Shutter Island Review

For years director Martin Scorsese has been making great films, from Mean Streets to Taxi Driver to The departed. He is considered by most to be one of the greatest filmmakers of all time.

However you don’t need to see any of his previous films in order to appreciate Shutter Island because it isn’t like anything he has ever done before. It’s a lot darker, psychological and messes with the mind.

And like with his other films Scorsese doesn’t disappoint with this one either.

The year is 1954. Leonardo Dicaprio plays Teddy Daniels a U.S federal marshal with a troubled past. 

Along with his partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo Blindness, Rumor has it), they ferry onto a small island off the coast of Boston where there is a mental hospital for the criminally insane called Ashecliffe.

Ruffalo and Dicaprio are a perfect match. Ruffalo plays a good sidekick who is still learning the ropes and Dicaprio plays a convincing leader.

They are there to find a very dangerous patient named Rachael Solando who has escaped from her cell. When they first arrive they are greeted by stereotypical mental patients and Ashecliff’s main doctor, Dr. Cawly (Ben Kingsley, Gandhi), who gives a creepy and witty performance. In his eyes everyone is a potential patient.

It started out for the pair as a simple investigation to find an escaped mental patient but soon Teddy begins to wonder if he’s been brought here as a part of some twisted plot orchestrated by the doctors.

At first glance this film looks like a typical horror/crime movie but it is definitely not. It sets up like that but then goes in a completely different direction.

Once you may think you know what’s going to happen next you are completely tricked and it makes you doubt any predictions you might have about the outcome of the film. By the time it reaches the end and the final biggest twist is revealed your head is already spinning from the other events that preceded it.

Another strong point in Shutter Island is the stunning cinematography done by Robert Richardson but that is to be expected in a Scorsese picture. In addition to the very weird and disturbing dream sequences that Teddy has towards the beginning (which brings back memories of The Shining) there were also some fantastic camera angles.

 For example Teddy is standing on a cliff looking for Chuck. When he sees a cigarette on the edge and the camera goes right up in his face as he picks it up.

Leonardo Dicaprio has been the star of three of Scorseses previous films including Gangs of New York, The Aviator and The Departed. In this film he gave a better performance than he did in The Aviator or Gangs of New York. He brought a lot of emotion and depth to the part. 

Through flash backs we find out he is a World War 11 veteran who is haunted by memories of clearing out a concentration camp. We also find out he lost his beloved wife Dolores (Michelle Williams) in an apartment fire.

He was quick to fight but would also break down and be at the mercy of hallucinations of his dead wife.

Another superb performance is given by Jackie Earl Haley (Watchmen) who plays Noyce another patient. His informative conversation with Teddy tells us that things aren’t the way they seem at Ashecliffe, or in Noyce’s words “you’re a rat in a maze.”

He too brings a lot of depth and emotion to the role. On the outside he seems like just another crazy patient but you find out he is being kept here against his will and absolutely hates it there. It’s a short part but it’s first-rate acting.

Besides a few minor problems like some scenes moving too slowly Shutter Island is a success. It’s exciting and suspenseful but very creepy and eerie at the same time. It takes you for a ride and keeps you guessing.

Most importantly it does what few films have done; it makes an impact on you. It stays with you well after it’s over and it makes you think about your own sanity; of what’s real and what’s not.

It may not be Scorsese’s greatest cinematic achievement but any movie buff would not dream of missing it.

Our family wedding Review

Nick Famuyius’s newest film Our Family Wedding may fool you.

At first it appears to be a comedy about the long and stressful journey a couple takes to get to that joyous moment of saying “ I do.” Towards the middle of the film, however, it takes an interesting and serious turn.

 And The journey is especially long and stressful for this couple because one family is Hispanic and the other is black--and they absolutely hate each other.

America Ferreira plays Lucia Ramirez, who plans on getting married to the man of her dreams Marcus Boyd (played by Lance Gross).  The problem is that Lucia hasn’t told her strict parents about him or the fact that she’s dropped out of law school. Oh boy! And Marcus has yet to tell his womanizing father.

Once everybody’s had the news broken to them, the two families are forced to spend time together to try to plan the wedding. The two dads (played by Forest Whitaker and Carlos Mencia) go head-to-head finding every reason to hate each other, while everybody else sits on the sidelines trying to calm them down.

The first half of this film is complete chaos. Just about every scene involving the two families starts with one father hurling insults or racial slurs about the other one, and everything escalates from there. Then it cuts to the next scene, and the conflict repeats. These confrontations were kind of funny at first but they got really annoying and repetitive.

Also there were a lot of unnecessary scenes that were obviously put in just to get some cheap laughs, like when Mencia is trying to figure out how to use Whitaker’s fancy New-Age sink but ends up making a big mess. Or later when a goat eats Viagra and creates a ruckus.

 And of course the movie had that pivotal moment in which the families turn on themselves. The bride’s-to-be parents, Miguel and Sonia, get into a fight. Then engaged couple themselves get in a fight and break up and the groom’s-to-be womanizing father loses the one woman who he actually likes, his long-time lawyer Angela (Regina King).

 However after this sequence of events, the film finally settled down and got right to the point, which was the issue of interracial relationships. This issue they addressed in a serious, not comical, way. Like when Lucia and her dad talk about whether Marcus is right for her or not and when Marcus and his dad have the same conversation. That actually made the rest of the film more enjoyable.

 The cast was the main thing that kept me watching. Both fathers, Mencia and Whitaker, were rude and selfish jerks to begin with but then turned into respectful and supportive fathers. You understood why acted the way they did in the beginning.

America Ferreira and Lance Gross (the betrothed couple) were a perfect match. Sure, they had their problems but most of the time they kept a positive attitude when they were caught in the crossfire of their parents’ bickering. They’re the heart and soul of the film and remind us why we bothered to see this movie.

After all the serious stuff and everyone makes up with one another, the film then returns to its goofy and upbeat self, a few last minute jokes are slipped in and well… you know the rest. 

Our family wedding may not have the same depth or ground-breaking effect that Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner had, but overall it’s a feel-good movie supported by a fantastic cast.

Cop-Out Review

Consider this concept for a movie: An old wisecracking New York cop is teamed up with a young wacky sidekick whose sole purpose in the entire film is to do nothing but make jokes. Sound familiar? It should; it’s been the premise for numerous comedies and is the concept for director Kevin Smith’s newest film Cop-Out.

 Why after bringing us the films Clerks 1&2 (which were moderately good and had some original ideas) would Smith decide to make another cop/buddy comedy? What can I say about it except that it’s predictable, forgettable and a nonstop bullet train of jokes.

Bruce Willis plays Jimmy Monroe, a smart talking veteran of the NYPD. His partner is Paul Hodges, played by comedian Tracy Morgan.

After being suspended from the force without pay, Monroe must sell his valuable baseball card in order to get money to pay for his daughter’s wedding but while he’s selling the card at the pawnshop, two thieves hold up the shop and steal the card.

Together Monroe and Hodges must go on a wild and crazy adventure to try and get the card back, which has now fallen into the hands of a group of stereotypical Mexican gangsters lead by Poh Boy, played by Guillermo Diaz, who by the way is the worst actor I’ve seen since Hayden Christiansen in Star wars  

Along the way the duo take part in cliché car chases, protect an attractive woman, outsmart another pair of overconfident New York detectives, and try very hard to be funny.  From the very first scene when Morgan gives Willis an anniversary card to celebrate their nine years working together, to the very end when Willis is giving away his daughter at her wedding, there is nonstop comedy.

In fact that’s Morgan’s only function in this movie: yelling at the top of his lungs, making faces, and being funny.  For the first fifteen minutes Morgan was hilarious, but after that his act just got worn out. By the end he was still trying, but it felt like one of those Saturday Night Live sketches (which ironically is where Morgan got his start) that starts out funny but as it goes on dies out.

 In this film Bruce Willis is caught between being the funny man and the action hero and he couldn’t seem to find his way, and he didn’t seem to care about this role and therefore not convincing. It was almost like he was getting tired of Morgan as well and was forcing himself to get through the filming.

The lazy and uninspired script, written by Rob Cullen and Mark Cullen, was all over the place with no surprises and corny jokes. For instance, when Morgan quotes a line from Die-Hard, Willis remarks, “I haven’t heard of that film.”

Cop-Out did have quite a few action sequences but they just weren’t that exciting. You know how action films are supposed to keep your heart pounding and wake you up if you nod off?  This one doesn’t do that.

If you’re looking for a simple and fun flick with mediocre acting, action, dialogue, a few cheap laughs, and lots of movie references, Cop-Out may be for you and you can leave your brain at home. If you’re looking for a unique, memorable movie experience, look somewhere else.

The Book of Eli review

Lately at the movies there seems to be a fascination with apocalyptic plots. Some of these include Zombieland, 2012, The Road, Daybreakers and one coming out soon called Legion. Now directors Albert and Allen Hughes have made their contribution with their newest film The Book of Eli. Unfortunately this film isn’t really anything new. It’s The Road without humanity, Mad Max without car crashes, and Deadwood without Wild Bill Hickock.

For thirty years a lone traveler named Eli (Denzel Washington, Remember the Titans, Man on Fire) walks down the deserted roads of post apocalyptic America. It is kill or be killed. When other survivors challenge him he possesses expert combat skills, taking on five or more people on at one time.

After the “Big Flash” that caused the end of the world, Eli is guided by a higher power to find and protect the only bible left in the world and take it to its final destination, somewhere “out west.” Along the way he runs into a ruthless man named Carnegie (Gary Oldmen, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight) who runs a small shantytown. Carnegie wants the book so he can have more power over the people of his town and will do anything to get it.

The film starts out exactly like The Road--Eli walking down the deserted roads, stopping at houses and the occasional car, scavenging for food and supplies. The main difference is that instead of being cold and wet it’s dry and hot, and he’s protecting a book instead of his son.

Then when he enters a shantytown run by Carnegie it suddenly turns into a cross between a futuristic Western film and Mad Max 3 Beyond the Thunder Dome. The scenes of Carnegie sitting in his office above the local saloon were especially reminiscent of Ian McShane in Deadwood.

From then on it’s just a wild goose chase between Eli and Carnegie and one confrontation after another. It’s like screenwriter Gary Whitta couldn’t decide on one idea so he just said “screw it” and threw in all his ideas.

Probably one of the most distracting and unintentionally comical things about this film was the overuse of product placements. Towards the beginning, a group of Road Warrior type bandits come into town with a large haul of books for Carnegie, because he likes to read. Now everything Carnegie owns is worn and shabby; after all, it’s the end of the world. But among the selection of books the bandits bring in is a clean, pristine copy of Oprah Magazine and a paperback copy of The Davinci Code.  I guess there are some things that even the “Big Flash” can’t touch.

Even though the film was a confusion of various genres of film and TV shows, there were some strong points. Adding in the factor of books gave the film some originality, and it does have a very good twist that you won’t see coming. There were also great action sequences. The scenes of Eli taking on big numbers of men with one machete were brilliant and it was satisfying to see Eli beat the crap out of the bandits and, in one instance, he hack’s a guy’s hand off in the blink of an eye.

Denzel Washington pretty much played Eli the same way he plays all his characters. He is very one-dimensional and doesn’t give much depth to his characters, whether he’s the football coach or the cop.

Gary Oldmen did a very great job playing Carnegie. Everything Oldmen does is excellent, even when he was a crazy Russian terrorist in Air Force One. His character had depth because it had contradictions; he was a bad man and power hungry but he was also passionate about books and was wise. For some reason, bad guys often seem to have more depth than heroes.

Mila Kunis, who we usually hear as the voice as Meg on Family Guy, deserves a nod. Her character could have been whiney and useless like most woman are in these sorts of films, but she was tough and could fight.

This movie, like The Road, did a great job of showing us the ugly truth of a post apocalyptic world but there’s the problem. While the film had some good cinematography and mildly good acting it wasn’t really anything new and was very forgettable. This film, unlike other apocalyptic films that preceded it, wasn’t so much about the preservation of humanity as it was about the preservation of a book. But preserving the “Good Book” was mainly just an excuse for some great fight scenes and a couple of interesting plot twists.

2/5 stars

The Road Review

“I told the boy that when you dream about bad things happening, it means you’re still fighting and you’re still alive. It’s when you start to dream about good things that you should start to worry.”

The words spoken by a nameless man in director John Hilcoats newest film The Road, based on the extraordinary book by Cormac McCarthy. Unfortunately the idea of making this fantastic piece of literature into a film was better than the actual film it self. It was strong in some areas but fell short in others.

  The Road tells the story of a man played by Viggo Moretensen (Lord of the rings trilogy) and his son as they walk along the many deserted roads of a barren and desolate post apocalyptic wasteland, trying to stay alive. Their destination is the coast.

 The pair has nothing but a six-shooter with only two bullets, a shopping cart full of supplies, and each other. Together the father must protect his son from hunger, the weather, and the packs of lawless bandits that stalk the roads.

The constant stormy weather and the threat of danger make the tone of the film bleak and depressing and the film gave little hope to the main characters. Every time something relatively good happened, such as finding food, something bad would soon follow, like getting robbed.

The movie did stay true to the book, which is better than if Hilcoat had changed the plot entirely and made it like any other disaster film. But while the film was unique it didn’t really have a clear plot like trying to get to a specific destination or trying to do something. Instead it was more like one of those reality TV show’s where a camera crew follows someone around while they do their daily activities.

The film was mostly visual instead of being rich with dialogue. Most scenes were vast and beautiful ones of the man and the boy walking down the big empty and deserted roads, or showing them searching for food in farmhouses and towns. These were interesting and well done, but they became boring after a while. More dialouge and more interaction with the characters would have added more story and sped up the pace of the film.

When there was dialogue, it was short and quick like the book, but meaningful and was original. Mortensen’s character would also narrate at different times in the film, which helped speed up pace of the film a little, but it wasn’t enough.

The contrasting between the miserable reality, and flashbacks before the disaster that would show the man with his wife (played by Charlize Theron North Country, Eon Flux) that were vivid and happy, were also done well but were unnecessary and slowed the film down. They just seemed tacked on and didn’t really add anything special to the film. Also Therons whole performance was average at best and her character was superfluous.

 A shining quality of the movie was that it was filmed on almost no sets. Most big Hollywood movies like Speed Racer or 2012 are filmed in a studio and all in front of a green screen and then a computer background is added in later. But The Road was filmed pretty much all outdoors in the cold and harsh weather of the east and west coast, which makes the film less hokey and more realistic.

 The rest of the acting was a strong point in the film including Viggo Mortensen, who did an outstanding job. He captured the exact emotion of the father that was seen in the book. At times he loving towards his son, and at others he was firm and stubborn.

Kodi Smit Mcphee was convincing as a boy who had been exposed to this nightmarish world since he was born into it. And Robert Duvall (The Godfather) was superior in his cameo, for the three minutes he was in it.

 While The Road had excellent cinematography and definitely set itself apart from all the other end of the world films, it wasn’t the greatest movie of the year and didn’t really come together. But Hilcoat isn’t to blame; this story simply was better in a book than it was on the silver screen.

However the film did do a good job of showing us the ugly truth of a post apocalyptic world. That when disaster strikes, most people will loose their humanity and do anything they can to survive, and makes your problems seem trivial compared to the problems these characters faced throughout the movie.

3 ½ stars out of 5

2012 Review

I'm not going to lie what drew me to this movie was the fact that it was full of special effects. In fact it looks to me like they spent three quarters of their budget on special effects and the other quarter on actors. John Cusaak was the star of the film and he did a mediocre job at it. He wasn't terrible but he was a stereo typical disaster movie star. He was a dead beat dad who was divorced and had to save the day and win back his ex wife. However Cusaak wasn't  the only stereotype. The other characters were too. There was the bitchy ex wife who had good reasons to be mad at Cusaak. Then there were the two kids, an angry boy who doesn't like Cusaak at first but then he does and the cute and sweet girl. Then there was the wise leader. In this case it was the president of the united states played by Danny Glover. But like all the other films Glover was boring and I really didn't care what happened to him. If he wasn't in the film it wouldn't make it any worse.
Like all other disaster films this one played it safe. There weren't any surprises or startling moments and worst of all unless you were a complete idiot you knew what the ending was going to be. I could have just got up and left before the film ended and I could tell anyone what the outcome was.
In the end everything works out ok and most of the characters survive which made the movie even more predictable .

But for a movie like this you just had to look past the disaster movie cliché plot and focus on the real reason you bothered to see this which were the immense action sequences. This film had everything from buildings collapsing to a massive tidal wave swallowing the white-house. And in scenes like one towards the beginning where Cusaak and the gang have to get to safety as the ground is collapsing inward made me feel like I was on a ride and seeing on the big-screen made it even better

In all I recommend seeing it once and only once and in the theater. If I tried to rent it and watch it again I think I would be bored. It wasn't something I would buy and watch over and over again. It's not that it wasn't memorable but that it wasn't unique and it could easily be confused with a movie like "Deep Impact"
I give it 3 out of 5 stars.