Movie Reviews: Apollo 18 and the Colombian Debt

The Debt movie poster, image property of Miramax.
Colombiana movie poster, image property of TriStar.
Apollo 18 movie poster, image property of The Weinstein Company.

by Jack Garcia

About a week ago Brian set up a new blog called Addiction to Film and is also once again writing for examiner.com.  So before when it was just me begging and pleading for us to get off the couch and go see a movie, now it’s Brian saying, “I need to review that new movie so let’s go.”  It’s kind of nice that both of us are motivated to see movies now.  Maybe I won’t get so far behind!

The Debt AWESOME!

Helen Mirren gets top billing for her role as Rachel Singer, a retired Mossad secret agent who was once part of a dangerous mission to capture a Nazi war criminal.  However, Jessica Chastain is the actress who plays the younger version of Singer who we see for the majority of the film.  Although the movie begins and ends in the 90s, the majority is set in the 60s where we watch the secret mission go down.  The movie has quite a few surprises that I won’t give away, but just know that the acting is superb by both Mirren and Chastain (as well as from costars such as Sam Worthington, Marton Csokas, Jesper Christensen and Tom Wilkinson), the action is intense and violent, the suspense builds, and some interesting questions about justice and truth are posed.

Colombiana AVERAGE

Zoe Saldana stars in this action flick as a Colombian woman named Cataleya who witnesses the brutal murder of her parents as a young girl and then grows up to become a killer set on one thing—revenge.  She spends the majority of the movie running around in her underwear (or something equally skanky) killing mobsters left and right.  The action sequences are all pretty entertaining, even if they are completely unbelievable and sometimes silly.  Just watch the opening sequence and you’ll know exactly what I mean.  Another flaw to this movie was the lack of any character development.  When all we know about our main character is that she seeks revenge, we don’t know enough.

Apollo 18 ADMIRABLE

Brian only gave this movie one star out of five on his blog.  He wasn’t the only one who hated it though.  An old woman in the theater bellowed out, “Well that was stupid” as soon as the credits rolled.  I, however, liked it quite a lot.  I also have the reputation for being “too nice” to movies by the more cynical critics, so perhaps my opinions are simply to be ignored.  I don’t think that’s the case though.  Apollo 18 is about three astronauts (Warren Christie, Lloyd Owen and Ryan Robbins) who go on a secret mission to the moon.  Slowly they begin to realize they are not alone, that their country knew it, and they are left to their own devices to try and survive.  The movie had me jump out of my seat a few times, look away in squeamish horror at one particular scene, and sit in an uneasy sort of anxiety for the majority of the film.  In short, I thought it was pretty scary.

Movie Review: 'Apollo 18'

Rating: 1/5
by Brian Kesler

I often say that films are very subjective. If that's the case, the ratings critics give to films must also be subjective. Here is a film that does so many things as they should be done, a film that does everything I asked of 'Don't be Afraid of the Dark,' and yet I gave that movie 2.5/5 and 'Apollo 18' 1/5. I got in a severely heavy argument over this movie and during the aftermath of the debate (as the steam dispensed from my ears and the red glow of my skin returned to pink), I thought arduously over what I'd just watched. The more I thought of it, the less I liked it.

The film is shot in the ever popular style of 'Paranormal Activity' and its derivatives. The footage we watch was found from a confidential mission to the moon. The astronauts in the footage think they're just studying moon rocks and atmosphere. They don't consider the possibility that it's really more than that (a confidential mission to study moon rocks?) until things start getting a little spooky. And that's it. Simple as can be. When I saw 'Don't be Afraid of the Dark,' I was disappointed in its liberal showcase of the little monsters through CGI. I wanted something more ambiguous. A threat I never saw or heard. Something that lurked in the shadows, only revealing incomprehensible fragments of itself so that I itched with an ever growing curiosity and fearful fascination. This movie does that. What these creatures are and how they got there and why they do what they do is never explained. We never even fully see the aspects of their physicality (though they greatly resemble a certain creepy crawly we all loath and fear). Logic clearly suggests I must give this film a good review based on that comparison.

However ... the horror movies that affect us most are about something more than what they're about. For example: John Carpenter's 'Halloween' is not a film about a masked stalker, rather about a girl who feels indifferent to her peers, so much that she'd rather babysit than socialize with kids her own age. In that sense, Michael Meyers is more than a killer, because his indifference to the world around him parallels that of the protagonist.

Another example: Stanley Kubrick's 'The Shining' is not about a haunted hotel. It's about a man whose isolation and writer's block force him to think and dwell and ponder and absorb until he is caught in a psychological maze (symbolized by the hedge maze chase sequence), driving him to kill his wife and child.

These movies are about something more than what they're about. They have underlying themes and symbolism. They have characters who carry fears more internal than those for monsters and serial killers. While 'Don't be Afraid of the Dark' wasn't successful in the usage of the creatures, it was still about something. The monsters had a thematic purpose, the characters had dilemmas and internal struggles. 'Apollo 18' is not about anything. It has no reason for being. Its characters have poor dialogue, and no distinct personalities or emotions. They don't carry weight or drama. Only one of the three seems to have an emotional attachment for his family, and it isn't much displayed. Every movie needs themes, symbols, and motifs. Without them, the film is lost in a sea of one-dimensionality.

Remember to share on facebook and twitter.

Remember to subscribe to my blog!

Movie Review: 'The Debt'

Rating: 3.5/5
by Brian Kesler

'The Debt' gives Helen Mirren star billing, yet the bulk of the film involves her character as a much younger secret agent played by Jessica Chastain, who is billed tenth. Chastain is a worthy actress who didn't deserve such a blow, but my conundrum is this: Mirren's character in the later stage of her life is the most interesting and complex of the film, yet the most intriguing bits of the plot exist entirely without her. I liked the film immensely, but the disconnect between the 1960s sequences with Chastain and the 1990s scenes with Mirren is a great flaw.


Mirren (Academy Award winner from 'The Queen'), as ex-secret agent Rachel Singer, opens the film at a party in her honor. Her daughter has written a book about a heroic act of violence Rachel suffered and perpetrated. Upon seeing Mirren's scarred face for the first time as her daughter boasts of her courage, we can tell she has a dark untold secret and that, perhaps, this story of heroism is more than meets the eye. She is asked to read a passage of the book. Her hesitancy and distaste at doing so push our curiosity even further. Director John Madden ('Shakespeare in Love') intentionally peaks our interest in an attempt to rally our inquisitiveness. During this party, a suicide is committed which invites our absorption even more. Then, Mirren's ex-husband (Tom Wilkinson with his usual great performance; hardly in the film yet given second billing) shows her a newspaper clipping. She immediately leaves for Turkey. What, oh what, could this secret be?! We are promised so much and gain so little when all is revealed. About fifteen minutes into the film, the narrative stops and another begins. The one starring Chastain (from 'The Help'). I was beginning to think we'd be cutting back and forth, revealing little details as we follow Mirren's narrative in her unknown quest. Nope. The Chastain-propelled secret agent plot takes over entirely and Mirren is forgotten until twenty minutes before the film's close. It's almost like a film within a film. Mirren's satisfies in terms of character. Chastain's satisfies in the plot. They don't mesh well together. It never feels like one continuous piece.

So why such a high rating? The performances are strong (Sam Worthington from 'Avatar' and Marton Csokas from 'Lord of the Rings' included), the editing of certain sequences tight - particularly a nail-bitingly suspenseful scene in a train station - and the story, albeit sloppy, is ambitious. There's a certain villainous character who is exceedingly creepy but, perhaps, two-dimensional. He has eloquent dialogue and pushes the themes of murder and justice. He questions whether a civilized death sentence is any less bloodthirsty than a conscious killing. He pushes the characters' boundaries, particularly Rachel, which provides some wonderful drama. He is played by Jesper Christensen who is billed thirteenth. He nearly steals the movie. Without Mirren, he may very well have. Mirren holds her own even in her unfortunate pushed-aside role. Her success and staying power as the film's star can be attributed to her dialogue and to the way in which she's photographed. It's a haunting portrayal.

The ending to the film will be talked about, I feel, by movie buffs all over. It is a chilling ending that has a misguided use of music by Thomas Newman. It is well edited, but not well conceived given the uneven plotting of the movie. With a little organization earlier in the film the ending would've worked. On that same note, it would most likely have been revised. The ambiguous nature of the photography and editing of the final moments simultaneously combined with the absolute moral theme narrated by Mirren is a perfect example of the skewed nature of the film. Two films really, one within the other. Both very good ... in their own ways.

Review Notes: I did some more research after writing my review. The cast billings refer to the order listed in the ending credits of the film. Whether or not this list was in order of appearance and whether it is the same billing given at the beginning of the film, I am unsure of at this point.

Remember to share on facebook and twitter. 

Remember to subscribe to my blog!

Movie Review: 'Our Idiot Brother'

Rating: 3.5/5
by Brian Kesler

A wonderful thing about the film ‘Our Idiot Brother’ is that its budget was a measly five million dollars. Some people may say that such a low budget hinders the filmmakers. Actually, it removes all the gimmicks, all the glamor, and all the half-hacked computer effects; it pushes story and writing to the top of the priority list, when in most expensive blockbusters it is at the tailing end.

The story to the film is simple and tightly woven (perhaps too much so) which allows Paul Rudd to shine as Ned, the brother referred to in the title. Rudd (I Love You, Man) is a revelatory actor, who has been brushed aside by more exorbitant comedians because of his subdued nature – and through it all he has never pushed the limits; he has never done anything that would counteract the character for the sake of clowning. Famous casting director Michael Shurtleff (author of one of the great books about acting) once said, and I paraphrase, that the key to comedy is to have humor but not to tell jokes. This film is abounding with humor because the actors don’t insist on winking at the camera. Rudd doesn’t act like an idiot. He doesn’t talk with an impediment, he doesn’t make goofy faces, he doesn’t perform cliché physicality. He simply occupies the character and orates the dialogue with perfect dryness and comedic timing – something Billy Crystal used to be quite good at ('When Harry Met Sally' anyone?).

The film argues that idiocy and candor are synonymous. Or perhaps idiocy and unyielding trust. Ned lands himself in jail after selling marijuana to a uniformed police officer. Pretty idiotic. The officer did seem convincing and said he was having a hard time. Unyielding trust. Ned was just helping him out, really. The police officer already knew, so why not just give him some? Candor. Ned trusts anyone and never attempts to disguise the truth. Some might call him an honest man. Most would call him an idiot. After leaving prison, Ned goes back to live with his girlfriend who’s taken another lover. The movie then resorts to the rule of threes. One by one, Ned lives with each of his three sisters, and one by one, his naivety and childlike honesty get him kicked out. His first sister is trapped in a loveless marriage with a so-called pacifist (played miraculously by comic genius Steve Coogan) who is having an affair with a ballet dancer he’s filming a documentary about. When Ned walks in on the naked couple, he is told they were just filming in the nude to symbolize the emotionality of the film. Ned believes them and then gets kicked out. His honesty gets him in trouble with the second sister, in both her career and her love life, and leaves just his third sister to take him in. I think you can see the pattern and why I suggest that perhaps the plot is too cleanly outlined.

Aside from Rudd’s charming performance and the wonderful dialogue of the film, the other characters seem two-dimensional and merely pawns or McGuffins (as Hitchcock would say) to present one absurd situation after another. A love interest for ElizabethBanks, though displaying wit and sincerity, seems half-baked and not entirely necessary – particularly when Banks herself is trying to provide a three-dimensional performance with a two-dimensional character. Other actors doing their best with underachieving material are Emily Mortimer (who still shines radiantly), Rashida Jones, and Zooey Dechanel. The third act is exceedingly rushed and although Rudd’s emotional breakdown near the end is dramatic and brings his character full circle, it’s not enough to make me believe the stark, dynamic relationship change between him and his family. Not a bad film, but – sadly – not a great one. Although, I will say it is by far one of the better films in theaters at the moment.

Movie Reviews: Don't Be Afraid of the Gleefully Frightening Brother

Glee: The 3D Concert Movie poster, image property of Twentieth Century Fox.
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark poster, image property of Miramax.
Our Idiot Brother poster, image property of The Weinstein Company.
Fright Night poster, image property of Walt Disney.

by Jack Garcia

I guess I’ve been busy, but I’ve gotten really behind on my movie-watching!  After Glee: The 3D Concert Movie, I went two straight weeks without watching a single movie.  Two movies (The Change-Up and The Smurfs) left the theater without me ever watching them, and when I finally got around to seeing a movie this weekend I realized that there were no less than eight movies that I still had to see!  I watched a movie on Friday, Saturday and Sunday leaving me with just five more to see before the weekend brings three more flicks!  How will I ever catch up?

Glee: The 3D Concert Movie ADMIRABLE

Lord knows I’m a huge gleek, so I was more than excited to see this concert movie!  The use of 3D was actually pretty good, really making me feel like I was right on stage with my favorite characters.  My friends and I felt so immersed in the experience that we even sang along and applauded after each musical number!   But the reason this movie fell short of “AWESOME!” status is because the filmmakers decided to weave in some real-life stories of Glee fans which—while emotional at times—really just detracted from what I really wanted to see:  a Glee concert!  More of the concert (and perhaps a longer running time) would have really made me more gleeful!

Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark AVERAGE

This horror film by Guillermo del Toro is the first movie from my Most Anticipated Movies list to disappoint me.  The story is of a young girl named Sally (Bailee Madison) who goes to live with her dad and his new girlfriend (Guy Pearce and Katie Holmes) in an old Gothic house they are restoring.  In classic haunted house style, the girl is tormented by monsters who thrive in the dark and want to claim her as one of their own.  While director Troy Nixey manages to create a lot of creepy atmosphere at times and the actors all perform very well (I really like Bailee Madison—go rent Brothers), the movie fails to be scary in any way.  The creatures are tiny, talking rat-things that would have been more menacing if they had been kept in the shadows more.  Unfortunately they are on screen way too much, and the result is something very hokey.

Our Idiot Brother ADMIRABLE

Paul Rudd stars as the titular brother who is actually more honest, trusting and naïve than he is idiotic.  After a brief stint in prison, he is in need of a place to stay and tries, in turn, to live with each of his three sisters (played by Emily Mortimer, Elizabeth Banks and Zooey Deschanel).  As each of his sisters’ lives unravel and they blame him for all their troubles, many lessons are learned… and much comedy ensues!  This movie is very funny and thrives on being both slightly absurd yet deeply organic in nature.  Rudd does a fantastic job and embodies the character flawlessly.  His sisters on the other hand are less developed, which only just helps Rudd to shine even more.  He truly is a very talented man and really made this movie what it is—a slightly irreverent look at what makes relationships work.

Fright Night AWESOME!

If comedic horror movies are your thing, this movie is it!  Like Zombieland or Drag Me to Hell, this new remake of Fright Night gives you all the thrill and fun of a good scary movie while also cheekily poking fun at the genre clichés and making you laugh through your fear!  Colin Farrell stars as the new neighbor who’s actually a vampire and Anton Yelchin is the teenage boy who is brave enough—or dumb enough—to take him on.  Farrell does a terrific job of oozing creepy sex appeal out of his pores, and the supporting cast of Toni Collette, David Tennant, Imogen Poots and Christopher Mintz-Plasse all supply plenty of laughs and surprising believability.

Box Office: 'The Help' Tops New Releases

by Brian Kesler

School is back in session and the box office saw its second-slowest weekend of the year with only 'The Help' doing much business.

In its third week, 'The Help' gained an estimated $14.3M, putting it's total at $96.6M. For a film with a $25M budget, it's doing quite well, though trailing 28% from last weekend. Good word of mouth and the popularity of the book no doubt have helped its staying power.

The only new release to compete was the Zoe Saldana propelled action flick, 'Colombiana,' with an estimated $10.3M. While reception for the film has not been kind, and it will likely not see the staying power of 'The Help,' its gross is more than expected from analysts who had predicted 'Don't be Afraid of the Dark' to be battling it out with 'The Help.'

Speaking of the horror remake, 'Don't be Afraid of the Dark,' it flopped with an estimated $8.69M, which is quite a fall, especially considering its playing in over 100 more theaters than 'Colombiana' and roughly the same as 'The Help.' Critics had not been kind to film, but audience reception is comparatively better than for 'Colombiana.' 'Don't be Afraid of the Dark,' however, had half the budget that 'Colombiana' did, and may earn its money back faster.

The only new film that gained it's budget back, and then some, this weekend was 'Our Idiot Brother.' But, with a measly $5M budget, the indie film didn't need much of an audience to be a success. The film premiered in the fifth slot of the box office and made only $6.59M. The film has received mildly positive feedback from both critics and audiences and may not have enough stamina to make it past next week.

Among holdovers, 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' continued its success in fourth place with an estimated $8.65M, which brings its total barely under the $150M mark. The 'Conan the Barbarian' remake had the worst holdover, tumbling nearly 70% to eighth place after its second place debut. With a $90M budget and only a $16M gross thus far, plus not much hope for its remaining in theaters, the film is a certifiable flop.

Remember to share on facebook and twitter.

Movie Review: 'Don't Be Afraid of the Dark'

Rating: 2.5/5




by Brian Kesler

In 1973, a 9-year-old Guillermo Del Toro watched the television film ‘Don’t be Afraid of the Dark’ and was inspired to make horror movies. Now he’s written and produced a remake of that film and although I’ve never seen the original, I can bet it was far more ambiguous in presentation. Computer effects have made it possible to do and show just about anything. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

I’m referring to the little monsters that act as the film’s miscreants. The plot isn’t unlike any other haunted house film that’s ever been released. This old, decrepit mansion has been locked away and hidden for several years – it has a dark past, you see. An architect and his girlfriend (an interior designer) renovate the house in hopes to get on the cover of magazines and boost their careers. The architect’s daughter, Sally (Bailee Madison) has come to live with them in the old mansion and, in case you haven’t guessed already, she’s not the biggest fan of the relationship between her father (Guy Pearce) and Kim (Katie Holmes). The little girl’s curiosity leads to the discovery of a hidden basement covered in cobwebs and dust and old relics. She starts to hear her name being called from within the flue shoot. The voices tell her that nobody loves her, they tell her they want to be her friend. Strange things start happening. Kim’s dresses get ripped to shreds and young Sally must take the blame. The caretaker emerges from the basement with scissors impaling his neck, and so many cuts and slashes in his skin that his entire body leaks cordovan. Nobody seems interested in exactly what happened to the man, they just refer to it as, “an accident,” and go on their merry way. Nobody believes Sally, of course, that monster’s are squatting in the basement, except for the audience, and that is where the film falters.

The monsters are heard and seen in great detail. It’s almost humorous at times. They sort of reminded me of Gremlins. Mischievous, snarky, snide, bantering. It’s a shame, really. Of course, the monsters represent little Sally’s loneliness and self-apprehension, but there are better ways to convey those themes. For instance, a conversation with a psychiatrist in which Sally reveals that the monsters have said her parents don’t love her is all we would have needed. The whispers of the monsters could have been incoherent or nonexistent, so that it would seem to the audience that perhaps she is making it up. The film is called ‘Don’t be Afraid of the Dark.’ There is a reason people are afraid of the dark. When we are denied our sacred sense of sight, the cruelty of our imagination takes over and truly frightens us. That is what modern horror films don’t seem to understand. No matter how grotesque you make the monsters, it will never be as frightening as dubiety and uncertainty. There’s a scene in the film which shows an artist’s abstract sketch of the creatures. That sketch caused more tingles down my spine in a few seconds than the rest of the film did put together.

Another flaw is the music, credited to both Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders. There are some great pieces of the score that add to the atmospheric tone of the overall piece, but there are also moments that just cater to the audiences needs to be warned before something frightening may happen. The opening sequence, for example, would have oozed much more mystery and claustrophobia had there been no music. However, once the music starts its low rumbles, it’s almost like a spoiler alert: “Something scary is about to happen, so be prepared!” It kills any sense of the dark curiosity hidden within us all and, instead, makes us resort to calling the characters idiots: “Didn’t you hear the creepy cello start bowing when you opened the door? That means don’t go down there!”

I didn’t despise the film, in fact, there was much of the film I loved. The cinematography is atmospheric and foreboding, the acting – particularly by the young Bailee Madison – is quite good, and the editing was tight and paced. I liked the sense of an old school haunted house flick, I just would’ve liked it more frightening and less silly.

Remember to share on Facebook and Twitter