Movie Reviews
< Previous 123456789101112131415161718 Next >Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (PG-13) D
"Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" is based on a video game. Unfortunately, the movie doesn't come with a 'stop' button.
Jake Gyllenhaal, serious actor turned action hero, plays Dastan, a street orphan who is adopted by the king of Persia. He and his two brothers help the King and his brother (played by Ben Kingsley) rule the land.
Dastan is wrongly accused of killing the king and so he must run away or be killed himself. He's joined by the princess of a neighboring country because...otherwise there wouldn't be a story. Also, there's this dagger that everybody wants because if you press a button on it you can turn-back time. Kinda like a replay button on a video game controller. Oh, and the dagger can also destroy the world.
Where do I begin to describe why this movie doesn't work: It starts (as usual) with the story, which just isn't interesting enough. For an action movie there's an incredible amount of dialogue, most of it is the characters explaining to each other what's going on and why their doing what they're doing.
The are also plenty of fighting scenes, but nothing original. The editing is very choppy and the use of slow motion is totally unnecessary. Overall, the special effects look a little cheap and cheesy.
There are a lot of close-ups of Gyllenhaal, but neither he, nor Gemma Arterton, who plays the princess, are very believable. She was also in "Clash of the Titans", and so that makes her "0 for 2" this year. Alfred Molina plays a sheik who runs ostrich races. In one scene he actually kisses one of his ostriches. That's one of the few things I'll remember from "Prince of Persia".
Several times during the film, while trying to stay awake, I kept asking myself - is this a movie that Walt Disney would have liked to have his name on? Every time the answer was NO!
"Prince of Persia" is rated PG-13 for the action-violence, and there's plenty of it, as you would expect from a Jerry Bruckheimer film. But, overall, the movie is pretty tame for PG-13. Normally that would be a good thing, but I can't recommend that any kids see this film, because it's simply not entertaining.
If you put "The Mummy", the "Indiana Jones", and the "National Treasure" movies together, and added a touch of "Aladdin", you've got "Prince of Persia: The Sand of Time". The problem is it's not as good as any of the films in those other series, and there are no magic carpet rides.
On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" gets a D. Another big-budget summer film that's more BUST than BLOCKBUSTER.
Shrek Forever After (PG) B+
The first "Shrek" (2001) won the first-ever Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. The next two movies in the series together grossed over $1-billion worldwide. "Shrek", over the past decade, has become a cultural phenomenon, with a TV Christmas special, a Broadway show and tons of merchandice.
Sadly, "Shrek Forever After" is the final chapter in the movie series. The good news is - the big green ogre goes out in style.
The plot of the film is based on the old "It's A Wonderful Life" theme of what Shrek's world would be like if he was never born. When I first learned that this was the story I immediately thought it wouldn't work, because so many other films have tried this idea and failed. However, this time the writers pull it off.
Shrek is bored with being a dad and a nice ogre and wishes he could go back to the old days. He meets Rumplestiltskin who offers him a deal - a day without worries or responsibilities in exchange for one day from his past. Shrek takes the deal, but the day Rumpelstiltskin takes is the day Shrek was born, and so everyone and everything in his swamp and in Far Far Away is different, and not in good shape.
Shrek has to convince Fiona, Donkey and all his friends who he is, and together they have to break the spell, defeat Rumpel and his evil witches and get things back the way they were.
There are some very funny scenes in "Forever After", but what makes the movie work is the story, which is the best of the series. The writers don't rely on the pop culture references and gags of "Shrek 2" and "Shrek the Third" for cheap laughs. And this is, by far, the most emotional of the four films.
The 3-D animation is great, beginning in the opening scene, where horses pulling a carriage gallop right past you in the audience.
Walt Dohrn (Rumpelstiltskin), Jane Lynch and Jon Hamm join the regulars - Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Cameron Diaz, Antonio Banderas, Julie Andrews - in the voice cast and they're all excellent, including my buddy Regis Philbin, who is back as Mabel, one of the Ugly Step-sisters. He only has one line, but does a great job.
"Shrek Forever After" is rated PG for some mild action violence. It's appropriate for everyone who's seen any of the previous films and even those who haven't. And if you're a diehard fan of the series you'll be very satisfied with this final installment.
On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Shrek Forever After" gets B+.
Even if this truly is the final "Shrek" film, it may not be the final time we see Shrek on the big screen. DreamWorks will be out with a "Puss in Boots" spin-off next year. If that becomes a series we could see a cameo from a certain ogre at some point.
Write a comment
- Required fields are marked with *.
Posts: 5
Reply #5 on : Thu June 03, 2010, 16:25:19
Posts: 5
Reply #4 on : Thu June 03, 2010, 16:23:14
Posts: 5
Reply #3 on : Wed June 02, 2010, 17:20:39
Posts: 5
Reply #2 on : Sun May 30, 2010, 19:59:08
Posts: 5
Reply #1 on : Sun May 23, 2010, 18:19:35
Robin Hood (PG-13) D+
The story of Robin Hood has been told many times on the big screen, with the likes of Errol Flynn, Kevin Costner and an animated Disney fox playing the title role. There isn't any "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor" in this latest version, because it's a "prequel" to the story that we all know.
Russell Crowe stars as Robin Hood, and, just to be clear, he's not related to "Little Red Riding Hood", though that would have made for a better movie.
There may be more action/battle/fighting scenes in this movie than in any film I've seen and you've ever seen. The movie is set in 12th century England, and begins with Robin fighting on the side of King Richard. That king gets killed and so Robin then fights against the new king, King John. Or is it the other way around? Then England gets attacked by France and so Robin fights against the French.
All of it is rather confusing, and even though some of the story is based on history, no one knows if there was ever a REAL Robin Hood, so all of his story is made up. And since it's a "prequel" you know what's going to happen at the end, because if any of the main characters die, there couldn't be the other Robin Hood story.
As you can probably tell, I didn't like this movie very much. There's too much action, it's 2 hours and 20 minutes long, it's way too serious and outside of the fighting scenes there's not much going on. Lady Marion, who's played by Cate Blanchett, says a few times that she's hoping for a miracle. I was too: that, somehow, Disney's 1973 animated version would, magically, start playing on the screen.
The only funny part in the film wasn't even supposed to be funny: during one of the battle scenes an older woman approaches a group of soldiers on the roof of a castle with a big bucket and says, "time for soup". She wants to feed them lunch while they're being attacked and getting shot with arrows. Hysterical.
The performances aren't anything to get excited about. Crowe, 10-years after "Gladiator", proves he can still swing a sword. Blanchett gets into the action a bit. William Hurt has a small, supporting role. And Mark Strong, who was terrific as the villain in "Sherlock Holmes", plays a bad guy again, but with all the fighting no one has any time to act.
"Robin Hood" is rated PG-13 for the intense and non-stop action violence. Older kids may want to see it, but they won't enjoy it because it's too serious, too long, and there's nothing special about any of the fighting scenes. Plus, at times, the movie is pretty dull.
I decree, by the power of King LCJ, that on his Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Robin Hood" gets a D+.
Be prepared, if you go, to feel like you got robbed, but your money won't be going to the poor, it's going straight to Hollywood.
Iron Man 2 (PG-13) B
The original "Iron Man" was the surprise hit of 2008, making over $315 million. And it re-launched Robert Downey Jr.'s career. Two year's later he's back for more in "Iron Man 2".
This sequel picks-up 6 months after the original ended. Tony Stark in the king of the world, having used his powers as Iron Man to create world peace. But Stark has two new enemies to deal with: a Russian named Ivan Vanko (played by Mickey Rourke), who's father once worked with and was fired by Stark's father and wants revenge, and a defense contractor (Sam Rockwell), who is jealous of Stark's success and power.
And the U.S. Government isn't happy with Tony, either. The government wants him to hand-over his Iron Man suits so they can be used by the military.
Meantime, Stark is dying and needs to discover a new energy source to stay alive. And there are new characters to deal with, including a new assistant, played by Scarlett Johansson, who ends-up being much more than that.
Needless to say there's a lot going on in "Iron Man 2". The good news is, most of it works.
All of the performances are solid, led by Downey Jr. who is perfect in this role. Don Cheadle takes-over the role of Stark's buddy "Rhodey" Rhodes from Terrence Howard, and he sees plenty of action. Gwyneth Paltrow is back as Pepper Potts, and she has a much bigger role this time. Comedian Garry Shandling has a funny cameo as a U.S. Senator. And Jon Favreau is back as director and, again, he plays Tony's manager, with a much bigger role this time. Favreau's direction is top-notch.
The dialogue is smart and witty, and there's more of it than in the first film. But there are still plenty of action scenes.
The major problem with the film is that there are a few scenes that go on a bit too long and a few stretch where there isn't much going on. And there aren’t a lot of surprises in the story.
"Iron Man 2" is rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence and some adult language. It's appropriate for kids 9 and up, and if you enjoyed the first one you should enjoy this as well. It's not a perfect movie, but it's a perfect way to kick-off the summer movie season.
On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Iron Man 2" gets a B.
I also gave the original a “B” back in 2008, but I like this one a little better. But I still think there's an “A” "Iron Man" movie to be made. Hopefully it will be "3", which is, reportedly, already in the planning stage. But next-up from Marvel will be “Thor”, next May. Be sure to stay till the end of the credits for a preview.
Furry Vengeance (PG) D
Over the past two years Brendan Fraser has starred in five family films, some clearly better than others. This one, sadly, may be the worst.
In "Furry Vengeance" Fraser plays Dan, a husband and father who works for what's supposed to be an eco-friendly land development company. Dan moves his family to a small town in the wilderness so he can be in charge of a construction project. However, he soon finds out that the project is bigger than he thought and that the entire forest will be destroyed to make room for hundreds of homes and a shopping mall.
When the animals that live in the forest find out what's happen they begin to attack Dan in many different ways, many of them involving his groin. Dan's wife (who's played by Brooke Shields) and his son think he's going crazy, because, for some reason, no one else can see the animal attacks.
But Dan realizes that the animals are simply trying to protect their own families and so when he learns that his company is going to kill all the animals, he has to try to save them.
The plot of "Furry Vengeance" is very simply and we've seen it before. This is sort of a live-action version of 2006's "Over The Hedge", except that movie was funny.
There's way too much slapstick, most of it involving scenes with animals pooping or peeing on the Fraser character, or Fraser dealing with human poop and pee when he gets attacked by a bear inside a Port-A-Potty. And, as I mentioned before, he gets hit in his private parts a lot, too. And sprayed in the face by skunks, over and over. I'm getting pretty tired of movies that think this stuff is funny.
Many of the scenes in "Furry Vengeance" are uncomfortable to watch, including seeing Fraser in a pink sweat suit with his gut hanging out.
This may be a good time to explain why I love my job, but sometimes don't like my job: I don't like my job when I have to sit through terrible movies like this one. I love my job because I get to tell people to save their hard-earned money and don't bother buy this movie on DVD or PPV.
The performances in "Furry Vengeance" are terrible, I think I laughed twice the entire movie and the special effects involving the animals are very poorly done.
One of the only things I liked was seeing Wallace Shawn, who plays a therapist. If I ever needed a therapist it would be cool to have one who does the voice of "Rex" in the "Toy Story" movies.
"Furry Vengeance" is rated PG for mild language, a brief smoking scene and the comedy violence. It's appropriate for kids 7 and up, but that doesn't mean they, or anyone else, should watch it.
On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Furry Vengeance" gets a D.
I read on-line a while back that Dick Van Dyke was originally going to be in this film. Thank goodness for his sake, and for his fans, that he isn't.
Letters to God (PG) B+
Not many people got to see "Letters to God" when it was briefly in theaters back in April. I praised the film on TV and on-line, and actually heard from the film's producer, David Nixon, who thanked me for my review and for helping to spread the word about the film. It's now out on DVD, and so you have a chance to check it out. But first read this review:
"Letters to God" is inspired by the true story of a young boy named Tyler who is battling brain cancer. While his mother, brother, grandmother and best friend all hope and pray that Tyler will get better, Tyler starts a different type of praying: writing letters to God.
A substitute mailman named Brady starts collecting these letters and, at first, doesn't know what to do with them. But a pastor convinces Brady that these letters ended-up in his hands for a reason and that he'll figure it out. Brady has his own problems. He drinks too much and lost custody of his young son in a divorce.
Soon he and everyone else realize that because of these letters, God really does have a plan for Tyler and the people around him and they all start to believe.
"Letters to God" is a serious film, one that would never be made by a traditional Hollywood studio. There are several very sad scenes, but also uplifting ones. The film deals with a powerful topic: a kid with cancer, and deals with storylines that a true to life, including the jealousy of the brother, the hopelessness of the mother and the questioning of God. It's clear that the writing team knew this subject very well.
The acting is solid and even though this is a smaller film, the look of "Letters to God" is impressive. It's a movie that makes you think and believe that things happen for a reason and that everyone can make a difference. Personally, I know a family that has gone through a similar situation as the one in the movie. A lot of people do. This will really hit home for them.
"Letters to God" is rated PG for dramatic and emotional impact. It's appropriate for older kids, but parents need to be aware of the subject matter and so they don't simply take the family to this thinking it's a cute, fun film about kids and God. It is not. And for those who have dealt with this problem in their lives the story may be too emotional.
And if you don't enjoy religious films, this is not the movie for you either.
On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Letters to God" gets a B+. Have the tissues handy.
Write a comment
- Required fields are marked with *.
Posts: 3
Reply #3 on : Wed August 18, 2010, 12:39:50
Posts: 3
Reply #2 on : Sat April 10, 2010, 19:38:29
Posts: 3
Reply #1 on : Sat April 10, 2010, 18:38:37
Clash of the Titans (PG-13) F
It was shot in 2D, then converted to 3D. But "Clash of the Titans" can be summed-up with just 1D, and that stands for DISASTER.
When released in theaters earlier this year the movie had the 3-D worst of any film I've ever seen. And here's why: the studio decided AFTER the movie was shot that they wanted a 3D version, so they converted it in post production and proved that this can't be done, at least not well. Most of the scenes looked either cheap or cheesy - some of the characters in focus, others very blurry. In fact the Zeus character, played by Liam Neeson, wasn't in focus the entire movie. And a couple of times, just to stay awake, I took my glasses off, and the screen looked pretty normal.
The good news is, in the DVD version, the bad 3-D isn't an issue. But all the other things wrong with this movie still are.
The
story is based on Greek Mythology,and the battle between the gods and
the humans. The main character is Perseus, the demigod played by Sam Worthington of "Avatar" fame. The plot is basically the same one as in "Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief", though that's a much better film.
"Clash"
is all about the action. There are way too many fighting scenes and the
effects just aren't that special. And even if you didn't see the
original 1981 version (which I haven't seen but have been told was also
cheesy - but in as fun way) you know these characters and you know
what's going to happen in the end when the big, evil monster - The
Kracken - shows-up. And that scene is also disappointing because we've
already seen The Kracken in the trailer.
Overall, "Clash of the
Titans" is a boring mess. Worthington barely has any lines. There are
just a lot of close-ups of his facial expressions, that is, when he
isn't fighting. Ralph Fiennes plays Hades and he's pretty creepy
looking, but other that that the rest of the characters are bland.
As for the dialogue, Pegasus, the flying horse, has some of the best lines, and all he does in whinny. And all the action scenes are dull.
"Clash
of the Titans" is rated PG-13 for fantasy action violence and some
scary images. I guess it's appropriate for kids 10 and up, but, trust
me, it's not worth your time or money. There's a new, alternate ending on the DVD. It doesn't matter.
The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Clash of the Titans" gets an F. It's the worst film of 2010 so far.
I really wanted to come-up with a way to give it a D, to go along with the theme of this
review, but this movie is just so bad I couldn't.
Write a comment
- Required fields are marked with *.
Posts: 23
Reply #21 on : Mon July 26, 2010, 23:53:25
Posts: 23
Reply #20 on : Sat July 10, 2010, 03:41:49
Posts: 23
Reply #19 on : Wed May 26, 2010, 15:06:39
Posts: 23
Reply #18 on : Sat April 24, 2010, 12:27:18
Posts: 23
Reply #17 on : Sun April 11, 2010, 08:54:25
Posts: 23
Reply #16 on : Sun April 11, 2010, 08:52:31
Posts: 23
Reply #15 on : Sat April 10, 2010, 18:42:41
Posts: 23
Reply #14 on : Fri April 09, 2010, 06:18:37
Posts: 23
Reply #13 on : Wed April 07, 2010, 09:02:25
Posts: 23
Reply #12 on : Wed April 07, 2010, 08:57:23
The Last Song (PG) C
Miley Cyrus used to be to best known for her role as Hannah Montana, and she played that TV character in her first major on-screen movie role, last year's "Hannah Montana: The Movie". In "The Last Song" she takes-on a much more dramatic role, and she doesn't even sing.
The film is based on the book by Nicholas Sparks, who also wrote the screenplay. Cyrus plays Ronnie, an unhappy teenager who's sent by her mother to live with her father for the Summer. Her parents are divorced. Oh, and her little brother comes along with her as well.
At first Ronnie doesn't like being around her dad, who's played by Greg Kinnear, but then she meet a boy and the two get to like each other. But things do not go well in the lives of Ronnie or the boyfriend or the father. In fact, there are a lot of story lines in "The Last Song", too many in fact, and just about all of them involve bad things happening to people.
There's a lot of drama in "The Last Song". It's a big screen soap opera. There are medical issues, fights, tragedies, break-ups. There are a few nice scenes with the family, but not enough. There are just too many sub-plots and they take-away from the main story.
As for the acting, it's no surprise that Miley Cyrus is not the best actress in the world. Her performance ranges from o.k. to rough. Liam Hemsworth, who plays the boyfriend, is not very good either, but I liked Bobby Coleman, the younger brother. Kinnear is the best thing in the movie, while Kelly Preston, who plays the mom, is only in a few scenes.
Miley Cyrus fans will be surprised and maybe disappointed by just how serious, sad and, at times, depressing this movie is. And an attempt at an uplifting ending just doesn't work.
"The Last Song" is rated PG for the mature themes and some brief language. It appropriate for kids 10 and up, but because of the serious tone, no one's going home smiling.
On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "The Last Song" gets a C. It certainly won't be remembered as "the feel good film of 2010."
As for Cyrus, she may want to stick to singing roles for awhile, or go back to voice-over work. I loved her in "Bolt".
Write a comment
- Required fields are marked with *.
Posts: 4
Reply #3 on : Wed August 18, 2010, 10:58:24
Posts: 4
Reply #2 on : Sun July 25, 2010, 10:45:30
Posts: 4
Reply #1 on : Sun April 11, 2010, 09:10:45
How to Train Your Dragon (PG) B+
DreamWorks Animation has had much more success lately with original films (such as "Kung Fu Panda") than with sequels to previous hits (like "Madagascar: Escape2Africa"). The studio's latest movie (and the first of three this year) is an original, and it's fantastic.
"How to Train Your Dragon" is based on the children's book of the same name, but this adventure about a boy and his unusual friendship with a dragon really comes to life on the big screen.
Hiccup is a teenager and the son of the leader of the Vikings. Hiccup has always wanted to be like his dad and everyone else, who fight and kill dragons to protect their land. But after he injures the rarest of all the dragons, a Night Fury, Hiccup realizes that he isn't like everyone else. So, instead of killing the dragon, which he names "Toothless", the two become friends, and Hiccup learns that the dragons aren't the evil creatures everyone thinks they are.
The rest of the Vikings are still afraid of the dragons and so Toothless, Hiccup and his girlfriend Astrid have to find a way to save both the dragons and the village.
Let's start with the look of "Dragons": It's spectacular! The 3D may be the best I've ever seen in an animated film and there are a few scenes that are simply incredible. The flying sequences put you right on the dragons and the battle scenes are amazing.
The plot of the movie is simple, and we've seen the relationship between father and son (Hiccup's mother is dead, something else that's popular in animated films these days), and boyfriend-girlfriend in plenty of other films, but they work here because the writing is go good. And there are some dramatic elements that set the film apart from most, typical family films, including a twist at the end I never saw coming.
"Dragons" is funny, but also very serious at times, and it teaches several important lessons, but in an entertaining way. The characters are all very likeable and the voices are well done. Jay Baruchel voices Hiccup and America Ferrera plays Astrid. Others in the impressive voice cast include Gerard Butler, Jonah Hill and talk show host Craig Ferguson.
"How to Train Your Dragon" is rated PG for some action violence. It's appropriate for everyone: little kids will enjoy the cute dragons and all the action, older kids and adults will like all of that too, plus they'll appreciate the wonderful story and amazing animation.
On “The Official Kid Critic Report Card”, “How to Train Your Dragon" gets a B+. It's clearly the best Family film of 2010 so far. And you have to see it in 3D!
Next up for DreamWorks Animation is the final chapter of the Shrek series, "Shrek Forever After" in May and, "Mega Mind", starring Will Ferrell in November. Those two will have to be pretty great to top "Dragons" as the studio's best film of the year.
Diary of a Wimpy Kid (PG) D
Most people, after seeing a movie based on a book they‘ve read, usually say “I liked the book better.” I, on the other hand, as a movie guy, usually enjoy the movies more than the books.
But not this time.
“Diary of a Wimpy Kid” is based on the very popular book series by Jeff Kinney. I’ve read all 5 of the books and liked them all. They follow the life of Greg Heffley, who in the first book, as in the movie, is just starting middle school.
Greg has a mom and dad and an older brother, who picks on him a lot, and a baby brother as well. He also has a best friend named Rowley, who embarrasses him sometimes but they’re still great pals.
At least in the books. One of the main problems with this movie (and there are plenty) is the relationship between Greg and Rowley. For the first half of the film, Greg is mean to Rowley, trying to change him and make him be cool. And then they stop being friends and the second half is about Greg’s life without his best friend.
This isn’t fun or funny. In fact this entire movie isn’t fun or enjoyable to watch. There’s no clever dialogue. None of the creativity of the books. The entire tone of the film is MEAN - classmates being mean to each other, older kids being mean to the middle school kids. There’s even a scene in which Greg is unbelievably mean to a group of kindergarten students.
If the books had this tone no one would have read any of them.
There are no laughs in “Wimpy Kid“. Everyone in the packed theater I was at when I saw it back in March sat through the movie in stunned silence except for a few gross scenes.
Also, the acting is not good. At times “Wimpy Kid” reminded me of the worst family movie of 2009 - “Shorts”. That’s not a place I ever wanted to go again.
All of this is very surprising because Kinney was both a writer and executive producer of the film. He’s got no one to blame but himself for they way this movie turned-out.
The best thing about “Wimpy Kid” is the occasional use of the simple, pencil-drawn animation of the actual cartoons taken from the book. They should have done the entire movie this way.
“Diary of a Wimpy Kid” is rated PG for a few disgusting scenes. It’s appropriate for kids 7 and up, and fans of the books are going to want to see it. But I beg you to save your money for the next book instead.
On “The Official Kid Critic Report Card”, “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” gets a D.
And as a tribute to clearly one of the worst family films of 2010, all I can say is: “Zoo-Wee-Mama”.
< Previous 123456789101112131415161718 Next >
Write a comment