Talking Pictures

Movie Reviews

Tony Toscano reviews “Law Abiding Citizen”

I love a good nail-biter and Law Abiding Citizen is one of those cat & mouse thrillers that really delivers. Both Jamie Foxx and Gerard Butler are extremely watchable.

Foxx as the up and coming attorney too busy to fight for his client because a loss in the courtroom would devalue his record of wins.

And Butler as the guy who has suffered the brutal loss of this family looking for justice and finding his lawyer has traded it away for a reduced sentence.

Then all hell breaks lose as Butler begins his well thought out and timed revenge.

Yes there are some problems with the plot, but very minor ones that won’t pull you out of the action.

Law Abiding Citizen gets a B+ and is rated R for strong bloody brutal violence, torture, a scene of rape and pervasive language.

Rich Bonaduce reviews “Where the Wild Things Are”

Rich’s Quickie: Struggles to find its footing and its audience.

I must confess I don’t recall having the children’s book “Where the Wild Things Are” read to me as a kid.  Then again, I don’t remember much of ANYTHING that was read to me as a child, if anything actually was.  I do remember reading things to myself, under the covers, with the proverbial flashlight so as not to bug my brother who was bigger than me and easily bugged.  But I do recall sharing his affinity for anger, and the power even a little kid can feel when the smallest member of the family can bring the world of Adults to a grinding halt with just the screech of a tantrum.

So after taking (literally), a minute or so to read it, this adaptation had to create a lot around its original 10-sentence, award winning children’s book about anger, and it starts off strong right from the wildly scrawled credits.  Personally, I identified very much with Max, filled with pride when building a simple snow fort.  I was right with him and his good-spirited mischief in taking on a whole group older, bigger kids in a snowball fight, and also with the scary shock he feels when it all comes crashing down on him (quite literally), discovering that he is still just a very vulnerable little kid.

Even after he runs away into the night far from his exasperated mother and one-too many tantrums, and retreats into his imaginary world populated with monsters of all sorts, I still could identify with him and the different aspects of his personality displayed in the various beasties.  They sleep as late as they want in the big piles leftover after a lighthearted rumble (but one in which he could still very easily be hurt).  Creativity abounds without the adult restrictions of it actually MEANING anything, with forts and tunnels of all kinds are built only to be wrecked in wanton acts of random and light-hearted destruction.  These strange folks he both fears and requires acceptance from eventually hail him as their king, only to be disillusioned when he obviously cannot live up to such a high bar.  The relationships between himself and even between the beasts themselves turn on a dime, much the same way a child’s relationships to his peers does.

So with all of this personal identification, why do I feel it just didn’t WORK?

With so much to create around its 10-sentence source material, much of this world had been left to our own separate imaginations.  Solidified on the big screen, this imagined world he created to fill in the blanks now takes on a very definite personality of its own, one that this viewer didn’t appreciate.  Various elements are probably too scary for younger kids, while others are too serious or multi-layered for older kids to catch.  And the adult viewer seems to be lost in the middle, trying to rectify their own version of the book that played in their heads to the one that plays out onscreen.

And if real estate is location, location, location; a movie is its ending, ending ending. Critics of the original 1963 book discussed the idea that after Max’s flight of fancy to his wild side, he is pulled back to the real world by a belief in parental love… but if that is what they saw in the book, I think they’d be hard pressed to find it onscreen.  Max leaves his newfound friends for the real world because they reject him, he fears them, and he feels has no where else to go.  And when he finally gets “home”, he is not scolded by his mother for his running away from him (then again, in the book he was merely sent to his room), and nothing is discussed onscreen.  He is treated to a big piece of chocolate cake while his mother, possibly being up all night fraught with worry, succumbs to some much-needed sleep with her head right on the kitchen table.  No yelling, no punishments, no explanations offered or asked for.  And no lessons learned… except for maybe “Mom is great – give me chocolate cake …after I throw a totally inappropriate tantrum followed by an unwise retreat into the night on the streets of my neighborhood for who know how long.”

I don’t know if that makes a good subject for a children’s book, but I know it doesn’t make for a great movie, either.

Still, I hope the limited use of CGI starts a trend toward more conventional effects again.

Rich’s Movie Grade: C

Rated PG for mild thematic elements, some adventure action and brief language.

Director: Spike Jonze

Writers: Spike Jonze (screenplay) & Dave Eggers (screenplay), Maurice Sendak (book)

Tony Toscano reviews “Where the Wild Things Are”

One of the problems with over anticipating a film’s release is expectations run very high.

And such is the case with “Where the Wild Things Are,” directed by Spike Jonze. I think it’s the problem of taking a 10-sentence story and expanding it to a 101-minute movie. Obviously things have to be changed and small plot devices need to be enlarged.

“Where the Wild Things Are” suffers tremendously from these excesses and creates a very dark world for its 9-year old hero, Max. This darker version of the children’s story is confusing as to whom the film has been made for.

Being so dark, it’s not really a children’s tale anymore and yet it’s not for adults either.

So what we’re left with is a well-filmed and technically advanced concoction of jump cuts, half stories and pseudo psychological babble over the heads of some and very confounding to most.

All I can do is give this on a C grade. It’s rated PG for mild thematic elements, adventure action and brief language.

Rich Bonaduce reviews “The Boys are Back”

Rich’s Quickie: Whether it’s a good or bad thing, boys are back.

Wouldn’t you want Clive Owen as your dad?  Maybe.

Owen plays Clive Warr, aptly named because he seems to be at war with most things, albeit in a jovial way and always with a smile on his face; whether he’s blowing off his familiar responsibilities for his traveling sports-writer job, or whether he’s blowing off his job for a tall cool one.  He’s going to need that smirk to get him through the untimely death of his wife, and the aftermath…

Owen’s Warr slowly – really slowly – learns just how integral his wife was; not only to his own life, but to his family’s.  She also handled most of the practicalities of day-to-day life.  But still he resists growing up, adopting new rules along the way that most kids would love (“Just say Yes), but rules most adults know will lead to nothing but trouble.

“The Boys are Back” has some great acting (Owen in particular, with a jarring scene of him on the phone with an estranged son), and great writing too, which resists the urge for typical, Hollywood-style turns; just when I thought/worried Owen’s Warr was going to warm up to an angst-ridden son and impart some wonderful, warm advice, he instead gets up and walks outside for stiff drink on the porch.  Although some growth occurs, not everything is quite wrapped up by the end, and as his voice over says, here are three men living in a house without the benefit of a woman.  Yes, indeed, the boys are back – for better or worse.  The seriousness of the film may be a bit much to swallow — being so honest in its depiction of a callous man finally dealing with his own callousness  — and it could have stood a bit of editing to make it more concise, but if you’re in for a slightly heavy meal, it’s good food.

Rich’s Movie Grade: B+

Rated PG-13 for some sexual language and thematic elements.

Director: Scott Hicks

Writers: Simon Carr (novel),  Allan Cubitt (adaptation)

Tony Toscano reviews “The Boys are Back”

This new films starring Clive Owen is what one would call a slice of life movie. However the film takes the most boring slices of life to display for the audience. Although the acting is actually pretty good, the film just goes nowhere and becomes boring after a very short while.

I’m giving The Boys are Back a D it’s rated PG-13 for sexual language and thematic elements.

Rich Bonaduce reviews: “Toy Story 1 & 2″ Double Feature

Rich’s Quickie:  Even better the second time around… in marvelous 3D!

Funnily enough, I had not seen either “Toy Story” until I saw the 3D double-feature at Disney’s studio in California.  Now I know what all that hype was about years ago!

By now everyone has seen the adventures of Woody et al a 100 times over… why PAY to see it all again?  Not only because spending an afternoon taking your kids to such a wonderful double feature harkens back to the days of old, when a nickel’s worth of moving pictures took up half your day; but also since it’s just plain fun.  Remember THAT about movies? The first “Toy Story” is nearly 15 years old, and shows no signs of wear whatsoever; the messages of both films seem timeless while the visuals have been updated.  The colors pop, and the 3D is full and thick without stooping to typical 3D tricks of making every little thing leap off the screen to show you the movie is in 3D.  The technology has improved to the point that I wore those glasses for a little over 3 hours and had no eye strain or headaches afterward.

Meanwhile, there is a small 10 minute intermission that entertain the ones who DON’T need a bathroom break between films, and a special preview for Toy Story 3 – and all of that at a great, single-movie price.

So why pay to see it them again?  With all of that, why not?

Rich’s Movie(s!) Grade: A

TOY STORY

Directed by: John Lasseter

Writing credits: John Lasseter, Pete Docter, Andrew Stanton and Joe Ranft (story); Joss Whedon, Andrew Stanton, Joel Cohen and Alec Sokolow (screenplay)

TOY STORY 2

Directed by: John Lasseter,  Ash Brannon (co-director) Lee Unkrich (co-director)
Writing credits: John Lasseter, Pete Docter, Ash Brannon and Andrew Stanton (story)
Andrew Stanton, Rita Hsiao, Doug Chamberlin and Chris Webb (screenplay)

Rich Bonaduce reviews: “Zombieland”

Rich’s Quickie:  Jokes and guts flow freely!

So why do people turn into zombies this time around, since the movie starts after our heroes are virtually the only humans left?  The explanation is dispensed with almost before the titles are over, and it’s just as unnecessary to the rest of the movie as any of the explanations of previous zombie flicks.  So get with the zombie killin’!

And get to it they do, with great relish; and boy, is it ever fun. “Zombieland” is not deep.  There’s not much by way of “layers” or character arcs.  But what it does, it does well; it knows what it is and what it isn’t, and delivers in spades.  A funny script, a talented cast, surprising cameos, and a bit of genuine creepiness from zombies that you can shoot guilt-free.  If that’s your idea of a good time, than “Zombieland” is your kind of movie.

Rich’s Movie Grade: B+

Rated R for horror violence/gore and language.

Directed by: Ruben Fleischer

Writers: Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick

Rich Bonaduce reviews “Whip It”

Rich’s Quickie:  Made me wish I was a girl so I could join the SLC Derby Girls…

…but not really because I like my teeth right where they are.  But still.

Drew Barrymore deftly directs a great cast including Ellen Page, Marcia Gay Harden, Daniel Stern, Kristen Wiig, Juliette Lewis and Arrested Development’s Alia Shawkat in an pleasant movie with a lot of heart and humor (hey, even Jimmy Fallon is funny in this).  There are clichés and pitfalls here and there to be sure; but there’s also enough loose ends NOT tied up in the usual pretty bows to offset them, and keep what might have been a standard, coming-of-age movie feeling fresh.  You may enjoy it despite yourself.

Rich’s Movie Grade: B+

Rated PG-13 for sexual content including crude dialogue, language and drug material.

Directed by: Drew Barrymore

Writers: Shauna Cross (screenplay and novel)

Rich Bonaduce reviews “Capitalism: A Love Story”

Rich’s Quickie: Michael Moore continues to be the least appealing part of his movies; but his latest is still a must-see.

As a professional movie critic (as opposed to your buddy; yeah, THAT one), I had to refrain from leaping out of my seat and yelling, “fetchin-A!” at the screen a few times while viewing “Capitalism: A Love Story”.  Plus, “fetching” sounds so lame.

Already the naysayers are in full-force, trying to discredit the man so as to undermine his message whilst completely missing the point.  As you may recall, they do this to him with every movie he makes before concentrating on the actual films, sometimes even making whole movies to counter what they see as feature-length op-eds.

They have their work cut out for them this time, as Moore delves further into verifiable facts than ever before.  Unless footage has been shamelessly edited and removed from context, it’s hard to talk away the memos, the speeches on the floor of the Senate, or the money trail.  Something stinks in America, and it may not be Capitalism necessarily, but the love affair we have it that seems to trump all rationale.

Some of Moore’s antics in this movie seem less relevant than some earlier ones (particularly in “Sicko”, when he took some folks to get badly needed medical care in Cuba).  But much like the folks being paid to attack and discredit Moore for “Sicko”, who later grew a conscience and recanted, admitting that he was dead on RIGHT. “Capitalism” is likely to start a lot of arguments and then END them.

Rich’s Movie Grade: B+

Rated R for some language.

Director: Michael Moore

Writer: Michael Moore

Rich Bonaduce reviews “Surrogates”

Rich’s Quickie:  Like its namesake, it has its good and bad points.

More Bias-revealing here; I thought I’d like this film, at least from the trailers.  Maybe that’s why I did – a little.  I wanted to like it more, but it has its problems.  But it also has its charms.  It reminded me a bit of those 80’s sci-fi/horror thrillers, like “They Live” or “The Hidden”; a nifty little story wrapped up by the end. The premise was a good one, but the execution was a bit substandard especially in the special effects/stunts departments.

At only 88 minutes, “Surrogates“ moves surprisingly slow at first. I wanted the backstory of Bruce Willis’ character to be a little more seamlessly integrated instead of being the obvious “slow part” of the movie wherein we learn about him and his past.  That might have allowed for his character to do a little more detective work and fill in some of the holes in the story in the latter half of the film; things seemed to come a bit too easily in his investigation, even with James Cromwell’s character helping him along.  I wanted him to not only earn his discoveries, but to possibly lose more near the end via his tough decision — possibly have a few more folks die before he foils the plans entirely and saves the world yet again.

I loved the premise, though; real people turn to mush while they live vicariously though surrogate androids that allow them to do all the things they couldn’t do in real life – at least not without a lot of work and a bit of risk.  I see tiny hints of this sort of thing even now; with kids telling me they can play guitar because they did it in Rock Band, or thinking they are martial arts experts because they win big in the latest video game.  Meanwhile, they know just enough to get laughed off a stage, or their ass kicked on any playground in the country. Unplug and go get some sun and take a lesson or two, for crying out loud.

Unfortunately, most of the budget probably went to Willis, Cromwell, and the online promotional arm, and it shows onscreen with the stunts in particular.  Also, because many of the main characters are surrogates of themselves, we are treated to some pretty stiff acting most of the time, al la Natalie Portman as the faux Queen Padmé Amidala.  Keeping all of this in mind, it’s still not a horrible time at the movies, but you do get the sense that it could have been so much better.

Rich’s Movie Grade: C

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence, disturbing images, language, sexuality and a drug-related scene.

Directed by: Jonathan Mostow

Writers: Michael Ferris (screenplay) & John D. Brancato (screenplay as John Brancato), Robert Venditti (graphic novel), and Brett Weldele (graphic novel)