Thoughts on "Knight and Day"

• "Knight and Day" is at its best when reveling in its loopy, purposefully unbelievable, action sequences. In a summer when even whimsical characters like "Robin Hood" take themselves seriously, it is nice to see a fun action movie.
  
• Part of what makes the movie so fun is Tom Cruise's performance as Roy Miller, a rogue spy with a few mental problems. The unpredictable, zany nature of the character allows Cruise to have fun with his performance, instead of drenching it with his usually overbearing theatrics (see "A Few Good Men" among others).
• Unfortunately, Cameron Diaz, who plays June a woman who gets tangled up in Roy's plan, is not given much to work with. Diaz survives by playing ditsy for the film's first hour, but by that point, one realizes that her character is not all that interesting. And when Cruise's character disappears for a good twenty minutes, the film definitely loses its momentum.
  
• Also wasted are Viola Davis, Paul Dano, and Peter Sarsgaard. If director James Mangold was going to assemble such great talent, he should have given them better material.
• Clunky dialogue ruins all of the film's attempts at drama or romance. Again, the film works best during its kooky action set pieces.
  
• While the film has a great creative premise, it unfortunately falls into cliched territory by the film's last act. One wishes screenwriter Patrick O'Neill would have re-written the film's weak ending.
  
• A mixed bag.
• C+
  

"Toy Story 3" Review

“Toy Story 3” whisks by at a brisk pace, entertaining and charming its audience at every turn. While the film does not reach the level of some of Pixar’s recent work (“Ratatouille,” “Wall-E”), it makes for solid entertainment, thanks to its fun characters and endless creativity.

The film picks up several years after the last one ended. Andy, now seventeen, is heading off for college. This causes much uncertainty for his batch of favorite toys. Woody, Buzz Lightyear, Mr. Potato Head and the gang are all worried whether they will be put in the garbage, taken to the attic, or donated to a day care center. Eventually, the toys end up at Sunnyside day care center. While there, they meet the mysterious Lotso, a stuffed bear that is in charge of all the toys at the day care. While Lotso appears friendly on the outside, the toys eventually see his true colors and make plans to escape.

“Toy Story 3” once again proves that Pixar is the most creative movie studio in the business. Instead of filling the film with run-of-the-mill action set pieces, director Lee Unkrich and his team pay homage to several different genres. One action sequence feels like it was lifted straight out of a western. Another mimics a “Mission Impossible”-like spy film. One, which takes place in a garbage dump, looks like a sequence from a dystopic science fiction film. Unlike the “Shrek” series, “Toy Story 3” does not use blunt pop culture references to elicit laughs. It instead plays on different genres to provide the audience with an entertaining movie experience. Not to mention, it’s really funny. While a few of the jokes wear thin, the film, for the most part, displays perfect comic timing.

While the film’s last few scenes try to speak eloquently on themes of loss and change, the film does not quite earn it due to the mostly fun, action-heavy sequences which preceded it. And when the film’s final scene attempts to tug at your heartstrings, it is only partially successful due to the scene’s length and forced sentimentality

Other than that, “Toy Story 3” succeeds at being an entertaining summer movie. Displaying near perfect wit, a plethora of creative details, and inventive action set pieces, it makes for a fitting conclusion to the “Toy Story” series.

B

"Please Give" Review

With complex characterizations, dark humor, and masterful subtlety, “Please Give” makes for a refreshing alternative to the sequels, remakes, and commercial slop plaguing the multiplexes.

In “Please Give,” Kate, played by Catherine Keener, constantly worries about others. From the elderly to the homeless, she is troubled by the terrible circumstances of those around her. This complete sense of guilt annoys both her husband (Oliver Platt) and daughter (Sarah Steele). When Kate tries to buy the apartment of her neighbor, a churlish old lady (Ann Guilbert), Kate’s family begins to interact with Rebecca, the old lady’s granddaughter, as well as Rebecca’s unsympathetic sister Mary (Amanda Peet).

What makes “Please Give” great is its commitment to creating complex, layered characters. Most films nowadays ignore human complexity, instead opting for gross characterizations and two-dimensional stock characters. Thankfully, “Please Give” takes its time to fully flesh out all its characters. Due to this intense character focus, the film manages to comment on the human condition in a way that is both meaningful and emotionally sound.

Through the character of Kate, “Please Give” suggests that giving has its costs. Because Kate cares so much for the disadvantaged in society, she often ignores the needs of her family. And while Kate is sincere in her care for the poor and vulnerable, she comes to the sad realization that her guilt often conflicts with her desire to help. Some of the most telling scenes in the film come when Kate volunteers at nursing homes and for special needs organizations, only to find that her neurotic, worrisome personality often proves unhelpful.

In contrast, Rebecca performs acts of charity without truly realizing it. While many people would become argumentative and angry whilst dealing with a grumpy relative, Rebecca takes care of her often rude grandmother despite her flaws. Unlike Kate, Rebecca performs good deeds without the overbearing sense of guilt. It simply flows from her human nature. In fact, Rebecca is so intent on helping others, it seems that she often forgets to look out for herself.

It is these types of contrasts and complexities, along with stellar performances from the entire cast, which make “Please Give” smart, thought-provoking entertainment. And in the midst of one of the worst summer movie seasons in recent memory, it is a true gift.

A-

"Killers" Review

"Killers," a new action romantic comedy, is atrocious. Sluggishly paced, terribly formulaic, and almost ridiculously unfunny, it fails on almost every level.

The film follows (insert rich blonde played by Katherine Heigl here) in her attempt to find love after (insert failed romance here). While vacationing (insert tropical locale here), she meets (insert secretive dude played by Ashton Kutcher here). Little does she know that he is actually a (insert spy, assassin or other secretive profession here). Also causing trouble is (insert equally shady dad character played by Tom Selleck here). When (blonde) and (dude) get married, (blonde) begins to find out more about (dude)'s past. Will (dude)'s secrets ruin his relationship with (blonde)?

I think you know how this story ends.

But what makes "Killers" especially awful is its attempts at originality. While the film starts off as a generic romantic comedy, it quickly devolves into a weird, yet still generic, attempt at a motion picture. While weird is usually a plus in my book, "Killers" is weird in all the wrong ways. Instead of being weird in an intellectual or experimental way, the film is weird in a stupid way. In fact, the film gets more stupid as it goes along. By the time the film reaches its climax, the plot becomes utterly preposterous.

Mr. Kutcher and Ms. Heigl unfortunately do nothing to save the film. Kutcher, trying to play a secretive assassion, comes off as dull. Heigl, trying to play a down-on-her-luck single woman, comes off as whiny. Needless to say, they make for a pretty uninteresting couple with little to no chemistry.

To conclude, it is the worst film I've seen this year. But, again, those opening credits were nifty!

D

Let's Play a Game!

While we wait for some quality films to come out, let's play a game!

Describe this summer movie season in three words. I'll start.



Boring. Lazy. Pathetic.



Your turn! Leave your response in the comments.