Ed's Review Dot Com

Summit Entertainment, Di Bonaventura Pictures, DC Entertainment,

Bruce Willis, John Malkovich, Mary-Louise Parker, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Byung-hun Lee, Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren

Frank (Bruce Willis) is retired CIA, and happily married to Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker) and no longer interested in CIA matters. He’s been classified though as “Retired, Extremely Dangerous”. One day he’s met by Marvin (John Malkovich), his former partner in crime, in a supermarket. Marvin informs him of top secret data released by Wikileaks implementing them in the loss of a top secret portable nuclear device that was hidden in Russia. All the different spy agencies are after them to find out where the various parts of the device are hidden, and Frank is sucked back into the business as he and Marvin put the team back together and try to locate the device before someone else does.

The first “Red” movie was really hysterical. I was blown away by it when I watched it. This one was a letdown. It is nowhere near as good as the first. That being said, it does have some really funny moments. It’s also a relatively decent adventure spy story. Malkovich is really good as an effective agent, but is so inappropriate sometimes, it’s hysterical. He says anything he thinks. Half of Frank’s job is to keep Marvin out of trouble for his big mouth. These guys breaking into the Kremlin is a good adventure, but when you put it up beside the first film, it pales in comparison. If you’re in the mood for a decent action adventure spy story, then go ahead and watch this. It’s certainly very watchable. Just don’t expect it to be as hilarious as the first one was.

EdG – EdsReview Dot Com – A Movie Review Blog

Fox Searchlight Pictures, Cold Spring Pictures, The Montecito Picture Company,

Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson, Danny Huston, Toni Collette, Michael Stuhlbarg, Michael Wincott, Jessica Biel, James D’Arcy, Ralph Macchio, Kurtwood Smith, Richard Portnow

This biopic is about Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) and his wife Alma (Helen Mirren) and is set in 1959. Alfred has run low on ideas, and the studios are trying to force him into directing pictures that are really way too mainstream for Hitch. Meantime, he hears about a new book, a work of fiction based upon the life of serial killer Ed Gein and decides this novel has to be his next picture. The studio disagrees, so Hitch sets out to do the picture on his own, waiving his director’s fee, and paying the entire $800,000 budget on his own.

Anthony Hopkins does a great job portraying Alfred Hitchcock, one of my favorite directors of all time. This is just a small slice of the life of Hitch, and hardly mentions all the stuff that happened before this, with his British career, which was awesome, and by the time period of this film, Hitch is old. Most people think he ought to just retire, but he’s having none of that. It also was a time when his wife and partner got really tired of his stubbornness and failure to listen to her, so it is also a bad time for their marriage. Psycho is arguably Hitch’s best film, and it is a very interesting time when he redefined himself and horror cinema at the same time. Since Paramount had no plans to promote this debacle, Hitch did the promotion himself and developed some interesting methods of setting the buzz for this film in motion. As such, lines were huge, and the film earned over 33 million despite it’s $800,000 budget and no studio help promoting this film.

Warning! If you haven’t seen Psycho, the DON’T watch this film until you’ve seen it. Psycho is a very unique film and definitely one not to miss, but watching Hitchcock first will completely spoil the film as it gives away huge spoilers in the plot. This film also debunks several of the myths that surrounded the making of the film. Helen Mirren’s role as Alma, Hitch’s wife, is very well done too. This woman was his muse and he could never have done what he did without her, but she must have had to endure a lot keeping him happy. We’re watching the making of Psycho, so several other key characters have a lot to do in this film. Janet Leigh is played by Scarlett Johansson, one of the weak point of the film. Hopkins is much more Hitchcock than Scarlett is Janet Leigh, but she does at least look a bit like her. Jessica Biel is here too, as actress Vera Miles who played Janet’s sister in Psycho.

All in all, this film shows us a lot of the genius that was Hitchcock, and it is very entertaining. I’ve always been a fan of his work, but now I feel like I know the man a lot better. He was a complex man who has many facets, and this helps us get to know a lot more about him. The scene of Hitchcock watching Psycho in a theater with a packed audience is very touching and one of my favorite moments of the film. Though he was a genius, like all of us, he was very insecure and just couldn’t risk joining the audience, though their reaction meant the world to him.

This is a beautiful movie, and captures Hollywood of 1959-60 perfectly. I really enjoyed this film, and recommend it for anyone who is at all interested in either Psycho or Alfred Hitchcock. It’s a wonderful movie.

EdG – EdsReview Dot Com – A Movie Review Blog

Miramax Films, TalkStory Productions, Artemis Films,

Helen Mirren, Felicity Jones, Reeve Carney, Alfred Molina, Russell Brand, Djimon Hounsou, Chris Cooper, Alan Cumming, Tom Conti, David Strathairn, Ben Whishaw

The Duchess Prospera (Helen Mirren) and her daughter Miranda (Felicity Jones) are stranded on a desert isle out at sea. They have been there for many years but Prospera is a sorceress and able to cast spells. As a ship nears, Prospera causes a huge storm, a tempest, which sinks the ship. A number of people on the ship make it to the island in different groups and begin an interesting journey where they eventually meet up to each other and meet Prospera and her daughter One of these is a potential suitor for Miranda. This film takes the classic drama by Wm.Shakespeare and changes the gender of the sorcerer, brings things up to more modern music and characteristics, but keeps Ye Olde English of the Bard.

For this reason, I didn’t really enjoy this film. For someone who understands and can follow the ancient version of the language, it’s probably ok, but for me, I struggled through trying to read Shakespeare way back in High School and haven’t gotten any better since then. Then to put these modern characters (like Russell Brand) in a story done in old English is rather absurd. All in all I didn’t really enjoy it. I had a really hard time following what was going on, and even harder trying to care.

Even for Shakespeare fans, I don’t highly recommend this, as they change it around enough, and there are enough weaknesses to make it weak for them as well. If you’re a fan of the work, go for a real production, not this bastardized version. A couple things are pretty good. Helen Mirren is great, as always and turns in a stellar performance. And the special effects for the way the portray Ariel is quite good. With film and green screen, they can do a lot more with this character than they can on the stage where Prospero just carries the creature with him throughout!

I wanted to really give this film a chance though, so when I finished it, I turned on the director’s commentary. I found out it was essentially a one woman show where she did everything in the film (Julie Traymor). This usually spells bad news when one person tries their hand at everything. There isn’t anyone to bounce ideas off of. Ask Eddie Murphy how Norbert turned out for him! I listened to about a quarter of the commentary, and was trying to get into it when I heard her say, “I am Berkeley so…..”. Not I am from Berkeley, or I went to UC Berkeley, but “I am Berkeley” When I heard that I turned it off, put it back in the sleeve and dropped it into the mail. That said it all, and I understood that I am much too low on the scale of intellect to ever “get it”. After all, I am not Berkeley.

EdG – EdsReview Dot Com – A Movie Review Blog

Miramax Films, Marv Films, Pioneer Pictures,

Helen Mirren, Sam Worthington, Jessica Chastain, Jesper Christensen, Marton Csokas, Ciarán Hinds, Tom Wilkinson, Romi Aboulafia, Melinda Korcsog

Rachel Singer (Helen Mirren) is a former Mossad intelligence agent. She is now reliving her grandest days when she and 2 other agents accomplished the capture of a Nazi war criminal back in 1965. Her daughter has just written a book praising the events of the capture, but it seems there is more to the story that was told, and now Rachel and her partners Stephan and David (Tom Wilkenson and Ciaran Hinds) have to relive what they did, and some things they are very ashamed of. The suspense builds as we jump back and forth from 1997 to 1965 and put the pieces of this mission back together and find the truth.

I usually enjoy a good World War II movie. This one, however, never grabbed me. It wasn’t hard enough to follow, granted, but I just never got invested in their adventures. I never felt an real suspense, nor did I really care of the outcome. The flipping of the two casts (Mirren, Wilkinson, Hinds) with the younger versions of themselves (Jessica Chastain, Marton, Csokasa, and Sam Worthington) was done about as good as they could, but I still found it annoying and disconcerting. I’m not sure if there was any other way to age the characters 30 years without resorting to hiring two separate casts, but I found this constant swapping of casts off-putting.

Then there’s the ending. When it’s over, you’re really not sure what you have just seen. I just didn’t get into it. Whatever happened, happened, and I’m not going to spend my days theorizing on what it all means. I know there are some who love this film, but for the mainstream, I don’t feel like it gave me enough to recommend it. Boring a lot of the time, and confusing the rest, and the constant flopping of characters makes it even more confusing. Then when the end comes and you don’t really know what happened, and worse, don’t really care very much, it seems like a given to just skip this one!

EdG – EdsReview Dot Com – A Movie Review Blog

Warner Bros. Pictures, Morra, Brezner, Steinberg and Tenenbaum Entertainment (MBST), BenderSpink

Russell Brand, Jennifer Garner, Helen Mirren, Nick Nolte, Greta Gerwig, Luis Guzmán, Geraldine James, Leslie Hendrix, Anna Kuchma

Updating and remaking the 1981 comedy classic starring Dudley Moore, this romantic comedy shows us the problems faced by Arthur Bach (Russell Brand). Arthur is a lovable lush, and rich beyond wildest dreams and enjoys a life of alcohol and women, and childish games with his Nanny (Helen Mirren). He is faced with an ultimatum whether to give up an inheritance of millions for the sake of romance or to marry the golddigger Susan Johnson, (Jennifer Garner) a gorgeous socialite that Arthur’s mother has chosen for him to make him respectable. Arthur is OK with that until he meets Naomi (Greta Gerwig), the girl who steals Arthur’s heart in the meantime.

Russell Brand did an excellent job of bringing Dudley Moore’s Arthur into the 21st Century. I must admit, I didn’t think this could hold a candle to the original film, but it was rather good. It made me forget the original and stop comparing it, and just enjoying the antics and foolishness that Brand was able to pull off so well. He’s been groomed for this role by his other airhead druggie roles that he’s mastered, and gave Arthur 100%. It’s hard to hate Jennifer Garner, but she plays the spoiled brat who is only after Arthur’s company and couldn’t care less about him. And Greta plays a charming Naomi who must teach Arthur respectability for the right reasons. It hit all the right notes and was a totally charming film, well worth the effort to bring Arthur to a whole new generation. I think the did a splendid job, and one of the finest characters in the film is New York City in itself. The city was beautiful and charming, and truly was another part of the cast. I don’t think this film could be shot anywhere else.

This is a really good update to the original and I highly recommend it.

EdG – EdsReview Dot Com – A Movie Review Blog