Kung Fu Panda 2 - Review

In this sequel, based from the 2008 original, Po learns of a great danger that not only threatens peace but threaten the art of kung fu. The threat is a peacock with heavy artillery and an evil past. That past includes the destruction of the village where Po was born and the murdering of his parents.

Though the sequel contains many elements of the first such as Jack Black's signature voice as Po and the creative physical humor that made the first film so memorable, the sequel is just not as good. It is weakened with a few tired cliches, silly dialogue and a weak villain. The villain is Shen, a peacock disturbed by his relationship with his parents. He employs many dimwitted wolves to do his evil deeds. This all seems run of the mill. Even though, through the help of amazing animation, Shen looks, fights and snarls like a bad ass, he is never as evil as Ian McShane's Tai Lung from the first film. Gary Oldman is a great actor but he doesn't do anything the great animated villains of the past have done, primarily playing the villain as large as life can be. Think of any great villain in any animated work, over dramatic, melodramatic and such and such make the villain great. Oldman's Shen is none of those things.

Since it is the second film we spend a lot more time with the smaller characters of the first film, primarily the furious five; Tigress, Monkey, Crane, Mantis and Viper. It makes sense, since the furious five are voiced by some pretty big names and in the last film a couple of them had only 2 lines. These additions in dialogue do little to help the comedy or the story.

Kung Fu Panda (2008) was solid because of the animated physical humor, the relationship between Po and Master Shifu, the character development of Po, the simple elegant story that film presented, masked by kung fu fighting animals as well as an amazing voice over by Jack Black. This new film has the physical humor but lacks those other elements. Often times the story feels pressured into the easy joke after easy joke as well as pushes too many slogans within the dialogue. There are scenes in which Po or any of the furious five turn a hat into something like "hat of chaos" or wings into "wings of freedom" as a fighting move, which get tiring. You can hear the marketing team go crazy for those moments as they prepare hats and wings with slogans from the film printed all over them. Those things do nothing to help the story and do everything to try and sell t-shirts. Also if certain scenes in the film don't remind you of a video game then please rent the video game or any video game. Certain action sequences seem built upon the notion that when the movie (and it will be) is converted into a video game, this scene with the "five" as a costume dragon will make a killer level 4.

In the end, Kung Fu Panda 2 has some really hilarious moments but fails to build on the simple elegance of the first. It's a shame. Even Jack Black's brilliance from the first gets left behind. In the first he was so good at capturing the exuberance of a boy becoming his fantasy. In the sequel, even with vengeance as a motive, Black comes off a little dull and less refreshing.

Well with any good sequel, the second film set up a third movie. See you in three years. Kung Fu Panda 3: the search for more money. I mean Kung Fu Panda 3 Family Reunion. I'm guessing. Po hooks up with Tigress along the way, something lightly hinted at during this second film.

thank and please enjoy movies.

Always Next Year David Fincher (A Pep Talk)

the winner of this year's Academy Award for Best Director goes to Tom Hooper. Yay! No offense to Mr. Hooper. The King's Speech is a nice and well made film but my best director for 2010 was David Fincher.

Don't take it too hard Mr. Fincher. Alfred Hitchcock never won an Oscar and Kubrick only won one for special effects, not directing. Now, I am not saying that you are on par with Hitchcock or Kubrick but you have been making, forward, challenging and good films for over 10 years with little recognition from the Academy. You might say, who cares about the Oscars? The Oscars are, in my eyes a self gratifying well dressed fuck fest that doesn't promote good movies but promotes fashion and celebrity. Maybe we need that too or maybe not.

All I am saying is, don't be down on yourself Mr. Fincher. You should have been nominated for Seven but you weren't. You lost for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and maybe that was accurate. You lost again this year for The Social Network and that happens. In my eyes the best direction I saw in a film this year was by far your film.

All I am saying is... don't feel bad. Your time will come, you will be recognized. You are one of the premier directors of your time. Though I may not always enjoy your films, I cannot argue against your vision and your ability to consistently make better than average films. Remember, the Oscars aren't always about talent or skill, sometimes it's about popularity and money. That is sad but if you have ever examined the Oscars you'll realize it to be true.

Remember Mr. Fincher, there is always next year. Continue to do what you do. Keep working and keep making solid films for everyone, movie friends and movie lovers alike. Good form sir.

The Two Sentence Movie Review

So I am a little behind and I thought I would share some simple thoughts about some movies out there and being discussed.

Black Swan - A well acted film but unfortunately, the script and direction is unclear and unfocussed. I agree with a critic that said that said the best thing about the film might be the casting.

Social Network - I will choose my words carefully. The Social Network is a very well made movie.

Little Fockers - Bad. Another attempt to make money and squeeze unclever jokes about Focker this and Focker that.

Tron - Great visuals and decent action but the film had less plot that a cup of soup. Even a cameo from Daft Punk could not save this movie for me.

True Grit - Well acted but the film doesn't build upon or reconstruct the classic western. In the end, the movie says little and does less.

The Tourist - I never saw it but while discussing the film with a friend who had seen the picture, I was able to predict major plot points and the ending. Sometimes the best movies are the ones you don't waste your time on.

The King's Speech - The film is more funny than I thought it would be. A well made movie that showcases great acting, a simple study on the crippling effect of fear and the satisfaction of overcoming that fear.

Movie Reviews and Movie Ratings

Many times during this part of the year I read reviews that overrate pretty much every movie. "the best movie of the year," "you've never laughed harder," "the most explosive action sequences your eyes can handle." blah blah blah, something something, dumb diddly do. This movie is 5 stars, that movie is 5 stars! That movie is a perfect 10. or two thumbs up.

Let me fill you in on something. Ratings systems suck. I am not bashing top 10s, top 5 movies of the year, or best of the year lists. I have a problem with the overly simple ratings system that many critics use to review their films. This movie is so many points out of 10, five, four, three, two, one or nil stars, or thumbs up or thumbs down is just simply a bad way to rate movies.

Thumbs up or down doesn't mean anything. How many times have you seen Roger Ebert give thumbs up to a film that he found not bad. The "oh, if you are in the mood or into that sort of thing, go see it," kind of attitude. It is like saying, if you are hungry, sure, eat something you may not like but at least you won't be hungry anymore.

the problem with the star rating system or a score based out of 10 is that you have no reference for how the film is being rated. For example lets say some new movie is given a 10 out of 10 rating and the critic had given films like The Seven Samurai, or The Godfather, or any other classic a 10... does that mean that this new film is an equivalent to classic films that inspired a 10 rating? Maybe I am over exaggerating. Maybe it's perfectly fine to rate a film 10/10 and give it the same rating as a classic that has stood the test of time. Maybe I just feel that if you give a film or anything your highest rating it not only has to be good, great, amazing but something more, something special that passes the test of time.

The stars system has the same problems as the 10/10 system. Are five star hits equally comparable to the five star classic of yesterday? I think not. The problem I have with the star rating system is that provides no depth but perfect accompaniment for movie posters, commercials and nothing else. What is deserving of a star? Maybe it's me being a glass half full of kind of guy but 3 stars out of 5 still seems like a good rating. If 3 stars is good, 4 stars is excellent and 5 stars is classic, why does 2 stars mean decent and 1 star is just bad? That system of rating seems to be off balance to me. The problem becomes worse when there are only 4 stars. I do not know if the half star is an improvement either.

Another note on the star systems. If you are like me and occasionally do the absent minded thing of trying to read Peter Travers for Rolling Stone and find it confusing how he completely rips a movie a new one and what I mean by "new one" is a new asshole and still gives the film 2 or 3 stars. I don't understand this. not at all.

In the end it is just another short cut. It's a lot like picking up the daily horoscope and realizing that every day you read the horoscope it's never anything worse than a 3 star day. How often do you see those 2 star, 1 star days? Maybe if you did you'd stop reading that horoscope? Maybe if reviewers gave worse reviews knowing that people only look at the stars then people will see less movies. I am not talking conspiracy.

a good critic is a path towards enlightenment. You don't always have to agree with the critic but a good critic can educate and create a path to a world of cinema you may have never imagined. There is a single critic I trust that employs any single type of rating system. Shame on you critics.

Faster - Review

Faster is the new film starring Dwayne Johnson also known to many as the Rock. It is a philosophical analysis of murder dressed up as an action drama. The verdict is - It's actually half way decent.

Dwayne Johnson is a recently released felon who goes on a killing spree to avenge those who murdered his brother and almost killed him. With little planning and a lot of action Johnson goes after and kills the men responsible for his brother's death. Billy Bob Thornton and Carla Gugino are the cops trying to stop him and Oliver Jackson Cohen is the hired gun paid to stop Johnson. The man who hires Cohen is the one who set up the the original murder that started it all.

The film plot flows like your general run of the mill revenge saga. Man wants revenge for the murder of his brother, cops try to solve the crime and in doing so fill in the blanks for the plot, while the "bad guys" try to stop our "hero" before they get there comeuppance. It's also nice (at least to my recollection) that word or notion of "justice" is never used to describe Johnson's attempt at revenge.

There is action, some fighting, some gun play and a car chase or two but the film uses all of this to explore the philosophy of murder. Johnson is not a violent man but was driven to crime by circumstance and driven to murder by the consequences of such violence. He only takes out his violence on those who had done him wrong. Even Cohen who is sent to kill Johnson is not considered a threat or worthy of the violence inflicted upon his (Johnson) brother's murders. An interesting twist to the film is Cohen's killer. He is a self made millionaire who through hard work and surgery overcame polio or some other medical illness. He is an assassin for hire at the cost of $1. He does it for the thrill. Cohen character is an interesting one as Johnson's foil. His motives are not as passionate as revenge but are as selfish as thrill seeking.

The action is a bit slow at times. The murders come quick and the build up of whether or not Johnson's Driver character will kill his enemies or those who get in his way creates a fair amount of tension. The growth of the character occurs as he meets his victims. The man who sliced his brother's throat has been waiting for the time he would come face to face with past. During his attack he asks Johnson to call his son and ask for forgiveness. Johnson calls his victim's son and passes along the message. Eventually the two will talk again with the son declaring to Johnson that he will face a similar fate he inflicted upon his father. As Johnson confesses his crime to the son he warns him of the dark road he will travel if he pursues his own course of vengeance. Driver (Johnson) also chooses not to kill one of his targets because of how after the crime he changed the course of his life.

The film also takes a fun if not loose exploration of American vs. European violence. Johnson's Driver character wears a t-shirt and jeans, drives a classic American muscle car, uses a no muss no fuss 6 shooter and is tattooed and scarred. Cohen's Killer is sleek, wealthy, could easily be confused for a Banana Republic model. A witness at a shooting one word to describe the second shooter is, "beautiful." Killer drives a fancy European sports car which is also made to look feminine.

It is also interesting to see the role women play in the film. There are only a few woman that have any relevance to the plot. Driver's girlfriend who not only lost her man when he went to jail but aborted their child after his incarceration. Driver's mother who could not protect a young Driver from his adopted father's beatings. A snitch who cleans up her act only to deny a junkie cop his high to satisfy her own urges. A by the book female cop that breaks one rule to let a crooked cop get benefits for his family after his death. And finally, Killer's girlfriend who is just as bad ass as Killer but becomes soft and homely after their marriage. It might be nothing that all of these female characters are not overly positive characters because the film lacks positive characters in general. The one positive character is one of Driver's targets. A former criminal and junkie who never wanted to kill Driver or his brother but during his stint in prison found religion, became a pastor and adopted lost boys in an attempt to shield them from the mistakes he had made in life.

Faster is more than meets the eye. It really isn't an action film but an examination on murder; the effects of those who not only are the victim of the crime but those who commit and witness such an egregious offense. Dwayne Johnson is solid as Driver. His size and athleticism do much of the work but he is, at times surprisingly convincing during certain tender moments in the film. Billy Bob Thornton and the rest of the supporting cast is reliable. The film doesn't rely on flash or special effects which is a refreshing thing this day and age in Hollywood cinema. The script might spread itself too thin and the ending is very predictable. In the end, Faster is a film with tremendous upside and the harshest criticism for it might be that it came up short on depth and the actual amount of action. Not bad at all.

the Virginity Hit - Review

The Virginity Hit is a movie about four friend who vow to take a hit out of a bong after losing their virginity. Three of the four lose their virginity and those three friends try to help out the fourth with not funny moments to ensue. Worst fucking movie I've seen in a long time.

Review complete.

Eat Love Pray is the new film with Julia Roberts that focuses on the plight of an upper class woman struggling with her identity, lack of spirituality and her failed romantic existence. The film itself is a grade below mediocre with pretty scenery, good acting and a shallow exploration of spiritually in food, meditation and love.

Eat Pray Love is based off the popular memoir by writer Elizabeth Gilbert. In the film though she is known as Liz. Now books are different than films. I have not read the book but strongly believe that the two should not be compared because they are different mediums. That is a different discussion all together.

In the film, Liz (Julia Roberts) is in an unhappy marriage. She also feels that her life has lost it's passion and meaning. Her search for greater meaning in life is ignited by a conversation with a medicine man on a trip investigating meditation and yoga in Bali. The medicine man spoke to Liz concerning her unhappiness with her marriage and how she will lose all that she has only to regain it again. She returns home to New York City and decides to divorce her husband (Billy Crudup) which her husband contests, move out of her home, date and then end things with a young actor (James Franco).

After the divorce and new romance, Liz is still unhappy. She says that she has lost her passion for life which leads her to go on a one year journey to Italy, India and Bali. In Italy she will eat and enjoy life. In India she will meet her guru and pray. In Bali she will reconnect with the medicine man and learn all that the medicine man knows.

It can be difficult to show a character's passion for food, growth in spirituality and enlightenment through knowledge and meditation without the character overtly expressing it. Eat Pray Love tries to do this and fails. We see Liz eat lots of pasta, little pastries and drink wine in Italy. Julia Roberts still has a wonderfully unique smile but her smile after devouring tasty food does nothing to show the growth of her character and her embracing "life." While in India there are several scenes in which Roberts is seen praying or trying to pray. Watching her pray over and over again is meant to imply spiritual growth but the film also fails to capturing that. She goes to Bali to learn from the medicine man but she spends more time sleeping and hanging out with Bardem rather than learning from the medicine man. She is not even willing to hand copy his lessons intended for her. She takes them and photo copies them which is meant to be cute but in many ways displays how shallow her exploration towards harmony and balance really is.

The film itself is very shallow. We don't explore living life, prayer, meditation, yoga or love in any profound way or with any depth. Watching Julia Roberts eat a couple bowls of pasta, pray here and there and meet guys doesn't explore the themes of the film but casually presents them in a manner that makes finding balance in life all too simple. It's a middle class yuppie notion of spirituality and love. Little is truly known about Liz's character as her exploration only reveals how her marriage failed and nothing about what brought her to such unhappiness.

The film might be best served as a travelogue for Italy, India and Bali. Throughout the film, Liz goes to these places and enjoys the classic beauty of these places with little to none of the flaws. She travels for a year with one bag, yet her outfits are different every time but she always looks fabulous. She is always clean, never sweats and fails to experience any of the hardships of the people that reside in her vacations hot spots. Because of this, the film superficially suggest that you can find balance in your life by going on a long vacation, drinking, eating, praying and meeting a nice man.

The film does have some decent qualities. Julia Roberts is very strong in the lead, in what could be defined as a transitional role. As someone over the age of 40, Roberts may struggle to find roles that don't make her look silly by trying too hard to show how young she might be. Tom Cruise has yet to discover this, as the almost 50 year old Cruise still believes he can play a 30 year old. Roberts is quite good. She doesn't rely on her laugh or smile to propel her through the role. She is subtle and very charming. She is able to bring a a certain child like discovery to her journey but a certain sadness of youthful exuberance lost during down periods. In her 40's Roberts could not have played the early 30's Liz while in her 30's. It seems like a role Roberts was meant to play during this stage of her career. Javier Bardem is also excellent as Liz's love interest in Bali. Bardem does a lot with his screen time. We see him cry, laugh, be charming and argue with Roberts in a way that is both alarming and agreeable.

The dialogue is also very resourceful. Eat Pray Love is written by director Ryan Murphy and Jennifer Salt. It uses the dialogue very well in understanding the minor characters we see for only 1/3 of the film. Unfortunately in many ways we learn small details about the minor characters that we never learn about Liz. This could also be a problem. We learn so much about the other characters and hardly anything about Liz. It is because of that the film tends to drag. It drags because there are so many characters, so many places and the pattern of the film becomes far to apparent early in the film.

Love Eat Pray is probably a very good book but as a movie it seems like a self indulgent travel guide. Is it beautiful to look at? At times, yes? Does it make you hungry? Yes. Would you want to travel to these places afterwards? Probably. Is it funny or profound? Maybe as funny or profound as a fortune cookie can be. In the end, Eat Love Pray seems to reach only a small audience of upper class, superficially lost women that don't need spirituality but a man in their lives. Maybe Eat Pray Love will be the Starbucks drinking, Banana Republic wearing, Oprah book club reading version of Sex and the City.... oh boy.