Taken 2

 

Liam Neeson is back in Taken 2 and to borrow one of sayings of The Rock, he is out to "Layeth the Smacketh Downeth." I really enjoyed the whole concept and story with the original Taken, so I was excited to see what they might do with the sequel. With the same people playing the role of the family it made to help with the continuity of the film since we cared about the characters. So from the first trailer I looked forward to seeing Taken 2 takes place about a year or so after the original and our whole story revolves around the family of those that Neeson's character eliminated in the first movie, as the patriarch vows for vengeance on not only him, but his family. Of course after his ex wife and daughter surprise him in Turkey after one of his security jobs, it sets everything in motion for the Albanian families to seek out their revenge.

 

Liam Neeson is back to reprise his role as Brian Mills and is the same character we saw in the first Taken movie. Neeson has had a career different from a lot of others as it has been in the later years of his career that he has become the action star and while with some this may not work, Neeson is truly believable in his ability to kick bad guy butts. I believe it is due to the wisdom he seems to carry in his action roles. Maggie Grace in the role of Kim, the daughter to Brian Mills, while still the sweet daughter she adds a layer to her character as she has to in a sense be the stronger one and help her father escape from his captors. She plays the emotion fairly well and really connect well with her onscreen parents. Our main villain who is the patriarch of the Albanian families is Rade Serbedzija, who seems to always be cast as our Easter European villain gives a decent performance. He has such an easiness about him that throughout the film he almost has this grandpa like feel only to remind us that he would get revenge on anyone that crosses him. For the most part he works well in the villain role, going against Neeson yet somehow I felt like in the final confrontation he was no match. Unfortunately, Famke Janssen as the ex-wife her role was fairly minimal and it seemed like most of the time onscreen she was left to playing her role as being unconscious or just coming to after being unconscious. The rest of the supporting roles of the henchmen were exactly as I would expect in an action movie.

 

The story for Taken 2 ended up being very similar to that of Taken with just a change of European location and changing who was taken. With as surprising of a hit the original was it only made sense that the studio would want a sequel that could make money. Yet, I think there was a lot more they could have done with the plot that would have had a more creative feel and story. Plus, I felt that they had the subplot of the rekindling romance between our Mills and his ex wife that they started only to let it fizzle and go nowhere. Of course the subplot of Kim having a boyfriend served no purpose as I was waiting for the boyfriend to be more of a part then just the filler he was in the end. But with an action movie the story while it has to be there it is not why someone goes to an action movie.

 

The action is the reason one would go see Taken 2 and after a little of story set up it moves right into the action and does not stop. The most important thing to remember though is you just have to let them take their liberties on logic in order for action sequences. Such as Neeson getting to a bad guy hideout simply from a dog barking, or him counting and stating when turns happen to help himself figure out the distance he may be from his hotel, so he can use his daughter throwing to figure out where he is located. even with this Neeson has an uncanny ability to be able to command the screen that the action is believable no matter how sticky of a situation he gets into. The fight sequences from time ti time though as they used shaky cameras made it hard to follow from time to time.

 

Taken 2 ends up being a decent action movie sequel that I went into with high hopes. While Neeson showed precisely why he has become a strong action movie star the story was too similar to the first go around that it really missed out on an opportunity to give another great story. It was as if the writers had to write the story to fit the action rather then it all working together as a cohesive unit. I am giving Taken 2 two and three quarter buckets of popcorn out of five. This is a movie that you can rent, but even at that I would look for it on cable TV sometime.

 

-The Movie Man

Jurassic Park

Jurassic Park is I think one of my favorite adaptations from a book to the big screen. When Jurassic Park came to theaters the first time I was only 10 and so my parents would not let me go and see it until they rented and watched it first. I don't know what particularly about Jurassic Park resonated with me so much, but I still love this movie today and I think it may simply be that dinosaurs are one of those things in life that kids are just drawn to immediately. There are so many aspects of this movie that at the age of 10 I loved and still today take me back to being that younger version of myself like the awe inspiring imagery of the Brachiosaurus or the adrenaline I felt as two kids try to evade a couple of Velicoraptors, or the spine tingling that goes down my back every time the T-Rex lets out its huge roar. So naturally when they re-released Jurassic Park in 3D, I jumped at the opportunity simply to have the theater experience for Jurassic Park.

Typically, in a movie with the type of story Jurassic Park has they seem to get a cast that can't act and are terrified of monsters they can't see. Jurassic Park was the exact opposite of this as Spielberg was able to put together a strong cast. Sam Neill plays Dr. Alan Grant, our heroic paleontologist who along with Dr. Ellie Sattler played by Laura Dern, Grant's fellow paleontologist all go to this park they know nothing about to endorse the park to calm a group of investors. The scenes where these two are onscreen together work really well and the chemistry they have works. Yet, after they are separated it is great to see Neill's character evolve from the paleontologist who does not mix well with kids to actually caring about the kids he protecting through the park. The rest of the cast was cast really well and worked so well from Richard Attenborough as the eccentric owner of Jurassic Park to Wayne Knight as Dennis Nedry the corrupt computer programmer who is out to greatly increase his own bank account and releases the mayhem of the dinosaurs to freedom.

It was interesting to learn that a bidding war ensued for the rights to the Jurassic Park book with Universal Studios winning out. While it would have been interesting to see what other directors would have done with the material, Spielberg was the perfect choice and his direction was perfect. While the script is adapted from the book, it is really one of those unique movies that comes out and changes the way movies are presented to the audience. Spielberg's direction worked as it was really a character driven developed story that was intermingled amazingly with the action sequences. By being a movie that was strongly character driven it made you care for the characters and it created the caring in that you either loved them or hated them exactly with how you are supposed to feel based on the way Spielberg has driven the characters. The story for Jurassic Park captures the human imagination so well because I know I am not the only one that has wondered what dinosaurs were really like. The story worked for me as well because although dinosaurs are extinct the science they describe for genetically cloning and bringing dinosaurs back seems to be plausible and not so outlandish as some sci-fi that is out there.

The visual effects and special effects for Jurassic Park while when compared to a lot of today's movies are nothing to write home about, when Jurassic Park came out it was really pushing what had been done and was cutting edge. Spielberg's vision to mix CGI with animatronics and not use just one of them was a great idea. Yet, one would not know when CGI and when animatronics are used because in all actuality the dinosaurs look completely real and not created. And the differences between the CGI and animatronics are so minuscule that in reality you can not tell when what is what. The dinosaurs that are brought to life are not only majestic looking creatures, but intimidatingly powerful creatures. While I saw this in 3D and it was enjoyable I did not find it to be overwhelmingly amazing, but it was a decent aspect. The musical score by John Williams is one that met the blockbuster feel for Jurassic Park throughout that is always necessary. The score and the first bar of the main theme is one that I think any movie goer would recognize immediately.

Jurassic Park is one of those movies that stands the test of time as I still love it as much as I did originally and it has not got old at all. The acting in Jurassic Park was not second rate like many would expect in a creatures gone amok movie. Spielberg's direction and combination of CGI dinosaurs and animatronic was done perfectly. The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park set a whole new standard in special effects and today's movies may not be where they are had it not been for Jurassic Park. That is why I am giving Jurassic Park three and three quarter buckets of popcorn out of five. This is one of those movies that I love to watch from time to time and one that is worth owning for any movie fan.

-The Movie Man

Les Miserables

Anyone that knows me knows that movies that are musicals are not movies I clamor to see. While Les Miserables came out on Christmas we ended up seeing it three days after it was released. This was a movie that I was very interested to see after seeing the trailers especially since I knew my wife would be very interested in seeing it. It has just taken me a lot of time to actually getting around to writing the review because in all honesty I have been back and forth on how I felt about the movie so I had to get to my own decision on how I felt about the movie. I had seen the Les Miserables stage production on Broadway which while this gave me a preconceived notion of what and how the musical should go, but with the fact that it had been nearly 12 years since I had seen the musical I was not remembering too much about all the different details. When it comes to a film adaptation the simply most important rue is to change as little as possible. The film makers seemed to know this perfectly and while they did have changes they were very subtle in the end, from slightly shortening a few songs to changing a line or two of dialogue.

Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean simply embodied the role perfectly. Jackman is perfect and I seriously believe that there is no role that Jackman can't do. The little nuances that he does like slightly  changing his voice as his character ages gives his character more depth. Anne Hathaway in the role of Fantine is amazing and her rendition of I Dreamed A Dream is truly powerful. It is amazing to see how strong her performance was to win the supporting actress Oscar with being onscreen for really only 15-20 minutes of the movie. In the supporting cast Sacha Baren Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter as Thenardier and Madame Thenardier nearly stole the show for me. Anytime they were onscreen they had me laughing with the different antics or schemes they were up to. Russell Crowe as Javert was decent, but his voice was not as strong as necessary for our main nemesis for Jean Valjean. The rest of the supporting cast do very well and there are really some up and coming stars that if they continue to give very similar performances they will have very strong movie careers.

The direction of Tom Hooper was very daring. Most musicals the songs are sung and recorded in a studio well before they actually start the filming. However Hooper decided to have them sing the songs live while filming, believing that this will allow the emotion to come through more from the actors and hopefully have this convey the power to more of the audience. This concept truly brought out the necessary emotion for such a powerful story. Having so much music could have worked both ways for the movie, yet for me the music worked as it conveyed such strong emotions that I truly felt like I connected with all the struggles that the citizens of 19th century France faced. The only weakness I see in the story for Les Miserables, is for those that may have not known the story upon going to see the movie that there are a few plot points that could be very confusing. However, these confusing points are either explained later on or not necessary to be explained because they are truly minor points that you do not need to dwell on.

Film allows a depth of scale that challenges the stage in many different aspects. The Song Do You Hear the People Sing emerges from a quiet call to arms that pace by pace takes over the funeral procession for General Lemarque. Along the same lines the transition that takes place during the song At the End of the Day takes us through the slums and dreariness of Paris which can not be shown the same way on stage. While there are aspects that never transfer over to film like on stage, there are some that still work amazing on film. The ability they have to give close ups of the different characters for some of the songs allows some parts in songs to be reduced to a chilling whisper at times that sent goosebumps down my spine. The production for Les Miserables is one of the bet past period pieces that I have seen. The make up, costumes and set pieces worked so well. It was nice to see them not have the teeth be pearly white like the actors are, but instead the made the teeth look like the way they would have been in 19th century France. While the CGI was not amazing it did give help the sets give a great visual of a world very much in a fantastical view.

Les Miserables ended up being a movie that deserved the awards and nominations it received. Hugh Jackman was beyond great in the role and worked so well with the other actors. Hooper's direction was really pushing the typical musical particularly by using the actors singing live rather than pre-recorded. I am giving Les Miserables four buckets of popcorn out of five. This is a movie that is definitely worth seeing and is one that we will be adding to our movie collection in the very near future.

-The Movie Man

The Host

 

The Host is one of those movies that was really nowhere near what I expected going in to it. I felt after seeing the trailers, I believed that The Host would be an action packed science fiction movie about aliens. The Host has what I would definitely consider to be a really exciting premise. This is the movie that takes a look at what would happen to the Earth if an alien invasion movie was successful in the end. In The Host aliens called "souls" have taken over our bodies and have been able to take over our personalities and emotions and replace them with their own. Yet, it takes this concept and throws it to the next level by then asking what would happen if what would be a perfect operation does not go perfect and that one of the human souls does not go into submission so easily and instead fights back against this invasion of her body and head. I am sure that there are a lot of movie goers that will find The Host to be a slow and uneventful movie when instead character driven drama is the goal here.

 

Saoirse Ronan as the role of Melanie/Wanderer does a good job with the simple fact that she is playing the alien as well as the human and has to have conversations within her head. While some of the inner head dialogue I found to be a little laughable at times, there were more times when it really worked well. Max Irons in the role of Jared as well as Jake Abel as Ian while they were serviceable they were really not fully developed characters like I would have liked to have seen. In the end while this movie was nothing like the Twilight movies which was a great thing, the portrayal of these two characters was way too similar to that of Edward and Jacob. Diane Kruger in the role of the Seeker, while my wife hated the role because she was so different from the way she was described in the book, I did not like her simply because as the antagonist there was nothing there. I don't know what it was but I just did not care about her either way, I did not feel the dislike that a good villain is able to arise in the audience. The supporting cast do a decent job I really enjoyed William Hurt and Chandler Canterbury as Uncle Jeb and Jamie. The way William Hurt carries himself as the survivor Uncle was just spot on for what I would expect.

 

What develops for the story for The Host is not as ingenious as I would have hoped for in the end. They really could have taken this unique story and taken it a lot of different ways, but instead they took it to the familiar last hope for humanity stories, that focuses more on the survivors sitting around talking about the situation rather then trying to do something about it. For me I felt that the opening scene was a great start and had a solid opening pace, but after that point for some reason the pacing never overly moves like you would expect in a movie, instead it just kind of coasts. the direction of Andrew Niccol, who in my opinion has a great ability to give the movie goer inventive stories about people who are stuck by their circumstances. In The Host though Niccol has his hands tied a lot more simply because he has a script based on the book written by Stephanie Meyers who everyone when hearing her name immediately thinks of the Twilight series. The Host is tilted toward something meaningful but with having his hands tied so much the movie never seems to get out of first gear.

 

The Host was a movie that was unexpectedly better then the expectations I had going in. Movies like The Host that are based on a book always makes me ask the question after seeing the movie, "Do I want to now go and read the book?" I am looking forward to reading the book in the near future and see how it compared to the movie and if the book goes over some of the plot points that got glossed over in the movie. The acting was just decent and basically had some that were better then I thought and others that were under what I would expect. The pacing for The host never really went anywhere and it felt like they had a great start and in the end just took the pacing and drove around in circles. I am giving The Host three buckets of popcorn out of five. This is one movie that I would say is worth the price of admission to see in the theaters.

 

-The Movie Man