Reviews by Matt

When it comes to writing reviews, I need a starting point, that one thing in the movie that sways me one way or the other. In any movie this could be the acting, a certain scene or some aspect of the movie that helps to shape the review. In the past few months, I have been jotting down my thoughts in a notebook so that I have something to refer to when I write reviews. The page for “Hanna” is blank because I could not come up with why.

When she was young, Hanna’s (Saoirse Ronan) father Erik (Eric Bana) took her away to protect her. He raised her to be an assassin and taught her the skills she would need to survive. Marissa (Cate Blanchett) and others at the CIA will do whatever it takes to get Hanna and Erik.

If I need a jumping off point to get the review done, then the action is as good a place to start as any. There were some pretty intense action scenes in the movie. Hanna is a trained assassin. She has been working all her life to gain these skills in order to survive, whether that is hunting for food or evading and killing CIA agents who are after her.

Hanna is an interesting character and Saoirse Ronan plays her with a hint of innocence, which is tough when the character is a killer. She is cold and calculating. Her childhood was made up of training, so her social skills are lacking. At one point, Hanna meets a girl her own age and the two form a sort of friendship. Hanna, the killer, is seen as Hanna, the () year-old girl.

Neither the action nor the character of Hanna helped me form a coherent opinion about the movie. It is frustrating for me to sit here and not be able to explain why I liked it. The action was cool, but not outstanding and the character of Hanna was interesting, but the performance was not mind blowing. I should give this movie a 5, because looking at the review, I thought it was “good not great.” There is something about the movie that I really enjoyed. The time flew by and I was toughly engaged, but I just cannot figure out exactly what it was. My hope is that when I rewatch the movie I will be able to see what it is I missed. If I can figure it out, I will let you know.

8 out of 10
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some sexual material and language.
111min

Two posts below this one is a movie that had a cool concept and failed to live up to that concept. Now we have another movie where the concept is what put my butt in the theater more so than the actors or director. This time though, I went in expecting one movie and got a completely different one.

One day Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up to find himself in another man’s body. He is on a train sitting across from Christina (Michelle Monaghan). As he tries to make sense of what is happening, the train blows up. Suddenly he is in what appears to be a capsule. Colleen Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) appears on screen and tells him that he is part of a program that is trying to stop a series of terrorist attacks by entering the mind of a man who died in the first attack that morning. Think “Groundhog Day” with terrorists.

The movie was actually pretty good. In this case the concept and the story work well together. The plot was not bogged down with the concept. It is not a love story more than it is a science fiction or crime story. It is well told, well acted and over all a worth a trip to the theater.

If you have not seen the movie, do not read any further because spoilers will follow.

My problem with the movie is the very end. In the end, as expected, Stevens finds the bomber and is able to stop the bomb from going off, therefore thwarting the future attacks. After he stops the bomb, he asks to go back in one more time. He makes it a perfect ending. He and Christina end up kissing and the rest of the train car is happy. The movie freeze frames on that. And that is how it should have ended. Instead, it continues. Colter Stevens has taken over the body of the man and walks off the train with Christina. There are implications that there are now two Colters — one in someone else’s body and one still in the Source Code program. There is a lot that the movie leaves open and that really just bugs me, but not enough to dislike the movie.

8 our of 10
Rated PG-13 for some violence including disturbing images, and for language
93 min

I have no problem admitting I am a geek. Movie geek or Whedonite, I have no problem copping to either. There is nothing wrong with obsession when it is channeled the right way. Sometimes when I go to see a movie, I feel like I should love it. Some movies are right up my alley. So, by all accounts, I should have loved “Paul.” Simon Pegg and Nick
Frost love movies and it has been shown in “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz.” Yet, when I walked out of the theater, I was under whelmed. It was just so-so. A comedy that I should have loved, was just a mediocre movie at best.

Two friends, Graeme (Simon Pegg) and Clive (Nick Frost) decide to cross America and visit all the UFO hot spots. Just outside of Area 51 they run into an alien named Paul (voiced by Seth Rogan). The government is perusing Paul after he broke out of his cell. Graeme and Clive decide to help Paul get off the planet and back home.

Let’s get the good stuff out of the way. Normally I hate Seth Rogan. In the past few years he has become way to overexposed. He was the best part of this movie. At first, I had a problem hearing his voice come out of the digital character, but he actually did a great job of it.

The animation on Paul was amazing. He looked real which is quite the feat considering the nature of the character. In other science fiction movies/TV shows, it is pretty obvious that the aliens are fakes, but Paul felt like he belonged in each and every scene.

So that was the good. Here is the bad. The humor was not that humorous. Much of it came from the fact that Paul was a crude, crass character. The novelty of a CGI character swearing, drinking beer and flicking people off wore off quickly. After that it was just cussing for cussing’s sake. I was over it, but it did not destroy the movie for me.

Some of the humor comes from likes that are from other movies. They are not funny because of the content, but more of “oh, that is from ‘Aliens.’” It does not make the movie funnier. It just makes it more inside for those who have seen movies like “Star Wars” and “Aliens.” Other references like Paul being responsible for writing the character of Fox Mulder from “The X-Files” or being the inspiration for all alien merchandise since he crashed in the 70s were nice, but added nothing to the movie.

I wanted to like this movie. I tried hard to like it as much as everyone else in the theater did, but I could not. It ends up being a decent comedy, but nothing I have not seen before.

6 out of 10
Rated R for language including sexual references, and some drug use.
104 min

Every once and a while, what draws me to a movie more than the actors, the director, or the plot is the concept. If a movie is based on a cool idea that I think could make a good film, I go see it. Most recently this happened with “Vantage Point.” The movie was about the same event from different points of view. It was awful. I did not like it and only two of the different vantage points were actually interesting. Now there is “The Adjustment Bureau.” Cool concept, but will the movie live up to it?

David Norris (Matt Damon) is an up and coming New York senator. A chance meeting with Elise (Emily Blunt) changes his life forever. He was only supposed to meet her once, but he becomes determined to find her again. Members of a mysterious group called The Adjustment Bureau know Norris’ path and Elise is not on it. They set out to get him back on his path.

The problem I have with the movie is that it never rises above the concept. What I mean by that is that the movie relies on the concept of “fate” too much. It uses the Adjustment Bureau as the only way to advance the story. Which is a shame because Damon and Blunt are actually pretty good actors. They do a fine job here, so I cannot blame them for the failure of the movie. The cool concept becomes what the story is about and not the relationship between the two main characters.

There are some highly religious overtones in the movie. They never mention any deity, but the Bureau is a “higher power” and there is a lot of talk of free will versus divine intervention. We never see who runs the Adjustment Bureau, though he is referred to several times.

There is a lot of wasted potential here. The concept is relied heavily upon to drive the story and is not developed enough to hold up over the movie’s runtime. There are some interesting things with the hats they ware and how they get around, but it really leads nowhere and the story suffers.

5 out of 10

Rated PG-13 for brief strong language, some sexuality and a violent image.

106 min

It takes a lot for me to see something new when I go to the movies. I have seen more than my share of movies so I have seen damn near everything there is to see when it comes to characters, plots, twists and so on. Normally the previous sentences would lead into me writing that the movie I am about to review was something new and exciting. Not this time. “Battle: LA” crams every war movie cliché into its relative short run time. For some reason, I found it entertaining.

Aliens attack Earth. This movie takes place in Los Angeles. How’s that for a plot synopsis?

Let’s run through the clichés that “Battle: LA” provides.

The hero is about to retire but is pulled back in for one last mission.

He is also well known for a botched mission.

One of the soldiers is an expecting father.

One just lost his brother in the hero’s botched mission.

One is going to be married.

They just happen to come across a solider that is an expert in the very thing that they need to bring down the bad guys.

It has speeches about honor and duty.

It has civilians being told to be brave in the face of insurmountable odds.

It was so predictable that I was actually shocked that the hero did not give his life in the end to save his men.

I should have hated this movie. I did not love it, but I actually enjoyed it. It was mindless fun. Sometimes, that is all I need from a movie.

5 out of 10

Rated PG-13 for sustained and intense sequences of war violence and destruction, and for language.

116 min