The Drewniverse |

Drew Reviews: Star Trek Into Darkness

May 16, 2013 by drew

Editorial: As a kid I grew up passively watching Star Trek. My mother was a massive fan and even wrote in to CBS after the show was canceled in the late 60’s. In my youth I had seen every movie in the franchise and a few episodes of Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager but it wasn’t until J.J. Abrams 2009 reboot when I started showing more of an interest. That movie cut away from all of the boring stiffness I associated with Trek and allowed me to see just how grand the future envisioned by the late great Gene Roddenberry could be. When Star Trek Into Darkness announced it’s filming in January of 2012 I decided to take it upon myself to watch every series and every film in chronological order starting with Enterprise and ending at the release of the new movie.

My full report is just under this review but needless to say, the experiment endeared me to ALL of Star Trek. Don’t get me wrong, there are some awful movies (Final Frontier, Generations) and some even worse shows (Enterprise and Voyager) but on the whole my eyes have been opened to such a glorious sci-fi world and this 17 month long journey has helped me appreciate Star Trek Into Darkness as one of the greatest cinematic experiences I have had this year.

Who’s responsible? : J.J. Abrams is back in the directors chair with a new script from the Star Trek (2009) writers staff of Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof.

What’s it about? : A mysterious man named John Harrison causes pain and havoc to Starfleet and it’s up to Captain Kirk and the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise to bring him to justice before it’s too late.

Who’s in it? : Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin and Bruce Greenwood all reprise their roles from the 2009 movie, this time they’re joined by Peter Weller, Alice Eve and Benedict Cumberbatch (in a star making role as the villain John Harrison)

What worked? : This movie starts and hits the ground running (literally) the first 13 mins not only manage to show and tell you everything you need to know about what the crew has been up to since the last movie but also manages to deliver humor, action and the central theme at a breakneck pace that somehow never manages to become overwhelming. Everything I loved about the last movie is in this one and turned up to eleven. The team dynamics, the humor (which is in abundance here but never feels tired), the action, the personal drama, Star Trek Into Darkness is everything a superior sequel should be and more. After spending so much time watching way too much Star Trek, my persistence and knowledge was rewarded what felt like every ten minutes. There are so many nods to the previous series as well as the films yet all of it is hidden for true fans and the casual observer shouldn’t (and can’t really) get bogged down in the references. The cast still has that same chemistry that made the 2009 reboot successful but all the introductions are over and we really get to see these characters fully realized. Benedict Cumberbach steals the show, giving us a way more layered and calculating villain than any other Star Trek movie antagonist I have ever seen before. Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should all be applauded for the work they’ve done here; as well as cinematographer Daniel Mindel and composer Michael Giacchino.

What didn’t work? : I may love this iteration of Star Trek but many hardcore Trekkies/Trekkers who are bigger fans of the Original Star Trek universe may be disappointed. Especially how this movie renders a long considered classic Trek movie (to say which one would be a crime) irrelevant. Other audiences may find the pacing and relentless action exhausting.

Final Verdict? : The best movie of the year I’ve seen so far and by far. Star Trek Into Darkness lived up to every expectation I had and more, becoming my favorite Star Trek film and a welcome addition to this all-new cannon. My only complaint with the last movie is that it ended when I wanted more and that complaint is doubled by this one. I would rather have the next Star Trek adventure than Star Wars Episode VII (J.J. Abrams next directing gig) I can only hope that this series keeps delivering the goods. Cause the universe knows I’ll keep watching.

5/5 HOT WINGS!!!!!

Category Uncategorized | Tags: |
Star Trek Chronological Report: Final Journal

May 16, 2013 by drew

Stardate 66837.5: I have successfully completed the Star Trek Chronology project. Starting with episode 1 of Enterprise (Broken Bow) and ending with Star Trek Into Darkness, I have watched every episode of every series as well as every Star Trek film. The experience was challenging, exhausting and at times grueling yet rewarding just the same. To be able to immerse oneself in an entire universe is exhilarating and I will forever treasure the knowledge I’ve acquired about this amazing world. Deep Space Nine was my favorite series and featured my favorite crew while Voyager proved to be the worst thing about this entire endeavor. When all is said and done my favorite version of Star Trek in all of it’s many different incarnations has to be the re-imagined J.J. Abrams universe; it took the philosophy and mythology of Trek and infused it with an even more grandiose sense of high adventure while making every character far more crucial to the proceedings than in any other incarnation of the original crew. I have no idea what lies ahead for the future of Star Trek but I know that I will forever be a fan of this wonderful, complicated, dense, at times tedious but mostly excellent franchise.

- Manning, out.

Category Notes for the Deaf | Tags: |
Earth Betta Part I: Penny the Humanicorn is At War with the Stranger

May 10, 2013 by drew

“Penny the Humanicorn is At War with the Stranger”

Category The Saga | Tags: |
Drew Reviews: Iron Man 3

May 3, 2013 by drew

Editorial: Contrary to what a few folks may assume about me, I am not a “hater” or a “troll”. I don’t go to the movies with the express purpose to be disappointed, and I definitely don’t root for filmmakers or franchises I hold dear to fail. In fact, my goal with these reviews and this site from the very beginning has always been to voice my opinion on things that excite and inspire me, both as a film fan and an aspiring writer.

I realized over the course of writing these critiques that unless something is in my wheelhouse of comic book adaptations, comedies, sci-fi, animation and action, it’s best for me not to cover it. Out of all these assessments the only film that I regret for giving a low number is “Dreamworld”, not because I think the film is unbearable or I disagree with my impression of it, but because the director was a nice guy who got me a digital screener of his film and I just couldn’t help but be honest about my inability jive with it’s sensibilities. The same could be said for why I detested The Hunger Games, Zero Dark Thirty and Amore but, a) I have no friendly connection to anyone who worked on those movies and B) they were all massive hits either critically, financially or both so I have no hang up on giving them zero wings and chalk that up as a further lesson/proof that I should stick with what I know. This isn’t to say that I’m some kind of philistine who can’t appreciate drama. I enjoy a Paul Thomas Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, Coen Bros or Wes Anderson flick as much as the next guy but all of those filmmakers create worlds and elevate their stories so that they’re beyond your run of the mill snooze fest.

After last years “Avengers” I was more than happy to return to the Marvel Cinematic Universe for “Iron Man 3”. This movie is the first in Marvel’s Phase 2 cycle of five films that will culminate in 2015’s “Avengers 2”. I was so excited to see this movie that trying to get sleep the night before it opened this Fri was very difficult, almost like when you’re a kid on Christmas Eve who can’t sleep and just wants it to be morning already so they could unwrap their presents. However, in all my excitement I forgot (or maybe even just wanted to deny) one very simple, saddening and time-tested cinematic fact. The third comic book film in any franchise is doomed. Iron Man 3 is no exception and inspired the other post I’m working on today about the third comic book movie curse and my suggestion on how it can be fixed/helped.

Who’s responsible? : Written & Directed by longtime writer Shane Black (The Lethal Weapon franchise, Monster Squad, Kiss, Kiss, Bang-Bang, ) and co-written by Drew Pearce (show runner of the hilarious but vastly underrated 2007 British series, No Heroics)

What’s it about? : The third installment of the Iron Man series features billionaire playboy, philanthropist, super hero Tony Stark dealing with panic attacks and having developed a post traumatic stress disorder after the events in “The Avengers”. Meanwhile a mysterious new villain named the Mandarin shows up just in time to make Tony’s life a living hell.

Who’s in it? : Robert Downey Jr., Don Cheadle, Gwyneth Paltrow and Jon Favreau all reprise their roles this time with new actors Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley and Rebecca Hall.

What worked? : We all know how great Robert Downey Jr. as an actor and especially as the character of Tony Stark. His chemistry with Cheadle, Paltrow and Favreau always seems genuine. Shane Black manages to throw in a couple of witty one-liners.

What didn’t work? : This movie has a lot of fun ideas, but they’re all executed poorly. A voice activated Iron Man suit, non-metal based super powered villains that our hero can go toe to toe with, a vast conspiracy fronted by a terrifying new villain, a zero gravity rescue, an army of Iron Men, all of these should be excitingly cool prospects and challenges and everyone of them falls flat. There’s a twist that happens 2/3 into the movie that takes all of the bite out of the main antagonist and turns this entire thing into a farce. Shane Black’s directing style leaves much to be desired. It’s not distracting but it’s also not cinematic, entertaining or engaging, it just…is. And while Mr. Black and Mr. Pearce have shown themselves to be accomplished screenwriters this script is lazy beyond belief yet manages to have too much going on at the same time. I wanted to leave this movie 25 minutes in and that feeling only got stronger every 15 minutes until it became unbearable. Even the post credits tag that the Marvel Cinematic Universe is known for wasn’t worth the 3+ minutes of credits you have to get through to see it.

Final Verdict? : A boring, lazy mess of a film whose only virtue is that it curbs the excitement and expectations I had for the other upcoming Marvel movies.

1/5 hot wings

Category Reviews | Tags: |
The 3rd Comic Book Movie Curse and how it can be stopped and/or helped

May 3, 2013 by drew

The third comic book movie curse has existed since 1983’s Superman III. For years no one was sure how or why this curse existed just one fact was certain, the third comic book movie is the worst, most polarizing or weakest of all three movies of a franchise. A long held belief was that the third comic book movie was the worst because they usually had a different director at the helm. Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 3 and Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises featured the same directors for all three films and disproved this assumption. In the process of being a fan of the genre I’ve come to realize that there isn’t just one reason why the third comic book movie fails, but a series of poor decisions that have to do with character and story. Ever the optimist, I’ve analyzed all the factors that come in to play when crafting the third comic book movie and decided to share my thoughts and suggestions on how to defeat it. I have no grand illusions that any powerful people will see this assessment but I do have hope that if enough people check out my findings it might start a dialogue or at the very least inform and/or entertain the kind folks and fans who frequent this site.

1)    Don’t be the sequel to the first movie, be the sequel to the LAST movie: A lot of third comic book movies tend to gloss over the events in the second movie and instead try to expand upon ideas from the first. This never works, imagine you’re telling someone a story and what happens in the middle has no bearing or relevance to the conclusion. Anything the character did in the 2^nd movie should take precedent over anything they did in the 1^st movie because the protagonist is closer to who they are at the end of Part II. Iron Man 3 is unique because it does follow how we last saw Tony Stark at the end of Avengers, but it falls into the next trap which is…

2)    Don’t neuter your hero!: We’ve already seen the origin in the first movie, the escalating conflict in the second. By the third comic book movie the hero needs to be at the top of their game. I’m not saying they should be invulnerable, but I am saying they should be more confident and competent than they were in the previous films. In fact, the hero should be in costume doing what they do for more time than in any previous film. The first couple of minutes of Spider-Man 3 actually did a decent job of articulating this, then they went south because…

3)    One villain is good enough!: Let’s face it, they make comic book movies because they make money, and they make comic book sequels because they make even more money. We live in a capitalistic society, I get it. However, too often the 3^rd comic book movie gets bogged down in antagonists because the studios want to push as many action figures as they can, but too many bad guys takes the focus off of your main character and muddies the plot. What’s even worse is that the story has to land on a central antagonist at the expense of all the others. Which brings me to my next point…

4)    Respect your villains!: The 3rd comic book movie always takes a tough villain you’ve been waiting to see realized on the big screen only to have them be completely marginalized and disrespected. Every villain in Spider-Man 3, Bane in Dark Knight Rises, Both the Riddler and Two-Face in Batman Forever, Dracula in Blade III the list goes on and on.

5)    Don’t rely on/add too many good guys either: Remember, this is the third part of a three part story, you should already have pre-established allies that support the protagonist. We don’t need more people being introduced that will take away screen time from characters we already know and love.

6)    Use only one love interest: If your character had a love interest for the first two movies don’t add in another romantic interest to muddy the waters because again, you’re making an unnecessary character that is useless. If your character is the Bond type and has a different love interest in each film that’s fine, but focus the love story on THAT person alone.

7)    Stick with the same tone and style you’ve set up with the other movies: If your series started in blunt realism then stay with that, if your series started funny, stay funny. For some reason the third comic book movie gets broader in humor, violence or content no matter the genre or character and it prevents it from having the same feeling as the other two.

8)    Bigger is not always better: The 2^nd movies job is to go all out, the 3^rd movies job is to wrap it all up in a satisfactory way while adding to your protagonist’s arc. If we already went big in Part II then Part III should take it easy or at the very least not try so hard to outdo the other one.

9)    These characters are going to outlive us all, so while this is a conclusion of sorts, there is NO NEED to do anything drastic like kill of your main character or have them quit what it is that they do: You’re only make things difficult for the next guy and forcing your audience to have to sit through a fourth film reboot. Any dramatic weight that you feel like you’re bringing to the table by doing something extreme will be undercut and discounted the moment the next movie is released.

I’ve come to the end of my analysis. No matter which 3rd comic book movie, from Superman III to Iron Man 3, they are all guilty of the nine things I listed above (if not more). I wrote this post because this is one of my favorite genres and it’s really disheartening to only have “two good ones” out of so many franchises. Most of these characters have over 70 years of official cannon and I’m tired of seeing them get it wrong on every third feature. Now that I’ve pinpointed some of the problem areas maybe some sort of universal thought process can materialize and filmmakers and studios will come to the same realizations that I have. Probably not, but a man can dream.

Category Notes for the Deaf | Tags: |
Earth Alpha Part I : 2082

March 8, 2013 by drew

2082

Category The Saga | Tags: |
Earth Alpha Part II: The Valiant V

March 8, 2013 by drew

The Valiant V

Category The Saga | Tags: |
Earth Alpha Part III: Stellar

March 8, 2013 by drew

Stellar

Category The Saga | Tags: |
Drew Reviews: Oz the Great and Powerful

March 8, 2013 by drew

Editorial: Joseph Campbell gets a lot of credit for creating the monomyth (aka the heroes journey) and last year both Edgar Rice Burroughs and J.R.R. Tolkien had their original genre creating works (Princess/John Carter of Mars and the Hobbit) get the big screen treatment. So I was more than happy to see Frank L. Baum and the world of Oz get brought into 21^st century. Before there was my obsession with Star Wars and comic books I was a Wizard of Oz fan, the 1939 MGM classic is actually the first movie I remember watching on TV. Of course I was also into the Wiz and devoted to Disney’s Return to Oz, as well as the HBO animated series and even that lame ABC cartoon. One summer I tried to read all the Oz books but only got through the first four. The main reason I love this series and world so much is the character dynamics and reliable story structure, we get a human from outside of Oz, a talking animal, a talking object and then either a robot or some other magical being and they set out to help the outsider achieve their goals by journeying through a vibrant yet dangerous landscape. I also enjoy the work of Sam Raimi but haven’t been a fan of his most recent stuff and was looking for some kind of return to form. While Oz the Great and Powerful is far from perfect it was also far from a disappointment.

Who’s in it? : James Franco, Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams

Who’s responsible? : Directed by Sam Raimi (The Evil Dead Trilogy, The Spider-Man Trilogy) from a screenplay by Mitchel Kapner ( The Whole Nine Yards) and David Lindsay Abaire (Rise of the Guardians)

What’s it about? : Takes place 20 years before the events in the Wizard of Oz, this movie tells the story of how Oscar Diggs, a con-man magician got swept away in a tornado and ended up in Oz to become what the title suggests he becomes.

What worked? : Every technical aspect of this movie is amazing, from the sets to the visual effects, make up effects and character designs. I’m a 3-D supporter and this movie made me very proud to have my stance. Sam Raimi really understood how to shoot in 3-D and I was pleased to see the return of “Raimi-Cam” (the jarring sped up float cam) in a couple of scenes. Another kudos should go to cinematographer (and regular Raimi collaborator) Peter Deming, I was a fan of setting this movies first act in a black and white 4:9 aspect ratio. Other than the technical aspects the rest of this review gets complicated because the two other aspects that made this movie work are also what hurt it.

The Actors: In order for this script to work you need a leading man who is earnest enough for you to forgive his conniving ways but slick enough to pull off all the conniving stuff. James Franco is very likeable and indeed earnest enough for you to be invested in his journey. All three actresses were cast perfectly for their roles with Michelle Williams and Mila Kunis (towards the end of the movie) as standouts.

The script: I appreciated how respectful this story was to it’s source material and its written in such a way where you can watch this movie as a companion piece to any previous Oz movie (accept for maybe the Wiz).

What didn’t work? : James Franco can’t really pull off a lot of the showman aspects of this character and didn’t seem to have any real romantic chemistry with any of the leading ladies. Each actress in this movie is giving it their all but their characters all lack something, because…

The script doesn’t take the time to fully develop many of the characters, it’s also slow moving at times and predictable at others.

Danny Elfman’s score is standard, distracting and almost laughable.

Final Verdict? : Despite all my issues, I still had a lot of fun watching this movie and would definitely welcome the chance to revisit this version of Oz again in the future. This is the perfect rainy day movie that you would watch either at home on cable or in a classroom. The 3-D is really well done and if you’re a fan of the format this is a must see, if not you can either see it in 2-D or wait until it goes to that second market.

3/5 Hot Wings.

Category Reviews | Tags: |
Drew Reviews (Oscar Noms): Life of Pi

February 24, 2013 by drew

Editorial: This movie is being hailed as a technological marvel for its use of 3-D. I’m a champion of films being shot in 3-D but did not see Life of Pi in it’s native format, perhaps if I had I would’ve actually enjoyed it.

Who’s responsible? Director Ang Lee (The Ice Storm, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Brokeback Mountain), David Magee (Finding Neverland) adapts from a screenplay based on the book by Yann Martel

Who’s in it? Suraj Sharma, Irrifan Khan, Tabu, Rafe Spall, Gerard Depardieu

What’s it about? 16-year-old Pi Patel survives a shipwreck and is stranded in the Pacific Ocean on a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger.

What worked? I did enjoy the rich color pallet the film presented as well as the CGI in certain scenes.

What didn’t work? This movie was just boring and repetitive to me, it’s narrated by an older version of the protagonist so there is no question on whether or not he will survive and when you find out how he’s eventually rescued it’s very anti climactic and tries to go for an unneeded plot twist that makes the rest of the film seem hollow and worthless.

Final Verdict? : Again, without seeing this movie in its proper format I actually have no idea why it was nominated in the first place.

Hot Wings: 1.5/5 hot wings

Chances at Oscar: 6/9 odds, nominated for both director and best picture as well as best visual effects and adapted screenplay.

Category Reviews | Tags: |
Drew Reviews (Oscar Noms): Beasts of the Southern Wild

February 24, 2013 by drew

Editorial: Another movie I enjoyed but wouldn’t have seen unless it was nominated for Best Picture.

Who’s responsible? : This is the first feature film by director Benh Zeitlin and was written by him and playwright Lucy Alibar

Who’s in it? : First time actors Quvenzhane Wallis and Dwight Henry

What’s it about? : Six year old Hush Puppy (Wallis) and her father Wink (Henry) live in a bayou community called “The Bathtub” on the out skirts of New Orleans and cut off from the rest of the world by a levee. After Hurricane Katrina arrives and causes full devastation to The Bathtub, Hush Puppy, Wink and its remaining citizens are forced to find a way to survive.

What worked? : The chemistry between Wallis and Henry is natural and legitimate. I commend Zeitlin for undertaking such a massive challenge on his first feature, as all of the production design appears overly complicated. Cinematographer Ben Richardson creates a larger than life look for such a modestly budgeted film

What didn’t work? The screenplay kind of just goes through the motions, its never predictable but it also seems to never strive for coherence. It felt like a bunch of things happening one after the other with no real purpose or direction other than the survival of these characters.

Final Verdict? : While I did enjoy this movie enough and even counted myself crying 3 times, after each time I wasn’t 100% sure what made me so emotional.

Hot Wings: 2.5/5 Hot Wings

Chances at Oscar: 6/9 odds, yes it’s obscure but I see more people rallying around this film than Amour and it’s nominated for best picture, best director, best adapted screenplay and best actress.

Category Reviews | Tags: |
Drew Reviews (Oscar Noms): Silver Linings Playbook

February 24, 2013 by drew

Editorial: Despite the fact that I like everyone involved with this movie, including director David O. Russell, I had no desire to actually see it. In this case I’m glad I was forced to watch The Silver Linings Playbook, as it became not just one of my favorite best picture nominees but a favorite film of 2012 as well.

Who’s responsible? David O. Russell (I Heart Huckabees, Three Kings, Flirting with Disaster) directs and adapts the screenplay based off the book by Mathew Quick

Who’s in it? : Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro, Jacki Weaver, Chris Tucker, Anupam Kher

What’s it about? After spending 8 months in a mental institution for assault, Pat Solitano Jr (Cooper) returns to his neighborhood in Philadelphia and moves in with his parents (De Niro & Weaver) he plans to reconcile with his ex-wife and get his life back on track, but things change once he meets Tiffany Maxwell (Jennifer Lawrence).

What worked? : Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence are fantastic in this movie, their chemistry and relationship carry the whole thing and both of them are more than believable as their damaged yet very sympathetic characters. This is the first time in a long time where I’ve enjoyed performances from both Robert De’Niro and Chris Tucker. Jacki Weaver is excellent as Dolores Solitano who wears the concern she has for her family on her face at all times. The screenplays pacing is perfect as the story moves a long without ever really slowing down, the dialogue often times hilarious and the characters are all likeable and relatable. David O. Russell’s direction is consistent while still working in some unique editing and visual ques. The soundtrack is great and the score by Danny Elfman is different from his usual works in a very good way.

What didn’t work? : Some might say that this story is predictable (which is very true) and the movie starts darker and only continues to get lighter, which I didn’t have a problem with but may bother those who were expecting a film that would take a harsher and look into the subject of mental illness.

Final Verdict? : I loved the feeling I had after finishing Silver Linings Playbook, I could easily watch it again and again which is all that you could ask for in an Academy nominated film.

Hot Wings: 4.5/5 Hot Wings!

Chances at Oscar: 8/9 Its Weinstein Produced so it does have a strong campaign behind it, its leads were both nominated for best actor and actress, it also secured nominations for best picture and best director, but its also a comedy so its chances are somewhat diminished.

Category Reviews | Tags: |
Drew Reviews (Oscar Noms): Lincoln

February 24, 2013 by drew

Editorial: Steven Spielberg is one of my favorite directors, Abraham Lincoln is one of my favorite Presidents and the 13^th Amendment is my favorite Amendment. Yet Lincoln plays everything too safe and is too little about its namesake to be a truly great film.

Who’s responsible? Directed by Steven Spielberg, written by Tony Kushner (Munich)

Who’s in it? : Daniel Day Lewis, Sally Field, David Strathaim, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, Hol Holbrook, Lee Pace, Tommy Lee Jones

What’s it about? : The last four months of President Abraham Lincoln’s life as he spent all of his time trying to get congress to ratify the 13^th Amendment that would abolish slavery and end the Civil War.

What worked? Every actor in this film is committed to delivering a great performance. James Spader, Tommy Lee Jones and Lee Pace were all standouts to me. Steven Spielberg and cinematographer Janusz Kaminski created a solid look for the film and John Williams nailed another perfect score.

What didn’t work? : This movie doesn’t take any risks with the material to show how gritty and hard the time of the Civil War was. I was also upset that for a movie called Lincoln it didn’t even scratch the surface of our 16^th President’s interesting life. No log cabin, barley a mention of his first wife, his campaign to become president and why his election started the Civil War. Every black person in this movie is inconsequential and put to the sidelines to occasionally be used when needed; Frederick Douglas doesn’t even make an appearance.

Final Verdict? : This movie was based off the book “A Team of Rivals” by Doris Kearns Goodwin that details the last four months of President Lincoln’s life and is a far more proper title for this film than Lincoln. I enjoyed this film, I didn’t love it and it honestly kept me wanting more.

Hot Wings: 2.5/5

Chances at Oscar: 9/9 Nominated for best film, best director and best actor, there has been a massive push for this movie with TV ads and overexposure on the cable news outlets.

Category Reviews | Tags: |
Drew Reviews (Oscar Noms): Amour

February 24, 2013 by drew

Editorial: Sometimes you have to review films that are just not your cup of tea. Amour is definitely one of these films.

Who’s responsible? : Written and directed by Michael Haneke (US remake of Funny Games, The Piano Teacher)

Who’s in it? Jean-Louis Trintignant, Emmanuelle Riva and Isabelle Huppert

What’s it about? Anne (Riva) and Georges (Trintignant) are an elderly French couple. Anne suffers a stroke and we’re forced to watch her die for around two hours.

What worked? The chemistry between Trintignant and Riva is amazing and every other actor in this film gives a believable performance.

What didn’t work? : This movie is just a flat out depressing bore that offers its audience nothing but misery. The cinematography by Darius Khondji is as bleak as the film itself. It all takes place in Anne and Georges apartment, which eventually creates the feeling that you’re being trapped into watching Anne’s illness play out.

Final Verdict? : A lot of times the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences nominate films for best picture I would have otherwise never seen, and sometimes these movies are surprises but more often they end up like Amour, a film that didn’t enlighten or entertain me that I didn’t need to watch at all.

0/5 hot wings

Chances at Oscar 5/9 odds, Michael Haneke is nominated for best director and the two leads are nominated for best actor and actress but I haven’t seen any kind of a media blitz by the studio to build any kind of awareness for this film.

Category Reviews | Tags: |
Drew Reviews: Movie 43

January 25, 2013 by drew

Editorial: Normally, I love comedy anthologies (feature length comedies that are a group of short stories held together by a simple premise). Kentucky Fried Movie, Amazon Women on the Moon and Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life will forever be classics to me. When I found out that Hollywood was finally going to make another comedy anthology I was intrigued at the prospect, and then the ads for Movie 43 came out and I was instantly sold. Unfortunately, while Movie 43 sports an amazing cast and a unique premise it basically falls flat on it’s face.

Who’s in it? : It’s an ensemble comedy featuring Dennis Quaid, Greg Kinnear, Common, Seth McFarlane, Hugh Jackman, Kate Winslet, Naomi Watts, Live Schreiber, Anna Farris, Chris Pratt, JB SMoove, Kieren Culkin, Emma Stone, Jason Sudeikis, Justin Long, Richard Gere, Kate Bosworth, Chloe Moretz, Christopher Mintz Plasse, Halle Berry, Stephen Merchant and Josh Duhamel

Who’s responsible? : It’s 14 separate sketches

Directed by: Peter Farrelly, Bret Ratner, James Gunn, Elizabeth Banks, Griffin Dune, Steven Brill, Rusty Cundief, Steve Carr, James Duffy, Patrik Forsberg and Jonathan Van Tulleken,

Written by: Will Carlough, Tobias Carlson, Jacob Fleisher, Patrick Forsberg, Will Graham, James Gunn, Claes Kjellstrom, Jack Kukoda, Bill O’Malley, Matthew Portenoy, Greg Pritikin, Rocky Russo, Olle Sarri, Elizabeth Shapiro, Jeremy Sosenko, Jonathan van Tulleken, Jonas Wittenmark

What’s it about? : A crazed writer takes a studio exec hostage to pitch him some of the worst movie ideas in the history of film.

What worked? : A lot of (not all) the stories start with a decent premise and had me rolling through most of their running time. The three stand outs were “Veronica” which starred Kieren Culkin and Emma Stone as an insane couple that break up over a supermarkets loud speaker, “Happy Birthday” where Johnny Knoxville gives his roommate Sean William Scott a leprechaun on his birthday to make up for sleeping with his girlfriend and “Victory’s Glory” where Terrence Howard plays a basketball coach to an all black team in 1959 who are needlessly concerned about beating their all white opponents.

What didn’t work? : The key to a good sketch is the ending, if you stick the landing then even if the set up is weak the audience will forgive you, with the exception of the three listed above every other sketch in this movie falls flat on it’s face, there are a couple that don’t even get off the ground. No matter how much I laughed the end result to a majority of these stories was just nothing but disappointment. In fact all of the jokes in “Home Schooled” starring Live Schreiber and Naomi Watts were given away in every red band trailer or TV spot for the movie.

Final Verdict? : It’s a shame that everyone involved on the writing side of this movie seemed to want to take the easy way out at almost every turn. I was looking forward to this movie for months and it let me down. They should’ve just released it as a straight to cable movie and left it at that. Movie 43 has the distinct privilege of being simultaneously overly ambitious and embarrassingly lazy. Yet because of the three stories I did enjoy and the fact that I did laugh heartily at most of the other offerings I can’t give Movie 43 a straight up negative review, I just can’t recommend that anyone pay good money to see it in a theater.

Hot Wings: 2/5 hot wings.

Category Reviews | Tags: |
Drew Reviews (Oscar Noms): Argo

January 14, 2013 by drew

Editorial: Ben Affleck is quickly becoming one of the greatest American filmmakers of his generation. What started with 2007’s Gone Baby Gone and then 2010’s The Town Affleck not only demonstrated that he could shoot scenes but more importantly preserve moments and performances that make the audience feel connected, thrilled but more importantly entertained. Mr. Affleck continues to demonstrate his skills with Argo. The guys definitely come a long way from his turn as O’Bannion in Dazed and Confused.

Who’s responsible? Actor/director Ben Affleck helms a movie written by Chris Terrio and produced by George Clooney.

Who’s in it? Ben Affleck, John Goodman, Alan Arkin, Bryan Cranston, Tate Donovan, Clea DuVall, Christopher Denham, Scott McNiary, Kerry Bishe and Rory Cochrane

What’s it about? : The story of how C.I.A. operative Tony Mendez led the rescue of six U.S. diplomats from Tehran, Iran, during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis.

What worked? This actually felt like an Academy Award nominated film rom the first frame to the last. Cinematographer Roberto Prieto should be applauded in how he gave this film a very authentic late 1970’s look. The script is ingenious, moving fast and giving a sense of dread and imminent danger to a well-known historical event without anything feeling forced. Every performance is natural and legitimate. There are real moments of nail biting, hair twirling edge of your seat tension.

What didn’t work? : With so many characters involved it’s more than difficult to get a character that is 100% well rounded in a film like this. However, Tehrio’s script and the actors do the best they can to make sure that no one in this film seems one-dimensional.

Final Verdict? : A fantastic film, and the type of picture you would hope to see nominated for many awards

4.5/5 Hot Wings

Chances at Oscar: 4/9 odds, unfortunately, Ben Affleck was not nominated for best director, which is normally the kiss of death for any Best Picture nominee. I do hope that the craft displayed in this film will elevate Academy voters to give it a chance. If anything it definitely deserves best-adapted screenplay.

Category Reviews | Tags: |
Drew Reviews (Oscar Noms): Zero Dark Thirty

January 14, 2013 by drew

Editorial: I didn’t hate (director Kathryn Bigelow’s previous film) The Hurt Locker, but I didn’t really like it either. If the first rule of film making is to entertain I’d say it failed at its job, but at least it had Jeremy Renner to kind of make me think I cared about someone as I watched it. Zero Dark Thirty doesn’t have one character I was able to trick myself into caring about. It came off as a very boring and tired Time Magazine article with unremarkable visuals and a lot of forced adult language.

Who’s responsible? : Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal, the directing and writing team from “The Hurt Locker”.

Who’s in it? : Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Joel Edgerton, Jennifer Ehle, Mark Strong, Kyle Chandler and Edgar Ramirez

What’s it about? A C.I.A. agent’s seven-year mission to find terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden.

What worked? : Probably a first since “Transformers: Dark of the Moon”, nothing in this movie worked for me.

What didn’t work? : The script is a slow meandering mess, not revealing anyone that resembles a human being so much as a sound bite with lines and forced motivation. The filmmakers seem to know it’s not entertaining because they’ll throw in an explosion or random shoot out just to wake the audience up. Names of the actual agents involved were protected but I find it too convenient that a female protagonist would exist that perfectly mirrors the director herself. It’d be as if I directed this movie and cast a fat nerdy black guy as the main guy who brought down Bin Laden. The dialogue is a joke, every character (especially Chastain) sounding like Debra Morgan from Dexter; just a barrage of fucks, with no poetry, slickness or weight behind them. It’s shot like a Cable mini-series and gives off that feeling. There is nothing thrilling, epic or grandiose about this film and for its subject matter it should have been all three of those things. The score is hacky, bizarre and feels more at home on American Horror Story than in this film. There are many distracting cameos by well-known TV actors that took me out of the movie. Much of the controversy surrounding this movie is based around the idea that it supports torture. I think this controversy was created by the studio to sell tickets and relevancy, you clearly see that in the beginning of the film after all the torture scenes we get an introspective shot of Jessica Chastain’s character Maya looking well, tortured. The intel that actually gets the C.I.A. Bin Laden is past info that got lost in the fallout of post 9/11 over intelligence. Seal Team 6 is treated like a bunch of frat boys. In fact the only true agenda/point of view this movie has is that Maya (the Kathryn Bigelow surrogate) is always right and everyone else is an incompetent dumbass.

Final Verdict? : The movie chronicling the American efforts to search and destroy Osama Bin Laden could have and should have made for a greatly entertaining film, sadly this is not it. As an American I should’ve wanted to see “The Death of Bin Laden” movie more times than any other movie this year, instead I could barley make it through Zero Dark Thirty the one time and I will never put myself through that torture again.

1/5 hot wings

Chances at Oscar: 4/9 odds, The Academy already gave the first best female director Oscar to Kathryn Bigelow for Hurt Locker, and she’s not even nominated this year. However the Academy are suckers for a timely war movie so it’s chances are decent.

Category Reviews | Tags: |
Drew Reviews: This is 40

January 7, 2013 by drew

Editorial: Even though I will most likely never see them again, I have to apologize to the audience I saw this movie with. It’s so damn funny that I was laughing and obnoxiously guffawing through most of its 133 min runtime. So if you happened to be at the Edwards Ontario Mountain 14 for the 3:35 showing on 1/7/13 and sat anywhere near me (the overweight black dude in the back), my condolences.

On to the review! Like most fans of Judd Apatow I got into the man and his work by watching his two brilliant but canceled shows, Freaks & Geeks and Undeclared (R.I.P.). I related to the characters, the naturalistic dialogue and awkward (and perhaps too honest) situations those characters found themselves in. Mr. Apatow continued this trend into a darker and hard R extent in his feature films, “The 40 Year Old Virgin”, “Knocked Up” and “Funny People”. “This is 40″ is no different from it’s televised and cinematic brethren and is perhaps the best Apatow film to date.

Who’s in it? : Leslie Mann, Paul Rudd, Maude and Iris Apatow, Jason Segal, Charlyne Yi, Megan Fox, Albert Brooks and Jon Lithgow

What’s it about? : The “sort of sequel” to Knocked Up features Pete, Debbie and their two kids Sadie and Charlotte as they navigate through the week that Debbie and Pete both turn 40.

What worked? : This movie is straight up hilarious while also managing to be very touching, honest, heartfelt and a tad depressing at times (but not too depressing). Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann have a realistic chemistry that carries the entire film, both Maude and Iris Apatow are believable and far from obnoxious. Albert Brooks is great as Pete’s deadbeat dad and I enjoyed seeing the cinematic return of Megan Fox, not just because she’s easy on the eyes, but she also delivers an earnest performance where she gets to be more of a human being than anything else I’ve ever seen her in. The script is definitely longer than most comedies but it’s solid and hits all of the story beats and plot points. Cinematographer Phedon Papamichael (The Descendants) gives “This is 40” a polished yet non-distracting look that serves the performances and world of the story. And the soundtrack is amazing!

What didn’t work? : The length of the movie has been a cause of concern for many critics, I myself chose to view it as a three part mini-series with 40 min back to back episodes and that allowed me to enjoy every moment without feeling the over 2hr runtime. There is a part at the close of the first act and the beginning of the second where Pete & Debbie go to an expensive spa right after the movie lets us know that their family is in serious financial troubles. It makes for one of the best and funniest scenes but did feel a little off putting. Fans of Knocked Up may also be frustrated that Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl are nowhere to be seen; especially since one major part of Debbie’s storyline involves her and Alison’s (Heigl’s character) absentee father. Ben Stone (Rogen’s character) is mentioned in a great way and Jason Segal and Charlene Yi do reprise their roles from Knocked Up. However, I still couldn’t shake the thought of wanting to see more characters from the previous movie.

Honorable Mention: Melissa McCarthy’s two scenes were so funny that I laughed so hard my stomach felt like it was going to explode.

Final Verdict? : What a great movie to close out 2012 and start 2013 with. I hope “This is 40” gets its own “sort of sequel”. A fun time was had and I couldn’t recommend this movie enough.

5/5 HOT WINGS!!!!!

Category Reviews | Tags: |
Drew Reviews (Oscar Noms): Django Unchained

January 7, 2013 by drew

Editorial: I’ve been a diehard Quentin Tarantino fan since I snuck into Pulp Fiction at the age of 12 and it warped my little mind. Its my humble opinion that fellow fans of and aspiring filmmakers influenced by QT like the man for all the wrong reasons. Sure, the razor sharp dialogue, outlandish violence and hyper realized style are all great; but I’ve always admired his ability to treat larger than life ultra cinematic characters as regular everyday people as well as create a stylish world that’s different than ours but somehow seems familiar. I read the script for Django Unchained over a year ago and I thought it was one of the best screenplays I had ever had the privilege of setting my eyes on. I often told people that if even 30% of that screenplay made the screen then we were all in for a masterpiece. So it pleases me to no end to see that Mr. Tarantino was able to bring 50% of this great story to the silver screen.

Who’s in it? : Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kerry Washington, Walton Goggins, Michael Parks, Don Johnson and Samuel L. Jackson.

What’s it about? : Set in the deep South 2 years before the Civil War, a slave named Django (Foxx) is freed and recruited by lethal abolitionist bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (Waltz) to join him in tracking down and disposing of Django’s former owners. A long the way Django gains confidence as a gunslinger under the tutelage of Schultz and the two set out to rescue Django’s wife Broomhilda (Washington) from the clutches of the vile Calvin Candie (DiCaprio) and his cunning and malevolent “house negro” Stephen (Jackson).

What worked? : The chemistry between Foxx and Waltz is impeccable, and you need that first and foremost otherwise the movie falls on it’s face. Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson should also be applauded in both their individual performances as well as their on screen dynamic. It’s a great marriage of writing, direction and performance whenever Candie and Stephen have scenes together, as they represent evil mirror versions of our two protagonists. The story and pacing are nailed so tight that I couldn’t believe this film had a 165 min runtime until it was over. This is the third film Tarantino has worked on with cinematographer Robert Richardson and the first that shows they have truly reached their stride. Richardson uses bright lighting, rich colors and wide lenses to shoot the old South as a beautiful place while Quentin’s dialogue and direction juxtaposes the look of the film by exposing the disgusting underbelly of the slave trade to a jarring yet marvelously wicked extent. The use of violence in this movie was pitch perfect, bloody and gritty at times but restrained when it needed to service the drama of the story. With the exception of one musical choice (which I’ll get to later) Django Unchained has a soundtrack that rivals the best of Tarantino’s films. Featuring an eclectic mix that includes music by Ennio Morricone, Jim Croce, a mashup between Tupac & James Brown and my two personal favorites the Django theme song by Rocky Roberts & Luis Bacalov and Lo Chiamavano King (His Name was King) also by Luis Bacalov. Like all Tarantino films you can see the love for the genre he’s trying to emulate in every frame (in this case the Spaghetti Western) because he uses visual references and ques like finger paints. I also appreciated what QT has done narratively to turn the idea of the western on its head. Most westerns are post Civil War and feature an outlaw protagonist whose usually an ex-Confederate soldier, coming into a town and only doing what’s right for selfish reasons or out of a newly formed attachment to the town he rides into and/or it’s people. Here, Django is a former slave whose entire motivation is to rescue his beloved wife, a person he is already deeply and emotionally invested in. Creating the first western with a character that is both honorable and empathetic.

What didn’t work? : Rick Ross has a song on the soundtrack and it’s placement as well as the song itself are completely unneeded and detract from the film and kind of take you out of it. In the screenplay Broomhilda had an entire act dedicated to her journey and how she ended up with Calvin Candie that is completely absent from the film. Django unchained still works without the Broomhilda arc but you can’t help but get the feeling that poor Kerry Washington’s performance was shafted (pun not intended).

Final Verdict? : I loved this movie, it was far from a disappointment and may just be one of Quentin Tarantino’s top 3 best movies. Now of course the language, violence and subject matter may turn more sensitive viewers away but I have to believe that anyone easily offended has to know Django Unchained isn’t for them. After a 20 year career of filmmaking Quentin Tarantino shows no signs of stopping. His craft as a filmmaker and storyteller only gets better.

5/5 HOT WINGS!!!!!

Chances at Oscar: 1/9 odds, Quentin Tarantino was overlooked for a best director nomination and Django Unchained commits the crime of actually being a fun and entertaining movie; something the Academy seems to loath when it comes to granting films the honor of Best Picture.

Category Reviews | Tags: |
Drew Reviews (Oscar Noms): Les Miserables

January 7, 2013 by drew

Editorial: Thanks to my mother and sister I grew up with musicals. The Music Man, Guys & Dolls, Summer Magic and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (to name a few) were played ad nauseum in my house as a youngster. When the 1994 revival of Les Miserables came out my sister had the double album and I would sneak it away from her room and listen to the songs over and over again on our house stereo. Before watching this film I had never seen the play, but I knew all the songs and characters. Many friends and fellow thespians I know were feverishly looking forward to this iteration, almost in the same way I feverishly look forward to adaptations of my favorite comics, books, cartoons and TV shows. Just as I’ve been burned by flawed cinematic representations of the DC, Rowling, Hasbro and Roddenberry Universes, the same can now be said for the Les Mis fans.

Who’s responsible? : Tom Hooper (The King’s Speech) directs from a screenplay by William Nicholson (Gladiator) and the shows original writing team of Alain Boublil, Claude-Michel Schonberg and Herbert Kretzmer.

Who’s in it? : Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne, Samantha Banks, Helena Bonham Carter and Sascha Baron Cohen

What’s it about? : Beginning 25 years post the French Revolution and spanning a total of 17 years, Les Miserables tells the story of ex convict Jean Valjean and his struggle to better himself and those in his care while also outwitting/escaping from the vindictive and sinister prison guard Javert.

What worked? : Tom Hooper, cinematographer Danny Cohen and production designer Eve Stewart combine their talents to create an amazing looking interpretation of this world that you buy into instantly. Most of the underwhelming or disappointing musical numbers are saved by how they were shot and blocked. Anne Hathaway’s performance as the tortured Fantine was a revelation. I’m normally cynical when it comes to actresses, they either give a decent performance I don’t care too much about or give a horrible performance that takes me completely out of the movie (there are some exceptions but they are few and far between). Anne Hathaway’s rendition of “I Dreamed a Dream” was so powerful that by the end of it I felt as emotionally overwhelmed watching it as Ms. Hathaway did performing it.

What didn’t work? : Russel Crowe should never be asked to torture us with his singing ever again. The character of Javer has so many important songs and each one is brutalized by Crowe, who sings like a cross between someone doing bad karaoke to Pink Floyd and a constipated mule. Hugh Jackman, Helena Bonham Carter and Sascha Baron Cohen give uneven performances that make it hard to give a valid critique of their work. Jackman’s choice to put more of a speaking emphasis on some of his lyrics is an over acting misstep, Cohen has some funny one-liners here and there but goes in and out of his poor French accent so much that it’s a toss up and Carter just shouldn’t have been involved at all. The same problem that plagues the play also plagues the movie as the weakest songs and plot points are all in the 3^rd act, which ultimately drags everything down. Some numbers that work better on stage confuse the narrative, for example, Lovely Ladies is shot and edited like it’s all happening at once on the same day when logically in order for any of it to have chronological weight Fantine’s fall into the French underworld has to be happening over at least a span of weeks if not months.

Honorable Mention: Samantha Banks as Eponine, Isabelle Allen as Young Cosette and Amanda Seyfried as older Cosette all do really good work. Eddie Redmayne is serviceable as Marius, bringing charm and earnestness to a character I never really liked before.

Final Verdict? : Anne Hathaway remains the best thing about this project, the songs are so catchy and at times beautiful that a majority of them are still stuck in my head weeks after seeing them performed on the big screen. However, Russel Crowe is overwhelmingly terrible, Jackman is inconsistent to a fault and the pace of the 3^rd act borders on brutal to grueling. Unfortunately, I can’t recommend Les Miserables as much as I wanted to.

2.5/5 hot wings

Chances at Oscar: 2/9 odds, director Tom Hooper is not nominated which is pretty much the kiss of death for a shot at Best Picture (unless you’re Argo).

Category Reviews | Tags: |

Older Entries

May 2013
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Mar
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31