Tron: Legacy: A Review

It's been a while since I reviewed the original, but here I am reviewing the sequel... and I must say I'm feeling pretty good. Tron: Legacy (2010) is very much a sequel, with more references to the former than Empire, but in many ways Legacy stands on its own in a way few sequels do. As a heads up most of the plot will be ignored due to the fact that there are several twists and turns, a lot of ins, a lot of outs, a lot of what have you.

To begin with: Yes, the movie is pretty. I won't spend a lot of time on this seeing as how anyone who has viewed a single trailer knows that this movie is a stunning piece of CGI. The world of Tron came to life in ways that the creators of the original probably only dreamed of, with bright lights and vivid imagery, allowing the Grid to become a world of it's own, not a sound stage with a lot of neon tubing.

Also a thing of beauty is the Daft Punk Score, as a newbie to Daft Punk I was really impressed with how they were able to mix the sound of classic video game music with new style to make probably the best soundtrack I've heard in years, frankly if Daft Punk doesn't win the Oscar, or at least gets nominated, then there is something wrong with the Oscars... well... that's a rant for another day.

Really, my only problem with this movie comes in with the Script, although when compared with the first they are on par, Legacy does what the first one doesn't... leave frayed ends. The Purge of the ISOs is touched on, but the ISOs themselves are mentioned for just a few scenes. I know Disney was gunning for a sequel to this sequel, but the way the ending doesn't show what Sam has done now that's he's back, or for that matter what happened to Tron after his lights changed back to blue, leaves the viewer with a sense of longing. Furthermore, the whole state of the Grid is in question, now that Flynn and Clu are gone, will there be some rebuilding? Will Sam rebuild The Grid? Who knows? The viewers don't, that's for sure.

Also, there was some dialogue that felt a little weird, falling under the Lucas Rule of "You can write it, but you can't read it." Though, there are few movies without an occasional snag in the script. I do appreciate all the Fan service that was done, I really do, but if you have time to include the Tanks passing in the background, then you should have time to polish the script enough to keep the ends of the strands in Ole Duder's Kevin Flynn's The Grid loose.

The acting is actually a lot better than I thought it would be. But, as could be expected, Bridges stole the show in his double role as both Flynn and Clu. What was probably the best CGI piece was "Young" Flynn, even though there were a few times that the CGI was very obvious. Also strong was Olivia Wilde, who oozed sex appeal, at the same time she seemed innocent and naive. Garrett Hedlund is very good, but he lacks the pure laid back charm of Bridges in the original, and even here.

For a sequel, you won't find much better. Plot snags aside Tron: Legacy is a very fun ride and well worth a trip to the cinema for a big screen viewing. For fans of the first... it's definitely been worth the wait.

Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (8.75/10)




  

Gremlins: A Review

Some movies stand the test of time not because of amazing stories or outstanding performances, but instead they just touch certain audiences in a certain way. In other words, they're just fun. Such is the case of Gremlins (1984), equal parts comedy and camp, with a delightful infusion of horror and Christmas joy to make a movie that will be remembered for decades because its fun and unique, but nobody will accuse it of being one of the greatest movies ever made.

In some ways the movie plays like a modern version of 'The Trouble with Tribbles' one of the truly classic Original Star Trek episodes, but other than the annoying, rapidly spawning creatures the similarities end there. Gremlins starts out very innocent, with a like able kid, matched with geeky yet like able parents, and a cranky old lady causing trouble in his life. In a lot of ways the characters work because they are very conventional, many are straight out of the standard 80s mold (think The Goonies). The redeeming element to this is that all the characters are very enjoyable, because viewers have seen them before.

As I briefly touched on earlier, the script, by later Harry Potter helmer Chris Columbus, mixes comedy with horror to produce a very different Christmas movie. I was kind of impressed with how interesting a movie about little monsters could be. There's the main story involving the aforementioned monsters, there's also a romantic side plot for Billy (Zach Galligan). Again, these subplots are very cliche for a movie that came out during the 1980s, but the point is that they work.

In what was probably my favorite inclusion of the movie was the constant shots of old movies, many of which set the stage for the events of the movie. Particularly The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) before the Mogwai began to break out of their own pods, it was little touches like this that allowed sci-fi genre fans an added level of enjoyment.

From the future looking back, the effects are quite lame, the creatures eyes often don't sync up and motion is very rigid and unnatural, something that today would be done easily with CGI. That being said, for the time the effects would have been cutting edge and probably would have left a young viewer or two with bad dreams for a while after seeing this movie.

Also, the human performances all fall into the "1980s camp" pile, due to shoddy acting made alright simply because the movie is shoddy itself therefore the average performance play along with the whole campy vibe, instead of seeming out of place. There are no great performances, but there's nothing on a Wiseau level, either.

As a piece of high quality cinema, Gremlins is a bit of a failure. The story is bizarre, matched with decent acting and sub par effects there's not a lot of substance. But taken as a piece of entertainment... there is a lot going for Gremlins. There are laughs, good characters, and even a bit of romance, all added up to make a very fun movie, even if it's not a Citizen Kane or a Casablanca.

Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (8/10)

I Review You, Man

Over the last few years the slacker set has invaded motion pictures and established a base camp in the romantic comedy genre. Some of the movies have turned into modern classics, with an endless stream of quoting and tie in merchandise for teenagers to wear. One of these movies was the 2009 movie I Love You, Man starring Paul Rudd (Knocked Up) and Jason Segel (Forgetting Sarah Marshall). In effect the movie is part of the current "slacker/striver" strain of the romantic comedy virus, but as it describes itself, it's a "bromantic comedy."

Pete (Rudd) seemingly has no friends, except his girlfriend and most of his female coworkers. With an impending wedding, Pete has a problem: He has no Best Man. As such, he decides to set out to find a best friend: involving a few gay men that think effeminate Pete is also gay, all leading to the meet cute with Sydney (Segel). The two instantly become friends and in true rom-com style spend all their free time together... falling deeper and deeper in bro-love.

As a romantic comedy there are many of the same pitfalls that plagues most movies in the genre, mainly being: Love and friendship like this is not instantaneous. Also, there's a love building montage set to "Tom Sawyer," and worst of all... two dimensional characters.

Jon Favreau is the worst offender here; as shown in movies like Swingers (1996), Favreau can do comedy, but here he is so abrasive there is little to no comedy... just... Favreau being an asshole. Rudd's character is just a loser, I'm sorry, but he is. For character's like Rudd's to work, they have to be more than just sad sacks. Tragically unhip, Pete is just a loser pretending to be cool... but the writers gave him so little real development he remains a loser acting cool. Then there's the opposite end of the spectrum in Sydney, a guy who is so hipster cool that he wears Ugg boots ironically, has a hybrid dog, and plays Rush songs. Again, there is so little characterization that Sydney is essentially what a 10 year old dreams they'll be like when they are nearing 30.

Bringing me to my biggest complaint with the movie: the script. I have seen just about the whole cast in other movies, even the back ground fillers pop up in most of the "edgy" comedy shows and movies. So I know they can do comedy and are all decent actors, leading the weakness of the movie to be shared between the script writers and the director, the latter being one of the former. There are some funny parts, but most of the movie isn't funny on it's own, laughs are only elicited because of Segel's over acting, the only redeeming part of this movie. The jokes are usually strung out longer than they should be, making them less funny than they were.

I heard this movie get hyped beyond belief, and I was a little let down. Segel and Rudd have both been in much better movies, so if you want a does of Segel or Rudd (or Segel and Rudd in some cases) check out most of the Apatow family tree. Though if you're looking for a few immature laughs and hip references check this out, but if you want a good comedy... don't.

Dr. Brooklyn says: PASS this movie (6/10)



 

Reviewer No. 1

During my recent hiatus I was still watching movies, one of them being the ground breaking and controversial A Clockwork Orange (1971) which starred Malcolm McDowell. After liking him in Time after Time (1978) and A Clockwork Orange, seeing his name on the cover was enough to convince me to watch the movie Gangster No. 1 (2000).

To be frank I have been let down by several of the  British crime flicks I've seen... mainly those directed by Guy Ritchie, because many times the movies rely too heavily on conventions and American precedent, but Gangster No. 1 is surprisingly original. To begin with, the movie is stylized beyond belief, shots are broken up in a nod to old pop art movies, with fourth wall breaks and a bi-linear plot of The Gangster (McDowell and Paul Bettany) in the modern times and as a young man, facing his own fall and rising respectively. Although released in 2000, the movie oozes 1960s cool, mainly because that's when the Gangster begins to make his climb to the top.

In that regard it seems like most Rise of the Gangster movies (see Scarface, Carlito's Way, State Property, The Public Enemy, GoodFellas, etc), and in many ways it is conventional: young Gangster learns from Boss, only to later usurp Boss resulting in animosity and blood shedding, but because of all the style and the variables thrown into the formula is enough to make Gangster No. 1 different and exciting.

Although it's not his first movie, this is the first Paul McGuigan movie I've seen, and I was pleasantly pleased by his eye for style. I know I have been saying the word "style" a lot, but that's only because this movie had more in the opening minutes than Snatch had in it's entire run time. McGuigan captures the brutality of the Gangster and the world around him in a way that is visually pleasing and impressive for a man on his second film.

Furthermore, McGuigan was working from a great script by Johnny Ferguson. My main problem with the films of Ritchie is that he is a so-so screen writer who tries to be edgy and funny, but fails. Ferguson on the other hand gives a subtle wit to a very violent movie, kind of like a lesser Tarantino.

The acting is all amazing, McDowell is grand, playing the character (in his own words) as an older Alex Destrange. As such the character has a roguish charm to him, despite not getting a lot of screen time until Act III. The way The Gangster narrates Act I and II though do establish him as a very strong character, despite McDowell's face being absent for much of the early stages of the film.

That being said the man playing the Gangster during Acts I and II really owns this movie; and that man is Paul Bettany. Many Americans will know him as the hype man Geoffery Chaucer in A Knight's Tale (2003), but his role here is so far removed from that film that it;s hard to imagine that same jovial man is this violent psychopath who rises to the top... of a heap of corpses. The sheer ice of The Gangster's soul shows every time Bettany opens his eyes, cold and unforgiving.

To be honest this is a very good movie: great acting, a great script, great direction, amazing style and a very cool plot roller coaster. Although it won't be on any of my crime top 5s it's a very thrilling movie and worth a watch if you haven't seen it.

Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (9.25/10)

An American Reviewer in London

Hey guys, just so you know I AM alive... but barely due to exam week. The Doctor has been getting schooled. That having been said I am making my triumphant return to the reviewing game... so buckle up... we're going to go for a little journey.

Although many don't want to admit it... the Horror genre has actually contributed some of the finest movies ever made: Dracula (1931), Rosemary's Baby (1968), The Excorcist (1973), Halloween (1978), etc. But, soon people didn't want strict fear inducing scenes, and soon horror-comedy was born. Of course to cinema goers in modern times horror-comedy is nothing new, movies like the Scream series and 2004's modern classic Shaun of the Dead have gained widespread popularity that horror movies with campy humor are almost the new status quo, but this new breed of horror movie's was not a recent creation.

In the early 80s there was a movie that challenged what people expected from horror, for example one doesn't expect a horror movie to begin with peaceful shots a a tranquil moor... matched up with a peaceful little diddy like "Blue Moon" sung by velvet tongued crooner Bobby Vinton. The more common place opening usually involves a bloody massacre to get viewers attention, making An American Werewolf in London (1981) all the more unique.

But the camp factor was not the only factor that sets this movie apart. The way David (David Naughton) discovers his condition is amongst the more inventional aspects, Landis beautifully uses dreams, flashbacks, and a chilling and chuckle inducing scene with David's deceased friend, Jack (Griffin Dunne). The script is pretty inventive, not relying solely on Werewolf canon as passed down from such classics as The Wolf Man (1941), instead flexing the mythos a tad here and there to make the movie more modern and appealing. I was also impressed with how Landis (mostly known for his classic comedies and the Thriller music video) was able to craft a very good werewolf based script... leaving behind animals like Bluto to make one of the best were wolf movies ever.

But it's not just the script that Landis got right. The over all vibe of the movie is perfect. All the archetypes are presented in ways that are both traditional and new. The creepy townsfolk provide some of the best town fillers since the robots of Thermostadt in the Futurama episode The Honking. And, although I did say that the Werewolf tale was modernized a bit, the key elements are respected such as only a loved one can kill a lycanthrope, etc. (There are none of those fake Twilight Werewolves here). But one of the true highlights is the Tarantino esque soundtrack, ironically matching songs involving the moon with intense violence and moments that one wouldn't associate with a certain song, adding to diffuse the horror and make the viewer half smile... even while David is writhing in pain during a horrific transformation.

Speaking of that transformation, the movie truly does deserve the praise for it's groundbreaking make up work. Before computers could do everything Baker and his boys put on one heck of a show during the transformations, and when Jack shows up as a decaying corpse. I do have to agree with some critics saying the real star of this movie is Baker and the make up crew.

For a horror movie, the acting is not bad. I do have to use that qualifier because the acting is not amazing by any stretch of the imagination, but compared to many other entries of macabre cinema the acting is pretty good. Naughton plays the eponymous American Werewolf with a like ability that I believe is mostly natural, and he portrays the confused young man very well, but he's not a great actor. The same can be said of Jenny Agutter, for a horror lead she is actually a strong independent woman who doesn't spend the entire movie squealing, which is refreshing. But the best acting performance is probably John Woodvine as the Dr. J.S. Hirsch, a small role, true, but Woodvine does act better than the rest.

All in all this is a very good movie, not just a good horror movie, but a good movie in general. There are some scares and more than one laugh; So if you are looking for a good way to spend an hour and thirty eight minutes pop in An American Werewolf in London, you won't be disappointed.

Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (9/10)