Rated R for some disturbing content involving violence and sexuality, 144 minutes
In German with English subtitles
Chilling, affecting "The White Ribbon" makes you wonder who's minding the children
The German drama "The White Ribbon" isn't necessarily a horror film per se, but it's unnerving, dark and filled with some stark imagery. The Golden Globe winner for Best Foreign Film and nominated for the Best Foreign Film Academy Award, it's a chilling, downbeat and heavy film about children who exact revenge on the adults in their own way. And if you've ever been in a store with an upset child, you know that everyone takes notice.
Strange events happen in a small village in the north of Germany during the years just before World War I, which seem to be ritual punishment. The abused and suppressed children of the villagers seem to be at the heart of this mystery. A doctor is severely injured when his horse trips over wire stretched out between two trees. A barn burns down. A handicapped son of a midwife is attacked and nearly blinded. The midwife later goes missing. Animals are wounded and crops are destroyed. A schoolteacher begins to suspect some of the village children are the cause, though that notions causes considerable discord among the adults.
Austrian filmmaker Michael Haneke ("Cache," "Funny Games") has crafted a hypnotic, low-key and well-acted drama that's German version of "Bad Seed." Restrained and subtle, Haneke's delivers a fine film that's both message-heavy and at times heavy-handed. It's a bit of a stretch to tie the children's actions to the atrocities that played out in the first World War and is far more effective as a character study.
With that in mind, "The White Ribbon" isn't a huge mystery as to who the culprits are, and the film spends far more time examining the motives of the children. Are they just mean or was it all learned from their parents? Probably a bit of both, though his script wants you to believe the latter far more from the abusive adults - a baron, a pastor and a doctor, all who abuse people in their own way - laying the groundwork for the bad behavior of the children. All of which to say the regardless of who's responsible, the behavior is unacceptable.
As good as the story and acting are (the children - mostly young German and Austrian actors - are perfectly cast) the standout of "The White Ribbon" is the handsomely stark black-and-white cinematography from Christian Berger that's also Oscar-nominated. Originally shot in color and then changed in post-production, the stark imagery is only enhanced by the photography and serves as a metaphor for good and evil; Berger and director Haneke purposely create dark shadows and contrasting images that give the film an ominious feel.
"The White Ribbon" is a little too long and repetitive toward the end, working best when it's focused on the children, but it comes recommended as a message for adults with children to watch their actions and words, as they are certainly picked up, both in good and bad measure, by your young ones. My early prediction is that it will also likely win the Oscar for Best Foreign Film at the Academy Awards next month.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief - B
Rated PG for action violence and peril, some scary images and suggestive material, and mild language, 119 minutes
"Percy Jackson" is familiar but energetic fun for the family
Those who are excited about the upcoming Winter Olympics and enjoy a good action-fantasy film, then "Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief" may be for you. Considering it's mid-February, "The Lightning Thief," based on a series of popular children's books of the same name, is decent fun with a kinetic spirit and is often visually stunning, even if it all feels way too familiar, in a "Harry Potter" sort of way.
Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) is a typical teenager who has a love for water and is also ADHD and dyslexic. Through a series of unusual circumstances, he discovers that he's a demigod - part human, part Greek god - and is actually the son of Greek god Poseidon (Kevin McKidd). The gods, led by Zeus (Sean Bean), accuse him of being a lightning thief, stealing one of Zeus's bolts. Zeus wants his bolt back, or the gods will break out in war that will threathen all of humanity. Percy, along with his friends Grover (Brandon Jackson), a satyrm (half goat/half man) and Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario), the demigod daughter of Athena, journey to the Underworld to get to the gods to save mankind and his mother (Catherine Keener), who's been kidnapped by the gods.
"The Lightning Thief" is fast-paced, boisterous fun that's designed to be the next big franchise. Director Chris Columbus, who helmed with first two "Harry Potter" films, provides a nice kickstart, with a handful of big, action-set pieces and some memorable visuals with what is largely a faithful adaptation of the novel, with a few minor changes that still retains the heart of Rick Riordan's novel while expanding on its visuals.
The film is best in its initial sections, introducing us to Percy, his friends and a colorful cast. Columbus also benefits from an inspired cast, with Lerman grounding the film as a slightly older Percy than the books. There's also a host of talented actors that provide stellar support: Pierce Brosnan as the half man/half horse, "Lord of the Rings" Sean Bean as Zeus, the warm Keener as the mom, Steve Coogan as Hades and especially Uma Thurman, who almost walks off with the movie in a brief part as the ravishing Medusa.
"The Lightning Thief" falters in its mid-section as it drifts off during the trio's journey, not to mention it all has a busyness and an overly familiar "been there done that" ring to it. With Columbus at the helm, it has a Harry Potter-esque feel to it and the comparisons are inevitable - three young heroes, the central one of which is a young boy, all of whom possess special powers, not to mention all the interesting characters and visuals that surround them. Even with some enjoyable special-effects and a breathless finale, you still seem to wait for Harry Potter to arrive on the scene at any moment.
But then, that's probably the point, since this appeals toward that same Harry Potter audience. That's not to say "The Lightning Thief" doesn't have its entertaining moments (my favorites: Thurman's Medusa, Coogan's rock-star Hades and the multi-headed dragon), there are plenty of them and this could satisy the appetities of those clamoring for a big action-fantasy film until the next Harry Potter film is released later this year.
"Percy Jackson" is familiar but energetic fun for the family
Those who are excited about the upcoming Winter Olympics and enjoy a good action-fantasy film, then "Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief" may be for you. Considering it's mid-February, "The Lightning Thief," based on a series of popular children's books of the same name, is decent fun with a kinetic spirit and is often visually stunning, even if it all feels way too familiar, in a "Harry Potter" sort of way.
Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) is a typical teenager who has a love for water and is also ADHD and dyslexic. Through a series of unusual circumstances, he discovers that he's a demigod - part human, part Greek god - and is actually the son of Greek god Poseidon (Kevin McKidd). The gods, led by Zeus (Sean Bean), accuse him of being a lightning thief, stealing one of Zeus's bolts. Zeus wants his bolt back, or the gods will break out in war that will threathen all of humanity. Percy, along with his friends Grover (Brandon Jackson), a satyrm (half goat/half man) and Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario), the demigod daughter of Athena, journey to the Underworld to get to the gods to save mankind and his mother (Catherine Keener), who's been kidnapped by the gods.
"The Lightning Thief" is fast-paced, boisterous fun that's designed to be the next big franchise. Director Chris Columbus, who helmed with first two "Harry Potter" films, provides a nice kickstart, with a handful of big, action-set pieces and some memorable visuals with what is largely a faithful adaptation of the novel, with a few minor changes that still retains the heart of Rick Riordan's novel while expanding on its visuals.
The film is best in its initial sections, introducing us to Percy, his friends and a colorful cast. Columbus also benefits from an inspired cast, with Lerman grounding the film as a slightly older Percy than the books. There's also a host of talented actors that provide stellar support: Pierce Brosnan as the half man/half horse, "Lord of the Rings" Sean Bean as Zeus, the warm Keener as the mom, Steve Coogan as Hades and especially Uma Thurman, who almost walks off with the movie in a brief part as the ravishing Medusa.
"The Lightning Thief" falters in its mid-section as it drifts off during the trio's journey, not to mention it all has a busyness and an overly familiar "been there done that" ring to it. With Columbus at the helm, it has a Harry Potter-esque feel to it and the comparisons are inevitable - three young heroes, the central one of which is a young boy, all of whom possess special powers, not to mention all the interesting characters and visuals that surround them. Even with some enjoyable special-effects and a breathless finale, you still seem to wait for Harry Potter to arrive on the scene at any moment.
But then, that's probably the point, since this appeals toward that same Harry Potter audience. That's not to say "The Lightning Thief" doesn't have its entertaining moments (my favorites: Thurman's Medusa, Coogan's rock-star Hades and the multi-headed dragon), there are plenty of them and this could satisy the appetities of those clamoring for a big action-fantasy film until the next Harry Potter film is released later this year.
The Wolfman - C-
Rated R for bloody horror violence and gore, 105 minutes
"The Wolfman" is messy, jolty entertainment
It's never a good sign when a film is delayed multiple times, even big action-horror-thriller remakes like "The Wolfman," based on the 1941 classic Lon Chaney film of the same name. While it's provides a handful of sizable, jumpy scares, "The Wolfman" is a messy, empty exercise in Hollywood filmmaking that will disappoint fans of the original film. The story has been considerably altered from the older film to amp up the action, losing the real heart of the story: the inner struggle between man and beast.
Set in 1880's outside of London, England, Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro) is reunited with his loving but distant father Sir John Talbot (Anthony Hopkins) following the mysterious disappearance and possible death of his brother Ben. A Scotland Yard detective named Aberline (Hugo Weaving) arrives to investigate further, and they learn that some with quick, brute strength and an insatiable appetitite for blood has been killing many in nearby towns. As he becomes attracted to his brother's fiance Gwen (Emily Blunt), he himself falls under the curse that is at the center of the brutal murders and learns that it's been far closer to him that he had ever expected.
"The Wolfman" is an unfortunate big-budgeted disappointment that relies heavily on its special effects and action set pieces to deliver a great movie, which it fails to do. The movie has gone through several directors, many script rewrites and multiple delays, and it shows on screen. Though the transformation from man to beast is an impressive one courtesy of Rick Baker (Oscar-winner for his werewolf makeup in the scarier and funnier "An American Werewolf in London"), the updated story is a disjointed, unrevealing mess.
What is most unfortunate about "The Wolfman" other than its story is the fact the big-name cast fails to deliver. You'd think with two smart actors in Oscar-winners Hopkins and Del Toro that it'd generate some electricity, but it doesn't. It hardly explores the troubled father-son relationship, plus Hopkins, in a hammy take-the-money-and-run-quickly performance, chews on the scenery too much, nearly devouring Del Toro with it. Speaking of which, he's a real disppointment too considering that he's inspired given his naturally hairy, dark features. Emily Blunt, as the romantic angle here, is given little to do in a smallish but sympathetic role, while "Lord of the Rings" and "Matrix" stalwart Weaving scowls as usual on cue.
Director Joe Johnston ("Jurassic Park III") handles the terrific action pieces well, and they pop with energy and force (and graphic violence too: if you don't enjoy seeing heads roll, this isn't for you), but everything in between is a bit of a bore. At least the make-up and special effects are first-rate (the wolfman is far more nimble and mobile than in the original) and the lush, handsome sets evoke the period well. Danny Elman's gothic musical score is also well-placed but seems overly familiar in a dark Batman-esque sort of way.
By the time "The Wolfman," or "Wolfmen" considering the plot twists, gets down to the Hopkins-Del Toro clash at the end, it literally crashes and burns in an anti-climactic way, and certainly leaves it open for more of these installments, but without Del Toro and Hopkins. After this misfire of a movie, let's hope they put a quick silver bullet through that idea. The original film is cheesy-scary, but still far better than this.
"The Wolfman" is messy, jolty entertainment
It's never a good sign when a film is delayed multiple times, even big action-horror-thriller remakes like "The Wolfman," based on the 1941 classic Lon Chaney film of the same name. While it's provides a handful of sizable, jumpy scares, "The Wolfman" is a messy, empty exercise in Hollywood filmmaking that will disappoint fans of the original film. The story has been considerably altered from the older film to amp up the action, losing the real heart of the story: the inner struggle between man and beast.
Set in 1880's outside of London, England, Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro) is reunited with his loving but distant father Sir John Talbot (Anthony Hopkins) following the mysterious disappearance and possible death of his brother Ben. A Scotland Yard detective named Aberline (Hugo Weaving) arrives to investigate further, and they learn that some with quick, brute strength and an insatiable appetitite for blood has been killing many in nearby towns. As he becomes attracted to his brother's fiance Gwen (Emily Blunt), he himself falls under the curse that is at the center of the brutal murders and learns that it's been far closer to him that he had ever expected.
"The Wolfman" is an unfortunate big-budgeted disappointment that relies heavily on its special effects and action set pieces to deliver a great movie, which it fails to do. The movie has gone through several directors, many script rewrites and multiple delays, and it shows on screen. Though the transformation from man to beast is an impressive one courtesy of Rick Baker (Oscar-winner for his werewolf makeup in the scarier and funnier "An American Werewolf in London"), the updated story is a disjointed, unrevealing mess.
What is most unfortunate about "The Wolfman" other than its story is the fact the big-name cast fails to deliver. You'd think with two smart actors in Oscar-winners Hopkins and Del Toro that it'd generate some electricity, but it doesn't. It hardly explores the troubled father-son relationship, plus Hopkins, in a hammy take-the-money-and-run-quickly performance, chews on the scenery too much, nearly devouring Del Toro with it. Speaking of which, he's a real disppointment too considering that he's inspired given his naturally hairy, dark features. Emily Blunt, as the romantic angle here, is given little to do in a smallish but sympathetic role, while "Lord of the Rings" and "Matrix" stalwart Weaving scowls as usual on cue.
Director Joe Johnston ("Jurassic Park III") handles the terrific action pieces well, and they pop with energy and force (and graphic violence too: if you don't enjoy seeing heads roll, this isn't for you), but everything in between is a bit of a bore. At least the make-up and special effects are first-rate (the wolfman is far more nimble and mobile than in the original) and the lush, handsome sets evoke the period well. Danny Elman's gothic musical score is also well-placed but seems overly familiar in a dark Batman-esque sort of way.
By the time "The Wolfman," or "Wolfmen" considering the plot twists, gets down to the Hopkins-Del Toro clash at the end, it literally crashes and burns in an anti-climactic way, and certainly leaves it open for more of these installments, but without Del Toro and Hopkins. After this misfire of a movie, let's hope they put a quick silver bullet through that idea. The original film is cheesy-scary, but still far better than this.
Valentine's Day - C
Rated PG-13 for some sexual material and brief partial nudity, 125 minutes
The pleasant, forgettable "Valentine's Day" an endurance test
If the '70s TV show "The Love Boat" were remade into a contemporary land-locked romantic comedy, it would be the new Garry Marshall film "Valentine's Day." That TV show was a schlocky guilty pleasure featuring loads of stars pining for love on a weekly basis, and likewise, "Valentine's Day" is a much-too-long schlocky guilty big screen pleasure with loads of pretty actors doing and saying icky, sappy things that only happen in movies like this. An enjoyable, sweet cream puff of a movie, "Valentine's Day" doesn't approach greatness by any means, but it does provide time- filler for the big V-Day date night out.
"Valentine's Day" features a myriad of different storylines tied together by the L-word (and I don't mean lesbian). Reed (Ashton Kutcher) owns a family floral shop. He proposes to his girlfriend Morley (Jessica Alba) but she dumps him. His co-worker buddy at the shop Alfonso (George Lopez) saw it coming but didn't say anything. His best friend Julia (Jennifer Garner) is in love with a married doctor (Patrick Dempsey).
Meanwhile, Julia's friend Kara (Jessica Biel) works as an publicist for pro football player Sean Jackson (Eric Dane) with a secret life. She meets sportcaster Kelvin (Jamie Foxx) while he's covering a story on Sean and the two hit it off. Sean's agent (Queen Latifah) is too busy for love, while her assistant Liz (Anne Hathaway) is attempting to balance a boyfriend with the company mail clerk (Topher Grace) and moonlighting as a phone sex operator. All the while Holden (Bradley Cooper) and Kate (Julia Roberts) are getting to know each other on a plane while returning home to the chaos of their respective lives.
Got that? And that's only about 1/4 of the assortment of bland storylines that run amok in the overlong cheeseball of a movie called "Valentine's Day." I didn't even mention the Taylor's (Lautner and Swift) or Emma Roberts or Shirley MacLaine and Marshall regular Hector Elizondo, who appears in all of Marshall's films, or the cameo from Kathy Bates, who literally walks on and off to bookend the film.
Marshall attempts to tie all of these storylines together to make you believe some sort of business about how love binds us all together. Love may also blind you to what a great movie is, and in spite of a handful of fun, winsome moments, "Valentine's Day" isn't particularly memorable. Marshall could've trimmed about 3/4 of the storylines for a more efficient (i.e. shorter) film, and it probably would've still been too much. Foxx and Hathaway are charming, and I desperately wanted to see less of Kutcher and Garner and more of MacLaine, Emma Roberts and her aunt, Julia, who has the most heart-tugging scene in the movie, and if you stay over to the credits, the funniest line, from the gag (blooper) reel no less.
Unfortunately, many actors get lost in the fray (Biel, Grace and Alba in particular), and other storylines are just too predictable (Cooper), some are annoying (anyone named Taylor or Ashton) while others are just completely unnecessary (Dempsey, Latifah). I admire Marshall for the effort in juggling all the actors and storylines, and he throws in a couple of fun tidbits (watch closely for the names on the signs in the airport to see if you know who it is - hint - Marshall directed the TV show years ago), but considering the massive star appeal, it's rather disappointing.
What do you get when you take a bunch of movie stars and mix them up in a movie about Valentine's Day? A flavorless, lackluster "Love Boat" remake docked on ground, with Kate Hudson noticeably absent. Guys, it's that time of year to man up. Endure the pleasant, forgettable "Valentine's Day" and you'll be in good standing, for a few hours at least.
The pleasant, forgettable "Valentine's Day" an endurance test
If the '70s TV show "The Love Boat" were remade into a contemporary land-locked romantic comedy, it would be the new Garry Marshall film "Valentine's Day." That TV show was a schlocky guilty pleasure featuring loads of stars pining for love on a weekly basis, and likewise, "Valentine's Day" is a much-too-long schlocky guilty big screen pleasure with loads of pretty actors doing and saying icky, sappy things that only happen in movies like this. An enjoyable, sweet cream puff of a movie, "Valentine's Day" doesn't approach greatness by any means, but it does provide time- filler for the big V-Day date night out.
"Valentine's Day" features a myriad of different storylines tied together by the L-word (and I don't mean lesbian). Reed (Ashton Kutcher) owns a family floral shop. He proposes to his girlfriend Morley (Jessica Alba) but she dumps him. His co-worker buddy at the shop Alfonso (George Lopez) saw it coming but didn't say anything. His best friend Julia (Jennifer Garner) is in love with a married doctor (Patrick Dempsey).
Meanwhile, Julia's friend Kara (Jessica Biel) works as an publicist for pro football player Sean Jackson (Eric Dane) with a secret life. She meets sportcaster Kelvin (Jamie Foxx) while he's covering a story on Sean and the two hit it off. Sean's agent (Queen Latifah) is too busy for love, while her assistant Liz (Anne Hathaway) is attempting to balance a boyfriend with the company mail clerk (Topher Grace) and moonlighting as a phone sex operator. All the while Holden (Bradley Cooper) and Kate (Julia Roberts) are getting to know each other on a plane while returning home to the chaos of their respective lives.
Got that? And that's only about 1/4 of the assortment of bland storylines that run amok in the overlong cheeseball of a movie called "Valentine's Day." I didn't even mention the Taylor's (Lautner and Swift) or Emma Roberts or Shirley MacLaine and Marshall regular Hector Elizondo, who appears in all of Marshall's films, or the cameo from Kathy Bates, who literally walks on and off to bookend the film.
Marshall attempts to tie all of these storylines together to make you believe some sort of business about how love binds us all together. Love may also blind you to what a great movie is, and in spite of a handful of fun, winsome moments, "Valentine's Day" isn't particularly memorable. Marshall could've trimmed about 3/4 of the storylines for a more efficient (i.e. shorter) film, and it probably would've still been too much. Foxx and Hathaway are charming, and I desperately wanted to see less of Kutcher and Garner and more of MacLaine, Emma Roberts and her aunt, Julia, who has the most heart-tugging scene in the movie, and if you stay over to the credits, the funniest line, from the gag (blooper) reel no less.
Unfortunately, many actors get lost in the fray (Biel, Grace and Alba in particular), and other storylines are just too predictable (Cooper), some are annoying (anyone named Taylor or Ashton) while others are just completely unnecessary (Dempsey, Latifah). I admire Marshall for the effort in juggling all the actors and storylines, and he throws in a couple of fun tidbits (watch closely for the names on the signs in the airport to see if you know who it is - hint - Marshall directed the TV show years ago), but considering the massive star appeal, it's rather disappointing.
What do you get when you take a bunch of movie stars and mix them up in a movie about Valentine's Day? A flavorless, lackluster "Love Boat" remake docked on ground, with Kate Hudson noticeably absent. Guys, it's that time of year to man up. Endure the pleasant, forgettable "Valentine's Day" and you'll be in good standing, for a few hours at least.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
District 13: Ultimatum - B
Rated R for some violence, language and drug material, 101 minutes
In French with English subtitles
Stylish, bloody "Ultimatum" a French "Lethal Weapon"
In French with English subtitles
Stylish, bloody "Ultimatum" a French "Lethal Weapon"
“District 13: Ultimatum” is an energetic, high-flying and often fun French action thriller. In French with English subtitles, it’s a sequel to the 2004 Luc Besson-produced hit “District 13.” The new film has a bigger budget, a bigger cast and bigger fights and explosions than the original and it will certainly please fans of the first film, even if the well-worn and predictable story is otherwise forgettable.
The sequel begins three years after the events of the original film, and authorities are attempting to restore law and order to the ravaged section known as District 13. The death of gang overlord Taha Bemamud has left a considerable power struggle and total control of the area is now being fought over by five rival territorial gang lords who want to step into Taha's position. Undercover cop Damien (Cyril Raffaelli) and former gang member Leito (David Belle) return to District 13 to bring peace before the President (Philippe Torreton) and some corrupt cops take drastic measures to solve the problem.
“District 13: Ultimatum” is modestly enjoyable, low-grade entertainment, filled with energetic, fast-paced stunts and martial arts that’s the clear highlight of the film, making it seem like France’s version of the “Lethal Weapon” films. Acclaimed filmmaker Besson, with director Patrick Alessandrin, make it enjoyable, though the story is too calculated and implausible to occur in real life. As well, some plot details are a little fuzzy: there are too many characters to keep track of, not to mention it’s often difficult to distinguish the difference between the good guys and the bad guys.
One thing is for sure, though: handsome athletic French actors Belle and Raffaelli (who seems to be France’s version of Jason Statham) are clearly the good guys and are up to much of their antics from the first film. They’re not required so much to act as to nimbly run, jump and kick, and they’re at their best when paired together, particularly in one action set piece that has them surrounded by bad guys, thrown out of a building onto a car, they get the car and literally drive it in and out of the same building. The opening sequence, with Raffaelli taking down some bad guys in drag and fighting with a Van Gogh in one hand, is one of the film’s more humorous moments (and you won’t easily forget the backside – or lack thereof – of his outfit) and reminds of something Mel Gibson might’ve done in the “Lethal Weapon” films years ago.
If you enjoyed the first “District 13” you’ll enjoy “Ultimatum” too, and it doesn’t disappoint with some colorful visuals and stunts to keep you engaged until the efficient, predictable ending that leaves it open for another installment. For essentially a reworked, American version of “District 13,” check out the recent Travolta flick “From Paris With Love,” which was produced by Besson and directed by Pierre Morel, who directed the first “District 13.”
"District 13: Ultimatum" opens in Dallas in March.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Frozen - B-
Rated R for some disturbing images and language, 92 minutes
Simple but chilling "Frozen" will stick with you
The new horror thriller "Frozen" is efficient, simple and haunting. It's about three college kids who get stuck on a ski lift at night and must survive the nastier elements of nature. Harrowing, heartbreaking and suspenseful, it's a flawed overly familiar film that is really an icy version of "Open Water," minus the sharks.
Parker (Emma Bell), Dan (Kevin Zegers) and Joe (Shawn Ashmore) go on a weekend ski trip as a break from their classes. They don't have enough cash for the lift so they pay the operator a few bucks to let them take a ride up to spend a day of fun on the slopes. They convince the operator to let them take the last ride up, but a mix-up leaves them stuck alone on the side of the mountain at night, and the resort won't be open again until the following weekend. What follows is an intense, chilling tale of survival that leaves the three fighting for their lives.
"Frozen" is a simple but above-average horror thriller whose antagonist isn't a person, but nature itself. It's well-directed by horror film director Adam Green, who manages a few thrills on a low-budget and a largely unknown cast who seemingly braved the cold. Bell and Zegers are largely TV actors while Ashmore is the most familiar face, ironically enough he played Ice Man in the X-Men films, and all three, especially Bell, give believable performances that anchor the film well (they attempt small talk to keep their minds off what's happening to them).
The snow, the frostbite, the bloodthirsty wolves nearly get the best of the three, as they're stuck high above in frigid weather. Could this happen? Possibly. Would it? Probably not. There are a couple of things that simply don't ring true: the fact that none of the three - and all college students at that - do not have a cell phone between them is the hardest thing to believe. And then a huge resort such as this clears out in a matter of minutes with no one around to help is also a stretch.
But the film is hardly a waste. Those wolves are pretty nasty and provide the "Frozen's" more entertaining, taut scenes, as a couple of the students attempt to go for help, both with unfortunate results. The ending is more hopeful than you might think, and one of the three even survives, though I won't say who, you just have to see for yourself how they manage to do so.
"Frozen" is an above-average thriller with some nice chills, but it doesn't exactly make you want to go skiing anytime soon.
Simple but chilling "Frozen" will stick with you
The new horror thriller "Frozen" is efficient, simple and haunting. It's about three college kids who get stuck on a ski lift at night and must survive the nastier elements of nature. Harrowing, heartbreaking and suspenseful, it's a flawed overly familiar film that is really an icy version of "Open Water," minus the sharks.
Parker (Emma Bell), Dan (Kevin Zegers) and Joe (Shawn Ashmore) go on a weekend ski trip as a break from their classes. They don't have enough cash for the lift so they pay the operator a few bucks to let them take a ride up to spend a day of fun on the slopes. They convince the operator to let them take the last ride up, but a mix-up leaves them stuck alone on the side of the mountain at night, and the resort won't be open again until the following weekend. What follows is an intense, chilling tale of survival that leaves the three fighting for their lives.
"Frozen" is a simple but above-average horror thriller whose antagonist isn't a person, but nature itself. It's well-directed by horror film director Adam Green, who manages a few thrills on a low-budget and a largely unknown cast who seemingly braved the cold. Bell and Zegers are largely TV actors while Ashmore is the most familiar face, ironically enough he played Ice Man in the X-Men films, and all three, especially Bell, give believable performances that anchor the film well (they attempt small talk to keep their minds off what's happening to them).
The snow, the frostbite, the bloodthirsty wolves nearly get the best of the three, as they're stuck high above in frigid weather. Could this happen? Possibly. Would it? Probably not. There are a couple of things that simply don't ring true: the fact that none of the three - and all college students at that - do not have a cell phone between them is the hardest thing to believe. And then a huge resort such as this clears out in a matter of minutes with no one around to help is also a stretch.
But the film is hardly a waste. Those wolves are pretty nasty and provide the "Frozen's" more entertaining, taut scenes, as a couple of the students attempt to go for help, both with unfortunate results. The ending is more hopeful than you might think, and one of the three even survives, though I won't say who, you just have to see for yourself how they manage to do so.
"Frozen" is an above-average thriller with some nice chills, but it doesn't exactly make you want to go skiing anytime soon.
Dear John - C+
Rated PG-13 for some sensuality and violence, 105 minutes
Sappiness abounds in the tearjerker "Dear John"
Nicholas Sparks is slowly becoming the Stephen King for romance movies, having most of his books either made into movies that women adore and men ha...well, tolerate, especially around Valentine's Day. If men know what's good for them, they'll take their significant other to see the latest Sparks adaptation, "Dear John," an oversentimental, sappy but well-directed romantic tale of long-distance love.
The story begins in the South around 2001 on a beach. John Tyree (Channing Tatum) meets Savannah (Amanda Seyfried) when he dives in the water to retrieve her purse. They strike up a conversation. become friends and eventually fall in love over a 2-week period, until Savannah goes back to college and John goes back on active duty in the Army. On top of that, John's relationship with his distant father (Richard Jenkins) has its challenges due to the fact that his father has a form of autism that's never really been diagnosed.
John and Savannah communicate regularly through letters (you know, Dear John letters), learning more about each other, until 9/11 occurs. John decides on an extended tour and during this time unexpected circumstances cause the pair to break up, even after they've declared their undying love for each other.
"Dear John" is big overemotional chick flick puffery, though in fact that statement may be redundant. I won't completely trash "Dear John" for a couple of reasons, the first is that the film is directed by acclaimed director Lasse Hallstrom ("My Life As a Dog"), who tries to keep things balanced with Sparks' mauldlin material and two pretty but vacuous leads, but more on them in a moment.
Second, it has one of my favorite character actors, Oscar-nominated Richard Jenkins ("The Visitor"), who's superb as John's father and conveys more emotion in a few glances and body movements than the rest of the cast put together (and he and Tatum's final, very wrenching scene together is the best in the movie, have plenty of tissues handy). Watch for Henry Thomas (yes, the "E.T." boy all grown up and looking very different) in a small but key role as a friend of the lovebirds.
Speaking of which, the two handsome leads are the main appeal for "Dear John" but they're the biggest flaws. Seyfried, best known for "Mamma Mia!" and TV's "Big Love," is serviceably bubbly, but it's the bland Channing Tatum ("G.I. Joe") who again, with his rote, emotionless line readings and blank stares drags the movie down. Even a skilled director like Hallstrom can do only so much with an actor who's limited acting range resembles Ben Affleck's, and the film falters when the film is put on Tatum's back to carry (as Seyfried is gone for a sizeable chunk of the movie); it clearly reveals that he just isn't a strong enough actor at this point to do so.
"Dear John's" initial chapters are the more engaging, until the gooey, slower second act kicks in with a couple of icky twists that aren't well integrated into the film. But "Dear John" isn't Hallstrom's fault necessarily, but the cheesy Sparks novel on which its based, and a lack of a strong actor as its emotional core. "The Notebook" at least had Rachel McAdams and Ryan Gosling and "Message in a Bottle" had Kevin Costner.
"Dear John" is one of those critic-proof films that will be a hit regardless of what I think, so ladies carry on. Men, know what to expect.
Sappiness abounds in the tearjerker "Dear John"
Nicholas Sparks is slowly becoming the Stephen King for romance movies, having most of his books either made into movies that women adore and men ha...well, tolerate, especially around Valentine's Day. If men know what's good for them, they'll take their significant other to see the latest Sparks adaptation, "Dear John," an oversentimental, sappy but well-directed romantic tale of long-distance love.
The story begins in the South around 2001 on a beach. John Tyree (Channing Tatum) meets Savannah (Amanda Seyfried) when he dives in the water to retrieve her purse. They strike up a conversation. become friends and eventually fall in love over a 2-week period, until Savannah goes back to college and John goes back on active duty in the Army. On top of that, John's relationship with his distant father (Richard Jenkins) has its challenges due to the fact that his father has a form of autism that's never really been diagnosed.
John and Savannah communicate regularly through letters (you know, Dear John letters), learning more about each other, until 9/11 occurs. John decides on an extended tour and during this time unexpected circumstances cause the pair to break up, even after they've declared their undying love for each other.
"Dear John" is big overemotional chick flick puffery, though in fact that statement may be redundant. I won't completely trash "Dear John" for a couple of reasons, the first is that the film is directed by acclaimed director Lasse Hallstrom ("My Life As a Dog"), who tries to keep things balanced with Sparks' mauldlin material and two pretty but vacuous leads, but more on them in a moment.
Second, it has one of my favorite character actors, Oscar-nominated Richard Jenkins ("The Visitor"), who's superb as John's father and conveys more emotion in a few glances and body movements than the rest of the cast put together (and he and Tatum's final, very wrenching scene together is the best in the movie, have plenty of tissues handy). Watch for Henry Thomas (yes, the "E.T." boy all grown up and looking very different) in a small but key role as a friend of the lovebirds.
Speaking of which, the two handsome leads are the main appeal for "Dear John" but they're the biggest flaws. Seyfried, best known for "Mamma Mia!" and TV's "Big Love," is serviceably bubbly, but it's the bland Channing Tatum ("G.I. Joe") who again, with his rote, emotionless line readings and blank stares drags the movie down. Even a skilled director like Hallstrom can do only so much with an actor who's limited acting range resembles Ben Affleck's, and the film falters when the film is put on Tatum's back to carry (as Seyfried is gone for a sizeable chunk of the movie); it clearly reveals that he just isn't a strong enough actor at this point to do so.
"Dear John's" initial chapters are the more engaging, until the gooey, slower second act kicks in with a couple of icky twists that aren't well integrated into the film. But "Dear John" isn't Hallstrom's fault necessarily, but the cheesy Sparks novel on which its based, and a lack of a strong actor as its emotional core. "The Notebook" at least had Rachel McAdams and Ryan Gosling and "Message in a Bottle" had Kevin Costner.
"Dear John" is one of those critic-proof films that will be a hit regardless of what I think, so ladies carry on. Men, know what to expect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)