Mondays movie madness review: Arthur

Our Rating ** (2 stars)

It is not often I walk away from a movie.
Last night I did just this. I literally walked away from this movie after about half an hour.

Normally both Haylee and I love Russell Brand in the movies we have seen him him. "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" was just hilarious, with his character adding a layer of depth to the film that turned it into one of our all time favourites. Likewise "Get Him To The Greek", based on the same Sarah Marshall character, was also very very funny.
Both of these movie are based around characters in which it appears Russell Brand just plays an extension of himself. A somewhat cartoon character of his own personality. It seems he has made quite a career out of doing this. A wild few years as a teenager in front of a camera doing outlandish things whilst addled on a cocktail of booze and drugs has really set him up for life, even though he is not any of those things anymore he still plays it like he is.

In the case of this movie though, the cartoon character falls short. It just doesn't seem to fit. The film is a remake on a Dudley Moore classic from 1981 that won critical acclaim and awards all over the show. The modernised rock and roll cartoon, whilst seeming to fit into the mold of a billionaire playboy character wrapped up in trustfund indulgence whilst the world burns around him, kind of misses the point and comes across as completely indulgent and narcissistic. Perhaps that was the intention, to make a character so annoying that we are moved to feel some form of connection with the character when he inevitably turns his life around and starts making the correct choices, but I just could wait that long. It seemed to be a little too over the top given what is going on around us.

It reaffirms the whole reason we started this section of the website. Life is too short to subject yourself to utter rubbish. If just one person reads this and saves themselves the experience of losing even half an hour we have added something positive to the world.
Why has this happened? Russell Brand strikes me as a switched on individual with the ability to look beneath the thin, tacky & shameless veneer that is Hollywood. Has he just become a victim of his own success, or just chosen a remake of a film that is out of place in today's politically correct world?

Monday's Movie Madness - Review: "I Love you Phillip Morris"

Our Rating *** (3 stars)

This movie took us by surprise.
At the video shop the info on this dvd was pretty light. I was in a rush. We felt like a nice & gentle comedy. It had been a big week, so nothing too hard.....
The plot description was equally vague, but we have always liked movies by both Jim Carrey & Ewan McGregor.

In hindsight visiting a website with a section like this one would have been helpful. I would have a little more info on hand to be prepared to make an informed decision.This is the problem with going to the video shop - you have to rely on previously viewed trailers, recommendations, or just be brave and pick based on covers.

Don't get me wrong, we both liked the movie, but we weren't prepared to watch a gay love story about a conman who lies, steals and cheats to make his way through love, a difficult childhood and an identity crisis.
By "not prepared to watch a gay love story" I mean just that.
Nothing against gay love stories at all, but we were in the mood for a light comedy, and that was how the movie was sold on the dvd cover. It was only after watching it that I took another look at the cover and noted all of the innuendo that suggested more about the story than the words gave on the cover.
The lesson here is to look at things a little more carefully before jumping straight in, which kind of sums up the Jim Carrey character in this movie.

The story is based on a true one, and is intriguing, lovely and heartfelt. The first time directors, Glenn Ficarra and John Requa (also responsible for writing the Billy Bob Thornton flick Bad Santa), have done a great job on a movie that would have been very easy to slip into crass stereotypes. The performances by both Carrey and McGregor are sublime, and deliver a wonderful sincerity to a story that could have been very cheesy instead of engaging and thought provoking. Not the kind of description one would expect for a jim Carrey "comedy" but a great watch if you are in the mood.

It grossed a little over USD$20 million worldwide from a budget of $13 million, after its limited theatrical release, and continues to do well in dvd releases.

Mondays Movie Madness - Review "The Hangover Part II"

Our Rating *** (3.5 stars)

Two years after their escapade in Las Vegas, Phil Wenneck (Bradley Cooper), Dr. Stuart "Stu" Price (Ed Helms), Alan Garner (Zach Galifianakis) & Doug Billings (Justin Bartha) travel to Thailand to celebrate Stu's impending wedding to Lauren. Much to Alan's dismay, they are joined by Lauren's younger brother, Teddy. During Lauren's father's toast, he shows his disapproval of Stu by comparing him to congee. At the end of the night, Stu hesitantly joins Phil, Doug, Alan and Teddy for a beer. Sitting at a campfire and roasting marshmallows, the group toast to Stu and Lauren's future happiness.
Then it happens AGAIN.

This movie is fairly predictable and relies heavily on the same humour that made the first Hangover movie such a smash hit, and a cult classic.
Ken Jeong as Leslie Chow is a real show stopper, as is Zach Galifianakis as the live-at-home manboy Alan.
The real difference with the second installment is the heavier workload both of these actors get the second time around.
It is all more of the same, but slightly more refined in the execution and the location, and even though the jokes feel a little old and stale, the forumla is still pretty sweet.

Welcome back Mr Chow, you are a legend!

Can't get enough - keep reading to see some more gold from both Ken Jeong, who plays Mr Chow, along with some Zach Galifianakis gems.

Monday Movie Madness - Movie Review "Hostel"

Our Rating **** (4stars)

After writing the review for Rampage last week where I mentioned the blood and guts movies like Saw, Hostel and The Human Centipede, I thought I had better challenge myself and watch and review one of these. Kind of wish now that I hadn't.
We had seen, and been repulsed by, the original Saw movie many years ago, so generally we tend to stay away from this kind of film. As reasonably gentle folk we just don't need these thoughts in our lives, and the wonders of modern film making make that graphic nature of these movies really stay with you for quite some time.

This 2005 movie from Eli Roth is down right chilling.
The violence is "next level" and very graphic, but I found the concept to be even more chilling, as it is supposedly based on true events, and portrayed in such a way that it is all very unbelievable.
You could imagine that, given the degree of moral decay we now have in our society, somewhere out there is a company running such a murder for fun and profit operation.
I would not enjoy, nor want to know the numbers of young travellers that go missing each year globally whilst travelling in foreign lands, never to be heard from again. It is terrifying to think that some of the wonderful travellers I have met over the years could be the unlucky ones to meet their end in this kind of torture inspired terror.

The premise for the movie is that there is a hostel in Eastern Europe which acts as a recruiting ground for a "murder for profit" business. Young, predominantly male backpackers are lured into staying by gorgeous Slovakian young ladies, they are made to feel "very welcome" and then nek minnut, sorry, next minute....

The movie made quite a bit of money (around USD$80.5million) from an initial budget of just shy of USD$5million, and spawned a follow up film Hostel 2 in 2007. The tourism board of Slovania was less than thrilled however.

Monday's Movie Madness - Review of "Rampage"

Our rating ** (2 stars)

It is hard to know what exactly to look for when you want some good old fashioned film violence. Do you go for cheesy over the top violence like a bad Arnold movie, or do you go for the more classic and hardman Guy Ritchie type, or do you go right off the deep end with arts film violence like Man Bites Dog, Bad Boy Bubby, or that old chestnut Saw, or the new kids on the horror block Hostel or The Human Centipede ?

Finding myself in a bind at the video store a while back I decided on a late night viewing of Rampage.
This movie is a bit vague on the kind of violence to expect on the cover, and given that they only had a couple of copies on the shelf, this could have meant it was either very bad, or very good in a hidden gem kind of way.
It seemed quite arts-housey as well, and that usually attracts me as I tend to get quite bored of the big studio fare.

The premise of the film promised alot; man gets feed up with society, kits up and goes on a rampage extracting his revenge on a world he feels nothing but contempt for..
Pretty simple, a plot full of opportunities to make some clever social commentary, guns and violence, and reasonably hard to get it wrong one would have thought.

Thoughts? Quite disappointed really. I guess if I had looked closely I would have seen that maverick, controversial  film maker Uwe Boll had written, directed and edited this movie - giving just one man complete editorial control of the content. That has to be a recipe for disaster right there! This is not a school project folks, this is our valuable down time we are talking about!
I was expecting so much more than just the opportunity to show violence for the sake of it.

Movie Review: "Sanctum"

Our Rating: **** (4 stars)

This movie would be amazing to see in 3D. Even more so in the theatre. Some movies just have that epicness about them, and also seem to ALWAYS have James Cameron's name attached to them. Think Titanic, Avatar and now Sanctum.

This is less a blockbuster and more a purists adventure movie. The effects are kept to a minimum and it is the story that is the real star.

Based on real events (the 1988 Nullabor Dreaming episode - more later) the movie feels very authentic and keeps you on the edge of your seat right through to the inevitable climatic scenes. The plot has had a full Hollywood treatment to it, and when they say that it is "based on acutal events" they really needed to have said "this film was made by a guy that knew a guy that was trapped in a cave for a couple of days by a freak storm and thought that the concept of this would make a good movie....."
The movie was made with a modest budget of only USD$30 million and grossed over USD$100 million, which is pretty impressive for quite a specialist theme - amazing what attaching James Cameron's name to a movie will do!

Aside from the obvious Hollywoodisation of the story, it is still very watchable, believable and gets you fully involved. I can only imagine how much more intense this would have been sitting in a 3D Theatre - wow!

There is of course a whole lot more to the story.