[REC] 2 movie review

The original [REC] gained a lot of popularity among horror fans as being a fun twist on the zombie film (although there are no actual zombies to be found) with lots of gore and suspense. I thought it was merely decent. It had some flaws and could have been better. It didn’t help that Quarantine, the American remake was the exact same movie with a few cosmetic changes. The best way to describe my anticipation of [REC] 2 would be “cautiously optimistic”. If Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza could learn from their mistakes and follow up with an even better film, that’s good. But they could also continue those old mistakes and make new ones. So how did this second trip into the quarantined apartment complex pan out?
The movie opens with the very last shot of the original, reporter Angela Vidal being dragged into the unknown. After this we join a group of four SWAT team members and a medical officer as they go inside to get a handle on what’s going on. They’re bringing a camera with them to document everything. Considering what went on in the original, you would think more than five guys would be required, but then again they have no idea what they’re getting themselves into. Almost immediately after their arrival they begin to encounter some of the infected people both in the building and hidden away in the penthouse. Once the tension and action starts, it doesn’t really stop until the shocking finale.
The biggest complaint with any of these movies is the camera work. On one hand, complaining about the “shakycam” effect is silly as you should know going in what to expect. On the other, the handheld camera shouldn’t be used as an excuse for shoddy camerawork that makes it impossible to see to anything. In the case of this film, the biggest detriment of most handheld camera movies is used to the benefit of this one. While there are moments of being unable to see, it’s used to accentuate the suspense. By attaching the camera to SWAT team members, we are thrust, perhaps unwillingly, straight into the action. When the shaking gets too troublesome, it’s almost always at the height of a moment of panic. There is no more senseless running around and shaking the camera for the sake of it, instead it’s used to scare, and it’s used effectively.
There were some other neat tricks with the camera that I enjoyed. Without getting into very many spoilers, there are eventually three cameras used within the film. The SWAT team has one, and another group of survivors have one. Where the third comes from I’ll leave to you to find out, because it’s a surprise. In addition to three main cameras, we also have the added effect of each SWAT team member having a “mini-cam” attached to their helmets, when they have to journey places that the main camera can’t go. The mini-cams don’t come into play often, but when we do it’s usually to give the audience a sense of isolation as one SWAT member is separated from the group for a period of time. Even the night vision is used with purpose in this film, instead of an arbitrary reason like the spotlight breaking.
Another point to discuss is the look of the infected, which is a big part of why this film works. Some of the infected look like the infected from 28 Days Later: red or black eyes, blood spewing from the mouth and a frantic style of movement. But then there are the ones that were either originally infected or have been that way for a while. The SWAT team encounters these creatures in the penthouse and their appearance gave me chills. They look almost like ghouls: pale, white skin and completely emaciated. You’ll have to see them to get the whole idea, but I approved.
Is that to say there are not negatives? No. The camerawork will always be somewhat flawed because of the style it is. There’s no getting around that. However this film manages to work with it and remove most of the usual pitfalls that come with it. There are also a plothole surrounding the entire story that can’t really be revealed without spoiling anything. All I’ll say is I find it hard to believe this footage could exist for later viewings given the events that occur in film’s conclusion. Again, that’s as far as I can go without revealing the twist, and I won’t do that. There is also the fact that the virus and the infected work differently than they did in the original, but I didn’t mind the changes because they added to the story.
[REC] 2 is better than it’s predecessor and is a strong contender to be the best horror film of 2010. It’s scary, tense and most of all, fun. It’s very much like a roller coaster. There aren’t any slow spots, you’re always moving and while you may get scared, it’s the good kind of scared. This movie is playing On Demand right now before it officially hits theaters, but I’d recommend seeing it in theaters if you get the chance. I imagine it would be even more fun there.

The Kids Are All Right movie review

The moment after The Kids Are All Right bursts open with a feverish soundtrack, it is easy to see that this movie has great energy. And energy alone can make a movie survivable. It’s a good sign to have it all up front. But the sign of a movie that is truly worth your time is one that can maintain that energy, convince you that its characters are worth caring about and perhaps move you in some way emotionally. This isn’t anything new — in fact, it’s been the focus of many of my reviews from this year’s Sundance Film Festival. There have been more than a few films that have been on one side of the energy spectrum or the other. Lisa Cholodenko’s modern alt-family comedy has this energy from the start, and it carries it throughout.
The film follows a Nic and Jules (Annette Benning and Julianne Moore), a middle-aged couple trying to raise their two teenage children Joni and Laser (Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson) in suburban Los Angeles. And everything seems to be going just fine until the moment Joni turns 18 and is convinced by her brother to reach out to their biological father. Hesitating at first, Joni eventually puts in a call to the sperm bank, who puts her in touch with Paul (Mark Ruffalo), a restaurant owner and all around “cool dude” who seems willing to meet the kids he never knew he had.
As Paul comes into their lives, the entire family is thrown into disarray. The kids take to Paul in different ways, as to Nic and Jules, all creating a very sticky situation that threatens the otherwise normal existence of their family.
If there’s one thing to be gleaned from this film right off the bat, it is the quality of chemistry between Annette Benning and Julianne Moore. They are a very believable, charming couple of middle age lesbians who have clearly had a good, long relationship and are focused on raising their kids. This situation also benefits from having two great actresses in these roles. Both Benning and Moore are dynamic actresses, and this feels like a perfect showcase for their talent.
Also on the plus side are the performances from the kids, who are in fact all right (excuse my pun, it was there). Mia Wasikowska is not only delightful, but full of depth. As her character connects and disconnects with Paul, she carries the weight of a teen coming of age, trying to find her exact place (socially, sexually and within her own family) before departing for college. Josh Hutcherson is also quite good, continuing his development as an actor. Though, this is yet another angsty role for him, something that has become a trend (though for now, it works). The final piece to the puzzle is Ruffalo, who is as good as ever.
The Kids Are All Right is a sweet film that plays relatively fast and loose with sexuality, but never loses focus on it’s core story. It is a richly drawn portrait of a very modern family that is grounded, imperfect and told with a very keen eye from Cholodenko, who was last at Sundance in 2003 with Laurel Canyon. Her ability to keep the story moving as she unwraps the vulnerable nature of each character, all while delivering a lot of great little comedic moments (especially driven by great back and forth between Ruffalo and Benning) makes the film a very easy, enjoyable experience.
The only problem to be found is that the film stumbles around a bit as it comes to a sweet close. But its a sweet, moving close either way. Driven by a tight, well-rounded story and performances that drive comedy and tension, The Kids Are All Right is yet another smooth winner of this year’s Sundance Film Festival. It is also certainly one of those movies that should find success beyond the fest circuit, as it is as accessible as a story about two lesbians trying to raise their teenage children can be.

predators movie review

Before even finding out the identity of Royce (Adrien Brody), a cold-hearted mercenary, we are introduced to him unconscious, plummeting from the sky in freefall. An automatic parachute opens and he lands in a strange jungle along with a bunch of other bewildered strangers who are dangerous criminals, elite soldiers or a combination of the two. The one things they have in common is that they are confused, expert killers and pretty unpleasant people. It takes them a while to figure out what the audience already knows – they are game for the species of super-hunter aliens known as Predators.

Before even finding out the identity of Royce (Adrien Brody), a cold-hearted mercenary, we are introduced to him unconscious, plummeting from the sky in freefall. An automatic parachute opens and he lands in a strange jungle along with a bunch of other bewildered strangers who are dangerous criminals, elite soldiers or a combination of the two. The one things they have in common is that they are confused, expert killers and pretty unpleasant people. It takes them a while to figure out what the audience already knows – they are game for the species of super-hunter aliens known as Predators.
The good news for many fans is that this fifth cinematic outing for the Predators is a sequel to John McTiernan’s 1987 film Predator with Stephen Hopkins’s 1990 Predator 2 and the two widely disliked spin-off/Aliens tie-in films unacknowledged. In fact, only the events from McTiernan’s original film are referenced and referred to. By calling the film Predators the filmmakers are evoking the relationship between the original Alien film and its sequel Aliens by implying that Predators is the rightful follow-up film to Predator and promises to up the ante in terms of action and the number of creatures for the human characters to contend with. While Predators 2 is an overlooked guilty pleasure, this new Predators does feel like the proper sequel. The setting is once more a jungle, although this time an alien one, and the idea of what it means to be a hunter and to be the hunted is explored further.

Royce (Adrien Brody) and Isabelle (Alice Braga)There is a nice bit of poetic justice at play in Predators where the human characters realise that they themselves are predatory types and they are able to recognise many of the tricks and strategies used by the Predators. The Predators themselves are revealed to be a more complex race than originally depicted with their own brutal version of racial hierarchy. Nevertheless, all the Predators are warriors and the idea that there could be non-warrior versions of the species is unlikely to ever be explored, which is a shame as somebody could have a lot of fun revealing that the Predators are in fact the pro-hunting gun-nut equivalent of an otherwise peaceful and civilised alien race.
For the most part Predators is B-grade fun in the best possible way. Producer Robert Rodriguez had originally begun developing this film as far back as the early 1990s after the success of El Mariachi but Hungarian filmmaker Nimród Antal (Vacancy, Armoured) has ended up directing. Antal’s Hollywood films are yet to fully live up to the promise he displayed in his début film Kontroll but with Predators he nevertheless does an excellent job filming the various action scenes. Predators is well paced with a good build up and the right degree of character development you need to care about the fate of the human characters. There are also a few genuine surprises and twists.

Predators does somewhat fall apart towards the end with a drawn out and messy conclusion with a few too many improbable factors letting down what was a reasonably strong film until then. Predators is certainly no Aliens (but then again Predator was never on par with Alien either) but it is still a fun ride. With its diverse group of anti-heroes, believable action and absence of smart-ass self-reflexivity, it delivers the sort of engaging spectacle that characterises the action films of the 1980s.

Despicable Me movie review

The commercials and trailers for Despicable Me had me hopeful and looking forward to this animated kids’ movie about an older villain trying to remain relevant as a younger bad guy grabs the spotlight. It has the voice talents of Steve Carell (as Gru, the older villain) and Jason Segel (Vector, the younger villain) – along with hundreds of funny little minions that look like yellow pencil erasers. Most everything I saw in the trailers and clips made me giggle (at least a little bit) – but as often happens, the problem is that most of the best comedy bits in the film are shown before you ever pay for your ticket and popcorn.

The commercials and trailers for Despicable Me had me hopeful and looking forward to this animated kids’ movie about an older villain trying to remain relevant as a younger bad guy grabs the spotlight. It has the voice talents of Steve Carell (as Gru, the older villain) and Jason Segel (Vector, the younger villain) – along with hundreds of funny little minions that look like yellow pencil erasers. Most everything I saw in the trailers and clips made me giggle (at least a little bit) – but as often happens, the problem is that most of the best comedy bits in the film are shown before you ever pay for your ticket and popcorn.

Gru is the CGI version of the sort of villain that would turn up in a vintage James Bond movie: Thick accent, grandiose plans and the elaborate headquarters and gadgets with which to hatch them. The problem is that there’s a new, young guy on the scene named Vector (previously just “Victor” – but a villain needs a cooler name than that I guess). Vector has been grabbing newspaper headlines and news broadcast attention, while Gru struggles to remain relevant and infamous. He concocts a plan to steal the moon, but needs a loan from the bank (which has a name that will definitely get a chuckle out of the grown-ups in attendance). Sadly, the bank looks upon him the same way the public does – as a has-been. Not the guy worth investing in when there’s a slick new guy in town.
He needs a device that is kept in Vector’s lair, and with its incredible defenses there’s no way he’s getting in. But he discovers that he can get through them by using three little orphan girls as unwitting accomplices. He has no other use for them, but the only way he can get them to help is to adopt them, despite his distaste for cute little children. What he doesn’t expect is how they turn out to be formidable foes in their own right, and of course they chip their way into his cold heart.
As is to be expected, the road to redemption in films (animated or otherwise) is never smooth, and Gru’s mad scientist Dr. Nefario (voiced by Russell Brand) is determined to help keep things in the proper (evil) perspective for Gru despite his reluctant slide into fatherhood.
Steve Carell puts on what sounds like a Russian accent, and frankly he changes his voice so much that I didn’t recognize it as his at all. That’s not a criticism – he gave a great delivery throughout the film and considering what an unlikeable character he played, directors Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaudstill managed to make the audience want to like him. Segel was funny as Vector (butt-dance notwithstanding, but kids like that stuff – what are you going to do?), and I swear they went out of their way to make him look like Bill Gates.
The little girls were just plain adorable, especially the youngest. The dialog was cute, the story funny and the use of 3D was good (especially during the end credits were it’s totally played up for fun). It’s just too bad that most of the funniest scenes in the film were shown in the marketing of the film – there were moments that I’d already seen, which when they appeared in the film I really wished I hadn’t seen before (“it’s so FLUFFY!!!”).
If you haven’t seen much in the way of clips and trailers, you’ll enjoy Despicable Me that much more, but still not nearly as much as your children will. Take the family to this one, you won’t regret it.

The Last Airbender Movie Review

Everyone deserves a second chance and when you’re the guy responsible for films like Unbreakable, Signs and The Sixth Sense apparently you deserve a third. After M. Night Shyamalan clearly lost his touch in the supernatural, twist-packed department, why would someone think he’d miraculously redeem himself if given piles of money and an overdose of CGI? Pairing Shyamalan with the film adaptation of the popular Nickelodeon cartoon Avatar: The Last Airbender is like asking my mother, a frozen food, microwave and take-out expert, to put a homemade meal on the table. It may be edible, but it tastes like garbage. (Sorry mom.)

Love ranch movie review

Taylor Hackford, the director who attracted widespread kudos for his 2004 Ray Charles biopic, proves incapable of fitfully exploiting more pulpy subject matter. Based on real-life exploits of the husband-and-wife team (Joe and Sally Conforte) that opened and operated Nevada’s Mustang Ranch (the first legal brothel in the country), “Love Ranch” holds the seedy promise of a ’70s period piece bubbling over with all the nudity, camp humor, and tantalizing danger of a Russ Meyers’ movie. Instead, the film plays it so safe that the only thing holding it together is Helen Mirren’s flawless performance as Grace Bontempo, the elegant brothel madam with a showboating husband named Charlie (played by a miscast Joe Pesci). Pesci repurposes the mobster characters he played in movies like “Goodfellas” for a middle-aged playboy with a Napoleon complex. But substituting cowboy boots for Italian suits doesn’t go far enough to resettle Pesci into a part that’s too suggestive of his former Mafioso roles.
Narrative rubber hits the road when macho entrepreneur  Charlie insists on underwriting a washed-up Argentine boxer named Armondo Bruza (well played by Sergio Peris-Mencheta). Here again, names of the actual persons have been inexplicably changed. Oscar Bonavena was the real-life boxer who’s life was cut short in 1976 due to his bumpy relationship with the co-owners of the Mustang Ranch.
Armando is a crass lug of a guy. His ringside introduction to Charlie’s dignified wife carries a loaded weight of adulterous potential. There’s more than a little “Postman Always Rings Twice”–themed drama brewing. At first repulsed by Armando’s sweaty overbearing presence, Grace uncomfortably warms to the boxer after Charlie insists on boarding him in a nearby trailer park the couple owns. Charlie makes a timeless mistake when he makes Grace Armando’s manager, responsible for overseeing the fighter’s work-out regime in preparation for a big fight that Charlie believes will lead to great fortunes for all concerned.
Screenwriter Mark Jacobosn’s stilted script leans hard on the budding relationship between Armondo and Grace, who has recently discovered that she has terminal cancer. However, the movie never taps into the bed-banging rhythms of the Love Ranch milieu as might inform the lustful desires of the star-crossed lovers. Grace’s and Charlie’s problematic business relationship is clearly spelled out. And yet a subplot about local political pressures against the brothel confuse the story rather than build suspense toward the competing climax situations of Armondo’s upcoming boxing match and his romantic fate with Grace.
Helen Mirren, Taylor Hackford’s real-life wife, hasn’t worked with the director since they met on the set of his 1985 film “White Nights.” “Love Ranch” is very much Mirren’s movie up until an obligatory violent ending that’s handled with such predictability that it deflates the dramatic suspense and leaves Mirren’s character holding the bag. Plot-points take over with such a mechanical force that Grace’s voice-over narration that closes the cinematic ceremonies seems like a cop out.
“Love Ranch” is an off-key biopic that doesn’t know where to begin or end. What comes between might have moments of emotional truth, but the reality is submerged where it should be heightened and made bland where it should sting. Nothing looks cheap or expensive enough to capture anyone’s imagination, not even the poor souls trapped in such a dusty mosquito trap in the middle of the desert.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse Movie Review

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse Movie Review
Calling Eclipse the best of the three Twilight films so far is certainly fair, but it edges into “world’s tallest midget” territory. The first two movie were the cinematic equivalent of getting jabbed with dog poop on a stick, and Eclipse’s ability to transcend that–while notable–still doesn’t make for worthwhile cinema. Not that the Twi-hards will care. It retains the same Tiger Beat mixture of non-threatening boys and PG sensuality as the first two films. Those inclined towards such material will gobble it right up, unwilling to acknowledge how much of it is compost. This time, at least, we see some signs that the filmmakers understand the genre, as the life of Bella Swan (Kristin Stewart) again takes a turn for the worse. Director David Slade has a real vampire movie under his belt–the flawed but fascinating 30 Days of Night–and the best parts of Eclipse make good use of his experience. The benevolent Cullen clan of vampires has largely served as moving scenery before now; here, key members finally receive their due, revealing the pain and tragedy of their pasts in a decent series of flashbacks. It’s telling that every single one of them feels more interesting than anything happening to the ostensible heroine: brief tales full of horror, loss and bloodshed befitting the nature of their protagonists. Slade also delivers on the film’s biggest conceit: an army of newborn vampires, created by the vengeful Victoria (Bryce Dallas Howard) to destroy Bella once and for all. Though the climax never fulfills the promise of earlier scenes, it still earns a few solid shivers, as well as letting Howard and Dakota Fanning (playing a very scary senior vamp) strut their stuff. Slade’s sense of style further results in a tighter overall flow than the first two films, while developing parts of this universe beyond romantic high school wankery. Sadly, the wankery remains, in far, far greater amounts than any rational human being should tolerate. The bulk of the film covers the ongoing love triangle between Bella, pretty-boy vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) and hunky Native American werewolf Jacob (Taylor Lautner). Both the boys make cow eyes at their lady love and veiled threats at each other, while Bella moons about how awful it is to have to such wonderful guys love her so completely. She also frets about becoming a vampire, getting married to Edward, and other concerns which should probably go on the back burner when hordes of gibbering undead are coming to kill you. Again, the fans paid to see this soap opera, and they certainly get copious amounts of it. It’s all half-baked rubbish, though it contains enough supposedly shocking moments to send the intended demographic into an appropriate swoon. The key word there is “supposedly,” since Eclipse clings to the same homogenized version of the vampire fantasy that its predecessors did. It mentions the blood, sex and animal desires in passing, but remains too frightened to do more than peek at them like a wallflower at a strip club. Edward has a line about not ravishing Bella until they get married that stands as the single most pussified thing any vampire has ever said. Ever, ever, ever. Vampires are supposed to ravish unmarried virgins. It’s what they freaking do! But the chaste, Christian waffling of the Twilight films turn the concept into a pathetic punchline.The same holds true for Bella herself, squatting at the rotten, narcissistic core of the entire series like a poisonous toad. Once again, the other characters circle her like planets around a blazing sun, either obsessed entirely with her happiness or moving heaven and earth to destroy her. No one possesses any motivation or interest beyond their relationship to her… which she compounds with her self-centered whining, feigned helplessness, and odious bits of prom-queen drama. The worst moment comes with a speech in which she posits herself as a quirky outsider: someone deeply misunderstood and forced to walk through life “never fitting in.” Memo from the world’s actual quirky outsiders, sweetie: shut the fuck up. You’re the most popular kid in school on your first day, your family and friends hang on your every word, and the abject humiliation you so casually inflict on others has never troubled your happy little cover-girl life. You’ve never been beaten unconscious for what you’re wearing, experienced life as an endless series of public torments, or realized that the person you love more than life itself thinks you’re a walking joke. People who endure such slings and arrows know who they are, and stop giving a crap whether other people like it. That’s what it means to be an outsider. But until it happens to you–until you experience the first ten minutes of Carrie as Sissy Spacek, not Nancy Allen–you do not get to lay claim to their hard-won identity just because you think it’s cool. Not you and not the childish wish-fulfillment fantasies devoured by your adoring fans… the most recent example of which still has a long way to go before passing muster.

Wild grass movie review

I went into Wild Grass, the 48th film by 87-year-old director Alain Resnais, with false hopes. The film, which opened the 47thThe New York Film Festival, boasts Matthieu Amalric and Emmanuelle Devos in the cast. The two French actors have proven to have marvelous on-screen chemistry, displaying enormous warmth and humor in Arnaud Desplechin’s Kings and Queen and A Christmas Tale. But they are relegated to supporting roles in Wild Grass. Amalric plays a compassionate, bumbling police officer for the occasional comic relief. Devos’ role is even smaller; she is the main character’s best friend and doesn’t appear until the film is nearly half over.

I went into Wild Grass, the 48th film by 87-year-old director Alain Resnais, with false hopes. The film, which opened the 47thThe New York Film Festival, boasts Matthieu Amalric and Emmanuelle Devos in the cast. The two French actors have proven to have marvelous on-screen chemistry, displaying enormous warmth and humor in Arnaud Desplechin’s Kings and Queen and A Christmas Tale. But they are relegated to supporting roles in Wild Grass. Amalric plays a compassionate, bumbling police officer for the occasional comic relief. Devos’ role is even smaller; she is the main character’s best friend and doesn’t appear until the film is nearly half over.The good news is you needn’t nurse these expectations and can appreciate Wild Grass for the fine, odd, and unpredictable film that it is. Based on a novel by Christian Gailly, the film explores an unlikely romance that begins with a stolen wallet. Marguerite Muir’s (Sabine Azéma) is robbed after a successful shoe shopping expedition in Paris. George Palet (André Dussollier) finds her wallet in the car park of a shopping mall, and from that point on, enters a state of constant torment.
He becomes obsessed with the idea of Marguerite Muir, an umarried dentist who lives in the suburbs of Paris. Marguerite sports a spectularly head of frizzy red unruly hair. She flies a private plane, and, unfortunately for George and his strangely understanding wife (Anne Consigny), wants nothing to do with the persistent stranger who continues to call and write despite her clear protestations.
But Marguerite doesn’t quite want her suitor to give up on her either. Before long, she also finds herself in a state of torment. In one hilarious, cringeworthy montage sequence illustrating the dentist’s inner turmoil, we witness patient after patient in the dental chair recoiling from Margueritte’s sharp instruments, making the same awful declaration: You are causing me pain.Though Wild Grass is ostensibly a romance, it’s also a cold film. It’s difficult for the romantic leads to warm up to each other. (How would you feel about a man who slashes your car tires in frustration?) It’s also difficult for the audience to warm up to George and Margueritte. And what is wrong with George’s beautiful wife, Suzanne, who encourages her husband in his pursuit of another woman? We are kept even further at a distance from these characters by the film’s narrator, who continues to question the facts throughout the film.
Wild Grass is filled with frequent bursts of unexpected humor. Almaric, especially, gets constant laughs as the police officer enlisted in the case of the missing wallet. Resnais’s film keeps you guessing even beyond the audacious ending.

Knight and Day movie review

Knight and Day movie review
The action/comedy genre has grown in popularity over the past couple of decades, but it remains difficult for filmmakers to find a workable balance between the seemingly disparate elements of the recipe. Too much action often results in marginalized and unfunny humor; too much comedy often results in dull and suspense-deprived action. Fortunately, James Mangold, whose diverse resume includes the likes of 3:10 to Yuma and Walk the Line, hits upon a workable mix for the ingredients. Knight and Day plays like part-homage/part-parody and, while the storyline does not hold up on close inspection, it works “in the moment” because the chases and fights are filmed with energy and élan and because the actors achieve the romantic intangible often referred to as “chemistry.”
Knight and Day opens in an airport, with June Havens (Cameron Diaz) trying to talk her way onto a Boston-bound flight in order to be back early for her sister’s nuptials. On the way to the gate, her path briefly crosses with that of a charming guy who identifies himself as Roy Miller (Tom Cruise). They re-connect on the flight, but Roy turns out to be more dangerous than one might suspect from his smile. He is either (a) a dangerously unstable rogue agent who is hell-bent on selling a major technological device on the black market, or (b) an honest super-spy who has been set up by an unscrupulous co-worker. The fact that he kills everyone on the plane except June before crash-landing the aircraft and drugging her into insensibility argues more strongly in favor of (a) than (b). But the man pursuing Roy, an FBI agent named Fitzgerald (Peter Sarsgaard), doesn’t inspire unquestioning devotion, either. So, when Roy lands on the hood of June’s speeding car as it careens down the freeway while being chased by gun-happy Federal agents, she has to make a snap decision whether or not to trust him.
Perhaps the most important aspect of an action romantic comedy is tone, and Knight and Day captures the appropriate blend of whimsy and excitement. The action sequences are well choreographed and never so long that they become boring, the romance between the two leads is neither too cute nor too snarky, and the comedy is more often amusing than not. I was strongly reminded of Shane Black’s underrated Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, which does a lot of the same things for a slightly more mature audience. (This movie is rated PG-13 while Kiss Kiss Bang Bang deserves its R.) There’s also an element of Mr. and Mrs. Smith here, although I’d argue this movie does a better job with the action/comedy mélange than that one. The more closely one examines the storyline of Knight and Day, the more obvious the holes become, but the movie isn’t designed to stand up to close inspection. It’s intended to be enjoyable without overtaxing the brain, and it easily achieves that goal.
For the first time in a long time, Tom Cruise regains the form that made him one of the biggest box office stars of the late ’80s and early ’90s. Watching the ease with which he slides into this role and the effortlessness with which he lampoon his Mission: Impossible character, it’s not difficult to forget the actor’s sometimes irrational off-screen behavior. This is vintage Cruise, with the smile and the devilish twinkle in his eye recalling Risky Business and Top Gun. He is well-matched by Cameron Diaz, who seems re-invigorated here. Movies like Knight and Day rely on a strong, unforced rapport between the leads, and that’s what is in evidence: a coupling of playful sexuality and genuine affection. If Cruise and Diaz didn’t seem to enjoy each other’s company, the movie would fall on its face.
Knight and Day offers a stronger first half than second. The movie is at its best when the audience is in the dark and, because our perspective is June’s and she doesn’t know what the hell is going on until well into the proceedings, that’s when things are the most entertaining. Often in monster movies, the more we see of the creature, the less frightening it is. In Knight and Day, the more we learn about Roy Miller and the truth regarding his involvement in a major technology caper, the less interesting the story becomes. The final half hour is fueled primarily by the interaction between Cruise and Diaz and occasional flashes of irreverent humor.
Knight and Day endured a turbulent road to the screen, undergoing various cast and director changes before Cruise and Mangold came on board. The screenplay was shepherded through a number of uncredited re-writes (including one by Scott Frank) before it was deemed to be up to the standards of those involved in the production. There were also numerous re-shoots, some as recent as a few months before the release date. Often, that much churn leads to a disjointed production, but not here. Knight and Day flows smoothly and, like a milkshake on a hot summer day, it goes down cool and easy, even if the calorie count is a bit high.

Grown Ups’ Movie Review

“Grown Ups,” Sandler’s latest and worst Happy Madison production, is a sappy groan-fest that’s carefully cast and calculated to rob money from families of every demographic: Black, white, Latino, rich, middle class and broke.

Grown Ups’ Movie Review
“Grown Ups,” Sandler’s latest and worst Happy Madison production, is a sappy groan-fest that’s carefully cast and calculated to rob money from families of every demographic: Black, white, Latino, rich, middle class and broke.
It’s almost as if Sandler and his “Saturday Night Live” collaborators – including some of America’s most popular stand-up comics – dug out their lamest material and dumped it into a script that even Tom Arnold and Yahoo Serious would pass on. Long gone are the days of the marginal humor of “Happy Gilmore” and “Billy Madison.” I’d kill for a good “O’Doyle Rules” reference.
Sandler stars as rich Hollywood producer Lenny Felder, whose wife (Salma Hayek) is a fashion design star and whose kids are spoiled video game junkies. When his childhood hero dies – a youth basketball coach we’re led to believe inspired his success – Felder, his old teammates and their fams gather back home for the funeral…and a few laughs, or so we thought.
Welcome home Kurt, a stay-at-home dad and “laughably” bad cook, who’s played by an underused Chris Rock. Welcome home Eric, an underachieving lawn furniture salesman and fat joke magnet, played by Kevin “Don’t Call Me Mall Cop” James. Welcome home ladies’ man Marcus, played by wannabe bad boy David Spade. And welcome home love guru Rob, who’s played by Rob Schneider and somehow makes Mike Myers’ schtick appear funnier while riding Sandler’s T-shirt tails yet again.
They all bunk up on the lake where they shared their childhoods, and their families take turns sharing one-dimensional dysfunctions, including an eight-year-old who still breast feeds and kids who desire modern conveniences over creature comforts. But soon the dramatic music strikes up, the families unplug and the heavy-handed theme slaps us across the face: “Everyone needs to grow up, but not too much and not too fast.” It’s enough to make a fortune cookie crumble.
Here we have five stars of the small and big screen, and not even one has the stones to raise his hand, shrug his shoulders and ask, “Hey guys, do you think this is all funny? The Toe J. Simpson jokes about grandma’s bunion? The sight gags about making out with old chicks? Cooking bacon with a bug lamp?”
No, it’s not really funny.
But why raise your hand when Sandler is just going to pull your finger?
This massively marketed movie will still rake in millions. You know you’re going. Heck, bring your whole family to “Grown Ups”…if you hate them.