Surrogates **1/2 (rant)

Surrogates, the latest Bruce Willis film, was not what I had hoped it would be. (And I didn't have the highest of hopes in the first place). But what surprised me about this sci-fi /thriller directed by Jonathan Mostow is it fell short in a way I wasn't expecting...

This film is of course set in the future. And in this particular future the majority of citizens in the world have opted to have robots live their lives for them. Average citizens, from the comfort of their own home, plug into a neural contraption that allows them to control the 'better looking' robot versions of themselves out in the real world. Everything seems safe and perfect until the murder of one of these surrogates actually causes the death of the human puppeteer. Willis, playing Special Agent Greer and partner Peters, (played by Radha Mitchell) desperately try to solve this homicide case before any other human life is at risk (Even though every human now lies around at home in their bathrobe looking like complete crap -for the preservation of humankind, I'm assuming- it's still important to the FBI to save them).

Being a fan of Bruce Willis I wanted to see this film on the big screen because I hoped that even if the story line was weak I would enjoy Willis' performance. And I expected to be entertained and impressed by some of the special effects. Turns out the opposite was true. Although Willis didn't let me down (except for the really bad toupee), the story line did entail some interesting concepts and it kept the twists and turns of the 'whodunnit' investigation suspenseful. But surprisingly it was the special effects of the movie that really disappointed me. Certain scenes had great potential but everything looked fake and none of the action scenes had a 'wow' factor that CGI technology is more than capable of producing nowadays.

Now don't get me wrong, I didn't find the script to be particularly great or original. Actually, the premise reminded me of I Robot, starring Will Smith (robots made to improve human's quality of life but then suddenly turn dangerous). This association was clinched for me when I saw James Cromwell from I Robot once again playing the mastermind behind the future technology. (It seems Cromwell has been type-casted as a really smart futuristic guy). But the Surrogates script did have some uniqueness to it. While the FBI investigates who would prosper from either the robot technology or the demise of it, the movie shows the possible effects advanced technology could have on the military, powerful corporations and rebellious citizens. And it did a good job at showing how scary some of these effects could be.

Overall, I didn't hate this movie but I still can't decide if it's worth seeing on the big screen. One thing I can say for certain however, is Bruce Willis' latest movie is no "Yippee Kaye Mother F******"

The Time Traveler's Wife * (rant)

I really don't know why this movie was made. And I really can't believe it's still playing in the theaters. The Time Traveler's Wife, which is based on Audrey Niffenegger's best-seller, did not succeed as a romance film nor did it succeed as a sci/fi film. Maybe if it hadn't tried to be both, it would've succeeded at one...Maybe.

The story revolves around Clare (played by Rachel McAdams) and Henry (played by Eric Bana). Henry is a time traveler (due to some kind of genetic anomaly) and Clare, who first met Henry when she was a child, falls in love with him despite his condition and eventually marries him. The movie spans over many years of their lives together and as the plot unfolds we, the audience, are shown clips of the past (in the hopes I'm assuming that we'll piece together why the two fell in love in the first place) and are shown the struggles the two face in their present life together. -Struggles which include: will Henry be present for the marriage ceremony? (seeing as he has no control over when he leaves or where he evaporates to). Will he be around for Christmas this year? How does Clare cope with waiting for his return? And whether or not the two of them can produce a 'time travelling love-child'.

This movie was so wrong on so many levels. First, I still don't know why Clare fell in love with a man who's never around when she didn't strike me as the 'independent woman' sort. Aside from getting to see Eric Bana naked a lot (he always loses his clothes when he travels) he was a very serious and somber man. Clare is in love with him the first time we meet her and it seems only she knows why. Granted, I guess time travel can be a very serious business. But it's a business the movie never explains. There's a geneticist (played by Stephen Tobolowsky ) who apparently is there to help Henry and find out some answers. But after the doctor conducts one test, we never find out any real results nor is it ever discussed again. Instead, we watch as various Henrys from various times pop in and out of Clare's life. She never seems to know when he'll leave or appear again and yet she still manages to have clothes waiting for him in various locations. Lucky for him, I guess.

The love story wasn't convincing and the time travel parts weren't nearly as confusing as they should be. Not once did the film address whether or not Henry affects the present by revisiting the past. We are told that even though he can revisit certain places time and time again (I can't help the pun) he can't change the course of bad events that have happened. Apparently, he's unable to get there just in the 'nick of time'. Even Jean Claude Van-Dame's movie Time Cop addressed the possible confusing affects of time travel. The fact that this one just decided to ignore it was more than disappointing. (The fact that I've had to mention a Jean Claude Van-Dame movie as a means of comparison of something that is better is embarrassing).

I have not read Audrey Niffenegger's book but after seeing the movie version, I can only hope that many more questions are answered. For instance; how did time traveling affect Henry's childhood? Why is he always getting shot at or beat up when he travels? What does Clare really do for a living? Do Henry and Clare have any real friends? And I sincerely hope one important question is answered ...when Clare claims she had no free-will in deciding whether or not to spend her life with Henry, what the heck is she talking about?

Inglourious Basterds **1/2 (rant)

Although I'm a fan of Quentin Tarantino's, I'm sad to say I did not enjoy this film. With a running time of over two hours, the film felt long and dragged out to me. This movie is no where near as entertaining as Tarantino's previous work. And although there were a couple of exceptional scenes, I was left missing the extraordinary screenwriting skills I associate with his other movies.

Inglourious Basterds takes place in German-occupied France in the early 1940's. The film follows two stories: The escape of a Jewish woman Shosanna Dreyfus (played by Melanie Laurent) from the hands of a Nazi Colonel, Hans Landa (played by Christoph Waltz) and her eventual plans of retribution. And the Jewish-American soldiers, called "The Basterds" who hunt down and kill any Nazi they find (with the goal of scalping one hundred Nazis each). The Basterds are led by Lieutenant Aldo Raine (played by Brad Pitt) and once enlisted in "Operation Keno", their mission of destruction eventually coincides with Shosanna's.

This movie started out strong. The opening scene which introduces the Nazi Colonel was tense and I was transfixed by the dialogue. I don't believe any other present-day screenwriter can write dialogue as well as Quentin Tarantino. (The fact that he could make a movie about a diamond store robbery that you never see so absolutely riveting still blows me away. If you haven't seen Reservoir Dogs, you don't know what you're missing!) But in this film, once he introduced "The Basterds" I was disinterested in the story. Brad Pitt, as the only real "star" in the film, stuck out like a sore thumb to me. And I couldn't decide if I just didn't like his silly Tennessee character or if it was the way he was playing him that I found silly. I didn't care about any of "The Basterds" and I found it difficult to view them as "the good guys". - Which is strange considering they were a huge part in the plan to take down Hitler. I'm not sure if I was suppose to cheer when one of them beat a Nazi to death with a baseball bat, but I didn't. And I found the drawn out lead up to that scene - the clanging noise of the bat hitting the inside of a tunnel- not at all suspenseful. (I guess the close-up of Pitt making yet another stupid facial expression didn't help).

I did enjoy the story that revolved about Shosanna's plight, however. Laurent's acting was solid. And Waltz, as the maniacal "Jew hunter", kept me in a constant state of unease. Although there's a great scene in a basement club in the film, there were too many other elements of the movie that I didn't enjoy for this one scene to redeem the whole film for me.

After seeing Inglourious Basterds, I'm inspired to watch Pulp Fiction again. I haven't seen it in years and I still consider this to be Tarantino's best film to date. Although I can't rave about Inglourious Basterds, I am still a fan of Quentin Tarantino's and I will always look forward to seeing what he does next. I just hope Brad Pitt's not in it.

Anvil! The Story of Anvil ****1/2 (rave)

I don't like heavy metal music, but I'm a big fan of documentaries. And when this film was recommended to me last week, I decided to give it a go. I loved loved loved it!! The only reason why I can't give it 5 stars is because I don't like heavy metal music and I had to listen to some while watching the movie. (not the movie's fault; I know, but still..)

This great documentary, directed by Sacha Gervasi (who was at one time a roadie for the band), follows the original Canadian band members Steve "Lips" Kudlow and Robb Reiner as they embark on a European tour in the hopes that finally -THIS time -they will find fame and fortune in the music world. After 30 years together and sharing this dream since they were fourteen, the lead singer/guitarist, and drummer of the group Anvil wonder if this tour will be the one!

As the film follows the band (being led by a rather inept manager, Tiziana), Gervasi tries to find out why the band didn't make it so many years ago. He interviews other successful metal musicians, and shows clips of Anvil's glory days. (clips of what "Lips" likes to refer to as their 15 minutes of fame). Highlighted, is their concert in Japan in 1984 where they got to play alongside Scorpion, Whitesnake and Bon Jovi. These now successful bands felt like Anvil were the players to beat -and beat them they did.

So what went wrong? -Gervasi lets each audience member of this film decide that for themselves. And that, for me, is what made this documentary so good!

Watching "Lips" and Robb once again struggle with the music industry and each other gave me a glimpse into their brotherhood and missed chances. The two band members, although both Jewish and from Toronto, could not be more different. "Lips" is emotional, the leader and passionate. While Robb is quiet, gifted and likes to paint (his favourite piece is something that will get people talking...) The two love each other and fight; and love each other and fight. And as the struggles of the tour are exposed, part of me thought they were both crazy for holding onto this dream (they're both in their fifties, putting their families on hold, in debt, rejected time and time again) and yet another part of me admired the courage, passion and determination they both possess (and need) to keep this dream alive.

As one famous musician says in the film...there are only a couple of groups that have stayed together for over 30 years: "The Rolling Stones", "The Who" and "Anvil". Although I'm not a fan of Heavy Metal music, after watching this film I'm convinced that's got to count for something!

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince **** (rave)

What can I say?...I love Harry Potter! I loved all the books and I think the movies have all been entertaining and true to the stories. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the sixth installment translated onto film. It is directed by David Yates, (who directed the fifth film, Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix) and stars all the original cast members we've watched grow up over the years. And like each of its predecessors, it introduces a couple of new faces to the screen. One of this film's new additions includes Jim Broadbent- playing the potions Professor; Horace Slughorn. He was a humorous addition to the Hogwarts clan and a delight to watch.

In this film, Harry, Hermione and Ron return to Hogwarts for their sixth year of schooling. Harry has been asked by Professor Dumbledore to befriend the new potions professor, in the hopes that Harry may retrieve a very important memory Slughorn has kept suppressed about the dark lord, Voldemort (oops, I mean...he-who-must-not-be-named). During the course of this quest, Harry also conducts Quidditch try-outs, sees flashbacks of Voldemort (oops, I said his name again) as a youth, witnesses the effects of love potions being passed around school, and suspects a very distracted Draco Malfoy (Harry's nemesis) of being up to no good (as Malfoy works on a secret mission of his own). As with every Harry Potter story, the film follows the characters throughout their year of school and concludes with secrets being revealed, plots exposed and some kind of climactic confrontation between good and evil.

Because this movie was based on one of the lengthy books in the Potter series, written by J.K Rowling, it had to cut some stuff out while maintaining focus on other parts of the story. Although, a bit too much attention was focused on 'snogging' for me, I agreed with many of the decisions made by Yates, and I enjoyed the flow of the story-telling. As to be expected by the Harry Potter films; the sets, costumes and special effects were great. And when you've got a stellar cast which includes, Maggie Smith, Michael Gambon, and Alan Rickman, how do you not enjoy their characters? As for the acting skills of the younger cast members...although there are still moments when I find each of them a bit stiff, ( Bonnie Wright, playing Ginny Weasley, in particular) I think they've all improved over the years. - I've journeyed with them this far so I try to give them the benefit of the doubt . A real stand-out for me in this movie was a new-comer Jessie Cave, playing the love-struck Lavender Brown. Evanna Lynch playing Luna Lovegood, who won me over in the fifth film, was a treat to see again. And because Rupert Grint who plays Ron always gets me laughing, he remains my personal favourite.

Only one more Harry Potter story left to be told on film now. And I'm glad Yates, who is returning as the director, has decided to shoot this last installment (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) in two parts. There's a lot of ground to cover in this final chapter and one movie would not do it justice. I can't wait to see them. But I have to admit, I'll be sad to see them finished. The Harry Potter series, since I picked up the first book years ago, has been truly 'magical' for me. And as I sat in the theater on a Saturday afternoon, surrounded by other 'muggles', I was pleased to see all the other grown-ups who came without kids. Part of the love I've always had for Rowling's stories is you don't have to be a kid to enjoy the imagination, adventure and wizardry these stories have to offer. Luminos!

Public Enemies *** (rave)

Chicago: depression-era - is the setting for Michael Mann's new film Public Enemies, starring Johnny Depp (as 'Public Enemy #1', John Dillinger) and Christian Bale (as the determined FBI agent, Melvin Purvis). The film depicts the last year of Dillinger's life, and through the lens of a digital camera, we follow the notorious bank-robber's escapades; meet his crew; his love interest; and ALL the people trying to catch him.

As a fan of Mann's previous work (The Last of the Mohicans/ Heat/The Insider) I anticipated his filming style would be both interesting and unique. With Public Enemies, I both liked and disliked the filming techniques he chose to use in this movie. Shooting with a digital camera, allowed Mann to get extreme close-up shots that kept the movie tense, and permitted the audience to follow ever so closely and freely with the 'gang' (some of the confrontation scenes between the 'cops and robbers', he filmed, were spectacular). But, the footage went in and out of a grainy resolution and occasionally, the sound would increase quite drastically. I found these glitches distracting from the story, and I had to wonder - if Mann's intention was to incorporate a grainy feel to the film, to accentuate the time era, why didn't he maintain it throughout the entire film?

Johnny Depp's acting is solid. And although I've enjoyed many of the quirky characters he has portrayed on film in the past, it was a pleasant change to see him playing someone 'somewhat' normal.(Dillinger might be a killer; but he's no 'Sweeney Todd'!)

Although Christian Bale, had me worried about his acting abilities during his first scene (I wasn't sure if he was trying to do an accent or not), he eventually grew on me. Although his character was ultra-serious and bland, I realised that a man with the name "Melvin Purvis" probably couldn't help but take himself too seriously, and so, I found him believable.

Dillinger's love interest, Billie, is played by Academy Award winner Marion Cotillard (La Vie En Rose). Mann's camera loved her. And she was absolutely stunning.

My biggest critique about this movie, was there were far too many cast members. The cast was vast! And it was very confusing sometimes, trying to distinguish between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'. They all dressed the same (fedora; with long coat), many were fair-haired, and they were all carrying heavy artillery. Basically, if I didn't recognize an actor from a previous role, I couldn't keep track of which side they were on while they were engaged in a 'cops and robbers' shoot-out.

Overall, I did enjoy this movie. The sets were great and I liked the pace of the film. I would recommend seeing it on the big screen, just to see some of the impressive footage I mentioned earlier. You'll enjoy it - but don't expect to be "wowed".

In my opinion, while this movie was entertaining; it is not "one of the best pictures of the year, so far".

Personally, I'm still holding out for that one...

The Proposal *** (rave)

This is my first 'chick flick' review - I was in the mood for a little light entertainment and I picked "The Proposal" starring Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds to see today.

I've got to say... I really liked this one.

Yes, it inhabits the familiar 'romantic comedy' formula we've seen a million times, but the chemistry between Bullock and Reynolds made it really enjoyable for me.

In it, Bullock plays a 'dragon-lady' book editor. She's Canadian (from Toronto, no less), working in New York, and is informed that her Visa has been denied. - She's going to be deported and lose her high-power job. In an attempt to save her position, she coerces her assistant (played by Reynolds) to marry her so she can stay in the country. He agrees to the fake arrangement and takes her home to Alaska, where she meets his family, in the hopes that getting to know him better will help them convince the State that their "love" for one another is real.

I picked this movie because I've always been a fan of Sandra Bullock's. Like everyone, she's made some bad movies (anyone seen "The Net?") But I've always found her funny. And I like that she's one of the 'beautiful people' that can take the piss out of herself. She has no problem acting silly or being vulnerable, and she just strikes me as someone I would like if I met her on the street.

As someone quite unfamiliar with Reynold's work, I was surprised with how taken I was with his character in this film. He was charming, quick-witted, thoughtful, and not too hard to look at either. The two of them kept a stupid grin on my face the entire time I watched their comical escapades and I was really rooting for the 'happy ending' for them (that, of course) I knew I was going to get.

Betty White is one of the co-stars (playing Reynolds' Grandma Annie) and she's got all the unabashed one-liners you'd expect from her. Her character in this movie is very similar to the character she played in "Lake Placid" (except 'Gammie' likes to chant in the woods occasionally).

Watching the film, although it reminded me of another Sandra Bullock film - "While You Were Sleeping" (another movie about a fake relationship leading to a fake marriage), I couldn't help but enjoy it. As far as romantic comedies go - there are no new ideas. Every thing's already been done. But I did find the dry humour throughout the film refreshing. And even though there are parts of the movie that are over-the-top silly, I REALLY liked the characters.

I wanted some light entertainment today, and that's exactly what I got. And I'm happy to report that when I got the 'happy ending' that I knew I was going to get; I couldn't have been happier.