Showing posts with label Jack Black. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jack Black. Show all posts

January 9, 2025

High Fidelity.

Review #2333: High Fidelity.

Cast
John Cusack (Rob Gordon), Iben Hjejle (Laura), Jack Black (Barry Judd), Todd Louiso (Dick), Catherine Zeta-Jones (Charlie Nicholson), Lisa Bonet (Marie DeSalle), Sara Gilbert (Anaugh Moss), Chris Bauer (Paul), Lili Taylor (Sarah Kendrew), Joan Cusack (Liz), Tim Robbins (Ian "Ray" Raymond), and Joelle Carter (Penny Hardwick) Directed by Stephen Frears.

Review: 
“I liked the idea of it being in America. It had a sort of, this sort of more optimistic way in which Americans live, seemed to me to add something to it, rather than taking it away. So it lost some of its stoicism and became slightly more romantic.”

Yes, movies from the new millennium are soon to turn 25 years old, so it seemed apt to cover a movie just as much a result of the writers as it is the director. In 1995, essayist Nick Hornby (probably best known already for his 1995 memoir Fever Pitch), had his first novel come out to the frenzied attention of British audiences who apparently found something in themselves with a setting at a London record shop and a distinct inner monologue. There were rumblings of doing a film as soon as the book came out, with plans ranging from having a draft script done by Scott Rosenberg set in Boston or having Mike Newell involved as a director. Eventually, it was sprung to have John Cusack take a crack at writing a film screenplay, one done in collaboration with D. V. DeVincentis and Steve Pink, who each had worked on Grosse Pointe Blank (as released by Buena Vista Pictures Distribution in 1997). It was through Hornby's permission that they could change the setting to Chicago. Basically, Cusack and Pink/DeVincentis would each go through the book and write what they structured from the book and eventually edit what they saw by basically approaching it as "a checklist of things we need to get done". Cusack suggested trying to approach Stephen Frears to direct. He had actually studied law at the University of Cambridge before electing to work as an assistant to Lindsay Anderson at the Royal Court Theatre (he also worked as an assistant to Karel Reisz as well) and he soon honed his skills for British television. He became a feature director with Gumshoe (1971), but he became a name with My Beautiful Launderette (1985). Hornby was apparently quite satisfied with the adaptation, mostly because a good deal of the dialogue addressing the audience is basically straight from the book. In 2020, a television adaptation of the book came out that lasted one season.

There is something strangely comforting about a comedy that doubles as a sort of male confessional. It is the kind of movie made for people who besides having a certain interest in music maybe, just maybe, need to grow up. The love affair one can have with music in all of its meaningful depths and reaches is palpable with the people we experience in the film that actually end up feeling like people we know in some way or form. Maybe we don't all make top five lists, but we sure do stew on something in the great book of lists and hang-ups. Strangely, it reminds me of Annie Hall (1977), which also handles the anatomy of a breakup through a lead that likes to address the audience (of course, one actually feels the pulse of a tolerable human being in terms the direction and in the acting with High Fidelity, so chew on that). From the jump, it is quite understandable to see Cusack at his most curious and possibly his most effective role. He corrals the movie with a certain kind of slacker (one can operate a store and still slack) charism that really does come through in a manner that we follow along with in ways that a lesser actor would've simply just made a muddled mess. I posit that while some people are self-absorbed, we call them friends anyway because there is a difference between terribly behaved people and people with terrible behavior (i.e. the type that needs to hear "shut up!" once in a while), and some movies win out with weirdos like this. We chuckle and recoil at what we see and hear of a person in all of his bewildering aspects because Cusack just happens to have the voice to carry that drumbeat of weirdness to finding something to do besides just looking back. Of course, it just so happens that there is a pretty capable cast right behind Cusack to make things work beyond just a grandstand for music. Black and Louiso are a dynamic pair of amusement because each just happen to have their own distinct type of humor that connects from the jump in terms of timing and general energy for the material that is palpable in more ways than one. Hjejle goes along with the proceedings that arise from being presented in the prism of one-sided weariness that works in parts. There are a few other little surprises to be found in small moments to see someone such as Robbins take one on the chin in one particular scene of imagined confrontation or one particular cameo to raise a chuckle. I like the overall mood of the film, one that doesn't just dally to conventional means to try and say something about weird hangups or the people you see along the way, and doesn't overstay its welcome at 113 minutes. In general, what we have is a film made by people who clearly had an interest in making a confessional for the hang-ups in all of us that has a distinct love for Chicago and enough charm to make one mix themselves into seeing it play out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

September 24, 2023

Tropic Thunder.

Review #2089: Tropic Thunder.

Cast: 
Ben Stiller (Tugg Speedman), Jack Black (Jeff Portnoy), Robert Downey Jr (Kirk Lazarus as Lincoln Osiris), Nick Nolte (Four Leaf Tayback), Steve Coogan (Damien Cockburn), Jay Baruchel (Kevin Sandusky), Danny McBride (Cody Underwood), Brandon T. Jackson (Alpa Chino), Bill Hader (Studio Executive Rob Slolom), Brandon Soo Hoo (Tran), Trieu Tran (Tru), Matthew McConaughey (Rick "The Pecker" Peck), and Tom Cruise (Les Grossman) Directed by Ben Stiller.

Review: 
''I was trying to push it as far as you can within reality. I had no idea how people would respond to it.'' 

Ben Stiller spent a couple of years making an idea involving actors filming a war movie. He would know, because this idea came about when he had appeared in a small part in Empire of the Sun (1987). He had seen a number of his friends undergo boot camp training for their roles that found them talking like they had become part of a real military unit that seemed like a "sort of self-important, self-involved thing". He kicked around ideas while getting his turn in television such as The Ben Stiller Show and directing with Reality Bites (1994) and The Cable Guy (1996) before appearing in There's Something About Mary (1998) made him a more name presence. At any rate, the script for what became this film was developed by Stiller and Justin Theroux while Etan Cohen helped them write the screenplay. Oddly enough, Stiller intended to cast Keanu Reeves in the lead role and himself as the agent, but when this did not come to pass, he instead took over the lead role. There also is a bit of improvisation present when it came to parts of the storyboard that didn't have scripted dialogue. Spoof, satire, parody, I think you get the idea of what you have with a film that seems right at home with others such as Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse (1991), the documentary that detailed the "rough" time in the production of Apocalypse Now (1979). It sure must have been a surprise that the film attracted minor controversy (something involving disabilities or "blackface", but 2008 crowds had their own standards of ignoring that), because Stiller was even quoted as saying once it has "always been a controversial movie" while noting it as one he is proud of it.

I vaguely remember watching this film about over a decade ago, and I thought it was decent back then before somehow forgetting about it. I wondered a bit how the film was going to look now that it was past the 15-year mark. Hell, I should have realized it was going to be a good time, because, well, it is a fine time to spend in the art of making light of war moviemaking. It makes a solid 107-minute ensemble with plenty of fun spent making light of the excesses that come in moviemaking for those in front of the camera and behind it. The array of spoofs starts right from the get-go with the faux trailers that begin the film by showing four degrees of a star, whether that involves method acting, has-been action stars, Chris Farley models, or, well, rappers trying to be actors. Stiller proves pretty well with the insecure has-been that comes with flailing in the face of rising and dying stars in Hollywood, which includes trying to veer in "Oscar bait" for worthwhile silly insecurity. The best way to describe Downey Jr's performance is, well "dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude." He is so absorbed in playing someone so different from himself (both in appearance and, well, personality) that is quite amusing in the fact he is all in for trying to trigger emotions like a man pressing buttons on a conveyor. You could make the argument that the actor he really seems to hone is not so much Daniel Day-Lewis (method acting and all) but in fact Peter Sellars (hey, The Party (1968) has its own debate over playing race versus playing comedy). Black succeeds fairly well in pathetic addiction, at least when compared to the moments of film acting for the fart-based trailer or those moments in the "war film", I mean. Jackson and Baruchel round out the cast with their own lingering flailing at the insecurities that infringe all of them in the jungle (technically Baruchel is the straight man, but the only different quality for Jackson is a punchline but stay with me on this). The adversaries presented are pretty one note, unless you try to posit that war movies sometimes have their own one-dimensional outlook, but one thing that is delightfully one note in the best way is Nolte, because his gruff outlook in the face of lies is endearing (particularly since he contrasts McBride). Cruise seems to be enjoying himself in the loudest and most obvious cliche (name me one benevolent studio head), which I was surprised to realize actually involved prosthetic hands, and it works out to a few decent jokes (I don't actually believe that a spinoff film would've been the best idea though, but you do you). As a whole, the gags work out pretty well for silly enjoyment over how much insecurity one can have with actors with a biting pace and tone that holds its own in all of the right ways. 15 years hasn't made the humor lessen in impact for those who are up for it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

May 5, 2023

The Super Mario Bros. Movie.

Review #2005: The Super Mario Bros. Movie.

Cast: 
Chris Pratt (Mario), Anya Taylor-Joy (Princess Peach), Charlie Day (Luigi), Jack Black (Bowser), Keegan-Michael Key (Toad), Seth Rogen (Donkey Kong), Fred Armisen (Cranky Kong), Sebastian Maniscalco (Spike), and Kevin Michael Richardson (Kamek) Directed by Aaron Horvath and Michael Jelenic.

Review: 
Admittedly, waiting to watch a movie, particularly one that is projected to have plenty of viewers in theaters (as one would expect to do unless they are a streaming sucker), isn't the worst idea in the world. This goes double for a good chunk of films that could be watched by anybody, and it goes even more for a film based on a video game that I actually enjoy from time to time. You may remember that this is not the first film based on the video game series of the same name, as Hollywood Pictures had made Super Mario Bros. (released in May of 1993), a live-action movie that point blank sucked (spare me the cult classic argument). Nintendo has only allowed two of their franchises to be made into films, and the other is Pokémon (insert your joke here, since I know people who play it as adults), which with the exception of one (the 2019 detective spinoff one) are all animated. Of course, this is technically not the first animated Mario movie because of the 1986 anime Super Mario Bros.: The Great Mission to Rescue Princess Peach!- oh hell, let's just get to the other thing to briefly mention. You know, the only thing that I had hesitation with was not the fact that Pratt was cast as Mario. No, what I had a bone to pick with is one that is more of a recurring gripe that should be mentioned more for animated films: the gripe of seeing animated movies (whether made by someone like Pixar or not) that have very recognizable names voicing characters rather than familiar voice actors. Of course, as long as the movie isn't garbage like say, Shark Tale, this isn't much of a distraction, so feel free to remind me of name actors trying to play animation the next time it happens. The film is directed by Jelenic and Horvath, best known as developers of the animated series Teen Titans Go!

You know, it is at least interesting that video game movies have managed to seem a bit better in quality than what came out in the years around the new millennium. Anyway, the movie is fine. As with the Sonic the Hedgehog films (2020, 2022), it is pretty much exactly what it says on the tin, being fairly bright and charming that mildly goes to please everyone and doesn't stumble on most of the steps of the trip. As an animated film, it is the kind of colorful adventure that you would think would be in a film made by a studio in Illumination that I have seen exactly only one other film from them (Despicable Me). It is lightly plotted and lightly funny, which is totally fine, since not every movie is going to turn into a passioned debate over plot dynamics. It is evident that Pratt, alongside his name recognition, was picked because of the idea that he could play the role with blue-collar charm and heart. With that in mind, he does just fine. Given that Charles Martinet has voiced the character countless times in the last three decades, the best thing to be said for Pratt is that the two Marios are distinct without becoming a distraction, and Pratt makes a quality pair in terms of family chemistry with Day and his timid amusement. Taylor-Joy makes an assertive lead to make the proceedings interesting, as one would hope. How exactly does one judge Rogen when he has stated that "I don't do voices" when he is voicing a goofy gorilla? Let's put it this way: if you know and like Rogen, go right ahead, but if you want the tiniest bit more than just a name phoning it in, then, well, give me a break, because he gets outclassed by the warm goof in Key or even a real voice talent with Richardson. But at least Black makes a quality adversary, drawing most of the chuckles that balances might within delusions of grandeur that clearly made an effort to have fun with such a clear-cut role. You can't even say it is predictable because you pretty know what you are getting into with something that is meant to be honed for entertainment with general reference to its source material without doing half-baked renditions of what people think they want. The Mushroom Kingdom looks quite inviting, and the family story works just fine with the general adventure to make nobody seem extra, even if I could barely care for the idea of music veing used for montages (does the world really need a "Take on Me" usage?). As a whole, it is perfectly serviceable for an hour-and-a-half when it comes to fast-moving adventure that sets things up with patience while putting in little references that rewards those who care about such things without turning into a movie of goo. It invites the idea of another film without begging for it, which I would say is more than enough for a solid piece of entertainment.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

September 18, 2020

King Kong (2005).

Review #1540: King Kong.

Cast: 
Naomi Watts (Ann Darrow), Jack Black (Carl Denham), Adrien Brody (Jack Driscoll), Thomas Kretschmann (Captain Englehorn), Colin Hanks (Preston), Jamie Bell (Jimmy), with Andy Serkis (Motion capture of Kong / Lumpy), Fred Tatasciore (Vocal sound of Kong), Evan Parke (Benjamin "Ben" Hayes), Kyle Chandler (Bruce Baxter), John Sumner (Herb), Lobo Chan (Choy), and Craig Hall (Mike) Directed by Peter Jackson (#1486 - Bad Taste and #1507 - Heavenly Creatures)

Review: 
"No film has captivated my imagination more than King Kong (1933). I'm making movies today because I saw this film when I was 9 years old. It has been my sustained dream to reinterpret this classic story for a new age."

I don't know if you needed to hear another description of King Kong (1933), but most probably know it as a great classic, one that has tremendous stature as an adventure in its revolutionary effects for the time (done in stop-motion and miniatures by Willis O'Brien and his crew) that can still hold its own in entertainment after over 80 years since its release. Granted, not every aspect of the film has exactly aged gracefully (with the occasional wooden actor or so), but it definitely stands true in the ace of films that came in subsequent years involving its titular gorilla. Its sequel (Son of Kongreleased the same year!) was a rush job that did not capture the magic of what made things special from before. King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962), while fairly decent in entertainment, is a hodgepodge of ideas that benefits its latter monster in every which way (particularly with its effects) as a Toho film (I haven't see their other production in King Kong Escapes, which is a co-production with Rankin/Bass of all things). The 1976 remake of the film was described by me as a "jumbled flow of effects and 70's style filmmaking that can be hit or miss", which translates to just not being good enough (Jackson described it as a disappointment as a kid and later called it "kind of kitsch"). I suppose it only makes sense that if someone wanted to make another King Kong film, it would have to be something really intriguing for a big effects director to make on a big budget and big scope. Jackson called the 1933 film his favorite, and he had been offered the chance to do a remake by Universal Pictures that would've been released in 1998, but worries by the studio over the upcoming releases of Godzilla (1998) and Mighty Joe Young (1998) led to them stalling by 1997, with Jackson going on to do work on adapting The Lord of the Rings to film. The success of those films led to Universal approaching Jackson to do the film he wanted, with a budget that would reach over $200 million by the time it was released, with Jackson co-writing the effort with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens.

Why don't I first start with the stuff easiest to highlight. I do applaud the idea of keeping the film in the 1930s, mostly because we are talking about a film needing a reason to go to a strange island to do a movie and find a big gorilla - it would seem a bit clunky to do that in 2005 as opposed to 1933, I assert. There is great care done here to make a worthy period piece in the costumes and feel that I appreciate more than if it was just a monster film lost in itself, particularly since it fooled me a bit with its digital effect enough to make not make fun of it as a bluescreen-fest. Kong himself is a tremendous accomplishment, as they have captured a great effect that towers well over everything present. The advent of these effects and having gorilla footage to study means that Serkis accomplishes wonders in a motion capture body suit that goes with Tatasciore in vocals to make a useful curiosity. Watts handles the challenge of spending a majority of time with Kong with resilience and charm that make for an interesting 1-2 act that makes a special bond with Kong that doesn't seem forced or ridiculous. Black (weird wig and all) is generally enjoyable, seeming to have a grasp on the manner of Orson Welles with some of the drive and compelling spirit of a carnival barker that doesn't seem too much of a cheesy bit. Of the others, I would say probably Chandler has it best, mostly because he seems to be having fun playing a ham without doing a wink to the audience. 

Ultimately, it seems Jackson wanted to have his cake and eat it too in every minuet detail, considering the run-time of 187 minutes. It becomes a case of excess overriding an epic that can only go so far for enjoyment before bashing you over the head with what is believed to be needed in a remake. It seems more prescient in keeping a mix of wooden acting with fair acting than it does in making a period piece I actually want to see play all the way out for three hours (which can be extended 20 minutes longer in an extended cut if you are into that). The easiest thing to get out of the way immediately is one shining fact: Nobody, and I repeat, nobody, needs a whole thing about the backgrounds of the ship crew going to Skull Island, because very little people will actually care about it. The performances for these folks are...okay, but do I need a scene of someone discussing reading Heart of Darkness? How about details of someone being a World War I veteran? Cannon fodder-I mean creature fodder doesn't need this much time, because I am here to watch a gorilla and some creatures along with some sort of affinity between gorilla and woman, thank you very much. Of course the true offender in all of this is Brody, who easily hands in a bland performance without even having to reach the gorilla, and it is so baffling to see him present in a film that begs for some sort of charisma or interest from him when trying to act with Watts. By the time the film trudges onto the island and delivers some creatures to us, one is just begging to not have to hear from most of these folks ever again. One can appreciate the nuance of seeing vine action between creatures that we know aren't really real as opposed to having to pretend to care about a conversation about bravery or the dealings of the ship - Somehow, I remember Kong: Skull Island handling all of this significantly better twelve years later. If I don't think about the fluid quality of acting and see Kong, it works out only to the point of making an average film because of its obvious length. I almost wonder what would happen if you made a film just set on the island with no buildup on the ship and go from there (I shudder to think about a line-for-line remake of the 1933 film, although this takes lines from that film). But at least the climax back to New York works itself out in being interesting and capturing the spirit of tragedy when it comes to gorilla-on-plane action, wonderful in its execution that gives Watts and Serkis their moment to do what is needed (and keeping Brody chucked to the short-shrift where he belongs) before that repeated line to close out this film as was done before comes up. On the whole, I liked most of what I saw in the parts that matter to make a film worthy enough for a recommendation, even if its test of scope and patience may prove frustrating for others. Jackson wanted his tribute to the original mean something, and when compared to films that came following from that model, I'd say he made a commendable effort worth some credit in innovation. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

April 10, 2019

Bernie (2011).


Review #1206: Bernie.

Cast: 
Jack Black (Bernie Tiede), Matthew McConaughey (Danny Buck Davidson), Shirley MacLaine (Marjorie "Margate Nugent), Brady Coleman (Scrappy Holmes), Richard Robichaux (Lloyd Hornbuckle), Rick Dial (Don Leggett), Brandon Smith (Sheriff Huckabee), Larry Jack Dotson (the Rev. Woodard), Merrilee McCommas (Molly), Mathew Greer (Carl), and Gabriel Luna (Kevin) Directed by Richard Linklater (#645 - School of Rock and #1138 - Dazed and Confused)

Review: 
It could be argued that this is an oddball kind of film. After all, it is a dark comedy chronicle of a 1996 murder in a small town by a mortician that had respect from his community despite keeping his victim in a freezer for nine months. Of course, most films don't try to have gossip elements involving a mix of actual townspeople interviews and performers that likes to muddle the line of fiction and documentary. The screenplay was done by Linklater and Skip Hollandsworth, who had wrote an article about the case called "Midnight in the Garden of East Texas" two years after the murder. It is an interesting kind of film in what kind of story it wants to tell, being quick to not veer too hard into being either drama or black comedy, with the key to the film's success being Black and his performance. He plays it with a subtle edge, having the task of trying to make a person who we know killed someone from the get go be someone that we don't immediately recoil from, and he does a fine job in seeping into a kindly tactful type of guy that never seems inauthentic or too out-of-depth for Black to roll with - whether that involves trying to help a couple pick a nicer coffin or partake in singing practice for a show, being quirky without feeling like a bit being done for show. McConaughey (showing up mostly in talking-head segments) is fun to sit with for the moments he gets to show up. MacLaine is mostly utilized to show some dourness and compulsive control over things for a lady described by someone as one with a "...nose was so high, she’d drown in a rainstorm.” Perhaps the portrayal of Nugent could have certainly been expanded on in some ways, but she does play the final side of the film's triangle of main actors just fine. The other actors blend in without too much trouble when needed. It is interesting at times to see the gossip talked about in the segments involving town members that goes on long enough without choking the film's momentum or run-time of 99 minutes too much. With a budget of $6 million and a shooting schedule of 22 days, Bernie certainly stands out as quirky if not mostly effective entertainment that is given life through the portrayal of the title role from Black that proves to be a little gem that works itself out just fine in the long run.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

May 9, 2018

Waterworld.


Review #1081: Waterworld.

Cast: 
Kevin Costner (The Mariner), Dennis Hopper (The Deacon), Jeanne Tripplehorn (Helen), Tina Majorino (Enola), Michael Jeter (Old Gregor), Jack Black (Smoker Plane Pilot), Kim Coates (Drifter #2), Robert Joy (Smoker Ledger Guy), Robert LaSardo (Smitty), and Gerard Murphy (The Nord) Directed by Kevin Reynolds.

Review: 
Waterworld is a film that lurked on my shelf for years. My father watched this film a bunch of times when I was growing up, but I never had the idea to actually see the film until now in part because I figured it was futile not to. The film certainly seems like something made in an era with experimenting with making a sci-fi apocalyptic film with a big budget and big ambition. At the time it was made, it was the most expensive film ever made (done for $172 million), but it was plagued by production troubles (such as a hurricane destroying the set at one point and bringing in Josh Whedon as a script doctor at point), which certainly played into its reputation. It wasn't a huge success, but it isn't an entire failure, both financially along with as a film. On the one hand, it is nice to watch something based on an original idea with an effort to try and make for a spectacle for entertainment purposes, even if it does resemble Mad Max. On the other hand, I can't say that the movie is consistent enough to qualify as serviceable entertainment. The problem isn't so much with the acting as it is the writing, which at times feels uneven with its characters that gets in the way of really enjoying the action and its set-pieces, which hold up well for 1995. I feel that the film never gets itself into high gear often enough to really make its audience anything other than mildly involving. I can't even get myself to hate it, instead I just have a mild disappointment. Costner can't really elevate this main character into anything that seems compelling, being fairly bland in his gruffness - although his combative scenes with others in the first half could be construed as something to make fun of if you're in the right mood. That, or him peeing into a recycling canister to use for filtering to drink it later - which starts the film off, actually. Hopper certainly looks the part of a crazed villain, and he actually manages to be more entertaining than Costner, but it still is a fairly silly performance to watch at times - but who can blame him? This is a movie that can't find the right sense of captivating characters to go with its moments of adventure. The other members of the cast aren't terrible, but they also aren't too particularly inspiring, with Tripplehorn and Majorino contributing to a few moments that prove amusing instead of moving. In terms of comparison to other action flicks, this is likely the diet soda of action films - it's there along with other films of its ilk but it likely won't be something you go back to often.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

October 7, 2014

Movie Night: School of Rock.


Review #645: School of Rock.

Cast
Jack Black (Dewey Finn), Joan Cusack (Roz Mullins), Mike White (Ned Schneebly), Sarah Silverman (Patty Di Marco), Miranda Cosgrove (Summer Hathaway), Joey Gaydos Jr. (Zack Mooneyham), Kevin Clark (Freddy Jones), Rebecca Brown (Katie), Robert Tsai (Lawrence), Maryam Hassan (Tomika), Caitlin Hale (Marta), and Aleisha Allen (Alicia) Directed by Richard Linklater.

Review
Rock and roll is awesome, let's just get that out of the way. We (audience included) could discuss our favorite bands all day, what we listen to and if disco is actually better than pop songs today, or we could do it over the comment section below. It's all up to you, but in the meanwhile, there's School of Rock to talk about. It figures that on Rocktober (Or Spooktober, but whatever), School of Rock pops up on television, and it was on my day off, which created a perfect storm (Imagine that, AMC actually showing movies for once.) to review it. Black was practically born to play a rocker turned teacher and he has so much energy, he seems to really just blend into the role and the fact that he's pretty good rocking it out makes for a real fun performance to watch. The rest of the cast is good, I do wonder if I was supposed to like Silverman's character (though I'd complain too if a rocker reject posed as a teacher by pretending to be someone else), though I think I'll just let that one slide, only because sometimes rock just invades the mind, "who made who", as you might say. It is a long way to the top, if you want to make a good film, and this film manages to overcome some quirks and become the pinball wizard. Whoops, I meant an enjoyable film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

January 7, 2014

Movie Night: The Muppets.


Review #522: The Muppets.

Cast
Jason Segel (Gary), Amy Adams (Mary), Chris Cooper (Tex Richman), Steve Whitmire (Kermit the Frog/Beaket/Statler/Rizzo the Rat/Link Hogthrob/The Muppet Newsman/Lips), Eric Jacobson (Miss Piggy/Fozzie Bear/Animal/Sam the Eagle/Marvin Suggs), Dave Goelz (Gonzo/Dr. Bunsen Honeydew/Zoot, Beauregard/Waldorf/Kermit Moopet), Bill Barretta (Rowlf the Dog/The Swedish Chef/Dr. Teeth/Pepe the King Prawn/Bobo the Bear/Beautiful Day Monster/Mahna Mahna/Behemoth/Fozzie Moope/Muppet Gary/Whatnot Hobo), Peter Linz (Walter), David Rudman (Scooter/Janice/Miss Poogy/Wayne, Nigel the Conductor/Bobby Benson), Matt Vogel (Floyd Pepper/Camilla the Chicken/Sweetums/'80s Robot, Lew Zealand/Uncle Deadly/Crazy Harry/Rowlf Moopet), Rashida Jones (Veronica), Jack Black (Himself), Alan Arkin (Muppet Studios Tour Guide), Bill Cobbs (Grandfather), Zach Galifianakis (Hobo Joe), and Jim Parsons (Human Walter) Directed by James Bobin.

Review
It had 12 years since the release of Muppets From Space (#377), and in that span the Muppets were confined to television specials only (Okay, okay, I admit to watching A Muppet Christmas: Letters to Santa when I was younger, it wasn't bad, but I don't remember watching any other special), until this film. I wanted to end this so called Muppet Trilogy of mine with this film because the first part of the trilogy began with the first, and so it only made sense to finish with the most recent (Muppets Most Wanted hasn't been released..yet.), and...this is a good Muppet film. It has its moments of fun, and Walter is a welcome addition for the Muppets, the human cast is interesting because Segel and Adams work alright together, and Cooper is pretty funny, and "Man or Muppet" is probably the most memorable song of the film along with being a really fitting one for a film like this. The Muppets are fine as usual and while not every joke works, the film still has enough passion for its subject to work. I hope you like this trilogy of Muppet films, as I enjoyed watching these films, and I hope you do as well.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

November 26, 2013

Movie Night: Kung Fu Panda 2.


Review #486: Kung Fu Panda 2.

Cast
Jack Black (Po), Angelina Jolie (Tigress), Gary Oldman (Lord Shen), David Cross (Crane), Jackie Chan (Monkey), Seth Rogen (Mantis), Lucy Liu (Viper), Dustin Hoffman (Master Shifu), James Hong (Mr. Ping), Michelle Yeoh (Soothsayer), Danny McBride (Wolf Boss), Dennis Haysbert (Master Storming Ox), Jean-Claude Van Damme (Master Croc), and Victor Garber (Master Thundering Rhino) Directed by Jennifer Yuh Nelson.

Review
Naturally, there is a sequel, given the first film's massive success. The film take a somewhat darker turn, but it works well to the film's advantage. Jack Black once again is effective, and he certainly leaves a good impression. The rest of the cast, especially Gary Oldman do good, and Oldman arguably does a better job portraying a villain then Ian McShane in the first film. The story is fine, and the animation is good, especially the animation during the flashback scenes. The action is good, and the comedy is nice, and this is a very effective film that leaves you yearn for more, especially with that ending, which is always welcome with me.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

November 25, 2013

Movie Night: Kung Fu Panda.


Review #485: Kung Fu Panda.

Cast
Jack Black (Po), Angelina Jolie (Tigress), Dustin Hoffman (Master Shifu), Ian McShane (Tai Lung), Jackie Chan (Monkey), Lucy Liu (Viper), Seth Rogen (Mantis), David Cross (Crane), Randall Duk Kim (Master Oogway), James Hong (Mr. Ping), Dan Fogler (Zeng), and Michael Clarke Duncan (Commander Vachir) Directed by John Stevenson and Mark Osborne.

Review
This may sound a bit odd, but this is the 16th DreamWorks Animation film I've reviewed, perhaps in some way that makes a whole deal of sense, because the films always had a hook to keep my interest, and kept me intrigued. Well, most of the films (I'm looking at you, Shark Tale and Shrek the Third), not all, but a very big majority always had a sense of fun with fine animation. This I'm happy to say, continues that trend. Jack Black does a very fine job, but he's not the only one, even Dustin Hoffman gets in on the laughs, with him and Black having very effective scenes that contribute to a very fun film. The animation is breathtakingly nice to look at, DreamWorks Animation, no matter what decade, always did seem to keep up and look excellent (with one notable exception, of course). The villain is excellent, though seeing him not as much as everyone else is fine with me. This is a fun film that goes along extremely well, is fun for everyone, and overall, it's just a grand hallmark for DreamWorks Animation, once again. Now then, what's next?

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

June 14, 2012

Movie Night: Shark Tale.

Review #164: Shark Tale.

Cast
Will Smith (Oscar), Robert De Niro (Don Lino), Renée Zellweger (Angie), Jack Black (Lenny), Angelina Jolie (Lola), Martin Scorsese (Sykes), Doug E. Doug (Bernie), and Ziggy Marley (Ernie) Directed by Vicky Jenson, Bibo Bergeron, and Rob Letterman.

Review
This film isn't really inspired, with animation that's decent but nothing special. The puns from Coral Cola to Katie Current get old fast with jokes that aren't as useful. The plot feels like something you find in a mobster film, but it isn't very useful in tone. Compared to Finding Nemo, this film isn't as fun or warming. This film has good voices from Smith, who like always makes any film worth something. This film is not as good as Shrek or...Kung Fu Panda, but at least it will entertain for 90 minutes (a running trend in animated films). This ends Part V of Dreamworks Animation Week. Stay tuned for Part VI...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.