animated film to date (Toy Story 3 if you live under a rock and haven’t read this), your expectations have to be tempered. The same must be true when going to watch such a film. If you do, you will be pleasantly amused with Despicable Me. The film’s plot is fairly original as super-villain Gru (voiced by Carell) learns to father three young girls that he has adopted in order to use for his dastardly plan to become the greatest thief of all time. The story is entertaining for both young and old. Children will enjoy the gentle humor and goofy minions while adults will sympathize with some of Gru’s lot and will appreciate some of the jokes intended for a more mature audience (including a jab at the company formerly known as Lehman Brothers).
The difference between this film and Carell’s other recent ones is that it is not based solely upon his character. Gru is in no way similar to Michael Scott and so Carell can successfully create a character that has no ties to what made him big.
Despicable Me is a fun movie that does not try to do too much, but lets Carell break away from what seems to be a patterned typecast. Its humor is driven by good writing, and I’ll say it again, good stories make good movies.
3 stars out of 5
Moral of the story, Joey cannot be trusted. Just kidding. If you haven’t been able to tell by now the two of us have slightly different movie tastes. Hope you are still enjoying the blog, and please feel free to share this link on Facebook or post it on your Twitter. We would greatly appreciate it. Speaking of Twitter be sure to follow @clawtomicbaum for the latest from the minds of two geniuses. And don’t forget to send us requests!!!!
-Nuss
Video games don't make good movies: a review of Mortal Kombat
Friday, August 13, 2010
Ok all you loyal readers out there, trivia question. What is the only movie reviewed on CLAWtomic BAUM that is based on a video game? . . . If you said Prince of Persia (review here) you are a true fan of our blog (good job Joey). Following in the video game theme, I recently watched Mortal Kombat and thought it was review worthy. This film had long been on my list to see as I was a big fan of the video games.
The best place to start with this one is the title. Why the heck is combat misspelled? I know it is spelled this way for the games too, but I still don’t get it. The best part of this movie is the first five to ten seconds. A voice yells “MORTAL KOMBAT!!!” and then the theme song plays. After this, I would suggest you turn of the movie, bust out the N64 and play the game for the hour and a half that you were planning on watching the movie. It is flat out awful.
The main theme of the movie mirrors the plot of the game in that there is a tournament of one-on-one martial arts bouts. Although contrary to common sense, the fighting scenes were apparently not a priority. Most of their clashes were about as realistic as an OJ Simpson alibi. Bad example he got off. They’re about as realistic as. . . the Cubs chances of salvaging this season.
Many of the characters are present with their own shticks and terribly forced conflicts. However, the information surrounding them is shallow at best. Rather than telling the back story of how Scorpion can throw snakes out of his hands or how SubZero can freeze you before he breaks your head off, they settle with just telling you that the two are enemies while the rest is left to your imagination. Speaking of the characters, the leader for the ‘good’ characters is Lord Rayden, God of Lightning. Unfortunately, I think he looked a lot like Phil Hartman, so every time he was on screen I started laughing and could hear Arnold Schwarzenegger yelling “Put that cookie down!!!” Another good laugh was how Liu Kang’s beautiful feathered Asian mullet stays perfectly in place through all of his tussles. It’s about as immovable as Barry Bonds at the top of my all-time least favorite baseball player list (I would have said athlete, but Lebron is closing in).
Mortal Kombat is at very best one you should only watch if you have Netflix and you are streaming it instantly (huge fan of Netflix). It is B-level acting with a plot that rivals the intrigue of watching a NBA regular season game between the Grizzlies and the Clippers. I can safely say that I will never watch it again, but for some stupid reason, I still want to see the sequel.
1 out of 5 stars
Hopefully this blog isn’t as utterly disappointing to you as this film was to me. Let me know what you think. Shoot us an e-mail or leave a comment below. And unless you hate puppies or beautiful sunsets you should check out our twitter @ClawtomicBaum. You won’t regret it.
-Nuss
The best place to start with this one is the title. Why the heck is combat misspelled? I know it is spelled this way for the games too, but I still don’t get it. The best part of this movie is the first five to ten seconds. A voice yells “MORTAL KOMBAT!!!” and then the theme song plays. After this, I would suggest you turn of the movie, bust out the N64 and play the game for the hour and a half that you were planning on watching the movie. It is flat out awful.
The main theme of the movie mirrors the plot of the game in that there is a tournament of one-on-one martial arts bouts. Although contrary to common sense, the fighting scenes were apparently not a priority. Most of their clashes were about as realistic as an OJ Simpson alibi. Bad example he got off. They’re about as realistic as. . . the Cubs chances of salvaging this season.
Many of the characters are present with their own shticks and terribly forced conflicts. However, the information surrounding them is shallow at best. Rather than telling the back story of how Scorpion can throw snakes out of his hands or how SubZero can freeze you before he breaks your head off, they settle with just telling you that the two are enemies while the rest is left to your imagination. Speaking of the characters, the leader for the ‘good’ characters is Lord Rayden, God of Lightning. Unfortunately, I think he looked a lot like Phil Hartman, so every time he was on screen I started laughing and could hear Arnold Schwarzenegger yelling “Put that cookie down!!!” Another good laugh was how Liu Kang’s beautiful feathered Asian mullet stays perfectly in place through all of his tussles. It’s about as immovable as Barry Bonds at the top of my all-time least favorite baseball player list (I would have said athlete, but Lebron is closing in).
Mortal Kombat is at very best one you should only watch if you have Netflix and you are streaming it instantly (huge fan of Netflix). It is B-level acting with a plot that rivals the intrigue of watching a NBA regular season game between the Grizzlies and the Clippers. I can safely say that I will never watch it again, but for some stupid reason, I still want to see the sequel.
1 out of 5 stars
Hopefully this blog isn’t as utterly disappointing to you as this film was to me. Let me know what you think. Shoot us an e-mail or leave a comment below. And unless you hate puppies or beautiful sunsets you should check out our twitter @ClawtomicBaum. You won’t regret it.
-Nuss
Dreamweaver I(nception) Believe You Can Get Me Through the Night
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Well it's been a while (Stain'd style) since my last entry, but that is just the way the wind blows these days. Free time is few and far between. However, due to all of this crazy talk (girl, please) about the new summer hit Inception, I knew I had to get out and see it before someone ruined the ending for me (In which case the temper tantrum I would have thrown would have looked eerily similar this). Hopefully, I will not spoil this movie for anyone after reading my review. Consider this my spoiler alert and if you have not seen this yet (you're a loser) click this to entertain yourself instead and proceed reading the rest of this review at your own risk.
Not long after James and I started this gold mine, I had dreamed (see what I did there?) it would be cool if he and I tried to go see a movie at the same time and do a joint review. After lots of planning and cancelling then planning and cancelling then planning and cancelling again we finally went and saw this movie together. Also, it should be noted, somehow, shockingly we each were able to persuade a couple of beautiful girls to accompany us to this movie (They are merely after us for the $1.84 we have made off of this blog. And because we are famous, that too).
Before I give my thoughts on this film, I would like to point out a few things that I randomly noticed that might interest y'all:
- I spent the first ten minutes (big mistake, if don't pay attention for a second it's all over) wondering where I knew the initial architect in the first dream sequence(His name is Lukas Haas if you don't remember that start of your movie like the start of a dream) from. Then it hit me. Uhhhhh, was that guy in Mars Attacks? Yes, yes he was. Joey- 1 Inception- 0
- When Cobb is explaining the concepts behind the dreams to Juno (Where was her baby, by the way? What a turrrrible mother) and illustrates the image on the napkin, did anyone else notice that the UPS guy played DiCaprio's stunt double for that part of the scene? Those arcs and the circle were perfect!
- Why did they need heavy sedatives to sleep for four hours? Umm, have you seen me nap? Anyone that knows me well enough knows that I don't need to be drugged to sleep all day. This fella didn't need any help sleeping that long either.
- This movie at times had striking similarities to Shutter Island (Same lead actor, he loses his mind, it was over hyped, etc.).
- How much fun would it have been to smack the crap out of your fellow cast mates? I couldn't help but laugh out loud (also known as LOL) every time they did this in the movie. And it occurred on more than one occasion.
I thought this movie was too farfetched and out there (obviously). It also seemed to drag on too long especially for a movie that was packed with SO much information. And please, don't get me started on the three separate dreams at once stuff… I'm just not going to go there.
But, literally ALL I heard this weekend was how awesome Inception was and how it would blow my mind to Reese's pieces (which yes, I would have eaten had that actually happened. In fact that actually sounds like a good spin off commercial to promote Reese's pieces.), but it did not seeing as I am here typing this. Please take a minute and look at some of these tweets I saw over the past few days:
- Did I mention how awesome Inception was???? Oh yeah I did. 4 minutes ago via web
- Inception film is like taking the best of The Matrix, Oceans 11/12/13, & any James Bond film & setting them to a crazy deep plot. #Amazing
4 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone
- Inception was even better the second time =) 5 minutes ago via txt
- Inception was out of this WORLD! Crazy. Mind is blown. ! 5 minutes ago via UberTwitter
- I don't think I'll ever be able to look at life the same again after seeing Inception. 5 minutes ago via UberTwitter
- Inception could possibly be one of the best movies I have ever seen 5 minutes ago via txt
- INCEPTION was awesome beyond words 5 minutes ago via web
- Special effects were solid. The slow motion shots in the action scenes were a nice touch. Nolan has always been known for making his effects very special.
- I enjoyed the overall flow of the movie. It seemed to adopt the style that Pulp Fiction mastered when they showed the final scene at the beginning of the movie and then spent the rest of the film getting you to that point, which I have always been a huge fan of.
- This film throws a lot at you and rightfully so because it is a deep and complex film, much like an actual dream. For a movie that people assured me would leave my brains like this, I actually felt like I followed it pretty well.
- When the characters were dragging around the city in their dreams like they were playing on an iPad, I was amazed.
I know everyone probably thinks I'm snorting zanex after reading this review. And I could even be wrong (But I never am). I would love to hear what the CLAWtomicBAUM nation feels about this movie.
Best Regards, Salutations, and Thanks for your continued dedication of reading this blog (You're the best James!)
-#0, The Claw
Sweet Dreams are Made of These: A review of Inception
Ever since the inception (wow terrible pun) of our blog, Joey and I have been talking about having a date night where the two of us would reunite like old times to go check out a new movie. For the last six months we have been trying to get together and it almost happened this weekend. Being the great friend and co-blogger that he is, Joe asked if I wanted to see Inception and I was pumped. But like that day when you realize the NBA is not a viable career option, my dreams were dashed as Joey had to go into work at 6:30 (on a Friday night mind you). I know, some friend.
To make a long story short, I am not really sure how it all came together or how we got there, but we ended up on a double-date at Inception (Joey mentioned our last double date here). The typical hype that surrounds each new mind-bending thriller had made me pretty excited to see the latest pairing of Nolan and DiCaprio. The last time DiCaprio paired with a first class director (see Shutter Island review here) I was very impressed, so my expectations for this one were very high.
The movie throws your right into the action and confusion. The first couple of scenes begin as a dream within a dream and quickly alert the audience that they will have to pay attention to all that is said. The story reminds me of the Matrix insomuch as it centers around questions of reality and consciousness. The imaginative creativity that expresses itself in the creation of entire cities and bends physical boundaries is the most compelling aspect of the movie. It drives the plot and allows for some impressive visual effects (still kind of wish I saw it in IMAX).
Overall the acting was satisfactory. Headliner DiCaprio’s character in many ways mimics his portrayal of Teddy Daniels in Shutter Island. While the east coast accent is gone, the fact that he (SPOILER ALERT) sometimes struggles with defining reality and is haunted by his suicidal wife makes his characters nearly identical. I was pleasantly surprised by Tom Hardy who played Eames (the witty quick talking forger of dreams). He brings a suave demeanor and eccentricity that bring his character into a reality (another terrible pun). Ellen Page was good but nothing to write home about and Joseph Gordon-Levitt was the winner of best actor whose career has been defined by a baseball movie. He starred in Angels in the Outfield and beat out Tom Berenger who was Jake Owens in Major League (in all seriousness his performance is pretty good and he had one of my favorite lines of the whole film when he steals a kiss from one of his co-stars.
All in all, the movie borders on the edge of confusion for confusion’s sake. The plans were well discussed and therefore explained to the audience until an added layer of complexity in the last half an hour of the plot. The story skillfully incorporates common knowledge about dreams and weaves (third bad pun) it into the details behind dream-sharing technology. An example is how each layer of the dream causes the dream to occur in less time in reality. This allows for building of anticipation as one layer of the dream reaches its culmination and the others to continue on leaving the audience hanging. The plot is intriguing and the idea of stealing valuable information through dreams has to make you wonder.
The last quarter of this one kept it from being a great movie. Don’t get me wrong , it was still really good. But towards the end, I was feeling tired, my head was spinning, and I felt disoriented. But then again the easiest way to tell if you are in a dream is whether or not you can remember how you got there. I thought the end of the movie was a cop out, then again, since I can’t remember how I got there, maybe I’m just dreaming.
3.5 Stars out of 5
As always, we'd love to hear your thoughts. Comment below and make sure to follow us on Twitter. And if any of you have hookups with the Daily Journal or any other publication that needs some movie review help, let us know. Also if you want to treat me and Joey to a free movie, or even tell us you're going to treat us and then make us pay (thanks Megan McCarty) give us a holler. I promise it'll be a good time.
-Nuss
To make a long story short, I am not really sure how it all came together or how we got there, but we ended up on a double-date at Inception (Joey mentioned our last double date here). The typical hype that surrounds each new mind-bending thriller had made me pretty excited to see the latest pairing of Nolan and DiCaprio. The last time DiCaprio paired with a first class director (see Shutter Island review here) I was very impressed, so my expectations for this one were very high.
The movie throws your right into the action and confusion. The first couple of scenes begin as a dream within a dream and quickly alert the audience that they will have to pay attention to all that is said. The story reminds me of the Matrix insomuch as it centers around questions of reality and consciousness. The imaginative creativity that expresses itself in the creation of entire cities and bends physical boundaries is the most compelling aspect of the movie. It drives the plot and allows for some impressive visual effects (still kind of wish I saw it in IMAX).
Overall the acting was satisfactory. Headliner DiCaprio’s character in many ways mimics his portrayal of Teddy Daniels in Shutter Island. While the east coast accent is gone, the fact that he (SPOILER ALERT) sometimes struggles with defining reality and is haunted by his suicidal wife makes his characters nearly identical. I was pleasantly surprised by Tom Hardy who played Eames (the witty quick talking forger of dreams). He brings a suave demeanor and eccentricity that bring his character into a reality (another terrible pun). Ellen Page was good but nothing to write home about and Joseph Gordon-Levitt was the winner of best actor whose career has been defined by a baseball movie. He starred in Angels in the Outfield and beat out Tom Berenger who was Jake Owens in Major League (in all seriousness his performance is pretty good and he had one of my favorite lines of the whole film when he steals a kiss from one of his co-stars.
All in all, the movie borders on the edge of confusion for confusion’s sake. The plans were well discussed and therefore explained to the audience until an added layer of complexity in the last half an hour of the plot. The story skillfully incorporates common knowledge about dreams and weaves (third bad pun) it into the details behind dream-sharing technology. An example is how each layer of the dream causes the dream to occur in less time in reality. This allows for building of anticipation as one layer of the dream reaches its culmination and the others to continue on leaving the audience hanging. The plot is intriguing and the idea of stealing valuable information through dreams has to make you wonder.
The last quarter of this one kept it from being a great movie. Don’t get me wrong , it was still really good. But towards the end, I was feeling tired, my head was spinning, and I felt disoriented. But then again the easiest way to tell if you are in a dream is whether or not you can remember how you got there. I thought the end of the movie was a cop out, then again, since I can’t remember how I got there, maybe I’m just dreaming.
3.5 Stars out of 5
As always, we'd love to hear your thoughts. Comment below and make sure to follow us on Twitter. And if any of you have hookups with the Daily Journal or any other publication that needs some movie review help, let us know. Also if you want to treat me and Joey to a free movie, or even tell us you're going to treat us and then make us pay (thanks Megan McCarty) give us a holler. I promise it'll be a good time.
-Nuss
Where's the Blue Hat?: A Review of The Sorcerer's Apprentice
Monday, July 19, 2010
Another Disney-Bruckheimer collaboration debuted this past week with the opening of The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. The film stars the ever-busy Nicolas Cage who some would argue has chosen quantity over quality as he has starred in nearly 30 films over the last decade. It is not the first time that he has teamed up with Bruckheimer, as both National Treasure and its sequel were big at the box office.
The movie opens with the background to the story as many films due. Especially for a plotline as far-out as this one, this pre-story was a necessity. The narrative, which describes how Merlin himself trained Balthazar (Cage), seems to be more compelling than the actual story. In fact a prequel that detailed the nearly 1300 years before Balthazar meets Dave (co-star Jay Baruchel) would have plenty of room for creative adventure. I digress…
Dave is a physics nerd at NYU who suddenly finds out that he is the “chosen one” of magicians (he is even dubbed with a very hokey name that I will spare you of). His task is to help defeat Merlin’s arch nemesis Morgan le Fay of Arthurian legend. Baruchel overplays the his character’s nerdiness and transforms him into not only a geek, but their chosen leader at the annual Lack of Social Skills Convention. Cage is typical and his cadence and delivery of most of his lines mirrors that of many of his recent roles.
Without giving away too much of the plot (Spoiler alert: be ready for plasmoid CPR), this film suffers from a trend that is becoming all too common for Disney. Disney hit it big when they created Pirates of the Caribbean based on the classic and iconic rides at both Disneyland and Walt Disney World. Since then, they have been trying to repeat the phenomenon of taking something that at its core is Disney and elaborating on it until it is almost something entirely different. Case studies would consist of Haunted Mansion, Country Bear Jamboree, and possibly even Enchanted (although the argument would be a little different here).
Everyone who knows Disney recognizes the link between this new film and the classic scene from the original Fantasia. If this doesn’t ring any bells google image Disney’s Hollywood Studios and see what the main picture is. The scene where Mickey dons the blue stars and moon hat has forever been immortalized in film and Disney culture as the Sorcerer’s Apprentice. While Disney tries to create a link with a mop scene and some borrowed music in the new film, the link is at best weak and disappointing. Disney has become complacent in using old classic themes to drum up interest in new entirely different enterprises and this is just the latest example.
My main beef with The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is not is that the plot is terrible, its just poorly executed. Again, as any Bruckheimer production of late, it dazzles with some impressive effects and CGI, but much of the substance is missing. There are allusions to Lucas blockbusters Indiana Jones and Star Wars, but this film is at best in a galaxy far far away from those two. The movie does a great job of using the hit single “Secrets” by OneRepublic to push forward the college-aged romance and makes some of the sappiness ok. However, lots of the rest of the plot seems hokey and forced. If you’re a big fan on Cage, special effects, or OneRepublic try this one out. Its not terrible, just mediocre. Otherwise, grab a bag of popcorn and pull out your old VHS of Fantasia.
2 stars out of 5
I know that no one ever reads this part, so I could write that I was moving to Iran for the fall and not get any feedback. But we would love to hear what you guys think about the blog. Start commenting on some of the posts. Tell us we're morons when you disagree or that we may be on to something if you like our review. Regardless, if you do nothing else over the next ten minutes please follow us on the RSS feed and on Twitter at clawandnussreviews. Joey's fragile mental state depends upon it. I would write more persuasive things, but I have to go catch my plane for Tehran. Wish me luck.
-Nuss
The movie opens with the background to the story as many films due. Especially for a plotline as far-out as this one, this pre-story was a necessity. The narrative, which describes how Merlin himself trained Balthazar (Cage), seems to be more compelling than the actual story. In fact a prequel that detailed the nearly 1300 years before Balthazar meets Dave (co-star Jay Baruchel) would have plenty of room for creative adventure. I digress…
Dave is a physics nerd at NYU who suddenly finds out that he is the “chosen one” of magicians (he is even dubbed with a very hokey name that I will spare you of). His task is to help defeat Merlin’s arch nemesis Morgan le Fay of Arthurian legend. Baruchel overplays the his character’s nerdiness and transforms him into not only a geek, but their chosen leader at the annual Lack of Social Skills Convention. Cage is typical and his cadence and delivery of most of his lines mirrors that of many of his recent roles.
Without giving away too much of the plot (Spoiler alert: be ready for plasmoid CPR), this film suffers from a trend that is becoming all too common for Disney. Disney hit it big when they created Pirates of the Caribbean based on the classic and iconic rides at both Disneyland and Walt Disney World. Since then, they have been trying to repeat the phenomenon of taking something that at its core is Disney and elaborating on it until it is almost something entirely different. Case studies would consist of Haunted Mansion, Country Bear Jamboree, and possibly even Enchanted (although the argument would be a little different here).
Everyone who knows Disney recognizes the link between this new film and the classic scene from the original Fantasia. If this doesn’t ring any bells google image Disney’s Hollywood Studios and see what the main picture is. The scene where Mickey dons the blue stars and moon hat has forever been immortalized in film and Disney culture as the Sorcerer’s Apprentice. While Disney tries to create a link with a mop scene and some borrowed music in the new film, the link is at best weak and disappointing. Disney has become complacent in using old classic themes to drum up interest in new entirely different enterprises and this is just the latest example.
My main beef with The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is not is that the plot is terrible, its just poorly executed. Again, as any Bruckheimer production of late, it dazzles with some impressive effects and CGI, but much of the substance is missing. There are allusions to Lucas blockbusters Indiana Jones and Star Wars, but this film is at best in a galaxy far far away from those two. The movie does a great job of using the hit single “Secrets” by OneRepublic to push forward the college-aged romance and makes some of the sappiness ok. However, lots of the rest of the plot seems hokey and forced. If you’re a big fan on Cage, special effects, or OneRepublic try this one out. Its not terrible, just mediocre. Otherwise, grab a bag of popcorn and pull out your old VHS of Fantasia.
2 stars out of 5
I know that no one ever reads this part, so I could write that I was moving to Iran for the fall and not get any feedback. But we would love to hear what you guys think about the blog. Start commenting on some of the posts. Tell us we're morons when you disagree or that we may be on to something if you like our review. Regardless, if you do nothing else over the next ten minutes please follow us on the RSS feed and on Twitter at clawandnussreviews. Joey's fragile mental state depends upon it. I would write more persuasive things, but I have to go catch my plane for Tehran. Wish me luck.
-Nuss
Pixar's Latest Blockbuster: Toy Story Thrice
Friday, July 16, 2010
The last few weeks have been extremely busy for me. I was graduating from college, moving out of my house (that’s a generous word for it), trying to find a job (still trying), and going on a family vacation to the most wonderful place on earth. But in the midst of it all I managed to wrangle my family into seeing the midnight showing of the highly anticipated Toy Story 3. After a great graduation dinner, my family and I watched a movie that was more relevant than I could have ever imagined.
Toy Story 3 is a continuation of the most profitable franchise in Disney history. In many ways, the first in the trilogy saved a somewhat old-fashioned Disney company. Disney continues to capitalize on the franchise, as WDW has two rides dedicated to it, and an entire meet and greet area for characters at Hollywood Studios’ Pixar Place. This third film will only continue to bolster the already superb series’ popularity and loveability.
The whole crew is back (Woody, Buzz, Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head, etc.) and maybe more importantly, all of their celebrity voices have returned (don’t forget how I felt about Maggie Gylenhall in The Dark Knight). The continuation of the first two stories is at the very core of the entire movie as well it should be. Andy is now going off to college and trying to figure out what to do with all of his old things. The toys band together to figure out how they will fit into the picture and discover a lot about themselves and friendship along the way.
As always, the Disney Digital 3D was pristine. The depth that it adds to the film gives it literally and figuratively a whole new dimension, and I would highly encourage that you experience this one at least once in theaters for that very reason. Pixar always produces stunning visuals and this is no exception. When paired again with the brilliant work of singer-songwriter Randy Newman, who composed much of the soundtrack, you have a great experience, regardless of what actually takes place.
But as I always harp on, story is everything. Not only is the plot in this one relatable, but it also has a feel-good theme. As a college kid that just spent a graduation vacation in WDW, I can relate to the opening of the film. Andy, going away to college, still wants to hang on to some of his childhood, namely his favorite toys. While this is only a small part of the kickoff, I feel that it is very important in the overall plot, including its conclusion. Without giving away too much, the toys figure out away to leave everyone happy in the end and give the audience a heartfelt “others before self” resolution.
I don’t think that the story is quite as engaging as the first two, but it is still up to typical Disney standards. While I felt that Up! was a step back in the right direction after I was severely disappointed with WALL-E, this is a leap in that same direction. If I had to choose an area that the movie could have improved, it would have been the inclusion of more well-known toys (although Michael Keaton’s Ken doll performance is very good), and the addition of some more wit in the comedy. Toy Story 3 was successful in that it continued the Pixar legacy and re-emphasized the connection to Disney. It is still in recent memory that Pixar and Disney were considered to be going their separate ways. While Toy Story redefined what Disney animation would look like in the future, Toy Story 3 reinforces that the Disney-Pixar team is the best in the business. This film is great for everyone from kids to those still holding onto their childhoods.
4.5 Stars out of 5
Toy Story 3 is a continuation of the most profitable franchise in Disney history. In many ways, the first in the trilogy saved a somewhat old-fashioned Disney company. Disney continues to capitalize on the franchise, as WDW has two rides dedicated to it, and an entire meet and greet area for characters at Hollywood Studios’ Pixar Place. This third film will only continue to bolster the already superb series’ popularity and loveability.
The whole crew is back (Woody, Buzz, Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head, etc.) and maybe more importantly, all of their celebrity voices have returned (don’t forget how I felt about Maggie Gylenhall in The Dark Knight). The continuation of the first two stories is at the very core of the entire movie as well it should be. Andy is now going off to college and trying to figure out what to do with all of his old things. The toys band together to figure out how they will fit into the picture and discover a lot about themselves and friendship along the way.
As always, the Disney Digital 3D was pristine. The depth that it adds to the film gives it literally and figuratively a whole new dimension, and I would highly encourage that you experience this one at least once in theaters for that very reason. Pixar always produces stunning visuals and this is no exception. When paired again with the brilliant work of singer-songwriter Randy Newman, who composed much of the soundtrack, you have a great experience, regardless of what actually takes place.
But as I always harp on, story is everything. Not only is the plot in this one relatable, but it also has a feel-good theme. As a college kid that just spent a graduation vacation in WDW, I can relate to the opening of the film. Andy, going away to college, still wants to hang on to some of his childhood, namely his favorite toys. While this is only a small part of the kickoff, I feel that it is very important in the overall plot, including its conclusion. Without giving away too much, the toys figure out away to leave everyone happy in the end and give the audience a heartfelt “others before self” resolution.
I don’t think that the story is quite as engaging as the first two, but it is still up to typical Disney standards. While I felt that Up! was a step back in the right direction after I was severely disappointed with WALL-E, this is a leap in that same direction. If I had to choose an area that the movie could have improved, it would have been the inclusion of more well-known toys (although Michael Keaton’s Ken doll performance is very good), and the addition of some more wit in the comedy. Toy Story 3 was successful in that it continued the Pixar legacy and re-emphasized the connection to Disney. It is still in recent memory that Pixar and Disney were considered to be going their separate ways. While Toy Story redefined what Disney animation would look like in the future, Toy Story 3 reinforces that the Disney-Pixar team is the best in the business. This film is great for everyone from kids to those still holding onto their childhoods.
4.5 Stars out of 5
Television remade for the Big Screen: A Review of A-Team
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Oh the things I do for my loyal readers!!! Last Wednesday night, I got five hours of sleep studying for my last final in college (WooHoo!). Thursday I took the test then headed out to Glen Ellyn to referee some girls basketball games. Exhausted and bored out of my skull (this is the most interesting thing I’ve seen on women’s basketball) I hurried back and arrived at the theater at 11:45 to see The A-Team at the midnight premiere. I grabbed a half gallon of Coke for some caffeine and got cozy for a movie that I hoped would at least keep me awake.
The A-Team did much more than that. I must preface this entire review by saying that I have never watched the original TV show that the movie is based on. That being said, I thought it was a very good movie. The action is great and there is not a dull moment throughout. One of the best aspects of the movie is that even when the team is doing the ridiculous (flying a tank) you don’t find yourself complaining about how unrealistic it is. The movie does a great job of mixing humor with action and an adequate plot to create a movie that is very entertaining.
The greatest strength of the movie is the cast (with one exception). To pull off a remake of this caliber would require actors who can re-create the characters that had become so loved. Having long been a Liam Neeson fan, I was seeing the movie largely in part because I liked his acting. I was not disappointed. Neeson’s depiction of Hannibal reminded me a lot of the role he played in Taken except with less gratuitous violence and more intellect and wit. B.A Barracus played by Quinton ‘Rampage” Jackson was also a pleasant surprise. Being a UFC fighter, I wasn’t expecting a lot out of Rampage, but he actually is an OK actor. He obviously had the hardest part as he tried to live up to a character that was Mr. T, but he holds his own amongst the other three great performances. Bradley Cooper’s character, Face, was spot on. The ever-womanizing, smooth talker was perfect for him and he has some great one-liners. But at the end of the day, Sharlito Copley stole the show as Murdock. Copley’s rendition of the cooky pilot is very funny and he pulls off the half-there half-crazy war vet perfectly. The dynamic between the four is what propels most of the plot as the story is somewhat predictable. Their performances make the movie.
The one downfall was anything in the movie regarding Jessica Biel. I’ve gone on the record before as saying that I think she is over-rated, but in this movie she was, in a word, miserable. Her character could have been played by anyone who had a part in their high school musical. Her part in the plot was unnecessary and a feeble attempt at some sort of romance. She only acted to allow for restroom breaks between the intense action and steady one-liners. Seriously, if a scene opens with her, go grab some popcorn.
Like I said, this was a tough task. I cannot speak for those who grew up watching the television series, but as for myself, I thought it was a very good film. The action is great, the characters are tangible, and the plot doesn’t try to do to much. This is the quintessential guy movie and I can’t see many women flocking to see it (although Bradley Cooper is in it). But being a guy, I really enjoyed it.
Kickin’ it Old School (Round 1) When I Die, I’m going to (My Blue) Heaven
Monday, June 7, 2010
In response to some of Jamesies recent posts, I have decided to piggy back (or steal) James's idea and hop in the (not hot tub) time machine and review a classic for all of you. I am going to review a movie I am sure a lot of you are not familiar with. However, upon reading this, I hope you will instantly text or tweet me (I'm an advocate for Twitter) that you are wanting to borrow it and this can be arranged.
James has kind of been throwing out some movies that are more B.C. as far as the movie timeline goes. Mine is only 20 years old so by law it isn't even old enough to consume an alcoholic beverage. Nevertheless, it is a classic that falls into one of my favorite genres (80s comedy).
Today, I will be discussing My Blue Heaven per the request of the one and only Adam Snell (There's your shout out Snelly). I was first exposed to My Blue Heaven by my grandfather. I respect my grandpa's word as much as anyone in this world (you should to, he is a BAD ASS), so it would only be fitting for me to watch this movie. It is an underrated movie to say the least. It has two of the late 80s and early 90s most popular comedic actors: Rick Morranis (Who by the way should have his children taken away from him) and Steve Martin (Top five actors to me). In fact, thanks to this movie Steve Martin has cracked the list of my favorite actors (This list was made Pre-Pink Panther of course… WOW).
Without giving away the plot too much, Steve Martin is a former mobster who has been taken in by the Witness Protection Program (You down with WPP? Yeah, you know me.) and it is Rick Moranis's job to make sure Martin is kept safe. You can imagine they get themselves in a lot of sticky situations, but they are funny and work well together in this movie. Joan Cusack (BARF. I'd get more of a rise out of John Cusak with a wig on) also plays a main part in this movie. I think she is very manly (both looks and mannerisms). Heck, in this movie she looks a foot taller (might actually be too) than her lover, Rick Moranis. She does ok, but as they say in Step Brothers, there's just something about her face and if she doesn't change it, I'm going to have to change it for her. I just can't stand her for some reason and that is not just in this movie; that goes for any movie she's ever been in like School of Rock, Martian Child, etc.
My favorite scene in this movie is when Martin and Moranis go out dancing. The single greatest dance move, the meringue, (Aside from the shoulder lean, two-step, harlem shake, c-walk, soulja boy, Helen Keller, etc.) is in this scene and you should watch it here. Anytime that I am caught ripping a dance floor to shreds (It's true, I took dance lessons when I was four) at a wedding, I can be spotted doing this move on numerous occasions.
Although the plot of this movie isn't necessarily the best (Sorry James, no comedies are) it is still a funny movie and that is what has been intended. Therefore, it does a good job in fitting into the 80s/90s comedy genre which I for one am a fan of. This is a genre where you could be an enjoyable comedy without saying the f word 50 times or flash private parts or had to have Jonah Hill (He's skinny) in it. In this genre, you could be a parent (wow, I'm growing up before my eyes) and feel comfortable watching a movie with your children.
I always enjoy watching a movie that I have never heard about going in. I am even more pleased when I find myself enjoying a movie like this.
Overall, I give it 3.5/5 CLAWS and it is in the Clawson Collection. So, get a hold of me if you would like to inquire as to how you can get your hands on it. It will be free of course (Although, I am a sucker for anything with Reese's in it and its Blizzard season. Hint, Hint).
Hope you enjoyed the review. If not, then that's my bad. However, James and I want your feedback! So, please get a hold of us @ clawandnussreviews@gmail.com and as always. Tell your friends. We have amassed twelve cents to date off our reviews (Blast off… Here we go blog!).
Also, only 19 Followers on Twitter to date, that is sad….
And I'm out,
-#0 The CLAW
James has kind of been throwing out some movies that are more B.C. as far as the movie timeline goes. Mine is only 20 years old so by law it isn't even old enough to consume an alcoholic beverage. Nevertheless, it is a classic that falls into one of my favorite genres (80s comedy).
Today, I will be discussing My Blue Heaven per the request of the one and only Adam Snell (There's your shout out Snelly). I was first exposed to My Blue Heaven by my grandfather. I respect my grandpa's word as much as anyone in this world (you should to, he is a BAD ASS), so it would only be fitting for me to watch this movie. It is an underrated movie to say the least. It has two of the late 80s and early 90s most popular comedic actors: Rick Morranis (Who by the way should have his children taken away from him) and Steve Martin (Top five actors to me). In fact, thanks to this movie Steve Martin has cracked the list of my favorite actors (This list was made Pre-Pink Panther of course… WOW).
Without giving away the plot too much, Steve Martin is a former mobster who has been taken in by the Witness Protection Program (You down with WPP? Yeah, you know me.) and it is Rick Moranis's job to make sure Martin is kept safe. You can imagine they get themselves in a lot of sticky situations, but they are funny and work well together in this movie. Joan Cusack (BARF. I'd get more of a rise out of John Cusak with a wig on) also plays a main part in this movie. I think she is very manly (both looks and mannerisms). Heck, in this movie she looks a foot taller (might actually be too) than her lover, Rick Moranis. She does ok, but as they say in Step Brothers, there's just something about her face and if she doesn't change it, I'm going to have to change it for her. I just can't stand her for some reason and that is not just in this movie; that goes for any movie she's ever been in like School of Rock, Martian Child, etc.
My favorite scene in this movie is when Martin and Moranis go out dancing. The single greatest dance move, the meringue, (Aside from the shoulder lean, two-step, harlem shake, c-walk, soulja boy, Helen Keller, etc.) is in this scene and you should watch it here. Anytime that I am caught ripping a dance floor to shreds (It's true, I took dance lessons when I was four) at a wedding, I can be spotted doing this move on numerous occasions.
Although the plot of this movie isn't necessarily the best (Sorry James, no comedies are) it is still a funny movie and that is what has been intended. Therefore, it does a good job in fitting into the 80s/90s comedy genre which I for one am a fan of. This is a genre where you could be an enjoyable comedy without saying the f word 50 times or flash private parts or had to have Jonah Hill (He's skinny) in it. In this genre, you could be a parent (wow, I'm growing up before my eyes) and feel comfortable watching a movie with your children.
I always enjoy watching a movie that I have never heard about going in. I am even more pleased when I find myself enjoying a movie like this.
Overall, I give it 3.5/5 CLAWS and it is in the Clawson Collection. So, get a hold of me if you would like to inquire as to how you can get your hands on it. It will be free of course (Although, I am a sucker for anything with Reese's in it and its Blizzard season. Hint, Hint).
Hope you enjoyed the review. If not, then that's my bad. However, James and I want your feedback! So, please get a hold of us @ clawandnussreviews@gmail.com and as always. Tell your friends. We have amassed twelve cents to date off our reviews (Blast off… Here we go blog!).
Also, only 19 Followers on Twitter to date, that is sad….
And I'm out,
-#0 The CLAW
Disney's Middle Eastern Orphan Boy Take Two
Friday, June 4, 2010
When I saw the first trailer for Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time I was conflicted. I was intrigued by the pairing of producing great Jerry Bruckheimer (C.S.I., Pirates of the Caribbean, National Treasure etc.) and the Disney corporation. , but the idea of Jake Gyllenhaal playing in a plot designed originally for a video game worried me. To date, I had not seen a Gyllenhaal movie that I had liked and because of cinematic endeavors such as Htiman, Max Payne, and Doom, I am leery about video game based plots. Yet, most likely because of an unhindered brand loyalty I found myself Trying to convince others to see Prince of Persia (POP) with me in theaters.
POP opens in a Middle-Eastern marketplace and thoughts of Aladdin come to mind faster than you can say “street rat.” The young Dastan (Gyllenhaal) is an orphan boy chosen by the King himself to be a prince. Had there been a vest-donned monkey déjà vu would have been an understatement.
The movie is true to Bruckheimer’s traditional style and majors in spectacle. The vast desert landscapes, stunning ancient castles, and over the top CGI effects are create a sort of visual overload, a typical Bruckheimer tool. Unfortunately, at times rather than being awe-inspiring, the effects can be distracting and even unbelievable.
The storyline actually pleasantly surprised me. The plot has depth that is not expected of a video game based film, and its central conflict is multi-dimensional. While certain parts of the plot are forced upon the viewer by character explanation, for the most part it progresses along quite smoothly.
There is no doubt who Disney is targeting with this film. As Tinker Bell movies grow in popularity and announcements have been made regarding the WDW Fantasyland expansion, many are criticizing Disney for alienating the elementary to middle school boy demographic. This PG-13 movie has plenty of action without the gore of similar films and its hero is one that young boys will undoubtedly pretend to be. I found myself disliking some of the shallow humor, but must be reminded that ten years ago, I probably would have found the jokes rather funny.
When the sands of time settle, the movie is entertaining. The ancient cultures may not be historically accurate, but they fit well into the story. Gyllenhaal was ok, but didn’t seem like the right fit for the role. Gemma Arterton plays the female role well, and this could be her breakout film as her only other movie of note was a small role as Strawberry Fields in the lackluster Quantum of Solace. Both were clearly cast for their looks rather than acting persona. I don’t see Disney basing a ride off of this one soon, but if you are a parent of young boys or are just a Disney loyalist this is one you should see. Disney proves it can tell a story well even if it is from a video game. I just hope that they don’t get to ambitious and try Call of Duty.
Hope you like the review. Don't forget to send requests and comments to clawandnussreviews@gmail.com. And please follow us on Twitter, if not, Joey may consider doing something drastic. Thanks for reading us, and don't forget we love referrals (wow that was cheesy, I apologize).
-Nuss
POP opens in a Middle-Eastern marketplace and thoughts of Aladdin come to mind faster than you can say “street rat.” The young Dastan (Gyllenhaal) is an orphan boy chosen by the King himself to be a prince. Had there been a vest-donned monkey déjà vu would have been an understatement.
The movie is true to Bruckheimer’s traditional style and majors in spectacle. The vast desert landscapes, stunning ancient castles, and over the top CGI effects are create a sort of visual overload, a typical Bruckheimer tool. Unfortunately, at times rather than being awe-inspiring, the effects can be distracting and even unbelievable.
The storyline actually pleasantly surprised me. The plot has depth that is not expected of a video game based film, and its central conflict is multi-dimensional. While certain parts of the plot are forced upon the viewer by character explanation, for the most part it progresses along quite smoothly.
There is no doubt who Disney is targeting with this film. As Tinker Bell movies grow in popularity and announcements have been made regarding the WDW Fantasyland expansion, many are criticizing Disney for alienating the elementary to middle school boy demographic. This PG-13 movie has plenty of action without the gore of similar films and its hero is one that young boys will undoubtedly pretend to be. I found myself disliking some of the shallow humor, but must be reminded that ten years ago, I probably would have found the jokes rather funny.
When the sands of time settle, the movie is entertaining. The ancient cultures may not be historically accurate, but they fit well into the story. Gyllenhaal was ok, but didn’t seem like the right fit for the role. Gemma Arterton plays the female role well, and this could be her breakout film as her only other movie of note was a small role as Strawberry Fields in the lackluster Quantum of Solace. Both were clearly cast for their looks rather than acting persona. I don’t see Disney basing a ride off of this one soon, but if you are a parent of young boys or are just a Disney loyalist this is one you should see. Disney proves it can tell a story well even if it is from a video game. I just hope that they don’t get to ambitious and try Call of Duty.
Hope you like the review. Don't forget to send requests and comments to clawandnussreviews@gmail.com. And please follow us on Twitter, if not, Joey may consider doing something drastic. Thanks for reading us, and don't forget we love referrals (wow that was cheesy, I apologize).
-Nuss
Robin Hood (No men in tights)
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
A weekend after be disappointed by a blockbuster billing, I found myself again purchasing a ticket for an opening weekend film. This time it was for a tag team that had produced the great Gladiator as Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott paired up for a new version of the classic legend of Robin Hood. As a big Gladiator fan and an enjoyer of historical pieces, I was optimistic about washing the previous weekend’s bad taste from my mouth.
Robin Hood throws you right into the action as English crusaders are attempting to seize and plunder a French castle. The opening battle sets the tone for the superb action throughout the film ( with one exception that I will address later). While the Gladiator gore is absent in this PG-13 film, the fighting sequences seem realistic and are very engaging.
The plot in this one differs greatly from that of the story that most of us grew up with. The film attempts to tell the back-story behind the one who robbed the rich to feed the poor (Side note: I asked on of my old history professors about the historical accuracy of the film and he informed me that it is riddled with inaccuracies). Other than the title character one of the first that we meet is King Richard the Lionheart. His portrayal as a somewhat drunken unsure ruler is different from that of popular lore (and dare I say history). He jumpstarts Robin’s opposition to the crown when Longstride tells him of his own personal opinions on the morality of the crusades. In a time when negative feelings towards Islamic Holy Wars are prevalent, this depiction of Richard and his role in the plot exposition undoubtedly are meant to remind people of the atrocity of the crusades and act as a critique of Christianity through comparison.
Robin Longstride (Crowe) is portrayed as a peasant crusader fighting for political ideals. His character is endearing and his aged appearance gives a maturity to his conquest. He teams up with a couple of fellow peasants including the classic character of Little John (Kevin Durand). After a bit of good fate befalls them, Robin finds himself on a journey to pursue his word and honor. Meanwhile, Prince John attempts to rule the country with and iron fist and an ill-advised friendship. The two plots come colliding together in a traditional epic battle scene (for the sake of refraining from spoiling the movie, I have extremely simplified the plot, but know that it is well produced and carefully mixes history with legend to move the story forward).
Crowe is great as title character (he also produced the film) but I was pleasantly surprised by his love interest, Marian Loxley (Cate Blanchtette). With the exception of her battlefield entrance (aforementioned only problem with battle scenes) she is very good. Her portrayal of Marian gives more depth to her character than most of the others have. Other than the main two, the only notable performance is ______ as Prince John, who effectively makes you despise the womanizing dolt of a monarch (dolt is my history prof’s word, not mine).
Other than the exposition and Marian’s battle segment, I really enjoyed this movie. Its inviting adventure to ensure freedom from taxation warms this red-blooded conservative’s heart. No doubt my naïveté towards the historical imprecision biased my enjoyment of the pseudo-historical story, but as they say, ignorance is bliss. The great action drives the film as swordsmen and archers skillfully and admirably wield their weapons. The story creatively constructs a believable prequel of sorts for the well-known legend. Don’t be surprised if Scott and Crowe tag team again for a would-be highly anticipated sequel/ I for one would be there again opening week with faith that this creative duo could sidestep the all-too-common sequel disappointment.
4 out of 5 Stars
Thanks for checking out our blog. Feel free to send us comments and suggestions at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com Also don't forget to join the Twitter. As always tell your friends about us!!!!
-Nuss
Robin Hood throws you right into the action as English crusaders are attempting to seize and plunder a French castle. The opening battle sets the tone for the superb action throughout the film ( with one exception that I will address later). While the Gladiator gore is absent in this PG-13 film, the fighting sequences seem realistic and are very engaging.
The plot in this one differs greatly from that of the story that most of us grew up with. The film attempts to tell the back-story behind the one who robbed the rich to feed the poor (Side note: I asked on of my old history professors about the historical accuracy of the film and he informed me that it is riddled with inaccuracies). Other than the title character one of the first that we meet is King Richard the Lionheart. His portrayal as a somewhat drunken unsure ruler is different from that of popular lore (and dare I say history). He jumpstarts Robin’s opposition to the crown when Longstride tells him of his own personal opinions on the morality of the crusades. In a time when negative feelings towards Islamic Holy Wars are prevalent, this depiction of Richard and his role in the plot exposition undoubtedly are meant to remind people of the atrocity of the crusades and act as a critique of Christianity through comparison.
Robin Longstride (Crowe) is portrayed as a peasant crusader fighting for political ideals. His character is endearing and his aged appearance gives a maturity to his conquest. He teams up with a couple of fellow peasants including the classic character of Little John (Kevin Durand). After a bit of good fate befalls them, Robin finds himself on a journey to pursue his word and honor. Meanwhile, Prince John attempts to rule the country with and iron fist and an ill-advised friendship. The two plots come colliding together in a traditional epic battle scene (for the sake of refraining from spoiling the movie, I have extremely simplified the plot, but know that it is well produced and carefully mixes history with legend to move the story forward).
Crowe is great as title character (he also produced the film) but I was pleasantly surprised by his love interest, Marian Loxley (Cate Blanchtette). With the exception of her battlefield entrance (aforementioned only problem with battle scenes) she is very good. Her portrayal of Marian gives more depth to her character than most of the others have. Other than the main two, the only notable performance is ______ as Prince John, who effectively makes you despise the womanizing dolt of a monarch (dolt is my history prof’s word, not mine).
Other than the exposition and Marian’s battle segment, I really enjoyed this movie. Its inviting adventure to ensure freedom from taxation warms this red-blooded conservative’s heart. No doubt my naïveté towards the historical imprecision biased my enjoyment of the pseudo-historical story, but as they say, ignorance is bliss. The great action drives the film as swordsmen and archers skillfully and admirably wield their weapons. The story creatively constructs a believable prequel of sorts for the well-known legend. Don’t be surprised if Scott and Crowe tag team again for a would-be highly anticipated sequel/ I for one would be there again opening week with faith that this creative duo could sidestep the all-too-common sequel disappointment.
4 out of 5 Stars
Thanks for checking out our blog. Feel free to send us comments and suggestions at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com Also don't forget to join the Twitter. As always tell your friends about us!!!!
-Nuss
Iron Man 2: It’s a Better Sequel than Teen Wolf Too
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
I recently had the pleasure of FINALLY seeing Iron Man 2 (The sequel to Iron Man). I invested over $40 dollars on this movie (Yikes). I had initially planned on seeing it last Friday the day It came out (I even went and bought tickets early because I am such a baller). I spent $15 on two tickets (I was taking someone to see it? OMG, I know right?!) However, due to getting packed up to move home from college (I have more shit than a Desperate Housewife, no lie), I did not have time to get away from packing up 4 years of accumulated coupon books, free t-shirts and koozies, and other things to see the film. So boom, I'm out that money. Not a huge deal as it is just money and I am absolutely loaded (I have moved home to live with my parents for the foreseeable future). However, I was still determined to see what very well could be this summer's biggest blockbuster hit. Therefore, I turned around and bought two tickets to see it in IMAX. Nevertheless, after investing enough money into what seemed like would have gotten a start-up business off the ground, I was excited to the sequel to Iron Man (Iron Man 2). I had the pleasure of reading Nuss's review of the movie before I saw it. Check it out here if you haven't read it yet. His review had me skeptical about what was to come in this film.
After seeing this movie, I can say I disagree with James (with all due respect my good man). Iron Man 2 (Sequel to Iron Man) is an exciting film. Here are a couple of reactions I had during and after this movie:
- Mickey Rourek did a fantastic job in his role. My one gripe about his character (And many Hollywood characters) was his lack of taste buds. Now, personally, I have never chugged Russain Vodka from a bottle. However, if it tastes anything like normal vodka, it does not go down that smooth (so I hear). It annoys me when a character like his downs vodka (straight) like it's a bottle of water. It probably really was water, but that is beside the point. I want to see some acting. Coming from someone who just spent four years in college (observing, of course), no hard liquor goes down that smooth. It should look more like this.
- Scarlett JoHOTT was a great addition to this movie. Wow, just, wow, I can't even, wow I'm a fan. The scene where she singlehandedly takes out 10 or so guards, wow, just, yeah, wow. Cherish her Ryan Reynolds… Cherish her.
- Robert Downey Jr. was his usual smart ass Tony Stark (he plays it well), but Sam Rockwell straight up stole the show. I will be buying this movie when it comes out and one of the main reasons is I just want to watch his character again because he played it so well. He can also bust a move (reminds me of myself).
- Wow, Scarlett Johansson, just wow.
- I felt like I was taken back to Science class for about a half-hour. I hate science class….
Although I have decided I like Iron Man better than Iron Man 2 (the sequel to Iron Man) because it was the original, it wasn't hyped up, and it was very underrated. IM2 still had a good balance (for the most part) of action mixed with plot and humor. As mentioned before the cast was great. I thought I was going to hate Don Cheadle replacing Terrance Howard because I am a firm believer if you do a sequel, you do it right and get everyone on board again (Unlike Teen Wolf Too. Why'd they have to mess that series up?). However, I was wrong and I more than approved having him in the movie.
My favorite scene was the fictional race, "Grand Prix de Monaco Historique" (Yes, I had to look that up). This is where Tony Stark first gets introduced to Ivan (Rourek). The special effects and the overall atmosphere of the scene had me feeling like I was in the movie (good of had to do with seeing it in Imax). This scene had me wanting to take a visit for the real race someday. However, from the looks of it, you have to be a CEO or a gold digger to go. I'm still crossing my fingers for my sugar momma.
And how cool is it seeing Jon Favreau in the movie he directed? Some people might say it is him having an ego trip. However, I say he can do whatever he wants after making these movies…
In closing, I was a fan of this movie. Robert Downey Jr. was good as always, Sam Rockwell stole the show, and Scarlett Johansson (Have I mentioned, wow?) was a solid addition. The fight scenes were good, yet the plot was there. I am excited to see what Marvel has in store next.
Overall: 4/5 Claws
Hope you (sorta) enjoyed the review. Next up, will be a review of a classic comedy, My Blue Heaven. Follow us on Twitter @CLAWtomicBAUM. I have boycotted posting movie quotes until we get more followers. Let me know any thoughts you might have on this movie or anything you might want reviewed. E-mail us at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com for questions, comments, suggestions, or our phone numbers.
Ta-Ta for now,
#0 The Claw
My First Movie!!!!
Saturday, May 15, 2010
So the blog up until this point has been me telling you guys a little bit about myself and what I think about movies. But this post will showcase the first ever movie that I helped create (I think the producer credit was slightly lofty, but I'll take it.) This is a movie that was thought up my one of my roomies (shout out to Zeke) for a competition to try to be on the Discovery Channel show Man vs. Wild. The video is a parody of the show, so you may not appreciate it if you have never watched the show. Regardless, rather than reading me rant for the next ten minutes about character development or poor plot progression, just sit back and enjoy the show.
What'd you think? E-mail us at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com and tell us. Big shoutout to Erin Smithey who shot the footage and put the whole thing together. Check out her new show on Discovery Health called My Strange Addiction. I promise, next time I'll get back to reviewing movies.
-Nuss
What'd you think? E-mail us at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com and tell us. Big shoutout to Erin Smithey who shot the footage and put the whole thing together. Check out her new show on Discovery Health called My Strange Addiction. I promise, next time I'll get back to reviewing movies.
-Nuss
Lawmen-for-Hire: A Review of Appaloosa
Thursday, May 13, 2010
My trip through the Wild West recently brought me to the dusty little town of Appaloosa. This 2008 film not only stars Ed Harris, but is also written and produced by him. Being a sucker for westerns, I actually saw this movie when it was released in theaters, but (and I say this at the risk of giving away my opinion of the movie) this movie is also one that has been added to my personal collection.
In many ways, this movie opposes The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. It is a straightforward plot that leaves cliché and political commentary behind. Harris plays the cool-headed marshal whose major downfall is letting his love interest (Renée Zellweger) cloud his other wise spot-on judgment. But Vigo Mortensen, playing the part of Everett Hitch, steals the show and make my list of all-time best sidekicks. His loyalty to his partner is unusual in its degree as he carefully navigates Cole’s new relationship and the problems it brings for the lawmen-for-hire duo. One of the best quotes in the movie exemplifies the unbreakable bond between the two. Allie (Zellweger’s character) accuses Everett of coming on to her. Everett coolly replies “No, Virgil. I did not.” As Allie begins her protest, Virgil interrupts without hesitation and scolds her saying “No Allie. Everett didn’t do that”
Jeremy Irons gives a very good performance as the villain that goes from rancher outlaw to wealthy lobbyist (I sensed some commentary on current politics) And his looming showdown is a great piece of the falling action.
If you are wanting a shoot ‘em up cowboy flick, you won’t find it here. This film represents the West as it was; a non-glamorous world where justice had to be served.
4 out of 5 Stars
Be sure to tell your friends about us!!!
-Nuss
In many ways, this movie opposes The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. It is a straightforward plot that leaves cliché and political commentary behind. Harris plays the cool-headed marshal whose major downfall is letting his love interest (Renée Zellweger) cloud his other wise spot-on judgment. But Vigo Mortensen, playing the part of Everett Hitch, steals the show and make my list of all-time best sidekicks. His loyalty to his partner is unusual in its degree as he carefully navigates Cole’s new relationship and the problems it brings for the lawmen-for-hire duo. One of the best quotes in the movie exemplifies the unbreakable bond between the two. Allie (Zellweger’s character) accuses Everett of coming on to her. Everett coolly replies “No, Virgil. I did not.” As Allie begins her protest, Virgil interrupts without hesitation and scolds her saying “No Allie. Everett didn’t do that”
Jeremy Irons gives a very good performance as the villain that goes from rancher outlaw to wealthy lobbyist (I sensed some commentary on current politics) And his looming showdown is a great piece of the falling action.
If you are wanting a shoot ‘em up cowboy flick, you won’t find it here. This film represents the West as it was; a non-glamorous world where justice had to be served.
4 out of 5 Stars
Be sure to tell your friends about us!!!
-Nuss
Back to Back good Comic Sequels?: A Review of Iron Man 2
Monday, May 10, 2010
Now that the dust has settled from the most anticipated opening weekend in quite sometime, I will let you know what I thought of the Marvel sequel, Iron Man 2. I was pumped to get tickets to see it at midnight Thursday night (you the man Woody). The last comic book sequel I saw was The Dark Knight so this one had a lot to live up to…
This one fell short, way short. The story picks up right where it left off after Tony Stark has just announced that he is Iron Man. We are introduced to the main villain, Ivan Vanko (played by Mickey Rourke), right away and his connection to Stark seems promising. You have heard me on my soapbox before about how movies must have a good story and not just great effects. One of the most frustrating things about this one was that it started off with so much potential that was later unreached.
The plot’s central conflict centers around the relationship between the fathers of Vanko and Stark. The two were both friends who worked together to create technology that helped change the world… then Stark had Vanko deported. That’s all we know. There are no flashbacks of the two working together, nothing of toddlers Tony and Ivan growing up as friends, nothing about how the father’s argued over the use of their innovations, nothing. All we know is he was sent back to Russia, and for that, Ivan wants to kill Tony (I can’t say I’ve lived in post-Cold War Russia, but this seems like one heck of a grudge).
Tony’s character has gone off the deep end. Part of what makes the first movie great is the way he balances the line between a cocky genius and an arrogant narcissist. This one leaves the balancing behind. His persona is over-the-top and much of what he does (getting hammered in the suit) doesn’t seem to fit with the rest of what we know about his character. Another deviation from the film’s predecessor is the lack of discussion of the technology that we see at work. When lithium dioxide instantaneously cures Tony’s blood toxicity levels (did anyone else notice it went from 19% to 87% in like half an hour and he didn’t seem to concerned?) or when he constructs a particle collider balanced by a Captain America shield (great Avengers promo) that creates a completely new element, the audience is just supposed to accept what they’ve seen without any explanation. And while we are one the subject, his dad’s life work was hidden in a model city that he knew his son would be able to render digitally on a wall and then virtually dismantle until he discovered a new element that could be created in a matter of hours? I don’t buy it.
While I am being pretty harsh, their were some good parts. Mickey Rourke is great. I’m not sure if he actually got into Vanko’s character or if he played his own crazy self with a Russian accent. Regardless it worked and he is a great comic villain. Scarlett Johansen was forgettable, but replacing Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle was a great move. I am usually not a fan of changing characters in the middle of a franchise, especially comic films (neither is Joey see here). But Cheadle is great (although some of his character’s part in the overall plot don’t make a whole lot of sense either). Don’t even get me started on the crazy magic that transformed Pepper Potts went from a supportive personal assistant to a demanding CEO right before our very eyes.
This film fell into the trap that many sequels do of leeching off of the hype generated by its predecessor. The plot struggled and the character development didn’t seem to sync, but the most troubling part was that it had so much potential! It was an ok movie at best, and I had to be tough on it because I know everyone is going to blindly say that they liked it. Just be glad I didn’t go all PoliSci major on you and rant about the atrocity that was the Congressional hearing in the film’s onset!
1.5 out of 5 Stars
Let me hear how wrong I am about this one (or if you secretly agree, but don’t want to tell your friends). E-mail us at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com. And for those of you who are western enthusiasts, don’t worry, the detour is over…for now.
-Nuss
This one fell short, way short. The story picks up right where it left off after Tony Stark has just announced that he is Iron Man. We are introduced to the main villain, Ivan Vanko (played by Mickey Rourke), right away and his connection to Stark seems promising. You have heard me on my soapbox before about how movies must have a good story and not just great effects. One of the most frustrating things about this one was that it started off with so much potential that was later unreached.
The plot’s central conflict centers around the relationship between the fathers of Vanko and Stark. The two were both friends who worked together to create technology that helped change the world… then Stark had Vanko deported. That’s all we know. There are no flashbacks of the two working together, nothing of toddlers Tony and Ivan growing up as friends, nothing about how the father’s argued over the use of their innovations, nothing. All we know is he was sent back to Russia, and for that, Ivan wants to kill Tony (I can’t say I’ve lived in post-Cold War Russia, but this seems like one heck of a grudge).
Tony’s character has gone off the deep end. Part of what makes the first movie great is the way he balances the line between a cocky genius and an arrogant narcissist. This one leaves the balancing behind. His persona is over-the-top and much of what he does (getting hammered in the suit) doesn’t seem to fit with the rest of what we know about his character. Another deviation from the film’s predecessor is the lack of discussion of the technology that we see at work. When lithium dioxide instantaneously cures Tony’s blood toxicity levels (did anyone else notice it went from 19% to 87% in like half an hour and he didn’t seem to concerned?) or when he constructs a particle collider balanced by a Captain America shield (great Avengers promo) that creates a completely new element, the audience is just supposed to accept what they’ve seen without any explanation. And while we are one the subject, his dad’s life work was hidden in a model city that he knew his son would be able to render digitally on a wall and then virtually dismantle until he discovered a new element that could be created in a matter of hours? I don’t buy it.
While I am being pretty harsh, their were some good parts. Mickey Rourke is great. I’m not sure if he actually got into Vanko’s character or if he played his own crazy self with a Russian accent. Regardless it worked and he is a great comic villain. Scarlett Johansen was forgettable, but replacing Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle was a great move. I am usually not a fan of changing characters in the middle of a franchise, especially comic films (neither is Joey see here). But Cheadle is great (although some of his character’s part in the overall plot don’t make a whole lot of sense either). Don’t even get me started on the crazy magic that transformed Pepper Potts went from a supportive personal assistant to a demanding CEO right before our very eyes.
This film fell into the trap that many sequels do of leeching off of the hype generated by its predecessor. The plot struggled and the character development didn’t seem to sync, but the most troubling part was that it had so much potential! It was an ok movie at best, and I had to be tough on it because I know everyone is going to blindly say that they liked it. Just be glad I didn’t go all PoliSci major on you and rant about the atrocity that was the Congressional hearing in the film’s onset!
1.5 out of 5 Stars
Let me hear how wrong I am about this one (or if you secretly agree, but don’t want to tell your friends). E-mail us at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com. And for those of you who are western enthusiasts, don’t worry, the detour is over…for now.
-Nuss
The Bad, The Worst, and The Ugly
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
My next stop on my tour of classic movies may cause me to detour into another genre for a little while.
The movie was the Clint Eastwood classic The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. For as long as I can remember I have been a sucker for a good western. Maybe its because of the intrinsic nature of man to live a life un-tethered in a search to find their identity or maybe its just because I like the idea of wearing cowboy hats and shooting stuff. Whatever the reason is that they intrigue me, I am going to explore a few westerns over my next couple of reviews, so please shoot (pun intended) me a message if there is one you think that I MUST review.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is a classic spaghetti-western, so named because of its Italian director. Originally, much of the dialogue was shot in Italian, which explains why so much of the talking does not sync up with the moving mouths. The film is actually the third in a trilogy of movies, the first two being A Fistful of Dollars and A Few Dollars More. It also is widely considered one of the best westerns of all-time and Quentin Tarantino went so far as to call it the “best directed movie of all-time” regardless of genre. What better place to start my journey?
To be honest, I was underwhelmed. Once again, my main beef was with the plot. The movie is very long (three hours), but the plot is extremely simple and much of the movie could have been omitted. “The Good,” played by Clint Eastwood, was good in name alone. He was a double-crossing grave robbing bounty hunter, not exactly the typical protagonist of the genre. Eastwood is great as the cocksure quick-drawing outlaw and is full of to-the-point one liners (my favorite being “There are two kinds of people in the world, those with loaded guns and those with shovels”). “The Ugly” was a loutish bandito who actually teams up with Eastwood (after they leave each other for dead a couple of times) to find buried treasure. “The Bad,” played by Lee Van Cleef, was probably my favorite character. He’s a smooth murderer who has no problem with disposing of anyone and everyone. I think in all honesty, Eastwood’s character should have been deemed “The Bad” and maybe Van Cleef’s could have been “The Worst.”
The plot is held together by a great soundtrack and the quintessential sounds that we now associate with the genre as a whole. The director also clearly goes out of his way to criticize the Civil War as a waste of human life and goes to great lengths in an attempt to vilify the North. The climatic three-way shootout was original, but it could not make up for the tongue-in-cheek style that characterized the rest of the film.
All-in-all it was fun to watch Clint Eastwood, but this isn’t one to watch again and again. I know you are probably getting tired of me saying it, but stories drive movies, and this one wasn’t the best. I know I am probably upsetting the masses with this one, but it wasn’t my favorite.
3 stars out of 5
As always, we love to hear your comments on our blog. Send us an e-mail at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com or just give us a shoutout on facebook. Tell all your firends about us and make sure to check back soon for the next stop on my journey through the wild wild west.
-Nuss
The movie was the Clint Eastwood classic The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. For as long as I can remember I have been a sucker for a good western. Maybe its because of the intrinsic nature of man to live a life un-tethered in a search to find their identity or maybe its just because I like the idea of wearing cowboy hats and shooting stuff. Whatever the reason is that they intrigue me, I am going to explore a few westerns over my next couple of reviews, so please shoot (pun intended) me a message if there is one you think that I MUST review.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is a classic spaghetti-western, so named because of its Italian director. Originally, much of the dialogue was shot in Italian, which explains why so much of the talking does not sync up with the moving mouths. The film is actually the third in a trilogy of movies, the first two being A Fistful of Dollars and A Few Dollars More. It also is widely considered one of the best westerns of all-time and Quentin Tarantino went so far as to call it the “best directed movie of all-time” regardless of genre. What better place to start my journey?
To be honest, I was underwhelmed. Once again, my main beef was with the plot. The movie is very long (three hours), but the plot is extremely simple and much of the movie could have been omitted. “The Good,” played by Clint Eastwood, was good in name alone. He was a double-crossing grave robbing bounty hunter, not exactly the typical protagonist of the genre. Eastwood is great as the cocksure quick-drawing outlaw and is full of to-the-point one liners (my favorite being “There are two kinds of people in the world, those with loaded guns and those with shovels”). “The Ugly” was a loutish bandito who actually teams up with Eastwood (after they leave each other for dead a couple of times) to find buried treasure. “The Bad,” played by Lee Van Cleef, was probably my favorite character. He’s a smooth murderer who has no problem with disposing of anyone and everyone. I think in all honesty, Eastwood’s character should have been deemed “The Bad” and maybe Van Cleef’s could have been “The Worst.”
The plot is held together by a great soundtrack and the quintessential sounds that we now associate with the genre as a whole. The director also clearly goes out of his way to criticize the Civil War as a waste of human life and goes to great lengths in an attempt to vilify the North. The climatic three-way shootout was original, but it could not make up for the tongue-in-cheek style that characterized the rest of the film.
All-in-all it was fun to watch Clint Eastwood, but this isn’t one to watch again and again. I know you are probably getting tired of me saying it, but stories drive movies, and this one wasn’t the best. I know I am probably upsetting the masses with this one, but it wasn’t my favorite.
3 stars out of 5
As always, we love to hear your comments on our blog. Send us an e-mail at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com or just give us a shoutout on facebook. Tell all your firends about us and make sure to check back soon for the next stop on my journey through the wild wild west.
-Nuss
A Trip to the Golden Age: A Review of the Maltese Falcon
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Recently my mom said, “James, you have an eclectic taste in music.” Admittedly, I like a wide variety of music from country to 80’s pop and rock to Disney soundtracks to angry female pop stars (i.e. Alanis Morissette and Pink) and all sorts of other genres in between. But at the very top of my list is “The Chairman of the Board” himself, Frank Sinatra. I love Old Blue Eyes and the rest of the Rat Pack, not only their music, but their movies and their style. This past Christmas, my sister (shoutout to Julie) gave me a book called “The Way You Wear Your Hat.” It was a book about Sinatra’s “art of living.” Needless to say, I finished it before our New Year’s Day bowl game. The book discusses how Sinatra idolized prominent Hollywood actor and icon, Humphrey Bogart. Intrigued, I decided to add some Bogart films to my Netflix queue, and before I knew it The Maltese Falcon was in my mailbox.
The Maltese Falcon is a classic black and white detective film. It follows private detective Sam Spade (Bogart) as he becomes entangled in a web of greed for a jewel encrusted bird statue. The plot is confusing at times as Sam (and the viewer) tries to sift through the lies and alibis from the various players. I really enjoyed watching a film from the Golden Age of Hollywood and loved diving into the culture and style of the 1940s.
Bogart eloquently portrays a strong-willed, fast-talking PI. At times, I found his dialogue almost cryptic as the fast talking mixed with the mystery of the case, lies from the supporting cast, and the cant of the 1940s. The main broad (in the 40s this didn’t have the negative connotation that it does now so I can use it, what a great word) is typical to her gender in that I had not idea what was going on with her ever. Her emotions and disposition changed more often than Ricky Henderson changed pro teams.
The mystery plot and classic style make for a fun watch even though I wasn’t always in step with the storyline. This detective classic filled with henchmen, murders, and an affair is a one you should watch if you have an affinity for the 40s. Its major downfall is a somewhat unsatisfying resolution, but it’s still a movie that Bogart and even Sinatra fans alike should check out. It could be “the start of a beautiful friendship.”
-Nuss
3 out of 5 stars
Hope you enjoyed the review. Please comment below our shoot us an e-mail with your thoughts at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com. Also, follow us on twitter @CLAWtomicBAUM and as always tell your friends about us.
The Maltese Falcon is a classic black and white detective film. It follows private detective Sam Spade (Bogart) as he becomes entangled in a web of greed for a jewel encrusted bird statue. The plot is confusing at times as Sam (and the viewer) tries to sift through the lies and alibis from the various players. I really enjoyed watching a film from the Golden Age of Hollywood and loved diving into the culture and style of the 1940s.
Bogart eloquently portrays a strong-willed, fast-talking PI. At times, I found his dialogue almost cryptic as the fast talking mixed with the mystery of the case, lies from the supporting cast, and the cant of the 1940s. The main broad (in the 40s this didn’t have the negative connotation that it does now so I can use it, what a great word) is typical to her gender in that I had not idea what was going on with her ever. Her emotions and disposition changed more often than Ricky Henderson changed pro teams.
The mystery plot and classic style make for a fun watch even though I wasn’t always in step with the storyline. This detective classic filled with henchmen, murders, and an affair is a one you should watch if you have an affinity for the 40s. Its major downfall is a somewhat unsatisfying resolution, but it’s still a movie that Bogart and even Sinatra fans alike should check out. It could be “the start of a beautiful friendship.”
-Nuss
3 out of 5 stars
Hope you enjoyed the review. Please comment below our shoot us an e-mail with your thoughts at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com. Also, follow us on twitter @CLAWtomicBAUM and as always tell your friends about us.
The first ever joint review! (As requested by Pete Hewitt): Avatar
Thursday, April 22, 2010
So here is part two of our first ever joint review. If you didn't get a chance, check out Joey's post from yesterday. Happy Earth Day, hope you enjoy our review!
When I first saw the trailer for Avatar, I was intrigued if nothing else. It reminded me of the first time that I saw a trailer for Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto (and they were actually more similar than I then realized). Although it fascinated me on some levels, it was not enough to make my “must-see list.” I had already seen a 3D movie (Toy Story 1&2 Double Feature was amazing and I can’t wait for 3 to come out in June), and I assumed that some of the novelty of the new style would wear off with my second three-dimensional experience. So, even though I very much enjoy and prefer to see movies on their opening weekend, I did not see Avatar its first, second, or even third weekend in theaters.
Soon after the hype surrounded me. Facebook status updates ranged from “this changed my life” to “I’m seeing Avatar for the 4th time (in three weeks) tomorrow.” My friends’ recommendations varied anywhere from “awesome” to “you’ll hate it.” I decided that I owed it to myself as a fan of film and amateur movie critic (soon to be professional) to check it out. I had seen Jurassic Park and imagined that James Cameron would again attempt to create an environment that evoked a sense of wonder, and I had been warned that some thought the film had a somewhat liberal agenda, but other than that I did not know what to expect. And I like it that way, free to form my own opinions.
Avatar is truly a testament to human creativity and imagination. The way that Cameron created not only a new setting, but a new culture and very world, was in many ways like the Star Wars and Lord of the Rings franchises (some of my all-time favorites). The spectacle and cinematography are phenomenal. The viewer is immersed into another time and place. The attention to details and creative ingenuity are so convincing that I found myself forgetting that what I was watching was largely computer generated and not live-action. Everything from the creatures that roamed the jungles to the very scientific laws that govern life were constructed anew. And it was fascinating.
That being said, in many ways I am throwback. I believe that at the essence of film and movie making is the art of storytelling. It is at the very core of what movies should be about. Unfortunately, this story has been told ten times over. Without the basic premise of Avatars, the Pocahontas story is not a whole lot different. The writer was determined to make humans look like inconsiderate pigs and the knocks on capitalism were overt and unhindered. One of the best examples of that is the unreasonably over-the-top character of Colonel Miles Quaritch (see scene where he punches Sully after opening the simulator). The mineral they are trying to ‘obtain’ is called ‘unobtainium’ for crying out loud. Furthermore, there were clearly measures taken to insure that the indigenous people resembled Native Americans, explaining both why parts originally reminded me of Apocalypto and why some are placing it in the genre of sci-fi western.
While I have stated my grievances with the plot, all-in-all, it is a good movie. Avatar is engaging in a way that few movies are, but still leaves something to be desired. If the hype generates the sequels and possibly trilogy that rumors speculate about, I will definitely go to see them (and this time I won’t wait until week four). Hopefully with another shot, they will get the fundamental story aspect right.
4 stars out of 5
Hey guys, let us know what you think. If you think our blog is lame, tell us. If you actually enjoy reading it, tell us that too. You can comment below or shoot us an email at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com Let us know what you think or if there is a movie you are just dying to hear our opinion on. And don't forget to tell all your friends to check us out.
Thanks and check back soon for a review of a Humprhey Bogart Classic.
-Nuss
When I first saw the trailer for Avatar, I was intrigued if nothing else. It reminded me of the first time that I saw a trailer for Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto (and they were actually more similar than I then realized). Although it fascinated me on some levels, it was not enough to make my “must-see list.” I had already seen a 3D movie (Toy Story 1&2 Double Feature was amazing and I can’t wait for 3 to come out in June), and I assumed that some of the novelty of the new style would wear off with my second three-dimensional experience. So, even though I very much enjoy and prefer to see movies on their opening weekend, I did not see Avatar its first, second, or even third weekend in theaters.
Soon after the hype surrounded me. Facebook status updates ranged from “this changed my life” to “I’m seeing Avatar for the 4th time (in three weeks) tomorrow.” My friends’ recommendations varied anywhere from “awesome” to “you’ll hate it.” I decided that I owed it to myself as a fan of film and amateur movie critic (soon to be professional) to check it out. I had seen Jurassic Park and imagined that James Cameron would again attempt to create an environment that evoked a sense of wonder, and I had been warned that some thought the film had a somewhat liberal agenda, but other than that I did not know what to expect. And I like it that way, free to form my own opinions.
Avatar is truly a testament to human creativity and imagination. The way that Cameron created not only a new setting, but a new culture and very world, was in many ways like the Star Wars and Lord of the Rings franchises (some of my all-time favorites). The spectacle and cinematography are phenomenal. The viewer is immersed into another time and place. The attention to details and creative ingenuity are so convincing that I found myself forgetting that what I was watching was largely computer generated and not live-action. Everything from the creatures that roamed the jungles to the very scientific laws that govern life were constructed anew. And it was fascinating.
That being said, in many ways I am throwback. I believe that at the essence of film and movie making is the art of storytelling. It is at the very core of what movies should be about. Unfortunately, this story has been told ten times over. Without the basic premise of Avatars, the Pocahontas story is not a whole lot different. The writer was determined to make humans look like inconsiderate pigs and the knocks on capitalism were overt and unhindered. One of the best examples of that is the unreasonably over-the-top character of Colonel Miles Quaritch (see scene where he punches Sully after opening the simulator). The mineral they are trying to ‘obtain’ is called ‘unobtainium’ for crying out loud. Furthermore, there were clearly measures taken to insure that the indigenous people resembled Native Americans, explaining both why parts originally reminded me of Apocalypto and why some are placing it in the genre of sci-fi western.
While I have stated my grievances with the plot, all-in-all, it is a good movie. Avatar is engaging in a way that few movies are, but still leaves something to be desired. If the hype generates the sequels and possibly trilogy that rumors speculate about, I will definitely go to see them (and this time I won’t wait until week four). Hopefully with another shot, they will get the fundamental story aspect right.
4 stars out of 5
Hey guys, let us know what you think. If you think our blog is lame, tell us. If you actually enjoy reading it, tell us that too. You can comment below or shoot us an email at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com Let us know what you think or if there is a movie you are just dying to hear our opinion on. And don't forget to tell all your friends to check us out.
Thanks and check back soon for a review of a Humprhey Bogart Classic.
-Nuss
AvatarRIFIC
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
What’s up y’all? A while back, one of our good friends Pete Hewitt (Hi, Pete) asked for Nuss and I to do a Review of an unknown, underground flick called Avatar. After searching high and low to find a theatre that was screening this prequel to the Blue Man Group, I was finally able to find a theatre to screen this film (You’ll have to ask James how he came across it, but I am sure he had to pirate it). In honor of this movie’s upcoming DVD release we have decided to give our reviews on Avatar.
All jokes aside from the paragraph above, it is hard not to say you loved a movie that was far and away the highest grossing film of all time. If you have yet to see this movie, you are depriving your eyes of seeing something phenomenal. In the words of one of my good friends, this movie arouses your eyes (ok, so what he said was a little more graphic. Follow this guy on twitter to find out what the saying really is. I’m sure he will be happy to tell you).
Avatar is a ground breaking film that visually captures it audience and then some. The scene where Sully first gets in the Avatar body (that’s what she said) is when my jaw dropped. I would like to note that I say my jaw dropped because I saw it in IMAX 3D (If you chose to see this movie on a regular movie screen, be sure to pick Avatar up on VHS tomorrow and not Blu-Ray). I actually got a little buzz seeing Sully in this scene, I felt like I was him. Like I hadn’t been able to walk in years, and suddenly I could outrun Usain Bolt and put Lebron James on a poster. If there is ever a way to get a high from watching a movie, then this movie comes close.
It is really hard for me to actually talk about the plot of the movie because:
A.) I saw it months ago
B.) I blacked out from having my eyes penetrated by flying bird thingies, plants, and other weird creatures
But, I will do my best to provide you with a little insight to what my thoughts are.
The Avatar is a superior species to the human race. Needless to say, they would dominate the Purple Parrots in a head-to-head Legends of the Hidden Temple (What now, Omec?). While on the subject of the Avatars one must wonder WHY James Cameron chose to spend 500 Million dollars to make this movie. I mean, I get it, but doesn’t he know there was a way to cut cost efficiently in these troubling times in our economy. He could have looked to real life people to cast as the role of Avatars by plugging NBA players into those roles. Some names that pop into my head are:
1.) Demar Derozan: Rookie for the Toronto Raptors
2.) Chris Bosh: All-Star in our hearts and for the Raptors
3.) Marquis Daniels: Former Pacer (Traded away most likely based on race)
If that is not enough, heck, even a little make-up could have done the trick on people who don’t have the natural Avatar beauty. Take a look at this website to see what just a little computer editing can do to some of your favorite Hollywood stars….
Everyone’s little gripe about this movie (I guess you have to point out a negative in everything) is that the storyline is predictable and it has already been done (via Pocahontas, Ferngully, Dances with Wolves, Teen Wolf Too, etc.). My argument is what hasn’t been done? That’s like saying you don’t like the iPad because we already have laptops. Or what would the world be like today if we said ha, why would I want to carry a phone around in my pocket all the time when I have one at the house? It’s True, Martin Lawrence getting fired from being a Pro coach and being forced to coach a middle school team in the movie Rebound was a new storyline, but that doesn’t mean it was better than Avatar (it’s a close call, you be the judge). The fact of the matter is anymore, from a storyline standpoint, it’s been done. So Cameron went outside the plot to create something new and he achieved that (Look at his track record and it’s safe to say the man knows what he is doing). He took something that has already been done and made it better.
My one minor gripe with this movie is the awkward sex scene between two Avatars. I found myself asking questions in my head that I didn’t want answers too… I hope on the DVD release that there will not be an unrated sex scene because I fear my questions will be answered (I can see my nightmares already).
Another future gripe could be will Avatar be as good in the privacy of our own homes? A lot of the excitement of this movie came from seeing the film in IMAX 3D. People were yelling OHHHHH DAMN during the ‘in your face’ battle scenes (This literally happened during my viewing of the film). I just worry I will be a little let down when I watch it the second time because I fell in love with the visual effects more so than the storyline (like most people).
In closing, I enjoyed myself. I almost got high off the visuals of watching a movie that wasn’t Cheech and Chong or Half Baked. I am excited to see what Cameron has to offer me next.
4.5/5 Claws
We hope you enjoyed our reviews. And always remember, if you didn’t enjoy it, unlike Ben Roethlesberger’s victims, your voice matters to us (It’s called consent Benny). So hit us with some feedback @ clawandnussreviews@gmail.com and we will be sure not to ‘hit’ you back a la Chris Brown. Follow us on twitter @CLAWtomicBAUM and as always tell your friends about us.
And I’m out,
-#0 The Claw
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
