The Other Guys (2010)

Staring: Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg, Eva Mendes

Directed by Adam McKay

IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1386588/

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Other_Guys

"The Other Guys" is a pretty funny movie. It reunites Will Ferrell with director Adam McKay, and Mark Wahlberg is also along for the ride to deliver some laughs. Granted, there are some problems with it, but overall it is a good flick.

It starts off with Samuel L. Jackson proving that he is one of the greatest people who ever lived. He is in high-speed pursuit of a bunch of bad guys along with Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson, who I guess would be also awesome if he had not just stared in "The Tooth Fairy". Anyway, Jackson's car gets stuck in a bus, he frees it and he goes flying at the bad guys, shouting a bunch of stuff I could not understand, blows up a bunch of stuff, and somehow survives. YEAH! Unfortunately, both of them are killed in a separate incident shortly afterward (the poster above is a bit deceiving; they have a total of about five minutes of screen time). This occurs when, in order to stop another bunch of bad guys, they jump off of a building that is about 10-20 stories high in order to land in a bunch of bushes that were not there, and even if they were, they would not have prevented them from dying or at least critically injured them.

Ummm...okay.

Anyway, with both of them out of the picture, who will take their place as the big shot of the department? That's right, the Other Guys! We have Terry Hoitz (Mark Wahlberg), who plays a jerk cop who is haunted by a tragedy from his past: he shot Derek Jeter in the leg during the 2003 World Series, costing the Yankees the championship. This a bit ironic since in real life Wahlberg is from Boston, so I suspect a Red Sox conspiracy. Anyway, he gets stuck with Allen Gamble (Ferrell) who is basically Bob Saget's character Danny Tanner from "Full House". He is just incredibly bland and lame, though in this instance the character is actually funny (yes, we all loved “Full House” when we were 5, but it’s time to move on). The two of them come across a suspected financial cover-up involving a famous investor named David Ershon (Steve Coogan), which leads them on a wild goose chase that leads them to meet some interesting characters, and includes a number of gags such as Allen having some unfortunate things happen to his Prius, and both of them having their shoes stolen...twice. There are a number of good quotes involving peacocks and other things throughout the feature. Oh yeah, and Michael Keaton plays their boss who, among other things, keeps quoting TLC songs, though he insists that he is not... Well, its not "Batman", but at least Keaton is still working, right?

I guess he biggest problem that this film has is that it gets extremely distracted. True, when Ferrell and McKay did "Anchorman" and "Talladega Nights" each had random scenes that did not really progress the story but were still funny. In this movie, the same thing happens, but they take way too many detours, and it gets to the point where its 1 hour, 47 minute running time feels like 2 and a half hours. Do not get me wrong, the stuff they put in there was usually funny, but they could have condensed the material a little more so that it felt more it had a more cohesive story arch.

There is also this weird part during the closing credits that shows the differences in the income between American employees and their super-rich bosses, as well as making references to TARP and other aspects of the recent financial meltdown. Admittedly, some of the stuff they mention is kind of interesting, but they play off of a part of the plot which is ultimately insignificant; the information would feel better served if it were shown at the end of the upcoming "Wall Street" sequel. If Ferrell and McKay want to get political, they can save it for their "Funny or Die" website, not try to shove it into a film where it does not belong.

Despite its flaws, "The Other Guys" is a feature that made me laugh more often than not. While it is not as funny as "Anchorman" or "Talladega", it is the best movie Will Ferrell has done in years, which is good news for him given the sub-par quality of his recent work. Either way, it is worthwhile, and I recommend it.

P.S. If you stay until the end of the closing credits (and the populist rant), as Ferrell/McKay fans may expect, there is an extra scene with Ferrell and Wahlberg. It is nothing much, but you can check it out if you want.

My Theater Experience With The Expendables (2010)

First, I would like to introduce you to a new segment called Looking at some Trailers. Which I will find a better name for eventually, but for now, bear with me. Here are some of the movies showed in the previews for The Expendables, and what I thought of them based on the trailers:

Buried

Oh, hell yeah, this looks awesome. I mean, what more could I ask for out of a movie? A race against time, a dark, claustrophobic motif, and characters distressed and not knowing what to do. Just pure bliss for a thriller fiend like myself. I feed off things like this, and seeing a new one really gets my blood boiling. Will definitely be seeing this on opening night.

The Town

This sent chills down my spine. First of all, directed by the guy who made Gone Baby Gone? Sign me up! But it just looks really cool. The espionage, the dreary, drab settings, the off kilter and creepy Halloween masks…this just looks like a really cool movie. I can assure you this will be on many top 10s for the year, and I’ll review another horrible Japanese horror remake if I’m wrong!

…please, please don’t let me be wrong…

The Green Hornet

Alright, somebody needs to fire Seth Rogen’s agent. What’s the deal with this guy? Can’t he ever appear in a movie that is an actual film, and not just some cheap-ass bucket of “awkward” laughs and hammy acting? It’s insufferable. Also, “let’s act like villains so nobody knows we’re the real heroes”? That’s retarded, get this off my screen and never bring it back. Phew.

There were also trailers of The Last Exorcism, which looks so lame that I’d rather bash my head against a wall seven times than watch it, and SAW 3D, which if anyone thinks it’s really the end of the franchise, you need to get a reality check. But I’m not going to post those trailers, because I’m better than that, and this segment is going on too damn long already.

So, without further ado…drum roll please…THE EXPENDABLES, directed by Sylvester Stallone and starring more people than you can count!

Yes, this was all set up to be the action movie extravaganza of the summer, and did it live up to those expectations? Well, let’s just say it had an unfair disadvantage. But it’s still a hell of a ride. This movie is so jam packed with explosions and so completely action packed that your head will just about explode even just thinking about it! Of course the main draw was all the big names. I mean, they got Bruce Willis, they got Jason Statham, they got Jet Li, they got Mickey Rourke, they even got Arnold Schwarzenegger. Arnold Schwarzenegger, back on the silver screen at last! What a treat.

I’ll just go ahead and tell you that the best scene of this movie is sadly one of the shortest, and it’s where Schwarzenegger, Willis and Stallone meet in a church. Willis does his typical latter-day role where he plays an almost mobster-like character who keeps in the shadows and intimidates through words rather than through guns and punching people like in the old days. Schwarzenegger is a pompous older mercenary who doesn’t have time to help out Willis’ cause, and it results in one of the best lines in the movie – I won’t even spoil it for you, it’s that good. This scene is just great. Seeing all three of these huge icons on screen together even for a few minutes is a ton of fun.

But the rest of the movie doesn’t slack off too much, either. The plot is pretty simple – a bunch of ragtag, weathered mercenaries are hired to go take down a governor in South America (who is played by Angel from Dexter…). One of them, Lee (Jason Statham), is having troubles with his girlfriend. Which means…he finds out she cheated on him because she didn’t know what he did at work even though they had been living together for a year and a half. Got that? Good, because it doesn’t come up very much again, even if they do try to shoehorn in a positive message about how he’s trying to find himself. It doesn’t really take any kind of precedence over the main story with Stallone, though. Speaking of Stallone, he’s trying to fight his way to save a pretty girl who he got the hots for the second he saw her. A noble cause, and I will ignore the clichéd nature…sometimes that’s just what you need after a long day’s work.

And the explosions, oh, man, the explosions. They’re all over the place here. They’re so abundant that by the end they’re even happening on top of one another; it’s flat out ridiculous. But it’s also really awesome. It’s like Stallone just went, “Hmm, we need explosions in action movies. Okay, put in about fifty times the usual amount. That ought to do it.” I love every second of it.

If I had to pick out any real problems with it, it’s not so much about what the movie did wrong, but more about what it could have been. This movie is a lot of fun, but with the pedigrees of acting involved, it should have been a real epic as opposed to a short, quick film like this. This should have blown us away and given us a transcendent work of action masterclass. But the fact that it did not really live up to our expectations doesn’t mean much, because this is still a pretty solid film.

The Expendables uses a lot of action movie clichés, but it never actually feels dated or trite for all that, and its quick, snappy pacing and huge doses of explosive fun are really enjoyable. It’s clear that Stallone really loves action movies (and I would hope he does a lot, for what he does for a living), and I really enjoy the earnest, balls-out way The Expendables executed its foray of action-packed goodies. It’s an action fan’s action movie. I can’t picture any fan of the genre hating it. This is Stallone’s latest contribution to the genre he loves, and if you want an explosion-filled action flick, I can recommend this with no caveats.

Review: Inception (2010)

Director: Christopher Nolan

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Cillian Murphy

Website: http://inceptionmovie.warnerbros.com/

"Dreams feel real while we're in them. It's only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange."

-Cobb 

Man, Leonardo DiCaprio is really not having good luck with women this year! First he gets a psychotic killing wife in Shutter Island and then he gets his forsaken long lost dream-love in this one. Someone needs to take the guy to a strip club or something; sheesh.

But that really has no bearing on how good a film like Inception is. This is a Christopher Nolan movie, which means if you like any of his other movies, you’ll like this one too – not because they’re all the same, but because they’re all so good, and he puts so much work into making them explosive, complex and driving cinematic opuses. Inception tells the story of a man named Cobb, who lives in a not-so-distant future where dream-theft is possible. He is hired by a businessman to assemble a team of dream espionage agents and “influence” the mind of a young heir to liquidate his dead father’s company to save the market.  However, Cobb is still battling his personal demons in the form of his deceased wife, who he was accused of killing.

Now, before I go any further, I’m going to attempt to lay out the workings of this whole dream-entering espionage business. Apparently, there are two people that can affect this whole dream thing – the one who enters the dream, who builds and manipulates the world around them, and the dreamer him- or herself, who populates the world with ‘perceptions,’ or images of people who aren’t really there – just like we all have in our own dreams.

That’s why DiCaprio goes to his father (Michael Caine)’s job where he works as a college professor, requesting a student to help him out with the heist. Caine tries to reason with his son, but ultimately gives in, and lets him have a student named Ariadne, played surprisingly by Ellen Page, who I didn’t recognize at all, and who is a genius architect who can help him construct the worlds he needs. And while I’m on that tract, I also didn’t recognize the great Joseph Gordon-Levitt as DiCaprio’s sidekick Arthur. He did a good job. But I think I must be losing my touch with how much I never recognized these actors throughout the whole two hours of this thing. I did recognize Cillian Murphy though.

But there are some…complications. You see, apparently you can also go deeper into the dream-state, and have a dream within a dream, and even a dream within a dream within a dream. This is probably the movie’s best point right here, as I just find it so fascinating. We just keep expanding, don’t we? And by that I mean the human race. It wasn’t enough to keep expanding in our own reality. This movie suggests that we take it to the subconscious plane as well, and that is some tasty food for thought.

So the story goes that DiCaprio and his wife spent 50-dream years inside the dream world constructing their own little paradise, only to wake up and have her go crazy thinking that the real world was also a dream. I won’t spoil the entire premise of this subplot, as it really is a good one, but now he is overridden with guilt, and she pops up in most of his dream sequences because of it, completely out of his control, seeking to meddle with whatever is going on. This will naturally cause calamity in the other plot about the heist.

Inception is a tightly woven and sleek thriller. The characters are cool – Ellen Page as a super-genius architect student was actually really good, and I found she added a lot to the movie. Tom Hardy is the handyman of the group as he somehow manages to shapeshift whenever needed and is also a real bad-ass; what a cool guy. And how great are the visuals? Just watching that city fold over on itself is a spectacle. And watching Ellen Page wander around creating things with her mind is really great, just for the ‘what would it be like if YOU could do it’ factor - admirable. Other great visual moments include the entirety of the scenes in the arctic tundra with that military base and all of that military-style warfare going on around and inside it. Or how about the scene near the end when it starts to rain in DiCaprio’s wife’s apartment room and Ellen Page is standing in the doorway with everything blowing in and out? Or when they wash up on the shores of their final dream, at the beach with all of those crumbling buildings falling into the water? This movie is a veritable feast for the eyes. It has perfected the art of pleasing your eyes.

It’s just the little things. Like the lighting in the various hotel rooms featured, shaded subtle golds and delicate auburns. It just gives the whole thing this really noir-esque feel that I find really enticing and charming. All of the settings are just meticulously great; they are really the icing on the cake of this full-throttle-ahead rocket canister of a film.

A lot of people are talking about the film’s emotional core, about DiCaprio and his wife, and saying that that is truly why the film stood out. It was certainly interesting enough; I admit…I am always a sucker for a tragic romance plot stuck into an action film, just to round it out with style. And it is certainly done well here. But does anyone else think Leonardo DiCaprio would make a good villain? Whenever I see him in this movie scowling and playing the cool thief and the mastermind of the heist, I think he’d be great playing a serious mobster or big boss type villain. I mean, look at him. He looks completely demented and sick here, even moreso when he’s in the throes of his depression and loneliness, in his more quiet moments. I was all ready to believe he was the one who was nuts, with that look in his eyes. He really has come far since Romeo + Juliet…

This is a very cool, cinematic picture. You really get sucked into it, and it is always big, epic and grand like any good summer blockbuster should be, and the fast pace is entertaining as hell – don’t even blink, lest you miss something. The emotional quality is more complex than the usual fare, but then, Christopher Nolan is becoming known for challenging the common perception that summer blockbusters are the ‘big, dumb’ movies. He is actually good at profiteering from this. He gives the audiences a big, flashy special effects movie with epic camerawork and explosions galore, but also adds just the right pinches of complexity and emotional depth in the plot to make the audience feel rewarded, and like they’re smart for trying to understand it more in depth. Mr. Nolan, I must admit, gets better at this every year. It will certainly be interesting to see where he goes next.

But is this all a dream? Did I really write this review? Did I really see this movie? Is anything real? Are we all just dreaming right now? You could be dreaming as you read this. None of this could be real at all. Think about these things, and take them back with you to the real world. If you can get back, that is.

Review: Iron Man 2 (2010)

Director: Jon Favreau

Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Don Cheadle, Gwyneth Paltrow, Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell

So the long awaited Iron Man 2 is here, and what do the geniuses at Hollywood have in store for us this time? Well, I have to say this is a bit of a step down from the first one, even in spite of all the bells and whistles and the longer length. This is a movie that tries REALLY hard, to the point where I don't really want to come down on it too hard for its faults, but they are there.

Iron Man 2 just tries to do way too many things at once. It's trying to be like The Dark Knight with its multiple plot threads, but really it isn't near as well articulated. It kind of comes off as a mess, with too many of the threads being a bit dull and just not really that entertaining. As much as I don't want to sound like a shmuck who only wants instantly gratifying action scenes and explosions, but...yeah. Yeah, that would be a big help in this movie! The first one had a lot of down-time without action, too, but there I found it pretty interesting. Here there are about five or six different plot lines going on at once, all very boring, businesslike things that just don't engage me that much. That's the best, most simple way I can put it. None of the characters are that likable, and the ones who are don't get enough screentime. And it just isn't all that memorable, without any kind of defining moment that people will think about and say 'that's Iron Man 2.' It doesn't really have anything like that.

I do appreciate the effort that went into this, as it's clear that this was no half assed effort. They spent a lot of money and you can see a lot of it on screen, with big effects and explosions and really cool looking suits. At the end we do finally get a good fight scene with a really cool setting in this nature-dome place of Stark's, and that is almost worth seeing this movie for, as it really does pack it all: good scenery, witty dialogue, great lighting and colors, and above all, good action. It's a shame it's so damn short.

In the end they simply tried to take on more than they could handle with this. This movie has some fun moments, but at the end of the day, a lot of the stuff going on didn't interest me that much, and I wish they had stuck to a more focused and concise story. This was just OK.