In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Gnomeo and Juliet - Touchtone Pichtures

Goblins, Trolls and Gnomes all the things you can find in your backyard, but on the outside just Gnomes. The bitter sweet tale of Romeo and Juliet has gone through many different adaptions, starting from being written by candle light by William Shakespeare to going to stage, and then various film adaptions and evan an epic anime series, Now the dynamic duo has found its way to animation again but this time their tale is told in short supply. 

Cute, funny, charming, a adaption
that both kids and adults will love. 

From the mind of the great William Shakespeare comes the greatest love story ever told but with a twist. In the continuing conflict between red gnomes and blue gnomes a silver lining is found in between their gardens. The Red Juliet meets the Blue Romeo as both attempt to spite the others' family and begin to see that they are not really that different and as the original tale went they became star crossed lovers.

When I first heard of this movie I was like; “Is this Hollywood's idea of the middle finger to Shakespeare?” But after I realized it this was going to happen sooner or later, computer animation would go after Shakespeare and make it into a soft and girlish adaption of one of his tragedies. I don't get why people never try making animated adaptions of his comedies like a Midsummers nights dream (which I starred in high school) but i guess some people like to twist a dark story into a happy go lucky family film.

But I liked this movie. It had the same sense of love and struggle the original story had and it wasn't afraid to dumb it down to the extreme, like pretending that Tybalt just disappeared instead of being killed in combat, and although they do substitute the gore that was in the original play they do it with innovation. For example Tybalt is “killed” in a sense but instead he brakes to pieces being made out of stone so that is an acceptable substitute.

Their is what made me praise this film. 

The animation for the film is pretty good and can evan be on par with the animation with Toy Story 3. The reason its so good is that the animators were not lazy and made a wide variety of their characters diverse by giving them different clothing and small cracks on different parts of their figures and of course colour their hats differently so we know who is on which side.

The acting for the film is pretty good but the centre of attention is on the two leads of James Macavoy and Emily Blunt. The two make a lovely incarnation of the greatest couple to ever grace storytelling. They stay true to what their love stands for from start to finish and because of that it makes the story very respectful of their source material and their status as Gnomes makes the relationship evan more cute. The rest of the cast has a good selection of actors such as Maggie Smith, Michael Caine, Jason Stathum and evan Ozzie Osborn but none of them really do much and have little life and personality compared the characters they were made of, its like they were made out of wax instead of rubber.

One other problem I do have with this movie is that the idea of inanimate objects coming to life behind their masters back has been done before with the Toy Story trilogy and because of this it makes you feel the writers took the easy way out and do something Pixar has done. I think this movie would be worth a 80% or higher if they had better dialogue and a better setting. But it still is a good family film that kids and adults will love and that can be thanked thanks to Elton John''s great music.

My Rating: 3/4 Shamrocks.  

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - The Green Hornet - Sony Pictures

Ive seen alot of action stars starring in cheap family comedies like Vin Diesel in the Pacifier (2005) and Jackie Chan in the Spy Next Door (2010). But this time I see two big differences in this movie; Seth Rogan is the superhero and a superhero movie released in January? Seth Rogan is of all things; The Green Hornet, the superhero that started out on a radio show in the 40s and evolved into comic books and now has a new motion picture.

Britt Read (Seth Rogan) is a millionaire playboy who treats life like its handed to him on silver platter without needing to work a day in his life. However his does a 180 on him when his father is found dead and he inherits his fathers media empire. When he meets his fathers car mechanic Kato (Jay Chou) he makes three astonishing discoveries about him; He can make the most indestructible car in the world, he is a King Fu expert and he makes the best cup of joe in the world. This realization makes them form a partnership to fight crime in the streets of LA with a tricked out car. As the two gain more popularity under their alter ego of the Green Hornet, the cities most powerful crime lord Ben Chudnofsky (Christoph Waltz) declares a gang war so bloody it would paint the town red.

The big difference between this superhero movie and others is that the hero poses as the villain which thereby makes the two leads the ultimate anti-hero's. What gives this movie a bit of the Seth Rogan flare to it is the fact that Rogan helped write the screenplay for the movie and when the lead helps write the movie it makes them feel more comfortable and familiar with the movie without the worry of making a mistake on some Hollywood big-shots script.

Rogan is very funny in this movie but this is mostly due to the fact that he helped write it. If he didn't I don't think he would do such a good job since to him it would t be like reading off carved ice. Jay Chou on the other hand really is the cornerstone of this movie. Although Rogan is the lead its Chou who makes the Green Hornet what it is since he is the one that does all the work in the superhero gig (literally) the stunt work he provides for the action sequences is terrific and is almost on par with Bruce Lee in the original Green Hornet film. Christoph Waltz is a bit of surprise for this movie. Although he was good it seems a bit too soon of a leap for him to go from action to comedy, yet he still does a great job of playing a charming yet terrifying villain. Cameron Diaz is the weakest link for this movie, you can just tell she has never really absorbed any of the lines in the script for this film and as such she is a stale insufferable know it all. Her part would have been suited better for a character better suited for what she is on the Inside like America Ferrara on Ugly Beaty.

I liked Green Hornet but I obviously didn't like it as much as I would other superhero movies like the Dark Knight or X-Men. So the movie is, the acting is ok, the special effects and stunt work is great and the script is decent, so to be perfectly blunt see the Green Hornet. And personally I wonder if that car would ever fall under being an Autobot or a Decepticon.

My Rating: 3/4 Shamrocks.

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - The King's Speech - The Weinsitein Company

Finally after all the waiting for a movie that will teach us the beauty of broadcasting and politics comes the most groundbreaking film of 2010, The King's Speech starring Colin Firth in this great retelling of King George's ascension to the King of England during the darkest era in recent history.

In the late 1930's George of England (Colin Firth) must ascend to the King of England following the death of his father King George V (Michael Gambon) and the absences of his brother Edward VIII (Guy Pearce) George has no choice but to ascend to the thrown and face the most powerful opponent any political would have to face; the public, with the broadcasting industry growing. When his wife Queen Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) convinces him to see Liona Loug (Geoffrey Rush) a speech therapist who helps him improve his diction and be ready to address his public in a time of great darkness for Europe.

This movie is incredible, when i said the Social Network was my favourite film of the year, I take it back the King's Speech is my number 1 but the Social Network still stands at number 2. Why do i think the King's Speech is so good? Well the reason is that it has many defining qualities that a person looks for when they see a movie that falls under drama and historical.

If you were to compare this movie to photographs and radio recordings on file you will see that the film is able to capture them to a clear cut accuracy. Looking at and hearing Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter is a good example of this because the movie actually does make them look very similar to what these people were like 75 years ago. Other good historical aspects of the film is its use of stock footage such as with Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Germany and how they don't try to act over it or modernize to please today's audiences.

When it comes to the acting for it this is what I have to say; could it get any better than this? All of the actors from largest role to smallest role knew their parts and played them beautifully. Evan background characters that have little to nothing to do with the story are able to make this movie evan more enjoyable by showcasing how people lived in 1930's Europe. The major actors are also very clear on what they have to do and who they have to play, Carter and Rush are both very distinguished in their roles and know who they are and how they acted in real life.

Colin Firth stole the show. His portrayal of King George was just the peace of acting I have been looking for a long time. The reason I liked him so much is that he is playing a role that has such big responsibility to speak to his public yet he himself is very shy and has a problem speaking clearly which is a problem I have sometimes too. But evan though he doesn't fully recover from it by the end of the film he is still able to find the courage to speak and Colin Firth does a great job of flowing the emotions of a King on the inside.

What's good about the acting for the movie is that it sets itself up like a play which many of the actors in this movie started out in and still do today. So they know how this movie should be paced without turning it into a sensationalized Hollywood blockbuster.

If you haven't seen the King's Speech see it. It is a terrific movie and i can guarantee you, that if you see any movie at all within the next five years see the King's Speech because I think you will be pleasantly surprised that there is no finder joy than hearing a voice for the first time.

My Rating: 4/4 Shamrocks

In the Theatre with kevin Murphy - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 - Warner Bros.

The boy who lived has returned for his greatest adventure of all time in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1. As a fan of the books I thought this film was good but as a critic I thought that this film was brilliant. J.K Rowlings final chapter of the worldwide phenomenon is brought to the big screen in two parts, right now is part one, you'll have to wait for the conclusion in July.

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) has embarked on a quest with his best friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Wattson) to destroy the key to his archenemy Lord Voldemorts (Ralph Finnes) immortality; the hHorcruxs. Along their journey many lives are sacrificed to protect Harry and Harry's determination to avenge all the lives that were lost since the day he met Voldemort has reached breaking point. While traveling the trio discover the existence of three talismans known as the Deathly Hallows that could make or break the future of the wizarding world.

Of all the Harry Potter films, this both the most mature film and the most dark. It is also my favorite even though it is only half the of the final book. Unlike the previous six films this one does not have a primary setting or sense of place which wold be Hogwarts, Instead this film has the characters traveling from one place to another looking for something or someone. Because its not set in one place the audience has a chance to look outside of the safety of school and see how dangerous the wizarding world really is and why Hogwarts puts such emphasis on safety from external threats.
Because these kids arnt in school anymore it almost feels like a coming of age film mixed with adventure and fantasy. It implies how well these kids have learned in school and how effectively they use their skills in real world situations. In school we are always taught about the “real world” which is the place outside the safety of a school wall where things are more hard and brutal than how school softens it by given you a second chance but in the real world your lucky to get one and a half and the film portrays this belief extremely effectively.

The effects of Deathly Hallows part 1 are incredible and by the far the best out of all the films. Every effect in the movie is used the way the book wanted it to be used and it doesn't try to waste any of it on something that either doesn't play a part to the story and conflict of good vs evil or on something that that isn't relevant to the story. The best example would be Ron's moment of triumph when he confronts the power of one of the Horcruxs.

The acting for this one is the best out of all the films. When I compared the books to the films basically every character I saw in the books acted and sounded just the saw they should have been in the books. The best example from the first movie to now would be Alan Rickmans performance as Serverus Snape because he knows how to play the role the way J.K Rowling intended it to be done, this also applies to Robbie Coltranes performance as Rubeus Hagrid and Ralph Finnes as Lord Voldemort.

For this film specifically I found the best acting to come from the trio of Harry, Ron and Hermione. In 2001 the characters were brought to the big screen and as the films got darker and more mature they followed along at the same level, but by darker I mean they let more dark attributed confront them with less protection from the older characters. Their chemistry is also brilliant in the film because these three have worked together for so long they really did start out as kids and not as actors and because of this they have shaped their relationship in the finale instalment into a real friendship as apposed to a typical Hollywood drama. I think eight great films through the past decade is enough to prove how good it is.

Because this movie is so dark I am extremely glad the rights were given to Warner Bros, because of all the American film companies they are the ones that are the best at making dark and dramatic films together. I can tell how dark one of their movies is simply by looking at their opening logo on the movie and with the Harry potter films the look to them gets darker and more gothic like with Batman (1989) or Sherlock Holmes (2009). I can only imagine the horror if the rights were given to Disney.

The director of the film David Yates was by far my favorite director of the Harry Potter films because of his approach. Before working for Warner Bros he did TV drama's for the BBC and that type of experience, brought to the world of film can bring serious depth, drama and humor to a story. With the cast, story and effects already provided for him he has made the best use of all the resources for the harry Potter films. My only compliant about his approach is that he seems to focus a bit too much on the teenage relationships in the film and not enough on the actual story, taking up at least a quarter of it when it should only be a tenth. But the good news is he didn't waste any of the relationship scenes on something cheep and pathetic like Glee, Fame or High School Musical.

On a scale of 1 to 10, this film is a 9 ½ with only that small complaint about the directing approach. Since 2001 Harry Potter has proved not only to be acceptable by fans but by critics as well since the movies are very well done in many ways. Since this is the first half of the final film we expect much and most sequels cant do that because they get to commercial.But because the author of the books stays so committed to the movies (she was even a producer for this one) she keeps a iron fist on the quality of the film and because of this, Harry Potter and the Deathly hallows is a must see film.

My Rating: 3.5/4 Shamrocks

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Megamind - Dreamworks Animation

From the people that didn't bring you Superman comes Megamind the newest motion picture from Dreamworks Animation. Coming out with three animated films in the same year by the same company is rather rare and most of the time only one at the least is really good. In this case I would give the gold to How to train your Dragon but I would say Megamind is worthy of a respectable silver.

Megamind (Will Ferrell) is the super villain of Metro City and has been in constant battle with his arch rival Metro Man (Brad Pitt) who is loved by the people for always foiling Megamind . However when Megamind apparently “kills” Metro Man he is now the criminal kingpin of Metro City. However he realizes that without a Yin to his Yang their is no purpose left for him. To get excitement back in his life he uses a piece of Metro Man's DNA (left from is costume) to turn a lonely cameraman (Jonah Hill) into the new super hero but makes things worse when Megamind must become what he thought he would never become; the hero.

Their are three types of Dreamworks films that come out in the Film Olympics. Gold, Silver and Bronze. In Megamind's case it gets a silver because although the animation and story is good and did feel like its one of those movies that just repeated what other Super hero movie have done. My biggest complaint for this movie is that they ripped off Superman in the opening sequence to the point were even someone who has never seen Superman would know its a parody. I also saw a few references from Batman and Spider-Man however I don't think anyone would really notice or care because it doesn't take a famous scene from their movie.

I would say the animation for Megamind is good but the problem with it is that their really isn't anything new or revelatory in it. Whenever a new animated film comes out I have high expectations that it will do something that has never really been done in animation like Wall-E (2008) or Shrek (2002), but this film uses the theme of super hero's which has already been done with the Incredibles (2004), not that its a bad thing its just I think that this film could have come up with a more original theme to approach its message of rivalry.

In terms of acting for this movie I did find it rather predictable for a Will Ferrell comedy . I did think Will Ferrell was good as Megamind and the best choice for a comedic bumbling villain that is trying to succeed but always fails. In terms of the antagonists I didn't care much for Jonah Hill as the bad guy and thought they should have brought in a more serious actor for his role as super villain yet I did like his transformation to become a villain. Brad Pitt as Metro Man was a bit too card board and typical Superhero image like Superman who is more of a celebrity than a hero and I mean Metro Man not superman. I thought the worst acting came from Tina Fey who I thought was just their to be the Lois Lane to the needed Superman in this movie. David Cross on the other hand I found to be perfect for the good old comedic villains sidekick that everyone loves to hate.

However I would say the story of a villain in desperate need of his rival was a good new story element and the new hero becomes the new villain with the old villain becoming the new hero . Although I didn't like Megamind I do think that the kids that see this will love it because it is primarily a family film and a few of the jokes were funny in it. So if you have kids than I suggest you take them out to see it, they will love it as much as I didn't.

1½/4 Shamrocks

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Due Date - Warner Bros.

In every persons life their is a certain day that has been set in stone since the day you were born. Unfortunately you are bound to run into a few “deterrents” on the car ride. Tonight on In the Theatre with Murphy we will be discussing the biggest “deterrent” in a mans life with Due Date, with Robert Downey Jr and Zach Galifianakis and I would say Due Date is the a rather big deterrent for me to review.

Peter Highman (Robert Downey Jr.) is wanting to get home to Los Angeles to see the birth of his first child but is put on a no fly list after saying the T word in front of another passenger who also says the word resulting in both of them losing their flight and Peter misplacing his wallet. The other passenger Ethan (Zach Galifanakis) decides to make it up to him by driving both of them to Las Angeles. On the trip both of them prove to be the thorn in the others side as they continue to stray over where they really need to go and why.

From Todd Phillips I really did expect more after he did the Hangover which was one of the smartest comedies Ive seen in years. But this film is not nearly as good or as actively written. When I say actively written what I mean is its more original (if its a original script) or more respectable towards its source material (if adapted). With this movie I don't see hardly any originality. Looking at this film it seems to be a bit of mix between Road Trip and the Hangover and I do think Todd Phillips could have done a lot more to make Due Date more original.

The large reason I don't see much originality is mainly because of its leads. Zach G's character is far too similar to his character Alan from the Hangover. For example both of them have mental quirks and say the most random nonsense that makes what I say sound like Edger Alan Poe. When you see this movie it almost seems like its a spin off for is character from the Hangover and I didn't find anything unique or interesting from his character that I haven't seen before. Don't get me wrong I think he is a good comedian and when he needs to be he is very good at sensitive and emotional scenes. Jr on the other hand I thought was ok. Many of the scenes he is in often involve his in a very bad and comical mood making you wanna laugh your ass of because they are either so random or dangerous in a funny way that would kill a man instantly.

I didn't like the chemistry between the leads. The reason is that although both men are very funny, they are only funny in their own way. This means they both have their own style of comedy. Galifanakis style is very slapstick, pop culture and improve, relying on other sources to make a situation funny and using it at the most random time thinking “where the hell does e come up with this shit”. Jr. On the other hand relies on a more direct approach to his comedy such as Iron Man and Sherlock Holmes and by this I mean he intentionally makes fun of his targets and knows what he is talking about it knows when to say it to please his audience. I just think the two of them are two different to at least star in the same move. Its like Jr is from Neptune (Cool Blue humor) and Galifanakis is from Uranus (You know what type of humor Im talking about). 

As much as you think I hated this film with all my heart and soul their were some parts to it I did like. Their were a few jokes that I found very funny but I will remain silent about them for the audiences sake. One part I absolutely loved was the cinematography of the western USA . In many shots they showcase some incredible landscapes and I would say the director wanted to showcase the bright side of two very different people travelling together they can see some pretty great sights to get their mind of how much they dislike each other and gives them a chance to think about someone other than themselves, but this mostly applies to Jr's character.

So this movie isn't as good as the Hangover or some of Todd Phillips other work. The major reason I didn't like it was because many of it is just a repetition of his early work like Road Trip and the Hangover. Although the writing style is similar I do think they could have made this movie more original.

My Rating: 1/4 Shamrocks

In the Theatre with Kevin Murphy - Easy A - Screen Gems

Its pretty hard to lie about a movie ya hated and ya have every pulse in your brain wanting to tell the truth about a movie you really liked. Well a lie can spread really fast in our modern world even if its just a small simple one that you can't really support without concrete evidence. Well thats the film plot point of Easy A where when you walk out you get the feeling you and they got more than you bargained for.

Olive (Emma Stone) is a smart, funny and independent girl who is hardly noticed by her peers and whenever she is often ridiculed by them, but most harshly by the queen bee Marianne (Amanda Bynes). To make herself seem more respected she uses her greatest talent to make herself the most popular girl in school; lying. At a weekend party Olive reluctantly agrees to pretend to have sex with a gay guy (Dan Bryd) so homophobic bullies will stop tormenting him in exchange for payment. Olive soon turns into what I call a “plastic prostitute” as more boys pay her to pretend to have sex with her and Olive starts turning into the subject of the book she is reading for English class “The scarlet letter”, causing her to question herself.

This was a very good teen comedy and coming from someone who is in the middle of their college education you can tell Im not lying especially since I get a little drowsy watching teen comedies. It's a little hard for me to say what I liked about this movie but I could say that most of the acting in this movie ranges from average to good. Emma Stones role in the film is mostly static through it as her personality doesn't change that much, but her decisions and motives do start to change to about middle of the film when she begins to show reluctance for what she is doing. There is one scene in this movie where she completely opens up to the audience about her problems that i thought was just terrific and (you will all think Im insane) but for that scene along with her daily pod casts I think she deserves a nomination for best actress.

Another performance I liked was by Thomas Haden Church as Olives english teacher. What I really liked about him was that he reminded me a bit of my old politics teacher in high school and my Tv production teacher in college right now. What makes him good is that he's very convincing as that one teacher you had in school that looks like you hate him on the outside but on the inside you think he is the greatest teacher of all time since he is very straight forward with his performance and he doesn't drag the movie on or bore you to death. A performance I didn't like was by Amanda Bynes as Marianne because as good of an actress she is, I really haven't seen her go all the way outside of her box by having a more mature/adult role. I thought making her an antagonist was a good leap for her career but I think Hollywood is still treating her like a child and because she is so loveable and childish you don't want to see her take on a more serious role.

A few months ago I said in my review of Avatar that was like Pocahontas (1995), well in a very weird way Easy A is like Avatar. Both films do deal a great amount of their time to acceptance and being able to blend in as one of the cool blue kids. But like Avatar both films go on a downward spiral to their climaxes and enter either a state of rejection and hatred from the religious authority which in both cases are the political authorities of their cultural body. I also thought the video logs/blogs had some similarities since they both deal with one spilling out and discussing things they either wanna keep to themselves or just wanna blurt out to the world wide web.So you can see that apart from effects and budget both films deal a great amount of their time to acceptance and rejection.

As mentioned in the plot summary this film is partially based on the scarlet letter. In the Scarlet Letter a woman is found guilty of the crime of adultery at a time when the church had a great influence. As such she is forced to wear a large red A on her clothing to identify herself as such. In Easy A, the plot is modernized to deal with the additional themes of peer pressure but like the Scarlet Letter does deal with religious pressures. I think the major theme of both stories is Pressure and the ability to control it when you need to. When a person lies it runs fast and the pressure of it can easily change one's personality and as illustrated in the oscar worthy scene makes you different.

This is a good teen comedy and although I do think the acting could be a bit better I still found it interesting to see how the mind of a teenage girl can act out through internal and external actions.

My Rating: 2.5/4 Shamrocks