Taken is a Thrill Ride

What a crappy month for movies it has been (as per usual). Outside of the grotesquely fun My Bloody Valentine 3D, there hasn't been a single reason to leave the house and go to the theater. Luckily for us, Taken breaks this trend and delivers a no-holds-barred, balls out action thrill ride that will have you cheering before you know it.

The premise is simple really. An ex-CIA agent, played by Liam Neeson, tracks down the people who have kidnapped his daughter and beats the living hell out of them until they cry like little bitches. What's not to like? Well, as awesome as that sounds, it's a bit contrived. His daughter is on a trip to Europe when she gets kidnapped. Sounds innocent enough, but the question here is why? The answer: she wants to follow U2 around on their European tour. Seriously? You're telling me that the writers couldn't come up with a more interesting reason for her to fly to Europe than to follow U2 around? Maybe it was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek and not taken seriously, but it was stupid nonetheless. Luckily, everything from this moment on will beat you to a bloody pulp.

And frankly, that's really surprising. Although the trailer is one of the coolest I've seen in a long time, it gave that sneaking suspicion that the film would be yet another generic, watered down action flick. I'm delighted to say that it isn't. It's definitely not the most graphic action picture you'll ever see (Rambo currently holds that title), but it's unflinchingly brutal and you can't help but be impressed by the level of professionalism that went into the film.

While it does borrow heavily from the "book of action film conventions," one can't deny how stylish and fun it is. The action scenes were well choreographed, the direction was terrific, and the body count is sky high. That's pretty much all you need in an action flick.

Still, it's nice to have some good acting to just keep the film fresh even when the action isn't constant. Before the Bourne trilogy, very little credit was given to fine performances in action films, but everyone in Taken is excellent and I hope the cast gets the credit they deserve.

Liam Neeson is now officially the man. He's a great actor regardless of what role he's playing, but I've never really considered him an action star. I'm glad somebody saw some potential and cast him as a take-no-crap-and-shoot-everybody-in-the-face CIA agent. This film was dependent on having a convincing lead who could create a character that you could cheer for after every pull of the trigger and Neeson was more than able to provide that.

There are two possibilities that might explain why I thought Taken rocked so hard. One, it's because the last film I saw, New in Town (which you can read my review of right here), was an utter disaster, or two, it packs so much awesome into an hour and a half that you'll want to punch your grandmother in the face. You can decide which. Just remember, old women are fragile.

Taken receives 4.5/5

New in Town is Old Hat

I've been sitting here staring at this white canvas for about ten minutes, perplexed at how to start this review because there are so many problems with this film that I can't figure out how to condense it all into this write-up, much less the introductory paragraph. I'm sure we're all aware that January is "dump month," where the movie studios release all the films they have zero faith in, and this is one of them (there's a shocker). The writers of New in Town must be new in Hollywood because this is one horribly predictable, clichéd mess of a movie.

Renée Zellweger plays Lucy, a consultant used to the upscale city life of her home in Miami, who is shipped off to a town in Minnesota to oversee the restructuring of a factory. She isn't used to this lifestyle and immediately hates it, but once she is there, she is befriended by the town residents and meets hunky Ted, played by Harry Connick Jr., and is smitten with him. Do they fall in love? Do hookers like money?

Renée Zellweger (who looks like she's had a few too many Botox injections) is one of those actresses that really isn't pretty enough to be the lead in a romance flick. Let's face it. The girl has a face that says, "I just ate a super sour lemon" when it's supposed to say, "I'm being cute." You know the face, the one where she puckers her lips and squints her eyes. Yeah, that one. But I really can't hate on her for that. What I can hate on her for is her acting. Despite being great in a few other films, she gives a very mediocre performance here, delightful at times, but mostly annoying and trite. However, that may not all be her fault. Her character (and everyone else's) are just poorly written.

These characters simply don't play to the purpose of the movie, which is to create a sweet, convincing love story. Zellweger's character is such a jerk that you don't like her and want her to fail. On the other hand, the town citizens are so cheerful and joyous that you end up being annoyed by them. The two sat on opposite sides of the spectrum. The idea, of course, is that these oppositions will conflict, and they do, but the characters themselves feel too phony to give any credibility to what is already a meandering, lazy film.

The failed attempt at romance is only half of the equation. The other half is the comedy (it is a romantic comedy after all), but guess what? It isn't funny. Surprise! There is one big belly laugh about midway through the film where Ted gives his daughter's date a threatening realization of what will happen to him if he does anything to her. But the rest of the movie is an empty void, where monotony is only a line of dialogue away and tired jokes are the order of the day. For instance, when Lucy arrives in Minnesota, she has to use a cart to push her large amounts of luggage around. How funny! Women like to pack a lot when going on a trip! Hardy har har.

I know most romantic comedies are bad, but this is just terrible. Considering how low my expectations were, it's really a testament to how much of a failure this steaming turd of a movie turned out to be. One good laugh is about all you can expect from a film with zero originality. New in Town is brain deadening and should be avoided at all costs.

New in Town receives 0.5/5

Underworld is Underwhelming

Now here's a franchise that didn't deserve one more installment in the series, much less two. I remember sitting down in the theater for the original film way back in 2003 expecting nothing less than an epic showdown between some werewolves and vampires. With that premise, what's not to like? As it turned out, nearly all of it.

To be fair, I was in love with the Blade franchise and expected Underworld to be its female counterpart. I was merely a teenager, naive and stupid to go into an unrelated movie with such high expectations, but I did and it didn't meet those lofty goals I had unfairly set for it. Due to my disappointment, I never checked out the second film and walked into this one with extremely low expectations. With that said, Underworld: Rise of the Lycans, the prequel to the original picture, is not the horrid abomination it could have been and actually managed to keep me somewhat entertained for its duration, although I just can't bring myself to recommend it.

I'll give it to you straight. I don't really remember much of the set-up to this movie. There is a brief prologue that gives you the gist of how the Lycans came into being, but by this time I had already brushed the story off as nonsense. Sue me. So here's my interpretation of its synopsis. Thanks to some freaky werewolf-vampire sex, a child is born with big baby balls and the vampire leader decides to let it live, despite the hybrid's unpure blood. These big-balled, freaky sex creatures are known as Lycans and are basically slaves to the vampires. One day, Lucian (Michael Sheen), one of the Lycan leaders, decides to rebel and escapes only to leave his love, Sonja (Rhona Mitra), a pure vampire, behind. Sonja's father finds out about their relationship, isn't happy about it, and locks her up. So Lucian and his balls decide to go back and free her.

Or something like that. The story is nearly irrelevant because seriously, who goes to see Underworld for the narrative? I know I don't. In a film about an epic struggle between vampires and werewolves, I just want to see the two factions go at it for two hours. This is where the "be careful what you wish for" phrase comes into play. There's plenty of action in the film, but the problem is the way it was executed. While some action scenes were exciting and well staged, more often than not you couldn't see what was going on due to the shaky camera and quick cutting. This technique has been used in many films, including the much praised Bourne trilogy. But at least in the Bourne trilogy, there is an engaging story to wrap your brain around. As I've said before, the story isn't this franchise's strong suit.

However, when the film does attempt to delve into story-mode, it fails almost entirely. There were way too many instances of forced dialogue (complete with the cheese) that had me rolling my eyes more times than I can count. The story is basically Romeo & Juliet, only with werewolves and vampires rather than fueding families. And boy, is it exhausting. Not for one second is Lucian and Sonja's love story engaging.

The film has other little problems as well, like the liberties that were taken with the laws of physics and a seizure-inducing fight scene where lightning struck at what seemed to be one second intervals. Still, this is a visually engaging movie. It's dark, atmospheric, brooding, and ominous and it played to the strengths of the gothic setting. By and large, the film looked just fine and the acting was better than expected. But there's no escaping the absurdity of the story and the sometimes overbearing action scenes. Since I hated the first film and went into this one with such low expectations, I came out feeling somewhat satisfied because the picture is much better than it should be, although I'm not sure that's saying all that much. When all is said and done, I cannot recommend Underworld: Rise of the Lycans.

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans receives 2/5

Bedtime Stories Only for the Kids

I love kids movies that can make me feel like a child again. I love those films that can strike a resonance with the little tyke in me and give me that sense of wonder and imagination that only a young kid can have. Unfortunately, Bedtime Stories instead began to put me to sleep. How fitting.

The story follows Skeeter (Adam Sandler), a kid who has spent his whole life living in a hotel owned by his father. In order to get Skeeter's father to sign ownership over to him, Barry Nottingham promises that if Skeeter works hard enough, he will one day hand control of the hotel over to him. Flash forward years later and Skeeter is still working at the same hotel, now modernized and elegant. However, he is merely the handyman and is not being considered to take it over. After agreeing to watch his niece and nephew for a week, he finds out that their bedtime stories come true the next day. The catch is that only what the children say actually comes into fruition. Realizing this, Skeeter capitalizes on it and tries to use the children's bedtime stories to grab control of the hotel.

I have no doubt that excitement arose when this idea came up because it has so much potential. It has all the makings of a wonderful, imaginative film, but instead conjures up rather dull and lifeless predicaments. The filmmakers could have done anything with this idea, but the best they could come up with was raining gumballs and abuse by a dwarf. I was simply astonished at how vacuous this film became. The longer it went on, the less impressed I was by it. If you're looking for creativity, look elsewhere.

Of course, that could be overlooked if the film were actually funny, but it isn't and here's why. Comedy is dependent on the element of surprise. Anybody can tell you that if you know the punch line to a joke beforehand, the joke loses its kick and isn't funny. Due to the story in the film--kids control the tales and what they say comes true--everything is telegraphed way in advance. For example, one story Skeeter tells the children puts his character in space and since he is technically an alien, the kids say that he should be talking another language. The next day before Skeeter is set to give a speech, his tongue is stung by a bee and he begins to speak nonsense. This is supposed to be humorous because wouldn't you know it, that's just so silly. But it isn't funny because you know five minutes prior that this is going to happen. The element of surprise was practically non-existent in the film and, therefore, I rarely found myself laughing.

Still, it's a harmless movie that kids will probably enjoy due to Adam Sandler's quirkiness and it's a rare family film that has no objectionable content (maybe a little if you're uptight), but that doesn't necessarily make it good. There have been a slew of excellent family films released in recent years and I recommend you seek one of those out instead. As an adult that loves children's movies when done correctly, I'm going to have to suggest you skip Bedtime Stories.

Bedtime Stories receives 1.5/5

My Bloody Valentine a Bloody Good Time

Right or wrong, I judge slasher movies on a different scale than other films. Although most in the genre tend to miss the boat when it comes to standard moviemaking skills, I can't help but look at them for what they are. And what are they exactly? To borrow a line from Roger Ebert, they are "dead teenager" movies where the characters are so moronic they don't even know they're walking straight to their deaths. They are films that tend to lack a coherent story, interesting characters, good dialogue, or any shred of plausibility. Like so many others, My Bloody Valentine hits those same pratfalls. But who goes to see a 3D slasher movie called My Bloody Valentine for dialogue and acting? Nobody, that's who! When judging a movie like this, you have to ask yourself one question: Did I have fun? Well, as it turns out, I did.

Having never seen the 1981 genre classic, I can't really say whether or not this follows the story closely, but I also doubt that anybody going to see this really gives two craps about that, but here it is anyway. Ten years ago, a few coal miners were killed on the job by a psycho named Harry Warden, who fell into a coma shortly after. The next year on Valentine's Day, he wakes up, makes his way back to the mines, and kills some teenagers partying there before being shot and killed by two police officers. Now somebody is back killing the people linked to that night. Is it Harry Warden or just an imposter?

I'll go ahead and answer that question for you. Who cares? This film isn't about who is killing people, but rather how they are being killed. That may seem a bit demented, but the film never takes itself too seriously and knows full well that it is an exploitative 3D slasher flick. You know you're in for a wild ride when five minutes into the movie a pickax is swung completely through some dude's head and his eye is stuck on the end of the blade. You can only imagine what that looks like in 3D. It's a grisly movie for sure, but rather than feeling disturbed at what I was seeing, I was laughing at the severed limbs and appendages that were flying towards me.

Still, while the 3D bloodshed is the main focus of the movie (and it's pretty creative if I do say so myself), the whole whodunit mystery is a key component. But here's the main problem with that. It's pretty predictable. Unless you've never seen a mystery movie before, you'll easily be able to narrow down who the killer is to two people, and even then it's just a matter of paying attention to the details to figure it out. Considering how little thinking this movie requires, it's to its detriment that I figured it out fairly quickly. I won't ruin it here, but even if you don't nail it on the head, you should be able to have an idea of what is going on.

There really isn't much more to say about this picture. I mean yes, the performances are uniformly bad, especially by Jensen Ackles, whose previous work consists mostly of television sitcoms (it shows), but the movie never acts like it's something other than an over the top blood bath filled with excessive gore and gratuitous nudity, all in glorious 3D. So in that regard, it actually kind of works. If you're into this sort of thing, you owe it to yourself to check out My Bloody Valentine.

My Bloody Valentine in 3D receives 4/5

My Bloody Valentine in 2D receives an estimated 2.5/5

Say Yes to Yes Man...on DVD

I wanted to say something clever for my title to this review, something like, "Say No to Yes Man" or "Should You See Yes Man? Yes!" But it turns out it isn't that simple. What it should say is something like, "Is Yes Man worth seeing? Meh." After having watched the film, I have to say that Yes Man is a mediocre movie, nothing more, nothing less. While it will certainly make you laugh a few times, script issues and ridiculous plot twists make Yes Man one of the most middling films I've seen since Hancock.

The film follows Carl (Jim Carrey), a sarcastic naysayer who rejects life opportunities in favor of sitting by his lonesome in his apartment and watching DVD's. After attending a lecture on the power of "yes," Carl makes a covenant to grab hold of every opportunity he can and never say no.

Let's just get this out of the way. That premise is absurd. It may be one of the silliest story ideas I've heard in quite some time, but this is a film where you just have to go with the flow. You can't ponder over how utterly insane the whole premise is and just enjoy the ride. However, the real problem with the story isn't that Carl never says "no," but rather the idea that saying "yes" will always lead to a positive outcome and saying "no" will always lead to the opposite. For example, after Carl breaks his covenant and says "no" for the first time, his shirt gets stuck in a door, which causes him to yank it out and fall down a flight of stairs, only to land face to face with a growling pit bull. It was this divine fate in the film that was difficult to swallow.

Still, I got into it, but just as I was becoming comfortable with the whole idea of a "yes man," the film took a ludicrous twist that pulled me right back out to where I began. While Carl and his girlfriend, Allison (Zooey Deschanel), are in the airport, Carl is taken into custody and accused of being a terrorist. Why? Because he took flying lessons, learned Korean (and therefore he must be working with North Korea), approved a loan to start a fertilizer company (bombs -- natch), and took a spontaneous trip to Lincoln, Nebraska. It turned out the FBI has been suspicious of him, which is all thanks to his new found adventures being a "yes man." This is the moment where his relationship falls apart and is a vital (albeit predictable) component to the story, but it was too far fetched to be believed. Whereas I eventually accepted the idea of the "yes man," I couldn't find it in myself to accept this idiotic turn of events.

In other words, this script is a mess. The story flails about wildly trying to grasp onto something meaningful to keep it flowing, but grabs only air. Every single moment in this film was surrounded by the feeling that the writers had no idea how to progress from one scene to the next and just decided to be as over-the-top as possible hoping that nobody would notice their inability to create a coherent story.

Still, Jim Carrey manages to make what would otherwise be a miserably unfunny movie somewhat entertaining. In fact, I'm going to recommend it, although only mildly. The fact is that the man is a severely underrated actor. He was terrific in Man on the Moon and excellent in one of my favorite romance movies of all time, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. In this regard, it's kind of sad to see him resort back to his usual shtick, regardless of how funny it may be. But Carrey is undeniably talented and he elevates this mediocre material far above what it deserves.

The whole time I watched this film, I thought of Liar Liar. Essentially, it's the same idea. In that movie, he couldn't tell a lie and in this one, he can't say no, or rather he can, but doesn't. But the differences between those two pictures is that Liar Liar was expertly crafted and Carrey was in his heyday. Yes Man just seems tired, chugging along unevenly for its duration. It has about 45 minutes of good material and attempts to stretch it into a feature length film and it just doesn't work. The only thing that saves Yes Man is Carrey's comedic brilliance. Without him, this movie would be a complete waste of time. Now, it's merely forgettable. Still no award winner, but decent nonetheless. While it isn't imperative that you seek this one out in the theater, if you can catch it one day on DVD, Yes Man may be worth a look.

Yes Man receives 2.5/5