Tag Archives: Movie Reviews

Movie Review: Rango

RANGO (In Theaters)

“Rango is an ordinary chameleon who accidentally winds up in the town of Dirt, a lawless outpost in the Wild West in desperate need of a new sheriff.” (IMDb)

2011.  Starring Johnny Depp, Abigail Breslin, Isla Fisher, Ned Beatty, Alfred Molina and Bill Nighy

A Movie for Movie-Lovers… not necessarily kids

Yesterday, Peter, Trevor and I spent the afternoon/evening movie-hopping around Boston:  Rango, Battle: LA, and The Adjustment Bureau.  First on the list was Rango, and I definitely thought it was the best.  Rango is another one of those “grown-up” films in kid’s clothes.  While it looks like a kid’s film, it certainly is not.  That is not to say that kids wouldn’t enjoy the film (as everyone is complaining on IMDb.com boards), but they won’t love it like adults will.  The truly unfortunate thing about Rango was that it was made by Nickelodeon studios, and will therefore not get nearly as much press, attention or praise as a Pixar or Disney film would, even though it deserves it.

The biggest downfall of Rango is actually its first 10 minutes.  In spite of how much I ended up liking the film, at first I thought, “well this is a TOTAL waste of money.”  Rango begins with an odd Shakespearean theater routine acted out by this strange reptile and the plastic figurines in his cage and evolves into a sappy “who am I?” monologue.  Kids will be thinking “WTF?” (Or simply “what?”, since they’re children and I really HOPE they aren’t saying WTF just yet) and adults will be thinking “give us a break.”  Luckily Rango’s terrarium is suddenly launched from the back seat of his owner’s car and THAT is when the fun actually begins.  It goes from being a shitty meta-literary statement to a fun, quirky western.  It has everything you’d expect from a good western– rugged characters, accents, gunfights, snakes, bank robberies, pitiful townsfolk, a corrupt mayor and a out-of-towner turned sheriff, Rango.

Aside from a very compelling plot, my favorite aspect of Rango was simply the vast number of movie references.  Characters, plot lines, quotes, shots– I’m not sure anything in the movie was original, but that made it all the more awesome.  The filmmakers basically compiled favorite bits and pieces from dozens of classic and contemporary movies, especially westerns, which I appreciate, because I’ve been doing a lot of research on westerns for a new film I’m editing called Cowboy Café.

These are just a few of the COUNTLESS movie references in Rango. I’m sure I would have thought of many more had I written this right after seeing the film.

  • The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (Bill Nighy’s Rattlesnake character = Van Cleef, amongst other references)
  • Pirates of the Caribbean 1-3 (Rango’s dream sequence)
  • Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (Rango flying onto Hunter S. Thompson’s windshield)
  • Chinatown (mayor character and plotline)
  • Star Wars (aerial bat fight sequence, Beans character = Jar Jar Binks)
  • The Lord of the Rings (tunneling with the cast of characters to find the origin of the water pipe, including the “evil eye”)
  • The Big Lebowski (there was a shot in the middle of the movie that WAS the opening shot of TBL)
  • Apocalypse Now (Flight of the Valkyries reference)
  • Maverick (Beans character)
  • Once Upon a Time in the West (Bar sequence)
  • It’s a Wonderful Life (1st meeting with the mayor)
  • Fistful of Dollars (and all other spaghetti westerns… for characters)
  • Holes (dried up lake with boat– where did all the water go?)
  • High Noon (gunfight sequence)
  • True Grit (might be too recent, but the little Abigail Breslin rat character was just like Mattie Ross).

The other cool thing about Rango is the way it was made.  Instead of having the actors simply stand in a sound booth and record their dialogue, they actually acted it out (like they did with Fantastic Mr. Fox).  But unlike FMF, they filmed the process and then the animators based their work on the actors’ live performances.  Check out this cool featurette on the making of Rango:

I hope all of you go see Rango, especially if you are movie lovers.  Help support Nickelodeon, since it doesn’t get the press / automatic viewership that Pixar or Disney does.

4/5 stars

Scor/Cop: Who’s That Knocking on My Door

WHO’S THAT KNOCKING ON MY DOOR (1967)

Summary: “J.R. is a typical Italian-American on the streets of New York. When he gets involved with a local girl, he decides to get married and settle down, but when he learns that she was once raped, he cannot handle it. More explicitly linked with Catholic guilt that Scorsese’s later work, we see what happens to J.R. when his religious guilt catches up with him” (IMDB).

You may recall several posts about the films from my “Gender in Modern Horror” class this summer.  This semester, I am taking a Scorsese / Coppola film theory class, or what I fondly refer to [in my head] as “Scor/Cop.”  Today was the first day, and I was very pleased to find that almost all of my film friends are in it.  Unfortunately, at the last-minute, the professor had to be replaced due to health problems, but the new professor was surprisingly prepared considering he only found out he was teaching the class this afternoon!

Anyway, the first film we watched was Who’s That Knocking On My Door, Scorsese’s NYU thesis film that was the catalyst for his now infamous career.  The movie was shot over the course of four years on an extremely tight budget.  Finally, it made it to the Chicago International Film Festival and was glorified by Roger Ebert, thus initiating Scorsese into the elite world of film.  It is also interesting to note that Harvey Keitel is the lead of this film, though at the time, he was just another NYU student like Scorsese.  Since this early collaboration, Keitel has starred in many of Scorsese’s films, such as Taxi Driver and Mean Streets.  Scorsese also began has collaboration with his amazing editor, Thelma Schoonmaker, at this time.

On to the film!  On the one hand, there were many aspects of Who’s That Knocking On My Door that scream “student film!”  Focus problems, sound problems, double shadows– you name it: clichéd student errors in filmmaking.  However, the caliber of work and the originality certainly justify Scorsese’s rise to fame.  If only I could produce such an excellent student film!  His style is very edgy for the time period, the acting is great, the soundtrack has some of the best pop tunes of the era, and the film certainly delves into new and controversial territory.  Don’t expect this film to have a great plot, however– I found myself thinking 20 minutes into the film “wait, what is this about?”  It’s much more of a 90 minute character piece than his more recent plot-driven films, but as far as character pieces go, this one was certainly bursting at the seams with energy.  The only part of the film that didn’t make any sense to me was a very artsy dream sequence / sex scene between Keitel and a brunette, which threw me off because his love interest is a blonde.  Our teacher explained that late in production, the producers insisted that Scorsese add a sex scene so that the film could be advertised as a “sexploitation” film.  However, it is very important to the plot that Keitel and his girlfriend DON’T have sex, so instead, there is a completely random dream sequence in the middle of the film.  Hooray for producers and their common lack of creative sense.

For all you Scorsese buffs out there, I highly recommend seeing this film.  Our class caught onto many “Scorsese-like” things in this film that become even more prominent later in his career.  For all you non-Scorsese people, I would recommend other Scorsese films like Raging Bull, Goodfellas or The Departed first– they are much, much better (and understandably so).  And for all my fellow ladies out there, I would recommend Shutter Island or The Aviator.  Don’t get any ideas, though, I already have dibs on Leo.

More next week…

Movie Reviews: 127 Hours

127 Hours (In Some Theaters– Coming Soon to DVD)

Based on the true story of Aron Ralston– A young outdoorsman is trapped when a falling boulder crushes his hand.  After 5 days alone in the crevasse, he must take desperate measures in order to survive.

2010, Starring James Franco, Directed by Danny Boyle. Nominated for 3 Golden Globes.

Aron Ralston: What a Badass

One Hundred and Twenty Seven Hours… I’m sure you’ve heard of it.  That’s right, it’s the movie that makes audiences throw up.  Well, you know I love nothing more than to gross my mother out, so even though I saw this movie in October in Boston, I had to take her over Christmas Break.

Nah, truth be told, I consider 127 Hours to be one of the best films of the year and one of the best performances of the decade, regardless of whether or not it is EXTREMELY painful to watch.  “One of the key challenges in making 127 Hours,” said American Cinematographer, “was that the story builds up to and is centered on a single, shocking act, and most viewers already know what it is.”  When I first heard of 127 Hours, I thought, okay, why on earth would I voluntarily watch a man get trapped in a rock and cut off his own arm with a dull blade?  I remember reading about Aron Ralston in the news back in 2003 and it did not sound pretty.  For those of you familiar with Trainspotters or Slumdog Millionaire, you know that Danny Boyle has a history of making films that are extremely vivid and tactile– you sit in the audience and feel like you are touching, smelling, tasting, feeling and breathing the world of the film.  Vivid and tactile + graphic amputation = not my cup of tea.  Well, tickets to see a sneak-screening with Danny Boyle himself quickly changed my mind.

The first time I saw 127 Hours I was almost too nervous to appreciate it.  “Oh god, he’s gonna get trapped… any second now, he is gonna fall down a crevasse and get trapped by a boulder… any second now… oh god… it’s coming…”  For the first 20 minutes of the film, I could hardly focus because of nervous anticipation.  So, he fell and got trapped by a boulder.  Then: “oh god, he’s gonna cut off his arm.  He’s gonna take a dull blade and saw through his damn arm until he cuts the whole thing off… any second now…”  In fact, the only thing that really made watching 127 Hours bearable the first time was knowing that Aron Ralston was gonna survive the incident.  The whole film kind of washed over me because I was so nervous about it– and all because I already knew what was going to happen!

For that reason– I’m glad I got to see 127 Hours again, because it really convinced me that this is one of the best films of the year and one of the best performances I have ever seen.  The interesting thing about Danny Boyle’s style is that it is so off-beat and non-traditional– but I gotta give the guy credit– 127 Hours is great because you know every member of the cast and crew was totally on-board with his vision and style.  Everything about the film breaks conventions.  First of all, Danny Boyle shot seven days a week and hired two directors of photography– that is unheard of!  The ability to work with two different cinematographers and create a unified vision is an interesting task.  Second of all, Boyle used several small cameras at once and had Franco “break the fourth wall” by talking into the cameras and looking at them as if he was reaching out into the audience.  Although this is very non-traditional, it made me sympathize with Ralston that much more.  You are literally “up in his grill” for the entire crevasse experience.  Third of all, even though it is a drama that takes place in Utah, Boyle incorporated many of the unique musical and auditory sensibilities that he gained from his experiences in India with Slumdog Millionaire.  At first I was thrown off by how Boyle seemed to apply many of the stylistic sensibilities of Slumdog to 127.  I simply didn’t expect it– but guess what?  It totally works.  I can only imagine how boring and dry 127 Hours would have been without the visual and auditory gimmicks that Boyle thrives on.  You are literally trapped in a rock with Aron Ralston for an hour– it would have been a piece of cake for a director to let that get boring.  Instead, Boyle’s style breathes life into a lonely and desperate situation.

And God forbid I forget James Franco in this praise orgy!  Without Franco there is no 127 Hours– it is literally the James Franco show.  I’m sure Colin Firth will probably reign in all the acting awards, but Franco deserves them.  I can’t imagine hitting all the beats Franco does.  In the first 20 minutes, Franco’s performance instantly convinces us that Ralston is a damn good guy– one that is friendly and helpful– one that you would, for instance, support til the very end– through an amputation, even.  Then we see the brave and resourceful side of Ralston.  At the beginning of his entrapment, we see how determined he is and how he will try every last trick he knows to get out of that rock.  Then we see the scared side of Ralston.  He’s running out of water and he knows he’s gonna die.  Franco does this impeccably.  We also get a sense of his sentimental side– memories of lovers, of his family, of his future son.  And finally, we see his brave, rabid determination to save himself.  It takes a lotta balls to saw your own arm off– and Franco’s performance gets you TOTALLY on board with that.

The first time I saw the film, my major complaint was how cheesy and “epic” the ending is.  No spoilers here, guys, we all know he made it.  The second he frees himself from his trapped arm, the swelling music comes on and we follow Ralston out of the canyon to the choppers.  It is, in essence, cheesy.  On second viewing, however, I felt this was justified.  After such a grueling, painful struggle, Ralston deserves a “romantic” ending.  The second time I saw the film, many audience members started clapping when Ralston was rescued.

And the cinematography– oh the cinematography!  Utah’s natural beauty lends itself to some amazing shots.  But what really got me was how they literally put the audience inside Aron Ralston.  Shots from Ralston’s bike, his perspective, and an inch from his face really puts YOU in his situation, and that makes it all the more emotionally powerful.  Another thing I really loved was how the film focuses on the little details.  Little struggles come across as major triumphs in the film.  Using a stick to pick up his knife off the floor, for instance, are filmed in such a way that the audience literally holds their breath.  And then there’s my favorite shot in the film– the sunlight coming through the canyon.  Ralston notes that he gets 15 minutes of sunlight each day and it only hits one of his feet.  The sunlight is so beautiful, and the way it overexposes on his wiggling toes makes you, the audience, feel the heat and the beauty of the moment.

So, yeah, 127 Hours. Damn good movie.  I know the graphic nature of the film limits the potential audience, but I really feel like this is one of the best films I’ve seen in recent history.

Bottom Line: Despite the amputation, I would eagerly go out and see it again tomorrow.  Too bad it’s only showing an hour and a half away from me…

 

Movie Reviews: The King’s Speech

THE KING’S SPEECH (In Theaters)

Based on the life of King George VI– The Young Duke of York (Colin Firth) must face his fears and overcome his severe stammer when his father King George V dies and his brother Edward abdicates the throne to him.  With the help of Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), an untrained speech therapist, and his wife Elizabeth I (Helena Bonham Carter), George VI becomes the voice of Britain during the troubling times of World War II.

2010, Starring Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter and Geoffrey Rush, Directed by Tom Hooper.  Nominated for 7 Golden Globes.

Today I noticed that 3 out of the top movies of the year have to do with bodily troubles– in 127 Hours, a man must cut off his arm to save his life, in Black Swan, a ballerina is tortured psychologically by her transformation from white swan to black swan, and in The King’s Speech, a young prince must overcome his crippling stammer to lead a nation into war.

Though it was a very good movie, The King’s Speech is kind of exactly what you could expect from a period piece about 1930s British Royalty– very long and very slow.  The first act of the movie went by quickly– the dynamic between Firth and Carter & Firth and Rush is great and the audience can be easily amused by the My Fair Lady-like, laughable vocal training.  However, in the second act, the film really begins to lag, and that’s where I started checking the time on my phone.  Don’t get me wrong– Firth was excellent, Carter was excellent, Rush was excellent.  But the script and the cinematography left me unsatisfied.  Just when I thought the movie was coming to a triumphant end– SURPRISE!  20 more minutes.  Though it is only 1 hour 50 minutes, there is only so much you can do with a king who can’t speak right.

Nonetheless, my aim is not to turn you away from this movie.  The acting and the art direction are worth the price of your ticket, and if you like period pieces (I don’t), you will love this film.  While I don’t think Firth was better than other “Best Actor” nominees, I would be very pleased if Carter won “Best Supporting Actress” and Rush won “Best Supporting Actor.”  I am glad I saw The King’s Speech, but I can tell that it will be one of those good movies that I see once and never have the urge to see it again.

Bottom Line: Exactly what you would expect from a British period piece:  amazing acting, amazing art direction, but slow as hell.  4/5 stars.

Gender in Modern Horror Part 2: The Bad

THE BAD: And here’s to the “bad” ones we’ve seen– not super bloody (especially since many of them are very old), but movies that I just did not enjoy at all.  So, if you’re a huge horror buff, definitely go rent these films.  If not, steer clear.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre (The 1974 Original)

I think the name pretty much says it all, and you’ve probably seen trailers for the newer versions… but in case you’re still unsure, it’s a movie about 5 teenagers who stop in a one-horse town in Texas… and are chased and torn apart by a crazy family of former-slaughterhouse workers (until slaughterhouses became mechanized, like today) with chainsaws.  Oh, and get this, they make human sausages and fill their house with human and animal artifacts– bones, skin, feathers, etc.  This movie isn’t really as scary as it is depressingly predictable.  And as far as gore goes– this movie is all about the sound design.  You really don’t see that much, everything is in what you hear.  Regardless, I didn’t care whether the characters lived or died.  For me, that’s what makes a good horror movie.  All of the films I mentioned in “THE GOOD” had characters that I cared about.  As far as I’m concerned, let Sally get sawed in half.  It’s not like I care.

Bottom Line: “That’s the last goddamn hitchhiker I ever pick up.” 2/5 stars.

Black Christmas (The Original)

It’s another formulaic horror movie– a group of sorority girls is picked off one by one by a crazy killer who lives in their attic… oh, and it just happens to be Christmas.  This film, as far as I’m concerned, was just boring.  There is no surprise and we never seen any really good confrontations between the killer and his victims.  The only great thing about this movie is seeing how long it took the police to track a call back in the good ‘ole days.  And then there’s that classic moment: “The call is coming from WITHIN the house!”  OMG.  I’m so scared.  Next!

Bottom Line: “If this movie doesn’t make your skin crawl… It’s on too tight!” 1/5 stars.

The Entity

If you love rape, this movie is for you!  If not (and I hope that’s a not), you can probably pass on this one.  Carla Morgan is a single mother who is haunted by “The Entity” — a supernatural being that cannot be seen, but repeatedly rapes and beats her throughout the movie.  Here’s a taste of how nonchalant the movie is.  My favorite quote:

Cindy: Beautiful day outside, isn’t it? Nothing like good old southern California for lots of sunshine!

Carla: I was raped.

Oh, and don’t be disappointed.  She will be raped and raped again.  This film seemed to go on for an eternity.  It has its scary moments, but after one or two rapes, it gets pretty predictable.  Martin Scorsese put this as #4 on his list of all-time scariest movies.. but clearly he hasn’t seen some of the films I list in the next section: The Bloody!

Bottom Line: “There’s no escape from something you can’t see!” 2/5 stars.

Next Up: “The Bloody!”

Gender in Modern Horror Part 1: The Good

If any of you are slasher fans, you would love one of the classes I’m took last session: Gender in Modern Horror.  Each week we watched several horror films, discussed them, analyzed them and read critiques of them.  I’m not going to bother reviewing all of them, so I’ll separate it into three categories: The Good, The Bad and the Bloody.

THE GOOD: Movies that I would recommend:

Rosemary’s Baby

Roman Polanski’s 1968 Oscar-winner follows Rosemary (Mia Farrow) through her haunting pregnancy.  I suppose 42 years later, I’m not really going to shock anyone by revealing that Rosemary was impregnated by the devil and is carrying her son.  An amazing film– Mia Farrow is incredible and the film–despite its content– is beautifully shot and full of intrigue.

Bottom Line: “We’re your friends, Rosemary. There’s nothing to be scared about.”  4.5/5 stars.

Psycho

If you haven’t seen Psycho, move it to the top of the queue quick!  This 1960 Hitchcock thriller is considered one of cinema’s best and the father of all horror film.  Like Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs (below), you can’t help but liking Norman Bates.  Luckily for you non-horror-lovers out there, the shower scene only lasts a few seconds, and that’s pretty much it for the film.  Definitely a must-see.

Bottom Line: “I think I must have one of those faces you can’t help believing.”  4/5 stars.

Eden Lake

Eden Lake is a rather standard as horror films go– a sweet young couple goes for a vacation in the woods and… is tortured by a group of murderous teenagers.  However, it was definitely one of my favorites in the class.  I sympathized with the victims more than any of the other horror films we watched and it has an awesome ending.  Be warned– this film does get pretty violent, but I think it was worth the watch.

Bottom Line: “A weekend by the lake, with views to die for. ” 4/5 stars.

Next Door (Naboer)

If you like mind-bending films, this is the one for you.  What’s real and what’s not?  I’m still not totally sure.  This 2005 Danish gem lets the viewer wander through the labyrinthine mind of a young man whose girlfriend recently left him.  Why did she leave him?  Maybe you don’t want to know.

Bottom Line: “Some doors should never be opened.”  (But this one should)  3.5/5 stars.

Silence of the Lambs

Jonathan Demme’s 1991 thriller may arguably be the only horror film to ever win an Academy Award… or five, as the case may be (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay- Ted Tally, Best Actor- Anthony Hopkins and Best Actress- Jodie Foster).  If you haven’t seen this film, do!  (Even if you don’t like horror).  It’s one of my all-time favorites, so I’m glad our teacher included it on our syllabus.  Anthony Hopkins is that awesome kind of criminal that you love cheer on even though he is completely insane.

On a side note– if you like this movie, definitely check out Red Dragon.  Hannibal and Manhunter (which doesn’t even have Anthony Hopkins!!!) are only so-so in my opinion, but Red Dragon is a kick-ass sequel.

Bottom Line: “I do wish we could chat longer, but… I’m having an old friend for dinner. Bye.”  5/5 stars.

Anyway, those are five of the more tasteful horror movies we’ve seen and the ones we’ve seen that I would recommend to anyone– not just horror fans.  Coming up next: “The Bad.”

Mini Review: Brothers

BROTHERS (On DVD)

Screw-up brother-in-law Tommy tries to comfort his sister-in-law and nieces when his brother is killed in Afghanistan.  After he’s grown close to the family, however, his brother is rescued alive and taken back to the U.S.  Tormented by the war and jealous of his brother’s new closeness to his wife and daughter, he is desperate for a solution to his problems.

2009, Starring Natalie Portman, Jake Gyllenhaal and Tobey Maguire

It’s about time someone takes advantage of the uncanny semblance between Jake Gyllenhaal and Tobey Maguire!

All things considered, Brothers actually exceeded my relatively low expectations.  It’s definitely one of the better War in Afghanistan/Iraq-related movies I’ve seen.

The best part about this film was the acting.  I’m glad Natalie Portman is starting to take more mature roles, instead of her typical wild-child persona (Garden State, Closer, etc.)  Her portrayal of a woman struggling to keep appearances up for her children when her husband dies is spot on, and for this she earned my sympathy throughout the film.  Jake and Tobey’s rolls are both difficult to watch, and, I imagine, difficult to play.  Tobey is the “perfect son” and “perfect husband,” but when his life is put in jeopardy in Afghanistan, he returns a broken, disturbed man jealous of his wife and brother and unable to connect with his children.  Jake plays the recently-out-of-jail “bad son” who loves alcohol but loves Natalie’s and Tobey’s kids even more.  So, when both brothers are back at home, it’s a question of our loyalties.  I admit that I’m on team Jake, but I’m naturally biased because a) he’s much better looking than Tobey and b) even though Tobey’s been through a war it’s very hard to see him yelling at his kids like that.  Tough call.

Bottom Line: On the whole I liked the movie, but it was difficult to watch at times and the ending was relatively unsatisfying.  Good acting, so so movie. 3/5 stars.

Mini Review: Babies

BABIES (in Theaters)

A documentary about 4 babies across the world (Japan, the U.S., Mongolia, and Namibia) and their adventures growing up.

2010, directed by Thomas Balmes

Cuteness Overdose

My parents and many friends can attest to the fact that I’m one of the few girls in this world that was born without the baby-obsession gene.  I am simply unimpressed by babies on the whole.  What’s so great about them?  It might have to do with me being an only child, but babies kinda freak me out.  So, the thought of a baby documentary is kinda like “meh.  Is there anything better on?”

However, very soon after Babies started, I realized that Babies is a totally genius work of filmmaking.  There is no narration, almost no dialogue whatsoever, and almost no attention to anyone in the film but the four babies… but somehow this movie is totally captivating and it tells a great story.  “Babies” might actually be the most brutally honest film title in history because that is pretty much the only thing in the whole movie… other than some cats and goats and cows and dogs.  So maybe they should’ve titled it “Babies… and cats, goats, cows and dogs.”  But that would just be like injecting the audience with a lethal dose of cuteness heroin.

At any rate, this film is awesome.  Instead of being shot documentary style, it has the look and feel of a film.  No shabby audio or unfocused shots here– this film is a work of art.  But most of all, it is a genius story.  We follow the four babies from birth to the age of one and while there are major differences in their cultures, the babies all reach the same milestones– first words, crawling, walking.  It’s pretty epic.  The only downfall to the story, I believe, is that the U.S. baby and the Tokyo baby are in too similar of situations, and same with the Namibia baby and the Mongolia baby.  It would be nice to see an “in-between” baby to fill the gap between the wealth/urban life of the U.S. / Tokyo and the poverty/rural life of Namibia / Mongolia.  Of course, I found myself biased towards the rural babies.  American moms can be so overprotective.  The Mongolian / Namibian babies have so much fun crawling around in the dirt and hanging out with the goats.  Come to think of it… that was pretty much my life as a child.

Bottom Line:  This movie is impossibly cute and fun (regardless of whether you like babies).  I am totally impressed by their ability to turn such a simple concept into such a beautiful documentary.  4.5/5 stars.

Bayar gets a special goat surprise during a bath.

Mini Review: Letters to Juliet

LETTERS TO JULIET (In Theaters)

On vacation with her work-obsessed fiance in Verona, Sophie comes across an old letter written to Giuliette (of Romeo and Juliet) asking for advice on a relationship.  She decides to write back, and lo-and-behold, the old woman shows up in Verona looking for a chance at love 50 years later.  Will they find her “Romeo?”

2010, Starring Amanda Seyfried and Vanessa Redgrave

And here I was in the mood for a good Rom Com…

After hearing my mother and several other women rave about Letters to Juliet, I was super excited for this movie, but as a rom com connoisseur (embarrassing, I know), I was terribly disappointed.  Sophie and cute Brit Charlie had a great witty repartee the whole movie, but when they finally confess their love to each other at the end of the movie, it seems completely unjustified.  They’ve never been on a date, they’ve kissed once, and worst of all, Sophie’s engaged!  Their relationship goes from a witty, flirty friendship to a passionate words-only romance.  Where’s the sparkle?  All words, no action.  They say they love each other, but they don’t show it, and in a rom com, that is an original sin.  Why are When Harry Met Sally or You’ve Got Mail so great?  Because you can see the characters love each other without saying it.  Show, don’t tell.

And other than the depressing lack of true romance, you’d be better off watching the trailer than watching the movie, because the truth is that the movie is 1.5 hour long version of the trailer.  Isn’t it supposed to be the other way around?  Find the letter, meet the old lady, search for Romeo, everyone loves each other.  Is that seriously it?

Bottom Line: In spite of my love for Amanda Seyfried, cute British boys and cute old people romances, this film was completely boring and unsatisfying.  If you want to see a great rom com set in Italy, try Under the Tuscan Sun, one of my favorite rom coms and a great performance by Diane Lane.  2/5 stars.

Mini Review: Sex and the City 2

SEX AND THE CITY 2 (In Theaters)

It’s been 2 years since Carrie married Big in Sex and the City movie #1, but things haven’t changed too much: Carrie and Big have moved to a more modest apartment, Charlotte is dealing with her new daughter Rose’s “terrible two’s,” Samantha is menopausal but still manages to get more action than any woman on the block, and Miranda is still a busy lawyer / mom / wife.  But when Carrie’s relationship is getting tough, Miranda quits her job, and Charlotte is worried her husband is cheating on her with the nanny, Samantha score an all-expenses-paid vacation to Abu Dhabi for the girls… but that’s just where the drama starts.

2010, Starring Sarah Jessica Parker, Kristen Davis, Cynthia Nixon and Kim Cattrall

It’s a Sequel to a Sequel, What Else Can You Expect?

As a film major it seems almost sacrilegious to write a review of Sex and the City 2, but hey, I’m a girl, and I’m obsessed with the show.  The first movie had its rocky moments but overall, it was a great addition to an amazing 6 season series.  This movie definitely has its merits– if you’re a fan– but it has its disappointments.

First off, let’s start with the fashion– what the hell happened?  I’m not sure if the wardrobe lady’s tastes changed as she got older, but on the whole, the glamorous outfits you expect from the show just weren’t there.  Let’s compare:

First SATC movie

It’s designer, but a total “meh,” and let’s not forget– this is one of the times she looked her BEST in the movie.

Okay, so the fashion was a bummer.  Another disappointment to me was that the movie was very 4-girl-centric.  Where are all the men in this movie?  You see Big a bit in the beginning and end, but I’m pretty sure that Steve and Harry don’t even have lines in the movie.  One of the things I loved about the first SATC movie was that they really developed the relationships between the women and their husbands… not the case at all with SATC2.  There is, however, an awkward encounter with fan-favorite lover Aiden– but Carrie’s married now– how much can happen?

Regardless, if you’re a SATC fan, you’ll definitely enjoy this movie.  It’s nice to see that several years later, all of our favorite characters are still alive and well.  There are some great conversations between Miranda and Charlotte about life after marriage, and you realize that the girls have finally grown up and gone from single territory to “desperate housewives” territory.  So, while you can still expect the same from them, their challenges have changed.  Instead of what to do about a guy who’s bad in bed, it’s now what to do when your two year-old throws tantrums every five seconds.  It’s kind of fun to see that they’ve grown up (well, maybe not Samantha), because how long can you really be on the man hunt?

With the relatively disappointing box office revenues so far and the fact that the girls are pushing 50 and 60 respectively in real life (they look so amazing for their age!), I really doubt there will be a 3rd movie.  While it can’t hold up to its predecessors, it’s a fun reunion.

Bottom Line: It can’t compare to it’s 5 star TV original or the previous 4 star movie, but if you like Sex and the City, you’ll be glad to have another chance to hang out with the girls.  3.5/5 stars.