Water for Elephants

Robert Pattinson has finally won my approval after dedicating years of his life to the disaster that is the “Twilight” saga. Pattinson recently starred in the powerful film “Water for Elephants” by “I am Legend” director, Francis Lawrence. Pattinson shared the screen with Academy Award winner Reese Witherspoon and Academy Award winner Christoph Waltz.

While Jacob, portrayed by Pattinson, is studying to become a veterinarian, his parents are killed in a car accident. After the bank takes everything he owns away in order to pay debts, he runs away and joins a traveling circus as their personal veterinarian to escape the life he lost. As he learns the ropes of the circus life and law, he finds love in the most unwelcome place: the main attraction to the show, the boss’s wife Marlena (Reese Witherspoon). He challenges the boss’s authority by making decisions on his own and becoming close friends with Marlena. After multiple threats and abusive tantrums, Jacob finally challenges the headmaster, August (Christoph Waltz), in a final epic battle between those who seek retribution and those who want to keep order under their control.

Pattinson really held his own next to two very big and accomplished actors. Frankly, he hasn’t gained the best reputation from being part of the “Twilight” series. Pattinson had to take whatever part he could to get into the movie business; however, it is discomforting to think that to really become a mainstream actor, he had to stoop to having “Twilight” on his resume. He has a lot of talent and a lot of potential. Nonetheless, he still has a long way to go. He is still nowhere near Reese’s talent level yet, but I think he will get there soon.  In “Water for Elephants” Pattinson made the character his own, never did I think, “What the heck is Edward Cullen doing here?”

This story is based off the book, Water for Elephants by Sara Gruen, and to be transferred to a screenplay is always difficult. As with any adapted story, there are things that have to be dropped and some things that have to be added to make the story flow in a movie format.  For that reason, some movies suffer from lack of a better story. Despite that, the storyline in “Water for Elephants” was very understandable and relatable. It had a strong, unwarranted love story, an epic battle between employee and employer, weak animals fighting for survival against an evil uncaring master, and an abusive relationship between a power hungry drunkard and his wife.

 There are very few movies where I feel as if the “bad guy” is so bad that you literally want to watch them die slowly and painfully. Whether that speaks ill of me and my character or something else, so be it. I believe this may be one of those movies. August’s character was an extremely complicated character. At times I thought he would be okay, and at others I wanted to kick his teeth in. Traveling from these two extremes kept me guessing whether I hated him or not. I don’t think he is the best bad guy I have ever seen, but Waltz definitely made it a close call. He is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors on screen today.

This movie blew me away in some many different ways. The story was so tangible it felt more like it was actual historical events. I felt everything Jacob felt. He lived a perilous life, and pursued a treacherous love. If he is worthy of any of it in the end, I leave up to you.

Final Grade: A

Read more...

Source Code

With the similarity of “Source Code” to “Vantage Point” I was not excited to see it. “Vantage Point” was pretty much the same short story over and over again and quickly became annoying. “Source Code” on the other hand didn’t overdo the same basic story but instead kept the story moving by changing the stakes at every relapse.

From the director of  “Moon”, Duncan Jones delivers another action-packed adventure that never lets up. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Colter Stevens, a man who is somehow placed in a train right before it explodes by a top-secret government agency. They are able to plug his mind into anther person’s body and therefore go back into that person’s last minutes of life and try to stop the bomb from exploding on the train. Things get complicated though when he starts to fall in love with a woman on the train and his mission becomes more than to find the bomber.

In the beginning of this movie the laws of the world were set. Like in all movies, we are asked to believe the world we are presented. In “Toy Story” we believe that toys have life, in “Avatar” we believe that someone can be plugged into an alien body. In “Source Code” we are presented with a new world where we can safely assume that someone can be transported into the mind of someone who just died, take over their body to try and figure out what causes their end. It is a complicated story so far as the new world goes and how they try to explain the physics, but it isn’t too farfetched. The only problem is that when a movie presents new rules into the world, they must stick to it throughout the entire movie. In the end “Source Code” changed their own rules and didn’t stay within the boundaries that they had us all believing in. Sure it made for a happier and more romantic ending, but it just didn’t fit the rest of the movie.

Even though the science of the movie sometimes got confusing, it was just simple enough to be believable and make the movie exciting. Every time Colter Stevens was put back into the train after the bomb exploded, he moved further and further towards figuring out who planted the bomb. While in this reality, he is trying to figure out how to get out of this secret agency that is holding him in this mission until he completes his mission. At the same time he tries to figure out a way where he can save the people from the past from dying. The problem with his mindset (as explained by the physics of the movie) is that the people on the train have technically already died. This complicated story is under pressure from start to finish but keeps it moving by solving all the layers at the same time.  

I was constantly trying to find clues and unravel the multiple layers of the mystery along with Stevens. It was almost as if we were solving the crisis together. Gyllenhaal was a perfect choice for this role. We were completely under his spell and fighting for him to solve the layers of riddles his life has become.

“Source Code” was a very original and exciting ride that kept me thoroughly entertained, but they went back on their own rules, which was confusing and unnecessary. This is would be a good way to kick off the summer of movie blockbusters. I was constantly diving deeper into the story and trying to guess how the story would end. There are so many possible outcomes it is almost impossible to predict even the next ten minutes. With magnificent special effects and sound design, it would be a great movie to go see with a group of friends on the big screen.

Final Grade: B+

Read more...

Arthur

Big news! Russell Brand can act! He finally isn’t playing a stupid, drug induced character. Well… mostly. Brand shows off his true range of acting in his most recent movie, “Arthur”. He goes from a drunken, billionaire playboy to an affectionate, and responsible gentleman.

In this truly heartwarming tale based on the original story by Steve Gordon in 1981, Arthur, played by Russell Brand, starts out as a reckless alcoholic who squanders his parents’ wealth however and whenever he pleases. Having his chaperone Hobson, played by Helen Mirren, always by his side keeps Arthur somewhat contained and controlled. In order to keep his life the way it is he is forced to marry Susan, a woman that doesn’t love him but instead wants his money and power. Incidentally he meets Naomi, a woman who he actually does enjoy being a part of his life and enjoys hers to the fullest potential. This intrigues Arthur so he then begins to pursue a relationship with Naomi just as a wedding is being planned for him with another woman.

Helen Mirren plays Arthur’s caregiver and acts as his surrogate mother. She is tough, yet loving and firm with him, something he needs. She forms a character that could easily be plain and bland, but does it with so much life and depth that she ceases to be Helen Mirren but instead Hobson. Along with the help of Luis Guzman as Bitterman, the valet and best/only friend of Arthur, the two of them team up with Brand to make their own unbreakable family. This trio had to be believable and passionate to tell this story and the three of them nailed the relationship. Each and every character within “Arthur” has their own unique arc and development that all center around Arthur’s personal development.

Before walking in the movie if you would have asked me if I respected Russell Brand I would have said no. The movies I have seen him in don’t represent something that I would like to emulate or even represent great acting. This movie has definitely changed that. Brand shows a remarkable strength within keeping the mood humorous with witty comments, and yet not being afraid to tackle real dramatic emotions of other scenes. While being serious in some scenes and completely hilarious in others, I was never able to predict what was coming next.

Another great surprise for me was seeing someone I had never seen on screen before. Greta Gerwig plays Arthur’s true love interest, Naomi, and the only person Arthur can really relate to. Naomi is a simple and lovable character that has attributes we can all relate to. She isn’t anywhere near Arthur’s status in society and yet they compliment each other so effortlessly. She isn’t rich or powerful or demanding or perfect. She is someone who struggles believing in herself and that is something that makes her character so real.

The only disappointment was the ending. I won’t give anything away but the way it ended up didn’t fit the lesson of the movie. The whole time Arthur was fighting for love or money. Love or money. He can’t have both, he must choose one or the other. If they would have let him choose one or the other in the end it would have had a greater personal meaning. He ends up pretty much becoming the same person he was at the beginning of the movie, which was a huge letdown.

Final Grade: B+

Read more...

Hop

When a jelly-bean-pooping, clothing-wearing, drum-playing, magical, talking bunny appears on screen, I expect a story that not only has entertainment value, but characters that I just might care about along the way. "Hop" is not that movie.

With a cast like Russell Brand, James Marsden, and Hugh Laurie, it’s hard to imagine the reasoning behind their choice to be a part of this movie. Russell Brand is at a stage now in his career where he can actually choose the movies he wants to be a part of. Hop is his choice? I don’t understand it. The single funniest part in the movie was when Brand walks in as a Production Assistant on a TV talent show and proceeds to speak to his CG character. Aside from that I was laughing for all of the wrong reasons.

James Marsden has been in many movies recently that really show off his versatility as an actor. "Enchanted" is a great example of this. He was able to take a classic Disney-esque character and bring it into live-action and still keep it wild, believable, and fun. He is a great actor and is truly under valued. In Hop, Marsden was somehow able to erase all of those great memories I once enjoyed and replace them with a shallow, weak, phony performance.

The overall premise of the story was just too farfetched and almost nonexistent to grab my attention in any respect. Russell Brand’s character, E.B., is a rebellious bunny who’s dad is the famous Easter Bunny, voiced by Hugh Laurie. The Sr. Easter Bunny will soon be retiring, thus passing on the legacy to E.B. Instead of training for the job he is about to take over, E.B. decides to run away and pursue his dream of becoming a famous rock ’n’ roll drummer. When a random, lazy, unemployed character named Fred O’Hare, played by James Marsden, hits E.B. with his car, Fred takes him in and helps E.B. fulfill his dream. While helping E.B. get better, E.B. tries to come up with a solution to finding a replacement Easter Bunny. Fred randomly says, without any previous explanation, that it has always been his lifelong dream to be the Easter bunny. Earlier in the movie they explain that only a bunny can do the job, and all of a sudden they start to seriously think about letting him be the Easter Bunny.  Things just don’t add up here.

I am definitely not the film’s target audience, but if their target audience is the same age as the audience of Toy Story, Shrek, Lion King, and even Pooh Bear, they should at least try to make a story worth telling. The theater was full of families with kids in many different age groups. Throughout the whole movie, I didn’t hear any laughter beyond that of a small cough. Even from the kids. Besides my friends laughing at the awkward dialogue and random circumstances, there were not any really funny parts to the story.

The only positive attribute about this movie was it’s impressive CG. The interaction between Marsden and E.B. really was stunning. The small chicks were very fluffy and the bunnies fur looked almost photo real. As far as the actual character design went, I wasn’t enthralled. I was mostly annoyed with the stupidity of the chicks. For my girlfriend though, she fell in love with the cute, little bouncing balls of absurdity.

If you can ignore the fact that the plotline is extremely flat, and simply enjoy characters that look good (but sound idiotic) and bounce around the whole time, you might enjoy this movie. If this is not the case, please stay away from this train wreck.  

Final Grade: D

Read more...