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