10,000 B.C.
* out of ****
“Only time can teach us what is truth and what is legend,” rasps the narrator of “10,000 B.C.”, director Roland Emmerich’s latest excursion into special effects-driven fare. That statement may be true, but I personally don’t require a historical expert to tell me that about 99% of this dunderheaded neanderthal alleged adventure is pure prattle. Even those who are rusty with their history will find themselves rolling their eyes in exasperation and disbelief once they see the types of things that transpire in this meandering, muddled mess of a movie; there are historical inaccuracies galore. Mr. Emmerich, please go back to film class to learn how to make a movie that isn’t obsessed with CGI.
Roland Emmerich, director of the acceptable escapist film “Independence Day”, the flashy “The Day After Tomorrow” and the historical epic “The Patriot” has become so inundated with bogging his audience down with overused special effects, he’s forgotten that you actually need character development and a plot that’s thicker than wax paper to carry a film. For “10,000 B.C.”, Emmerich’s directing style has become so impatient and sloppy, he’s shaping up to be the new Michael Bay…or worse, Uwe Boll. And let me assure you, that’s about as low as directing insults can get. It’s astounding that Emmerich, who went so right with 2000′s “The Patriot”, an infinitely better and more historically accurate film, could go so wrong with the dim-witted, cliche-ridden “10,000 B.C.” that feels like it was written by neanderthals. And Emmerich also is now so impatient, it seems, he can’t go five minutes without staging some type of action sequence. Now, I gave a pass to “The Day After Tomorrow” for its special effects, but there’s no denying that “10,000 B.C.” is big-budgeted, violent, epic dreck. Yes, dreck.
The plot of “10,000 B.C.” is drowning in so many exhausted plot conventions, that they can be spotted as easily as The Great Wall of China from outer space and the plot itself can be summed up in one word: conventional. Two words: conventional and recycled. Three words: conventional, recycled and boring. It’s the type of story that involves prophecies, a dangerous trek through ever-changing locations and badly choreographed fight sequences with some obviously fake CGI creatures thrown in just for good measure.
Well, the story centers around D’Leh (Steven Strait; the name is pronounced “delay”, even though he’s always in a big hurry), whose father left him as a baby in the care of his tribe, and since then D’Leh has been known as “the son of a coward”; I guess the nickname Mr. Dreadlocks didn’t stick. Anyway, D’Leh is in love with the beautiful Evolet (Camilla Belle), who has just been snatched away from the tribe by the mysterious “four-legged demons”, who aren’t so mysterious because they’re just big and brawny brutes with no real brainpower on horseback. These “demons” take Evolet and start to venture back to their homeland, and unsurprisingly, D’Leh wishes to give chase. A group of warriors is then assembled to follow the kidnappers, including D’Leh’s mentor named Tic Tic (Cliff Curtis); they travel through scenery so diverse, it’s almost as if the characters are walking through an issue of National Geographic. One minute, they’re walking across snow-covered mountain terrain and the next, the scenery literally cuts off and leads into a lavish jungle. Yeah, there’s abrupt shifts of climate and setting like that all over the world. And what’s more, that jungle then cuts off so that the characters subsequently find themselves in a desert. I would love to go visit these filming locations.
And the rest of the profoundly predictable plot involves D’Leh hatching a plan to rescue Evolet from the obviously CGI-created kingdom of the “four-legged demons” and Evolet being mistaken for a goddess in human form. *Cough “Pirates 3″ cough*.
Compared to the special effects in “The Day After Tomorrow”, the computer-generated stuff in “10,000 B.C.” is unbelievably bad. Everything from the colossal wooly mammoths to the energetic sabertooth tiger looks so fake, it’s a wonder that the executives at Warner Brothers didn’t just tell the animators to start all over again. But that’s not all; in the jungle sequence, our heroes encounter creatures that look like a cross between raptors and turkeys. I’m sorry, but when did this turn into “Poultry Park”? But after seeing these monstrous turkeys, I won’t feel so bad at Thanksgiving this year.
The acting in “10,000 B.C.” is easily comparable to flimsy plywood in that you can punch a hole through it. The acting is so bad in this movie, the actors’ dreadlocks give better performances than the actors themselves. And it’s made worse that the actors are saddled with dialogue that’s so cheesy, you’d think it would be served with crackers.
The action: lame, boring, hokey and unenergetic. There’s even a moment where the film rips off the spear-throwing scene from “300″, but the only difference is that in “10,000 B.C.”, the hero has better aim.
The bottom line is, “10,000 B.C.” is howlingly awful. This is an early frontrunner for the Worst Film of 2008, but we’ll see what other garbage the year brings; you know there’s bound to be more.
Cave paintings are more interesting than this.
Evan Almighty
* out of ****
The only good thing that comes from the lame-brained alleged comedy sequel “Evan Almighty” is that the movie proves just how smart Jim Carrey is NOT to star in sequels to his own films. Carrey must be laughing right now as he holds his cash check for 2003′s blockbuster comedy “Bruce Almighty” in his hands. Not only that, but he must also be throwing darts at a dartboard plastered with the picture of Steve Odekerk, the screenwriter for both films. He is laughing because of his belief that sequels never do justice to the original films, and he is tossing darts because he is angry at Odekerk for completely ruining what could have been a decent sequel. Wait, what am I saying and why am I kidding myself? Let’s face it, “Evan Almighty” had low expectations and it met those expections with flying colors, or should I say crashing colors?
“Evan Almighty” marks the third Jim Carrey-free sequel that has been received with searing hate. It follows “Dumb and Dumberer” and “Son Of The Mask” to become another movie on a film critic’s hit list. “Evan Almighty” goes through a laugh drought of biblical proportions and lacks any sense of real effort on the cast and crew’s part. In fact, the film only has one solitary moment of admitted wit, or at least something vaguely resembling wit, and that comes when Steve Carell’s character drives by a movie theather with a marquee that has the name of the film playing there:
“The 40-Year-Old Virgin Mary”
Get it? Of course you do. While the in-joke may be chuckle-inducing, it is like the filmmakers are literally explaining the punchline to us, as if we are the ones who have to think about the joke before we laugh. Have they heard of the term “subtlety”? Apparrently not.
Now, onto the dissection of the paper-thin plot. Evan Baxter (Steve Carell) has just retired as a news anchor in Buffalo. Remember Evan in his small role in “Bruce Almighty”? There, he was just a tad snide but more than a little pompous. Here, he has made the full-fledged transformation to respectable and loving family man, with what virtually appears to be a snap of the fingers. Evan has now decided to run for Congress, and his run was successful because he and his family are moving to Washington, D.C. so that Evan can begin what he hopes to be a long and fruitful career. It would have been more interesting, maybe, if Evan was still the cynical and insincere ass he was in “Bruce Almighty” because we would have been looking forward to God getting his hands on him.
But, no, that is not the case. Upon arriving in D.C., Evan jumps into his new job with gusto, beginning with a cringe-inducing little dance that we keep seeing and keep cringing to throughout the course of the film. Evan’s first assignment is to co-sponsor a bill that is like poison to the environment, championed by a chubby congressman played by John Goodman. As predicted, the bill tears Evan away from quality time with his family and places him on the edge of fatigue. Eventually, a white-clad stranger meets up with Evan and has a proposition for him: build a gigantic ark, and fast, because a massive flood is forthcoming.
Obviously, this helpful stranger is none other than God (Morgan Freeman). God proves his existence by giving Evan a never-ending supply of facial hair that just won’t go away and the wardrobe of someone like, say, Noah. And we all know that Evan will accept his heavenly task and fulfill his duty or be smitten. God, how I wish “Evan Almighty” could have been smitten.
Above all, “Evan Almighty” suffers from one glaring flaw: everyone around Evan acts like he is crazy whenever he offers an explanation for the weird goings-on affecting his life. Solution: why doesn’t Evan just drag his wife into the bathroom and show her that whenever he tries to shave his ever-growing beard, it grows right back within seconds? And why do Evan’s family and other friends think he is delusional when he is being followed by pairs of various animals that are not exactly indigenous to Washington, D.C.? Everyone would not be mocking this guy, they would be declaring him the next Prophet! Can they not see all of these miracles happening around him?
By the end of the movie, we are completely tired. The flood sequence is quite perfunctory and lame and looks like a sequence from “The Day After Tomorrow”; the trailers give away that spectacle.
And of course, the end credits are accompanied by the cast members dancing to “Everybody Dance Now” by the C+C Music Factory. That is all preceded by Morgan Freeman declaring: “Thou Shalt Do The Dance!”
I have a better one: “Thou Shalt Declare this one of the year’s worst movies!”
300
* out of ****
There is so much that comes from the philosophy of ancient Greece; there are tales of great and powerful Gods, mythology that has been the root of a few tales of magnificent heroes, and warriors of great skill. “300″ is focused primarily on the latter, however it lacks anything that even closely resembles a good movie.
This surprisingly lackluster graphic novel adaptation is nothing more than an out-of-control video game with a paper-thin plot and over-the-top warrior characters who seem to be high on steroids. But visually, the movie is stunning; most of it was filmed in front of a green screen, allowing for some stunning sights of armies charging and vibrantly colored backgrounds. Unfortunately, that is really all “300″ has going for it. The film is a virtual bloodbath, wall to wall in gratuitous and grotesque violence weighted down even more by cheesy dialogue and constant overacting. And considering how much hype surrounded this movie, it can be considered sorely disappointing for “300″ to be so laughably bad.
“300″ is based on a graphic novel of the same name and centers around the dawn of the Greco-Persian War. After an opening that explains the back story of King Leonidas (Gerald Butler), the movie is really set into motion when a Persian messenger arrives in a Spartan city, demanding an audience with the King and toting a bag full of skulls. The messenger informs Leonidas of the impending arrival of the Persian army, commanded with an iron hand by Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro). The messenger implores Leonidas to consider surrender to the Persian empire if he will not pay tribute to Xerxes. Leonidas refuses to do so in the most badass of ways: he pushes the messenger to his death in a very deep well. Leonidas then goes to visit the sacred Oracle, a beautiful woman who seems to have experience in exotic dancing. The Oracle warns Leonidas not to fight the Persians, but Leonidas feels that he must do everything in his power to protect his people from annihilation.
He gathers his own army of 300 Spartans to battle the Persians, despite the fact that the Persian army is comprised of thousands upon thousands of warriors. Before departing from his home, Leonidas leaves his wife (Lena Headey) the task of going before the Spartan council and requesting more men to assist the already outnumbered army. And soon after that, various limbs and heads begin to be relentlessly chopped off by swords and even an ugly man who has what appears to be a giant crab pincer for an arm. To put it bluntly, “300″ is an unbelievably preposterous, blood-splattered mess where each battle scene is the next level of a 2 hour video game.
The main problem with “300″ is the scale on which it is done. The movie is too over-the-top, especially when it employs the use of cheesy slow-motion in order to show us how painful each stabbing, chopping, beheading, punch, kick, and whatever else you can think of truly is. But please, the movie has already caused us enough pain, so we do not need all the details in terms of gore. In fact, there are so many beheadings and such in “300″, that it got to the point where I thought I was going to hurl, but not out of nausea or disgust; more like exhaustion. All in all, “300″ is just too violent for its own good. “300″ is the type of action movie that makes a point of causing flesh and blood to fly around over the heads of dueling characters, but forgets to create real flesh-and-blood characters.
I know that the story is not meant to be complex, but all I ask is for a movie to have at least some semblance of an engaging story; “300″ falls way short in that department. I cannot recall one single moment during the film where I felt for at least one of the Spartans; all I remember feeling is the need for this movie to be done with.
First-time director Zack Snyder does do a good job of staging the battle sequences though, however bloody and over-the-top they may be. Snyder also has a wildy creative visual flair, as he provides us with some good eye candy. But I suggest that next time, he should pick a movie where he can combine those talents with a fuller story.
In the end, “300″ winds up being an epic disaster. There is hardly anything here to enjoy, just countless laugh-in-disbelief and roll-your-eyes-at-the-ceiling moments. 300 men taking on thousands of other men was never this boring.
I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry
* out of ****
Let me set the record straight right away: I am not giving my opinion and/or views of homosexuality as it exists in today’s society, I am giving my opinion on the latest film that tackles the subject matter; a comedy lamely entitled “I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry”. But, come to think of it, “Chuck And Larry” does not so much deal with homosexuality as it does butchering and disgracing it. This is a painfully unfunny comedy with only one joke as far as I can tell, and that one joke is not even funny to begin with. This is without a doubt the worst movie so far this year.
The film stars Adam Sandler, who is known in the movie industry mainly because of his questionable career choices, and Kevin James who diminishes his own career, which showed promise in the sitcom “The King Of Queens” and the above-average romantic comedy “Hitch”. The duo play Chuck Levine and Larry Valentine, two Brooklyn firefighters who have been close friends for as long as they can remember. However, Larry (recently widowed and played by James) has inadvertantly allowed his benefits to lapse. He soon becomes concerned about the financial security and safety of his two children should he ever fall victim to a tragic accident on the job, and thus goes to best friend Chuck (Sandler) with a proposition: the two should pose as a gay couple and pretend to be married, taking advantage of domestic partner benefits.
All seems well at first, that is until they start to be investigated for authenticty of their “gay marriage”. So, Chuck and Larry seek legal help from attorney Alex McDonough (Jessica Biel), who takes an immediate platonic liking to Larry. But Larry, a womanizing bachelor, finds himself immensely attracted to Alex but is forced to keep his lustful feelings secret in order to maintain the lie that he and his friend have created. In one incredibly unfunny scene, Alex allows Larry to feel her boobs, because in her eyes, Larry is just another one of the girls.
The film includes other demeaning minor roles for some actors who have potential (Ving Rhames) and others whose careers have already been affected by these very same stereotypical dumb-comedy cameos (Dan Akroyd, Steve Buscemi, David Spade, and of course, Rob Schneider). The latter has an unbearable small role as a foreign minister in Vegas who marries Chuck and Larry, preceding a dismal reception sequence. But the homophobic jokes and gay slurs keep on coming in various ways of snore-inducing scenes, such as when Larry speaks at his children’s school for Career Day and is bombarded by questions about his sexuality from all the other kids as if they are reading off-screen one-liners thought up by a bunch of extremely intoxicated frat boys.
Now, it really is not in my nature to criticize a film’s screenplay, but whoever is responsible for the writing of this particular debacle needs to go back to the keyboard. The stereotyping in this movie is egregious and offensive, and yet the film amazingly wants to have it both ways by attempting to be funny one moment, yet profound about gay rights and treatment the next. Sometimes, there are some raucous comedies that work on their own terms, such as the utterly hilarious “Wedding Crashers” and last summer’s “You, Me & Dupree”, but “I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry” was doomed right from its opening scene.
There are just no laughs in this movie, and it is astounding when you consider some of the comedic talent that went into this film. Even die-hard fans of Sandler and James may be struggling to find a solitary laugh in this smoldering wasteland of a comedy. “Chuck And Larry” is homophobic, offensive, unfunny, and downright dreadful to sit through.
And here I thought that there could not possibly be a worse movie released this year than “The Number 23″, but “I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry” seems to have de-throned Jim Carrey’s dreary psychological thriller for title of “Worst Movie Of 2007″.
The Number 23
* out of ****
I can think of at least 23 things wrong with “The Number 23″, but does that make me as paranoid as Jim Carrey’s character in the movie? I certainly hope not. I mean, I am not sitting here pondering how the number could possibly control my life, instead I am smirking in disbelief at how ridiculous the idea is. But then again, “The Number 23″ is a ridiculous movie. And quite easily the worst movie so far this year.
What kept nagging me as I was watching this psychological thriller was how convoluted and preposterous the story was, even in the realm of psychological thrillers themselves. It concerns itself with the topic of paranoia, but the style in which the movie is executed makes the whole concept seem laughable. But basically, “The Number 23″ takes itself too seriously, and as a result, we who are watching the film cannot take it seriously whatsoever.
Jim Carrey is a talented actor, ranging from screwball comedy to serious dramatic work, but here he plays the obsessed everyday man as if he has not seen any other movie in the genre. “The Truman Show” and “The Majestic” showcased some of Carrey’s greatest dramatic work, but “The Number 23″ is probably his weakest attempt at a serious role.
Carrey plays Walter Sparrow (no relation to the famous Pirate of the Caribbean), an animal control expert who leads a perfectly normal life with his wife Agatha (Virginia Madsen) and son Robin (Logan Lerman). For his latest birthday on February 3 (2&3=23!), Agatha buys Walter an old book entitled “The Number 23″. Walter innocently begins to read the novel, but he soon makes a startling revelation: that the book may in fact mirror his own life. Gasp!
The main character in the book is a black-clad detective named Fingerling (also played by Carrey). Fingerling has recently dealt with a suicide case where the victim said that there was a dark and sinister force behind the number 23. Fingerling then begins to see the number in strange and frightening ways throughout everyday life, as does Walter. In the middle of all this number madness, Fingerling meets a femme fatale named Fabrizia (also played by Madsen).
Meanwhile, Walter’s interest in the book soon transforms into obsession as he feverishly begins to search for different ways 23 appears in everyday life, and succeeds. He even goes so far as to map out diagrams on blank walls in his home. Walter then realizes that in order to solve the mystery behind the two-digit number, he must finish the book. But the surprise that awaits him is unlike anything he ever expected, and the same goes for us.
The film’s twist ending is one that appears out of the blue and is so unbelievable that it makes it evident that the ending is merely the icing on the massly contrived mess of a cake that is “The Number 23″. It is a shame, really, because the film actually has an interesting premise but it is crippled by an underwritten screenplay and the absence of credulity in today’s society. It tries too hard to be something more than it is, and winds up being nothing short of preposterous and abysmal.
Director Joel Schumacher is usually able to deliver enjoyable over-the-top fare, but he makes “The Number 23″ too over-the-top and anything but enjoyable. Schumacher films the Fingerling portions of the film in a film noir-esque, darkly lighted fashion that successfully sets the dark and grim tone, providing mildly interesting eye candy, but it is nothing more than that. And narration from Jim Carrey does nothing to help the movie either. All in all, it seems that nothing could have saved “The Number 23″ from its fate of being a convoluted, dull wreck.
Some psychological thrillers create suspense from the mind-bending plot twists they present, but the only thing “The Number 23″ creates is absolute boredom. Your time can be better spent watching a film of the same genre such as “Secret Window”.
