Posts tagged review
Movie Review: Limitless
Mar 27th
Imagine if every piece of knowledge you had ever gained and every memory you’d ever made could be recalled in an instant and applied to your current situation?
Your intellect would be limitless and your potential would be immeasurable.
Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper) had such powers after bumping into his former brother-in-law and being offered a special pill as a pick-me-up.
A struggling writer, Eddie had been doing it tough, with little motivation to start his novel.
With the pill on board, Eddie had a clarity he’d never known before.
His brain went into overdrive and no mental challenge was too difficult to deal with.
He could work through 100 different options to deal with any problem in front of him.
The world was his oyster.
Eddie’s life turned around at an incredible pace.
He applied his brainpower to his novel and then the financial markets and quickly created great power and wealth, attracting the attention of financial power broker Carl van Loon (Robert de Niro).
But his astonishing rise in the financial world attracted much attention and it soon became clear that dangerous people were after his remaining supply of the wonder drug.
He cannot do without the pills but he has to be alive to use them.
Eddie must now engage in a dangerous juggling game – keeping his burgeoning career on track while keeping the assassins at bay.
Limitless offers a real earthy edge to its storytelling.
There’s no smooth sanitised approach, the scenes are shot with a realism not typical of Hollywood action films.
There is a real feeling of being along for the ride as Eddie goes on his adventure.
4/5
(M), 120 minutes
From www.starcanterbury.co.nz
Sucker Punch Review
Mar 26th
Sucker Punch is a movie that had all the potential to be something special. At it’s heart is a good idea but it fell flat in the execution. Despite being out for barely two days, Sucker Punch is already proving to be a very polarizing movie. I was curious as to how audiences would react to it seeing how I was in fact really looking forward to it, but then the reviews came in. So far, the reaction to this movie has been decidedly mixed, with reactions ranging from extremely positive to extremely negative, and I can see why. Sucker Punch is a movie that knows how to push fanboy buttons, and do it well, but as a movie as a whole it falls flat. I saw it with three other friends and the four of us were split down the middle on our opinions of it, and that seems to be the case all around. Needless to say, Sucker Punch is a movie that has “cult film” written all over it, but I think it’s going to fall flat in the mainstream circuit.
Sucker Punch tells the story of Baby Doll, a young girl committed to a mental institution by her evil step-father. While there, she finds that the evil head doctor is using the girls in the asylum for his brothel he runs on the side (I guess, but more on that later) and she escapes into a fantasy world while also plotting her escape. On the surface, it sounds like Pan’s Labyrinth but with more guns and explosions, and it’s an idea that could have worked and given us something special. I was intrigued the first half hour or so of the movie, but then soon found myself…bored. Sucker Punch’s key flaw is that it just doesn’t engage the audience, and one main reason why is the fight scenes.
As I said earlier, Sucker Punch knows how to push geek buttons. You have hot girls in skimpy, anime attire, robots, dragons, orc, and steam punk Nazi zombies (yes, I thought that was an awesome idea too). The fight scenes are like something out of a video game: hot girls have to fight monsters to get to their objective, they even get a little briefing in the beginning and have to fight a boss at the end. The fight scenes are big, loud, and pretty, but they don’t add anything to the movie. The best action movies, Raiders of the Lost Arc, Die Hard, Inception, all use the action scenes to advance the plot of the movie, something is always at stake to make us doubt if our heroes will win, but with Sucker Punch, the movie could have easily cut out the fight scenes and not missed a beat. The action scenes all take place in Baby Doll’s head so there’s no sense of danger, we know this isn’t a real world so we never doubt if she’s going to get killed by whatever monster she’s up against. In the world, we see the characters nab whatever object their after, the map, lighter, etc, so we know they already have it so we don’t need a big flashy action scene to show it again. The movie really just stops in it’s tracks for these massive action scenes and I found myself sick of them after the second one.
These all leads to the big flaw that there is no sense of danger, nothing at stake. We’re told that Baby Doll has five days until she gets lobotomized but we never get that sense of a ticking clock. The girls all go for the various items needed to escape, but they get them with all too much ease. The villains are so over the top that we never really fear them, and they really don’t do anything dastardly, so we find ourselves not caring.
Another big flaw is the characters, or caricatures as they should be. All our heroes really are is hot, barely clothed girls, video game avatars going from point A to point B. Baby Doll, our main, character, really doesn’t have anything to her other than to look concerned and tell everyone her plan. There could have been some great character guilt with the plant earlier in the movie that she accidentally killed her sister, but this is never brought up again. All the other supporting cast is just kinda “there”, and one point one of them died and I barely batted an eye.
The line between reality and fantasy became a big debating point as well. Some of my friends thought that the whole thing with the asylum being used as a brothel was all in Baby Doll’s head, and at times this does seem the case, but we’re never given sufficient evidence to doubt or prove this. The time frame was another point of debate, because it seems to present a 1950′s type feel but then plays modern music.
All in all, Sucker Punch really fell short of being something special. Zack Snyder has proven to be a capable director but I think he was just trying to do too many things with this: a women in prison movie, a fantasy, a video game movie, etc. I still have faith for the Superman movie because Snyder won’t be doing the script, unlike with Sucker Punch. While this movie is big, pretty, and expensive, it’s really nothing more than a teenage boy’s fantasy come to life, complete with hot girls with no personalities fighting cool monsters.
From www.comicbookmovie.com
Kullanari kuttam Movie Review
Mar 26th
Kullanari kuttam starring Vishnu and Remya Nambeesan in the lead. The movie is about Vishnu and how he falls for his love lady and get her back filled with all romance comedy and many more with a power pack performance of Vishnu and Remya.
Kullanari kootam is a story which has set in Madurai .the film has all essentials such as comedy romance songs which is believed to be a family entertainer.The story starts with Vishnu whose characters is to take upon what comes to him happily and move life with luck and happiness. Remya Nambeesan is Vishnu ‘s lady love who comes as a local Madurai girl with full of naughty and fun loving. It s all about the fair and war in love .
The film is directed by Sri Balaji and songs have been composed by carnatic percussionist Selvaganesh. The buzz about the movie was that when the audio was launched by Oscar winner A.R. Rahman . The songs have been already popular for its varities.
KULLANARI KOOTTAM Cast & Crew
Director: Sri Balaji
Producer: Ashish Jain V
Music Director: Selvaganesh
From www.supergoodmovies.com
Movie Review: “Limitless”
Mar 26th
Print This Article
Email This Article
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Contact The Dagger
With the first sleeper hit of the first quarter of 2011, Bradley Cooper pulls off a dramatic action role as a man discovering the limits of the capable human intellect, a turn sure to help the actor’s burgeoning career.
Originally a vehicle meant for Shia LaBeouf, who had to bow out after his motorcycle crash in 2008, “Limitless” shines as a cerebral thriller.
Out-of-work writer Eddie Morra (Cooper) is rejected by his girlfriend Lindy (Abbie Cornish), confirming his belief that he has no future. That all vanishes the day an old friend introduces Eddie to MDT, a designer pharmaceutical that makes him laser-focused and more confident than any man alive. Now on an MDT-fueled odyssey, everything Eddie’s read, heard or seen is instantly organized and available to him. As the former nobody rises to the top of the financial world, he draws the attention of business mogul Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro), who sees this enhanced version of Eddie as the tool to make billions.
But brutal side effects jeopardize his meteoric ascent. With a dwindling stash and hit men seeking to eliminate him to get the MDT, Eddie must stay wired long enough to elude capture and fulfill his destiny. If he can’t, he will become just another victim who thought he’d found invincibility in a bottle. (Summary by Relativity Media)
Not to show a full-on man-crush on Bradley Cooper, but he quickly dispels any doubts that he can pull off a leading role in a film. De Niro does not show up until a limited role late in the film, and the rest of the cast reads like a casting call from regional dinner theater. Of course, it is easy to shine when your competition is essentially non-existent. De Niro does put Cooper in his place late in the movie with an emphatic soliloquy about paying his dues that will have you pressed into your seat with its intensity, but outside that moment he is as memorable as a bout of ether.
A few creative visuals are used early in the film to explain the effects of MDT without getting bogged down in dialogue-driven explanations—a good choice by director Neil Burger, who does not have wide film-making experience. Gradually these tricks fade away to focus on the ways Eddie is going to use the drug to pull his life together. He frequently speaks of a “great plan” he developed to make a difference in the world, while his reality amounts to little more than nailing any woman within a 10-foot radius and attempting to amass a lordly sum of money via brokerage-trading algorithms.
It is never made clear if winning back his girlfriend, making absurd amounts of money, or the aforementioned man-whoring is the end game of the “plan,” all of which is accomplished with minimal effort or reason. Maybe there’ll be a sequel where the “plan” is explained as he cures cancer, adopts orphans from a third-world country, and wins the war on terrorism using mind bullets.
The major criticism lies in the lack of continuity in the story line. Obviously the mind-altering camera play from the effects of MDT could explain this away, but it seemed more the essence of lazy writing than intent. Some story lines don’t resolve, others resolve with a quick one-liner, and others get a sharp 180 contrary to the current flow of the overall storyline at the time of resolution. If nothing else, there should be a significant number of deleted scenes on the DVD release hopefully showing all the scraps left on the editing room floor, cuts forced by a studio that picked the film’s brevity over its continuity.
Eddie’s super brain works best under the suggestion that human potential is limited only by the skill of the person writing your dialogue. The questionable premises raised by the lack of thought by the screenwriter are like the proverbial house built on sand – the less time you spend there the better. While it is easy to pick apart the writing, the film is enjoyable to watch and Cooper’s performance comes in with both guns blazing, more than enough to distract you from the flaws.
“See It/ Rent It/ Skip It”: See it. Watch Bradley Cooper attempt to dispel the rumors he is secretly gay by making love to as many D-list actresses as possible in 105 minutes. My count was 8.
THREE STARS out of four.
Directed by Neil Burger. Written by Leslie Dixon (screenplay), Alan Glynn (novel).
Rated PG-13 for thematic material involving a drug, violence including disturbing images, sexuality and language.
Runtime: 1 hour, 45 min
From www.daggerpress.com
Movie review: Sucker Punch
Mar 25th
by Alex Bentley
Sucker Punch delivers a number of different attacks, with none of them quite connecting like they should.
Despite an up-and-down record, director Zack Snyder has become the new “it” guy when it comes to visually-inventive filmmaking. After a well-received debut with 2004′s Dawn of the Dead, Snyder went on to make 300, a blood-spattered adaptation of the Frank Miller graphic novel, which was hailed by many for its distinct look. Staying on the graphic novel path, he then directed Watchmen, which had, among other things, a giant naked blue man as one of its attractions. He also took on Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole, but the less said about that, the better.
What all of those previous films have in common is that they are based on someone else’s previous work, whether it be film, graphic novel, or books. With Sucker Punch (which is being released both for regular screens and for IMAX), Snyder is finally taking a crack at writing an original story. The idea he and co-writer Steve Shibuya came up with defies easy explanation. An enthralling, wordless opening sequence set to the Eurythmics’ “Sweet Dreams” establishes the basics of the film, showing the main character, Baby Doll (Emily Browning), as she deals with both the death of her mother and the advances of her abusive stepfather toward both her and her younger sister. Her resistance to him leads to him committing Baby Doll to the Lennox House mental institution in Vermont.
Warner Bros.
What follows is essentially 300 meets One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest meets The Wizard of Oz meets Inception meets Burlesque, with other genres thrown in just for fun. If that seems like some pretty disparate elements to put into one film on paper, just wait till you get a load of what it looks like on screen. In order to escape the miseries of the nut house, Baby Doll imagines a world where she and her fellow inmates — who include Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jena Malone), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens), and Amber (Jamie Chung) — are dancers in a nightclub. However, for some reason, they’re still under the thumb of Blue Jones (Oscar Isaac), a guard at Lennox House but the owner of the nightclub in the fantasy. In order to escape his clutches, Baby Doll creates yet another fantasy life, this one in which the five girls fight their way through a variety of movie genres battle sequences in order to facilitate her escape plan on the nightclub level, which presumably would help them on the mental institution level.
That’s a lot to take in, and while it all flows relatively smoothly, there’s a general emotional disconnect that comes with all the jumping around. The opening does such a great job of setting up Baby Doll as a character that it comes as somewhat of a surprise to spend such little time with the “real” Baby Doll. Almost as soon as she’s committed, Snyder takes us into the fantasy world, so that we can never be sure if what we’re seeing is her true personality or someone she just wishes she could be. Also, while there’s a general goal of escape, it’s difficult to become invested in the girls’ quest when the vast majority of the film takes place on one fantasy level or another, making the idea of escape more abstract than it should be.
Of course, Snyder’s lure isn’t his storytelling — it’s his visuals. To say that he indulged himself a bit in Sucker Punch would be the understatement of the year. Unrestrained by the need to stay true to a source material, Snyder goes hog wild, especially in the battle sequences, unleashing an orgy of fantastical imagery. Baby Doll imagines four different fight scenes, and each of them pays tribute to a different movie genre, including kung fu, war, fantasy (a la Lord of the Rings), and science fiction. Along the way, the girls take up arms against everything from zombie German soldiers to robots, with their opponents’ wounds spewing light or smoke instead of blood, a clever way to both dazzle the eye and earn a PG-13 rating.
Oh, and did I mention that the girls are doing all of that in while clad in a series of revealing outfits? Snyder would probably like us to think that by showing girls rebelling against authority that he’s empowering them, but clothing them in short skirts and skin-tight outfits while doing so does tend to send a mixed message.
The acting in Sucker Punch runs the gamut from pretty good to laughable, though most of the actors lean toward the former designation. Browning makes for an interesting heroine — her look definitely fits her character’s name, but it also hampers her believability during the fight scenes. Her team of fellow freedom fighters deliver varied results, with Cornish and Malone making the best impressions. Isaac’s role allows him to be over-the-top, which he does with relish. Carla Gugino also bites into her part as the girl’s Russian psychiatrist/dance instructor, utilizing a hit-and-miss accent. Scott Glenn is in full-on guru mode as the girls’ leader during the battle scenes, and Mad Men’s Jon Hamm shows up late in an unexpected role, but his time on screen is so brief that there’s little to say about his performance.
After almost two hours, the exact meaning of Sucker Punch remains unclear, not least because the title seems to have no direct relation to the story; there’s almost no punching, but shooting, stabbing, and exploding do play key roles. By now, Snyder has shown that he is a wizard when it comes to depicting flashy visuals, but it’ll only be when he marries those to an equally enthralling plot that he’ll truly become a visionary director.
To find movie times for Sucker Punch, click here.
From www.pegasusnews.com
‘Queen of the Sun’ review: Bee movie is no B movie
Mar 25th
Queen of the Sun: What Are the Bees Telling Us?
Documentary. Directed by Taggart Siegel. (Not rated. 82 minutes. At the Roxie.)
Whether or not you like honey on your morning muffin, you ought to be concerned with the health of the nation’s bees. That’s because a complex phenomenon called “colony collapse disorder” has caused the loss of 5 million bee colonies in the United States, according to Taggart Siegel’s documentary “Queen of the Sun.”
And that’s important because, as Slow Food’s Carlo Petrini tells us, “If we kill all the bees, there will be no agriculture.” This is hyperbole, but perhaps justified by the fact that some 40 percent of U.S. food production depends on bee pollination.
Siegel talks to beekeepers, scientists, ecologists and farmers in the United States, Europe and Australia about the urgency of dealing with the disorder. The possible causes are many, and the film singles out a few, including the growth of monoculture (devoting large areas of farmland to a single crop), the use of chemical pesticides and the mechanization of beekeeping. Organic farming practices are cited as a crucial part of the solution.
Among the film’s more intriguing revelations is the key role California’s almond crop plays in the nation’s bee industry. We’re told that vast numbers of bees are gathered from around the country and trucked to the Central Valley for what one observer describes as the “single greatest pollination event in the world.”
Viewers may recall Siegel, a former Bay Area resident now living in Portland, Ore., for his amiable 2005 documentary “The Real Dirt on Farmer John,” about eccentric Illinois farmer John Peterson. Siegel still has his sense of humor, mixing sober facts and figures here with lighthearted material (dancers decked out as flowers and bees, a few animated bits).
He even serves up a likable oddball, “bee historian” Yvon Achard, who brushes his huge mustaches against a piece of honeycomb loaded with bees and declares that they like it. (It’s his considered opinion that the bees choose the beekeeper, and not the reverse.)
Some of the film’s more reverential moments are a bit much – I could have used less rhapsodizing about the sacredness of bees – but in all the film is convincing, and it winds up with a to-do list for those who want to help.
E-mail Walter Addiego at waddiego@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page E – 5 of the San Francisco Chronicle
From www.sfgate.com
Red Riding Hood – movie review
Mar 22nd
Midway through the hysterically Freudian knees-up that is Red Riding Hood, I wondered whether director Catherine Hardwicke had read Bruno Bettelheim’s The Uses Of Enchantment.
Sure enough, she had, and that 1976 psychoanalytical reading of fairy tales is thrown – along with everything from Nine Inch Nails to Burning Man Festival to Hieronymous Bosch – into the bewildering yet captivating stew that has created one of the most appealingly deranged fantasy films in recent memory.
Of all the fairy tales, Little Red Cap (in its 1812 incarnation by the Brothers Grimm) and/or Little Red Riding Hood (Charles Perrault’s 1697 predecessor), the tale of the little girl swallowed by the wolf offers a smorgasbord of symbolism for the willing analyst, whether it be Oedipal conflict, female sexuality, the menarche – you name it, it’s in there.
And most of it is in this rather strange and glorious movie, which offers a lot more than its accompanying tide of howling (sorry) critical pannings and cheesy dialogue might initially suggest.
Indeed, from the beginning of the colour-drenched prologue, it’s clear the film owes more to cinematic fever-dreams like Ridley Scott’s Legend and Walter Murch’s Return To Oz than the not-so-magical realism of 21st century fantasy like the Harry Potter franchise.
Daggerhorn, a village of indiscriminate location and vintage, is one of those vistas that sprang from the Technicolor dreamscapes of The Wizard Of Oz: even in permanent winter, colourful flowers flood the landscape.
Golden ash trees throw bright splashes among the tall pine trees in the surrounding forest, which sprout phallic spines that are echoed by the spike-covered buildings of the village. This medieval-looking architecture isn’t just decorative, it’s protective: Daggerhorn has a werewolf problem.
This problem directly affects our heroine, Valerie (Amanda Seyfried), when the wolf attacks and kills her sister Lucy. Adding to the bummer vibe is the news that Valerie has been betrothed to rich Henry (Max Irons), when she really loves poor woodcutter Peter (Shiloh Fernandez), her childhood sweetheart.
Valerie’s deadbeat dad, Cesaire (Billy Burke, aka Dad Of Bella from Twilight), deals with the bad news in much the same way he does most things in life, by swilling his way around town with a hip-flask.
Valerie, her mother Suzette (Virginia Madsen) and the other girls set about embalming Lucy; surrounded by candles and bunches of flowers, they move about like a Seventeen Magazine shoot styled by the Pre-Raphaelites.
Meanwhile, the menfolk are keen to spill some blood. The local priest, Father August (Lukas Haas), urges them to wait until werewolf expert Father Solomon is in town to find a solution; he’s less than a day away. No such luck.
The men of Daggerhorn decide to head up Mt. Grimoor to slay the beast; set upon by a wolf, Henry’s father is killed, but the party return triumphant, the wolf’s head on a stake.
Soon enough, though, the party vibe is ruined when Father Solomon (Gary Oldman, back in full Dracula/Fifth Element mode after a decade of actorly restraint) rolls into town.
He rides in a heavily armoured carriage, accompanied by a team of mercenaries led by a crossbowed sharp shooter who looks like the love child of IG-88 and Ned Kelly.
Solomon’s men are swarthy, unsmiling Moorish types, decked out in plate armour and chainmail. Hunting werewolves: serious business.
The piece de resistance of his storied entourage is a large metal elephant on wheels. No explanation is sought or offered for this lunatic accessory (though it later turns out to be an instrument of torture designed by “the Romans”).
Solomon assures the people of Daggerhorn that what they have beheaded is just a simple grey wolf and that the true killer still walks among them; sure enough, when the town square is barricaded that night, his hypothesis is proven to be correct.
Cornering Valerie during the ensuing chaos, the wolf speaks telepathically to her; she sees he has brown “human eyes” and is plunged into paranoia as to which of her neighbours might be harbouring a dark secret.
She immediately starts searching all brown-eyed girls (and boys) for hints of lycanthropy. Is it Peter, who wants to “eat her up”? Is it Henry? Is it her jealous friend Prudence? Or, is it Grandmother (Julie Christie), who lives in the woods?
She doesn’t have much time to work it out; dobbed in as a witch, Solomon will soon encase her in a cast-iron wolf mask (kinky) and park her in the town square as bait.
From there it’s a rollicking ride to the outrageously Freudian denouement (though Hardwicke plays enough red herrings for the wolf’s big reveal to remain a surprise).
Red Riding Hood is a hoot from start to finish.
Hardwicke’s background as an artist and production designer has clearly informed the film’s distinctive look, masterminded by Thomas E. Sanders.
Somewhere between Breugel and Bosch and World Of Warcraft, Daggerhorn is a completely fictionalised (it’s not really Medieval nor Elizabethan nor Norse, and the inhabitants speak with American accents) and yet fully realised world. Mandy Walker’s cinematography offers sweeping vistas suitably redolent of panel-van fantasy art.
(The CGI wolf is marginally better than Twilight’s efforts, though that’s not saying much.)
Cindy Evans’ costumes are gorgeous; nubby silks and linens in bright jewel colours, handspun wools and strapped leathers. Julie Christie, done up like a Laurel Canyon soothsayer in a blue gown and blonde dreadlocks, looks fantastic (Madsen fares less well with a corkscrew perm).
Brian Reitzell and Alex Heffes’ score falls, pleasingly, somewhere between goth nightclub and Gregorian drone, a musical gumbo not unlike (though not as demented as) Damon Albarn and Michael Nyman’s Ravenous.
A scattering of original songs including the sensual abandon of Fever Ray’s The Wolf add to the teenaged intensity of the action.
Most interestingly, unlike the abstinence-friendly sexlessness of Twilight (Hardwicke’s most recent work), Red Riding Hood is bracingly ribald.
The villagers drink (a lot) and gyrate in the blunt manner with which we like to forget our forbears – even if these ones are invented – enjoyed; dance and pantomime in the town square concerns everything from bestiality to buggery to bi-curious barn dancing.
The brief sex scene between Valerie and Peter, who take a roll in the hay during the celebrations, is enlivened by a genuine erotic frisson despite, or perhaps because of, its relative chasteness.
(And then there’s the lingering and intensely vulval close-up of Father Solomon’s silver-dipped fingernails tearing into a dish of roasted meat.)
The two matinee idols, Irons and Fernandez, are fairly unexciting, though Irons gives the ineffectual Henry a touchingly sincere quality; Fernandez, a newcomer, mostly looks slightly confused, albeit in a sexy way.
Where others might have upped the damsel factor, the ever reliable Seyfried remains steadfast and spunky as Valerie.
The older players have a lot more fun with the howlers they are required to deliver; Christie brings class to her hippie nanna role and Oldman roars through Solomon’s nutty sermons with abandon.
It’s a shame, considering the strength of (most of) the cast and the production design that the script – by David Leslie Johnson (Orphan) – is so full of clangers.
(He deserves an Oscar, or perhaps some intensive ECT, for penning the line Gary Oldman so gleefully hollers, mid-fracas: “Lock him up… in the elephant!”)
The temptation to dismiss Red Riding Hood as “silly” or “over the top” is strong; it has moments – frequent – of stodgy dialogue, a few disinterested extras, and a last minute nod to impending afternoon bestial delights (mercifully the credits roll).
Lurking beneath the suds, however, is an intriguing maelstrom of a movie that has been magicked up by a director whose oeuvre is far more intriguing than she is given credit for.
Hardwicke’s riding what is effectively a teen movie on the work of Bettelheim, Freud and Breugel – even if it doesn’t always work – is far gutsier than another Hitchcock reheat or mumblecore coming-of-age flick by the same old solipsistic dudes.
Say what you want about Red Riding Hood, but it’s the best sexy psychoanalytical soap opera fantasy you’ll see all year. In fact, it may well be the only one you’ll ever see.
Red Riding Hood opens in cinemas on Thursday, March 24.
From www.thevine.com.au
REVIEW: ‘Limitless’: Magic carpet ride offers plenty of thrills
Mar 22nd
During the height of the steroids-in-baseball scandal a friend defending the muscle-bound sluggers asked, “You mean to tell me that if someone came up to you and offered you a pill that would make you dramatically better at your job and ratchet up your pay grade that you wouldn’t take it?”
It was an interesting hypothetical and it gave me pause, but since being able to bench press a Chevy Malibu wouldn’t really give me much of an advantage over my fellow movie critics I quickly dismissed it.
However, the new thriller “Limitless” envisions a world where I wouldn’t be let off the hook so easily because a black-market pill has been devised that greatly enhances mental prowess, creating the cerebral version of Barry Bonds.
I thought I had this movie pegged from the trailer which showed a schlubby writer (as played by Bradley Cooper) who, thanks to a little clear pill, becomes a super-slick brainiac. In my mind, the movie would unfold with Cooper achieving greatness, dealing with unwelcome side effects, realizing that life is better without the pill, credits roll, we’re all better people, stay in school kids and don’t do drugs.
Fortunately “Limitless” isn’t content with being a simple little morality tale and instead unspools as a dynamic little thriller that plays with some weighty issues along the way.
The movie was directed by Neil Burger who is probably best known for his film “The Illusionist.” Burger never once settles for a simple shot as “Limitless” is visually compelling throughout, especially with the clever visuals he uses to illustrate the effects of the drug.
I think it would be fair to count David Fincher amongst Burger’s influences because, when combined with Cooper’s voice-over narration, “Limitless” plays out a bit like a poor man’s “Fight Club.”
Cooper erases any doubts of his ability to be a leading man and while he is most believable as a fast-talking dynamo, his best acting might be during his pre-drug phase as an unkempt, failing author.
Supporting turns are also solid, including Abbie Cornish as Cooper’s on-again/off-again girlfriend and Robert De Niro as a corporate tycoon looking to take advantage of Cooper’s emergence as a financial wunderkind.
De Niro’s role is little more than a cameo, but he does have a couple of great scenes which represent his best work in at least a decade. Granted, that’s not saying much, but still.
“Limitless” is a compelling enough movie just to look at and becomes an effective thriller as dark forces begin to collect around Cooper’s new-found ambition. But what’s maybe even more surprising is that this film doesn’t shy away from being a little intellectually challenging as well.
Plot-wise “Limitless” does leave a bit to be desired. Several issues never get satisfactorily resolved, character motivations are often murky and the movie does sag at times under the weight of the ridiculousness of the premise.
That said, the film does deserve credit for diving right in to issues of identity, morality, addiction, altruism and ambition; and for not being afraid to admit there are no easy answers. Even the ending is compellingly vague; leaving us to wonder if advantages in pill-form are inherently good or bad, or if we even have the ability to tell the difference.
“Limitless” is rated PG-13 for thematic material involving a drug, violence including disturbing images, sexuality and language.
From www.stltoday.com
Limitless: Review By Screeny
Mar 22nd
At first, I can tell you truthfully, that I wasn’t really intrigued by “Limitless”. To me, I thought the whole concept of the film didn’t make much sense and that’d it be just another film from the beginning of the year that’d be forgotten completely by May or June. After seeing the film though, however, I’m actually quite happy with the results from “Limitless”, and thinking of all the loud and explosive films coming up, this is one of those thought-provoking, little movies that we’ll all appreciate once the Michal Bay-splosion type films start coming out and we all loose our brain cells. So, therefore, this little thinker of a film is well worth your attention, even if it does have its little faults.
The film starts off quite perfectly, in my opinion, almost giving a lighter resemblance to “Fight Club”, using narration from our main character in just about every scene, bringing the film along very well. I thought the character development behind Bradley Cooper’s character, Eddie Morra, was interesting and it was easy to like the character, especially using the touch of narration. I always love narration used in a movie, because it really brings us inside the mind of our character and gives us a much better feel of what direction he’ll go in, since we understand him much more than we would in a movie without the use of narration. Plus: This movie having a concept dealing with brain power, I thought it was a real nice touch to add in narrating because it really fits with the film’s plot.
Meet Eddie Morra, a young writer living in New York City having trouble focusing on his newest book, that has not a word so far. After his girlfriend Lindy leaves him, Eddie runs into an old friend (well, ex-brother in law) that offers him a whole new world. One little pill that is able to access not 20 percent of the mind all the time, but full 100 percent. Sounds tiring, but so worth it. Tempted to try the pill, its not long before Eddie becomes addicted by this new brain-power, and after a murder leads to a new secret stash, Eddie feels invincible and feels like its his chance to get to the top. Using this pill doesn’t just bring Eddie uphill though, it creates him an atmosphere of villains, susp*cions, and sickening addiction. I thought the plot of the film wasn’t going to flow as well as it actually did in the movie when I saw it. The movie actually contains much more thought than expected and I enjoy watching movies like this because they don’t need pointless action to entertain the viewers.
Bradley Cooper has come a long way since his big break with “The Hangover” back in 2009. Just two years since then, he’s managed to sweep across cinema with both the action and comedy genre, and has easily become a big name in Hollywood. Being a drunken teacher to a member of the A-Team, his most recent film goes right into his mind as Eddie Morra. Bradley Cooper isn’t really an actor who plays a different character in each one of his movies. Even if it’s a comedy or action film he’s always the same sarcastic jackass who everyone still seems to like. In “Limitless”, he’s not really playing that douche bag character that takes humor to make people like him, he’s a real character that’s actually going up against a conflict, and this would be one of Cooper’s better performances, or at least the most different than his normal criteria. And then we have Robert De Niro. I never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but, it comes as a shock to me when Bradley Cooper gives a better performance in a movie than Robert De Niro does. It might be because Cooper is lead-star in the film, and De Niro’s character, Carl Van Loon, isn’t anything special. I felt like De Niro was a waste of talent for this movie. The character, Carl Van Loon, didn’t really seem to have much of a point in my opinion and he didn’t really ever reach the “bad-guy” heights like people are expecting him too. But, De Niro does do the best he can with the character. I just wouldn’t go see this because Robert De Niro is in it though, because it wouldn’t of done the film much of a difference if he was in it or not. As for other performances by Abbie Cornish and Andrew Howard, they were pretty well done. The acting was never much of a problem with the movie.
Neil Burger has made his directorial debut and does have four films now to date, but, to me he still hasn’t really achieved his big break. I do think though, however, that “Limitless” has brought out his true colors. I loved the text in which Burger uses in “Limitless” which gives you a clear idea whether the film is showing a scene where someone is on the pill or if someone isn’t. Whenever Morra is off the pill and living his dull, waste of a life, the film presents itself in a very dull, dark, bluish texture. But, whenever he’s on the pill and living a very successful lifestyle, everything is presented in a very mellow blend of orange. I thought separating “on the pill” and “off the pill” in two different styles of look was a pretty cool add-on to the film and Neil Burger definitely pulled it off quite nicely.
The only thing about “Limitless” that I didn’t really care for was the way it went from being so intriguing in its first half, to being not so good in it’s second act. I felt like the first forty-five minutes or so of the film flowed very nicely and remained very new and creative but then once more conflicts started to arise in the plot, clichés came along and everything got a little over-the-top. The film is still very well worth the watch, but, I wish a few things were changed in it’s last half. I felt like a lot of plot holes misted out of nowhere as well. (Tiny spoiler) It seems almost impossible for a character to be able to walk away so easily from everything that went on the film, like police and loan sharks. Killing three men in an apartment, self-defence or not, would still be in question and not just forgotten about. (NO MORE SPOILERS) I can let the little things go, but, only a few errors in the film made it only good, not great.
All and all, “Limitless” is a very entertaining, brain-pumping thriller that’ll definitely please audiences. Bradley Cooper manages to pull off his best performance yet and the film’s smart, fast-moving script keeps it real cool and real easy to like. Never dragged down too much by its last half of the film, the first half is enough to at least give the movie a rent. If your not into crazy explosion-filled movies with pointless plots then “Limitless” is the perfect blend of just about everything!
Thanks for the read!
-Screeny
From www.movieweb.com
Paul Movie Review
Mar 21st
Lost in Space
Anyone who’s seen “Shaun of the Dead” or “Hot Fuzz” knows that Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have an encyclopedic knowledge and ardent love of 80s films and pop culture. Both films both glorified and lampooned the zombie and action genres, respectively, while becoming cult hits in their own right. For their latest film, “Paul”, the comedic duo take on the vast world of sci-fi flicks and the fanboy culture. But without Edgar Wright (their frequent collaborator and director), it lacks the smart-cool factor that is exactly what fanboys crave.
Pegg and Frost play Graeme and Clive — sci-fi “enthusiasts” from the UK on a pilgrimage to visit the alien landmarks of the American Southwest. The film gets off to a promising start as Graeme and Clive hit Comic-Con like kids in a crack-laced candy store. With several winks and nods to the Comic-Con subculture, the film quickly establishes its geek cred and Graeme and Clive as worthy protagonists on this heroes’ journey.
But as the two pile into their shabby, rented Winnebago and embark on their road trip, Graeme and Clive don’t realize they’ll be leaving some of the best bits in the film behind. As they traverse the rural desert land, they run into your typical backwater rednecks and beehived waitresses who don’t cotton to weirdoes with funny accents and long hair. Gay jokes and pee-pee humor pop up unpleasantly between the movie references and quotes that make up much of the banter between the two characters.
It doesn’t improve much when they encounter Paul — an alien escapee they (almost literally) run into in the Nevada desert. After being a “guest” of Area 51 since the 40s, Paul is now making a break for it before he can be terminated by the government. An assimilated, wise-cracking pothead in cargo shorts, Paul just wants to go home — but he isn’t exactly “E.T.” He’s essentially Seth Rogen (who provides the voice), only a bit shorter, grayer and with bigger eyes. And so, more pee-pee humor, gay jokes and drug references ensue, with the occasional familiar catch-phrase or sight gag thrown in to remind the audience this is supposed to be a take-off of sci-fi flicks.
Kristin Wiig, as Ruth, a trailer park manager (and romantic interest for Graeme), is the only real bright spot that shakes the dust off this tired routine. Her turn as an Evangelical Christian — whose faith is tested by the appearance of Paul — is an inspired bit of lunacy. Ruth’s first awkward attempts at cursing are simply delightful.
The rest of the film, not so delightful. Director Greg Mottola (“Superbad”) knows his way around a comedy, but Pegg and Frost need a director like Edgar Wright who can visually play with the styles and genres to which the writing team is paying homage. Wright’s vibrant, comic-book style would have been perfectly matched here, and it’s much missed. As it is, “Paul” doesn’t have much going for it — other than some residual good will for the film’s stars. Too bad, because if anyone could have done sci-fi fanboys a solid, it would have been the ultimate movie fanboys, Pegg and Frost. Guess no one will be dressing up as Paul at Comic-Con next year.
From www.bigpicturebigsound.com
