Henry Saw: Up

A damn good movie that is unfortunately being slightly overrated...


First, and quickly, I saw Up in 3D and I was very impressed. This was the first 3D movie I'd seen in awhile and I can't believe the leaps and bounds they've made in this department. Up is a film first and a 3D film second so the 3D only enhances the scenery and adds excitement to already strong scenes - it's not a gimmick as it seems to be in other 3D films (check out the trailer for G-Force to see what I mean). I expect you don't have to see Up in the 3D to get the most out of the movie's visuals, Pixar's movies are gorgeous no matter what format you watch them in, but take it from me that the 3D definitely adds to the viewing experience.

Now, some of this review will sound like an echo of every other review you've read of Up as it's impossible to discuss Up without talking about the studio that made it: Pixar.

Pixar is really quite astounding. They've gone on a run to rival the best in film history. David Lean made Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, The Greatest Story Ever Told, and Doctor Zhivago in that order. Hitchcock made Dial M for Murder, Rear Window, To Catch a Thief, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Vertigo, North By Northwest, Psycho, and The Birds within ten years of one another (with two other movies thrown in there as well including the crappy The Trouble with Harry). Spielberg made Jaws, Close Encounters, 1941 (yikes), Raiders of the Lost Ark, and E.T. in order.

Perhaps the best and most obvious thing to compare Pixar to is Disney Studios' three separate amazing runs. The first being Snow White, Fantasia, Dumbo, and Bambi. The second including Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, Sleeping Beauty, and One Hundred and One Dalmatians. The third had The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King.



Which finally brings us to what Pixar has pulled off. Starting with the landmark Toy Story in 1995, they've produced quality family film after quality family film and have left all other animation studios in the dust. By my count they have three all time greats (Toy Story, Wall*E, and my favorite: The Incredibles). Then slightly below that are a couple of great "all-ages" movies (Monster's Inc and Finding Nemo). Then there are some movies that critics love and I just don't like as much (Toy Story 2 and Ratatouille). Then there are their two most forgettable ventures: A Bug's Life which hardly anyone remembers and Cars which flat out stinks. It's a total clunker in my opinion but, to be fair, kids seem to like it and it plays to an audience that I'm definitely not a part of (Nascar folk).

So where does Up fall in the Pixar hierarchy? Critics would have you believe it's an all time great - perhaps the pinnacle of Pixar's film making thus far - and a landmark in children's cinema. For my money it falls very comfortably in that second tier I mentioned with Monster's Inc and Finding Nemo (perhaps this is appropriate as Pete Doctor, Up's director, made Monster's Inc. as well).

Up starts with Carl Fredricksen, a quiet young boy, who meets the barefoot tomboy Ellie, discovering together they share the same interest in exploration as their hero, famed explorer Charles Muntz. Ellie expresses her interest in building a house near Paradise Falls in South America, a promise she makes Carl keep. Carl and Ellie wed and grow old together; unable to have children, the two try to save up for the trip to Paradise Falls but life continues to get in the way. Finally, Ellie succumbs to old age, leaving Carl living alone in the same house they first met at.

This set-up is told through a magnificent montage that is probably the peak of the film. You've probably read that in the reviews you've read that the first 10-15 minutes are touching and perfectly executed and those reviews are telling the truth. The movie never achieves the same quality for the rest of its running time.

Carl decides to attach a bunch of balloons to his roof and fly his house to Paradise Falls. What Carl doesn't know is he has a stowaway, an overweight boy named Russel who was trying to earn his "aid the elderly" badge. Soon the pair find themselves in Peru and within walking distance of Paradise Falls. Carl decides to "walk" his house (still floating due to the balloons) to the exact spot he wants to live for the rest of his life, the same spot Elie had picked out years ago. What follows is a a buddy movie in which Carl and Russel must deal with an over-sized bird who loves chocolate (Kevin), a pack of talking dogs (one of whom is a sweet Golden Retriever named Dug who is eager to please), and an encounter with the aged explorer Charles Muntz (voiced by Christopher Plummer) who has become unhealthily obsessed with capturing the large bird.

The "adventure" part of the film is perfectly acceptable but it also isn't that exciting (like they were in The Incredibles or Monster's Inc) or engrossing. At times the house is put in jeopardy but we don't really care as it's just a house, no matter what emotional weight it carries for Carl, and we all know he'd be better off if he would just let it go. The villain, Muntz, isn't interesting in the slightest and I had forgotten any and all details about the character the minute I stepped out of the theater. The set-piece scenes: A chase across a mountainous region and an action sequence set on and around a zeppelin just feel perfunctory.



The humor in the film is a more successful part of the film. Dug, and the other talking dogs, are legitimately very funny. Definitely the aspect of the film that the kids in the theater liked the most. Russel, the fat kid, is not quite as funny as the filmmakers thought he was and I grew tired of the character almost immediately (also, the subplot about Russel needing a father figure in his life, felt schmaltzy as all get out).

The main character Carl, who is basically an animated version of Spencer Tracy, is likable for most of the film but also frustrating. So much of the good will we have for the character is based on the first 15 minutes of the film. After that sequence the character only works when he's remembering his love or meeting his childhood hero; in other words, he's not that likable as a curmudgeon. You could as "well who is?" but we're asked to laugh and sympathize with this grumpy old man and I just wasn't there with him for those scenes - especially after a choice he makes late in the film. Even when he has the predictable change of heart on that decision his character was kind of lost to me by that point.



The visuals, as can be expected from Pixar at this point, are beautiful. The colors, the images, the transitions, the "camera" work, all flawless. The character designs were a bit boring and basic (the most memorable character was the dog Dug and he has a pretty bland design really). Still, you can always rely on Pixar films to be a "feast for the eyes". On the other hand I thought the score was a bit repetitive and a step down from previous Pixar films but that's a small complaint.

Also going up against Up is that it was preceded by an animated short (also by Pixar) that was better than the entirety of Up. It's called Partly Cloudy and I thought it was astounding. I don't want to spoil anything about it but it's worth seeing Up just to see Partly Cloudy. If you don't see Up, you should search itunes everyday until Partly Cloudy is made available to purchase, and get it immediately. It's my pick to win Best Animated Short at next year's Oscars and nothing that comes out between now and then will change that.

It sounds like I didn't like Up that much but I really did enjoy it. It's a great family film and if this was done by any other studio I'd be praising it even more. Pixar, however, is held to a higher standard in my mind. While Up is quality, and has moments of brilliance, it's just a little too predictable and paint-by-numbers at the end of the film for me to hail it as the second coming. It didn't blow my mind like Toy Story did. It didn't leave me in awe like Wall*E did. And it didn't leave me just completely and totally filled with joy like The Incredibles it. Up entertained me, and that's something, but that's not an all time classic.

Up Grade: B+

Partly Cloudy Grade: A

Best Scene in Up: When we first hear how the Doberman Pincher talks...

Henry Saw: Terminator Salvation

The summer is off to a pretty weak start...

Well this was bad.

I had, somehow, gotten excited for this movie. Yeah, I know it was directed by McG (the man behind both Charlie's Angels movies) and the early buzz was less than stellar. Also, while Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines was entertaining in a way it was actually really, really bad. So this movie had some knocks against it going in... but I was still pumped. I rewatched the three prior Terminators over the last 10 days to get ready and went into the theater expecting some mindless action entertainment.

Well it was kind of mindless...and it did have action...but it definitely wasn't entertaining.

The fourth Terminator is an utter mess. If you search the internet you can find reports detailing how the script had massive rewrites once McG convinced Christian Bale to join the movie. In short, Bale demanded to play John Conner (the "hero" of the franchise, previously played by whiny bitches Edward Furlong in T2 and Nick Stahl in T3, who is destined to save the human race in the battle against the machines). In the original script John Connor was mostly off screen, a voice on the radio inspiring others, and didn't appear until the end. Wanting to play the franchise guy, Bale got the script worked over by Jonathon Nolan (who wrote The Prestige and The Dark Knight) and Paul Haggis (who sucks...he wrote Crash) to beef up his part. The result, unfortunately, is a muddled movie that doesn't make a lick of sense.

The plot is actually kind of hard to describe because its a bit all over the place (even though it really only has a cast of about 6 people) so I'll let IMDB handle things: "Set in post-apocalyptic 2018, John Connor is the man fated to lead the human resistance against Skynet and its army of Terminators. But the future Connor was raised to believe in is altered in part by the appearance of Marcus Wright, a stranger whose last memory is of being on death row. Connor must decide whether Marcus has been sent from the future, or rescued from the past. As Skynet prepares its final onslaught, Connor and Marcus both embark on an odyssey that takes them into the heart of Skynet’s operations, where they uncover the terrible secret behind the possible annihilation of mankind."

Gosh, that makes the movie sound kind of exciting doesn't it? Well it's not. The character of the Marcus Wright, played by newcomer Sam Worthington, actually has more screen time (I think) than Christian Bale. He had potential to be interesting, and Worthington does an okay job (though he slips into his native Australian accent a bit too often) but his character arc is hurt by a confusing and cliche filled script. His entire presence in the movie (and what is revealed about Marcus' nature) contradicts the prior films and by the time all is "explained"...well we just don't care enough to try to make sense of it. Don't feel bad for Christian Bale though...he's flat out bad in this thing. He only whispers or shouts in an incredibly one-note performance.

Plot holes are a big issue with this movie...take this series of WTFs for example: The humans somehow get a list of the machine's "most wanted"...the men and women that the machines want to kill the most (Plot Hole #1: Why would the machines make a list? And one that humans could find? Are the machines actually just a 72 year old woman with a grocery list?). Number two on the list is John Connor (even though he doesn't run the resistance yet...) and number one on the list is Kyle Reese, the man John Connor eventually sends back in time to impregnate his mother (as shown in the first Terminator). Now... and this is Plot Hole #2...the machines, at this point in the chronology of the series, have absolutely no way of knowing this information about Kyle Reese. None. And yet, they want him more dead than any other human. Then, later in the movie, the machines capture Kyle Reese and bring him to a prison (coughCONCENTRATIONCAMPcough). And here was have Plot Hole #3...so the machines have Kyle Reese who they somehow know will sire John Connor who they must somehow know will lead the resistance to defeat them (again...they should not know any of this). They have Kyle Reese in a prison cell, ready to be Terminated (you know the movie is about Terminators) and they can put an end to this whole resistance thing...and they just use him as bait to get John Connor to come to them. So instead of just killing Kyle Reese, therefore killing John Connor, and ending the thing...they use Reese to lure John Connor so they can kill him.

Ugh. I disliked this movie very, very much. Even if the movie wasn't filled with problems like this I could still have enjoyed it if it had contained awesome action scenes. It doesn't. They're not terrible, it's easy enough to tell what's going on in each scene at least, but none of them are exciting. They're very evocative of other movie, been there done that, and none of them have a real "kick-ass!" or a genuine "I've never seen that before!" moment .

I dislike this movie more and more with each passing moment. Skip it, pretend it never existed, and reflect for a moment that the most entertaining "Terminator Salvation" related thing in existence is Christian Bale's crazy ass rant that hit the internet a few months ago.

Grade: C-

Best Scene: When an old and familiar, if obviously CGI'ed, face pops up...

Henry Saw: Angels and Demons

Well it's better than Da Vinci Code



A few thoughts on Angels and Demons:

As I said above...this is a far superior film to The Da Vinci code. Perhaps not as interesting a story but Angels and Demons contains superior action, better pacing, less silly Tom Hanks hair, and stronger film-making all around (the direction, script, score, etc. have all been improved from Da Vinci Code). Still, while it may be better than the previous Dan Brown adaptation, it's still not that good.

I'll let IMDB tell us the plot: Despite his notorious relationship with the Church, Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon is once again called upon to decipher the clues to a catastrophic conspiracy. The Pope has died, and before conclave can begin to determine his successor, the four preferitti (primary hopefuls for the papacy) are kidnapped. An ominous threat of their hourly demise, along with the complete annihilation of Vatican City, is issued as an elaborate revenge scheme for a persecuted group known as the Illuminati. With their meager time limit steadily counting down, Langdon, accompanied by beautiful physicist Vittoria Vetra, must travel throughout Rome to unravel the carefully hidden signs that will lead them to a terrifying adversary, a harrowing discovery, and the shocking truth...

The first 40 minutes are slow and frustrating. Yes, getting information on the history of The Illuminatti (the antagonist of the film) is actually quite interesting, but a special on the History Channel would have accomplished the same thing.

Once the action really kicks into gear the movie picks up, but still has the basic flaw of having almost every scene being Tom Hanks pointing at a clue only he can see and explaining something to whomever is with him (and therefore us). No matter how fast the cars drive through Rome, or how menacing they make the Swiss Guard, it's just not that compelling when the audiance is always 2 steps behind the hero, who is always 5 steps behind the villain.

A secondary plot in the film involves a character named Camerlengo Patrick McKenna who is played by Ewan McGregor. McKenna, as Carmerlengo, holds the "authority" of the Pope while a new Pope is being selected so he is put right in the middle of the situation. McKenna must confront Cardinals and the Swiss Guard to help try to solve another part of the mystery. The parts of the film dealing with McGregor's character added something different, a slightly more thoughtful side, to the the film. A very brief, and shallow, discussion of the Church's role in the modern world is brought up which caught my attention and had me thinking during film but this isn't a very smart movie so those thoughts disappeared five seconds after I left the theater.

As there must be in this kind of movie there is a twist at the end that was very easy to predict...like incredibly easy...and the movie's conclusion hardly stays with you at the end.

Look, this strikes me as a perfect airplane movie. It's harmless, it's not exactly smart but mentions some interesting history, it has some pretty shots of Rome (though some of the CGI'ed locations look awful) and is perfectly entertaining if you have low expectations and can stomach 2 hours of Tom Hanks pointing at things and pretending to be smart.

Grade: C+

Best Scene: When Robert Langdon explains who the Illuminatti were and what the church did to them (not the most exciting scene but I thought it was the most interesting.)

Henry Saw: State of Play

Not bad for a remake...


This is an American remake of a BBC miniseries that was made in 2003 (Read my review of the original series here).

I'll let IMDB handle the summary: A petty thief is gunned down in an alley and a Congressman's assistant falls in front of a subway - two seemingly unrelated deaths. But not to wisecracking, brash newspaper reporter Cal McAffrey (Russel Crowe) who spies a conspiracy waiting to be uncovered. With a turbulent past connected to the Congressman (Ben Affleck) and the aid of ambitious young rookie writer Della Frye (Rachel McAdams), Cal begins uprooting clues that lead him to a corporate cover-up full of insiders, informants, and assassins. But as he draws closer to the truth, the relentless journalist must decide if it's worth risking his life and selling his soul to get the ultimate story.

The actors definitely help bring some freshness to the story. Crowe, who looks a little silly with his long hair, always makes for a strong lead. He seems smart and determined enough to be a old-fashioned reporter. Also strong was McAdams who is a consistent actress and has a strong mix of energy, intelligence, and sarcasm to play the part. Affleck is actually decent, well cast as a straight-laced congressman, and Helen Mirren is fine as the editor of the paper (it's a bit of the cliched tough English lady role though).

The plot of the film follows the miniseries very closely just with some of the running sub-plots excised because of time considerations. Some of these eliminated plot lines were missed (two of the reporters from the original series were completely eliminated and their absence was definitely felt for this viewer) while others actually helped the narrative (removing some of the Cal has an affair with Steven's wife business). One thing the movie adds is the clash between old print media, represented by Crowe, and the modern, web-based blogosphere, represented by McAdams. It's an interesting addition to the plot.

All in all this is a smart little thriller that's worth your buck. It's not Oscar-bait, or the best newspaper movie ever, but its an entertaining flick that keeps you interested, doesn't speak down to its audience, and gives you something to talk about after the movie. That's good enough for me.

Grade: B

Best Scene: Early scenes showing Russel Crowe finding out facts

Henry Saw: X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Hopefully this isn't the start of a weak summer movie season...


Swing and a miss.

Theoretically this isn't that bad of a summer movie. It's fast-paced, has some likable actors, a couple of decent action scenes...but the whole thing feels very cheap, very rushed, and just underwhelming.

The movie, set roughly 15 years before the first X-men movie, starts even earlier than that with a very young Wolverine (named James Howlett) discovering his claws by accidentally murdering his father and running away with his brother Victor. We then get a strange montage showing Wolverine (now known as Logan for some reason and played by Hugh Jackman) and Victor (Liev Schreiber) fighting in every American war (even though they're Canadian...) since the Civil War.

After Vietnam they're recruited by William Stryker (Danny Huston) to join a strike team made up of other mutants (including Wade Wilson played by Ryan Reynolds) and go on a mission to recover a mysterious metal. This is the first real action scene and it's solid. There's some snappy dialogue between the team members, Reynolds' is his charming self, and even though there's something a little off about the whole thing (is this their first mission all together? Why doesn't Wolverine, you know, the title character, do anything during this scene?).

Anyway, Wolverine objects to the team's methods and leaves to live up in Canada with a girlfriend (wife?) named Jayla but is brought back into the fold by Stryker when he learns that members of the team are being killed off. Soon he is clashing with Victor (who we learn is the killer), getting metal laced to his skeleton, and then, of course, forced to fight against Stryker after he's double crossed.

The rest of the movie is a very generic "on the run" action movie filled with extended cameos (Gambit, a crappy, but popular 90's character pops up) and a very silly finale that includes Three Mile Island, a memory erasing bullet, a creepily de-aged Patrick Stewart, and a lame final fight against "Deadpool" - an awesome character who is terribly represented in the film - that is more like a video game than an exciting conclusion.

The direction by Gavin Hood is capable but unremarkable. The action is fine, he avoids any 'shaky cam' and actually shows us what is going on in each fight, but he also doesn't bring any pizazz or real visual flair to the action. The other scenes are almost all incredibly bland and don't feel like they're really a step up from any well made FX television series. Sometimes they're worse than what you might see on 24 or The Shield.

Jackman is his dependable self, he doesn't seem bored by the role yet, but he's also kind of uninteresting. Wolverine isn't mysterious in this movie like he was in the first X-Men, nor is he as funny, and he never seems as dangerous as he did in the mansion siege scene in X-Men 2. Wolverine is actually much less interesting than Victor (known as Sabertooth in the comics) but even Victor is pretty one note. Reynolds is wasted as Wade Wilson and every other cast member is just kinda there.

Look, this isn't an embarrassing movie like some other comic book movies have been. It's better than Ghost Rider, or Elektra, but that's not saying much. The whole thing feels kinda cheap (including some of the effects) and could have been so much more.

Don't bother seeing this in the theater...even if you're a fan of the X-men movies...but for a Friday night rental it's perfectly acceptable. Still, it's a definite disappointment and we can only hope the summer offers far superior movies in the months ahead.

Grade: C

Best Scene: Wolverine versus a Helicopter

Henry Saw: Miss March

Pretty funny but not for everyone...really not for most people.


This is a crass and vulgar comedy that came out a few months ago that I just finally saw. It's silly, offensive, brainless, predictable, and evocative of many other movies. Add a bit of Road Trip to Van Wilder and divide that by Euro Trip and Something About Mary and you have Miss March. I know about five people on the planet I'd recommend this movie to and they're all guys between the ages of 21-35...

But for those of us in that range it's a very funny movie. Not brilliant but definitely strange and witty enough to amuse for it's 88 minutes running time.

Miss March is made by a comedy troop named The Whitest Kids You Know (they have a show on the IFC channel) makers of such classic videos as:

The Hitler Rap:


The Slow Jerk:


and finally

We Gon' Make Love:



(Credit to Ben for first alerting me to The Whitest Kids You Know's existence.)

If you found any of those funny then you will probably enjoy Miss March. There are some jokes in the film that probably shouldn't work but because the actors are naturally funny, and I was "with" the movie, even the lame jokes clicked despite being inferior. So if you happen to see that it is playing on Cinemax or Showtime (this will never be on basic cable) or is for sale at Blockbuster for $9.99 and you're a guy under 40...give Miss March a chance.

Grade: B- [Again...this is a cheap and crappy movie...technically Miss March is like a D+ if you evaluated it the way you would a real movie (capable acting, a good plot, some basic direction, etc.) but this isn't trying to be a "good" movie...it's trying to be a funny movie. It succeeds].

Best Scene: The Crazy Firemen

Henry Saw: Obsessed

This movie is exactly what you think it is...

Have you seen Fatal Attraction? Swimfan? The Crush? A little bit of The Hand That Rocks the Cradle?

Then you have an idea of what Obsession is like.

We open the movie with happy couple Idris Elba and Beyonce moving into a nice new home somewhere in California. One day at work Elba meets a new Temp at the office played by Ali Larter. He obviously finds her attractive but stays professional and merely friendly towards her while she clearly falls head-over-heels for him. She flirts...spies a little...does everything a slightly crazy hot girl does in one of these movies. Finally, at the Christmas party, she puts the major moves on him in the men's room which he (somehow) resists. But, for no good reason, he doesn't tell Beyonce about this incident or the next encounter where she gets in his car in nothing but her underwear.

Things escalate, Ali Larter gets more crazy, Beyonce gets to act mad for awhile, and (slight spoiler alert) at the end we get a big showdown between Ali Larter and Beyonce. And for me this was the peak of the movie...cause we are given the ultimate woman vs. crazy woman action scene. Seriously, it's an action scene, complete with different weapons, changing local, each combatant gaining the advantage multiple times, the works. It's unbelievable and hysterical. I was giggling the whole time at how over-the-top they played it.

This is one of the more predictable, generic, silly, but slightly enjoyable movies I've seen in awhile. I really should give it a C+ or worse but...this movie had very low ambitions and achieves everything it set out to do. I liked it well enough.

Grade: B-

Best Scene: The Spider-Man Vs. Doctor Octopus like brawl between Larter and Knowles at the end. Simply fantastic.

Henry Saw: Observe and Report

As always with comedies this will be a short review.

So Observe and Report is from the same writer / director (Jody Hill) that made The Foot Fist Way (reviewed here) and Eastbound and Down (The HBO mini-series). Both were pretty damn funny, Eastbound being hilarious at times, so I thought Observe and Report had a chance to be an under-the-radar gem.

Almost...

Observe and Report does have some very funny moments and lines. Seth Rogan, not a favorite of mine, is actually kinda good (if not that funny) as the deranged mall security officer he plays here. The surrounding cast however, from Patton Oswalt as a douche bag mall employee, to Michael Pena as a fellow security officer, to the reliable Anna Farris make for a strong comedic cast.

The plot, about a mall cop who desires to become a police officer, bang the hottest girl in the mall, and catch a trench coat wearing flasher is not wholly original except that this is a very dark film. The humor is pitch black and the main character is a very disturbed individual. So at least its a different kind of role for Seth Rogan. For anyone really. I've heard this described as a comedic Taxi Driver and that's not too far off.

Anyway, not a movie you should bother with in the theaters, but whenever this is on HBO and you're in a cynical and dark mood...Observe and Report is actually pretty funny. Yeah, it could have worked just as well as an HBO TV movie, and has some wasted opportunities and some useless material in there, but I was entertained.

Grade: C+

Best Scene: When Michael Pena's character convinces Seth Rogan's to take it easy.