Short Review: It's Harry Potter for the stupid kids.


Imagine a generation so myopic and so catered to by their sycophantic parent generation that not even the Greek mythologies are interesting enough to gain their attention unless the classics are "updated" to be more like them. You don't have to imagine such a pathetic display, you're living the dream right now.

Percy Jackson & the Olympians is a successful series of books which adapts Greek mythology and places them into our time. The titular Percy (Logan Lerman) is the son of Poseidon and is sent on quests to resolve propped-up conflicts which seem to be constructed merely to send the kid out to do stuff. The whole point is that today's kids need to have these mythologies placed in our time to make them interesting enough to read. Speaking plainly, the Greek myths are dumbed down for a generation raised on Xbox and domed drinks.

The plot of this film is simple. The main character, a nerdy but affable kid, lives in an abusive home. One day he is drawn into a fantastic world and he learns of his parent's tormented past which has made him an exile from his "real" world. He also learns of his lineage which makes him the chosen hero to set things right. Many strange and powerful people and creatures know of him and come calling. Our hero is then hurried away to a secretive school for kids with his kind of talents. There he meets a girl who is strong-willed and very adept with her own talents - so much so that she is superior to our hero. He also meets competing kids who seem to be just a little untrustworthy. In the end, our hero unravels a simplistic mystery, makes new enemies and establishes himself a nice little cinematic franchise in the process. All of this hinged on the image of a lightning bolt.

Oh wait...that was Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone I was describing. I got mixed up.

This is essentially the same story. Just take off Potter's glasses, remove the blemish from his forehead and you're ready to go.

Even without the production existing in the shadow of Potter, this film is a loud, FX-heavy bore. Much of the boredom is based in a rudimentary script by Craig Titley. Titley is, of course, limited by his source work and is forced to talk down to his audience. This leads to non-existent character development and peril-focused storytelling. We are introduced to Percy, his mother and his friend Grover and then shoved into the mythological world with little depth added to our initial introductions.

Titley presents a conflict in thinking. On one hand, the whole enterprise is based in the notion that the audience needs to have these mythologies updated into modern times to make them interesting enough to watch. On the other hand, Titley assumes his audience has enough working knowledge of these myths to forgo any detailed explanation or descriptions of what happens on screen. This means he has a trio of characters, who we really don't know much about (translating into us not caring about them) running into mythological creatures who have no point. A minotaur appears out of nowhere and attacks Percy. Percy stops by Medusa's home. He has a run in with the hydra. Percy stumbles from one conflict to the next looking for pearls that will allow him to survive a trip to Hades - a place that is only cursorily explained. It all just happens and we're expected to be engaged.


On top of the tumbler-like plotting, the characters are likewise presented with scant development. Percy is joined by Hermione...er, Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario). Annabeth is a mannish chick who is great with a sword, but no so hot with the acting. She offers enough masculine traits and belligerent independence, while also remaining pretty, to make her a socially acceptable female colleague. Percy is also joined by a satyr named Ron Weasley...er, Grover Underwood (Brandon T. Jackson). Grover has just the right mix of non-threatening, Will Smith urban sass to make him a socially acceptable black colleague. Percy is, of course, the porridge that the Hollywood Goldilocks likes. He's a ethically ambiguous white male with good skin and a passive personality. Other than these comfortable, fast-food commercial characterizations, the cast has little to offer other than their blocking during the fight sequences.

This is supposed to be exciting, I found myself literally yawning - and I took a nap before seeing the movie. While some may enjoy the books, I find it difficult to believe that many will enjoy the movie. It is everything a movie should avoid being: boring, tedious and derivative.

Labels: Alexandria Daddario, Brandon T Jackson, Catherine Keener, film, Jake Abel, Joe Pantoliano, Logan Lerman, movie review, Pierce Brosnan, Rosario Dawson, Sean Bean, Steve Coogan, Uma Thurman

Labels: Eric Idle, film, Jonathan Pryce, movie review, Oliver Reed, Sting, Terry Gilliam, Uma Thurman

Short Review: This film is so horrible it’s given me post-stress disorder.


This movie was apparently made on a bet. I can’t believe sober adults came into this production with the intent of making a good movie. If John Woo keeps making poop cakes like this disaster he should be forcefully deported back to China. Let him dumb down their culture, why do we need to take the hit?

I usually try to find something I like in a film. With this waste, I honestly think I liked the ending credits best. They gave me a comprehensive list of people whose work I should avoid. That is a great service and I appreciate it.


Related Reviews:
Ben Affleck movies
Hollywoodland (2006)
Armageddon (1998)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Reel Views
Film Jerk

Labels: Aaron Eckhart, Ben Affleck, film, John Woo, movie review, Paul Giamatti, Uma Thurman

Tarantino makes amoral, flashy but hollow flicks but they sure do make for great trailers. This ad gives the full vibe of the movie and certainly promises what it delivers - a stylized, sharp-edge movie. Too bad the actual product is critically flawed. It is the epitome of style over substance and is best viewed within the confines of a few minutes like we have below.

Labels: Bruce Willis, Christopher Walkin, film, Harvey Keitel, John Travolta, movie trailer, Quentin Tarantino, Samuel L Jackson, Tim Roth, Uma Thurman

Quentin Tarantino is a talented guy there is no doubt. He has a sharp eye, a masterful control of language and knows how to wield his encyclopedic knowledge of cinema and pop culture. For all of his gifts however, he is also a master at squandering them on pap nonsense. This film,a twisting collection of underworld tales of mobsters, hit men and a wayward boxer, is a marvel. It is brisk, catchy and wonderfully shot. The acting is inspired and the dialog is poetic. There is no denying the lure of the production. It is unique. It is also the biggest example of style over substance. Tarantino paints a brilliant picture but fails to infuse it with any purpose. The movie was made simply to be watched, consumed and that's all. There's no over riding reason to see the film other than it's "cool". This is fine if you're a simpleton who has no expectation out of cinema other than to be titillated. If you expect more out of film, when you break this thing down and look at it, it is hollow.

The lack of a point wouldn't be that big of an issue, there's plenty of content-free movies out there, but this is such an ugly movie that it makes me pause. The characters are hideous people doing horrendous things to each other. Everyone is an amoral monster carelessly drifting through the world causing mayhem and bloodshed. Instead of pulling the various plots together into a decisive moral point, Tarantino is comfortable letting the loose ends float in the wind without either resolution or any deeper meaning. Someone dies, it's no different than if they live. A man is shot in the back of hit man Vince Vega's (John Travolta) car he's the referred to as a "dead nigger" for the remainder of the scene. He's not a man, he not an individual, he's not respected, just a "dead nigger" who needs to be mopped up. If it were clear that Tarantino were trying to show the world as an amoral jungle it would be passable but he never feels the need to explain things that far. Things just happen and the things that happen are simply ugly. I am certain the reason for this is because of how the script was written. The script, with all of it's fast dialog and broken time lines, is actually very simple. Reading it, it seems apparent to me that Tarantino sat down and thought of some scenes he thought would be cool to produce. The needle in the heart, the hillbilly male rape, the standoff in the diner, etc. These scenes are anchors me established and then wrote wandering threads to each of them. There are five or six solid scenes with riveting action the rest of the film are meandering paths to these scenes.

It is clear actors thrive when given Tarantino's dialog. He offers them, not so much deep characters, but interesting ones and with the popping dialog there is plenty for trained actors to dig their teeth into. In particular Samuel L. Jackson finds a rich role in hit man Jules, who is transformed after surviving an ambush that should have taken his life. Jules sees God's hand in the event and feels that he's been spared to do greater things. This redemptive element could have been drawn out and held meaning but Tarantino doesn't seem to know what he has on his hands. In the end, Jules' epiphany is explained and his explanation falls flat, weighed down by irrational pop culture references and a lack of direction. I found myself wanting Jules to pull himself out of this criminal life and his choice to wander the Earth, doing good deeds, sounds wonderful, but this brief respite from the amoral morass Tarantino creates has as much impact as spitting in the ocean.

Ultimately, this is not the brilliant work of art it has been portrayed to be. It is a lively, invigorating piece of cinema, to be sure, but it's not a masterwork. I understand why so many claim this to be brilliant. It is a vivid work and there's no ignoring it. As I said, it is unique. But when you stop to really look at it, there is actually very little going on other than a lot of flash and bang. I give credit for some great dialog, but the overall film is just a vile trip through the imagination of a man who is stuck in his corrupted adolescence. as I've said before, Tarantino is a legitimate talent but he has the instincts and mentality of an abused twelve-year-old boy with a box of frogs and firecrackers.


Related Reviews:
Quintin Tarantino movies
Kill Bill Volumes 1 & 2 (2003 - 2004)
Reservoir Dogs (1992)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Roger Ebert
ScreenIt!

Labels: Bruce Willis, film, JohnTravolta, movie review, Quentin Tarantino, Samuel L Jackson, Uma Thurman

Science Fiction like it should be. Although flawed in its pacing, this movie overall delivers the goods. What is wonderful about this film is that its science fiction without having to pulls out aliens or laser guns or other silly distractions. This is a solid social commentary with an interesting look at genetic determinism and eugenics. A fresh and novel film made with oblivious care. This is a good pick for those times when you need a back up pick.


Related Reviews:
Science Fiction Movies
Metropolis (1927)
The Alien Franchise (1977-2004)
Sunshine (2008)



Other Critic's Reviews:
Daily Film Dose
Christian Spotlight on the Movies

Labels: Ethan Hawke, film, Gore Vidal, Jude Law, movie review, science fiction, Uma Thurman