Arthur Review

From the desk of my good friend and colleague, Andrew Phillips, we have a review of the 2011 remake of Arthur....

Well, it’s spring. You know what that means: We’re between the serious movies of the fall/winter leading up to the Oscars and the action, explosion, “Directed by Michael Bay”, blow-‘em-up-real-good, blockbusters of summer. With spring comes another set of romantic comedies. Enter Arthur, the remake of a movie by the same way from the 1970s following the misadventures of billion-dollar heir Arthur Bach.

Arthur (Russell Brand) has what most people in my demographic would envy: more money than he knows what to do with, enough…female companionship… to make Hugh Hefner or Gene Simmons jealous, and probably the sweetest feature of all-time: a magnetically driven floating bed. The movie revolves around Arthur’s life choice: Does he marry the gorgeous-yet-unbearable Susan (played by Jennifer Garner) in order to keep his millions, or does he give it all up for a tour guide, Naomi (played by Great Gerwig).

Now, the men reading this review just closed the page with an air of “To Hell With That!” BUT WAIT! This is actually a movie guys are going to want to see. More on that in a moment.

Arthur’s frequent partying has earned the ire of his mother, and he’s about to be cut off from his money. He’s grappling with the decision to join the real world, but has no life skills. Enter his nanny and best friend, Hobson (played by Helen Mirren). Hobson is practically a mother to Arthur, and the true comedy of the movie is how they interact. Forget Arthur’s womanizing and partying, it’s how the two take shots at each other. [For kids with sarcastic parents, it feels like you’re standing in your kitchen verbally sparring with your folks.] Now, without giving too much away, the relationship really defines Arthur by the end of movie, as he finally gets the push he needs to grow up.

Now, the ladies reading may be intrigued by the “Love or Money” theme to the movie. But for the guys, there’s a reason to go as well. First off, who doesn’t emulate the lifestyle of endless money, booze, and girls. Second, Jennifer Garner is absolutely gorgeous. Third, they are some scenes with Nick Nolte that are hilarious. All I’m going to say is: hardware. All in all, the movie was funny. There isn’t a profound amount of depth in each character, but it’s enough to suffice. If you’re bored on a Friday night and want to go do something with your significant other (or maybe just a group of friends. Whatever, man. It’s cool), Check out Arthur.

A note about Russell Brand: I’m waiting for his Will Smith transformation. Smith did role after role of goofy protagonist whose comedic blundering made him millions. Eventually, the man started landing serious roles. (Seven Pounds, Pursuit of Happyness, I am Legend etc.). I’m waiting for Russell Brand to go through the same thing. Granted, his life off-screen once mirrored that he’s portraying onscreen now, but there’s only so much of the same character an audience can take. If Brand wants to be taken for a serious actor, he’ll have to mimic Arthur: make the choice between the same role as the playboy amused with cheap thrills, or a grown-up who can be serious when the time comes.

-Andrew Phillips

Soul Surfer Review

X-men: The Last Stand Review

You may have noticed that there's been a delay in finishing the X-men film series marathon and getting this review out. Well, let me ask you this: if you were reviewing X-men 3, wouldn't you be trying to delay something even if you know it's inevitable?

Let's be fair. X-men: The Last Stand has had very divided feelings from its viewers. Ranging from a decent superhero flick to failure third installment. Movies one and two amazed us with its story, characters, action and much more. But after Bryan Singer left for Superman Returns, Brett Ratner took the helm of the X-men film series and many comic book fans got themselves a new photo to staple onto their dartboards.

The mutant phenomenon may be over when a new company set on Alcatraz Island develops a "cure" to relieve mutants of their abilities and turn them human. While the X-men, (Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, Sir Patrick Stewart, Anna Paquin, Shawn Ashmore, etc) receive mixed feelings to the new product, it's very existence enrages Magneto (Sir Ian McKellen) and his Brotherhood of Mutants. They declare all out war on humanity and began marshalling an army of mutants to destroy the cure at any cost. In the mix of this, Jean Grey (Famke Jensen) has returned after her apparent death, with her power levels evolved to a dangerous level that has begun to corrupt her mind. Magneto inducts Jean, now under the name of Phoenix, into the Brotherhood as a weapon for his cause, and the X-men must make a final stand to defend humanity against their own kind.

What you receive in this installment is a rich usage of the comic book mythology that the X-men is based on. The problem is that many of those characters are adapted with little to know character basis and are mostly thrown together at random. Only newcomer Kelsey Grammer as Hank McCoy/Beast delivers a solid and intriguing performance.

Much of Ratner's direction shows a lot more dumbed down story, with action losing a lot of its intensity and music being nothing like it was before. Plenty of the plot could have been cut and many story arcs don't give these characters a comfortable fit of where they should have been going from the start. Thankfully this last stand would only be followed by spin-offs, because a fourth installment would have just broken the franchise's legs completely.

What's ticking me off about two-part movies

I remember being anxious last November to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I was one of the first in line on opening day, my expectations were hyped, and the movie gave an impressive show. I laughed, I jumped and I might have brushed away the odd tear or two. But just when it was getting good, just when the plot was at its highest peak, just when my eyes were mesmerized with delight at one of the best movies I had seen all year…
The credits rolled. Some guy in the seat behind me said, “Well, guess we wait until July to see Part Two.” Part Two? Oh that’s right, Hollywood’s not completely satisfied with siphoning our wallets just yet. It’s not like seven big movies which have poured billions upon billions of dollars from the box office into Warner Bros’ pockets was enough to say, “We’ve done our job, it’s time to sink our teeth into a new franchise.” While we’re on that subject, I’d like to thank the film studio for giving Summit Entertainment the great idea of having them split Breaking Dawn, the last instalment of the Twilight Saga into two movies. More shirtless werewolves and depressed bloodsuckers, please!
Even Peter Jackson of The Lord of the Rings fame has fallen into this latest film fad by deciding to divide the Middle-earth prequel of The Hobbit into a double feature.
Hollywood, exploiting a franchise’s last chapter is one thing. Digging your fingernails into the rights of these literary pieces is just spelling out the greed in front of our faces.
Who’s to say that some die hard fan didn’t have the money at the time to view Part 1 of one of these cinematic hits, but did at the time of Part 2’s release? It’s not their fault you’re splitting hairs. And what happens when these films hit home video? Don’t think you’re going to make us pay for two films and not get a fight on your hands.  You’re cutting apart plots, characters and entertainment just for the sake of doubling the bucks.
As much as this newfound filming process annoys me, I’ll probably once again be back in the theatre come this summer to check out Part 2. Why? Because a good movie remains a good movie. But it’s not my fault if I can’t remember every detail of events that happened last year.
The only good thing to come out of all this is that the Deathly Hallows will have an eight month intermission. At least in that time span I’ll have plenty of time to use the restroom so I don’t have to leave in the middle of the second act.