Cowboys & Aliens

Unfortunately, I think I’ve finally reached the level of oversaturation with alien invasion movies this year. It’s strange that this happened now because Cowboys & Aliens is one of the most unique and interesting concepts to feature the green men this year. But my qualms with Hollywood tendencies aside, this is a fun summer movie. The plot follows Daniel Craig as the proverbial “man with no name,” who wakes up in the desert with no memory. Then when aliens attack the nearby town he realizes that a strange shackle attached to his arm is a weapon with the power to kill them. So he sets off to free the citizens that were abducted by the intruders. Craig’s character is joined by a geeky Sam Rockwell, a seemingly out of place Olivia Wilde and a gruff Harrison Ford, who all fit the western archetypes that fans of the genre are used to.

With such well-known actors the performance level is understandably high. Craig and Wilde are two of the more entertaining players in the movie, but post Civil War Americans have never looked so European before. Wilde may be from the U.S, but she also lived in Tron, so what does that say about her look? Rockwell helps ground the action with his down to Earth role. There’s no denying he is underutilized though. Then there’s the godfather of blockbuster movies, Harrison Ford. Not much is asked from him until the end of the film, but even though his character is essentially a one-dimensional jerk, man does he play a good jerk. Ford seems to finally have a role that fits his current age and status, instead of attempting to recreate his past successes.

The repetitive nature of the story, which has too many abduction scenes and gun fights, weighs down Cowboys & Aliens. The fact that the leads continually encounter large groups of disposable characters acts as an indicator that the aliens are coming and will abduct a good number of those extras/stuntmen. Even though it’s a fun film to watch, the lack of iconic imagery and slow pacing will likely render it forgettable after its initial run. But it’s quite likely that one day I’m going to look back and say, “Remember that movie where James Bond was a cowboy and fought aliens?” File it under 007 actor side projects… right next to Mrs. Doubtfire. (7.0 out of 10)

Captain America: The First Avenger

As a comic book fan, I think that it’s almost unforgivable that the powers that be at Marvel left Captain America on the shelf while Iron Man got two movies and has become one of the most substantial characters out there. But Cap finally gets his moment in Captain America: The First Avenger. The film takes place during World War II, with Steve Rodgers (Chris Evans) attempting to get into the military to fight. He is then chosen for a government experiment that makes him a super soldier.

Evans, who bulked up for the role, is digitally manipulated in one way or another to look scrawny for the beginning of the film. At first it seems like the character’s head is too big for his body. You get used to it though. His reserved portrayal of the character fits well and builds for a great underdog film. However, don’t expect the actor’s usual wit because it just doesn’t apply to the war hero he plays. He is charming, but not sarcastic.

The origin story is interesting and all, but the villains make the film unique. Hugo Weaving plays the red skull, which is a great casting that will add to the actor’s already extensive comic-con pleasing résumé (The Matrix, Lord of the Rings). The role, like everything else in the movie is a throwback. He is a crazy villain who only wants power and destruction. It’s a classic motivation, but well timed so that it appears fresh compared to the complicated agendas of other comic book movie villains.

Captain America builds subtly through its episodes of origin story, through propaganda star, and into the heroic climax. Unlike some of the other Marvel movies, this one is actually hindered by the moments that connect it to the Avengers crossover movie due out in 2012. Of course for it to work we need Cap in the present day, but the 1940s setting is almost too good to give up. (8.8 out of 10)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

(This review assumes that you have seen the film and contains spoilers. If you haven’t seen it yet, stop reading and go see it.)

I was a late arrival on the Harry Potter train, the Hogwarts Express if you will. For whatever reason, the middle school version of myself was under the impression that one couldn’t be a fan of both Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. So I chose Lord of the Rings at the time. Then years later when some friends were going to see Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, I went along for something to do. Once I saw the Voldemort reveal, I realized Harry Potter was all right. He was a super-villain whose appearance was gruesome and amazing, and Ralph Fiennes’ commitment pushed it over the edge.

I could go on all day with descriptions and anecdotes of my HP experiences, but this first memorable event describes the reason I find the movies to be so successful, vivid and lasting images. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 runs the risk of being the most memorable in that respect. The pace is so quick that before you realize it, the troops are assembled and the final battle begins. The plot, established in Deathly Hallows Part 1, correlates the ultimate showdown between Harry and Voldemort with the legend of the Deathly Hallows, three magical objects associated with seeking immortality. After the film’s early sequence involving a heist and a dragon, the episodic nature of Deathly Hallows Part 1 is replaced with an onslaught of heroics and gruesome death.

The film must be admired for allowing so many minor characters to get their moment in the spotlight one final time. But there is no mistake that this is Harry, Ron and Hermione’s movie, where the importance of other characters is diminished compared to the books. The result is a great strength on the big screen because Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson command the scenes with authority that even the weathered and classic actors can’t. For an example, see when Harry confronts Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) about the murder of Dumbledore. It’s hauntingly raw and a bit brutal. Now I say this meaning emotionally brutal because the deaths by means of snake attack, burning alive, and having one’s throat eaten out by a werewolf are much more physically brutal.

In terms of resolution and closure, I don’t think Deathly Hallows Part 2 could do any better. The imagery of the Snape- Lilly Potter flashback is a stunning backdrop to learning why the potions master has been so shady for all these years. The final battle with Harry and Voldemort is expanded to include some physical fighting beyond wand dueling, which better expresses the intensity on screen. Then there’s the final scene on the platform. Is it a bit cheesy? Maybe. Is it the image most people will remember from the franchise? No. But the vision and clarity it brings to such an epic and extensive experience is amazing. When John Williams’ original theme plays, such a stark contrast to Alexander Desplat’s ominous one, it exposes how far these characters have brought the viewer without ever wandering too far from the innocence that drew them in.

Harry Potter has proven to be one of the most important stories in cinematic history because of its consistent quality and influence on a multi-billion dollar industry. For this reason, plus my own personal admiration, I can’t put a score on Deathly Hallows Part 2. But if I wanted to completely show my bias, I could just say that numbers just don’t go high enough.

Horrible Bosses

A big chunk of the Horrible Bosses advertising discussed who the idea of murdering your boss is something a lot of people have imagined. It’s relatable. Well, I don’t think that’s true. But the reason that the movie works is because the bosses go ten steps further than any real person would. Jason Bateman, Charlie Day and Jason Sudeikis play the unfortunate employees of Jennifer Aniston, Colin Ferrell and Kevin Spacey’s characters. Maybe I’m just naive, but I have enough faith in the legal system to think that these three criminals would have to answer for their constant illegalities. But the over-the-top antics are what make the movie funny.

The biggest feud seems to be between Bateman and Spacey’s characters, which makes sense because they’re the most famous pair. Interestingly enough Bateman isn’t playing the everyday family man like he usually is. In fact, the viewer gets hardly any look into the personal lives of the three leads, except for Day. This helps prevent the film from being like all other R rated buddy comedies. The other two professional quarrels, Sudeikis- Ferrell, and Day- Aniston seem like telling any police officer would have solved the problem straight away, but this is the movies and that wouldn’t be very comical.

Being split up between so many characters, Horrible Bosses moves right along. Six featured characters seem like a lot for this kind of movie, but it works quite well. Then support from Jamie Foxx doesn’t hurt either. In fact, I probably laughed at his scenes the most. This may not be on par with his Oscar winning turn in Ray, but he does play the best-named character this year. Overall, the way the script allows for the film to be about a certain series of events and not the full lives of the individual characters makes Horrible Bosses successful. And it may just be me, but Day seems to be channeling his best Bobcat Goldthwait impression for half of the movie. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a lot less annoying, but there’s an odd similarity. (7.9 out of 10)

Zookeeper

I have had a hankering to go to the zoo for a few months now, which is possibly one of the strangest hankerings a person could have. I don’t know if there is any one thing that triggered this, but the release of Zookeeper seems quite opportune. Kevin James stars as a nice guy, who is ready to give up on love after some bad luck with the ladies. This isn’t a foreign plot to James, Paul Blart: Mall Cop, Hitch, but his presence tends to be so likeable that the audience lets the repetitive nature of his roles slide. The catch in Zookeeper is that the animals in the zoo where he works reveal they can talk. They then set out on a mission to get him back with his ex-girlfriend.

There’s no denying the movie has its funny moments, but since the script never allows James to crossover into his full crazy persona his fans are used to, the film toes the line of mediocre. The animals are voiced by a famous pack of celebrities including Adam Sandler, Jon Favreau, and Sylvester Stallone just to name a few. But I found the fame of the voices to be distracting with none of the individuals having the success of some past talking animals, like Norm McDonald’s Lucky in Dr. Doolittle. All the animals in Zookeeper sound like actors pretending to be animals… except for Cher who sounds like a person reading off of a script.

But for all the negatives, the movie has a broad enough message to appeal to young audiences. The monkey’s references to throwing poop and the ripping your pants humor will surely please the kids as well. The chemistry between James and Rosario Dawson provides a nice romance situation, even if the “bromance” between James and the Nick Nolte voiced gorilla is just strange. Here’s a harsh reality folks. Animals at the zoo cannot speak to you…unless you can speak parseltongue like Harry Potter, then the snakes can. (6.5 out of 10)

Friends With Benefits

With all the comparisons to January’s No Strings Attached, Friends with Benefits would seem to be the latest attempt to capitalize on sex infused humor. Though Benefits uses the clichéd plot of friends who want to get cozy while avoiding the relationship aspect, as a placeholder for the movie they intended to make. In other words, there is comedy, emotion, and charm throughout the script and the moments in the bedroom are there to provide the hook and advertising focus, but never be the film’s most important aspect.

Justin Timberlake’s comedic acting ability has risen to the likes of Hollywood’s best. But his overall ability shows just how valuable he is for being able to balance varying emotions on screen. I can’t say that he is perfect in this effort, but since he and, the usually quite reliable, Mila Kunis stumble in the same scenes I have to write it off as awkward scripting. Like how Timberlake gets brought into a flash mob and then later uses one for an advertising campaign. It comes off as forced and strange. Since these instances are isolated, they don’t make or break anything.

The film surprisingly thrives with the use of its minor characters. Woody Harrelson has some of the script’s best one-liners as a creepy but loyal coworker of Timberlake. And Jenna Elfman, with Richard Jenkins, adds back-story and depth, which is not usually given in comedies like this. At times there is such an attempt at being different from other romantic comedies that they prohibit the viewer from getting engrossed in the story. There is even a fake rom-com that is repeatedly watched (starring Jason Segel and Rashida Jones) to try and prove how different Friends with Benefits is. It all comes across as overkill. By the way, did I mention the Andy Samberg and Emma Stone cameos? I smell spin-off. Actually, that’s not likely, but it would be funny. (7.5 out of 10)

Larry Crowne

With star power like Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts, Larry Crowne seems like the perfect match with box office success. However, the lack of a noticeable hook in the trailers works against their résumés. The film itself is basically the same story. The movie is funny and charming while watching, but what is there to make it memorable? Not much. It’s the story of Larry Crowne, Hanks, who begins community college in pursuit of a degree after being downsized from a department store. Since he had chosen the Navy instead of college, he was deemed useless to the company. Then when he begins school, he meets Roberts’ character, one of his teachers, as well as some students who spark his interest in living a productive life.

With someone like Hanks playing the lead in a movie, it’s important that his character either is different or as high quality as his past roles, but Crowne is just a middle of the road guy. It’s a sympathetic and believable performance with a transformation too subtle to come across as inspirational. Roberts’ performance is what it is. Virtually any adult actress could play the character. The main kick is with Larry’s classmates. Initially a bit campy, they provide comic relief that sneaks up on the viewer.

Any fan of Hanks would probably like Larry Crowne. It deserves a chance for being a fun movie with a clean story arch and nice pace. Developing the minor characters could have given it the boost it needed. After all, pretty decent performances by Bryan Cranston, Taraji P Henson, Cedric the Entertainer and Wilmer Valderrama are left as virtual footnotes. There is definitely room for them. I mean how George Takei gets more screen-time than an Emmy winner, an Oscar nominee, a member of “the Original Kings of Comedy” and the host of “Yo Mamma”, which are all significant honors, I just don’t know. (7.0 out of 10)

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

The Transformers franchise is something that impresses me greatly. It’s a trilogy based on a cartoon, which in turn was based on a line of action figures. The events of the movies cause irreparable damage and are constantly panned for an emphasis on “mindless action.” This obviously can’t be true because there are a number of moments in the latest installment, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, where the audience feels a profound admiration and connection to the Autobots, a team of alien robots, who are allegedly intended to only perform these feats of “mindless action.” And in the meantime, all the movies make a lot of money.

Dark of the Moon brings the war between the Autobots and Decepticons to a head as the villains hatch a plan over 50 years in the making, to revive their deserted planet, Cybertron, at the expense of Earth. The plot is focused on the one detailed storyline providing twists, turns and unexpected betrayals. There is more of a mystery element than in the other two films, which adds significance to the many battle scenes. But I have to admit the final fight goes on for too long. I can’t point out a particular scene that could have been cut, but surely some could have.

With so many trailers depicting the tough and embattled Shia LeBeouf, it’s easy to forget that his character is funny in these movies. Sure enough, third time around he gives his most well rounded performance balancing the jokes with the serious moments. Model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley gives an adequate performance as the love interest. She even factors into the plot, opposite another new face, Patrick Dempsey. That’s more than can be said of Megan Fox’s character in the other films. The change in actresses ends up being a lateral move with no negative impact on the franchise. For consistency’s sake Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson and John Turturro all reprise their roles as the film’s role players.

There’s no arguing that the movie is quite lengthy. It’s fast paced with new developments and speed bumps at every turn. But each of these films would be well suited for an extended cut DVD so as to appease the short attention spans of the casual moviegoer and please the die-hards. But there is hardly a boring moment from start to finish. If you’re a Transformers aficionado be prepared to see Dark of the Moon multiple times to try and locate every tidbit that pays homage to the cartoon. Director Michael Bay was never going to please all the critics, but his trilogy ends with a mammoth battle fitting for such a massive concept. (7.9 out of 10)