Reviews by Matt

I hate movie critics.

It may be hard to believe since it is what I do for the paper, but it is true nonetheless. Call me self-loathing, but it is the way I feel.

What bothers me is how the majority of them seem to have lost whatever it was about movies that made them choose it as their profession. Most are cynical jackasses who like films and hate movies.

Pauline Kael, considered one of the best movie critics, once said,

“Movies are so rarely great art that if we cannot appreciate great trash, we have very little reason to be interested in them.”

It has become my philosophy on movies. It is fine to like the great movies, but if you cannot see the good in the bad ones then you cannot truly like any movie.

All this ranting brings me to “August Rush” and the subsequent reviews from the professional critics, not just some dope using what little free time he has writing for a college paper.

Concert cellist Lyla Novacek (Keri Russell) just finished performing at a concert in New York City and goes to a party to celebrate her success. There she meets Louis Connelly (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) an Irish guitar player. They spend the night together on a rooftop talking about music. They get separated the next day and each thinks the other is lost for good. Lyla soon discovers she is pregnant and her father (William Sadler) thinks it will ruin her career. When a car hits Lyla he gives the baby up for adoption without her knowledge.

August Rush (Freddie Highmore,) her child, dreams of finding his parents. He has an innate gift for music and hopes to learn to play so his parents will hear it and find him. He runs away from the orphanage where he lives and makes his way to New York City. He meets “Wizard” (Robin Williams), a street performer who teaches children to play music.

Cheesy? Yes.

Predictable? You betcha.

Improbable? Well, it is a movie.

Original? Hell no. Then again these days is anything?

None of these make a movie any less enjoyable.

I will agree that “August Rush” was nothing special. It is another in a long line of movies that fall in the middle of the pack. It has been done better and it has been done worse before. The performances are all underwhelming and no one even comes close to standing out as the star.

Though, Robin Williams does stand out in a bad way. He continues to try to show that he is a dramatic actor and not just the coked up hyper-persona we see on television.

When “Wizard” first meets August, he is a mentor. When he sees the pure and amazing talent the boy has, he uses him. He begins to make deals for him. When he does not get his way, he gets angry and yells. He uses August to make himself more money.

This is hammered home over and over again when we see “Wizard” try to make deals. We do not need six scenes showing this. It is understood after the first two.

Even with the excessive amounts of “dramatic” Williams, the movie is still very enjoyable. It may try to be more then it is and fail miserably, but that does not make it a waste of time. It is a touching story of a young boy trying to find his place in the world.

The main problem many of the critics have with the movie is that it is unrealistic and too sentential. It is a movie. Sometimes a feel good movie is a good thing. So what if the plot is a stretch, it is a movie. It is fiction. All you need to do is sit back and enjoy.

6 out of 10
Rated PG for some thematic elements, mild violence and language.
1 hr 53 min

I guess I should have seen this coming. Animation has come a long way since the first Mickey Mouse cartoon, “Steamboat Willie,” in 1928. Where old cartoons used to be drawn painstakingly frame by frame and all by hand, today computers have replaced the artist’s pencil.

Over the past few years there have been leaps in animation. Forgettable movies like “The Wild” and “TMNT” have shown that animation has come a very long way. While these two movies were children’s movies and used animals as main characters, they looked very close to real life. I should have been expecting that day when humans were rendered perfectly in an animated movie.

Thus we have “Beowulf.”

For those, like me, who went to a high school where this was not required reading, the movie’s plot is as follows; Beowulf (voiced by Ray Winstone) comes to King Hrothgar’s (voiced by Anthony Hopkins) kingdom to rid them of Grendel (voiced by Crispin Glover). He volunteers to kill Grendel’s mother (voiced by Angelina Jolie), but because of her beauty cannot and ends up “giving her a son” instead. When he returns, Hrothgar names him the heir. The king decides that Beowulf is to be king sooner rather then later and jumps off his castle wall, Beowulf takes the throne. Years later his past comes back to haunt him when a dragon that turns out to be his son attacks the countryside.

When I walked of the theater after the movie, my friend said, “The only thing that had in common with the book was the title.” He told me that the second half of the movie never happened in the epic poem.

If you are going to see this hoping for an intriguing story and great characters, do not bother. The animation is the only reason to see this. It is simply breathtaking. In some instances it looks almost real. It does retain that cartoon feel and quality of other computer animated movies, but this takes it to a whole new level. It is better than anything to come before it and looks to become commonplace in the future.

Having a movie completely computer animated allows for freedom to do things with the camera that could not be done otherwise.

When King Hrothgar throws himself off the castle wall, the crown is placed on Beowulf’s head. The camera focuses on the
details of the crown. It starts at the back of the new king’s head and pans around showing the story of the former king and his rise to power. When it reaches what is the front of the crown is tilts down and reveals that 50 years have past and the one young Beowulf is now an aged king. It is a simple shot that can only be accomplished in a digital world.

I did see this in a regular theater, but I have heard that the best way to see it is in an IMAX 3-D theater. If I liked the plot a little more and felt like shelling out the $11 to see it, I would, but I do not have the time or the money. The movie may have a horrible story that strays from the original source material, but the animation is something to behold.

6 out of 10
PG-13 for intense sequences of violence including disturbing images, some sexual material and nudity.
1 hr 54 min

Last week, whether you noticed or not, the writers of Hollywood went on strike. That means that no new scripts for movies or television will be written until the studios and the Writers Guild of America reach an agreement. As of Tuesday night, no agreement has been reached and no further talks are scheduled for the immediate future.

What the writers want, as with most strikes, is more money. Truth be told, the amount they are asking for is relatively small.
Way back when VHS tapes were in their infancy, the writers took a pay cut to allow the studios to help build the market. In the past 20 plus years, the pay has remained the same. That means that for every DVD sold at $19.99, the writers get four cents. In the age of the Internet, the writers are also paid four cents for downloads from stores like Amazon and iTunes. They get absolutely no money for their work is for the episodes shown on the web.

All the major networks have entire episodes of certain shows that can be viewed online. They post advertisements and get revenue for it. The writers get nothing even though it is their work that is being shown.

So what exactly do the writers want? They want the original contract honored; giving them eight cents for every DVD sold. They want more per download and residuals for the online episodes. That is all they want and at least from my standpoint it seems reasonable.

There is an issue that no one seems to be looking at; the effect a prolonged strike would have on the viewing public. In 1988 the WGA went on strike for 22 weeks and the studios lost $55 million. That is not my problem. I think the studios make way too much for doing nothing anyway.

My problem is lies with what could happen should this last as long as the previous strike. How are the viewers going to respond to a long, drawn out span with no new scripted television?

Dozens of shows are going into reruns soon. Most will not make it that far into 2008 and many more will not return once the strike is over. If the strike continues longer then three months no new pilots will be filmed meaning that there will be no new television for the fall 2008 season. Infact there would be no brand new shows until January of 2009. You read that right; 2009.Who knows how many viewers will not return if that happens.

Television is an escape for millions of people. I know that I look forward to watching TV when I get home from school every day. It is a time to relax, put your feet up and zone out for however long you want.
Soon that release will not be there. It will be all reality shows and reruns. Nothing new until the studios and the writers can reach an agreement. That leaves us, the viewing public, with a void. We are the ones who are feeling the effect of this strike, not the writers and certainly not the studios.

Millions could feel betrayed if they lose their primetime dramas and comedies. It is nice to come home and watch Michael Scott from “The Office” be the complete dope of a boss. Watch Grissom solve the case on “CSI”. Watch House be a jerk while he solves the most complex medical mysteries. Watch those with special powers on “Heroes” discover just what they can do and save the world. All of these are escapes from reality. It is a reality that every day looks bleaker without new television.

That is what is really at stake. Not only could millions be lost in revenue during the strike, but also billions are at stake if the viewers decide not to return. Our trust has been tested and our patience is running out. If the studios want us to watch what they air and the writers want us to watch what they write, they had better figure this out before it is too late.

Why do you go to movies?

I go, not just because I have two pages to fill every week, but to escape. There is a lot to worry about between politics, war, environmental crises, classes and the endless stream of general crap that happens everyday. I pay the ridiculous amount of a movie ticket, walk along the sticky floors and sit in seats that smell like old popcorn to get away from real life.

I do not go to get reminded of what I am trying to escape. I do not go to get preached to. I do not go to feel bad about myself. I do not go to want to better myself afterward. I do not go to see “Lions for Lambs”

The movie focuses on three different stories taking place over the course of 88 minuets (hence the running time). Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) is in a meeting with journalist Janine Roth (Meryl Streep). They discuss Irving’s new plan for the war in Afghanistan. The second focuses on soldiers Arian Finch (Derek Luke) and Ernest Rodriguez (Michel Peña) who are a part of the team that is implementing the new plan when they are shot at. Finch and Rodriguez fall out of the helicopter and are trapped on a snowy mountain as the Taliban move in. Lastly, at an unnamed California university, Professor Stephen Malley (Robert Redford) is meeting with one of his students, Todd Haynes (Andrew Garfield). Todd has been missing class and Malley talks to him about two other students he had, Ernest Rodriguez and Arian Finch and the choices they made while in college.

Damn, do I hate being preached at. I hate it even more when it leads nowhere. I felt like I was at a political debate, not a movie. It does not point a finger at one group; it points a finger at everybody. That is right, we are all to blame for the war. Conservatives, Liberals, Professors, Students, Parents, Congress, Journalists, even your sweet 80-year-old grandmother. It is our fault and shame on you for being apathetic, enlisting, or agreeing with the war. Way to go America, you really messed up this time.

Were it not for Tom “I Heart Xenu” Cruise, there may have been a small chance I would have returned to my apartment and tried to better myself. Thankfully, I guess, the “ball o’ crazy” that is the poster boy of Scientology just makes me want to vomit. I used to like Cruise. He picked some great and memorable roles and always seemed to be a genuinely good guy. That changed the day he jumped on couch of the equally self-righteous Oprah followed quickly by declaring that he knew all there is to know about medicine because he read a few books. The man is a completely self-absorbed jackass.
I may not like Tom Cruise the man, but I do still respect Tom Cruise the actor. He may be a whack job, but he can still act and does it well. Just not here. What begins as a Senator defending the war on terror quickly becomes a crazy man talking in circles.

I expect more from Redford and Streep than what I got. They just sleep walk through the movie. These two are fantastic performers and have proved it over and over again. Why stoop to this? I can forgive actors who make bad movies. Hell, I even expect it from them after a long sting of great, Oscar worthy roles. Sometimes they need a vacation and pick a fun movie that may flop at the box office, but they really do not care. I can forgive that. What I cannot forgive is a movie like this. It is trying way to hard to be a serious Oscar contender and just becomes overly dramatic.

If there is one thing I hate more than a preachy movie, it is a pompous one. Get over yourself. The purpose of a movie is to entertain, not to guilt trip the viewer. If I wanted that I would have watched a propaganda film. At least then I would have know what I was getting in to.

4 out of 10
R, for some war violence and language
88 min

Normally I start each review with some snappy observation. I use this vary paragraph to complain or praise something related to the movie I am about to review. Something happened to me when I sat down to do this review. I drew a blank. I tried so many different openings. I went with the humorous, the philosophical, the serious even the dry opening and nothing worked. It was after 15 long minutes of typing and deleting that I realized something. Some movies transcend the movie going experience.

Set in the 1970s during the Vietnam War, “American Gangster” follows Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington) as he rises to become one of the top heroin dealers in New York. He delivers the highest quality drug at Wal-Mart prices. As more and more product floods the street, Richie Roberts(Russell Crowe), an out cast cop, is picked to head up a police force whose sole aim is finding the biggest drug dealers in the city. As Lucas gets more and more powerful, Richards comes closer and closer to busting him.

You really cannot go wrong with Denzel Washington. He is one of the greatest actors of this generation. He continues to raise the bar of what to expect from a lead actor. Lucas is a horrible person. In the first three seconds, and I am not exaggerating that at all, he lights a man on fire and then shoots him. Instantly we know he is not a man to mess with. Yet, you cannot hate him. He is so charming and so charismatic that you cannot hate him.
I know that in “The Godfather” and “Scarface” you like the gangster. The difference between those classics and “American Gangster” is this gangster is being perused by a cop who happens to be the other main character.

Crowe is another one of those actors who finds roles that show off this talent. Roberts became an outcast when he turned in some dirty cops who were taking money. He is picked to head up the narcotics enforcement team because he is seen as a clean guy. He begins to piece together that Lucas is working with powerful mafia members and even has them working for him. Roberts is a good guy who is surrounded by corruption. He handpicked his crew for the narcotics unit because he had to trust them. When he makes his way to New York City, Roberts, who works out of New Jersey, has to work with cops who he knows are dirty. He has to make a few compromises to get Lucas.

The movie almost lost me at one point. The police are making raids on some of Frank’s places as he sits in church. At first I thought that it was going to resemble the final scene in “The Godfather” where Michael attends his son’s baptism while the hits he ordered are carried out. Luckily it was not edited with quick cuts between the two scenes. They saved themselves from ripping off another movie by keeping the action on the raids and simply establishing that Frank was in church.

This is up there with other gangster movies like “Goodfellas” and “The Godfather.” Crowe and Washington are fantastic, as usual, in their roles. The story was riveting and the characters were intriguing. The performances were amazing and even the directing was awesome. When the Academy Award nominations come out in the next few months look for Washington and maybe even Crowe on the ballot for Best Actor. I even predict the movie getting the nod for Best Picture. There are so few movies out there worth seeing, but this is one of them.

9 our of 10
Rated R for violence, pervasive drug content and language, nudity and sexuality
2 hrs 37 mins