Alright everyone this is your host Zach Jenkins giving you a really long blog post about a few movie reviews of recent movies that have come out.
First is "Angels & Demons" with Tom Hanks.
Now I have to start off by saying that I really haven't watched much of the first movie "The Di Vinci Code" before watching this movie, but I have read the book so I kind of had a clue what was going on.
Angels & Demons itself is a bit weird as a movie because the movie is a sequel that it is based off a book that is a prequel. Still with me? Not that it matters too much. It is really not necessary for this film to understand as if you have at least a vague knowledge of the Di Vinci Code and what it is about (which at this point would probably be fairly hard to not to) then you know what you need to know.
The story follows Robert Langdon, a symbologist, as he is called in by the Vatican to find the "Illuminati", who have caused some major trouble for them (not going to give too many spoilers). Robert has to find clues to track down the Illunimati before the entire Vatican is destroyed in one way or another.
I would give this movie a solid 3 out of 4. As we have said on the show, Ron Howard doesn't make bad films. It is a beautiful looking movie which great care to try to keep it looking true to the real place. I personally have been to the Vatican and it was hard to tell that this movie was done with out the help of the Vatican itself. I also enjoyed the exterior shots that were done to places that I have actually visited that they included in the mystery. The movie does keep you guessing on what is REALLY going on and if things will be resolved in time. Even at the last minute you are not sure if things are going to be resolved in the way you hope. Definitely keeps you at the edge of your seat.
Now I realize that some people have issues with the series stance on faith. First of all, I am not catholic myself but I do know some of the religion, and I liked the inside look on how the religion works. The movie shows things that you would rarely see, but it treats them in a good light. Also this movie has a much more positive relationship with religion than the first movie (though I think people are blowing the issue out of porportion.) Angels & Demons gives just a hint of more religion, while at the same time taking a look at what religious fanaticism can cause.
It's a definite must see.
Alright, now on to Terminator: Salvation. This has the crazy distinction of being both a prequel and a sequel at the same time. Another confession is that I have not seen either T3 or the television series. Amazingly Fox decided to cancel the television series right before the movie came out. I think that was a huge mistake. I believe that interest in the show will peak when people see the movie. I know that has certainly be the case with myself.
Now this movie is quite a bit different then the previous Terminator movies, in that it is actually after Skynet has taken over things and trying to wipe out all human. Terminators are loose and out to get EVERYONE. Christain Bale plays John Connor who is part of the main force of the resistance. But there is a different part to the story as it tends to center on Sam Worthington, who plays Marcus Wright, who wakes to the post apocalypatic world and tries his best ot survive, while finding out the truth of what is going on and about himself as well.
This was a good movie, and I give it a 2.5 out of 4. This rating takes into account that I don't tend to like post-apocalypatic movies much, especially ones that don't give too much hope. This movie keeped me entertained and also paid homage to the previous Terminator movies. The special effects in this movie were awesome. Some of the scenes, I was amazed on how lifelike some special effects were. I also liked seeing more about how the Terminators were made and how Skynet thought.
However, this movie does not resolve much. I still really don't understand on how Skynet suddenly became self aware or how it evolved (it might be in T3....) but it kind of glossed over that. Not only that, but after 4 movies and a television series, we still don't know if the humans ultimately win or lose. I definitely want some answers on that one. This one is set in the future and we still don't know.
Ulitimately, we have Night at the Museum - Battle of the Smithsonian.
Larry Daily is back, but he has kind of lost his way in the world again. He had gone one to bigger and better things, but had lost the spark that he had gained from working at the museum the first time. Through some crazy circumstances the tablet of Akmunrah (sorry if I spelled that wrong) has ended up at the Smithsonian along with other characters of the first movie in cold storage.
I admit that I really enjoyed this movie. I would probably give it a 2.75? It was a really fun movie, which has most of the original cast in some form along with new characters to keep things interesting. There are new villians which also make the show very fun.
I used to live in Washington D.C. so I know the different museums like the back of my hand. They were very true to the layout and most content of the musuems which made it much more fun and believeable. The worst parts were some exhibits (especially art) was moved to make it more exciting. I would definitely recommend it for a fun family movie, or just an easy comedy. I think this movie was actually quite a bit funnier with then the first movie, though it was a lot more busy.
There were some plot holes that I believe should have been filled or addressed. It appears the effects of the tablet only work if you go in the actual building, even though technically all the buildings are connected. Also they had some problems with flight and especially time. But this is me being really nitpicky and really doesn't have much to do with the show.
My only other issue, is just a personal preference thing. They didn't go to all the museums (even though some characters were from other musuems....) The movie didn't involve the Smithsonian Natural History Museum, or another fun one, the Museum of American History.
But all in all, a definitely fun movie and a definite must see espeically if you enjoyed the first one. Also if you to see the director, look for a cameo of him chasing for a glow in the dark flashlight (don't ask).
In other news, we are changing our podcast host, so there may be some technical issues associated with that for the next couple days. If you have any suggestions on where we should host, feel free to comment or e-mail us at Webertainmentweekly@gmail.com
Until our next show, your host,
Zach Jenkins
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
All the President's Men
Tombie checking in for all of our Webertainment fans!
It has been a week or so since I posted something on here, so I felt that I would stop by and say a few words. First off, summer movies are off to a great start, and for the most part, I have been entertained. On Tuesday's show we are hoping to have a guest with us...a friend of ours. Zach and I are considering adding a third member to our righteous gang and this would be an audition of sorts. If you think our new friend (her name is Chelsi) does a good job...you can give us a thumbs up on the comment section to this post and we will take you vote into consideration.
In the meantime, I think it will be cool to revisit an old skool film. All the President's Men starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. The film is the story of the two reporters for the Washington Post that broke the Watergate burglary story that ended with the resignation of American President Richard Nixon.
The film is very interesting and moves just like a newspaper story. This means that the story ends abruptly, with almost no climax and resolution, just like you would find in a newspaper article. The movie also lacks certain elements of writing that newspaper elements lack. For instance, there is a lack of character development-it's just the facts...and that is how this film presents the story. Also the film is practically devoid of techniques that provide an emotionaly attachment to it. One example would be the score and music. There is practically none. In fact, I think that the music only plays when there aren't any characters speaking. Music would give us an emotional attachment to the movie, and the movie wants us to feel what it is like to be part of the newspaper industry, therefore, we don't get the filmmaking techniques that would help us become emotionally involved.
Although the movie moves like a newspaper article it is highly interesting. It captures the journalism industry with a realism that is almost scary.
I don't comment much on the state of our nation, but I will say this. I think that journalism needs to revisit films like this. Journalism is pretty much dead in our nation, and I think watching this film might help to resurrect the industry. It should be obvious to everyone that the stories are out there...but bias, the internet and other forms of media are killing the industry.
Whether or not you agree with my rant about journalism being dead, the film is a great one and well worth watching...especially with the all-star cast...
Enjoy the show tonight kiddies...I'll be back later!
It has been a week or so since I posted something on here, so I felt that I would stop by and say a few words. First off, summer movies are off to a great start, and for the most part, I have been entertained. On Tuesday's show we are hoping to have a guest with us...a friend of ours. Zach and I are considering adding a third member to our righteous gang and this would be an audition of sorts. If you think our new friend (her name is Chelsi) does a good job...you can give us a thumbs up on the comment section to this post and we will take you vote into consideration.
In the meantime, I think it will be cool to revisit an old skool film. All the President's Men starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. The film is the story of the two reporters for the Washington Post that broke the Watergate burglary story that ended with the resignation of American President Richard Nixon.
The film is very interesting and moves just like a newspaper story. This means that the story ends abruptly, with almost no climax and resolution, just like you would find in a newspaper article. The movie also lacks certain elements of writing that newspaper elements lack. For instance, there is a lack of character development-it's just the facts...and that is how this film presents the story. Also the film is practically devoid of techniques that provide an emotionaly attachment to it. One example would be the score and music. There is practically none. In fact, I think that the music only plays when there aren't any characters speaking. Music would give us an emotional attachment to the movie, and the movie wants us to feel what it is like to be part of the newspaper industry, therefore, we don't get the filmmaking techniques that would help us become emotionally involved.
Although the movie moves like a newspaper article it is highly interesting. It captures the journalism industry with a realism that is almost scary.
I don't comment much on the state of our nation, but I will say this. I think that journalism needs to revisit films like this. Journalism is pretty much dead in our nation, and I think watching this film might help to resurrect the industry. It should be obvious to everyone that the stories are out there...but bias, the internet and other forms of media are killing the industry.
Whether or not you agree with my rant about journalism being dead, the film is a great one and well worth watching...especially with the all-star cast...
Enjoy the show tonight kiddies...I'll be back later!
Friday, May 8, 2009
Star Trek
Review: Star Trek
It's Tombie again folks, with your review of the new Star Trek film. Let's jump right into the review. The movie is beautiful to watch. The special effects are beautiful and all of the visuals enhance the story. The story is based around a group of time traveling Romulans who are seeking revenge on Spock. Without spoiling too much, I will say that the end result is mishap with the space time continuum.
If you are a non Star Trek fan, you will absolutely love this film. It has a great story, and blends comedy, action and drama into a fun film. There is just about every kind of action scene you would want in a film. There are aliens and monsters, there are space battles, there are hand to hand combat (including swords) and there are gun battles (phasers), essentially there is something for everyone.
If you are a fanboy or girl and can't handle any changes, however slight, you will not enjoy this film. The changes from the original lore work well with the storyline of the film, but also allow for modifications to the Star Trek canon as future films will progress. Being a fanboy, I will say this, J. J. Abrams took a big risk with this film, but overall I think he hit a homerun. The film has it's flaws, but they were so small that I didn't care. For fans of the original show there are a few things that were weird to watch, but I don't want to give anything away here...a hint would be to keep Spock and Uhura in mind. I also had a hard time thinking of Scotty without any hair ( I love you Simon Pegg and you were wonderful, but it is weird to see an almost bald Scotty). Anton Yelchin's accent for Checkov was pretty pitiful, but humorous at the same time.
One of my biggest complaints was the score. I enjoyed it, but it wasn't epic enough, and wasn't memorable enough. It didn't necessarily scream Star Trek to me. Many people don't realize how important music is to a film, but if I mention the original Star Trek, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Superman, or Rocky we all know what their scores sound like. It did disract from the film a bit.
As a fanboy, I loved (again I won't mention specifics, cause I don't want to spoil anything too much) the line that was stolen from Star Trek II. It was well placed and brought the Kirk-Spock relationship full circle from the orginal series and movies to the new film. I also enjoyed that much of the movie is centered on Spock's conflict between logic and emotion. It was also nice to see a young Kirk who is confident, but not yet THE Captain Kirk. I think this aspect of his character leaves much for the film franchise to develop in the future films. It will be nice to see how Captain Kirk becomes the Kirk of Legend...and I enjoyed Bruce Greenwood's portrayal of Captain Chistopher Pike. He was the man of the show, and is definitely the Pike that Fanboys can be proud of. Fans of the original show will love how Bruce Greenwood's portrayal will align with original lore- He was Kirk's mentor.
In the end, go watch the movie. I agree with the advertisements for the movie-This isn't your father's Star Trek. It will, however, appeal to everyone. I am flirting with a 3 and a half or 4 star rating. If I absolutely love it after my second time...then it is definitely a 4...and you know I am going to see it again...
It's Tombie again folks, with your review of the new Star Trek film. Let's jump right into the review. The movie is beautiful to watch. The special effects are beautiful and all of the visuals enhance the story. The story is based around a group of time traveling Romulans who are seeking revenge on Spock. Without spoiling too much, I will say that the end result is mishap with the space time continuum.
If you are a non Star Trek fan, you will absolutely love this film. It has a great story, and blends comedy, action and drama into a fun film. There is just about every kind of action scene you would want in a film. There are aliens and monsters, there are space battles, there are hand to hand combat (including swords) and there are gun battles (phasers), essentially there is something for everyone.
If you are a fanboy or girl and can't handle any changes, however slight, you will not enjoy this film. The changes from the original lore work well with the storyline of the film, but also allow for modifications to the Star Trek canon as future films will progress. Being a fanboy, I will say this, J. J. Abrams took a big risk with this film, but overall I think he hit a homerun. The film has it's flaws, but they were so small that I didn't care. For fans of the original show there are a few things that were weird to watch, but I don't want to give anything away here...a hint would be to keep Spock and Uhura in mind. I also had a hard time thinking of Scotty without any hair ( I love you Simon Pegg and you were wonderful, but it is weird to see an almost bald Scotty). Anton Yelchin's accent for Checkov was pretty pitiful, but humorous at the same time.
One of my biggest complaints was the score. I enjoyed it, but it wasn't epic enough, and wasn't memorable enough. It didn't necessarily scream Star Trek to me. Many people don't realize how important music is to a film, but if I mention the original Star Trek, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Superman, or Rocky we all know what their scores sound like. It did disract from the film a bit.
As a fanboy, I loved (again I won't mention specifics, cause I don't want to spoil anything too much) the line that was stolen from Star Trek II. It was well placed and brought the Kirk-Spock relationship full circle from the orginal series and movies to the new film. I also enjoyed that much of the movie is centered on Spock's conflict between logic and emotion. It was also nice to see a young Kirk who is confident, but not yet THE Captain Kirk. I think this aspect of his character leaves much for the film franchise to develop in the future films. It will be nice to see how Captain Kirk becomes the Kirk of Legend...and I enjoyed Bruce Greenwood's portrayal of Captain Chistopher Pike. He was the man of the show, and is definitely the Pike that Fanboys can be proud of. Fans of the original show will love how Bruce Greenwood's portrayal will align with original lore- He was Kirk's mentor.
In the end, go watch the movie. I agree with the advertisements for the movie-This isn't your father's Star Trek. It will, however, appeal to everyone. I am flirting with a 3 and a half or 4 star rating. If I absolutely love it after my second time...then it is definitely a 4...and you know I am going to see it again...
Thursday, May 7, 2009
T-Minus...
Ok....all you Trekkers out there...Zach and I are about to hit up the new Star Trek movie in a few Minutes...We Will have a review up for you in the next day or so. Enjoy the weekend and hangout with us at the actors meet and greet tomorrow night at Salt Aire Films. Admission is $2. Live Long and Prosper!
Monday, May 4, 2009
Announcements!
Hey everybody out there in internet and radio lands!
This is your Webertainment Weekly host, Zach Jenkins with some special announcements.
First off, we apologize for not having April 28th's show available for the podcast. We experienced technical difficulties that were beyond our control (basically Audition didn't work). But never fear, Audition is now working, so we will continue to broadcast our excellent podcast which we hope you are all listening to.
Second, I have now officially graduated from Weber State University in Communication! Now don't worry. Tombstone and I are still going to be doing the show, bringing you all your great news in the entertainment industry. In fact we will be having more special guests in the coming weeks so stay tuned.
Third and most important is a message from our former guest, Sue Rowe! Yes, one of the guests from our first podcast has contacted us about this months "Utah Actor's Meet and Greet". And guess what? It is at a place talked about in our first podcast. Yep, it's going to be at Salt Aire Films!
Now we were invited and we wanted to invite all of you!
It will be held this Friday, May 8th from 7 to 11 pm. at
Salt Aire Films
2065 W Parkway Blvd.
West Valley, Utah 84119
They are offering one session of seminars on film making or acting classes free to attendees of the filmmakers event!!!!
http://www.saltairefilms.com/
Rowe says "this event is here to benefit all of us here in Utah. I always wished there was more stuff, like they have in LA, to get me out and in the" in" to know what was going on with the film industry in Utah. I hated feeling stuck like there was nothing I could do to get my business going, this is our business so lets treat it like one...That is why we do this to keep us all connected, to make a stronger state to film in, so we are ready for projects and out meeting others in film in our state...so here it is Utah, let's get going and keep it rocking here!"
It's $2 bucks to get in, Dress to impress (NOT formal gown or anything (at least not yet...) just look your best!) appetizers, music, etc...
We will be there, and we hope to see you there as well! This is a great opportunity to become more involved in the entertainment industry in Utah. Rowe says that under 21 is allowed but only those involved in the industry. (please get a sitter for the rest. It's the polite thing to do)
If you have any questions, feel free to comment us here or e-mail us at webertainmentweekly@gmail.com
This is your Webertainment Weekly host, Zach Jenkins with some special announcements.
First off, we apologize for not having April 28th's show available for the podcast. We experienced technical difficulties that were beyond our control (basically Audition didn't work). But never fear, Audition is now working, so we will continue to broadcast our excellent podcast which we hope you are all listening to.
Second, I have now officially graduated from Weber State University in Communication! Now don't worry. Tombstone and I are still going to be doing the show, bringing you all your great news in the entertainment industry. In fact we will be having more special guests in the coming weeks so stay tuned.
Third and most important is a message from our former guest, Sue Rowe! Yes, one of the guests from our first podcast has contacted us about this months "Utah Actor's Meet and Greet". And guess what? It is at a place talked about in our first podcast. Yep, it's going to be at Salt Aire Films!
Now we were invited and we wanted to invite all of you!
It will be held this Friday, May 8th from 7 to 11 pm. at
Salt Aire Films
2065 W Parkway Blvd.
West Valley, Utah 84119
They are offering one session of seminars on film making or acting classes free to attendees of the filmmakers event!!!!
http://www.saltairefilms.com/
Rowe says "this event is here to benefit all of us here in Utah. I always wished there was more stuff, like they have in LA, to get me out and in the" in" to know what was going on with the film industry in Utah. I hated feeling stuck like there was nothing I could do to get my business going, this is our business so lets treat it like one...That is why we do this to keep us all connected, to make a stronger state to film in, so we are ready for projects and out meeting others in film in our state...so here it is Utah, let's get going and keep it rocking here!"
It's $2 bucks to get in, Dress to impress (NOT formal gown or anything (at least not yet...) just look your best!) appetizers, music, etc...
We will be there, and we hope to see you there as well! This is a great opportunity to become more involved in the entertainment industry in Utah. Rowe says that under 21 is allowed but only those involved in the industry. (please get a sitter for the rest. It's the polite thing to do)
If you have any questions, feel free to comment us here or e-mail us at webertainmentweekly@gmail.com
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Reviews: X-Men Origins and Ghosts of Girlfriends Past.
On Friday two movies came out; X-Men Origins: Wolverine and The Ghosts of Girlfriends Past. Being the avid movie goer that I am, I viewed both films. Lets start with talking about Wolverine...
If you are into gratuitous action flicks, this movie is for you. It has everything an action fan would want-gratuitous explosions, big guns, superhuman powers, sword play, and a cute chick. The movie moves fast, and you never wonder when the action might show up. You will walk away from this movie feeling joyous that you spent ten bucks on the murder, mayhem, and treachery that is so prevalent in this film.
If you are a fanboy (or girl) of comics...this film will let you down in a few ways...ALERT there are some almost spoilers in this next section. Fanboys actually want something of Wolverine's Origins. I am sorry, but spending two minutes showing Wolvie as a prepubescent doesn't cut it...in fact, if you are only going to show two minutes of that footage, you might as well have not shown it at all. The movie focuses more on events that lead to Logan getting his adamantium claws then anything else...unfortunately...(if we use only movie lore) we already know how he got his adamantium claws...we just didn't know why he decided to do it. Basically the first half of the movie depicts how Wolverine comes to his decision to become adamantium laced.
O.K. the reason why is important...but along the way we have a few mishaps. First, we learn that Wolvies real name is actually James. Unfortunately, the film never discusses or tells us why people call him Logan. Somewhere in the middle of the film they are calling him Logan, but no one knows why. It can be rather mysterious to the unenlightened.
Second...As a fanboy I have accepted that movie makers will stray from original comic book lore. I understand this and accept it. However, they kind of twisted some of the Wolverine lore to suit the purposes of the movie. I am ok with that, but along the way, they happened to not only twist the lore of Logan's origins, but that of Scott Summers, as well as that of a few more of our favorite mutants.
Third and most importantly, from a storytelling point of view, the movie lacks character development. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the reason that this movie was made is so that we could develop Wolvie's character (which is harder to do in a movie about a whole team of people)? The movie never gives us an opportunity to care for Kayla Silverfox, and because of that fact the audience doesn't care about Logan. At the beginning we are never introduced to Wolverine's parents in a way that helps us to feel a connection to the star of the show. Other than Kayla and Commander Striker, the film contains many Marvel characters whose only purpose in the film is to allow the gratuitous action to happen. In the end we are left with a surface story that is fun in a shoot em' up kind of way, but lacks any true depth.
Therefore, if I was to use the 4 star rating for this film, I give this movie 2 and a half stars. Anyone that really knows me understands that I was hoping for this film to be a home-run, but unfortunately it's not.
Ghosts of Girlfriends Past:
Yes, fans of Mr. Matthew...he once again manages to take his shirt off in a film.
I enjoyed this film. Everyone knows that many of the greatest stories ever weren't original ideas when they were born. Therefore, having a story that is blatantly based off of A Christmas Carol works very well.
The story develops Matthew McConaughey's character of Connor Mead from the first moment. He is a cad. He is the epitome of sleaze, and if anyone questions that some of these women wouldn't ever fall for a boy as bad as he is, they are sorely mistaken. Women do everyday...I have seen it.
Laced with clever lines, we watch how Connor is transformed by the visitation of three spirits on the eve of his brother's wedding. How the ghosts interact with Connor is an original concept, if you think about how many real relationships Connor actually has had. They aren't actually his girlfriends, because Connor is a player.
Unlike the movies depicting Dickens original story, Connor Mead actually interacts with the bridal party in between the appearances of the apparitions. This allows the audience to see how Connor has changed after each visitation.
A couple of the highlights include Emma Stone's portrayal of Allison the Ghost of Girlfriends Past, Michael Douglas as sleazy Uncle Wayne, and the scene where Connor saves his brother Paul's wedding. Emma Stone was delightful and comedic, and stole some of the spotlight from Mr. McConaughey.
As a romance I enjoyed this movie because Connor's true redemption comes from saving his brother's wedding...not getting the girl. (I won't tell you if he gets the girl or not.) For fear of spoiling too much, I will leave it at that. The redemption scene allows this movie to slightly move past your typical romantic comedy. Not much further past, but a little bit.
I give this movie 3 stars. (Sometimes I rate like a true critic, other times I don't).
The added depth of character development takes this movie a half star beyond Wolverine for the weekend...
In all my life, not I, nor anyone who knows me, would ever believe that I would choose a chick flick over a comic book movie. This week it happened. My world is crumbling. Someone save me.
If you are into gratuitous action flicks, this movie is for you. It has everything an action fan would want-gratuitous explosions, big guns, superhuman powers, sword play, and a cute chick. The movie moves fast, and you never wonder when the action might show up. You will walk away from this movie feeling joyous that you spent ten bucks on the murder, mayhem, and treachery that is so prevalent in this film.
If you are a fanboy (or girl) of comics...this film will let you down in a few ways...ALERT there are some almost spoilers in this next section. Fanboys actually want something of Wolverine's Origins. I am sorry, but spending two minutes showing Wolvie as a prepubescent doesn't cut it...in fact, if you are only going to show two minutes of that footage, you might as well have not shown it at all. The movie focuses more on events that lead to Logan getting his adamantium claws then anything else...unfortunately...(if we use only movie lore) we already know how he got his adamantium claws...we just didn't know why he decided to do it. Basically the first half of the movie depicts how Wolverine comes to his decision to become adamantium laced.
O.K. the reason why is important...but along the way we have a few mishaps. First, we learn that Wolvies real name is actually James. Unfortunately, the film never discusses or tells us why people call him Logan. Somewhere in the middle of the film they are calling him Logan, but no one knows why. It can be rather mysterious to the unenlightened.
Second...As a fanboy I have accepted that movie makers will stray from original comic book lore. I understand this and accept it. However, they kind of twisted some of the Wolverine lore to suit the purposes of the movie. I am ok with that, but along the way, they happened to not only twist the lore of Logan's origins, but that of Scott Summers, as well as that of a few more of our favorite mutants.
Third and most importantly, from a storytelling point of view, the movie lacks character development. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the reason that this movie was made is so that we could develop Wolvie's character (which is harder to do in a movie about a whole team of people)? The movie never gives us an opportunity to care for Kayla Silverfox, and because of that fact the audience doesn't care about Logan. At the beginning we are never introduced to Wolverine's parents in a way that helps us to feel a connection to the star of the show. Other than Kayla and Commander Striker, the film contains many Marvel characters whose only purpose in the film is to allow the gratuitous action to happen. In the end we are left with a surface story that is fun in a shoot em' up kind of way, but lacks any true depth.
Therefore, if I was to use the 4 star rating for this film, I give this movie 2 and a half stars. Anyone that really knows me understands that I was hoping for this film to be a home-run, but unfortunately it's not.
Ghosts of Girlfriends Past:
Yes, fans of Mr. Matthew...he once again manages to take his shirt off in a film.
I enjoyed this film. Everyone knows that many of the greatest stories ever weren't original ideas when they were born. Therefore, having a story that is blatantly based off of A Christmas Carol works very well.
The story develops Matthew McConaughey's character of Connor Mead from the first moment. He is a cad. He is the epitome of sleaze, and if anyone questions that some of these women wouldn't ever fall for a boy as bad as he is, they are sorely mistaken. Women do everyday...I have seen it.
Laced with clever lines, we watch how Connor is transformed by the visitation of three spirits on the eve of his brother's wedding. How the ghosts interact with Connor is an original concept, if you think about how many real relationships Connor actually has had. They aren't actually his girlfriends, because Connor is a player.
Unlike the movies depicting Dickens original story, Connor Mead actually interacts with the bridal party in between the appearances of the apparitions. This allows the audience to see how Connor has changed after each visitation.
A couple of the highlights include Emma Stone's portrayal of Allison the Ghost of Girlfriends Past, Michael Douglas as sleazy Uncle Wayne, and the scene where Connor saves his brother Paul's wedding. Emma Stone was delightful and comedic, and stole some of the spotlight from Mr. McConaughey.
As a romance I enjoyed this movie because Connor's true redemption comes from saving his brother's wedding...not getting the girl. (I won't tell you if he gets the girl or not.) For fear of spoiling too much, I will leave it at that. The redemption scene allows this movie to slightly move past your typical romantic comedy. Not much further past, but a little bit.
I give this movie 3 stars. (Sometimes I rate like a true critic, other times I don't).
The added depth of character development takes this movie a half star beyond Wolverine for the weekend...
In all my life, not I, nor anyone who knows me, would ever believe that I would choose a chick flick over a comic book movie. This week it happened. My world is crumbling. Someone save me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)