Leo & Roger's Week 4- Week in Review

As many of you may have known I was on vacation from work and the blog  for the past 2 weeks. So really this is more like 2 weeks in Review. Now I am getting back on track with a great collection of movies that I have added to my list.

Movie: The Great Outdoors
Starring: John Candy; Dan Aykroyd; Annette Bening; Stephanie Faracy
Director: Howard Deutch
Ebert's Review- DNR (Did Not Review)
Leo's Review- 2 ½ Stars

I was not able to find an actual written review by Roger Ebert for "The Great Outdoors", but I was able to find a video of Siskel & Ebert giving their thoughts about it on their show "At The Movies". Both of them hated this movie-Thumbs down. Written by the late John Hughes, "The Great Outdoors" is a buddy comedy about Chet Ripley (Candy) as the family man and Roman Craig (Aykroyd) as his wall-street business brother-in-law; on a vacation with their families.While camping in the woods crazy things happen like Candy out of control on water ski's and bears climbing on cars. For me this movie was on the up side of the 2 ½ Stars. Candy has always made me laugh. The man was just a great comedic actor. I feel the movie is about him and shows his ability to charm an audience. He has many fun moments; Telling a scary story about a bald bear or my favorite- when he eats a large steak to get a free meal! Aykroyd plays a good slimey brother-in-law who is not meant for the outdoors but more meant for his 20th floor office. It is not a great movie by any means, in fact it had potential to make me laugh more but falls short. Not to mention a really stupid side story about the oldest Ripley son falling in love for some girl he meets on vacation. It is not "Uncle Buck" and it is not "Blues Brothers", but it is a fun movie to watch. I did laugh very hard at the ending, which I will not spoil!

Movie: The Beaver
Starring: Jodie Foster; Mel Gibson; Anton Yelchin; Jennifer Lawrence
Director: Jodie Foster
Ebert's Review-  2 ½ Stars
Leo's Review- 2 ½ Stars

If I was going to write a movie about a husband who has become depressed and reached the end of his rope to the point where he talks through a beaver puppet to get better- I would cast Mel Gibson. "The Beaver" was a controversial movie before it opened in theatres (it was delayed it's opening date because Mel Gibson was in the news for being convicted of assaulting his ex girlfriend, recorded phone conversations, drunken tirades leaked on Larry King, etc. etc. etc.). We all know that Gibson has many life problems post his "Braveheart" days. Surprisingly though this movie is not bad. There are some awkward scenes with Gibson and the puppet (not sure if any woman would let their husband bring a hand puppet to bed) and Jennifer Lawrence's character gives a graduation speech in the end that is as depressing as a funeral. Mel Gibson plays Walter, a father of 2 boys, husband, and head of a toy company. He is a very depressed man and has reached a point where alcohol and suicide are his only options left. In order for him to start over-after finding a puppet beaver- Walter starts using the beaver as his alter-ego. Jodie Foster pulls double duty by directing the film and plays Gibson's wife, Meredith. She was impressive to me as a mother struggling to keep her messed up husband together while trying to care for a troubled teenage boy and a young son. Anton Yelchin plays the oldest son Porter trying his best to not be like his father. "The Beaver" is a two and a half star movie that leans toward 3 stars. Gibson is good at playing depressed and uses a Cockney accent for the beaver which is at times funny. It is not a great movie but I would say "see it" just so you can talk with others about it.

Movie: Pan's Labyrinth
Starring: Ivana Baquero; Sergi Lopez; Maribel Verdu; Doug Jones; Ariadna Gil
Director: Guillermo del Toro
Ebert's Review-  4 Stars
Leo's Review- 4 Stars

Guillermo del Toro's "Pan's Labyrinth" is what I would call "A masterpiece"! It combines imagination with real life tragedy. War with fantasy. It is not a children's story, but our heroine Ofelia, is a little girl who loves fairy tales. She is forced into a world with pain. The time is 1944 WW2 Spain. Ofelia and her mother go to stay at an old mill that is a Spanish headquarters with her new husband, the evil Captain Vidal. Ofelia's father has passed away and now her mother is carrying the Captain's son. Saying that Captain Vidal is evil is an understatement. He is an angry man who abuses his power. The only reason he shows care for Ofelia's mother is because of the baby. On the way to the cottage Ofelia sees what looks like a flying praying mantis or what she views as a fairy. Soon after, the insect is in her room and with the shake of its body it turns into a fairy. We are then following Ofelia through the Labyrinth and meeting some very magical characters like "The Faun", a key spewing "frog", and the very scary "Pale man". The Pale man is a figure with eyes in his hands and loose hanging skin. He may give you nightmares. It is the best scene. To indulge more would tell too much. This is a movie that Ebert called "one of the greatest of all fantasy films, even though it is anchored so firmly in the reality of war." He is so right!

Movie: Babel
Starring: Brad Pitt; Cate Blanchett
Director: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
Ebert's Review-  4 Stars
Leo's Review- 4 Stars

In Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's "Babel" you get a film that turns up the intensity on life. It is a 4 star movie all the way! It is a film about 4 different stories and how they are all connected.The movie portrays a message of "bad things can happen to good people". Sometimes, we do bad things on purpose to hurt others, and sometimes we make mistakes that had no intention of harming or hurting anyone. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett play Richard and Susan Jones, a couple with 2 children on vacation in Morocco. They are in Morocco to get away from the stress at home that came from Susan having a miscarriage some time before. We then meet two children from Morocco whose father has recently acquired a rifle to kill any jackals that could harm their goats. It is needless to say that the boys become careless with the gun and some mistakes are made. Then there is also the tale of the Mexican nanny that is watching Richard and Susan's children in San Diego while on vacation. The nanny is put in a tough situation since she cannot find anyone to watch the children for her while her sons wedding is taking place in Mexico. She is then forced to bring them along. And lastly, there is the Chieko, the teenage Japanese girl who is both deaf and mute. She is connected to these people through her father and we see how her language and speech barriers affect her life. It is the 3rd style of film from Inarritu that is based on characters that are connected without really knowing it-"21 Grams"(2003) and "Perros" (2000) are the other 2. "Babel" is an excellent film! It is one of the best I have seen in months!

Movie: Planet of the Apes (2001)
Starring: Mark Wahlberg; Tim Roth; Helena Bonham Carter; Michael Clarke Duncan; Paul Giamatti
Director: Tim Burton
Ebert's Review- 2 ½ Stars
Leo's Review- 2 Stars

My review on this movie is basically just 2 Stars for makeup. I can tell you that the best thing about this movie is that the apes look pretty cool. Especially since actors such as Tim Roth, Helena Bonham Carter, and Michael Clarke Duncan are the actors playing the apes. They look real, strong and play the role of primate with reality. Other than this, Tim Burton failed to make this movie the cool sci-fi film it could have been. Mark Wahlberg plays Captain Leo Davidson, an astronaut in the year 2029 who goes after an ape that his crew was training and testing to fly its space cruisers. When the ape and his ship mysteriously disappear Davidson goes after him. On his way to save the other ship he hits a wormhole that takes him into another dimension (or time). He lands on a different planet and survives what should be a dangerous crash(no eject button on that ship?); he instantly finds out that the planet is being controlled by apes and humans are being hunted for capture. Wahlberg's character is boring and seems to be unfazed by the fact Apes can talk and ride horses. His only main objective for himself is to get back to his ship and off the planet. Along the way he meets Ari the sympathetic Chimpanzee (played by Bonham Carter) who leads them on a journey to find a ship signal so Wahlberg can get away. Paul Giamatti is the comic-relief as Limbo, the ape who tries to sell humans for the "right price". He has funny moments but does not bring much else. Tim Roth as the evil Thade, is very angry and plays the villian well. Other than this...not much else. As I said, the makeup is what is best about this movie. It does look cool and Burton  knows how to put together a set. The plot overall just confused me and did not have anything to it other than a twist in the end that seemed to confuse me more. I can only assume that the original is much better. 

DISCUSSION QUESTION: Would you rent or watch the movie "The Beaver"? Or has Mel Gibson ruined his entire career so much that you would never support or watch his movies again? Can he ever get back the status he was at winning Best Picture for "Braveheart"?

Leo & Roger's Week 3- Week in Reviews!

This week was not a very productive week for the Movie list. Sometimes work must come first before movies. But here are some of the few films I saw this past week:

Movie: Insidious
Staring: Patrick Wilson; Rose Byrne; Ty Simpkins; Lin Shaye
Director: James Wan
Ebert's Review- 2 ½ Stars
Leo's Review- 2 ½ Stars

If you are a fan of scary movies I would say that "Insidious" is a movie for you to see. The first half of the film is actually very scary. The movie starts with a haunted house style with images and ghosts popping out at you around the corner or out of a closet. It stars Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne as the parents and their 3 kids moving into a new house. After an accident in the attic to the oldest son Dalton (Ty Simpkins), he mysteriously goes into a coma. After this happens, scary images, people, ghosts start springing up all over the house. Is it the house? Is it all imagination? All things that cannot be explained. When the boy is in a coma the doctors cannot explain why- then the parents seek help of a woman who speaks to ghosts (Lin Shaye). At this point Ebert and myself both felt the movie started to fall apart. The spooks and scares are fading and we get a moment to catch our breath. Unfortunately, for me all the air was taken out of the movie. The ending has a twist to it but not big enough for me to think this movie was better than 2 ½ stars. Not a bad film. You would not be wasting your time.

Movie: From Russia with Love
Staring: Sean Connery; Robert Shaw; Daniela Bianchi; Lotte Lenya
Director: Terence Young
Ebert's Review- DNR (Did Not Review)
Leo's Review- 3 ½ Stars

"From Russia with Love" is the second installment in the "James Bond Series". This movie was released in 1963 and has all the action of a movie made in 2011. I wish Michael Bay would watch this movie because it has all the explosives with no CGI to lean on- and it looks great! Bond is sent on a mission to Istanbul to find a Lektor decoding machine before the evil organization SPECTRE finds it first. The movie has your usual action scenes with Bond being chased in a boat and my favorite when a helicopter tries to fly down and kill Bond, but the spy just finds a way. There are must see parts of this film that are Bond staples: The agents of SPECTRE training is very funny and cool. Roger did not review this movie but it is really a gem. A must see.

Movie: Goldfinger
Staring: Sean Connery; Gert Frobe; Honor Blackman; Bernard Lee
Director: Guy Hamilton
Ebert's Review- 3 Stars
Leo's Review- 2 ½ Stars

Not my favorite of all the Bond films that I have been viewing recently. Bond is trying to stop the power hungry Auric Goldfinger from his plot to take over Fort Knox and destroy the world economy. It has some moments that are exciting and must see that define the Bond movies. It is the first time we see Bond strapped on a table with a laser heading toward his prized possession-his private region. We also see the Aston Martin car that is provided by Q and is very helpful for Bond to get away in a chase. The overall plot of the movie is good but it is in my opinion not very well directed. There is a fight scene between Bond and the hat throwing Oddjob that is very clumsy, awkward, and has no music for dramatic effect. There is also an uncomfortable scene where Bond forces himself onto Pussy Galore that my girlfriend and I were still wondering if we should have called the police. Roger Ebert reviewed "Goldfinger" after its re-release on DVD/Blu-Ray. He loves the film but also stating, "If it is not a great film, it is a great entertainment, and contains all the elements of the Bond formula that would work again and again." This I agree with, but that is true with every Bond movie. Always good entertainment.

Movie: Conan The Destroyer
Staring: Arnold Schwarzenegger; Olivia d'Abo; Wilt Chamberlain; Grace Jones
Director: Richard Fleischer

Ebert's Review- 3 Stars

Leo's Review- 3 Stars

"Conan the Destroyer" is not a great movie and maybe I am biased to any Arnold film since he is my favorite actor, but this movie does tell a story. The actors do not need to do much acting because what you are essentially watching is a journey film. A group of thieves, warriors, and magicians leading a princess to get a magic crystal and horn back to their palace. As I said, the dialogue is scarce and used sporadically but the sword fights, magic spells, and epic battles are pretty cool. Schwarzenegger is a classic Conan! It really gets 3 stars for its great costumes, sets, and cinematography. Of course you do not have any Academy Award nominations in this one but it is good clean adventure and fun.

Movie: Rocky Balboa
Staring: Sylvester Stallone; Antonio Tarver; Burt Young; Geraldine Hughes
Director: Sylvester Stallone

Ebert's Review- DNR (Did not Review)

Leo's Review- 2 Stars

As soon as "Rocky Balboa" came to an end I thought to myself "Well it is better than Rocky V". That does not say much since I thought "Rocky V" was terrible. In what is the 6th installment of Rocky movies "Rocky Balboa" is not as bad as you may have thought it would be, but still does not stand up to any earlier Rocky films. Overall, the fact is that Rocky is just too old. The plot of the movie is about how Rocky is old and wants to try one more chance in the ring. For me this is what was sad to watch. Stallone is better then what people give him credit for since he directs, acts, and funds everything that is done in this film. Uncle Pauly (Played by Burt Young) is classic Uncle Pauly. There is even a really good Rocky speech to his now older and "business like" son. Still, I just think there is so much more that could have been brought up. There is only one montage, Adrian is dead, Apollo, Mick, or even Tommy Gunn are not talked about. It is almost like Rocky 1 through 5 did not exist and any head trauma or problems that Rocky had in the past are just figments of ours or Rocky's imagination. "Rocky Balboa" would be good if it had happened right after "Rocky IV", but it didn't. Overall it is a nice attempt by Stallone just a little too past its prime. I just hope this was the end. Please let Rocky retire!        

LC Movie Club- Movie of the Week: 30 Days of Night

Movie: 30 Days of Night
Staring: Josh Hartnett; Danny Huston; Melissa George; Ben Foster
Director: David Slade
Ebert's Review- 2 ½ Stars
Leo's Review- 2 ½ Stars

If Barrow, Alaska has 30 days of night, then of course vampires would find this to be the number one vacation spot for sucking human blood. "30 Days of Night" is another vampire movie that has a pretty cool plot but comes up short in the end. Overall, it is not a bad movie and there are some scenes of well done shots by Director David Slade. So this is a better scary movie but when the credits start it is a movie that had a lot more potential.

As I said, the movie takes place in Barrow, Alaska which is as we know the northernmost part of Alaska. It is an isolated town that has no roads and is 30 miles from the next closest town. Once a year they have a month of total darkness. A month of darkness will eventually bring vampires. These vampires-lead by Marlow (played by Danny Huston) -are your stereotypical vampires; well dressed, fast, strong, and thirsty for blood. They arrived to Barrow by a ship. Why are they traveling by ship? Is the crew on that ship dead? Questions that are not answered that may have made the movie better. When they arrive by ship they send a messenger/stranger (played very impressively by Ben Foster) to kill some dogs, cut the power, phone lines and basically leave the people of Barrow without any contact outside of their town.

The sheriff in town, Eban, is played by Josh Hartnett. His ex-wife, brother, grandmother and the rest of the 150 some people left in town are stranded with no ability to contact anyone for help. This leads to a feeding spree by the vampires. As I said there are some great shots of the vampires attacking in this movie. Take a look at the cool over head shot of all the people running from the vampires when the town starts to fall apart. It is a shot that displays the chaos of the town and great helplessness. This is a moment of great horror.

All that is left is Eban and the rest of the survivors running for their lives. They hide in an attic, make way to a general store for supplies, and try to survive till the sun comes back. A large problem with the film is how the director shows the passing of time during the 30 days. We are supposed to believe that they have been hiding from the vampires without much food, water, and do not move from their hiding spots. I would say it feels more like 3 days total. The only way I noticed that days were passing was I saw Hartnett start the film with no hair on his face and by 18 days he had a little bit of stubble.

Is this a bad movie? Not at all. It has some good moments that will scare you and show some bloody gore (if that is what you like). The acting is very respectable- Ben Foster is really good- and the setting is smart and makes a good vampire movie. Ebert and I pretty much saw this movie eye to eye. It has the right idea but just falls short.  Ebert says, "I award the movie two and a half stars because it is well-made, well-photographed and plausibly acted, and is better than it needs to be." Vampire movies have obviously been done before but when they are done right they can be very cool. So should you see this movie? Sure thing! It is not one of those "Twilight" movies.

COMMENT STARTER: Did you like "30 Days of Night"? Do you think it is possible for a horror/scary movie to ever win an Academy Award for acting or directing? "30 Days of Night" falls short but it could happen. What do you think?

 2 ½ STARS!

Please read Roger's Review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071018/REVIEWS/710180305

Leo & Roger- Recent Movie Reviews!

Movie: Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Starring: James Franco; Andy Serkis; Freida Pinto; John Lithgow; Brian Cox; Tom Felton
Director: Rupert Wyatt
Ebert's Review- 3 Stars
Leo's Review- 3 Stars

We now seem to be living in the world of Movie Prequels. It started years back with "Star Wars" Episodes 1, 2 and 3. Then we got "Casino Royale", the J. J. Abrams "Star Trek", "X-Men: First Class"; Soon we will see "The Hobbit", the prequel to "Lord of the Rings". This has caused me to wonder why movie studios did not ask directors to start from the beginning in the first place? This is a topic for later.

Last week I saw "Rise of the Planet of the Apes", what is essentially the prequel to the original 1968 Charlton Heston film "Planet of the Apes". Or is it the prequel to Tim Burton's 2001 version (also titled "Planet of the Apes")?  Either way, I know this movie is a prequel to a movie titled "Planet of the Apes".

In "Rise", we find out how the Apes become smart, like humans, resulting in what will be their eventual taking over of planet earth. James Franco plays Will Rodman, a scientist trying to promote and develop a drug that will improve brain function in humans. The drug is called ALZ 12 and is believed to be a cure for Alzheimer's disease. Rodman is doing his study on chimps. After a wild Chimp ruins a presentation about the drug, Rodman loses all faith of any investors or any funding for the drug. Eventually, Rodman takes a chimp into his home and starts to do his own work with a chimp named Caesar. Through the magic of motion sensor capture, Caesar is played by Andy Serkis, famous for his portrayal of Gollum in the "Lord of the Rings" Trilogy. As the drug continues to work, Caesar continues to grow. The drug allows him to become smarter, and we as the viewer see Serkis' as Caesar portray that growth. As he did in "LOTR", Serkis is a talented actor for using his body to mimic movement just like how a real chimp would. Serkis is really the star of the film where all human dialogue seems to fade away and the Apes steal the spotlight.

While Caesar is kept up in Rodman's house he spends his time with Rodman's sick father Charles (played by John Lithgow). Without it being said, Rodman's father is the reasoning behind his studies. His Dad is suffering from Alzheimer's and he is determined to prove that his drug to cure it works. Scenes of the interaction between Lithgow and Caesar are charming and Caesar is happy with his life. But eventually some animals are not meant to be kept away from others of their kind.

The movie takes off when Caesar is kept at a primate facility. Tom Felton plays Dodge Landon, a keeper at the facility who mistreats all the primates. Caesar feels alone and thinks those that loved him have abandoned him. He makes friends with some of his fellow primates but also knows that he is smarter than most. If he is going to get out of his caged environment he must find the drug and find a way to get it to the other apes. His anger will help lead all the other Apes to "Rise" up against the humans.

Overall, "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" is a good movie. It has some small flaws; a cheesy "damn dirty ape" line, the acting takes a back seat to the apes, and really the movie only tells the story of the apes taking control of San Francisco-not the planet. But as I said earlier the great part of this film is Serkis; he and the rest of the motion captured crew steal the show. You start to believe that you are watching trained apes- not human beings "acting" as trained apes. Ebert agrees as well stating, "One never knows exactly where the human ends and the effects begin, but Serkis and/or Caesar gives the best performance in the movie."

COMMENT STARTER: What did you think about "Rise of the Planet of the Apes"? Do you feel that Hollywood is doing too many prequels? In "Rise" the story tells you that the planet the apes will take over is Earth. So essentially, the mystery of the original 1968 version is ruined. Remember, Heston's character George Taylor does not know where he is. Does this matter? Or is it more like,  "who cares, nobody has seen the 1968 version anyway"! Please let me know your thoughts!

3 STARS!

Read Roger's Review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110803/REVIEWS/110809988

Leo & Roger's Week 2- Week in Review!

Movie: The Relic
Starring: Penelope Ann Miller; Tom Sizemore; Linda Hunt; James Whitmore
Director: Peter Hyams
Ebert's Review- 3 Stars
Leo's Review- 3 Stars

Peter Hyams "The Relic" is a great thriller/science fiction film. It is set in Chicago (my home town) at The Field Museum where a mysterious "thing" is feeding on humans. Tom Sizemore plays the very rough Lt. Vincent D'Agosta who believes in superstitions and thinks it may not just be a murderer who is doing this to people at the museum. The monster is an awesome creation by Stan Winston (Jurassic Park and Terminator 2) that looks like a mix between the Rancor from "Star Wars: Return of the Jedi" and "The Predator". It is a very entertaining and scary movie that involves Penelope Ann Miller as Dr. Margo Green as the Anthropologist who has discovered that a shipment of leaves has cells that the monster is after. In the monsters search it leads to it hunting and chopping off heads of many people. As Ebert says in his review "It's clever the way the movie combines the conventions of the horror and disaster genres." I think it is a must see.

Movie: Dr. No
Starring: Sean Connery; Ursula Andress; Joseph Wiseman; Jack Lord
Director: Terence Young
Ebert's Review- DNR (Did Not Review)
Leo's Review- 3 Stars

I had never seen any "Bond" films so I am on a string of watching 007 films. The first installment, "Dr. No" is a fun movie with everything you could want from a secret agent type film. Bond is searching for the person behind the murder of a colleague which leads him to the secret island of Dr. No. Roger Ebert did not review this movie. I do not know if Ebert would have "loved" this movie, but I think he would have liked the moments of suspense and the scenery of Jamaica. Sean Connery is the stylish James Bond who has a knack for suspense and always seems to find his way out of any tough situation. For its time this movie is great. There is a car chase, a crawling spider, and great explosions! It has everything you would want from an old 60's film. Check out the set in the end at Dr. No's lair. I saw flash backs in my mind of  Bruce Lee's "Enter the Dragon" or of course Dr. Evil-in Austin Powers.

Movie: The World is Not Enough
Starring: Pierce Brosnan; Sophie Marceau; Robert Carlyle; Denise Richards
Director: Michael Apted
Ebert's Review- 3 ½ Stars
Leo's Review- 3 Stars

"The World is Not Enough" is a very cool movie. The opening scene (a Bond movie staple) is action packed with bullets flying and Bond using another man's belt to get from the top floor to the ground. Pierce Brosnan was born to play Bond. He has the perfect accent and displays complete cool when under pressure. Bond is trying to figure out who is after the wealthy Elektra King and how to stop the evil Renard. Like Ebert's review- this movie is a list of everything that is BOND! Explosions, beautiful leading ladies, a mad villain, chase scenes, gizmos and gadgets. It is a lot of fun! Denise Richards is not a great actress and there are some moments of "oh come on"! This is why this movie does not get the ½ star from me like Ebert. But Bond movies are not meant to be perfect. They have great action and a lot of twists!

Movie: The Great Dictator
Starring: Charles Chaplin; Paulette Goddard; Jack Oakie; Reginald Gardiner
Director: Charles Chaplin
Ebert's Review- 3 ½ Stars
Leo's Review- 3 ½ Stars

I now have learned that in order to know great comedy you must see movies by Charlie Chaplin. "The Great Dictator" is a movie that is so funny that I felt I could tell where every other great comedy director- i.e. Mel Brooks or The Farelly Brothers-got their training. Chaplin, in what is his last movie to use his character "The Little Tramp", plays both Hynkel (not to be confused with Hitler) and The Jewish Barber. This was Chaplin's first talking picture and he uses the stage of this movie as his own statement on the World War. The Jewish Barber has saved a member of Hynkel's party in a plane crash, gets amnesia and makes his way back to health; only to find out that Hynkel is in power and terrorizing Jewish people in the Ghettos. Since Hynkel and the Barber look the same this leads to the obvious confusion. There are great moments like the hand shake between Hynkel and the very funny Napolini, The Barber having trouble with a machine gun, and of course Hynkel's poetic dance with a globe. Ebert gives great praise for the film saying, "There are also immortal moments of Chaplin pantomime. He shaves a customer in time to classic music. As the Jewish barber, dressed in the stolen uniform of the dictator, he nonchalantly reviews "his" troops and then sits in a folding chair that collapses, causing complete confusion."
  

Movie: Casino Royale
Starring: Daniel Craig; Eva Green; Mads Mikkelsen; Judi Dench
Director: Martin Campbell
 Ebert's Review- 4 Stars
Leo's Review- 4 Stars

In Martin Campbell's "Casino Royale" we get a new beginning to the "Bond" series. Casino Royale is the first tale written by Ian Flemming on the 007 agent. It is also Campbell's way of making Bond not a character that will always get what he wants, but more of a man that is learning on his feet and finding out fast that being a 007 is not easy. Daniel Craig steps in as James Bond and brings more muscle and more toughness. There are two scenes that bring the movie to life 1) A very cool chase scene. This involves Bond and a terrorist for hire where the man that Bond is chasing uses the skill of parkour. It is a must see. 2) The poker scenes. Even if you do not like poker, the events that happen in this scene are intense. The poker table is where Bond is trying to bankrupt an evil man name Le Chiffre who is funding terrorists. This Bond movie goes into the realm of a "Bourne" movie style of action film. It stands alone in the Bond series because of a more realistic view. Bond does not always get the girl, Bond does get hurt, he does bleed. This is something that had not been done yet. Bond is actually human and this makes a very real movie!
 

The LC Movie Club Movie of the week!

Movie: The Wind That Shakes the Barley
Starring: Cillian Murphy; Padraic Delaney; Orla Fitzgerald
Director: Ken Loach
Ebert's Review- 4 Stars
Leo's Review- 3 Stars

Every now and then my girlfriend Christina, a group of friends, and myself will all get together for food, drinks, and a movie for what we call the LC MOVIE CLUB! The movie is chosen by one person in the group; we get together, watch the movie, and then give our opinions on it. Pretty simple.

Last week’s movie-chosen by my best friend Patrick- was "The Wind That Shakes the Barley". The film is a history lesson on the uprising and battle between the IRA and the British army. The movie has a collection of all Irish actors that allow you as the viewer to feel and have a sense of what it may have been like to have lived in Ireland 1920. Beneath that story is the tale of two brothers who are forced into fighting the destruction and mistreatment by the British government. But ultimately battling each other.

We see all the men of the town engaged in a fine display of hurling (a game like field hockey) in our first scene. Running around, sweating; hacking at each other, as some may say "boys being boys"! After they are finished playing we see the "Black and Tans", a group of British Army soldiers alerting them that any form of "gathering" or "meeting" is illegal to British law. And so ensues the beating and killing of one friend and so shows the display that there is oppression that the Irish feel is unjust and has to be stopped.

Ebert himself did not write a review for this movie, (which is another topic for another blog) his editor Jim Emerson wrote the review and put his thought on the movie quite nicely stating, "You don't have to know about the history of "the troubles" in Northern Ireland to be swept up in the human drama of Ken Loach's "The Wind That Shakes the Barley," which won the Palme d'Or at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival."

The movie has a great collection of actors with Cillian Murphy as the lead role of Damien. His brother, Teddy, is played by Padraic Delaney as the passionate leader who would go through a brick wall for freedom. Human drama is entirely what this movie is about. Families, friends, loved ones, all put in the middle of mistreatment and crisis. Even if you had never heard about anything like IRA or "Black and Tans", you still would be sucked in by the conflicts and why the people in this film fight for what they believe in.

There are beautiful shots of the Ireland country side, and a perfectly realistic creation of what life was like in Ireland in the 1920's. The main focus is Damien, who was ready to leave for college to become a doctor and then is forced back into defending his Irish people/friends. It is Damien who is in the middle of this tug-of-war between the passion his brother has for defending Ireland and the mistreatment by the British government. During this, the people of Ireland are poor, sick, and dying of starvation. All of this is a collection of how hard it is for Damien and something he probably never could have run from.

Emerson gives the movie 4 stars and there is a legitimate argument for the movie getting that many stars. I only gave it 3 for a few reasons. The Irish accents are very thick and make it difficult for you to hear, which does not mean that it was bad; I just know it made it tougher on me. It actually is very authentic. Also, the movie has some slow moments. Moments that could have been accelerated with more scenes of violence and displays of bloodshed. I felt this would have made you as the viewer really feel the pain and suffering the Irish were going through during this time. This makes it sound like I am knit picking things. Overall though this is a very good movie. Very real and well directed. What I would consider a must see!

3 STARS!

Please read Roger's review @ http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070405/REVIEWS/70406001

I ran out of room...So you get Another Review!

Movie: Something's Gotta Give
Staring: Jack Nicholson; Diane Keaton; Keanu Reeves; Amanda Peet; Frances McDormand
Director: Nancy Meyers  
Ebert's Review- 3 ½ Stars Leo's Review- 4 Stars
*Spoiler Alert* I give some details away in this review that may or may not ruin the movie for you so if you have not seen this movie please go do something else.

“Something’s Gotta Give” was the best movie I saw all last week! I have seen Diane Keaton in movies like “Annie Hall” or “Manhattan” and this is by far the best movie I have ever seen her in. She brings out strength in "Gotta Give" that I had not seen in the two mentioned Woody Allen films. The premise of this movie is about Jack Nicholson and Keaton’s characters, and how they deal with being single in their old age. Nicholson (Who in Ebert’s review says he is “playing a character that is basically Jack Nicholson”) is Harry Sanborn, a wealthy music producer/record company owner. Keaton is Erica Barry, a divorced, famous play write, who first meets Sanborn when he is rummaging through her Hampton house fridge in his underpants. Sanborn being the 63 year old single male who has never dated anyone under 30 is dating Keaton’s daughter at the time (Amanda Peet). While he is in the Hampton's with her daughter- Sanborn has a heart attack- which leads to Sanborn needing rest and Erica needing to take care of him. You see where the plot is going.

The movie is a brilliant study on single life during your old age and asks the question "is love really worth it?" The movie is charming and has a lot of heart to it. You feel passion for Keaton and you even feel a soft spot for Nicholson during this film. Ebert puts it perfectly saying “I don't know what Harry and Erica did to deserve theirs, but they didn't skip any payments. They bring so much experience, knowledge and humor to their characters that the film works in ways the screenplay might not have even hoped for.” 

Keanu Reeves is doctor Julian Mercer who gives care to Harry Sanborn when he has his heart attack. He also happens to be a very fond fan of Erica Barry and all that she has written. Her writing is not the only thing he enjoys. Mercer, being in his mid 30's is quite attracted to Erica Barry. This creates a somewhat love triangle that sets the tone for the remainder of the film. Ebert goes as far in his review to say that Reeves' character is nothing more than a walking "plot complication".   

I am not quite sure why Ebert did not see this movie fit to give it a full 4 stars but maybe since he makes a point feeling that both Keaton and Nicholson are playing themselves and he also seems to believe there are some plot holes with the ending of the film. 

Either way, I still agree with a large amount of Ebert's review. He has great points that make you understand why this movie was so well put together by Director Nancy Meyers.
"The movie is true enough to its characters that at one point, when Harry and Erica both find themselves crying at the same time, we find ourselves surprisingly moved by this recognition of their humanity. And when Harry goes back to his old ways, as we know he must, we're moved again, this time by how lonely he feels, and how sad it is when he plays his old tapes. Harry and Erica are convincing characters, at least in the world of romantic comedy"

4 STARS!

Read Roger Ebert's full review of "Something's Gotta Give"- http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031212/REVIEWS/312120302/1023

Leo and Roger's Week in Reviews!

During the week there are many movies that I view so I can keep my movie list growing more and more. Giving a full written review of every movie Roger and I have seen would just take too much time away from my actual job. So in order to show how many movies I am watching and putting on this list- I will be postig my quick review and Roger's review of movies I watched from this past week. This will be a weekly occurrence in addition to the 2 movies I review and post on the blog. 

Movie: Beverly Hills Cop
Staring: Eddie Murphy; Judge Reinhold; John Ashton
Director: Martin Brest
Ebert's Review- 2 ½ Stars
Leo's Review- 3 Stars


The original in the comedy/action trilogy. Ebert's review is 2 ½ but his review reads like a 1 star. He found Murphy at the time to be crude and the movie to not have an identity-comedy or action? I found Murphy to be very funny as the Detroit Police punk that he is in character Axel Foley. The movie is a combination of comedy and action almost comparable to a movie like "Rush Hour". The character of Axel Foley is Eddie Murphy being himself and for me that worked. He's funny and yet smooth at being able to take down the bad guys who killed his friend. Judge Reinhold and Bronson Pinchot are hidden gems in this film.

 Movie: Fly Away Home
Staring: Jeff Daniels; Anna Paquin
Director: Carroll Ballard
Ebert's Review- 3 ½ Stars
Leo's Review- 3 ½ Stars


A movie that me and Ebert see perfectly eye to eye on! This movie is a must see for families and is meant for all ages. Anna Paquin is just starting her acting career before winning an Oscar in "The Piano" or being a mutant in "X-Men". A great movie about a father, his daughter, and the two of them teaching a collection of geese to fly south after losing their mother to forest demolition. A must see for this movie is the beautiful scenery that is used by director Carroll Ballard. There are amazing views of the tree tops, fields and fall sunsets. A very good film!
    
Movie: Dinner for Schmucks
Staring: Paul Rudd; Steve Carell; Zach Galifianakis
Director: Jay Roach
Ebert's Review- 3 Stars
Leo's Review- 1 Star


I cannot express how uncomfortable Steve Carell's character Barry in "Dinner for Schmucks" made me feel. I find Carell very funny. I loved him in "40 Year Old Virgin" and I think his portrayal of Michael Scott on "The Office" was one of the best jobs of comedy in my lifetime! But Barry is Michael Scott to the EXTREME! The movie is about Paul Rudd's character Tim who works at an Investment firm that has a contest of brining the oddest guest to dinner. Who ever has the oddest "schmuck" will likely get the big promotion. Ebert found Carell to be brilliant in his acting as Barry-I see the brilliance because it is just SO insane! My problem was that none of this would fly in real life- and I know this is comedy- but the things that Carrel's character does to Rudd is so awful that I do not know how he has not called the police or punched him in the face! The dinner scene at the end is pretty good. Look out for a great battle between Carell and Zach Galafanakis.


Movie: The Phantom
Staring: Billy Zane; Kristy Swanson; Treat Williams; Catherine Zeta-Jones
Director: Simon Wincer
Ebert's Review- 3 ½ Stars
Leo's Review- 3 Stars


Nostalgia is all around in this super hero movie that looks like a 1930's comic that comes to life. Billy Zane plays The Phantom- a boy who grows to stop all evil and avenge his fathers death by Pirates. Treat Williams plays the evil Xander Drax who is looking for the myth of the 3 skulls that will give him all the power to rule the world. Ebert loves the colors, the sound and the super hero movie without all the pumped up CGI action. I loved the fact that it seemed like a movie that I would have been in awe of if I grew up in the 1930’s. Ebert is righ, the colors and the cinematography are great but I also sort of wished this movie was in black and white with a man doing a voice over saying “When there is danger have no fear “The Phantom” is here!

Movie: Unthinkable
Staring: Samuel L. Jackson; Carrie-Anne Moss; Michael Sheen
Director: Gregor Jordan  
Ebert's Review- DNR (Did Not Review)
Leo's Review- 3 Stars


Unthinkable” is the first movie of our blog where I could not find or did not see a review by Roger Ebert. The movie brings up the debate of interrogation of terrorists and how far is too far. The acting performances from Samuel L. Jackson and Michael Sheen are very intense. Maybe they are over-acting a bit but if you are a fan of a show like “24”- then this movie will bring back some memories. It is very graphic at times but is very thrilling. Kind of like “Speed”. The clock is ticking on our heroes and how much will it take to beat the clock. I do not know if Roger Ebert would have liked this movie, but I do not think he would hate it.


More Reviews to come! Please keep reading! Let me know what you think!


Leo Brady

Our First Review- The American- Not a good start Rog!

Movie: The American
Staring: George Clooney; Violante Placido; Thekla Reuten; Johan Leysen
Director: Anton Corbijn

Ebert's Review- 4 Stars
Leo's Review- 2 Stars

Our first written Review for my blog is "The American" staring George Clooney. Clooney plays an American assassin named Jack or... Edward? Is one of these names his real name? That we do not know. We know he is trained at creating handmade weapons, planning the perfect kill, and making sure it all goes down without a sound. What he is clearly not trained at is how not to let love get in his way.

The movie is directed by Anton Corbijn, who had only directed the 2007 movie "Control" and a collection of Depeche Mode and Metallica videos prior. The movie starts in Sweden with a bang. We know nothing about our characters and already they are being followed, hunted.

Later, our assassin settles outside of Rome, which offered Corbjin an opportunity to display very beautiful cinematography of Clooney in a small town in Italy.  While hiding out in this isolated location, our assassin is being paid to deliver the perfect handmade weapon to his assigned contact.

While in this small town, our main character meets the local priest and they form a sort of friendship, but he remains an isolated man of mystery.  In order to relieve his loneliness, Jack/Edward visits a local bordello and meets a woman by the name of Clara (played by the beautiful Violante Placido).   As we focus on our single main character, we question the motives of others as he does: Can we trust Clara? Is she a killer? We wonder if she may be blinding Jack/Edward with her beauty and therefore, you can sense Clooney's need to escape, but will he still be able to stay focused on his purpose in Italy? The suspense of these questions builds to the climax, and if you welcome this type of dilemma in your movie going, this type of plot may be for you, moviegoers.

Roger Ebert and I did not see eye to eye on this film. Ebert gave it a rating of four stars. I gave it two. My ratings tend to be fence ratings, meaning it could be 2 ½ or 2 or 1 ½ stars if a few elements of the film would have been carried out differently. This movie for me is a SOLID 2 Stars. When I see a film, pace is a very important factor. This movie has a quick jolt in the start, but it is WAY too slow in the middle, only to try to grab you back for the big finale. By that time it arrived I was gone; it was too late. As I said, the beginning intrigued me, but there wasn't enough time spent developing the plot OR the characters.. After the opening scene we follow Clooney through Europe and basically see him driving, sitting in cafes', doing push-ups, and assembling his weapon. What is the purpose of all this? Get to the point right? I love spy, espionage style films, so i really just wanted more substance.

Being the action movie fan that I am maybe I was just impatient? But it was more than that.  I felt there had to be more to Clooney's character. I see him doing push-ups in his room, I see him assembling guns out of car parts. But I want to know how he got there and why he stays in a profession of assassin if he is so careless with the woman he falls for.

Ebert may be right in that he believes the director Corbijn constructed the movie the way Jack/Edward constructs a weapon stating,”It is so rare to see a film this carefully crafted, this patiently assembled like a weapon, that when the word comes it strikes like a clap of thunder. A lesser film would have underscored it with a shock chord, punctuated it with a sudden zoom, or cut to a shocked close up. "The American" is too cool to do that. Too Zen, if you will."

This is maybe why Ebert is more movie savvy than I am. He sees this part of the movie as the craft of the director and the art of how the movie is put together. The movie had coolness, to Ebert. I noticed the beautiful cinematography, the isolation of our main character, the fine crafted calculation of his profession. But I also felt for an assassin he certainly did not have much of a threat or even enough dialogue for me to care about the plot. Is his relationship with the small town priest important? Should an assassin be wasting his time with prostitutes? Even if they are gorgeous? I did not see it as much of a necessity for a man who is an assassin-a job where you are supposed to be fast and quick –to be wasting so much time. Maybe if he wanted to do what he was doing he would take his job more serious.

I agree with some of Ebert's points on this movie and maybe I am learning from him on a movie like this. I just know that he saw this movie as a well made craft stating that what the director had was, “There is not a wrong shot. Every performance is tightly controlled. Clooney is in complete command of his effect. He sometimes seems to be chewing a very small piece of gum, or perhaps his tongue." Command is what the director and Clooney have in this film. I just wish they would have commanded more dialogue and not have lost me in the middle with what I thought was a movie with potential.

 2 STARS

Read Roger's Review @ http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100831/REVIEWS/100839999

The Start of a Journey with Roger Ebert

Movies. The single greatest conversation starter in the world.

"Did Crash really deserve Best Picture?"

"What would you have done differently if you were Scorsese?"

"I think Inception is the most well-thought out movie ideas ever!"

Me and my dog Redick

These are conversations that people begin every day because of MOVIES!
 
My name is Leo Brady. I am a 26-year-old male. I live with my girlfriend, Christina, and our two dogs. For the past 2 years I have put together a list in alphabetical order (starting with numerical movies) of every movie I have ever seen. Starting from (500) Days of Summer all the way to Zoolander. For each movie that is listed, I give my own personal rating of that movie. The rating system is your typical movie review, with the lowest being any negative amount of stars and the highest being 4 stars. Since the beginning of this list I have taken a side-by-side journey with Roger Ebert. Ebert, a world famous movie critic for the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper who gained his fame from his TV show, At The Movies, reviewing movies with his late best friend Gene Siskel. Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down! You all remember. 
 

After every movie I see I converse with Christina (or whomever I saw the movie with) about what we just saw and what we thought about the movie as a whole. I will give my review to her, document it on the list, and then proceed to my Smartphone or iPad using the IMDB Application, where I read Ebert’s review and determine whether I agree with him or not.

I work Monday through Friday 9-5-sometimes till 8 and sometimes weekends. Even with a busy work schedule you would be surprised how many films you can watch when you are committed to the movies! Sure, maybe some will think I am wasting my money because it can get expensive sitting in a movie theater once a week, but what else am I going to do? Besides- I love Movies! Ever since my World Cinema class in College I have been hooked. I am enjoying every minute watching a great art form known as Cinema!   


Movie man Roger Ebert



Even though this is a project that is already a year and a half running- it is still a very young idea. I think it is safe to assume that there are many people out there blogging about the films they have seen. Many people have Blogs, just about everyone has a Facebook page, and anyone who goes to the movies has an opinion about what they have seen. What is different about MY blog is that I am incredibly passionate about movies---to the point where I will not discriminate between WHICH movies I will see---and I will be comparing my personal reviews to the reviews given by Mr. Two Thumbs Up himself, Roger Ebert.   
Please read.  Please comment. 
My greatest hope for this project is that, like movies, this blog will entertain and become something we can all talk about. HOORAY FOR HOLLYWOOD!