Showing posts with label matthew broderick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label matthew broderick. Show all posts

December 15, 2007

Bee Movie (2007)

4/5

Bee Movie is hilarious! Seinfeld's post-Seinfeld stuff has been excruciatingly disappointing, but this movie is exceptional. Though there was nothing stunning about the animation (as there was in Ratatouille), it did take advantage of CGI to create an awe-inspiring and fully-envisioned bee world. The story, while predictable, still managed to be unique and innovative. I knew how everything would turn out, but I had no idea what crazy adventures would happen along the way. This was also somewhat of a detriment, as the movie kept plodding along after the main storyline came to a close and re-opened again two more times. The jokes were fast-paced, but sometimes the funniest ones were muttered to the side instead of boasted with confidence. All in all, I'm glad Jerry Seinfeld made this movie, because it restored my faith in his abilities as a comedian. And it was a lot of fun. Highly recommended if you like Seinfeld.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0389790/

June 23, 2007

The Producers (2005)

3/5

The Producers, a remake of Mel Brooks's directorial debut, follows the travails of two men who try to get rich overselling a play destined to fail: Springtime for Hitler. It was funnier than I expected, though I didn't expect much. I don't much like Brooks; his humor is generally not my style. Be that as it may, I did laugh a significant amount during the movie. (Not a whole bunch, mind you, but a significant amount nonetheless.) Most of the humor was brought to the forefront while some of it was left subtly in the background for the vigilant to pick up on. I did enjoy the screwball antics of the characters, although their mannerisms were a bit out of place and unnecessary, as if they were trying too hard to make the characters unique. Nathan Lane had a surprisingly Gilbert Gottfried-esque voice that kept making me think of Iago. The music was surprisingly catchy, though it did get old near the end. The rhymes and jokes in the songs were really really well done, I thought. The acting, enh. The cinematography, not bad. The editing, clunky at first and much more fluid towards the end. The script and dialogue, pretty funny. At 130 minutes, the movie seems a bit long for a comedy musical, though it never really felt boring or overlong (although I was doing the dishes and moving around for some of it). Overall, I recommend the movie to Brooks fans even though his original is probably more to their tastes, but to those who don't like him or don't like screwball comedies, you should probably pass on it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0395251/

July 29, 2006

Glory (1989)

3/5

I saw this yesterday on my quest to see the IMDb top 250, which is perhaps my most foolish undertaking (not because of the length, but because of the abundance of terrible movies). It scored very high on IMDb and I was excited because I liked Edward Zwick's most recent directorial effort (The Last Samurai). Unfortunately, I did not find this film particularly commendable. Maybe I just hate Civil War movies (I don't like the parts of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly where it uses the Civil War as a backdrop). Something about the acting just didn't feel right to me. I never thought the characters were real; they were just actors playing those roles. And what were we supposed to feel about Matthew Broderick's character? The first half of the movie he treats his men like dirt and the second half they suddenly have an incredible rapport. What changed about him that I missed? Cary Elwes' character was overall pretty worthless (though I liked his acting--I thought it was the best in the movie). I just never felt the emotional impact in this film that I was supposed to feel.

Now don't get me wrong; it's not a bad movie. It's just not anything to talk about. I don't see how it could be anyone's favorite movie. There's nothing atrocious about the directing and cinematography; the action scenes weren't bad. But it's not really an action movie, is it? I was disappointed when I found out that none of the characters were real except Broderick's. I wouldn't recommend seeing this movie unless you are a fan of the Civil War and not a fan of history (although how those two could coexist is perplexing).

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0097441/