Seeking a Friend for the End of the World

When you think of Steve Carell, it’s hard not to imagine him as one of his iconic kooky characters like The Office’s Michael Scott or Maxwell Smart in Get Smart; in fact, sometimes it’s just downright hard to take Carell seriously, such as the title character in Dan in Real Life. With that said, I was skeptical of Carell’s new film, Seeking a Friend for the End of the World, in which he plays a fairly straight-laced character.

For those who don’t know, IMDb.com describes the premise of the film: “As an asteroid nears Earth, a man finds himself alone after his wife leaves in a panic. He decides to take a road trip to reunite with his high school sweetheart. Accompanying him is a neighbor who inadvertently puts a wrench in his plan.”

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World makes it clear right from the get go that the world is going to end, which sets a unique stage for the characters. Carell’s part, an insurance salesman named Dodge, is soft spoken, naïve, and facing a midlife (or would it be end-of-life?) crisis amid imminent doom, which proves quite the predicament in a hopeless world.

The story itself, and the underlying context, is what brings the film to life. Viewers get to see a whole spectrum of reactions to the end of the world: some people can’t handle the pressure, while others seem to thrive. For better or worse, reconciliation, uninhibited sex, heroin, love, family, survivalists and suicide are just some of the things you’ll encounter in Seeking a Friend for the End of the World.

While the movie does have its fair share of funny parts, it isn’t your traditional Carell comedy. I’d classify it as a comedy and drama hybrid, also known as a "dramedy." The story is centered on despair, hopelessness and dread, but at the same time there are uplifting moments of redemption, tenderness and living life to the fullest. The film, which will have you laughing one moment and deep in thought in another, has the unique ability to invoke extreme emotions, which isn’t too surprising considering it was written and directed by Lorene Scafaria, who also wrote another journey-for-love film by the name of Nick & Norah’s Infinite Playlist.

While the story is strong, it is made all the stronger by some great performances. The aforementioned Carell shook his trademark slapstick shtick and demonstrated that he’s like a Transformer, there is more to him than meets the eye. Likewise, Keira Knightley rocked it as Penny, the woman who would change Dodge’s life at the end of days. I’ve always liked Knightley, but this is one of the first films where I felt like she truly let herself go. “I promise not to steal anything if you promise not to rape me,” is just one of Knightley’s more memorable lines.

Martin Sheen also does a tremendous job in a limited role as Dodge's father. I'm glad to see Sheen back in the saddle as the man clearly knows how to act. Furthermore, I also the various cameos throughout the film including those by Rob Huebel, Rob Corddry, Patton Oswalt, Amy Schumer, T.J.Miller and Jim O’Heir. Each of these actors had small roles, but combined they added a unique blend of amusement and intimacy to the film.

All in all, I was pleasantly surprised with how enjoyable Seeking a Friend for the End of the World turned out to be. It proved a great blend of comedy, sincerity and drama that presented viewers with a number of existential questions; in other words, it was not only entertaining, the movie had me thinking about things long after I left the theater. It’s rare for a film to do that, but I always appreciate it when it does.

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 87%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

Every once in awhile a movie will come along with a title and premise so absurd that you just have to check it out. It started with Snakes on a Plane, and most recently it was Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. I recently had the chance to check out the latter, and it wasn’t nearly as bad as I’d expected.

The best thing about movies like this is the title basically sums up the story. It is simply a film about Abraham Lincoln hunting vampires. As IMDb explains: “Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, discovers vampires are planning to take over the United States. He makes it his mission to eliminate them.”

These days, anything remotely associated with vampires garners a lot of attention, so who better to bring Seth Grahame-Smith’s novel (he also penned the screenplay) to life than Timur Bekmambetov, who directed both Night Watch and Day Watch. With that said, bringing in such a heavy hitter in the vampire industry debunked the notion that the film was going to be sloppy and silly just to cash in on the genre; in fact, I found the opposite to be true.

I actually expected Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter to be ridiculous and poke fun at itself; instead, the movie actually takes itself seriously. While this initially seems even more absurd, I was impressed with how well the filmmakers were able to make it work. Don’t get me wrong, the movie wasn’t great, but it certainly wasn’t as bad as one might think. Personally, I came to think of it as a really good "B" movie.

Let me start with the things I enjoyed. First and foremost, I was impressed with the performances. Benjamin Walker may not be an A-list star, but in my opinion he did a great job as Abraham Lincoln. His talent, combined with good looks, will no doubt pave the way to future opportunities in Hollywood.

Dominic Cooper was solid as always portraying Henry Sturgess, while Mary Elizabeth Winstead made a convincing Mary Todd Tyler. I’d also be remiss if I didn’t mention Jimmi Simpson, who played Joshua Speed. I’m not exactly sure as to why, but I really enjoyed his routine and felt he complimented Walker nicely.

Another thing I enjoyed were the visuals. While the film is not true to history (there are vampires involved after all), I found the sets, costumes and the like reminded me of the Civil War era. Historical accuracy was not the movie’s strong suit, but they polished it up in other ways and made it work.

Likewise, I enjoyed most of the action sequences, though there were a few that seemed to be in the film just to spice up the 3D offering (i.e. fighting atop stampeding horses and atop a train).

Balancing things out on the negative side of things, aside from the aforementioned corny action scenes, were a few weak spots in the story. The origin and specifics surrounding the vampires in the film was not properly fleshed out; likewise, the hard and fast rules regarding vampires was spotty. For example, in the film silver is deadly to vampires, a quite common theme in the genre, but it appeared villains in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter were able to walkabout in the daylight. Attention to detail is important, but there were cases in the film where it was certainly cut.

For what it’s worth, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter’s success at the box office was lukewarm in its opening weekend. The film, which cost an estimated $70 million to make, brought in just $16.5 million and debuted in the number-three spot behind both Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted ($20.2 million) and Brave ($66.7 million).

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter proved to be entertaining. As previously mentioned, it wasn’t anything great, but in this case I think entertaining is about as much as anyone could ask for. 

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 58%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

Prometheus

Hype. It has the potential to make a movie a success, but is oftentimes leads to bitter disappointment. While there has been a lot of hype surrounding this summer’s movie lineup, I’m hard-pressed to think of one with hysteria than Prometheus, Ridley Scott’s first sci-fi film in three decades, which I recently saw in Imax 3D.

The big question surrounding the film, at least with hardcore Ridley Scott fans, was: is this a prequel to Alien? The answer wasn’t very clear prior to the film’s release, though IMDb provides a satisfying explanation:

“Was originally conceived as a prequel to Ridley Scott's Alien, but Scott announced his decision to turn it into an original film with Noomi Rapace (who was already set to star) still in the cast as one of five main characters. Some time later it was confirmed that while the movie would take place in the same universe as Alien and greatly reference that movie, it would mostly be an original movie and not a direct prequel. “

I enjoy the Alien franchise, though I wouldn’t classify myself as a fan boy. With that said, I was expecting an action-packed film set in space with a unique storyline. Given Scott’s success with Alien, I don’t think my expectations for the movie were extreme. Unfortunately, it would meet only one of my expectations . . . it was set in space.

I hate to say it, but Prometheus was lackluster. It had a few exciting moments, but on the whole it took its time to flesh out the storyline, which is basically the search for the origin of mankind intertwined with aliens and disaster. The origin question is ultimately answered, but the “why” of it is left unresolved. It’s a big topic to tackle, and I wasn’t really satisfied with how they handled it.

As I mentioned, the film takes it time to lay out the storyline, and as a result other things are sacrificed, most notably character development. Was David, played by Michael Fassbender, a good guy or a villain? Who were the other people on the mission and what purpose did they serve?

Likewise, the film did a pretty bad job of foreshadowing. For instance, it is randomly revealed that the main character is unable to have children. Minutes later it is revealed that she is pregnant. “That’s impossible,” she says. Of course she ends up being knocked up by an alien baby, an unnecessary and off-putting (remember I saw this in Imax 3D) “birth” scene ensued, and the whole debacle plays a major role at the end if the film.

Another thing I wasn’t thrilled about was Guy Pearce playing Peter Weyland, an aged and dying billionaire intent on “meeting his maker.” While I generally like Pearce, I don’t understand why they would hire a young actor to don cosmetics and portray and old man. The prosthetics looked cheesy and fake, and I couldn’t help but wonder why they didn’t cast an experience veteran for the role like Brian Cox, Anthony Hopkins, etc.

The film did have two highlights in my opinion. The first was excellent special effects, which worked well in the Imax 3D setting. The second were the performances. Granted, the character development was weak, but the talent did a good job with what they were given.

It’s no secret that I like me some Idris Elba, and he was highly entertaining in his supporting role as Janek. Likewise, Fassbender was spot playing the part of an android, and he continues to drive my belief that he is one of Hollywood’s best new talents. Finally, I was impressed with Noomi Rapace in the lead role. I know she did Sweden’s version of the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, though I’ve never seen it. That aside, she did a fine job in Prometheus and I expect we’ll see more of her in American cinema.

It wasn’t that Prometheus was bad, because it wasn’t. The problem is that it wasn’t very good. For a film with so much hype and expectation, I left feeling unsatisfied as nothing stood out as overly special. It pains me to say it because I wanted the film to be good, but I think most people are going to feel the same way I did.

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 64%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

Men in Black III

I remember way back in 1997 when a movie billed itself as “Protecting the Earth from the scum of the universe.” Called Men In Black, it starred veteran TommyLee Jones and a rapidly ascending actor by the name of Will Smith. It was a hit, as was the Men In Back II sequel in 2002, but could the franchise support a trilogy ten years after the last film? That’s the question I asked myself when Men In BlackIII was released on May 25.

Ten years is a long time in between films, and oftentimes it proves less than satisfying (i.e. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of theCrystal Skull). Could Smith, who is now one of Hollywood’s biggest stars, reprise one of the roles that helped make him a household name? Not only that, how would he do after not having made a movie for three-and-a-half years (his last was 2008’s Seven Pounds)? Could the 65-year-old Jones keep up with the demands of a sci-fi action/comedy? So many questions surrounded MIB III, and the simple answer to them all is this: If you liked the first two films, you’ll like the third installment.

For those who don’t know the premise of MIB III, IMDb explains: “Agent J travels in time to MIB's early years in the 1960s, to stop an alien from assassinating his friend Agent K and changing history.”

I can’t say that I was thrilled with the time-travel storyline prior to seeing it; in fact, it seemed to me like it might be a cheap excuse to lighten the load for Jones, who as I previously mentioned is getting up their in years. If that was the case, I knew I’d be disappointed as a Jones fan.

While Jones’ role is less than in the first two MIBs, he still puts in a strong performance in the beginning and end of the film. In the middle, Josh Brolin is brought in to play the role of a young Agent K. Now Jones is about a unique actor as you can get, so it seems like a tough task to find someone to fill his shoes. His grizzled deadpan and endearing bluntness are mesmerizing and emulating it almost seems impossible. I thought there was no way Brolin could pull off a convincing younger version of Jones, but I was wrong.

As it happens, Brolin does a tremendous job with the part. He was able to pull off Jones so well that the character transition was flawless. Brolin, who has truly become a remarkable actor, leaves himself out of it and give way to the character, if that makes sense. 

In other performance news, Smith doesn’t miss a step reprising the role of Agent J. What you saw in the first two films from him is what you’ll see in MIB III. The supporting cast was also solid  thanks to strong performances by Jemaine Clement, Emma Thompson, Michael Stuhlbarg and Mike Colter.

What made the film commendable, at least for me, was the emphasis on continuity. Instead of switching things up, like bringing in a new director, they stuck with what’s worked in the past and brought back BarrySonnenfeld, who directed the first two films. Interestingly, Sonnenfeld makes a cameo in the film as a guy watching the Apollo 11 launch on a couch while drinking a cup of coffee.

My only qualm with the film, at least as far as continuity is concerned, was the disappearance of Rip Torn, who played Zed, the director of MIB, in the first two films. In MIB III, it is revealed that his character has been killed off. I can only presume that it is related to Torn’s recent legal troubles involving alcohol. It’s understandable the studio would move away from it, but his absence doesn’t go unnoticed.

There wasn’t anything revolutionary about MIB III, but it was on par with the first two films in the franchise. Thanks to a little twist ending, that proves satisfying, I imagine this will be the last MIB film, though I could be wrong. Either way, if they left it as a trilogy they’d be going out on a strong note having put together a well-constructed finale. 

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 69%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

Battleship

Does Taylor Kitsch have what it takes to headline a feature film? That’s the question I asked myself after his last two films, John Carter and Battleship, both bombed at the box office. I won’t talk about the former here (you can read my review to find out more), but I will explore the latter, which earned $25.5 million in its opening weekend, well below the expected $35-$40 million. Despite failing to draw a big audience, Battleship did inspire some fairly positive reviews. For that reason, I gave it a shot.

I will admit that I am a fan of the Hasbro board game Battleship, but I was a bit skeptical a full-length film could be constructed around the game’s simplicity. How could they do it? The answer is simple: aliens.

For those who don’t know, here is how IMDb.com describes Battleship’s premise: “A fleet of ships is forced to do battle with an armada of unknown origins in order to discover and thwart their destructive goals.”

Now I happen to like alien movies and fancy a good navy flick. Could a fusion of the two succeed? The recipe obviously didn’t resonate with the masses, but I confess that the movie proved to be better than I expected; in fact, I actually enjoyed it. It’s certainly not a future Oscar winner, but it is a special effects flick reminiscent of Transformers, Independence Day and Under Siege. Interestingly, the U.S.S. Missouri was the ship featured in the latter film and it plays a prominent role in Battleship.

Like the naval game itself, the story in Battleship is simple. Aliens land in the ocean off the coast of Hawaii, the navy responds and battle ensues. The story itself couldn't carry the film on its own, but it is strengthened by good special effects, engaging visuals and some surprisingly solid performances.

For instance, Kitsch put in a satisfying performance as Lieutenant Alex Hopper, a irresponsible guy who is about to get kicked out of the navy before a serious and deadly situation force him to change his ways. Seeing his transformation from a self-indulgent flunky to a well-meaning hero was believable and gratifying. In my opinion Kitsch gave one of his best performances, one that has temporarily restored by faith that he can carry a film.

Another actor who put in a tremendous performance was Alexander Skarsgård, who played Commander Stone Hopper. He was the opposite of his brother (Kitsch’s character) in that he was responsible, put together well and had a promising future. I last saw Skarsgård in Straw Dogs where he played a villain, and while he did a fine job there, I prefer him as a hero. Skarsgård's time in Battleship is cut short, but he did a stellar job with the scenes he was given.

The same can be said of Rihanna (making her feature film debut), Brooklyn Decker, Tadanobu Asano and Gregory D. Gadson, all of whom had major roles. Gadson, who is a real-life marine and lost both his legs in duty, does a fine job interacting with Decker’s character. His acting may have been a little weaker than that of his fellow cast mates, but he brought a sense of realism and emotion to the film that reaches the audience.

While the performances were good as a whole, I was disappoint with Liam Neeson’s character, Admiral Shane. As I’ve said many times before, I like me some Neeson, but his role in Battleship was so minimal that it was an extreme disappointment. His character got little screen time and wasn’t essential to the storyline. He was an outsider, and he’s too good a talent to be utilized in such a capacity.

Complimenting the actors were some pretty cool sequences. For instance, I highly enjoyed the scenes that showed just what our battleships and destroyers can do. It’s really awe inspiring to watch as they let loose and demonstrate their full capabilities. In addition, I thought it was a nice touch for the director, Peter Berg, to pay homage to the Battleship game. He did this in two ways. The first was shaping the alien “missiles” like the pegs used in the game to mark hits and misses. Sounds corny but they definitely made it work as those pegs packed quite the punch; come to think of it, they made a few corny moments work.

The second way they paid homage was a clever, albeit far stretched, way of tracking the enemy ships through tsunami buoys when their radar was down. It was completed with a full grid marked with letters and numbers. A nice nostalgic nod to its inspiration.

All in all I enjoyed Battleship. It was definitely better than I expected and I walked out of the theater satisfied. If you’re looking for an action-packed quasi-sci-fi film, I recommend you ignore all the box office bomb talk and give it a try, I’m glad I did.

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 70%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

The Dictator

I recently had the opportunity to visit New Orleans, Louisiana for the first time since leaving law school and moving away in 2008. While there, I met up with an old law-school roommate, Mr. Guillermo Cancio, and he invited me to see the new film The Dictator, which had come out the day before. Not only was it a great chance to catch up with an old friend, but it was the perfect opportunity for a new Buddies Forever Movie Club review.

According to IMDb, The Dictator is “The heroic story of a dictator who risks his life to ensure that democracy would never come to the country he so lovingly oppressed.” It stars Sacha Baron Cohen, who you no doubt remember from films such as Borat and Bruno. Both those films are notorious for their vulgarity and bigotry as they explore such issues as intolerance, racism, terrorism, homosexuality, etc.

Both films crossed the line numerous times, utilizing uncomfortable situations and a mockumentary filming style to dupe unsuspecting "actors," a recipe that resonated with viewers. Granted, a slew of folks were offended and hated those movies, but even more laughed their asses off.

I was among the masses that enjoyed Borat, and I thought Bruno was decent, so I expected The Dictator to follow in their footsteps. While it did just that, the outcome wasn’t the same. Instead of incorporating unsuspecting participants by filming social pranks, The Dictator goes a pure Hollywood route, meaning everyone in the film is in fact a real actor. There are no contrived, awkward social interactions that have characterized Cohen’s previous films. Removing that crucial ingredient made things somewhat bland.

While I was disappointed by this fact, there were still plenty of classic-Cohen moments. His racism, which is passed off as naivety, is there, though hit and miss when it came to laughs, and the same can be said about the disgusting/repulsive/sickening tactics.

One of my favorite moments involved Cohen’s character, Aladeen, and his accomplice Nadal, played by Jason Mantzoukas, in a helicopter tour over New York City. The two are using it as a way of reconnoitering a hotel, but of course the situation is presented with a terrorism angle. The scene I’m talking about has been featured in the previews, but the film expands on it greatly. I certainly had a good laugh, even though they were speaking Hebrew and not Arabic, and there were a few other moments like it that made the film amusing.

Other things I liked were Bobby Lee’s portrayal of Mr. Lao, a I’m-not-homosexual-but-on-a-power-trip Chinese businessman. He only had a few brief scenes, but every one was hilarious, especially the ones featuring his wife and an Edward Norton cameo.

Speaking of cameos, there were quite a few throughout the movie that gave it a little spice. Fred Armisen, Chris Elliott, John C. Reilly, Megan Fox, Chris Parnell and Horatio Sanz were some of the actors I recognized and appreciated in their limited roles.

On the flip side, I was very disappointed with Ben Kingsley’s character, Tamir, who is an advisor that betrays Aladeen. It was an extremely lackluster and halfhearted performance, almost as if he was in it simply to collect a paycheck.

Cameos and helicopter scene aside, many of the jokes in The Dictator fell flat. I wasn’t feeling the hairy-armpit, child-of-the earth-shtick applied to Anna Faris’ character, Zoey. I like her as an actress, but wasn’t feeling the connection as Aladeen’s love interest.

For me, The Dictator signaled the continued decline of Sacha Baron Cohen’s film career. Don’t get me wrong, it hasn’t crashed and burned, but in my opinion it is waning. I loved him in 2006’s Talladega Nights:The Ballad of Ricky Bobby and Borat, liked him in 2009’s Bruno, and was merely appeased by The Dictator.

It was an alright movie, one you might find funnier and more entertaining than I did, but I’d wait for Netflix or Redbox if I were you.

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 47%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

The Avengers

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I’m a bit of a comic book geek, so you can imagine how excited I was for the release of  The Avengers, Marvel Studio’s $200 million blockbuster that featured an ensemble cast from films such as Iron Man, Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger.

While the idea to produce standalone titles and connect them in bigger, higher profile title has characterized the comic world for years, it is a new concept to Hollywood. Could Marvel Studio’s novel approach succeed on the big screen? There were certainly a lot of critics, but after The Avengers raked in $200.3 million in it’s first weekend, surpassing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 for the biggest three-day U.S. weekend ever, the answer is a resounding yes.

I can’t even begin to explain how thrilled I am that The Avengers proved a hit. I believe it will open the door for even more comic book adaptations, which of course I'm all for, and will lead to more Hollywood films playing into one another. What’s more, The Avengers is a legitimately great movie.

The reviews have been overwhelmingly positive, and everyone who sees the films agrees that director Joss Whedon has delivered every fan boy’s dream. As one of these so-called fan boys, I was worried the film would try to tackle too much, after all it was filled with A-list stars like Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Jeremy Renner, Samuel L. Jackson, ChrisHemsworth, Tom Hiddleston and Scarlett Johansson.

Most of those actors had carried their own Marvel film, so how would they do as a team? Thanks to Whedon’s magic, he managed to make a well-balanced film where no single character is featured more, or presented as more important, than the others. Everyone had a part to play, and each played it to perfection.

Speaking of parts to play, Mark Ruffalo had the biggest shoes to fill as he was filling in for Edward Norton as Dr. Bruce Banner/The Hulk. He had never appeared in a Marvel film before, and naturally I was hesitant. I’m not a fan of replacing actors in franchises, but I must admit Ruffalo blew me away; in fact, I think he made a more compelling Banner than Norton ever did.

Simply put, I loved The Avengers. I went and saw a special midnight showing and it surpassed my every expectation. For two hours, I was entranced by "Earth’s Mightiest Heroes" and gave way to the humor, action and spectacle that was The Avengers.

About the only qualms I had with the movie was the absence of a few previously established Marvel Universe players. For instance, War Machine from Iron Man 2 was nowhere to be found, while any references/connections to 2008’s The Incredible Hulk were nowhere to be found (That means no Betty Ross/ Liv Tyler, Abomination/Tim Roth and General “Thunderbolt” Ross/William Hurt). Likewise, Natalie Portman’s character from Thor was briefly mentioned in the movie, but it was merely in the form of a quick explanation as to why she wasn’t in the film (protective custody). With that said, I was impressed that they included Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts.

Working in some of the abovementioned characters (maybe have Loki enlist the help of villains introduced in the other films?) is the only thing I can think of that would have made the movie better. It’s certainly being nitpicky, but that small detail was the only thing missing from what I believe is a near-perfect comic book movie.

As I said before, The Avengers exceeded my expectations in every way, and I cannot wait for Marvel Studios to build upon this franchise, I just wish they could get other licensed franchises back under their control and do the same (I.e. X-Men, Daredevil, Spider-Man, Ghost Rider, Fantastic Four, etc.). The idea to develop a blockbuster that connects separate films is now a proven recipe for success, especially when it comes to the comic book genre, and I’m confident we’ll see more of this in the years to come.

I highly recommend you check out The Avengers, as evidenced by the highest ranking I’ve ever assigned to a movie. Don’t get me wrong, this is not your classic masterpiece, but given the subject matter, Whedon proved a true marvel. The Avengers is the best movie experience I’ve had in years, and I can’t wait to see it again.

Final Words of Advice: If you decide to check out The Avengers, make sure to stay until the very end of the credits as there is a little bonus seen to be enjoyed.

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 98%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.