Unstoppable (Tony Scott, 2010) PG-13

With films like Top Gun, Man on Fire, and Domino, director Tony Scott is no stranger to action. As far as action goes, Unstoppable has plenty, and Tony Scott knows how to show it off. A film like this is a challenge because you are limited to the train tracks, it’s not like a bus with a bomb, so how exciting is a runaway train?


Denzel Washington (The Book of Eli) plays Frank, a veteran train employee who is weeks from retiring. Joining him is Will, played by Chris Pine (Star Trek), a rookie on the job. Animosity exists between the older veterans and the newer employees entering the workforce, as the older employees feel their jobs are being stolen by inexperienced workers. Frank and Will decide to go above and beyond their jobs and help stop an unmanned train before it causes massive damage and loss of life.

This film uses witty dialogue and intense action to move the viewers from point A to point B. The only thing missing is a decent story. Based loosely on true events, Unstoppable takes several liberties with facts, plot, and physics while failing to deliver any character growth. Unstoppable tries to give the viewers something, but the family subplots are uninteresting and completely unbelievable. As far as formulaic movies go, this one fits the mold. There are good effects and tense action, but despite that and the good acting, Unstoppable falls short of being a good film, and instead is regulated to being a mediocre film. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed it, I just have no urge to see it again.

Ultimately, Unstoppable is an action film for the sole purpose of being an action film. The witty dialogue will not be enough to make this film anything more than an hour and a half distraction.

Rating: 5/10

© 2010 Nate Phillipps

The 3 Worst Actors

#3: Ben Affleck

There's a reason a whole three and a half minutes of the movie Team America were devoted to a song about how bad Affleck's performance was in Pearl Harbor (Michael Bay, 2001).  That reason is because he was that bad in Pearl Harbor.  Pearl Harbor is bad enough that we don't even have to talk about Daredevil (Mark Steven Johnson, 2003), but for professional reasons, I must.  When he plays a supporting role, he is tolerable.  His only redeeming factors are his roles in Kevin Smith films.

#2: John Cena

For these next two, it was tough, but when it came down to it, I simply had to decide who I liked least, and John Cena is less visible than my #1 choice.  I saw John Cena guest star in the TV series Psych.  It was not good.  He is a wrestler.  But for some reason, somebody thought to give him a whole movie, The Marine (John Bonito, 2006).  I don't know if I'd wish the Marine on my worst enemy.  If you take everything you don't like about Arnold Schwarzenegger's performances, and multiply them, you'll get a John Cena performance.  John Cena's only redeeming factor is he is very muscular, so I hope he doesn't read this...

#1: Dwayne Johnson

Anyone who calls themselves "The Rock" shouldn't be taken seriously, especially when they have a film where they play the tooth fairy.  Everytime I turn around I see this guy in another film.  Is anyone seeing a trend?  Two wrestlers making my 3 Worst Actors list?  Anyway, Dwayne Johnson starred in Doom (Andrzej Bartkowiak, 2005), which was much better as a video game.  Dwayne Johnson probably doesn't know anything about acting.  The best acting I've seen him do is as a CGI Scorpion King in The Mummy Returns (Stephen Sommers, 2001), which by no means was a good movie.  Dwayne Johnson's only redeeming factor is his role in Get Smart (Peter Segal, 2008) where the director knew how best to utilize him.

Honorable Mentions:

James Franco - Think Flyboys (Tony Bill, 2006)

Jennifer Garner - Think anything she's ever been in, most atrocious though Elektra (Rob Bowman, 2005)

Shia LaBeouf - I'm even having doubts about Harrison Ford after Indianna Jones & The Kingdom of The Crystal Skulls (Steven Spielberg, 2008).  And don't forget Eagle Eye (D.J. Caruso, 2008).

Adam Brody- Actually anyone involved with The O.C.  I did not see In The Land of Women (Jon Kasden, 2007) mainly because the trailers with Brody looked terrible.  Well, that and whatever Meg Ryan did to her face.

Due Date (Todd Phillips, 2010) R

Todd Phillips, the man responsible for The Hangover, Starsky And Hutch, and Old School tries his hand at a buddy road-trip comedy. While funny, Due Date is not terribly original, falls short of his previous works and leaves the viewer with serious doubts about the quality of The Hangover Part II.

Due Date stars Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man 2) as Peter Highman and Zach Galifianakis (Visioneers) as Ethan Tremblay. As far as the acting goes, Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis build a terrific rapport with each other, which brings Due Date out of the dull category and into the average category. Peter Highman is a high-strung, workaholic who is soon to be a father. Ethan Tremblay is an easy-going, eccentric aspiring-actor who wants to get to Hollywood to break into the industry. When their paths cross, Peter’s plans go right down the drain. After being placed on the No-Fly List, Peter’s only chance of getting home in time for the birth is a cross-country road trip with Ethan.

Overall, this movie is fairly predictable. There are some subplots that add interest to the film, and some liberties taken with reality that make it a comedy without consequences for the characters. Most of the humor comes from Peter and Ethan going for each others’ throats, but there are a few moments of gross-out humor that probably could have been left on the cutting room floor. The writing, directing and editing are all formulaic, which detracts from Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis’ performances.

Due Date is no Planes, Trains & Automobiles, but it is an enjoyable film that manages to be funny while still being mostly unoriginal. At the end, one part of me wanted a scene like the last scene in Planes, Trains & Automobiles, but that closure never happened. Another part of me wished the ending would have been darker, as a majority of the movie implied, with whether or not Peter’s wife had an affair. For a feel-good movie unburdened by reality, check out Due Date.

Rating: 6/10

© 2010 Nate Phillipps

Robin Hood (Ridley Scott, 2010) UR

I tend to enjoy Ridley Scott’s work, so his addition to the several films that tell the story of Robin Hood, was met with some anticipation. In Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood, the director does not let us down. No stranger to filming epic battle sequences, Ridley Scott’s film is visually appealing.

Robin Hood and his comrades stand up to an abusive government to create a better quality of life for the common people. Robin Longstride comes across Robert Loxley, who on death’s door asks Robin to deliver his sword to his father. In order to accomplish this task, Robin decides to assume the identity of the fallen knight, and once home Robert’s father sees no reason to stop the charade. A corrupt sheriff and king add to the villagers’ frustration.

Russell Crowe (Body of Lies) once again teams up with director Ridley Scott, only this time as Robin Longstride. For a darker and grittier retelling of the story of Robin Hood, Russell Crowe does a good job playing the lone-wolf Robin Longstride. Cate Blanchett (The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button) plays Marion Loxley, Robin’s love interest Cate Blanchett balances out Russell Crowe’s performance expertly. The chemistry between the two makes me wish they were in a better written movie. William Hurt (Endgame) also joins the cast as William Marshal.

While the directing and the acting are superb, the story does not deliver. The first half of the film brilliantly set up the political atmosphere of the time with the Crusades and the local authorities taking advantage of the villagers with all the men gone. Robin Hood examines Robin Hood before he became Robin Hood, more so than any other film. However, shortly after the halfway point, the storyline shifts from Robin Hood and his story to the story of a French invasion of Britain. Instead of Robin taking back what was stolen by the government, he is now leading an army against France; the second half of Robin Hood looks and feels just like Braveheart (Mel Gibson, 1995). In the first half of the film, Robin and company are talking about wanting to be able to keep the fruits of their individual labor, while at the end of the film, they switch to a socialist propaganda message, where everybody shares the collective wealth.  The writers obviously did not have a clear objective when sitting down to write this film; they couldn’t decide if it was going to be a character-based story about Robin Hood or an epic war story.


Rating: 3/10

© 2010 Nate Phillipps

Killers (Robert Luketic, 2010) PG-13

With the exception of 21 (2008), Robert Luketic’s career is built upon romantic comedies.  While the title may lead you to believe otherwise, Killers is first and foremost a romantic comedy, and on a secondary level, an action film. Robert Luketic may have several rom-coms under his belt, but that does not guarantee a good movie.

An insecure robot, er, woman meets a hunk while on vacation and they get married. Three years into the marriage a hit contract is placed upon the husband’s head, which leads the wife to discover that the man she married can kill with more than his good looks.

Ashton Kutcher (Spread) plays Spencer Aimes, the deadly-yet-charming contract killer who falls for Jen Kornfeldt, played by Katherine Heigl (Knocked Up). Joining the duo, Tom Selleck (Jesse Stone) and Catherine O’Hara (Where The Wild Things Are) as Mr. and Mrs. Kornfeldt, respectively. I liked Ashton Kutcher in The Butterfly Effect, but can’t say that he has what it takes to pull off a witty assassin. Kutcher’s performance outshines Katherine Heigl’s by far. Katherine Heigl’s portrayal of Jen Kornfeldt feels like it would be something acting students would watch in a class called, “How not to act on camera.” Tom Selleck and Catherine O’Hara are alright as the parents and in-laws; nothing to write home about on the acting front.

It’s easy to blame the actors, but the real blame rests with the writers. The concept of Killers is not that original, which could be overlooked if it played off of strong characters, strong dialogue, and interesting obstacles. Killers is a movie you might watch to appease your wife or girlfriend, but it is not something you will want to buy or watch ever again. If you like the concept, check out Mr. & Mrs. Smith (Doug Liman, 2005).

Rating: 4/10

© 2010 Nate Phillipps

Halloween Films Part 1: The Classics

Halloween (John Carpenter, 1978)

Matching John Carpenter, Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Pleasance sounds like a winning combo in any book, but Halloween is one of those movies that has not aged well.  Sure it's a classic, but it does not deliver the thrills and frights as well as it did when it first came out in 1978.  The first time I watched it I knew exactly who was going to die and when.  Of course it is only predictable because it pioneered the genre.  Only watch this one if you are a die hard fan of John Carpenter, otherwise check out The Thing or even scarier, Nightmare On Elm Street.

Rating: 5/10



Nightmare On Elm Street (Wes Craven, 1984)

Johnny Depp's first film, Nightmare On Elm Street is almost as aged as the original Halloween is, but this one is less predictable.  Aside from Peter Jackson's DeadAlive, this film probably has one of the strangest ways to die captured on film.  Where Halloween is predictable and borderline boring, Nightmare On Elm Street leaves us with enough mystery to be a successful horror film.

Rating: 6/10






Night Of The Living Dead (George A. Romero, 1968)

For a really good time, be sure to watch Night Of The Living Dead.  George A. Romero pioneered the zombie film and a franchise with his 1968 film.  As strange as it may be to say, this film is more exciting than the original Halloween.  I don't mean to pick on John Carpenter, because I love his other films, but somehow he fell short with Halloween.  Night Of The Living Dead features some classic dialogue, of course the sort of dialogue only people who have seen the movie, or those people in their late 60s would understand.  Best line of the film, "They're coming to get you Barbara..."

Rating: 8/10




The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Tobe Hooper, 1974)

Of all the horror films, and actually all the other films, I have ever seen, this is definitely one of the best shot films around.  It simply looks gorgeous.  My dad told me this film was super disgusting and made Saw look like a happy musical.  Despite being rated R, this film has no gore, no profanity and no nudity.  However, the filmmakers were so adept at conveying the grisly horror that happens off-screen that it still got the R rating.  If you watch one movie this Halloween, make it the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre.  It really is that good.

Rating: 9/10





Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock, 1960)

With Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, we get some name actors Anthony Perkins, Vera Miles and Janet Leigh.  The horror of Psycho does not necessarily happen on-screen, but as with most Hitchcock it happens in your mind.  What sets Psycho apart from the other movies reviewed in this blog is the characters.  The characters in this film are developed to the max.  Just about everything about this film is perfect.  This movie spawned a remake and three sequels.  Anthony Perkins' performance is fantastic.  This is how horror movies should be made.

Rating: 10/10

Hot Tub Time Machine (Steve Pink, 2010) R

Steve Pink’s second feature film as a director, Hot Tub Time Machine, is about a group of four guys who travel back to time in, yes you guessed it, a hot tub.  Between Accepted (2006) and Hot Tub Time Machine I would say Steve Pink has been fortunate to work with some fairly talented actors, but talent isn’t everything as Hot Tub Time Machine proves.

Four guys who pretty much suck at life decide to take a weekend trip to their favorite resort from their youth.  When they arrive, they realize that they are not the only ones who have gotten older and duller, as the town is in disrepair and now a senior citizen hotspot and a shelter for cats.  After a lot of alcohol and illegal substances, the four stumble into the hot tub, where they short circuit the controls and travel back to 1986.  Presented with the opportunity to relive their fondest memories they are challenged to get back to present-day while changing as little as possible.

John Cusack (2012) plays Adam, the main character, an insurance agent who just got dumped.  I haven’t seen many of Cusack’s films, but I never pegged him as a comedic actor, and this film proves me right.  John Cusack is talented, don’t get me wrong, but he just isn’t a comedic lead.  Craig Robinson (The Office) plays Nick, a failed musician and emasculated man.  Rob Corddry (Operation: Endgame) plays Lou, a suicidal loser with a drinking problem (and not the funny kind of drinking problem like in Airplane!).  Clark Duke (Kick-Ass) plays Jacob, the stereotypical modern teenager/young-adult who is more comfortable with a computer than with people.  With average performances, even Chevy Chase’s appearance did nothing to improve the film, which left the viewer with a sense that the actors were underutilized.

As far as raunchy comedies go, Hot Tub Time Machine wastes no time being raunchy but it takes too long to find the comedy, if it even manages to find it at all.  Within the first twelve minutes of the film there are two gross-out jokes and no other jokes.  I almost turned it off after the second one involving a catheter, but I let it play.  The writers of Hot Tub Time Machine love movies because there are several obscure references to other films throughout this one.  The best moment of the film is when Craig Robinson looks directly at the camera and says, “It must be some sort of hot tub time machine.”  Not only where the characters flat, but the events in the film weren’t interesting and Hot Tub Time Machine never presented us with a sense of urgency for the characters to return to the present.*  If you enjoy seeing bodily fluids in movies, by all means check out Hot Tub Time Machine.  If you demand a little more sophistication from your comedies, skip this one and watch Superbad (Greg Mottola, 2007) or The Hangover (Todd Phillips, 2009) as they achieve the right balance between crass and comedy.

Rating: 4/10

*Possible spoiler*
*
*
*With the exception of the character of Jacob, I don’t see why any of the other characters had to return to the present.  In fact, there is more motivation for them to stay behind, like Lou did, and relive their youth.  That way they’d not only be able to become closer as friends, but they would be able to remember important events, instead of being surprised when they arrived back in the future.

© 2010 Nate Phillipps