Nerd fans unite! Another Sci-Fi movie with a good budget and a good cast. Typically these movies end up spending a bunch of money and not making much in return. I don’t care. I like them.
“Oblivion,” like many Sci-Fi movies, is set in a post-apocalyptic world. Its main character, Jack Harper, was one of the only people left on Earth. He and a woman are tasked to watch over a certain part of what was once Earth to repair drones. The human race is moving to Titan, a moon of Saturn, because the Earth had been attacked and was no longer fit for living.
But was that all there was? Of course not! Who would want to watch a two hour movie about drone repair? Be prepared to find out who Jack Harper really is, because he’s certainly not just a drone repairman. Cuz, like I said, nobody wants to see that.
Arguably the best part of this movie is the visual elements. See it on the biggest screen you can with the most perfect seat. The grandeur of the landscapes will blow you away. Also, the director does a nice job of blending the computer graphics with reality. Sometimes with this type of movie there is an incredible landscape with a crappy looking plastic space ship sitting in front of it. Not here.
This is Joseph Kosinski’s second blockbuster and he is definitely making a name for himself in this genre. If you liked the directing style and visual presence of “Tron,” you will definitely like this movie.
The movie isn’t action packed, but it definitely has good flow. Kosinski really does a good job of setting the scene before he throws a twist in the mix. Lots of dramatic tension is built up, but at the same time it is dispersed nicely through the film which allows for more climaxes.
I was hoping this movie would be fairly groundbreaking, but I was left a little unsatisfied in that respect. While the visuals were stunning, it didn’t shatter my expectations of movies by any means. The plot left a little to be desired, and there wasn’t that extra element that makes a movie great.
And of course with any plot that involves an alien takeover of Earth there are going to be some flexible plot lines. Sometimes I wonder if we’re supposed to stretch our imagination, or if I just don’t fully understand the plot. That, however, is not necessarily a negative thing.
So, while Tom Cruise does another movie in his own style, and Joseph Kosinski directs his second Sci-Fi movie, the two pair up well in this movie. It’s actually a pretty good date movie, if you’re into that sort of thing. It would also be good to just nerd out to. Overall I’d give it a solid 85/100.
With stars like Ryan Gosling and Bradley Cooper and a trailer that promised lots of racing vehicles and suspense, “The Place Beyond the Pines” only surprises by being surprisingly slow.
The plodding film is divided into three parts with each preceding part having a direct impact on the part that follows. In part 1, wild motorcyclist bad boy Luke (Ryan Gosling) finds out he fathered a child in a small New York town. He turns to crime to prove to his baby mama Romina (Eva Mendes) that he can provide for her and their son, Jason. Basically it is “Drive” on motorcycles, but with more shaky camera and a less bad ass soundtrack. Of course, the crime life has dire consequences and eventually Luke runs out of fumes to run on. Cue part two where we meet good cop Avery (Bradley Cooper). After Avery’s life changing moment dealing with the criminal Luke. Avery struggles to be good when dealing with a corrupt police force and the pressures of past cases, but it ends up being too much for the guy and the stress takes a toll on his wife, Jennifer (Rose Byrne) and their young son, AJ. Skyrocket 15 years later to part 3 and we meet a teenage AJ (Emory Cohen) who returns to live with his father long after his parents divorce. AJ is a bad boy and he starts hanging out with the one kid in town that his father never wanted him to meet…
If that summary felt spoilery, it isn’t. The film is so predictable, you know exactly where it is going after Bradley Cooper shows up and you realize, oh crap, this isn’t a conclusion for the Ryan Gosling story…I still have another hour of movie to sit through. Sure, the themes have depth in theory, but it all just feels like something we’ve seen before and handled better. Although, “The Place Beyond the Pines” does get better once the focus switches to Avery’s story and ditches the Ryan Gosling cliches and shaky camera. Ryan, I love you, but you raced and robbed better in “Drive” and if I wanted to see more of your abs than the pandering 5 seconds that opened this film, then I would have seen anything else starring you. I’m ready to see Ryan take on a role that requires him to be verbose and not just stare fiercely while wearing a leather jacket. It’s not that he’s bad in this, but I’ve already seen him in this role so many times before.
At least with Avery’s story, there’s more time to watch him grow and his moral dilemmas are a lot more complicated than Luke’s. It’s more interesting to question if the publicly good Avery really is that good of a guy than it is to ask the opposite of the publicly bad Luke. Unfortunately, both stories were given unnecessary equal screen time in an effort to elbow audience members by saying, “look at the comparison we’re setting up for you! aren’t we clever!” No, “The Place Beyond the Pines” is one of those films that thinks it is clever, but is only clever if this is the first movie that you’ve seen in your entire life. It feels like director Derek Cianfrance wanted to pull off another “Blue Valentine” with his examination of broken relationships hidden in a police drama, but this film just does not have the spark of his other success.
It’s tough to say skip this film even if it is dull, predictable and poorly uses camera effects, because the acting really is worth watching considering what they’re given. Cooper especially excels in this film and continues to show he has a lot more to him than just his years in comedy. Unfortunately, it really is old news, so you’re better just revisiting the trustworthy DVD collection at home. “The Place Beyond the Pines” is meant to make you think, but it is only going to make you think “now where did I last see that done better?”
“Twilight” author Stephenie Meyer eventually moved on from the vampire romance in favor of a different supernatural creature: aliens. Like “Twilight,” her new work, “The Host,” centers on a female teen and a strange love story involving several attractive male interests. Supposedly “The Host” is a better book than the “Twilight” books. Now even if that’s true, it is apparently something that did not carry over to them film adaptation. Even a stronger cast and a usually clever director couldn’t save “The Host” from being a complete snoozefest and the dullest alien invasion ever filmed.
In “The Host,” a parisitic alien worm-like creature has invaded earth and has been taking over human bodies by invading the brain…sound familiar so far? Sadly, this is not the “Animorphs,” though you’ll be wishing that a grizzly or a red hawk morphed kid will show up just to drum up some action in this film. Anyways, there are a few humans still resisting and hiding out. One of these humans, Melanie (Saoirse Ronan), is taken by the aliens early, but taking control of Melanie isn’t so easy. The alien placed in her brain, Wanderer/Wanda, is empathetic toward her and helps Melanie return to her kid brother (Chandler Canterbury), boyfriend (Max Irons) and the rest of the human resistance efforts. Of course, once the invaded Melanie shows up with the glowing alien eyes, the rest of the humans take some time to build trust toward her. One of the people who gives her a chance early on is Uncle Jeb, hilariously played by William Hurt. He acts as the voice of reason in this film and has some of the better dialogue lines. Another who gives her an early chance, but creates the infamous Stephenie Meyer love complication is Ian (Jake Abel). The complication? Ian falls for the alien Wanda and not for Melanie. Again, this being Stephenie Meyer, the love complication is somewhat creepily resolved.
There isn’t really any conflict in this movie, but Diane Kruger’s character pitifully attempts to create some. She does this by staring icily at a desert mountain for several minutes and saying ridiculous things like “This world is big.” I think if there was more stress on the alien invasion conflict and less on the Melanie doesn’t want the alien in her brain making out with hot guys for her, this film might have been better. It’s just sort of dull and that’s to no fault of the actors who do what the can with some of the ridiculous lines that they’re given.
Do yourself a favor and skip “The Host.” Let’s just pretend this film never happened for the sake Of all those involved.
The first thing you need to know about Chan-wook Park’s “Stoker” is that no, this is not a biopic about Bram Stoker, the writer of Dracula. This film has nothing to do with vampires or the supernatural. However, like the works of Bram Stoker, Park’s “Stoker” has a gothic thread and elicits the same creepy tone of classic supernatural stories. The big twist here is that these are regular human beings that are doing dreadful things without remorse and that makes them scarier and more hypnotizing than any made up creature.
“Stoker” tells the story of India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska) in the aftermath of her father’s death. At the funeral, a mysterious and attractive uncle, Charlie (Matthew Goode) whom she has never heard of arrives and stays with India and her mother, Evelyn (Nicole Kidman). To Evelyn, Charlie is a welcome distraction and she quickly becomes infatuated with him as she struggles with her grief over her husband’s death and a daughter who rejects her attempts to connect. To the cautious India, the appearance of Uncle Charlie stirs up something deeper from within her — these repressed desires dally in sexual arousal, but they also have a darker undertone and the film gets progressively darker and dangerous the longer that Uncle Charlie sticks around and India’s maturation arc continues.
Park’s story is twisted, gripping, yet surprisingly simple. The real complexity in the film lies in the acting subtleties of the cast and some beautiful editing techniques. While Goode and Kidman are fantastic in their roles, Wasikowska really excels at the slow reveal. She has a good poker face and knows precisely when to break it and let something more peek through. She’s also really great at putting the audience on edge — do we empathize with her? Recoil from her? In the hands of a less able actress, perhaps the turmoil of the audience’s feelings toward India would be more apathetic, but Wasikowska allows the audience’s feelings to evolve with her character.
In India’s narration, she constantly mentions that she sees and hears the world in greater detail than the average person. This allows the film to share her world view through some clever editing and creative techniques. Park’s use of increasing the volume of particular sounds and zooming in on plants, shoes or other little things adds to the creepiness and gothic overtones of this film. I particularly admired how an image presented in the opening five minutes was revisited at the end and though the presentation was the same, what was once simply a beautiful close up of a flower not meant something more. It’s an interesting way of telling a story and Park’s use of these techniques is worthy of much admiration even if the story itself isn’t to everyone’s liking.
“Stoker” is a creepy, violent story and its themes aren’t for the light-hearted. Prepare to be uneasy as this family unravels on screen, but if you’re up for the challenge from the upset, you’ll be treated to one of the most darkly beautiful films of the year.
The old fairytale of Jack and the Beanstalk is a popular one for boys and girls. It’s filled with suspension and has a relatable underdog hero for whom it is easy to root. So an update to this story is a no brainer for the film industry. Yet with “Jack the Giant Slayer,” I just wish a little bit more brains and thought had gone into this adaptation. At times, this film shows such promise, but it is muddied by sloppy special effects and an unfamiliarity with its audience.
In “Jack the Giant Slayer,” we begin with the fairytale. Just as the audience has heard the story as a bedtime tale, we see a young Jack fearfully gripping the covers as his father tells him the classic, “fee fi fo fum.” In the palace, we see a young princess, also in bed listening as her mother reads on, “ask not where the thunder comes…” The parallel storytelling showing pauper Jack and his future counterpart, Princess Isabelle, is a lovely set up. They seemingly come from different worlds, but a child and parent’s love for the other knows no class limits. The saccharine set up had such potential, but already the film douses it’s audience for a ghastly long time with poor special effects. Getting lost in the imagination of these children equals the film’s audience suffering through what looks like a bargain bin video game. This could have been a really creative outlet for the film’s animators, but it hardly looks like they tried. The 3D only made this part worse.
Once we’re finally out of this rehash of the storybook version, we move forward with the story of Jack (Nicholas Hoult) and Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson), now young adults and about to have their lives more intricately entwined than a giant beanstalks’ vines. The princess, looking for adventure before being forced into an arranged marriage with the scheming Roderick (Stanley Tucci), runs off from the palace and finds herself on Jack’s doorsteps. The two have a sweet moment together before the magic bean that Jack acquired earlier that day sprouts and whisks Isabelle up to a land of the giants. Now it’s up to Jack and some of the king’s men, including Sir Elmont (Ewan McGregor) to save her and the kingdom from the giants above.
The cast is great and Hoult and Tomlinson have wonderful chemistry. It was a blast to see Ewan McGregor back in an action role and bringing some of the smarter levity to the film with his dry wit. The problem with this film is that while some of the dialogue is witty and aimed at an older audience, the writers also make the actors deliver some ridiculously childish lines and gag jokes. I wouldn’t have had a problem with some of the snot and kid-aimed jokes if this film wasn’t also so obviously adult with its extreme and at times shocking violence. The writing also is weak in its efforts to find an original twist and instead often just falls to lifting from other fairy tales. I often found myself relating this to Disney’s Aladdin (princess seeking adventure who falls for the riff raff hero despite being betrothed to an evil court counselor and all with magic driving the plot). And then don’t even get me started on the unnecessary and nonsensical modern ending. Do yourself a favor and walk out of the theater a few minutes early. Let it end before the dumb flash forward and you’ll be much happier with this movie.
“Jack the Giant Slayer” is an ok popcorn movie, but nothing more. If you’re looking for a fresh take on a classic story, then this beanstalk is sadly stale.
“Warm Bodies” is not the first time that someone’s tried to take a classic literature story and added a twist. A lot of times those stories are atrocious parodies of the original source material–I’m looking at you “Pride & Prejudice & Zombies.” And like that story, “Warm Bodies” is based loosely on one of the greatest romance stories of all time: “Romeo and Juliet.” The only catch is that in this version, Romeo is a zombie named R. And unlike so many preceding “novels with a twist” adaptations, “Warm Bodies is actually good.
Fans of all sorts of genres–romance, horror, comedy, family drama–are treated to 90 minutes of a charming and funny story with “Warm Bodies.” Narrated by a zombie named R (Nicholas Hoult), the audience is introduced to a post apocalyptic world with 2 warring factions…2 houses divided, if you will. Humans are fighting to stay alive in a world that is vastly overcome by the zombie apocalypse. To make things even worse, there are two types of zombies: the ones that still look sort of like grayed and slightly decaying humans, and then the terrifying bonies. As R says, though both zombies and bonies will eat brains, at least he is conflicted about it. It’s during one of R’s feasting moments on a young guy named Perry (Dave Franco), that R begins to change. See, when zombies eat brains, they get flashes of the memories of that human. And in Perry’s memories, R falls for Perry’s girl, Julie (Teresa Palmer). R’s change of heart starts a chain reaction that will radically change the world. Hoult and Palmer make for a charismatic couple and it is fun to see Hoult’s zombie face melt into something with more emotion, and on the other side, it is also fun to watch Palmer’s own warm up. Palmer also has great chemistry with her onscreen bestie, Nora (Analeigh Tipton) and one of the most fun scenes involves some of their very genuine girl chat and scheming–for a movie that is supposed to remind us about being human, these two are the perfect representation of all things human. Then of course, some of the more veteran actors, Rob Cordrry as R’s best friend M and John Malkovich as Julie’s father, Grigio, are fantastic to watch. They frequently steal the show in the few scenes that they appear in.
Zombies aren’t exactly the most attractive supernatural creatures, so the makeup mostly just focused on keeping the zombies a dull, gray color. You didn’t really see too many gross gaping wounds, so if you’re looking for gore, then you’re better off sticking with “The Walking Dead.” I personally enjoyed the zombie makeup choice although I could see a lot of people being bothered by it because it is very obviously makeup. Also, it isn’t an easy task to make a zombie romance engaging, so I think keeping the gore to a minimum was a wise choice. In fact, the whole zombie thing almost played across more like a metaphor for the feeling of life rather than being all about the look. In fact, if you ditch the makeup, this movie is the John Hughes version of “Romeo and Juliet.” Instead of outside a window with a stereo, you have a guy on a plane with a record player. It’s comical in its awkwardness and realness. Of course, I wouldn’t have expected anything less in the hands of the guy who managed to make us chuckle without feeling awkward during a movie about cancer. Director Jonathan Levine (“50/50″) really knows how to make an emotional film without making the audience feel manipulated or exploited.
As with any film coming out this year that is a romance and a supernatural element to it, there are bound to be comparisons to “Twilight.” But unlike “Twilight” where the characters only behave like they lack a pulse, “Warm Bodies” actually has lively characters that are just written without one. So guys and gals looking for the perfect Valentine’s Day film, though zombies might not scream “love,” “Warm Bodies” is the perfect sweet and entertaining movie pick this year.
In “Frankenweenie,” Tim Burton revisits his roots and creates a gothic-style story about a sweet misfit. It’s the best film Burton’s had in ages (which is a bit ironic considering “Frankenweenie” is sort of old and not just new; it’s one of his older shorts turned feature length). Yet, even with Burton seemingly back on track with the genre he initially charmed us with, there’s still something missing from “Frankenweenie” and even with all the electrical puns and jokes in this film, that certain spark just isn’t there.
From just looking at the film, it has everything in place to be a classic. The stop-motion animation works well and the model sets and puppets are exquisite and incredibly detailed. One of the finest details was an effect used in the eyes of the dog, Sparky. After he was reanimated, the eyes had a glow to them that would subtly fade as his energy faded and he needed to be charged up. I also really loved the detail that went into the animated film within this animated film. “Frankenweenie” begins with Viktor showing his parents a homemade film starring Sparky and its one of the finest mini-story sequences since the montage in “Up.”
Then of course, I loved the little nods to other horror-comedy and genre film. The Winona Ryder-voiced character, Elsa, had spiky black hair much like Ryder’s character in “Beetlejuice” and the science teacher voiced by Martin Landau was designed to look like Vincent Price from Burton’s first stop-motion film, “Vincent.” There were also the obvious “Frankenstein” references and show-stealing references to “Gremlins” in the form of sea monkeys. In fact, half the fun of this film was picking out the allusions to other classics or to the “Frankenstein” canon (extra points for the Shelley reference). However, because so much of this film was tied up in adult knowledge, I could see it being harder for a young child to connect to this film. The film was almost halfway over before any of the children in my audience started laughing and reacting to the film’s story.
It’s this relationship with the target child audience that makes it hard for me to give “Frankenweenie” the label of a great movie and I think a lot of the feeling of disconnect has to do with this being a short film adapted into 90 minutes without having 90 minutes of plot to fill it with. It begins as a story about a misfit who suffers from bullying and isolation and when he loses his only friend, Sparky, he also to learn to move on or do something about it. When he reanimates the dog, the film really could have ended. At some point, this film seems to be making some sort of statement about science and ignorance. I get that the problems of community ignorance are a theme in Shelley’s “Frankenstein,” but it came off as a little convoluted in this film and it didn’t help that the film couldn’t quite decide where it stood on this issue. One second science is evil, but then the next scene has people bending over backwards to win a science fair? If everyone really was raised to hate science so much, wouldn’t the kids trying to be ‘cool’ not care about winning the science fair? And then what is the deal with misfit, ostracized kids in this town? “ParaNorman” worked because you could empathize with the protagonist – he really was a bullied loner. There was a definite difference in how he was treated compared to the other kids and because the difference was so easy to see, you could feel for him and also grow with the town when they learned how to treat people that are different from them better. In “Frankenweenie,” everyone is shown to actually be much the same and no one really seems to have any more friends or bully any less than another character. The only character that I end up feeling anything for is the mumbling Elsa, who never really is allowed to share her own voice but shows compassion and patience for everyone else. You know what really would have made a kid look like they didn’t fit in? Showing a kid that didn’t have a pet – is this like a city rule for everyone to have a pet?
Maybe I’m just being bitter at the ill light that this film paints cats in. By the end of this film, we see the town mourning the loss of a dog and working to save Sparky, but a girl’s cat bites the dust and everyone cheers? If you’re a cat lover, you might stay away.
But in all seriousness, at least this film, though a little unsure of what it wants its overall message to be, has more of a message than any of the other “wacky” messes from Burton’s last few movies. It’s one of those films you go see if there’s nothing else that you really want to see, but you just need to get out of the house. It’s enjoyable enough and pretty to look at, but it isn’t an instant classic by any means. And though it is pretty obvious from the title and trailer, I feel it is necessary to remind parents that the dog does die in this film…then returns to life. Depending on the age of your child, it might be a good idea to talk to them about this before seeing the film (older kids at my screening were fine, but there was some crying from younger ones). Also, with three animated horror-comedy family films currently out this year, they’re all surprisingly watchable, but honestly, I think families will have the most fun and find the most meaning in “ParaNorman.” At the end of the day, “Frankenweenie” is a cool idea, but could use a little more life.
There’s something inherently interesting about the Prohibition era in the US. Overnight the government outlawed the sale of something that had been legal since the founding of the country and it instantly turned entrepreneurs into outlaws — in some cases, millionaire outlaws.
“Lawless” tells the “true” story of the Bondurant brothers: Jack, Forrest and Howard. Forrest (Tom Hardy) is in charge of the operation, Howard (Jason Clarke) is the muscle and Jack (Shia LeBeouf) is the runt of the litter just trying to get in on the action. The Bondurant’s operate unimpeded until Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce), a federal agent from Chicago, comes to town trying to muscle in on the bootleggers’ profits.
I am usually not a big fan of Shia LeBeouf as I find him grating and unconvincing but he almost pulls off his role in this one. While he isn’t amazing, he is certainly not distracting and whiny like he has been in other movies.
Shia may be the lead in the movie, but it is Tom Hardy who is its star. Hardy, who may have announced his presence with last year’s “Warrior”, uses this opportunity to scream his name from the rooftops. He is able to pull off the intelligence and brutality necessary to be convincing as Forrest.
Jason Clarke does a really good job as the alcohol-soaked and extremely violent Howard, although he is not given enough screen time. Pearce at times can be almost comically over-the-top as the crooked agent, but is generally fairly convincing despite a slightly distracting make-up job. Jessica Chastain who plays the mysterious new woman in town is both gorgeous and heartbreaking.
My only gripe with the movie is the character of Gary Oldman. He is really interesting, but needed to either be expanded or cut from the movie as his small appearances don’t give you a reason to care about his character one way or another, not to mention he is almost entirely absent from the final act of the film.
Despite my small nitpicks, “Lawless” is a truly excellent movie. If you are looking to end the summer movie season on a high-note, look no further than this one.
I am a true horror movie fan. The fan base has been given a lot of great ones over the last couple years, such as “Paranormal Activity,” “Insidious,” etc. and I did have my hopes up going into seeing “The Apparition.” To put it bluntly, I was very wrong. “The Apparition” is a classic case of a supernatural horror movie concept capable of so much, but over shadowed by a cast that wasn’t capable of pulling it off in the first place.
It is a story of a couple who begin to notice that their house is haunted; and although there is a backstory involving seances and conjuring up spirits, the main focus on the movie is on this one couple. There was so much potential for this movie to flourish, but found itself only flourishing in the areas of teen eye candy. I mean, how many horror movies do we need to see with the heroine running around in her underwear? Is that necessary to the plot of the movie? No. Do true horror movie fans care about that stuff? No. “The Apparition” did have its scary moments, but after all was said and done the couple in the movie wasn’t selling the fear enough. The wrong people were getting all the screen time. For instance, “Harry Potter” alum Tom Felton gave an excellent performance, however the bulk of the movie was given to the couple, “Gossip Girl”‘s Sebastian Stan and “Twilight”‘s Ashley Greene. Now, I am not a complete idiot and did not give much hope to them pulling off a great performance, but I definitely thought they could have done a much better job portraying a haunted and scared couple. Their reactions to situations and banter back and forth was so overly dramatic that it almost felt like they were poking fun at how horror actors and actresses should act. When the entire theater is laughing at how dramatic their acting and dialogue is rather than being scared, you know you have a problem.
Also, there was too much screen time spent on useless dialogue rather than elaborating on a really cool movie concept. Why not make this an awesome ghost hunting movie? Why not focus on what kind of spirits were trying to cross over? Why not let the one good actor in the movie really spread his wings and fly this movie higher than was allowed? The only story there was, I was completely lost on because the writers did a horrible job of developing it. All we were given was about an hour and a half of the main couple running around their house, looking pretty and being scared. I think the writers and producers felt that bringing members of “Twilight” and “Gossip Girl” into the movie would attract a teen crowd. Well I’m not a “teen crowd” and I would have liked to have seen a horror movie that didn’t cater to only that demographic. Instead of discussing how scary the movie was, I found myself asking the question of would those jump-out-of-your-seat moments been more effective if the story had developed any other way than it was written?
If you truly want to see this movie, it is definitely a “renter” in my opinion. Don’t waste your $10; save it for one of the more hopeful horror movies coming out like “The Possession” or “Paranormal Activity 4.” Hopefully those movies will live up to the hype they are receiving because this one did not.
The opening scene of Joseph Gordon Levitt’s new movie, “Premium Rush,” is of him slowly flying through the air and landing with a crash on the pavement. What follows is a 90-minute thrill ride that is not the best ride I’ve been on, but certainly not the worst.
JGL’s main character, Wilee, is an adrenaline junkie who gets his rush as a bike messenger, maneuvering his way through the insane traffic that can only be found on the streets of New York City. In Wilee’s own words, “I like to ride. Fixed gear. No brakes. Can’t stop. Don’t want to.” The job is simple enough, if not crazy dangerous; until Wilee picks up an envelope to deliver that turns an innocent bike ride into a life-or-death roller coaster. Seems a dirty cop (Michael Shannon, most recently of “Boardwalk Empire”) wants what is inside that envelope, and is desperate enough to do anything to get it. Cue the chase scenes, crashes, and a level of violence that’s enough to keep your heart pumping.
Now, the plot is moderately intriguing; but I wasn’t sure how they would carry a movie about, well, bike messengers, for very long. Not surprisingly, I felt it could have been about ten minutes shorter. I did, however, enjoy the movie overall. JGL is charming, as ever, and I liked Dania Ramirez (“Entourage”) as his coworker/girlfriend. It’s definitely no “Inception”, but it is a thrilling and funny flick that doesn’t take itself too seriously. Not an awful choice for an interim movie between July’s “Dark Knight Rises” and September’s “Looper”, both definite and sure-to-be blockbusters.
Overall, I’d say “Premium Rush” is worth seeing. It won’t blow your mind, but it will definitely entertain and give you a few chuckles.