Whatever Works: A Quick Review

First of all, if you have never watched a Woody Allen movie (he writes and directs all his movies by the way, and years ago used to star in them too...fun little fact right there) before, stop reading this review and go watch"Annie Hall" (aka the only other Woody Allen movie I have personally watched and also one of Woody Allen's best). It's a great, funny movie from 1977 that stars Woody Allen and Diane Keaton. Anyway, back to "Whatever Works"... It has a strong cast that includes Larry David, Rachel Evan Wood, Ed Begley Jr., and Michael McKean (who is a great comedic actor and is used far to little in the movie). The plot is pretty predictable: somehow Larry David's character, an extremely angry man who basically doesn't believe in anything and hates all people, falls in love (sorta, kinda) with Rachel Evan Wood's character...she runs away from home and ends up at Larry David's house...yes. Larry David is a good 40 years older...yes, that is weird and gross on a couple levels. Let's move on...their whole relationship seems contrived and there really is no chemistry between the two...of course the end comes and everyone gets thrown a little curveball. The ending by the way isn't that great and I found it to be unbelievable and abrupt...but the movie as a whole was pretty funny. Larry David had the best lines, many times talking directly to the audience which I do like, but Woody Allen did it better in "Annie Hall." And generally speaking, angry people ranting about everything they can think of is pretty amusing for me...but Woody Allen could have done better...and the fact he is 73 is no excuse. A certain Clint Eastwood is nearing 80 and still making wonderful movies (yes, I would call "Changeling" and "Gran Torino" both wonderful. If you haven't seen them yet...what are you waiting for? Just do it....two of the best movies of 2008 in my opinion).

-Joseph Sbrilli

Marley and Me: A Quick Review

First of all, I want to apologize to anyone who is a really huge fan of this movie or of Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston. Because I think they are two of the most annoying people in Hollywood and "Marley and Me" (yep...that's Marley, the rascal pulling at the leash) is an awful movie. It's based off a book and the theory is that books are usually better than their movie adaption, but come on! How interesting can a married couple and their dog and their kids getting into shenanigans possibly be? It's ridiculous to think that someone thought it was a good idea to turn the book into a movie. So we have Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston play a newly married couple who are apparently very fertile because a couple kids do pop out during the 115 minutes. Dogs are always annoying in movies...always. There is no exception except maybe Lassie...but come on, Timmy needed a friend. All the emotions are so forced in the movie. Nothing at all is convincing...nothing. I didn't care about any of the main characters. The only part of the movie that wasn't awful was Alan Arkin. He is a great actor and extremely funny. Arkin got the best lines and his scenes were actually enjoyable. That's about all I have...except I gotta say I am ashamed of the director...he could have had a better follow-up to "The Devil Wears Prada" (which was actually a pretty good movie) of course I would have never watched it if not for Meryl Streep being in it, but that's just a technicality.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Doubt: A Quick Review

Well, if anyone has read my reviews for "Mamma Mia!" and/or "Julie & Julia" or if you have ever talked to me for an extended period of time, one thing is bound to come up...my love for Meryl Streep - and for good reason. For the past three decades this woman has proved that she is an amazing actress. She is capable of playing every single role that people can possibly offer her. Watch this, then watch "The Devil Wears Prada," then watch "Julie & Julia," and you will see how amazing an actress she is...and that's just looking at roles from the past 3 years. Wow, that took up a lot of space...sorry about that. The rest of the cast of "Doubt" is fantastic as well: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, and Viola Davis. The four main actors all got Oscar nominations earlier this year and they deserved each one. The script also was nominated, having been adapted from a play. The movie takes place at a Catholic School...I'm aware this may turn people off from the movie right away, but let's be open-minded...where Meryl Streep and Amy Adams are nuns (Sister Aloysius and Sister James, respectively) and Philip Seymour Hoffman is a priest (Father Flynn). Yep...now the cross shaped poster makes more sense, doesn't it. Well anyway, Father Flynn is accused of molesting a black boy and Sister Aloyius is convinced he's guilty and Sister James thinks he is innocent. That's the really brief plot synopsis. The movie is primarily character-driven, so strong dialogue is always helpful. This movie is not for everyone obviously...but I thought it was very well-done and one of the best movies of 2008. The cast is just so good. The ending may also bother some...but I'll go with "it just promotes discussion"...

-Joseph Sbrilli

Saturday Night Fever: A Quick Review

First of all, can anyone honestly resist a movie that has this great poster with John Travolta in his famous white suit disco dancing? Most Americans cannot (my opinion...not an actual fact). "Saturday Night Fever" is that great movie that caused Mr. Travolta to think he was way too good for "Welcome Back, Kotter" (which, quite honestly, he was) and quit the show and move on to a great career (minus the majority of the '80s and those stupid movies with Kristie Alley, that angel movie, and that Scientology movie that almost the entire human race despises among a couple other questionable choices) that includes Grease (made the year after "Saturday Night Fever"), and "Pulp Fiction." Yeah...that whole period in between those two movies was pretty awful for him. But John Travolta is fantastic in his Oscar nominated role of Tony Manero. And proved, among other things, that he is quite a talented dancer. The movie has a fantastic soundtrack also - primarily dominated by the Bee Gees. So between John Travolta, the Bee Gees, and a pretty gritty (not sure how I feel about that word but I couldn't think of a better one) look at the hell hole that was New York City in the 1970s, we have a classic '70s movie that people still watch and love now which is pretty darn impressive. Oh yeah...and Fran Drescher shows up briefly (minus her harsh New York accent...which I happen to love) in her acting debut. This movie's not for everyone, but it's one of my personal favorites.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Air Force One: A Quick Review

"Air Force One" is a very good movie. This may have something to do with the fact (yeah, it's now a fact and not merely my opinion) that Harrison Ford is amazing actor (ignoring "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," which was most certainly all George Lucas's fault), and that Harrison Ford has great screen presence, and is strangely believable as the President of the United States. It also might have something to do with the fact the supporting cast, including Glenn Close (the Vice President), Gary Oldman (the head terrorist who is taking control of Air Force One), and William H. Macy (a Major...as in member of the armed forces) are all fantastic in their roles. Also Wolfgang Petersen is a great director (he directed "In the Line of Fire" four years before this movie...Clint Eastwood's in it and I love the movie with every fiber of my being). Well anyway, "Air Force One" is a good thriller and you actually care about the characters in it...which is good because otherwise watching movies is a waste of time, eyesight, and brain power. Except for the rarity of some really awful dialogue (for which the writer should be utterly ashamed of him or herself...but Harrison Ford probably should have spoken up about this - but he's amazing so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) and a couple unbelievable scenes, the writing is well-done. Visually, the movie also succeeds...great action and effects. And honestly, when given the choice, why would anyone mess around with Harrison Ford? It just seems like a bad idea. Well, that's all I've got...after all it is a quick review...

-Joseph Sbrilli

The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day

Well, that was one way to completely destroy one of the most beloved cult movies of all time. Let's kick this off with a quick review of the original cult phenomenon. First-time writer and director, Troy Duffy, somehow convinced someone to make his movie. It made like $10,000 dollars in the theaters and every critic hated it like it was the spawn of Hitler, Mussolini and Spiderman 3. The movie picked up an incredible cult following when it was released on DVD and is now a personal favorite in my collection. Brilliant, funny writing, an overused plot that was still original, good acting by little known actors (aside from Willem Dafoe and Billy Connolly) and intense slow-motion action sequences. You should all see it right now.

Since "The Boondock Saints" made like 27 million off of DVD sales, and has a humongous following, everyone kind of expected Troy Duffy to come back with a second one. It took ten years, but he did it. "All Saints Day" has raped one of my favorite movies almost as hard as Indiana Jones was raped by George Lucas. It is absolutely ridiculous. I sat in the theater trying, TRYING very hard to find some redeeming qualities in this movie - anything that was reminiscent of its predecessor. Nothing. Could not find a thing.

The plot makes about as much sense as letting a pet rattlesnake free in your house because you think it needs more "together" time. If anyone saw the first movie you know that the movie ended after the brothers and their dad effectively destroyed the Yakkavetti (spelling?) crime family in Boston - vigilante justice at its finest. For some reason, and contrary to everything in the first film, they just quit. The feds were helping them kill bad guys, and they just quit and moved to Ireland. 10 years later someone murders a priest in Boston and makes it look like the MacManus brothers did it. They get all pissy and ship back to Boston to kill everyone responsible. Along the way they adopt the most stereotypical Mexican in existence and try to rely on him for comic relief (spoiler alert: it doesn't work). He's not even their friend, they just find him on the ship and he wants to tag along. Then the director went, "Yes! Character development sucks! Go guns!"

For some reason Troy felt it necessary to replace Rocco (The brothers' friend, who gets killed in the first movie) and replace Willem Dafoe. This is the part that made me so mad I swore in the theater about how stupid it was. Dafoe was replaced by a female protegee of his...and she has a southern drawl. I don't know about you, but if anyone has a southern drawwwwwwwllllllll in a film, they better be on a porch, 80 years old, and holding a shotgun. This woman pissed me off. She pretended she knew everything and because someone thought she was pretty, the director had a lot of scenes of her looking at the camera, smiling like an idiot.

Troy Duffy must have watched "Wanted," "Punisher 2," and every Nicholas Cage action movie, before writing "All Saints Day." The plot makes no sense, and a ridiculous backstory just convolutes everything just that much more. I'm not sure where the dialogue went, but just to note, because you use the word "gratuitous" in front of the word "violence" does not make you Shakespeare. Every memorable scene in the first movie, and almost every dialogue (good and bad) is repeated to a mind-numbing effect. There is almost no way this movie could have been worse. (trust me, the ghost of Rocco shows up, it's god-awful).

Grade: half a star out of 4, and that's only because I like watching people shoot other people in slow-motion with silenced pistols.

-Christ0pher O'Connell

Disney's A Christmas Carol

"Disney's A Christmas Carol" is directed by Robert Zemeckis ("Back to the Future," "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," "Forrest Gump," "The Polar Express," etc). The movie stars Jim Carrey ("The Truman Show"), Gary Oldman ("The Dark Knight"), Cary Elwes ("The Princess Bride"), Colin Firth ("Bridget Jones's Diary"), Bob Hoskins ("Hook"), and Robin Wright Penn ("Forrest Gump").

Since this is about the 87th time that Charles Dickens's "A Christmas Carol" has been adapted in some way, shape, or form, I am assuming that the majority of the human race knows the story. There really is no excuse to not know it...even if it's just "The Muppet Christmas Carol" version you're familiar with. But I guess I'll give a recap anyway since this is the section of the review where I usually talk about the plot. Ebenezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey plays Scrooge at every stage of life) is your generally unpleasant person who is obsessed with his job and money and hates everything about Christmas. And following with his nature, he treats his employee Bob Cratchit (Gary Oldman) and just about everyone else horribly. Well, anyway, one night, Scrooge gets a visit from the ghost of Jacob Marley (Gary Oldman again!), Scrooge's old business partner. The ghost of Jacob Marley tells Scrooge that he will be visited by the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future (Yep...all 3 ghosts are played by Jim Carrey...hmm this is kind of like when Tom Hanks played every single character in "The Polar Express" 5 years ago.) Well anyway, Scrooge is real scared and all since they are ghosts and everything...and...yeah...I won't ruin the end for the one person in the world not familiar with this story thats been around in various forms since 1843 when a man named Charles Dickens first wrote the book.

The voice cast for "Disney's A Christmas Carol" is great. I was impressed at how several of the voice actors were given multiple parts to play and everyone does it so well. I was just about to say how impressed I was with all the English accents then I found out everyone except Jim Carrey (who's Canadian if you ever wanted to know) and Robin Wright Penn are actually British...so that's really not special at all. Jim Carrey by far had the hardest job, voicing essentially 6 characters, if you count the younger Scrooges. And he took the challenge and succeeded. He was able to change the sound of his voice depending on the character so many times that it was hard to tell it was even him. His change as Scrooge from the beginning of the movie to the end was well-done and believable (well, I don't know if that drastic a change would actually happen...but who knows with 1840s London).

Although it has been while since I've read the book, I'm pretty sure that this newest adaption stayed very true to the book. The script was written by Robert Zemeckis and some lines are taken directly from Dickens's "A Christmas Carol." A couple parts I think might have been changed/added for this version but that is to be expected with each new adaptation to the classic story. The only part that I really didn't like was near the end where Bob Cratchit decides to talk to the audience. It feels very weird and unnatural and narration would have worked far better.

The animation in the movie was great. Motion capture was used to animate this movie. This is where the actors essentially have a body suit on and there are sensors all over it so their movements can be recorded. Then this information gets put on a computer and everything else is digitally added. For this reason the characters look like the actors that play them, to some extent. Jim Carrey is probably the most obvious...as his face shows up on a variety of characters. Although motion capture can look a little bit strange and not feel natural, I felt it worked here. The motion capture-animated characters looked better here than in "The Polar Express"...at least that's what I thought. The main area where the animation shines is in the depiction of 1840s London. There are some great scenes where the camera is just moving quickly all through London and it looks wonderful. The animation is just beautiful...and I am usually really judgmental about movies that aren't animated by Pixar. Texture and depth were definitely there throughout. I saw the movie in 3D so this was more evident. Although the 3D glasses dim the color a little bit, it was very well done, giving depth to the scenes, instead of just being gimmicky. 3D animation is definitely getting better...and many movies are using this technology.

Who would have thought that Jim Carrey would be joining the likes of Reginald Owen, Alastair Sim, Albert Finney, George C. Scott, and Michael Cane playing Ebenezer Scrooge? But he does and he is actually quite good...although not as memorable as the aforementioned actors. Robert Zemeckis's version of "A Christmas Carol" is true to the book and visually stunning. Overall just a good movie experience...3 out of 4 stars...and I would see it in 3D at least once...Disney Digital 3D is pretty great.

-Joseph Sbrilli