Film Review: The Expendables (2010)

By Todd Murphy Todd Murphy
Level: Platinum

Todd Murphy is a film analyst and staff writer/reviewer for the film and DVD review web site, All About Movies.net. He has written numerous reviews ...

BOTTOM LINE: Although meant to be a homage to 1980s action films, "The Expendables" is a tasteless exercise in violence which has none of the fun of those 80s films while simultaneously wasting an opportunity to create an enjoyable tale with all these iconic action stars, both past and present, in the same film.

THE GOOD: As with so many films, the idea upon which the whole exercise hangs is usually a good one. Stallone leads a cast of iconic action stars, both past and present, in an action film based on a group of mercenaries who find themselves on a mission where more than meets the eye, but it is up to them to deal with it! Some of the action sequences in this film are entertaining, particularly with the personalities driving them, and despite Stallone being the main star and director, he does allow the rest of the cast to shine in parts, particularly Jason Statham who plays his tough partner. Eric Roberts is effective as the two dimensional bad guy; his character is bland, but Roberts manages to infuse him with enough villainy and tough talk that he is fun to watch. Bruce Willis is quite menacing in his cameo and is the only one who seems to fit properly in the film and give a performance that you will remember. "The Expendables" works on these levels if nothing else.

THE BAD: From a narrative perspective, this film is a complete mess. The whole thing barely hangs together, and is designed to find excuses to get to the action. Even the 80s action classics, despite being corny, had strong plots to drive the action, even though they were simple. Aside from Stallone, Staham, and Lundgren, the rest of iconic cast have less than useless roles, particularly Jet Li who keeps getting beaten in every scene, and Steve Austin who is nothing more than a hired thug. Mickey Rourke is perhaps the exception, but his performance is almost out of place in this film, as the oscar-nominated actor actually creates some genuine emotional moments in a few scenes; what's that doing in a dumb action film? Schwarzenegger's cameo is somewhat jarring, unnecessary and silly. Those expecting to see Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Willis together in a great scene will be disappointed. The violence in this film is unwarranted. Seeing bad guys not just being shot, but blown apart is not an entertaining way to spend a few hours, and again, 80s action films were violent but did not seem to indulge in this kind of vulgarity. Combined with the fact that there are barely any fun moments in the film and you have virtually nothing left except for excessively violent, but technically well executed action sequences that create no sense of excitement of purpose. You can see what Stallone was trying to do here, but given the lack of narrative depth in the script and the fact that none of the elements that made 80s action films so much fun are present, "The Expendables" is a wasted opportunity at getting all these iconic stars together in a fun adventure.

This article has been viewed 4 time(s).
Article Submitted On: January 31, 2011

Film Review: The Butterfly Effect (2004)

By Todd Murphy Todd Murphy
Level: Platinum

Todd Murphy is a film analyst and staff writer/reviewer for the film and DVD review web site, All About Movies.net. He has written numerous reviews ...

BOTTOM LINE: The concept is fascinating, but the character scenarios depicted in this film are two-dimensional and contrived to the point of cliche, which majorly detracts from a story which is otherwise quite interesting.

THE GOOD: Having the ability to alter the events of your past to reshape the future is the core concept at the heart of this film, and it is a very fascinating one indeed, particularly as it explores the unintended and dangerous consequences of doing so. Evan (Ashton Kutcher) experiences unexplained memory black outs as a child and teenager. The meaning of these blackouts becomes clear as an adult when he realises that he can travel back in time to the point of those blackouts with the aid of the journals he used to keep of his every day life. Evan and his friends have had traumatic childhoods, and when he sees the opportunity to change things about his childhood during a trip to one of the blackouts, he takes full advantage of it. Very quickly however, he sees a dramatic down side to those changes with nothing really turning out in a way that is positive for every one. He eventually reaches a solution, but it means giving up his love for his childhood sweetheart Kayleigh (Amy Smart). As a science-fiction piece the film works quite well, and has enough going for it in this respect to make it worth watching. This is probably Kutcher's best film and he amicably steps up to the mark. The most effective performance given here is by Amy Smart who has to play various different versions of her character Kayleigh as Evan make changes to his past that affect the future. "The Butterfly Effect" is not too bad as an exercise in science-fiction story telling.

THE BAD: The unfortunate part about this film is that in an attempt to make the stakes for Evan's character as high as possible by giving him and his family/friends traumatic lives that he would want to change, the filmmakers end up creating some of the most contrived and cliched character scenarios you are likely to see. Kayleigh's aggressive brother Tommy is perhaps too aggressive, or at the very least, there is nothing shown here that demonstrates his borderline psychosis in any depth or with any meaning. Kayleigh's father George (Eric Stoltz) seems to back off too quickly when Evan confronts him multiple times during the film, particularly as the most crucial scenes are done when he is a child. You would expect given George's sick activities that he would be far more aggressive rather than immediately curtailing himself to a child. Even parts of Kayleigh's story do not quite gel, even though Amy Smart is effective in her performance of playing different aspects to her character. The film is hampered severely by these contrivances; you can imagine that it would probably have been a great film if more attention was paid to the logic and depth of the characters and their motivations. The irony of course is that the ending is sad for Evan, which is very un-Hollywood like!

This article has been viewed 1 time(s).
Article Submitted On: January 31, 2011

Film Review: The Switch (2010)

By Todd Murphy Todd Murphy
Level: Platinum

Todd Murphy is a film analyst and staff writer/reviewer for the film and DVD review web site, All About Movies.net. He has written numerous reviews ...

BOTTOM LINE: It's not that "The Switch" is not watchable with its reasonably sincere performances by the cast, but it is forgettable and predictable; and the film is unsure of whether to be a romantic drama or comedy, creating a narrative that is clumsy and lacks direction.

THE GOOD: Wally (Jason Bateman) and Kassie (Jennifer Aniston) are best friends. One day, Kassie announces to Wally that she wants a baby and is going to try artificial insemination. Wally is against this, but Kassie continues on and finds a willing sperm donor in Roland (Patrick Wilson). At the insemination party, Wally gets blind drunk, and while in the bathroom, stumbles across Roland's sample and accidentally spills it down the drain. In a panic, he puts his own 'ingredients' in to the cup. Kassie goes through with the insemination, and then leaves town. Seven years later, Kassie shows up with her son Sebastian (Thomas Robinson), who more than closely resembles Wally's personality, especially as the two of them understand each other immediately. Wally then has to confront the truth behind the situation and also realise his true feelings for Kassie. The story itself is simple enough in its premise to hang a romantic comedy narrative, and the film is made watchable largely due to the sincerity in the performances of the cast, particularly Jason Bateman who delivers his smart but neurotic character in Wally to perfection, and Jeff Goldblum as his wise-cracking boss who is there to lend moral support. Jennifer Aniston is quite good in her role. The narrative is surprisingly low key given the genre it is trying to inhabit, and it does at least do the job of holding your interest just enough to see it through to the end.

THE BAD: The basic premise of the film seems more aligned with a silly comedy. When the male protagonist switches his 'ingredients' with that of the donor in a drunken stupor, it seems as if this is a film that could lead to something more potentially funny that what is depicted here. The film quickly moves in to more dramatic territory, and does not offer much of a compelling narrative. There are no situations or setups, other than watching the characters go through the motions of their lives. When things do come to a head and Wally tells Kassie the truth, Kassie's first reaction is perfectly real, but the conventional Hollywood ending slapped on at the end is farcical. Would a woman really forgive a man who hijacked her inseminated pregnancy, no matter how well they got along in the first place? And on top of that, would she decide he is the man for her to give the story its obligatory happy ending? Even if you accepted this, seeing it occur within the space of five minutes, even with the mandatorily edited passage of time, makes the whole thing ridiculous. The 'best-friend' relationship between Wally and Kassie seems a little over the top as well, particularly as Wally actually does have feelings for her. His neurotic, pessimistic and smart attitude may make him get over this, but the inherent concept is not really believable enough to allow you to accept that they could be best friends with no issues or complications (outside of the donor switch). Ultimately, "The Switch" does not have a consistent tone or narrative, which does not give you an adequate sense of what the story is trying to achieve, and as such, is completely forgettable.

This article has been viewed 2 time(s).
Article Submitted On: January 31, 2011

Film Review: A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010)

By Todd Murphy Todd Murphy
Level: Platinum

Todd Murphy is a film analyst and staff writer/reviewer for the film and DVD review web site, All About Movies.net. He has written numerous reviews ...

BOTTOM LINE: The re-imagining of nightmare villain Freddy Kreuger was done with great care, both in make-up and Jackie Earle Harley's menacing performance, but everything else about this remake of the horror classic is bland, boring and lacking in character.

THE GOOD: As with the original 1984 film, the idea of a psychotic murderer who stalks and kills people in their dreams is a potent one. This remake captures that idea by creating a world where the characters force themselves to stay awake to stay alive, only to see the boundary between the real and dream worlds often disappear, leading to the iconic character of Freddy Kreuger (portrayed menacingly here by Jackie Earle Harley) showing up in various places and forms to terrorise and maim his subjects. A group of teenagers are all having the same dream of Kreuger stalking them while they are asleep, and one by one, they start to die as Kreuger kills them with his insidious knife-fingers. Nancy (Rooney Mara) suspects something more is going on, and eventually uncovers a town secret involving Freddy and his dark past. If anything works in this film, it is the performance of Jackie Earle Harley. He more than adequately captures the chilling menace of Freddy Kreuger, and combined with the fantastic prosthetics, make up and computer work, you have an extremely nightmarish villain that is worth watching. The tone of the film is quite low key in parts for a horror film. Yes, there is blood and slashing, but the filmmakers know that silence and subtlety at the right moments are just as effective. This remake of A Nightmare On Elm Street is worth watching to see Freddy in this re-imagined state.

THE BAD: Much effort was put in to the re-imagining of Freddy Kreuger and his menace. Unfortunately, no effort was put in to the rest of the film. All of the characters, save Freddy, are cardboard cut-outs that have no life in them whatsoever. At times, they seem interchangeable, and it does not really matter who dies when or how, or that you should even care. Since the success of a film like this rests on you caring about the characters so when Freddy shows up you feel 'horrified' at what he does to them, the film falls completely flat when the character are far from engaging. Kreuger himself is scary, but the situations presented do not generate any thrills or scares, outside of the usual cattle-prod scare. Another issue for the film would be stating the obvious: the Elm Street series is one of the most famous horror franchises in history. Most people know about Freddy Kreuger, and even if they do not know the story, they know that he kills people in their dreams, which robs the film of any sense of novelty or surprise at the horror being presented. The film presents nothing new to make Kreuger and his story more innovative and surprising. The film should appeal to a younger generation who may never have heard of Freddy, but to everyone else, it's a lacklustre facsimile of the original, save Harley's performance.

This article has been viewed 2 time(s).
Article Submitted On: January 31, 2011

Review of the Cave Diving Movie 'Sanctum'

It is tremendously difficult to objectively review a movie if you were in any way involved in its creation. In this case it is doubly difficult as I aim to review 'Sanctum,' the movie intimately linked with the greatest of filmmakers - James Cameron. Still, I'm not one to shy away from a challenge, so I'll give it a shot. Although I might have to be more wordy than simply proclaiming it as 'good', as I initially did.

After I saw the preview of the 'Sanctum' movie my family and friends hailed a thousand questions at me, including the ultimate question 'So... how was it?' My first reaction was a bit lame, I proclaimed it as 'good'... and as an afterthought I added 'it was very full on.' All this, while true, hardly gives the movie justice. So let me expand a little now that I've had a bit of time to digest what I saw.

In case you have been on another planet 'Sanctum' is a movie about cave divers, what it takes to explore cave systems deep beneath the earth and what happens when it all goes terribly wrong. It is not difficult to imagine why someone would want to make a movie about cave diving. Inside a cave system the line between life and death is a fine one, which naturally makes for thrilling adventure or in this case a thriller of a movie.

'Sanctum' flies by at a phenomenal speed and it is non-stop action all the way through. There is hardly enough time to relax and take in a breath between all the action and the drama. The movie delivers the kind of energy and shots of adrenalin that is fitting when telling a story about one of the most exciting and extreme disciplines in the world - cave exploration. Yet, to its credit the actual essence of the story rings true on a number of levels and stays real and down to earth. The movie is engaging because it is a story about people, how they relate to each other under trying and stressful conditions and the psychology of being trapped underground and facing a seemingly hopeless situation.

The 'Sanctum' story was written by John Garvin and Andrew Wight and was inspired by true events. The writers of the script are both cave divers and they have experienced first hand both the ecstasy of cave exploration and the very real dangers that exist whilst pursuing this activity. Obviously there would be no movie if everything on the expedition went smoothly and according to plan, there is an emphasis on all the things that could go wrong. It is worth noting though that the hazards experienced by the characters in the movie have not been plucked from mid air, the hazards are real. Still, while the characters do experience a horrific ordeal the cave itself is not painted as a malicious and evil place, nor should it be. The harsh reality of this unforgiving world is contrasted with the breathtaking beauty that only submerged caves can offer. The opportunity to see such exquisite beauty is one of the reasons people choose to go down there.

'Sanctum' gives a glimpse into the psyche of the explorer and what drives them to keep pushing such hostile environments. It tries to share the joy of exploration and the thrill of finding new cave passage. The idea that you can go around the corner and enter an unknown world and see a place no one has ever seen before... I think that appeals to the explorer in each of us. The phenomenal thing is, this kind of exploration is still possible today!

My favorite part of watching the movie was actually seeing it all come together on the big screen. I love what Alister Grierson, the director, did with the story - I really enjoyed watching his vision. It captures the world of cave exploration brilliantly; the personalities involved, the potential conflicts, the pleasure, the pain, the difficulties, the splendor and finally and most importantly the feeling of hope. Sure, I would have done it differently, but I'm no hot shot director. Watching my world through his eyes was an interesting experience.

The actors (Richard Roxburgh, Ioan Gruffudd, Alice Parkinson, Rhys Wakefield, Dan Whyllie and Allison Cratchley) did a fantastic job, not just because they captured the spirit of the characters so well but also because they actually did the diving. There are no tricks in this movie, the actors were underwater and they were diving! When you see the character Frank MacGuire squeezing through tight restrictions pushing his Sentinel rebreather in front of him, well that really is Richard Roxburgh doing all the work. It was incredible what the actors managed to do in such a short period of time. They went from having zero diving experience to diving rebreathers, carrying stages and riding scooters, which is quite amazing. It is a testament to John Garvin and his excellent teaching skills as well as the pluck and fearlessness of the actors. This level of involvement and dedication from the actors is obvious when watching the movie and it adds that little extra to the experience. It also meant that as a stunt diver I could sit around and look pretty while they did all the work, bonus!

Check out the ' Sanctum' movie trailer and make sure you go see this flick! It is quite a ride and a full on adventure. And yes it is 'good'.

In the Loop - Movie Review

The "hush-hush, wink-wink, say-no-more" world of foreign policy proves hilariously terrifying in Armando Iannucci's satire, In the Loop, as those in control attempt to keep a lid on the things on their half-witted decisions. Nevertheless, amidst their confused and overtly cautious demeanor, Iannucci's cast delivers the sharpest and most hilarious dialogue onscreen last year; thus bringing to life one of the funniest cinematic satires of the last ten years.

In the Loop's convoluted world of secrets and leaks begins with a simple slip of the tongue. During a radio interview, England's hopelessly inept Minister for International Development, Simon Foster (Tom Hollander), skirts by the scripted responses regarding conflicts in the Middle East. This does not sit well with his foul mouth boss, Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi), but does find an audience with a group of American officials looking for foreign support to outwardly oppose the rumored war.

Simultaneously, Foster and his assistant, Toby (Chris Addison), head to Washington, DC, finding them at the center of a political tug of war as American officials attempt to unpack the Minister's nonsensical sound bytes and use them for their own agenda. However, unbeknownst to the Americans, Foster's inability to handle even the most simple of tasks, such as stating his opinion or in most cases the state's opinion, is only equaled by the American's predilection for keeping important information secret. As the film continues, both sides unknowingly release vital information, which in itself gets spun for each country's own needs.

The film centers on the need to delay, whether it be a meeting, a vote, or correspondence. Throughout the picture, each character spends most of their time diverting attention from their most recent mistake, and likewise, the director fills the screen with an array of aural distractions but visual truths. Iannucci's documentary style and the film's lively performances keep everything grounded in reality, even when the actors literally bleed from the teeth. The quick zooms, rack focuses, and expressive framing bring out each characters fundamental inadequacies, as well as reflecting their own inconsistencies. Ultimately, the camera work makes each character appear as deceitful and/or unassuming as the script describes, and to the same token, evokes their frustration with their own lack of control.

Iannucci and his crack team of writers (Jesse Armstrong, Harold Manning, Ian Martin, and Tony Roche) wade the murky waters of political power with break neck speed leaving no corner of the political war-machine unmarred. With quips ranging from the personal to the professional, the writers give an unassuming realism to their cynically crafted world; thus, allowing each character to act as a vessel for some of the best and quickest set of one-liners since the untimely death of "Arrested Development."

More impressively is the way the cast breathes life into such difficult script. Each member grabbing onto the joke-a-minute attitude of the film and delivering their parts with an enthusiasm that fill the screen with excitement. This chemistry allots the performers the necessary materials to expound upon each carefully chosen, although farcical, piece of material.

In the Loop revels in its vast array of strengths and eccentricities through each portion of its production. From the dynamite scripting, pitch perfect cast, and honest cinematography, the entire movie remains endlessly hilarious, yet remarkably human causing it to ring a little too true for comfort. The cynicism towards those in power leaves the audience hoping that those with the finger on the button are a little smarter than the these characters, but given how believable the whole thing feels, there remains little reason for optimism.

Lost Season One Review

The TV show Lost has truly been a life changing experience for the people involved, but it's also been a big part of many viewers' lives. If you have never seen the series, you might be wondering why. In this article, I will try to explain what Lost is about and why the series has been such a success.

Lost follows the survivors of Oceanic flight 815, after the plane crashed on an island. The people soon find out that they're not alone on the island and that's where it all starts. They should come up with a plan. Should they seek help? Try to communicate with the outside world? Every episode teaches us more about the island but at the same time raises new questions.

You will get to know more about the characters through flashbacks, which start on the plane, right before the crash. And as the series advances, the flashbacks go back further in time to teach us more about the characters. Every person in Lost has a story and we get to know them better thanks to the flashbacks. Some survivors turn out to be somehow connecter to each other, without them knowing. Their histories play a big part in the series and the flashback storylines connect up with the main, island story.

What really defines the show is its perfect blend of variety, the mystery, the big question and the unbelievably scenic backdrop. Ultimately, Lost is about the people and the stories they share. It is about choices, faith and compassion. The series tends to tell you the story of people and is the fundamental way to explore human nature and what people are capable of when driven to extremes.

Lost has been adopted by both mainstream television viewers as well as its fans. Because there are so many ways of interpretation the show, the series has a great fanbase. Over the six seasons of Lost, fans have been debating theories, shared their enthusiasm over events but most of all, they've enjoyed the series together. My advice is to watch a couple of episodes and see for yourself. If you've enjoyed the show, you can get the seasons on DVD or Blu-Ray. Lost is still one of the most sold TV series on DVD.

Hum Dono Rangeen - A Review

This Friday, the colored version of the Dev Anand classic Hum Dono will be released in theaters across India. It would be a refreshing change from the current crop of movies that today's youth are offered.

Our youngsters would love to see Hum Dono. They would identify with Dev Anand instantly. Dev Saab was a star of the golden era with a difference. In Hum Dono he is portrayed as a happy-go-lucky person, loving life, (chilling out in today's lingo) and the smile almost always was on his face.

People would flock to the theaters to see this film and Dev Saab would gently guide them into living life to the fullest whatever your circumstances are. You can be highly successful in life and be relaxed - that was and still is his mantra. He can be the role model for today's youth. He should color all his movies and begin a social revolution. He could be the icon of the middle class, peace loving, unemployed youth, who has a clear conscience.

The double role of Dev Anand in this movie establishes the versatility of the actor. The diverse attitudes, age gap, marital status was perfectly portrayed by him. This shows the level of hard work he could put in despite his calm demeanor, a lesson again for everybody, young or old.

Hum Dono is an evergreen classic which should appeal to all generations to come. Ever body would feel mentally enriched after watching this movie.

Three cheers for Hum Dono!!