After the success of the Matt Damon’s Jason Bourne spy thriller films, expectations were high for the ‘reboot’ of the action series based on the Robert Ludlum novels. Unfortunately, it seems like the film creators forgot what made the original Bourne story so fascinating in the first place. Despite “The Bourne Legacy” having a solid cast and some interesting ideas, it is a woefully underdeveloped story and those interesting ideas are never fully explored.

“The Bourne Legacy” follows a new hero, Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner), who is a sort of descendent of Jason Bourne. Cross is part of the same government super spy program that created Bourne. But because of Bourne’s public exposure, the government decides to ‘terminate’ their program by killing its participants. This sets Cross on a journey for his survival. To save his super strength and brain, he seeks out the help of scientist Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz). Dr. Shearing also finds herself fighting for her life and begrudgingly decides to help Cross as he is her only hope to live.

The movie had the right general plotline for a good reboot, but the first 40 minutes are too bogged down in government scheming, useless dialogue and superfluous shaky camera (someone buy these people a tripod!). For those hoping to come to this film for a fresh take and jump into the story without knowledge of the three other films, stay away. They clunkily try to explain the story of Jason Bourne without ever explaining anything yet still basing the entire plot around Bourne’s actions. This is less of a true rebooted fresh start than it is a sequel begging for its original star to decide to return someday. They really squandered Renner’s potential as they were so hung up on Bourne still. Renner’s Cross is left to flash some smiles and throw some punches and little else of substance. Even Cross’ fight scenes are too sparsely spaced throughout the film. The storyline hints at a potential “Flowers for Algernon” twist, which would have been great to give some actual substantial depth to the Cross character, but it resolves this issue far too quickly. There’s no fun in a film that resolves its hero’s complications far too easily. While the first “Bourne” film kept viewers on the edge of their seats – how can Bourne survive in a world that’s out to get him when he has no memories?! – Cross really has nothing standing in his way. I don’t blame the actors for the film’s shortcomings. The way that Weisz and Cross play off each other is the most fun thing to watch in the film. Their chemistry was surprisingly great, but again they just lacked a fleshed out script that would really allow them shine.

When the film ends, you could say that it is left open for a sequel, but really, it feels open because this film didn’t really have an end. The story just kind of ran out and credits rolled. Perhaps if a sequel is pursued, they’ll forget about Bourne’s shadow and focus on developing Cross. There is potential here, but as it is now, “The Bourne Legacy” fails to thrill.

Bethany Smith

I'm a geek; I love music, technology and grammar.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:

It should be stated right up front: I am not a romance girl. 

I’ll take some sweeping, Austen-esque period pieces, but you can keep your modern romantic dramas. If the big movie of the month is an adaptation of a Nicholas Sparks’ novel, you can bet your sweet fanny that I’ll be staying home and rewatching Arrested Development for the umpteenth time instead. So I went intoThe Vow fairly skeptical.

But they managed to melt me anyway.

Inspired by the true story of Kim and Krickett Carpenter, the movie follows newlyweds Paige (Rachel McAdams) and Leo (Channing Tatum), whose very happy life together is torn to pieces when a car accident leaves Paige unable to remember the last five years of her life – including wiping out all memories of her husband.

Of course, Hollywood can’t help but Hollywood-ize it, jacking up the differences between pre-accident Paige and post-accident Paige, throwing in a bit of rich-but-overbearing family vs. poor-but-loving husband drama, adding a rival for her love, including the all-too favorited voiceover, etc. But it’s the moments where director Michael Sucsy and the team of screenwriters restrained themselves for putting a candy-colored coat on things that ring truest and save the story. That – and McAdams and Tatum.

Look, McAdams is just, in general, charming and adorable and has been America’s new sweetheart since The Notebook, and she brings all of that to bolster her end of the film. The surprise for me was Tatum. I haven’t been a huge fan, to be honest, knowing him mostly from the abysmal G.I. Joe and being rather of the opinion that he only got roles because some executive out there found him attractive. I was impressed, therefore, with how well he carried his role. It’s his movie a bit more than McAdams, and he is, by turns, doofy, devoted, funny and charismatic. Who knew?

You have a crew of supporting characters, with the members of Leo and Paige’s “urban family” getting unfortunately less screen time than Paige’s actual family out in the suburbs. But even the supposed “bad guys” of this story – Paige’s parents, played by Jessica Lange and Sam Neill, and the romantic rival Scott Speedman – get at least one scene to prove that they’re not total caricatures.

Director Sucsy makes some smart choices, training his looking glass on his two leads and letting their chemistry work in his favor, keeping the running time well under two hours so that there’s no chance to feel bogged down and wish for the end credits. And despite having four different screenwriting credits (usually a deadly sign), somehow the script managed to be sweet, often clever.

I won’t claim that The Vow has converted me to the modern romance flick, but I will say this: I understand Valentine’s Day is coming up and people are looking for That Movie to share with a loved one. This is one of the better geared-toward-February-14^th vehicles that Hollywood has come up with in awhile, and it’s not a bad way to spend 104 minutes.

Rebecca

More Posts

When I first looked at the list of movies that were coming out this year and saw that there was a new Denzel Washington/Ryan Reynolds movie due, I was pretty excited to see it. I looked at who was involved on the other side of the camera with “Safe House” and I wasn’t familiar with either the writer or the director (usually, but not always, a better indicator of how the movie will be). 

Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds) seems to have lost the CIA lottery and is stuck guarding the loneliest safe house in South Africa. His first “house guest” is Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington), a rogue CIA agent that was apprehended while buying illegal information from a rogue MI6 agent.

Reynolds and Washington are both good in the movie, but Washington is a little bit disappointing because it seems like he left something on the table. He has given much better performances in similar roles in “Man on Fire” and “Training Day,” (for which he won an Oscar), but in this he never quite captures either the duty-bound soldier mentality of “Man on Fire” or the brashness of “Training Day,” leaving me wanting more. The rest of the cast was filled with several talented people who are not given enough material to make their characters seem real.

My biggest problem with the film is how much of the plot is full of holes and coincidence. Instead of devising actual ways to advance the story, it seems that they would rather have either an on-screen miracle happen (like finding a single person who would be on the other side of a crowded soccer stadium) or they just go on without resolving it or telling you what happened.

“Safe House” is just that: safe. It is a decent movie, but ultimately could have been a little bit better.

3 out of 5 stars

Nathan

Nathan enjoys film, music, sports and most of all, speaking in the third person.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:

Ever since “Juno,” people have put Diablo Cody on a pedestal. I liked “Juno.” It was witty, heart-warmingly quirky, had some great characters with take-no-shit attitude and it had a killer soundtrack. Buth then she made “Jennifer’s Body”…. which was, to be frank, shit. It was here that I began to worry that Cody would be a one hit wonder, but she reeled me back in with the ambitious dark comedy series “United States of Tara.” Though in all fairness, she shouldn’t get all the credit for that series — she was just a co-creator and the series also had Steven Spielberg’s golden touch. Now Cody’s writing is back on the big screen with “Young Adult,” another ambitious dark comedy. With the star power of the beautiful and brilliant Charlize Theron, I imagine many are eagerly anticipating seeing this, but don’t. “Young Adult” is a film best watched only if you’re a “Young Dolt.” Ok. Maybe that’s a bit of a harsh assessment and the film does have some great moments and comedic punches. But it also undermines itself at every turn.

“Young Adult” is about a writer named Mavis Gary (Theron) — she happens to ghost write for a series of “Young Adult” genre books. By some accounts, Mavis is a successful woman. She was the most popular girl in school, then she foraged a successful writing career and managed to move out of her podunk hometown to live in the big city. But Mavis is also divorced, living like a slob and struggling to write the final novel in her dying series (teens only care about Young Adult books about vampires now — And thanks “Young Adult” for the obligatory “Twilight” joke with a movie starring a “Twilight” actor). In Mavis’ slump, she’s feeling a bit nostalgic for her own high school years and the announcement of her ex-sweetheart’s newborn sends her on this crazy spiral to win back this married man. Mavis returns to her home and engages in a series of absolutely insane shenanigans to win back this man and along the way, finds an unlikely friendship with another former classmate, Matt Freehauf (Patton Oswalt).

As mentioned previously: Charlize Theron is a major appeal factor of this film. The character of Mavis is a drunken slob, psychotic bitch and just so awful it is hard to believe that this could be a real person. If anyone else tried to play Mavis, this film never would have made it to the big screen. But Charlize grounds Mavis and keeps us intrigued enough by the character that we do feel bad for her when we hit the film’s climax and learn the real reason why she is divorced and why her ex-boyfriend’s baby set her off on this crazy spiral, we begin to forgive her ineptitudes and pity her. She really is a broken woman screaming out for help. Only Charlize can make a bitch a person worth caring about (which is also why I’m so excited to see what she does as the evil queen in “Snow White and the Huntsman”).

But as mentioned, previously, the film undermines itself at every turn. After Mavis hits her big meltdown point and moves on from her crazy denial, she seems to begin mending. And she finds her salvation in another broken character — her unlikely friend, Matt. Matt had a rough time in high school and was beaten so brutally, that he is now permanently crippled. Matt was the only one who saw through Mavis’ struggles and tried to be there for her. He points out to her that she is actually a good person — how the high school Mavis never would have given him the time of day when he was out her best. Matt’s a smart guy and has some great wisdom. The film ruins him though by making his bullying problem such a joke. Har har, he’s not really gay. Oh ho, broken penis joke. Completely unnecessary, but I put up with the crappy writing because Patton Oswalt played it so well. So anyways, back to how the film ruined Mavis…so Matt seems to help her repair and gives her a major nugget of wisdom. But then the next morning (and without too many details, so I don’t spoil the endn), Mavis has a chat with Matt’s sister, comes to all the wrong conclusions and basically we’re left with a bitch for life. I guess if there was anything I learned from this movie is that people don’t really change. Thanks “Young Adult” for ruining your own lesson.

As someone in their mid-20s trying to make it “big” in the creative career world, I get how “hard” it is to be a young adult. I have plenty of what the fuck have I done to my life moments and plenty of times I yearn for the past. I wanted to relate and like Mavis. I wanted to like “Young Adult” and laugh as I commiserated with the “woes” of “Young Adult” life. Instead, I was just disappointed. If this is how I feel as young adult, I doubt too many other audience groups will find this overrated film much better.

Bethany Smith

I'm a geek; I love music, technology and grammar.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:

It started with a tweet on Monday – Nathan Fillion sent out a message that was sure to tantalize his loyal fanbase:

“Oh, it’s real. Very. Very. Real. muchadothemovie.com“

In the scant 12 days of vacation he had in the middle of putting together the $150 million superhero epic The Avengers – when anyone else would’ve been hammock-bound and ready for a substantial break – Joss Whedon instead filmed an adaptation of Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing.

Even better? It was his wife’s idea. He had planned on going on their anniversary vacay as scheduled, but she said, “Let’s not take a vacation. Make a movie instead.”

So they did.

The film is said to be a modern, black-and-white noir comedy version of the classic play, shot at Whedon’s own home and starring longtime Whedon show alums Alexis Denisof and Amy Acker as quarrelling lovers Benedick and Beatrice. Costumes were often taken from the actor’s own closets, the cast learned their lines mere days before filming commenced, and everyone – top to bottom – was sworn to secrecy until the last possible moment. It was even created under the name of a brand-new micro-studio – Bellwhether Productions – which is a departure from Whedon’s usual Mutant Enemy Productions, under which he created his cult classic shows Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly and Dollhouse.

“I had asked him specifically if I could talk about the movie, and he said, Not yet,” Firefly star Sean Maher (who’s playing villain Don John) told Entertainment Weekly. “I would never in a million years betray his trust like that, and I think that everybody felt the same. It was such a magical experience because everybody that was there just wanted to be there, you know, with every part of their soul and heart. It was really a wonderful experience, and I don’t think anybody would have leaked it anywhere.”

But it’s everywhere now, thanks to the magic of the Internet, and people are excited to see what the guy best known for science fiction/fantasy projects can do with some honest-to-goodness Shakespeare. There is no official word of where and how audiences will get to see the project, save for a general plan of taking it to festivals “because it sounded like it would be festive.”

Now, I’m not going to pretend for a minute that I’m unbiased in this area – I’m a ridiculous Whedonite and have been since the first episode of Buffy when I was 13. Even if you haven’t been into his works to date, you have to respect his dedication to the craft of filmmaking and storytelling. Guys, it’s so much a part of him that it serves as a vacation. Seriously. And there’s a lot to be said for the loyalty he inspires in both cast and crew, who all dropped everything and threw themselves into the film, keeping it mum’s the word over several weeks. He really accomplished the nearly impossible with a project like this.

Maybe it’s not “changing the face of filmmaking” in the same way that James Cameron loves to claim he changes the face of filmmaking, but Whedon is young, growing in reputation and only has more to offer us in the years to come.

FULL CAST LIST from the official press release:
Amy Acker – Beatrice
Alexis Denisof – Benedick
Nathan Fillion – Dogberry
Clark Gregg – Leonato
Reed Diamond – Don Pedro
Fran Kranz – Claudio
Sean Maher – Don John
Spencer Treat Clark – Borachio
Riki Lindhome – Conrade
Ashley Johnson – Margaret
Emma Bates – Ursula
Tom Lenk – Verges
Nick Kocher – First Watchman
Brian McElhaney – Second Watchman
Joshua Zar – Leonato’s aide
Paul M. Meston – Friar Francis
Romy Rosemont – The Sexton
And introducing Jillian Morgese as Hero

Written by Rebecca Coffindaffer

Rebecca

More Posts

TheCapitol.pn, a site set up as a special promotion for the upcoming “The Hunger Games” movie, has picked up its activity over the last few days, but Sunday’s activity left a few fans scratching their heads. Is it possible this unusual activity on the Panem site was an act of rebellion from the supposedly eradicated District 13?

This past weekend, TheCapitol.pn began processing passes for Districts 12, 7 and 8. The site also added a countdown to the film among its other updated features. All this is normal character for the Capitol, but Sunday, all this disappeared and the usual Capitol seal was replaced with a block of Latin.

This mysterious block of Latin was quickly discovered to be Juvenal’s “Satire X.” Juvenal wrote this to display his contempt of “declining heroism” and Roman politicians that resorted “panem et circenses” — “bread and circuses” — as the easiest way to rise to power. This idea of “panem et circenses” is a major theme of “The Hunger Games’ book and where the nation of Panem gets its name, but it isn’t a concept the Capitol probably wants to spread around. This Latin takeover seems to be an act of rebellion — District 13? Viral marketing?

The only response from the Capitol has been this tweet: “Citizens of Panem: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned.”

http://twitter.com/#!/TheCapitolPN/status/120596580687556608

The site has since been returned to normal, but one thing’s for sure…it’s probably a good idea to keep an eye on thecapitol.pn to see what else is in store for “The Hunger Games” fans.

Bethany Smith

I'm a geek; I love music, technology and grammar.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me: