Some Dude's Movie Reviews

Latest Movie Review

2009-08-24T15:13:00.001-07:00

District 9(2009)

Short

A great movie that will surprise all who venture to watch it. It is a sci-fi drama that is filmed for a general audience. Movie goers of all breeds will be able to enjoy this film due to its innovative filming style and its very accessible story. Do not go in expecting two hours of alien action and deep science fiction concepts, this is a movie about a very serious human issue as told through the use of xenophobia. See it at your earliest convinience! Period.

Full

Sigh. You know studio execs are kicking themselves in the rear right now after denying Blomkamp the opportunity to direct the 'Halo' movie. Neill has achieved in his film debut what many directors will fail to achieve in a lifetime of filmmaking. He has made a movie that will blow the panties off of any movie goer. Action fan or no action fan, sci-fi fan or realism fan, drama fan or comedy fan. The only audience that may miss their mark with this movie are the romance fans; but there are enough waste of time movies for them to watch that they don’t matter. If you haven’t gotten the hint yet, "District 9" was fantastic.

The plot

"District 9" takes place in a contemporary South Africa that is much like our own South Africa, with one important difference – an alien mothership descended over Johannesburg 28 years ago and promptly broke down, stranding more than a million crustacean like aliens on Earth.
After being rerouted to earth, a group of ‘worker’ aliens settle in Africa. Being feared and misunderstood by humans, they are put into a ghetto, where the insect-like alien race is mistreated. Worse yet, behind the scenes, the race is being subjected to experiments by the human race to better understand the aliens and how to use their weapon technology. After 20 years of habitation, the aliens are ready to leave earth and go home. With the help of Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley)--an agent of the MNU, an organization that regualtes the alien situation--this might be possible. But will the aliens have enough time to blast off before the military catches wind of the plan?
Another version of the plot can be found in history, as it is roughly based on the apartheid situation in South Africa.
Apartheid Conflict

Reasons to see it

The animation! I don’t even need to mention the special effects of this film. People have already been talking up Blokamp since his name was put on the movie. Though he has really only done commercials before "District 9", his seamless integration of CGI with reality was already legend. So suffice it to say that the special effects are great in this film.

The filming style. A large portion of the film is shot as a mock-documentary. For those who are skeptical and are scared by the "Cloverfield" incident, please note that this style is nothing like that. It is well done and innovative. The reason this film fails to be a standard sci-fi thriller is because it feels so real. With the aforementioned animation, and the gritty feel of watching this on the history channel, it’s only my knowledge that this stuff does not exist that prevents me from believing it as real. The realism of it all sucks the audience in and makes us not only care about the alien conflict as if it was ‘Hotel Rawanda’ but make us angry at our own race for the mistreatment of a species we can’t really identify with. Well done, sir.

Which brings me to my next point. This movie obviously has the potential to be ‘preachy’, after all it is based on the apartheid situation. But let me assure you, Neill succeeds again. With his elegant direction style, you never really feel the preach. He doesn’t insult the audience by telling us that there is a message here. He simply conveys what seems to be a true story about a conflict, and allows the audience to pull out whatever messages they feel. And I assure you, you will pull some messages from this movie, which just adds to its substance and value.

The action. Wow. Though a large part of the movie is development of the conflict and characters, there is a decent portion of the movie that is dedicated to not-over-the-top action. Let me tell you now, you will be stunned. The visual effects, the innovative technology, and the sound will have you at the edge of your seat. Though the action isn’t on the level of the 'Matrix', it doesn’t have to be. With the realistic tone of the movie and the convincing illusions that it is real, a simple gun shot into the grass wil have you saying 'holy sh!t'. After all, if you saw a gun shot in real life, that’s what you would say. So amplify that simple gunshot into a 30 minute sequence of alien weapon fire, and I promise you will be stunned.

Speaking of the alien weapons. Can I get another 'wow'! Though any gamer who plays first person shooters will recognize some of the weapon concepts, actually seeing them on screen and in action in a realistic setting is phenomenal. Actually, as the weapons are the biggest surprise in the movie and one of the most enjoyable aspects, I will say nothing further about them. See the movie for yourself and be blown away.

A final note to make, is that with the first time director comes the first time actors of this film, all who give outstanding performances. My hat is off to the cast of newbies, especially Sharlto Copley, who plays both our protagonist and antagonist.

The Negatives

This movie has a lot of depth and the story could be told over the course of four hours (and if Jackson had his way, it might have been). But since the film is fit into a succinct two hour time slot, there are a few things that felt rushed. Some character development and some conflict development to be specific. Do they take away from the movie? Not even close. But if I can’t step back and nitpick at things, people will never respect my opinion as being unbiased.

Probably the worst aspect of the movie is the prospect of a 'District 9' sequel. Though the movie does not blatantly end with, ‘see you next year’, there is a big enough window left open such that any money hungry studio could pull something out of it. Would I love another 'District 9'? Yes. Have I lost complete faith in Hollywood’s ability to make sequels? Yes.

In summary…

A must see of the summer. I will even be so bold as to say that it is the first actually good blockbuster that we have had this summer (500 hundred days of summer does not count as a blockbuster).

Latest Cinema Commentary

2009-08-24T14:10:00.000-07:00

2009-08-24T14:01:00.000-07:00

Finally the 'Avatar' Trailer!

I have to admit, I'm a little underwhelmed. Not that the movie doesn't look off-the-chain, crazy-cool. Or that the animation isn't awe inspiring. But as you all have heard, this movie is supposed to be a cinema revolution that shakes our very foundations of reality. Sure 2 minutes isn't really enough time to warp reality, but the trailer didn't even hint at being a revolution. I'm still undeniably stoked! But I guess seeing the movie in 3-D at the Imax (which it was optimized for) might be the only way to fully appreciate its cinema changing aspects.

2009-08-23T10:10:00.000-07:00

The Last Airbender!

I hate M. Night Shyamalan! After the 'Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable", he has been allowed to make movies out of any dream that he has. He wakes up in the mourning, writes down his dream, and some studio funds it. As a result, we have been fooled into seeing ‘The Village’, ‘Signs’, and worst of all ‘Lady in the water’. But that being said, I am stoked for his new movie: ‘The Last Airbender’.

First off, this story isn't his own original, bullsh#t invention, it’s based on an anime that appears in the standard Saturday morning line up. Do I watch Saturday morning cartoons? Regretfully no. But I was in a dentist office recently and this cartoon was playing on the television while I was waiting to have my face wrecked. As I watched the cartoon, I realized something, it was pretty dang cool. I generally hate the new mix of cartoons in the world and am upset that my children will be brought into it; but this ‘Avatar: The last Airbender’ cartoon caught my eye. The episode I was watching was ‘Day of the Black Sun’ (season 3: episodes 10 and 11). I literally said to myself, ‘this could make a cool movie’. Literally! And then boom! Here it is. I went to see G.I. Joe this weekend, and one of the preceding trailers was what you see below. Do I think M. Night will do it justice? NO. But do I hope? Yes. See the teaser trailer below, and let me know what you think.

2009-08-09T12:30:00.000-07:00

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince(2009)

A Dude's Review

Short

After 6 years, our favorite trio of children wizards have grown up. I say this not only plot wise, but in terms of acting as well. One of the great aspects of the newest installment of the Harry Potter franchise is that the children have really come into their own as actors and are really selling their parts. This talent is necessary to make the semi-'love story' plot of the 'Half Blood Prince' compelling enough to watch for two hours. However, the acting isn't the only highlight of the movie; the special effects are great, the score is wonderful, and the new characters are a delight. But with little action and literally only half of the plot from the book, the story feels incomplete and may have trouble holding the attention of children. Definitely not the best installment in the 'Potter' series, but worth a look if you know what you're getting into.

Full

Though I hate the Harry Potter franchise, the last two installments have been very enjoyable for me, primaily due to the talent of director Yates. But unlike the last movie which really got my attention, this one fails for quite a few reasons. 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince' does so many things right that I have trouble holding what will likely be an unpopular opinion; it wasn’t that good. Since movies are always going to be worse than the books, there is no point in going down that road of criticism. For Harry Potter fans, the book is obviously better and this movie is nothing compared to it. However, when rating this movie relative to other movies and the previous members of the franchise, there are still a lot of things that are done poorly.

The plot

Harry Potter and his friends have returned to Hogwarts for what will be another year of adventure and near death experiences. With the Death Eaters on the loose, and Voldemort returning to power, security at the school is high. But not high enough. As Harry and Dumbledore search for secrets of Tom Riddles past, the school is infiltrated by an agent of the Dark Lord. Will the children wizard be able to save Hogwarts again, or will disaster finally strike?

Reasons to see it

The acting of Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint are simply great. The young adults have really grown as actors and are really convincing in thier roles. Every joke, tear, and facial expression can be interpreted by the audience without a word. That's something kid actors don't often get right (though I guess they really aren't kids anymore...)

Another character that cannot go without mention is Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton). Though he is the bad guy and does nothing to deserve your love, he truly shines in this film as a multi-dimensional character that you can feel for. Being transformed from his one dimensional villain character of the past, we see Malfoy express an array of emotions and actually have a large amount of screen time with his own plot arc. The exchanges with Harry are chilling, and his inner battle for acceptance is heart breaking. Overall, a gem in the new film.

Along these lines, the love stories told in this film are really enjoyable. After all, they have to be; the relationship forming between students is 3/4 of the story here (though this is not the case for the book). You truly are transported to your young, innocent days of early ‘snugging’ as these kids portray the adolescent drama of teenage love. And for those of us who are Ron Weasley fans, prepare to have a stupid smirk put on your face multiple times throughout the film.

Another major factor to mention with any 'Potter' film is the visual effects. Let me reassure you, they are superb. From small spells to ginormous magic, the visuals of the film are awe inspiring. Though magic in general has a tendency to remind audiences that they are watching a movie, the CGI does not contribute to this. I could almost believe what I was seeing was real. Along the lines of effects, the score of the film was fantastic as well. Though the music has been pretty solid from film to film, composer Nicholas Hooper really takes the familiar melodies and amps them up for this new installment, giving everything a fresh feel (though I do not want to take too much of this credit from Yates).

The Negatives

First and foremost, the film was…boring. Don’t get me wrong, if this was set up as a romantic comedy, the movie would likely harbor a different opinion from me. But the fact that it is not only 'Harry Potter', but 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince' made me expect a great deal more action. I tell you now, there was literally only one scene that I could call full fledged action (longer than 40 seconds). There are two shorter scenes that could be seen as action, but really only account for 2 minutes collectively in a 2 hour film. Every previous film has had its action sequences, especially the climactic ones. I really felt the lack of action by the end during the climax scene. Though the most important events occur by the fanale (book readers know what I refer to), there is no climactic battle. Was one necessary? Yes! Not only is there a giant wizard battle in the book, but the movie needed it to help explain the final events more clearly. I'm not a warmonger, if you watch the movie, you'll see what I mean.

Along these lines, the movie fails multiple times to make certain situations clear. You are often left asking, 'why don’t they do this', 'why did they do that', 'where did this character go', 'should I have read the book?' Don’t worry, you aren’t alone. Do you know why we have these questions? Because half of the story is missing. Namely…Voldemort. For a character who has so much verbal presence in this film and half of the chapters written about him in the book (in fact I think the “Half-Blood Prince” is often referred to as 'Voldemort's Book'), he does not make a single appearance in this movie. I know, bull! Well don’t believe me and see the movie for yourself.

But on an understanding note, we all have to accept that the movie would have been 12 hours long if everything was included from the book and may have been 3 hours long if they added the necessary action sequences; however, there are still things that the movie fails to do that any responsible movie must. This is beyond the book and beyond what I would like to see, this is about proper story telling. There are many aspects of the story (almost everything outside of the love) that the film fails to make me concerned about. This wouldn’t be so bad if the details weren’t crucial to the plot.
One, the Half-Blood Prince. The name is in the title and is mentioned a hand full of times in the film, but never once does the audience realize that it is relevant. The fact that the novel exists is no excuse for a director as talented as Yates to take for granted that the audience understands. We don’t, you have to tell us if something is important and if we should give two ‘bleeps’. Again, since the story is mainly about the love, I guess this is’nt too detracting, but it is a pretty critical part of what makes 'The Half-Blood Prince about the Half-Blood Prince.
Two, death. When death occurs in a movie, the audience should care. If Harry dies, children should be racking with tears in their seats (P.S. Harry doesn’t die). But this movie fails to make us care about the demise of pretty important characters. That is bad story telling.

In summary…

...Though the movie excels at telling the story that it wants to tell, the love story, it fails at telling the story that the audience needs to hear, the rise of the Dark Lord. Despite great acting, great visuals, and great characters, it lacks for better action, more drama, and a proper ending. Regardless of what I’ve said, you will see 'Harry Potter' if you want to see it. But if you are on the fence, go see it with my criticisms in mind, and you will likely enjoy it. I personally think this is a movie best watched with expectations defined.

2009-08-04T22:16:00.000-07:00

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince(2009)

Spoiler Grumbles
WARNING: Please do not continue reading unless you have either seen the movie or do not mind having it spoiled.

No Wizard fight! Really? I know 'Harry' isn’t about the action, but every 'Potter' movie has at least one climactic scene. This movie did not. Dumbledore’s death isn’t even climactic, and that’s the passing of a bawler. I expected him to go down in a blaze of glory destroying half of England in the process. Instead, he just gets blasted out the window after begging like a pansy. Worse yet, it turns out that there is in fact a sweet battle surrounding his death in the book. I knew those Death Eaters weren’t being built up for no reason, they actually throw down in the end. Why was that left out? Wait, wait, I actually already have the answer from the director himself. The scene was left out because there is more fighting in the next movie and he didn’t want to bore the audience with two similar movies in a row. Well, thank you for your consideration Yates, but do I need to remind you that we all paid very handsomely to see the same exact movie three times in a row; it was called ‘Lord of the Rings’. We love that stuff. Nobody is going to be upset if there is a 10 minute wizard fight in one movie and then a 10 minute fight in the next one.

And where do the Death Eaters go in the end. They just kill Dumbledore and roll out? Doubtful. I’m sure in the book they are chased off by the other wizards (I haven't actually read the books). Another plot hole that the wizard fight could have clarified.

Along the lines of dropping important/cool portions of the book; where was Voldemort. This book is often referred to as 'Voldemort’s book', because half of the chapters are about him. Well he didn’t even make half a minute of this movie. Aside from his name being dropped a handful of times, he was nowhere to be found. What’s up with that. I want to see Voldemort bust some stuff up. In the book he goes around off-ing Muggles for fun and recruiting rogue wizards/witches to his army. That’s the kind of stuff I want to see. Speaking of which, why does Harry even bother having a personal life. With the Dark Lord out amassing an army to kill him, why doesn’t Harry spend his entire time trying to find and destroy Voldemort? Whatever happened to Dumbledore’s army (whatever good they did Dumbledore)? Harry and his wizard peeps should be out equalizing justice. Oh but Dude, they’re just kids, they can’t fight Voldemort. Really, did you see the last 5 movies?

So, try this one on for thought. Why is it that the world of wizards is so forgetful? I know they’re all old, but I sort of got the vibe that wizards were immune to Alzheimer’s. Even my grandpa remembers that there was a ‘time turner’ in the 3rd 'Harry Potter'. Where is it now? How useful would it be to turn back time and save some lives. Really useful, that’s the answer.

Along these lines, why is it that nobody remembered the Horcrux until now. If I was even a half educated Wizard and I knew that Voldemort was still alive somehow, that’s the first thing I would have thought of. You’re going to tell me that this little trick of immortality never crossed the minds of the faculty at Hogwarts?
Okay let’s give Dumbledore the benefit of the doubt and say that the time turner is broken and that the Horcrux is rare knowledge. Guess what, he still sucks-@$$. Dumbledore can whirl up a flaming tornado, teleport across hundreds of miles, and be head wizard, but he can’t cross a puddle of water. Do you remember this? In the cave of Voldemort’s Horcrux, Dumbledore looks forlorn as he realizes that between them and their destination is a mini-lake about 20 feet across. Are you telling me that Dumbledore had no magic up his sleeve to cross this short distance? I guess not. Another ridiculous point in the cave was Voldemort’s Horcrux. Being the most powerful evil wizard in the world and having the power to create multiple Horcrux, the best he could do to protect his soul was by putting it in a bowl of dirty water? Ha Ha, the unpleasant taste will stop them from destroying me. Come on Voldemort, really? Weak.

You know what one of my big questions is: Why is Hogwarts still attended? Think about it. Would you send your kid to a school where students died every year, faculty were frequently caught in conspiracy, the campus was surrounded by dangerous creatures (trolls, spiders, centaurs, etc.) and open student violence was tolerated (Harry nearly kills Malfoy, spells are practiced on each other as a joke). This is the worst school ever. But before I waste time ranting, allow me to direct you to another post that enumerates the reasons better than I can.

Link to '7 reasons why hogwarts is the worst school'

2009-08-04T20:22:00.000-07:00

'Pirates of the Caribbean 4'...Booooo!

When I think Hollywood just wants to make everything into a trilogy, I find out that 4 is the new 3. Bringing about the same worries as 'Spiderman 4' , so too does 'Pirates of the Caribbean 4'.

Disney refuses to let a lucrative franchise end on a good note, and decides to make a forth. Actually, my mistake; 'Pirates 3' was terrible. In that case, I guess '4' can do no harm aside from annoy us. Scratch that, it is rumored that 'Pirates 4' is actually going to be the start of a new trilogy. Sigh, time to retire to the bomb shelter.
Whatever the case, Disney has pinned their director, surprising as it might be, as Rob Marshall. Who's that? Rob Marshall directed such little films as, oh, 'Chicago' and 'Memoirs of a Geisha' (ring any bells?). There's no denying that this director has talent, but I don't think even Peter Jackson could rescue the wreck that Gore Verbinski and company left the franchise in. Granted the final two movies grossed more than me or my family will ever be worth, we can all admit that they sort of sucked. But I guess Leterrier rescued the 'Hulk', which some thought impossible. So I guess we'll just have to see what else happens with this movie before we can make our judgements (ex. casting).
All I can say is that there is no 'Priates' without Jack Sparrow aka Johnny Depp in one of his most amazing roles. So until he is signed on, I don't know if I should run around spreading the prophecy of doom just yet.

What do you think, can an Oscar nominated director rebuild the franchise?

2009-08-04T00:04:00.000-07:00

Spartacus = '300' visuals + HBO's 'Rome' plot style + 'Gladiator' storyline

Finally a 'Rome' replacement. Despite your hopes, 'Sparacus: Blood and Sand' is not a movie title, it is the title of Starz's new series. Much like the deceased HBO series by the name of 'Rome', 'Spartacus will take us through a likely fictional history of the Roman empire.

I don't know much else about it, but watching the trailer should help you fill in most of the details by yourself. See trailer here
It seems that the show will essentially steal the premise of 'Gladiator', throw the '300' visual style on it, and run it for as many seasons as fans support it. I personally am all for this series. I was a big fan of 'Rome' and was disappointed when it was cancelled. But unlike Rome, this series will likely give us more of the good stuff, action. Hopefully the characters are as lovable as my boy Titus Pullo (Ray Stevenson).

2009-08-01T17:43:00.002-07:00

Action sequences that blew me away and left me searching for my pants
After watching 'Transformers 2' and anticipating 'GI Joe', I got to thinking about all of the great action sequences I’ve seen in past movies. To be honest, for as many action movies as there have been, there haven’t been that many action sequences that really made me say, “wow, that’s some crazy sh**.” I realized this fact when I watched 'Transformers 2'; though the movie was pretty much non-stop action, there was only one scene in which I was on the edge of my seat frothing at the mouth. And so I got to thinking, what makes an action scene more awesome than another. In trying to figure out the answer I scanned through some of my favorite sequences from the movies I could recall. Though I haven’t quite come up with an answer, I have come up with a list of my top 10 favorite action sequences. Please read on and let me know what you think. Feel free to make me aware of deserving candidates that were not on this list (remember top 10, not top 25). The list isn’t in any order, because ranking these would have been pulling hairs for me.

Forest fight in ‘Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen’

Though the movie has gotten a lot of flack since it has been released, there is no one that can deny that the forest fight with Optimus prime against 3 decepticons was off the chain (not even the blind, as the sound effects were pretty crazy too). This was the single greatest sequence in the ‘Transformers 2’ movie. If the theater played this scene on loop, I wouldn’t even know what to do with myself. I’d be unable to leave my seat and would probably have a stroke. This scene works for sooo many reasons. One, good guy outnumbered by his opponents; the underdog. Two, swords! Everyone knows that a fight is ten times cooler if there is a sword involved. Think about how much better ‘Push’ would have been if somebody had a sword (‘Harry Potter’ too for that matter). Three, a bawler line followed by bloodshed, a.k.a. “I’ll take you all on" soon followed by gratuitous, animated, robot, violence. This scene had it all.

Train fight in 'Spider man 2'

Again, there are a lot of Spiderman haters out there, but let me just make you aware that ‘Spiderman 2’ is the best marvel superhero movie behind 'Iron Man'. So haters, get yourselves into perspective. As being one of the best superhero movies, ‘Spiderman 2’ also has one of the greatest fight sequences I have ever seen. The fight was fast and clever and didn’t relish itself with slow motion capture. The fight went down as I would imagine it to have in real life with both characters pulling out all the stops to topple the other. One sequence in particular that was sweet was when spidy webbed ock’s tentacles and ock says “Fu** this” and uses the move against spidy to throw him through an over head bridge. But wait, the great counter is that spidy has an agile move of his own and slips right through the grates of the bridge, pops out the other side and takes the villain over the edge of the train. Awesome! This action sequence is also accentuated by the high speed of the train upon which they fight. This allowed for the cool ducking under bridges and webbing the train to reboard when kicked off.

‘The Matix’ lobby shoot out

If I need to enumerate on the reasons why this scene is awesome, you reader are simply a lost cause. This scene was in fact the coolest action scene in any movie anywhere prior to 1998. The innovative use of slow motion, the physics defying protagonists, and the endless army of poorly aimed automatic weapons. Neo is the only character that Keanu Reeves’ monotonic, expressionless, cardboard character has done incredible justice for since ‘Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure’.

The final Darth Maul fight in ‘Star wars episode I’

Though I have my love for Vader and I’ve come to appreciate Palpatine and Dukoo as well, I still vote Darth Maul the coolest sith in the series. He has all of 15 minutes of on screen time in the entire franchise, and the impression he made was so strong that many people have put him as a favorite character (as judged by his presence in many of the video games, T-shirts, top action figure sales, etc). Why was he so popular? Was it the neat black and red tattoos, the horns of the Zabrak, the double sided lightsaber? Yeah it was all of those things too, but most importantly it was because he was played by Ray Park. Is Park a famous actor? No, but he is a great martial arts practitioner. As a result, we got to see the best saber wielding the franchise has to offer. With the flipping and the fast blade attacks, Maul’s double-team fight is a thing of legend. Even more intense than the 2 vs 1 fight, is the segment of the fight that I call “Obi’s Rage” in which Obi Wan Kenobi goes ape sh** on Maul after he kills Qui Gon. The sword wielding is blazing fast and super athletic. It was a joy to watch then and still brings me amusement on Youtube now. As an end note, Maul also has one of the best sith entrances to a fight: the doors slowly slide open, he pulls back his cloak hood, and lights one, then two sides of his saber. Bawler!

The dino fight of “King Kong”

Though 'King Kong' was not as well received by the general public as it was by me, I disagree with most in saying that Peter Jackson dropped the ball after the LOTR trilogy. ‘King Kong’ has all of the same Jackson motifs that we have come accustom to in his previous movies; the dark tribes, the overly long moments of facial emotion, the great story telling, the fantastic CGI, and most importantly his love of long, intense action. This is exemplified in his ten minute action sequence in which King Kong fights not one, not two, but three tyrannosaurus rexes. This scene, simply put, owns your face. My level of excitement was already pretty high with my enjoyment of Jackson’s direction and Naomi Watts’ shrill scream as a beckon; so when Kong dropped in and knocked one rex out of the way with his foot and tackled the second, I slid closer to the edge of my seat. When he dropped Watts from his hand and caught her with his foot, I slid a little closer. When a third T-rex joined the fight, I was almost to the edge. When they fell off the cliff and fought for 2 minutes in the vines and Watts was perilously close to death, I nearly fell out of my seat. It was only after Kong had his encore fight with the final t-rex and wreaked its face for life, that I fell out of my seat, stood up, went to the ticket booth to pay an additional 10 dollars (as I thought the movie was worth $20). Uh, good times.

Bourne vs. Desh

I’m sorry to the fans of the Bourne trilogy, but 'Bourne Ultimatum' was actually the only Bourne movie that I enjoyed. Why didn't I like its predecessors? I have my reasons, and would gladly elaborate on them for those who care. But fans and non-fans alike, there is definitely one thing that we can agree on, the close quarters fight scene with Desh and Bourne was the epitome of ruthless. The gritty, true feel of the fight was what shocked me. For the first time in a long time, I felt as if this was actually the way a fight would play out between two highly trained agents. There were no wires, no overly fancy combat techniques; it was as if the two men were just doing whatever they could to survive. Grab a candle stick, grab a book, punch book into face, throw into wall, use whatever you can to kill your opponent before he kills you. And in the end, there is no grand shoot out or elaborate kick out the window; Desh is undone by a towel that Bourne uses to strangle him to death in a bath tub. Superbly gritty.

The hose fight of ‘Transporter 2’

Sure this was done in ‘Romeo must die’ well before 'Transporter 1' was even a thought, but sometimes it takes one movie to introduce a concept and another movie to improve upon it. This is the case with the hose fight in 'Transporter 2'. Looking back on it now the fight is a little out dated, but it was sweet when I first saw it. The quick whipping of the hose, the brutal punches to the throat, and the climax of turning the hose on and demolishing whatever will was left in the opponents. Brilliant! But lets be honest with ourselves, when has Statham ever let us down...

First encounter of the Spartans with the Persians in '300'

No action category can be brought up without the mention of ‘300’. Yes yes, the acting was bad and the story was simple, screw you. The story isn’t why anyone thought it was so great, this movie was 100% about the action. With stylistic direction and over the top testosterone, the first fight in ‘300’ goes down as one of my all time favorite experiences in a movie theater. I was literally giggling like a little school girl as Leonidas was captured in slow motion castrating a massive army of his enemy. Of course the slow motion shield-butt was the climax of the fight, but I enjoyed the scene from moment one. The Spartans form a wall of resistance to the Persians, a messenger rides to the front of the enemy hoard and says, “lay down your weapons” (I’m giggling already), a spear flies through the air and drills the Persian square in the chest, and Leonidas responds, “come get them”. Oh man, that is what I’m talking about. The army then rushes on in what should be an easy victory, but a few minutes later we get the great cinematic scene of the 300 unharmed, walking over a mountain of dead enemies as they push the ranks back. What I wouldn’t give to be a Spartan.

‘Terminator 2’ the fight in the steel mill

I know I’m bringing in this old timer from out of left field, but you can’t deny that some recognition is deserved here. Aside from being a breakthrough in computer animation, the liquid terminator was a pretty cool villain. Though the most referenced scene in the movie is the T-1000 chasing the police car and attacking it with his arm-hooks, my favorite scene in the movie was the fight in the steel mill after the T-1000 is frozen, shattered, melted, and reformed. This is the best robot fight, pre ‘I Robot’ that I had ever seen. They slam each other into walls, stab each other and in the case of the T-1000 completely overwhelm thier opponent. The cool reforming of body parts to be other body parts and the particularly awesome complete inverse of front to back was great. The sad part is that everyone including Arnold knew that he didn't have a shot at winning the fight. It’s sort of sad really. But awesome none-the-less.

The opening club fight of “Blade”

Though the Blade franchises has few redeeming qualities, the ones that exist are actually quite cool. One of these being the opening club fight in the first ‘Blade’. Not only a great way to introduce the character, the villains, and the special effects, but a great way to remind us that Wesley is alive despite being MIA since 'Demolition man' (please, let's ignore 'Too Wong Foo'). Though some of the action dynamics are outdated (bad guys waiting to be beaten up one by one), the fighting is not. These cool martial arts moves still hold the test of time and manage to bring a smile to my face even now. The shaky camera work is another cool feature that I always thought made action sequences slightly more exciting (though Bay and Neveldine take it to a seizure inducing level). And need I remind everyone about the sword! One of the best parts of this scene is when Blade unsheathes his sword, draws a line on the ground and demolishes the first person to cross it. Surprisingly, none of the other fight scenes amongst the three Blade movies manages to reach the level of this first fight. Too bad…

Well, that’s my top ten list. Obviously there are some pretty key members of the genera that are missing here, but why don’t you let me know your top ten below.

2009-08-01T17:43:00.001-07:00

Ice Age 3: Dawn of the Dinosaurs(2009)

Short

Great movie! Minus one or two inappropriate jokes, this is the most fun kid’s movie of the summer. It’s a roller-coaster of excitement that bests its predecessors by far. Not being a fan of the previous two installments, this movie was a delightful surprise. Good family fun recommended for those who enjoy animated movies.

Full

Simply put, I had a lot of fun watching this movie. The roller-coaster feel of the action sequences and the fun humor make this movie well worth the watch. And as Pixar has demonstrated before, animation is made even better with babies. Baby animals are cute whether they are animated or not. Though there is nothing historically acurate or geographically correct, about this cartoon, you’d have to be a pretty crotchety to hate it.

The plot

Sid and gang are back in another prehistoric adventure. With Manny and Ellie starting a family, and Diego returing to he wild, Sid has no one to hang out with. That is until he accidentally finds three dino eggs. Though the eggs are his best friends for a time, it's when the eggs hatch that the real fun begins. Having no place in the Ice Age, it is only a matter of time before momma dina seeks out her children. When Sid and the dino babies are kidnapped by mama dino, the rest of the crew must come together to serach for their friend in the land of the lost.

Reasons to see it

It’s adorable.
Ellie and Manny have a baby, Sid with the dino eggs, and the Scrat the saber toothed Squirrel gets a girlfriend, Scratte. All of these story fragments are cute and funny. And unlike its predecessors, everone is happy in this installment. No mammonth longing for his lost family, no conniving saber tooth, no world changing flood, etc. There is no excessive drama at all and none of the characters are ever helplessly in harms way. If there are ever moments of intensity, the situation is always made light by humor.

More Scrat!
I don’t know about you, but my favorite parts of the 'Ice Age' movies have always been the saber-toothed squirrel and his battle with acorn. Those who are with me will be delighted to know, that this movie literally features about 15 minutes of on screen time of the epic chase, and each showing is a smile inducing adventure. Things are made even more interesting now that he has competition. Scratte is smarter, faster, and more advanced than her male counterpart. Let the race begin. Does he finally get the acorn…you’ll have to watch the movie to find out.

It's fun!
While 'Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince' was as boring as dirt (especially for those with a short attention span), 'Ice Age 3' is non-stop fun and visual stimulation. Afterall, kid's movies don’t generally have enough story to fill 2 hours, so much of the movie is just tomfoolery.

The Negatives

One or two child inappropriate jokes are the only blemishes on this kid’s movie. But I think this is something familes will have to get used to as it seems no kids movie is complete without some 'adult' humor. I think we can blame 'Shrek' for that.

In summary…

...I recommend this movie even to those who did not enjoy the previous films. This movie to me is 'Ice Age' done right.

2009-07-20T12:30:00.000-07:00

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen(2009)

Cinematic Review

A Dude's Review

Short
Wow, what a spectacle. As far as visual effects and robot action sequences go, This is the best movie ever made (that’s right, put aside that copy of the first “Transformers”). The movie is literally 2 hours of robots fighting on screen with about 30 minutes of dialogue. And it really isn’t until the very end in which the action becomes mundane, so my hat is off to the director in that respect. Unfortunately, this movie suffers from some very bad decisions. The most important being that the flim has a 'potty mouth'. Parents beware, movies are allowed to say the F-word once and still be PG-13. This movie takes advantage of the language leniency and makes curse words the punch line for many of its jokes. Aside from other less gross mistakes, the film suffers from poor dialogue, some bad acting and a stringy plot. Overall I enjoyed the film as a guilty pleasure and recommend it to all who know what to expect, but there is no doubt that the first movie was more well rounded and in my opinion better.

Full

This movie opens with a fantastic action sequence to suck you in, and ends with an awesome action sequence to leave you satisfied. But we all know that Michael Bay can play a symphony with special effects and slow motion, so there is no need to go on about this aspect of the film any further. Just know that it is amazing. What is worth mentioning is that the integration of comedy into the first "Transformers" was really enjoyable. The style of humor and the charm really added a level of entertainment to the film. However, despite trying to stay in the tone of the first movie, the second one often becomes silly. With moments of awkward jokes and in one instance a really odd story twist, the word ‘stupid’ sometimes comes to mind. But I can honestly say, no matter how many errors this movie makes, the action really makes up for it. I almost can’t get over how impressive it was, albeit very over-the-top.

The plot
Megatron is resurrected and the decepticons mount another attack on earth, and the autobots who protect it. The focus of this attack is to obtain an ancient relic of great power that will not only bring the decepticons supremecy, but will consume Earth in the process. With the U.S. Military and autobots allied, the war to protect Earth is massive and long.

Reasons to see it
The action sequences are just amazing. The computer animation is stunning and is put to great use in the second installment of what will likely be a long lasting franchise (doomed to overstay its welcome). The imagination behind the film is exemplified in the design of the 42 robots that we get to see on screen and in the unique way that each of them behaves in combat. Unlike "Wolverine" where two hours of fighting became boring and silly, this movie manages to keep the entertainment flowing as only Bay knows how. The choice to team up the autobots with the U.S. Military was a great one, it adds a whole new level to the type of action sequences we have. One thing that really impressed me about the fighting is that I never thought there could be gratuitous, animated, robot violence. Then I saw "Transformers 2". With slow motion, the crushing of heads and dismembering of machines can almost be sickening. But really cool none-the-less.

Optimus Prime. What a bad-@#* robot! For those who wanted to see Optimus tear stuff up, it is delivered in full and on steroids.

Though I personally do not have any attraction to her, Megan Fox is definitely a highlight for men. The film has no shame in giving her as many 'money shots' as it can justify. Slow motion running, awkward camera angles, and clothing that was picked up from the children’s section. For those who are hoping to see Fox exploited, your wish is Hollywood’s command. However, do not be fooled that she contributes anything to the film plot wise. The minute she opens her mouth, you are reminded of what a painfully bad actress she is. (I wonder how long Megan’s sex appeal will get her through the industry…probably forever with surgery these days).

The Negatives
Though the second film is rich with comedy, the charm of the humor that was enjoyed in the first film is completely removed from "Revenge of the Fallen". Julie White who plays Judy Witwicky, the mother of Sam (Shia LaBeouf) is the only saving grace here. She truly is adorable and had me smiling whenever she was on screen. But aside from her, the movie uses curse words and sex jokes as its major punch lines. Though I laughed, I feel that this humor has no place or at least should be minimized in a movie where the true target audience is children. I know the real Transformers fans will be people of the older age range, but we can all agree that a movie about giant robots maximizes profits by targeting a younger age group.

Some of the robot characters were either underdeveloped or just pointless. Don’t get me wrong, I want to see as many robots on screen as can be done, but sometimes I want quality over quantity. There are two robots in particular that stand out as terrible choices for eating up lots of screen time, Mudflap and Skids. These two robots are the “token black guy” of the film and are responsible for not only the most absurd statements in the film, but the most absurd visuals as well (seeing as one of them has a gold tooth). Though sterotypes are not always bad and I didn’t have a major problem with these two jokesters, they make me wonder what kind of stuff was left on the cutting floor of this production.

It is no secret that a third movie is already in the works for the franchise, so I feel no harm will come from me telling you that the ending was weak, very weak. Though it wasn’t as bad as the ever annoying “to be continued” (this movie does indeed 'end'), the flim blantantly tells you that another one is on the way. Thus, the audience doesn't get the closure that a movie ending should bring. It’s not that I don’t welcome a sequel, I just don’t like the vibe that the movie was just a long tv show. I could almost hear a random narrator saying, “tune in next week kids as the autobots stop the decepticon's new plan for taking over the world.”

In summary…
...the movie tops all other movies to date in the scope of its action sequences, and for that it is a must see. But do not make the mistake of expecting an Oscar Nominee (maybe except for 'special effects' and 'sound editing').

2009-07-20T12:01:00.000-07:00

Finally, news about "The Game of Thrones" HBO adaptation!

Hollywood Reporter has given us something I have been wanting for quite sometime: News about "The Game of Thrones". The HBO series based on the George R.R. Martin books The Song of Ice and Fire is set to start filming in Ireland in October of this year.

Sean Bean (Borimir of "Lord of the rings") is to play the beloved Eddard Stark of Winterfell. Personally I think aside from the blonde hair (which strikes me as being more lannister), Bean is perfect. He has the chizzled features and the facial hair I imagined. I think some black hair dye will give him the dark hue of the Starks.
Mark Addy is set to play King Robert Baratheon. The only two places I know this guy from are Roland from a "Knight’s tale" and Fred in the atrocious second Flinstones movie ("Viva rock vegas"). I think this guy is actually a really good fit, as long as he can play the serious part better than he does comedy.
Kit Harrington has been cast as Jon Snow. I don’t know anything about this Harrington fellow, but Jon is my character, so I pray that this no-name can represent. I have faith.
Harry Lloyd will play the power hungry, powerless, Viserys.
Jack Gleeson will play Joffery Baratheon, the son of King Robert and hier to the Throne of Swords.
The best news yet, Peter Dinklage is set to play the one and only Tyrion Lannister. Tyrion is my favorite character in the series, and Dinklage is my favorite dwarf. This must be destiny.

One aspect I am slightly pensive about is director Tomas McCarthy. Clearly Tom has talent, watch just a few minutes of "The Station Agent", or "The Visitor", and you can see it. However, neither of these movies is either epic or of the medieval tone. Don’t worry, I am keeping the faith because after all, who thought Jackson was going to do what he did.

I guess the worst news is that neither screenplay writer has anything of consequence under their belt; David Benioff ("Troy", "Stay", "X-men Origins”) D.B. Weiss ("The Game"). But keep the faith!

For those who aren't in the loop, The Song of Ice and Fire is a story that revolves around many great battles between seven great families (with that number growing) for control of the Iron Throne. Not only does the Iron Throne bestow power over the seven kingdoms, but it ensures survival through the looming 40-year winter to come.

For those who are in the loop, what do you think of the casting choices?

2009-07-20T12:00:00.000-07:00

Production has begun on "The Hobbit"

Finally, "The Hobbit" has begun production as hobbit holes are being built in Matamata, New Zealand. The film is scheduled to start shooting asap. There will be two films scheduled to be shot simultaneously: "The Hobbit" and it’s sequel(?). Since there is no sequel to The Hobbit (excluding LOTR), I think they are just breaking "The Hobbit" up into two movies for both better story telling and better profit. Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh of the "The Lord of the Rings" will be set as executive producers, but it is (da da da daaa) Guilermo del Toro that will be directing ("Pan's Labrinth" and "Hell Boy II"). They could not have picked a better director to take up the reigns! Only a director with a sense of epic action and a touch of horror could make The Hobbit films in the same tone as the LOTR movies; Toro can do just that. The movies are set to release in the upcoming two Decembers (2010 and 2011). For more information, read the official blog site The Hobbit Blog

2009-07-14T00:35:00.000-07:00

First Look at Johansson as Black Widow in Iron Man 2
Here is our first look at Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow in May 2010’s Iron Man 2. To be honest, I hate Scarlett (almost as much as I hate Colin Farrell…almost), but I have to admit the black leather may allow me to put aside my gripes for 2 hours. Below is a picture of Mickey Rourke in his role as Iron Man villain Whiplash. Seeing as the suit looks a little too dated to be competitive with Stark’s ‘titanium alloy’ suit, I assume what we see Rourke wearing is more like a prototype/early design. My guess is that we’ll see a suit worthy of taking on two adversaries by the end (Iron man and War machine).
Though the plot of the movie is under wraps by director Jon Favreau, this is what we do know.

Tony Stark has fallen into a battle with alcoholism, which affects not only Stark industries but his career as a ‘super hero’. Taking advantage of this is Russian villain Ivan Vanko, who dons a suit equipped with two steel whips and an array of gadgets as his alter ego Whiplash. War machine will aid Iron Man in the fight, but it is the aid of Russian spy Natalia Romanova/Black Widow that is necessary for the victory (Why? Who knows.) Eventually good guys win, bad guys lose.

That’s all that is known officially about the script. However, I have some pretty probable speculations.

Justin Hammer is another villain who makes an appearance in the second movie. Justin is owner of Hammer industries, a competitor of Stark Industries. As Whiplash is associated with Hammer industries in the comics, my guess is that in response to Tony Stark’s revelation that he was Iron Man, Justin will launch Whiplash as a marketing strategy. If whiplash can defeat Iron Man, then it would show that his company had superior engineering strategies and would bring in clientele (probably putting Stark out of business). However, the competition will be steep as War machine is a guarantee for this second film. This leads me to believe that more likely than not, we are in for a multi-villain treat. I don’t think compelling action sequences can be made around one man taking on both Stark Suits. Since there is a hoard of villains associated with Hammer Industries in the comics, it is likely that we will see another 'bad guy'.

How does black widow fit into this? My guess is that Hammer industries will be based in Russia and that the company is doing some bad stuff under the table. Black widow will be sent by the Russian government to help Tony break the case wide open and bring the company down.

Now my real concern, where does SHIELD fit into this? The plot already sounds pretty dense, the last thing I want is the mistake of bloating the sequel with quantity over quality. My hope is that the film opens with some really cool SHIELD action sequence with some random villain cameo and then SHIELD leaves the movie. That would be enough to remind us that Iron Man is involved with SHIELD (for the "Avengers" movie), but not too much that SHIELD takes over the second movie, which should be about Iron Man. Perhaps SHIELD even suspends stark for his alcohol problem early on and then re-admits him at the end when he has defeated Whiplash.
I guess we’ll see. What do you guys think?

2009-07-14T00:30:00.000-07:00

A Look at “Avatar”!
I don’t know how many of you are looking forward to James Cameron’s Avatar this December, but I’m going to assume it’s everyone. Never before have I heard a movie called a 'master piece' well before it was even in post production. Though hype is often mis-leading, I’m the fool who falls for it every time.
The guys with ‘The Insider’ have recently been privileged enough to get a screening of actual footage from the first hour of the movie, and my hype is hitting critical mass.

“I've just returned from a preview screening of James Cameron's hugely anticipated movie "Avatar" at the Cinema Expo in Amsterdam and I'm still feeling the after effects of this jaw-dropping experience…
In the first scene we see Sam Worthington's crippled ex-marine Jake Sully, who just arrived on the planet 'Pandora.'…Sigourney Weaver's Dr. Grace Augustine explains to Jake how the process of transporting your mind into an Avatar works. Although the scene is mostly exposition, we've got a good look at the lab and more importantly we get a first glimpse of the Avatars, the Na'Vi lookalikes. These tall blue creatures lie in water tanks, waiting for their human to 'jump' in their bodies…
It's the third scene where my heart begins to pound like crazy. Jake and Norm will inhabit their Avatar for the first time. They enter some sort of capsule and - flash – their mind enters the blue creatures, now lying on hospital tables. And not before long Avatar Jake wakes up. And it took my breath away. I thought--just like you guys--that I've seen it all with Gollum, or The Hulk, but Cameron has done it again. These creatures seem so real, that within minutes you forget you're watching an enormous and very blue CGI character. Even the eyes are totally convincing. The characters have real personalities and a soul.
In the next couple of scenes…my mind begins to work overtime. How the hell is it possible that I never once felt like I've been watching a movie where almost everything comes out of a computer?
…The last scene wasn't completed. What we saw, was sort of a video-game version of the mother of all battles. Countless numbers of Na'Vi riding their Banshees [dragon-like creatures] attack [an invading human] fleet. I can't wait to see the battle fully rendered.
Overall I was really impressed by what I saw. The effects are in a league of their own. After some disappointing or even pointless 3-D movies, "Avatar" may be the first movie where 3-D is properly utilized.”

For full article see: Avatar

Yep, that just happened. I don’t think I’ve been this excited about a science fiction/fantasy movie since “LOTR: The Two Towers” (I admit, “Revenge of the Sith” did not excite me until I actually saw it). Below are some pictures (concept art) to help put visuals to your excitement.

What do you guys think, will Cameron return to cinema—after a 12 year absence—as a legend?

2009-07-13T18:39:00.001-07:00

The Spiderwick Chronicles(2008)

A Dude's Review

Short

Wow, another kid's movie surprise. Though this movie is targeted for children, I was amazed at how enjoyable it was for anyone who enjoys fantasy. With relatively credible child actors and a fun story fueled with delightful special effects, the movie is very entertaining. Unlike 'The Chronicles of Narnia' which has subtle controversial messages and a whole lot of boring, 'Spiderwick Chronciles' delivers the fun. From sybling banter to goblin chases, the story holds its own as a children's 'Lord of the Rings'. If you need a movie for your children to watch that is wholesome escapism and won’t destroy their imaginations, this comes strongly recommended.

Full

Though I would like to say that I watch movies unbiased, in all honesty, I definitely go into children’s movies with nothing but skepticism. This makes it harder for them to climb the mountain of my criticism and get a rating worthy of being watched. Though harsh, this system is sure to be more honest and less forgiving. Afterall, just because a movie is for kids doesn’t mean it has the right to suck and still be praised. Furthermore, this system assures you that the rating you see for 'Spiderwick Chronicles' is not given lightly. 'Spiderwick Chronicles' manages to climb my mountain of doubt and then build a little fort at the top.

The plot

A mother moves herself and her three children to the boonies after a divorce with her husband. Having come from a city (New York) the kids resent their new situation, but the also understand that it isn’t entirely mother’s fault. However, their views of the situation change when Jared (Freddie Highmore) uncovers a secret book that details a miraculous world coinciding with ours. Unfortunatly, along with the mansion in which the children live, a secret was also inherited. Now the three children must protect themselves from and convince their mother that the most dangerous creature of the fantasy world exists, the troll Malgrath.

Reasons to see it

The imagination of the wole story is quite wonderful. Though I have likened the story to the 'Lord of the Rings', it is no where near as in depth; but the visuals and adventures are along the same vein (except toned down for children). It is also one of those stories that makes fun explinations for mischiefs that children are blamed for, like missing toys and bed wetting.

The visuals are great and add a fun dimension to a kid's film. Again the imagination is great, and the special effects really exemplify the world. If nothing else, this movie will have kids using their imaginations again instead of watching the terrible Saturday morning line up that constitutes cartoons these days.

The Negatives

It’s a kid's movie. And as such it has the faults of every kid's movie: some bad acting, some silly plot twists, and a contrived happy ending (not the entire ending, just a portion of it). I think the worst part about kid's movies is that the senior actors are usually put into silly situations that call for them to act really stupid. These situations just make you feel awkward for them.

But let’s put those expected downfalls aside. The only real problem I find with the movie is that not enough of the imaginative world is shown. They do show an extensive amount (much more than 'The Bridge to Terabithia') but by a quick look at the Field Guide, we can see that there is so much more that could have been shown. Especially since the visuals were great in this movie. I’m positive that more fantastical visuals would have contributed to the film. Perhaps there will be a sequel (I truly hope so).

In summary…

...This is a great kid's movie and I strongly recommend it to all who enjoy children's adventure and juvenile fantasy.

2009-07-13T18:38:00.000-07:00

Mr. Brooks(2007)

Cinematic Review

Short

Kevin Costner in one of his best roles yet. Though many aspets of the movie are average, there are a few things that are exceptional, one of them being Costner's performance. The movie is about a serial killer with a seemingly split personality who finds himself in a disturbing situation that has the potential to ruin his life. Though I enjoyed the film (as I do most movies), this one isn’t for everyone. Be cautious if you don’t like realistic violence, the concept of serial killers, or slightly disturbing situations.

Full

This movie isn’t 'American Psycho' (of which it will remind you), but it’s pretty disturbing none-the-less. I hate the idea that a killer could just choose me randomly off the street, learn about me and my daily routine, and then kill me for pure enjoyment. Sick. With Costner's portrayl of Mr. Brooks, a character ten times more deep and complicated than the plot he’s stuck into, you might develop a paranoid view of passerby on the sidewalk.

The plot

Mr. Brooks (Costner), a man who has a split personality named Marshall (portrayed by William Hurt), is a retired murderer once called the 'finger print killer'. However, after temptation hits too hard to resist, he finds himself back in the game. Unfortunatly he has become sloppy in his old age and leaves a trail that is not only followed by Detective Atwood (Demi Moore), but is photographed by a Mr. Smith. When Mr. Smith (Dane Cook), a photographer that has evidence linking Mr. Brooks to his latest kill, threatens to blackmail Brooks unless he teaches him the ways of murder, Mr. Brooks has to do what he knows how to best to escape both the cops and the hair-brain wannabe (Cook). Can Brooks keep his alter ego hidden from his family, or will this last kill be his undoing?

Reasons to see it

Kevin Costner's performance is phenomonal and deserves an Oscar nomination. His portrayl of the conflicted serial killer is beyond credible and really shows the depths of his acting ability as no movie before has demanded of him. How good is it? How good would it have to be to make you hope for the success of a cold, calculated, serial killer that murders lovers for his own sick pleasure? Yeah, that’s how good.

The story. Though it was not particularly well written or well thought out, it was very original. I’m not sure if that is 100% the word I’m looking for, but of all the killer thrillers that have been put out there, I don’t think I’ve seen one with a premise quite like this. Without a solid formula to stick to, the movie actually ended up being sort of unpredictable. And in this day and age, unpredictable is a godsend from the boring formulas that are being factory made every month.

The Negatives

Unfortunately, as great as I thought this movie was, there are enough downfalls to make me question my opinion.

Demi Moore is not good. I’m not sure if I’ve ever noticed this before, but for having such a strong name, she isn’t a particularly convincing actress. She isn’t bad, but she isn’t good. She’s just average. So what? I found that at many points in this film her character was rather unbelievable. In only two instances was this a script writing flaw, the rest were all Demi. Her strong feminine dialogue often fell flat and her true interest in the case was never detectable. Though it didn’t detract incurably from the movie, from her first appearance on screen the movie was removed from the candidacy list of 'top 10 killer thrillers'.

Danielle Panabaker, another actress that had no clue what she was doing on screen. Her only bit of great acting comes toward the end when it was very necessary for her to be believable, so I know she has the talent in her. But for most of the movie she is a rebelious child without conviction. Again, not the end of the world, but another notch down from the best.

Though direction choices were questionable at many points, there are two very sore thumbs that stick out in this film. To be honest, my heart sank during both scenes (especially the second one), they were atrocious. I don't know why the director choose to completely deviate from the style that the rest of the film took and do what he did. The details aren’t important, what you need to know is that the entire movie was 'blue' except in two spots where it was 'red'. When movies are expected to stay one color, it is usually not a good thing to deviate. I'm sure that was a terrible metaphore, but did you get it? Another notch down.

In summary…

A pretty good movie that has flaws too strong to warrant an overly positive rating. Thus it is a movie not wroth rushing to, but defintely worth renting.

2009-07-13T18:37:00.000-07:00

Into the Wild(2007)

Cinematic Review

Short

A master piece of a flim (and I am using the word film in its true definition here). The movie tracks the journey of a young man who slowly but surely detaches himself completely from society. He leaves behind the world of money, stressful careers and bills to live in the wild amongst the animals. And though the character is detached from society, the movie is not; so there are enough references and interactions with people that the audience isn’t alienated from the experience completely. The experience is stunning and the performances are amazing. A well told and well acted true story. This movie should be on everyone’s 'to see list'.

Full

Sean Penn makes a great directing debut with 'Into the wild'. The film has a rich story filled with rich visuals and a message of humanity that makes the film a true work of art.

The plot

Chris McCandless (Emile Hirsch) comes from a wealthy family and a life style which has been smoothering him since an early age. It is only after graduating from college that he has the opporutnity to break away from the rigid structural norms of society and be free. As a result he goes on a journey across America to find himself. Along the way we are introduced to a cast of colorful characters, each which Chris is able to touch in a beneficial way (both hippie and non-hippie alike). Slowly he progresses across the desert with minimal human contact, and eventually finds himself in Alaska, truly in isolation. A great story of nature and human insight.

Reasons to see it

The direction is simply fantastic. From eliciting actor emotions to the artistic shots of nature, the film comes together as a great experience. The structure in which the story is told is really well designed. Though there are moments in which the story can seem disorganized with questionable direction choices, none of these distract from the film and are often intentional.

The story has a lot of deep messages and insights into human nature; but no matter how deep or philosphoccal they seem, they are still very accessible to a general audience. This really helps to enrich the story and the experience. Instead of having really deep concepts that only few will understand or appreciate ('The Fountain'), this film keeps you in the loop and allows you to go somewhere mentally that you may not have ventured to before. Fantastic!

The joining of the audience to The Wild is another great feat of this film. There are so many things that I didn't know or never considered would occur when outside of society. I won’t spoil any of the surprise or awe by giving examples, but the film does a great job of seeming like fantasy with a complete basis in reality. It’s almost as if you’ve been taken to another world and are watching the customs of a foreign life. Fascinating.

The Negatives

Though I really want to be cliché and say that the hippies were the only negative thing about this film; it's not true. Though I have no love for the free spirits, I have to admit that this movie really spun hippies in a different light. A light such that I respected and almost envied their way of thinking (almost). Just the fact that the movie could make hippies accessible is a feat of great proportions in itself.

One of my only gripes for the film is a scene in which they do a montage between society and the Wild. The idea is to convince us that the wild is better than society (which is already pretty flaky and cliché). My problem with this scene is that the wilderness is being compared to a run-down, poor part of a city. This is a relatively unfair comparison as pretty much anything looks better than living in the slums. But then again, I see what the director was trying to achieve and I suppose he was just staying on the safe side. The last thing he wanted to do is show a montage of the Wild contrasted to Beverly Hills, in which the audience loses interest and walks next door to see some useless movie about affluent society.

The movie is a full two hours , and if you aren’t into artsy photography, some of the scenes can seem painfully long by 1:40. But again, I really think any pain endured during this film is well worth it. By the end of the flim you will have forgotten all qualms about artsy-ness and will simply applaud.

In summary…
…This movie is a must see. The only audience I would caution against this film are children due to their terrible attention span; but as the movie is rated R (with some nudist hippies) I don’t think the warning is necessary. Now that I think about it, you may also not want to see this movie if you are overly sensitive. This movie is about the depths of humantiy and it can be a stressful trip on the emotions.

2009-07-13T18:35:00.000-07:00

He really had no tooth!

Yes, Yes, I knew it. I’ve been telling my friends that there was no way that the tooth lost in the hangover was CGI. Stu (Ed Helms) puts his tongue through the hole and picks at it. CGI is good, but for a comedy it can’t be that good. So how did they do the tooth trick. An interview with Helms reveals this:

Interviewer: “The missing tooth, how did they do that?”

Ed Helms: "When I was 15 I lost a tooth and had an implant put in. Cut to 20 years later, I'm doing this part and the script calls for my character to lose a tooth. We did some camera tests blacking it out, we made a prosthetic with a gap in it, but that made me look like a donkey, so I vetoed that right away. And then I just finally called my dentist and said, 'You know, I've had this implant for 20 years. What's it involve in taking it out?' And he said, 'It’s actually not that big a deal. We can do that.' So we took it out and I was toothless for three months, for the run of the movie."

Interviewer: So you really sacrificed for the part, having nothing there.
Ed Helms: "I take my job very seriously."

Interviewer: So they didn't write this part specifically for you, knowing you had that implant in your mouth?

Ed Helms: "No, I think they wrote it for me knowing that I, hopefully, have some chops as an actor. At least that’s the way I think about it."

So there, in your face to everyone who doubted my keen eye.

2009-07-13T18:14:00.000-07:00

Burton's "Wonderland", what to think...

I just don’t know what to make of the new "Alice in Wonderland" movie that is due next March by director Tim Burton. Generally, I like Burton and have enjoyed 8 of the 12 films that I have seen by him (even “Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure”). It was at "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" when Burton lost me. Try as I might, the movie just wouldn’t sit right with me. Then came "The Corpse Bride"; could it be a "Nightmare before Christmas" repeat. No. Clearly it was Henry Selick's directing and not Burton’s producing that made "The Nightmare" so great (kudos to "Coraline"). And then came "Sweeny Todd". Though the movie had Burton written all over it from the plot line to the characters, and was well reviewed by critics, I just couldn’t get into it. Maybe it was the music, maybe it was the excessive blood, but Burton had let me down on a movie that was written for him. So should I look forward to "Alice in Wonderland"? How many times can a person let you down before you give up? The poster below of the Mad Hatter is what really brings about my skepticism, because it reminds me of what Depp looked like in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". The white, face make-up and crazy eyes.

Which brings me to a fact. When all is said and done, I will go to see this movie and I'll have a level of anticipation. Why? Not because I trust Burton or because I just love movies. It’s because I would follow Depp to the end of the world and jump. Though the aforementioned movies were let downs to me, Depp’s performance always shines. One of the great thing to come out of the heterosexual relationship between Depp and Burton is that the audience has gotten to see quite a range for Johnny. Not that his range wasn’t developed before and didn’t shine in “Pirates”, but Burton has allowed him to step into some pretty alien roles. And I’ve enjoyed them all. And that is what makes the Burton disappointments so bitter-sweet. Uh, the conflict.

Without further ado, news and photos of the movie to come…

The March 5, 2010 release starring Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter, Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen, Anne Hathaway as the White Queen, Mia Wasikowska as Alice, and Matt Lucas as Tweedledee and Tweedledum is not a remake of the previous films. The movie is actually a flim adaptation of the Alice in Wonderland sequel Through the Looking-Glass. Though Burton and writer Linda Woolverton ("Beauty and the Beast") are taking a completely different spin on the story, many of the major characters from the sequel will be present, including the new White Queen and Red Queen (not to be mistaken with the Queen of Hearts from the first "Alice in Wonderland"). The general idea: Alice tries to escape the harsh reality of marriage by following another rabbit into its rabbit hole, only to find that it leads to Wonderland, a place she oddly doesn’t remember. Having been 10 years since she left, Alice finds Wonderland in a state of turmoil. Can Alice save Wonderland and make things right?

What do you think, should I be worried?

2009-07-11T11:23:00.000-07:00

Portman to play "Thor" love interest

For whatever reason, stars have always been attracted to play roles in superhero movies. And it isn’t just a recent fade as "Batman Returns" was loaded with a bankable cast. Why? I don't know, but the trend continues as Oscar nominated Natalie Portman joins the cast of "Thor". She will play Jane Foster, the love interest of the Norse god-superhero Thor. Well if Portman is doing the movie, then it can’t be that bad, right? Here’s the premise: Thor is the Norse God of Thunder who is sent to Earth as punishment for a dishonor to his father, Odin. In the process Thor is stripped of his memory and his power and is placed into the body and memory of a disabled medical student, Donald Blake. Thus he is unaware of his godliness and lives amongst humans with the appearance of a mortal. Unfortunately, his God enemies follow him to earth and do some bad guy stuff. Donald is unable to protect his planet and must watch helplessly as it is attacked …unless… It is only when Donald discovers Thor's hammer (which harnesses his powers) that Donald learns to transform into his God form and is capable of fighting evil. Though not of the human race, Thor fights for a planet that he calls home.

To make matters slightly worse, Chris Hemsworth is the actor chosen for the role. Who is Hemsworth you ask. This is Hemsworth:

Sigh. Do you guys remember when Kevin McKidd was in consideration for the role? That was such a good time. His role as Lucius Vorenus in the TV series “Rome” convinced me that he would be all kinds of bad @$$ as a Norse God with a hammer. He would have been owning evil left and right. But I guess we get the heart-throb kid instead. I suppose it's a good marketing strategy for the movie to get a larger target audience…boo teenage girls.

Another potential problem with this movie is director Kenneth Branagh. Who’s that? Yeah, I didn’t know either, but a quick trip to IMDb tells me that he loves doing Shakespeare. Sigh. Oh well.

I'm not sure what I think about Thor. In general, I'm a sucker for superhero movies; and though Natalie is great, even Connelly couldn't save the first "Hulk", Mendez couldn't save "Ghost Rider", and Alba in underwear never came close to making "Fantastic Four" great. I guess we can only hope. But what are the odds, Marvel is 7 for 18...

But don’t worry, we won’t have to suffer this movie until May 20, 2011. We got some time to mentally prepare.

What do you think?

2009-07-08T14:12:00.000-07:00

New G.I. Joe Trailer
I have been fortunate enough to get the new-longer than 10 seconds-trailer of G.I Joe from the guys at filmschoolrejects.com. I've wathed it, and let me just say this movie is going to rock so hard.

Yes and Yes! The trailer looks even worse than I could have imagined. Terrible acting, hot girls, defy the laws of physics action, and so many explosions that there is no coherent story that could link them. This movie is going to be awesome! (Are we sure Mike Bay had no part in this?)

P.S. Don't let the poster fool you, Marlon Wayans is clearly going to be a misfit in this movie. His comic relief doesn't even work on kids.

What do you guys think?

2009-06-27T15:00:00.000-07:00

Where's the racism in "Transformers 2"?

Do you know what I’m tired of hearing? That “Transformers: Revenge of the fallen” is racist for featuring Skids and Mudflap. I haven’t really heard many good arguments for why. The most popular one out there right now is that these characters represent a stereotype for a race of people—African Americans. I’m not going to be bold and claim that those who make this association in the first place are racist, because nobody wants to be called racist. So allow me to take a different approach.

Why are movies like “Baby Boy”, “Friday After Next”, or “Rush Hour” (with Chris Tucker) not racist? Oh, because it’s African Americans acting like themselves? Really? Detective James Carter (Chris Tucker in “Rush Hour”) is often the epitome of the stereotype that Mudflap and Skids portray. Why does no one have a problem with that? Again, don’t say ‘because Tucker is acting like himself’. And before people bring out the argument that Tucker consented to the script, let me remind you that Mudflap was voiced by Reno Wilson (African American).

Okay, let me come at this argument in a different way. Why was there no racist outcry against “Bringing down the house”? In fact, the point of the scene in which Steve Martin portrays someone from the ‘hood’ is to have a Caucasian man exemplify the stereotype. It was hilarious right? Well the rest of America thought so as the movie did well at the box office. This isn’t the only movie to have some non-‘hood’ character act stereotypic for a few laughs; I'm sure a few come to mind now. The situation in “Transformers 2” really isn’t any different. Would it be less offensive if instead of robots, skids was played by Chris Rock?

Since the mid-90s the ‘token black guy’ has been an integral part to comedy. They play a stereotype that many people find funny. Would “Rush Hour” be as funny if Detective Carter was played by a zany European? Michael Bay appreciates the cinematic value of comic relief and understands the quality brought to a film by the stereotype we are discussing. Hence, Luenell in “The Rock”, Mark Curry in “Armageddon”, and Bernie Mac in the first “Transformers”.

So please, quit with the robot-racism issue. I saw the movie in St. Louis with an audience that was a majority African American and we laughed at every single joke (at least the funny ones) made by the two robots. And afterwards, I didn’t’ hear one person threatening to phone the studio over being offended. So if this applies to you (and you know who you are) please read thing #101 that white people like to do.

Thank you for your time and for listening to my opinion.

Please feel free to comment, but keep the violence to a minimum. Thank you.

2009-06-27T14:35:00.000-07:00

The Hangover(2009)

My Cinematic Review

For a Comedy

Short
This movie is pretty hilarious. Keep in mind that all sense of humor is relative. So what I think is funny may actually be offenseive to someone else. With that said, this movie can be on the crude side at times. It is not as crude as films like "40 year old virgin" or "Superbad", but the humor isn’t any more sophisticated. So don’t go in expecting "Wedding Crashers" (a funny movie on a different level of humor). If you like the general trend of recent comedies and can bear some nudity, I recommend this movie.

Full
Writers Jon Lucas and Scott Moore have previously done nothing important to me ("Four Christmases" and "Ghosts of Girlfriends Past"), but here they strike gold.
Man, what aren’t they allowed to show in movies these days? I often find myself confused as to whether comedies these days rely on actual jokes being made, or just putting something shocking on screen. Though the internal debate continues, I am amused regardless. This movie is an example of a well crafted situation that allows for maximum hilarity. The only period of the movie in which I wasn’t laughing was during the opening credits, in which there are names flashing on the screen over a Las Vegas background. From the first sentence spoken to even 2 minutes into the closing credits my smile did not leave my face.

The plot
A man is ending his bachelor career by marrying his gorgeous fiancé, Tracy (Sasha Barrese). As is customary, his two good friends Phil and Stu (Cooper and Price) and his brother-in-law Alan (Galifianakis…the only place I recognize him from is “What happens in Vegas”) treat him to a bachelor party in Vegas. After drinking heavily and being drugged, the group of guys awake in their Vegas Villa missing the groom. They literally have no clue where he is. They then go on a series of great adventures to find him, each one ridiculous and hilarious. But don’t worry, in the style of Shakespere, all comedies have a happy ending.

Reasons to see it
The comedy. There are so many levels of humor in this movie, and they all work so well together. Obviously it is the slap stick humor that is the weak point of any comedy including this one, but due to the movie ripping down your 'serious walls' early on, you will find yourself laughing even at poop jokes.

The movie does a really great job of developing the characters. It only takes 2 minutes of on screen time for the movie to tell you enough about each character that the script can make an inside joke, and you’ll get it. Aside from the character introduction, I think the choice of characters (not to be confused with actors) were great. There is the wife-whipped nerd, the cool player, and the completely questionable crazy friend. Though the groom has a chraceter as well, from the plot line I’m sure you can tell it doesn’t matter that much, as he isn’t in most of the movie.

The Negatives
The movie is a comedy. Not that all comedies are bad, but being a comedy--especially this new generation of comedy--the jokes are often ridiculous and over the top. Don’t get me wrong, I think this stuff is hilarious, but if you step back and think about it, a lot of this stuff is pretty stupid.

By the end of the movie the audience is convinced that the actor choices were perfect, due to everything they had done together. In all honesty, I don’t think they were that well chosen out. You can occasionally realize the lack of chemistry between some of the characters in certain situations. This never detrimentally subtracts from the humor, but it can be noticeable enough and probably makes some of the jokes less funny than they could have been.

In summary…
Hilarious (I've used this word several times now). See it if you like slightly crude, 'dumb' comedies.

2009-06-27T13:35:00.000-07:00

Bridge to Terabithia(2007)

Relative to Kid's Movies

My Personal Review

Short
A pretty standard kids movie in which two friends meet and embark on their own fantasy to escape the hardships of reality. Though the film is not overly imaginative, it is refreshing in that it bases its story in reality. However, much of the story is told poorly and the coming of age aspect is never completely realized. Though the film is no “The Neverending Story”, it is a much wanted alternative to the recent nonsense that has sufficed as "kid's movies" recently. To collect my thoughts, the movie isn’t stellar, but it is one of the better children’s movies out there.

Full

Ah, I don’t really have much to say. It is a kid's movie and as such it has all the faults of a kid's movie, but it does enough things right that it is a stand out from the rest of the films in this league. My only problem with decent children's movies is that they are often bitter sweet. Children's movies that are just fun, are usually just stupid. The ones that hold value often have at least one traumatizing moment. So parents, you might want to have some tissues on hand (a warning for those who didn’t read the book).

The plot
The story is essentially a coming of age (1 year of age) for Jess Aarons (Josh Hutcherson) who is pretty much the stereotypical elementary school loser. He draws cute pictures in his notebook and gets picked on by both male and female bullies. He soon finds a valuable friendship in a new student, Leslie Burke (AnnaSophia Robb), who is also stereotypically picked on for being new. But unlike our protagonist, she is self-confident and rolls with the punches. Jess and Leslie form a friendship that leads to the creation of a fantasy world in which they embark on many adventures to escape the woes of reality. It’s a story of true friendship and the power of imagination.

Reasons to see it
If you’re a kid or the parent of a kid, the reason to see the movie is this: it’s a kids movie that doesn’t suck. But even if you are just the regular movie goer, there are still a few reasons to see it.

Zooey Deschanel (from "Elf" and "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"). I never tire of seeing her in movies. I think she is a fun actress that always brings charm to the roles she plays. Her role as Miss Edmunds is no different. She adds a charm to the film that is lacking when AnnaSophia isn’t onscreen. She also fuels the classic young male coming of age scenario 'boy has crush on teacher'.

From what I understand, this movie is one of the best adaptations of the book to date. So if you were a fan of the book, seeing an onscreen redention that doesn’t completely fail may be pleasing. (I personally have not read the book, so this is hearsay).

The Negatives
This film has several subplots that are not entirely fleshed out by the end of the flim. Though I didn’t have any particular desire to see the subplots finished, it is still a valid criticism for any movie. Don’t add in plots that you don’t have time for. Most of these had to do with the relationship of our protagonist with his family.

Which brings me to my next gripe. The film fails to portray a true 'the grass is greener' scenario. This goes back to the overall complaint that the film tells a few aspect of ther story poorly. One such aspect is the scenario in which Jess meets the family of Leslie and instantly falls in love with them. It's meant to be a situation in which Jess has it bad at home and we sympasize that Leslie's home is better. But what we are presented with is parents who do real parenting and parents that are free spirited artists. Instead of feeling bad for Jess, the audience ends up relating to his parents and thinking that Jess is ungrateful for what he has. Perhaps this was the intention and the book conveys it better, but the film does not do a good job of guiding the audience to whose side they want us to be on. Not that this is a major detriment to the film, but it does give you ambiguous feelings about the protagonist, and movies that fail to illicit fondness of the main character often do poorly (seen a Rob Schneider movie recently?).

The film is largly unimaginative despite having a premise that implies otherwise. Though I would argue that I enjoyed the fact that the film was based in reality, I have to make note that the film made little attempt to embellish on the fantasy aspect of the plot. With the story being based around the imagination of two children, you’d expect more than 15 minutes of combined screen time for visual effects. There is minimal amounts of the fantatsy world portrayed on screen and what is portrayed on screen isn’t much of the world as it is quick encounters with…squirrels.

In summary…

The film is a pretty good children’s flick, but unless you enjoy these types of films, there isn’t much else here for you. The fantasy is kept minimal and the story plot is too simple to be truly engaging for those who enjoy mature coming of age films. Thus, parents take your kids, but not your expectations.

Spoiler Grumbles
WARNING: Please do not continue reading unless you have either seen the movie or do not mind having it spoiled.

Bullies. Why do films feel that it is necessary to make bullies not only mean, but ugly. Yes, I’m saying it, the bullies in "The Bridge to Terabithia were ugly kids. Why is this necessary? And it isn’t only kids. In many movies the villains, or ex-husbands or bad parents or any character that the audience isn’t supposed to like, is ugly. I obviously understand the concept behind it, since aesthetics are a big part of visual entertainment, making the villian ugly is a way to maximize effect; but I feel that it is a bad message to convey to the world. It may even subconsciously condition children (or even adults) that ugly people are always bad. In the case of kid's films, it’s like teaching our children at a young age to have a prejudice for people that they find unsightly. Sure kids have the natural tendency to dislike such things, but cinema doesn’t need to reinforce it.

But then again, I’m just a dude, what do I know.

2009-06-11T20:20:00.000-07:00

Terminator Salvation(2009)

Cinematic Review

My Personal Review

Short

As entertainment goes, this is it. Great special effects, well crafted action sequences, and explosions aplenty (everything explodes). Movies like this have their place in everyone's collection. But if you're looking for an amazing plot with clever references to the past ‘Terminator’s and deep exploration of human nature, you will not find it here. The plot for this film is akin to such plots as ‘Matrix Reloaded’; find the key maker and fight everything on the way. Again, the movie is very entertaining, but with sizable plot holes in the little plot it has, it's not much more than a 'cool' movie.

Full

Though the movie is really nothing more than a series of action sequences, it does not suffer from the 'action boredom' oxymoron that some movies fall into. This is the scenario when a movie has 20 action sequences, but no creativity. So you are stuck after 30 minutes watching the same exact fight sequences over and over with different people and maybe different weapons. Fortunately this movie is not one of those movies. Each action scene is staged very differently with no common formula (except explosions). This keeps the watcher entertained for the entire movie. And that’s really all I was asking for from a movie about a war between humans and robots.

The plot

After three time travel movies, we finally join John Connor (Bale) in the apocalyptic future that his mother had warned us about. Though I would love to elaborate on the intricacies of the movie’s story, it really comes down to this: John wants to destroy robots, so he does for 2 hours. The most substantial part of this story being found in a character named Marcus Wright (Worthington), who is a cyborg that believes itself to be human. But this character arc is inconsequential to the film, which essentially makes it a space filler.

Reasons to see it

It has been a while since I’ve seen action so good. McG may not know much about crafting a story, but he sure does make one heck of a roller coaster. I would even argue, judging by the number of things that blow up, that McG has been taking lessons from Michael Bay ('Armageddon'). If you enjoy action films, I promise you without doubt that you will love this one.

Along these lines, the Special effects are great. Though the film is ridden with CGI from opening to closing, it rarely ever pulls you out of the action by being unconvincing. It is amazing to think how far animation has come since T:2, which was cutting edge 18 years ago.

Where did this Sam Worthington guy come from? What a phenomenal actor, delivering every line with such credibility. Though I believe his character served no functional purpose in the story, he was by far one of the best aspects of the movie. In fact, he often upstages the star and makes you wonder why Bale is so revered. Fortunately we will get to see a lot more of him in upcoming films ('Avatar' and 'Clash of the Titans').

The Negatives

If you sit back to think about the plot long enough, you will realize that many aspects don’t make sense. Of course, you could just not think about it too hard and walk away entertained. But for those who take their plot-lines seriously, you are guaranteed to notice the faults, major faults.

Another serious flaw of the flim is that it fails to make you care about...anyone. The only reason you will care whether the humans win or die is because you are human and feel a brother-hood to the people on screen. With a lack of characters that display emotion or personality, the director is relying on the humanity of the audience to make you invested in the people on screen. To be honest, as every action scene unfolded, I never found myself worried that the humans might lose. So what if the robots won, I was indifferent either way.

In summary…

…The movie is a must see action flick for those who love action of any kind. But if action isn’t your thing, this movie holds no value for you.

2009-06-10T20:44:00.000-07:00

X-Men Origins: Wolverine(2009)

Spoiler Grumbles
WARNING: Please do not continue reading unless you have either seen the movie or do not mind having it spoiled.

I have enough gripes with this movie that I can organize them by character.

Wolverine—Thank the industry for Jackman. There is no better man to play the role. He did a great job in all of the previous movies and he doesn’t fail to pull it off convincingly in this film either. In fact, none of my complaints about “Wolverine” have anything to do with Wolverine. My biggest qualm is with the portrayal of his claws. First off, the animation is just terrible. The scene in the bathroom on the farm is particularly painful. He pulls out his white, cartoon claws and inspects them. His eyes never once focus on the correct area, because in reality he is staring at nothing. He then proceeds to clank them together creating the most unconvincing interaction in the movie. Not only do his claws misalign with his fists, but giant sparks start to shoot into the air. I’ve clanked sharp metal together before, it takes a decent amount of force to create sparks; a force that Wolverine was not using in the bathroom. And worse yet, the sparks don’t even interact with the environment at all. There were no shadows casted by the light or sparks bouncing on the sink. How did this scene ever leave the editing room?
Another small bit of business that bothered me was the fake death of Kayla. Wolverine finds her in a forest covered in blood. This is all it takes for a man with animal instincts to believe someone is dead. Are you telling me that Wolverine didn’t check for the wound? Even if we give Wolverine the benefit of the doubt and say that he was fooled by the drug used to sedate her, what did he do with her body? Did he just leave her in the woods? No burial, no mourning, no love? On that note, this seems like a pretty poor plan on Striker’s part. Give Kayla a drug that has a time limit. What if Logan stayed with her the whole night sobbing and she woke up? Did they know Wolverine was the type of husband to leave Kayla’s body in the woods for the wolves, because I sure didn’t?

Victor—How awesome was this character! Though I let the big, hairy Tyler Mane of the first ‘X-men’ grow on me, I am quite ready to put him aside for Liev Schreiber. Though some fans may shout out “source material”, I really liked the brotherhood developed between Logan and Victor. It was believable to me and created a character depth found nowhere else in this fight-fest. My only grief is the question, “what are fans supposed to do when we watch “X-men”. Sure Logan’s memory is missing, but Sabertooth doesn’t even seem to know who Logan is in the first movie. Aside from this story hole, there is the obvious appearance issue. Victor goes from this cool, primal killer, to a big-foot. Perhaps part of his mutant plight is that he regresses further and further into being an animal, but I doubt that in another 50 years he would be a lion in the zoo :-)

Striker—There wasn’t really anything wrong with this character, I just need to use Striker as an anchor for my next set of beefs. Adamantium bullets! Sigh. Way to make the character of Wolverine super cliché. Need some silver bullets to kill the werewolf, Striker? Even worse, the introduction of these bullets couldn’t come at a more hilarious time. We just finish watching a 10 minute motorcycle chase scene between Agent Zero (the Beethoven of guns) and Wolverine in which Logan pulls a helicopter out of the sky and sets Agent Zero on fire. The movie then cuts to a scene of Striker inspecting a case of adamantium bullets. Ha. You mean to tell me that Striker sent his finest assassin to fight an indestructible beast, when the entire time he had adamantium bullets in his suitcase? That’s totally reminiscent of “Dumb and Dumber” when Lloyd brings out a second pair of gloves for Harry. I can see Agent Zero saying, “you had adamantium bullets this whole time?” (if you don’t get the reference, see the movie, it’s not bad) The next point is one I find very interesting: the murder of some random government official. Why was that scene even necessary? To show that Striker was ruthless and would do whatever it took to get what he wanted? Unnecessary; throughout the entire movie Striker seemed to be his own boss. I don’t think anyone in the audience would have questioned if Striker had the proper permission to make a hybrid mutant. He could have just done it and we would have accepted it. Instead, they have him murder an official. How is that helpful? Now I’m just littered with questions of how nobody caught him right away. And now that he got caught at the end of the movie, how did he swindle his way out to be the man we see in ‘X-2’. The decisions movie teams make sometimes. Oi vey.

Dead Pool—Wow, way to just throw the source material out of the window here. For those who saw the movie, you know that Deadpool’s character was ravaged without mercy. Not only is he M.I.A. after the first 15 minutes, when he does come back it is in the form of this hybrid mutant that has the powers of everyone seen in the movie. Personally, I loved the hybrid mutant but the script writers could have just made it some random creation as opposed to destroying a very notable character. I wonder how they will rectify this in the spin off. I guess it will probably take place before the “Wolverine” film.
Speaking of the hybrid mutant, what a crazy final fight scene. I was pretty impressed with the coolness of ‘Deadpool’, but very disappointed in his inefficiency. He had every power you could hope for and yet he still couldn’t kill Wolverine. If you were at a casino and had to bet on either a man who had claws and the ability to heal or a man who had both of those ability and then ten more, who would you bet on? The answer is obvious, but unfortunately we would all have lost big. Deadpool spends 5 minutes teleporting back and forth between serving both Victor and Wolverine with what seems to be b#tch slaps. Apparently only Woverine is smart enough to know that cutting off your enemies head is the fastest way of disposing of your foe. Guess Stryker dropped the ball on that one.

Gambit---Nooooo. Why did this happen? (Did anyone else see the South Park episode in which the boys are upset because they had to watch “Indiana Jones 4”? That’s how I feel about Gambit in this movie.) Not only was he casted poorly, he clearly was added to the movie as an after thought. And in his addition, the script writers didn’t even decide to consult the source material. Since when does Gambit fight like a sissy, flipping around like a ballerina and completely incaple of holding his own in hand to hand combat? Aside from this tragedy, do you remember when Gambit jumped down from that roof top and caused a mini-earthquake? When did Gambit gain the ability to jump from 100ft and survive the fall? He doesn’t have the healing ability, though it would appear that everyone in this movie was particularly impervious to physical punishment. Along that note, how did Gambit even get onto the roof top? One moment he was knocked out cold by Hugh Jackman, next thing you know he’s jumping off of some roof. What?! I scratched my head inquisitively so many times during this movie that I think I formed a bald spot. And even worse, Gambit did his ariel attack just when wolverine was going to kill Victor. I thought Gambit wanted Victor dead too, why would he interrupt their fight? This makes Gambit not only a sissy fighter, but a completely inept thinker as well. Useless.

But then again, I’m just a dude, what do I know.

2009-06-10T20:15:00.000-07:00

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen(2009)

Spoiler Grumbles
WARNING: Please do not continue reading unless you have either seen the movie or do not mind having it spoiled.

Oh Mr. Bay. Before I go on a massive rant, I just want to remind everyone, that Michael Bay is my idol and I really respect his work for what it is, entertainment. But we all know that Mike can get carried away. So here it is.

I really enjoyed the ‘Sam goes to College' scene in the film for three reasons:
1) Sam spazes out and Shia LaBeouf looks like a fool
2) The realistic depiction of college (every girl is a model and Frat parties are like clubs)
3) Alice (Robot woman)!
Okay, actually those are all the reasons I hated this scene. In fact the only thing I really liked about this scene was Sam’s mother acting a fool. She was hilarious (even though I’m still not quite sure what was in her ‘brownie’, because I don’t think it was marijuana). First off, I always feel bad for actors when they have to pretend to be seeing through time, having a seizure, or being corrupted by the allspark. They always look foolish and you know they must feel foolish. Rarely ever have I seen a spastic actor add anything significant to the story or the visual. But that’s more of a personal gripe. The real gripe here is Robot Woman. What a terrible, terrible idea. So many things about her don’t make sense. Since when can decepticons take on human form? Not only that, they can grow and re-grow human skin and hair that has such a realistic texture that Sam could not tell the difference between Alice and a real woman like Mikaela (Fox). Alright, let’s give the movie the benefit of the doubt and say that the decepticons have learned this technology; there is still no reason that Bumble Bee should not have been able to detect that Alice was a decepticon. Sure, I loved the whole ‘cheating’ joke situation that was created, it was funny, but it doesn’t make sense. A decepticon is sitting inside of Bumble Bee and the autobot is just riding her around town.
Another random note that I want to mention is the fact that Alice had a tail. Do you know why? Not because it was necessary, she could have just as easily had something come out of her finger or forehead. She had a tail so that the camera could justify showing her (Isabel Lucas) butt. Good ol’ Hollywood, never lets you down.

Let’s jump far ahead for this next one. What the he!! was that whole ‘Robot Heaven’ scene about. Really, Sam went to ‘Robot Heaven’ and was granted a second chance? Sigh…that is by far the dumbest thing in the whole movie (yes even worse than the mini-robot that humps Fox’s leg). Not only was that scene foolish, it was completely, 100% unnecessary. Sam didn’t have to die, the ‘Matrix of Leadership’ didn’t have to disintegrate upon contact, and the whole nonsense about the ‘Matrix’ lore (being for the chosen one) was hokey. So why was this scene in the movie? Just to make the film worse? To be honest, I don’t know. Please let me know if you have any opinions on this, because my hair is coming out in clumps just thinking about it. You could have just as easily had Sam get the 'Matrix', call the military to bring optimus, and still have the war scene as Sam runs accross the desert to revive optimus. The same stuff is accomplished without the insult.

Another bothersome thing toward the end of the film, why is it that ‘Steroid Optimus’ doesn’t go about destroying all of the remaining decepticons before calling it a day? He just kills the Fallen and then starts talking to Sam. We know, he knows, everyone knows that Megatron, Star Scream, and I’m sure another hoard of Decepticons still live. If there was ever a better time to end the war once and for all, it would be with ‘Super Prime’. I guess not. I guess Optimus was tired after that anticlimactic ending. Speaking of which, why was the ending so quick and un-sweet? After all the hype of the ‘Sun Harvester’ machine, I figured it would take more than just a bullet to destroy it. Guess they just don’t make ‘em like they used to. Not only was the Sun Harvester destroyed without incident, the Fallen was also a chump. After displaying his supreme power by creating his own gravitational pull, Optimus proceeds to molly-womp his a$$ without breaking a sweat. This isn’t even an exaggeration, did anyone else see the Fallen land a single hit on Optimus. No! It was a pure butt whooping. Every other robot in the movie put up a better fight than this infamous leader of the decepticons. Boo.
Along these lines, why is it that only a Prime can destroy the Fallen? Did anyone hear that explained once in the movie? They just kept repeating the phrase over and over again, “only a prime can destroy the Fallen.” Are you telling me that Bumble Bee could not cut the head off of the Fallen? What would happen, would the Fallen just come back to life? Would Bumble Bee explode? I guess we’ll never know.
A final note on this topic, the story of the Sun Harvester confused me. So the robots would go from planet to planet and eat their star, but only if there was no life on the planet in which they set up shop. Well what about the surrounding solar system that the sun affects. Just because one planet in a system doesn’t have life doesn’t mean that the others don't. If the robots landed on Venus, we would have been screwed.

One of the stand-out cool robots in this film was the “devastator”. I know it was sort of silly, but it tore stuff up none-the-less. Unfortunately it was completely owned by random, prototype, secret weapon ‘Rail gun’. This gun was accurate for up to 1000 miles and was super powerful. Why doesn’t the military already have this gun as a hand held weapon? They should have been using that gun all day. I guess it was a prototype, so perhaps in a few more years it will be in a smaller form. I was a little surprised that the gun shoots a powerful blast straight over the terrain. What happens if it misses its target, does it just level a city somewhere down the road. I guess someone should have thought about that before they fired randomly at the pyramid.

Speaking of the Military, I am so pleased that they were actually doing some damage to the decepticons by the end of the movie. If you notice, the military spends the entire first 1.5 hours getting owned. In fact, I was beginning to wonder why they were even sending jets or helicopters anymore since every wave was destroyed. It was like sending the pilots on a suicide mission. But by the end, it seemed that the humans were destroying the robots pretty good. Though it pleased me, this is also another problem. I was under the impression that the robot planet was destroyed and that the alien race was almost extinct. If so, how is it that Megatron was calling down decepticon bombardment one right after the other in this movie? He drops like 30 robots each time and they all get killed. If they are so rare, how is there so many decepticons? Not only that, where are the autobots? Not only as a species, but where were they in the movie in general? Optimus was killed. No backup in sight. Bumble Bee fights two robots, no autobots helping him out. The desert battle is raging on, but when worse comes to worse the old geezer robot has to come to the rescue. Where are all the autobots? Also, why could the decepticons not kill these humans in the desert? I’ve seen one decepticon level a military base, but 30 can’t take on a little contingent of soldiers in the open desert. Skorpinox almost killed a military unit like this in a very similar setting in the first movie. Oh well, I guess ‘Decepticon Training School’ died with their planet and the new recruits are too green to know how to execute.

But then again, I’m just a dude, what do I know?

2009-06-10T20:00:00.000-07:00

Terminator Salvation(2009)

Spoiler Grumbles
WARNING: Please do not continue reading unless you have either seen the movie or do not mind having it spoiled.

Though the action is phenomenal and just gets bigger and bigger to the end, the movie fails to satisfy with a proper climax. After starting the action with a Bale robot fight and steadily intensifying to an all out, explosive man hunt for an escaped prisoner, the action takes one giant step back in the form of the Arnold cameo. Skynet had been waiting many years for the opportunity to get John Connor into their clutches, and when they finally succeed, their best weapon of destruction is an unarmed, naked, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Really? You mean to tell me that Skynet didn't have any sort of automated guns that could have done the job? At least another robot? Skynet could certainly spare two robots to assassinate the man prophesized to bring about its doom.

Not only is Arnold a little disappointing for the job (though I can't deny that the digital cameo was quite entertaining), he is the only robot in Skynet that believes throwing your enemy repeatedly into walls is the most efficient way to kill him. Again, really? Arnold lumbers over a fallen John Connor, and just when you think the Terminator is actually going to terminate something, the robot picks John up and throws him into a wall 20 feet away. This goes on for about 10 minutes until Marcus, the good robot, joins the fight. Then we get to see a nice inconsistency with the brutality of the T-800 model. When fighting Marcus, Arnold changes his strategy from throwing the enemy into walls to crushing his heart with a metal fist. In fact, as John Connor sets up some explosives, we can see Arnold bludgeoning the good robot with a concrete block repeatedly in the background. Needless to say, Marcus doesn't survive this encounter. However, we watch this efficient kill strategy seamlessly dissolve as Arnold's attention is turned back to Connor, where he resorts back to the knock-around method. Though this scene was not completely unentertaining, it was a poor climax choice for the film. Fortunately the movie closes with a large scale explosion for good measure. (Are we sure Michael Bay didn't direct this :-D)

Another major gripe with this film is that it is going to be a trilogy. Will I enjoy the trilogy? Of course! But I know that extending an inadequate storyline out over three movies always results in disaster (Did someone say ‘The Matrix’?). Especially a story line as simple as “find the robot head quarters and destroy it”. In fact, I would even argue that this simple plot line could have made one great movie if enough creative effort was put into it. But Hollywood is too cocky for that. They are so sure that we are going to like what they feed us, that they are going to give us seconds and thirds. But deep down inside, we all know that the story is a little shallow. Hence, Marcus Wright. Like us, Warner Bros wondered how they could drag this simple plot out for three blockbusters; and out of the creative fires, Marcus was born. What better way to fill an hour of script than with a half-man, half-robot that wanders the desert, fights stuff, and has long moments of self reflection. Again, I didn’t mind too much, but in all honesty, what a waste. If the studio wanted 'Salvation' to be a cinematic success as T:2 was, they needed to structure more substantial plot. My suggestion for how T:4 could have been one solid movie:

• Start at a later time or have Kyle Reese be older (the reasons to be revealed later)
• Though I loved the opening sequence of 'Salvation', the new movie I’m proposing would need to be faster paced, so it would need to start with the rescue of Kyle from Skynet (if the rescue is still in the script). Now we start with a sweet action sequence and a big explosion of San Fran Skynet.
• By this time we will have had the Arnold Cameo and enough background info to suck viewers into the plot.
• I’m tallying 20-25 mins so far.
• Take a break from the action and do some character development especially the relationship between John Connor and his wife, Kate. It is during this time that we would also get a better understanding of how the resistance functions.
• Kyle is another character that would need some developing during this time.
• I’m clocking 45-50 minutes now. If we throw in a random action sequence, let’s put it at an hour.
• It is now time for the dramatic entrance of the T-1000 (I guess another digital cameo of Robert Patrick).
• Hopefully this new robot would be involved in a series of really cool action sequences as John’s resistance is in-route to the Global Headquarters of Skynet.
• At some point during this whole ordeal, the discovery of time travel will be made, the resistance will learn to reprogram robots and acquire Arnold, and a T-1000 will be sent back in time to kill John, and the resistance will send Arnold to protect him.
• Shortly thereafter, the "Advanced Robot Production Facility" will be destroyed and Skynet will only have older robot models available for combat.
• We are probably at about 2 hours by this point.
• The movie will climax with the resistance destroying the robot headquarters, but not before Skynet makes one last ditch effort to kill John by sending the T-800 back in time to kill John’s mother, Sarah Connor, before his birth.
• The movie will close with a sentimental moment as Kyle volunteers to go back in time to protect Sarah and save John with the full knowledge that he can’t return to the present. Made all the sadder by the fact that the war is won and Kyle can’t partake in the freedom.
• The total time of the movie running about 2 hours and 30 minutes.

Boom! This is the formula for a movie that wastes no time, and gets the job done. I know pushing 3 hours is no good and that the plot seems pretty dense, but can anyone think of another movie that was long with a dense plot? Ahem…the ‘Dark Knight'. And I’m sure I don’t need to remind you that the movie was a huge success.
But then again, I’m just a dude, what do I know.

(Notice, I do not mention Terminator 3 anywhere in this review. We all know why.)

2009-06-10T19:00:00.000-07:00

Star Trek(2009)

Spoiler Grumbles
WARNING: Please do not continue reading unless you have either seen the movie or do not mind having it spoiled.

First off, why is there so much talk of JJ Abrams being the next Spielberg? Abrams is definitely my guy, but he’s only directed two movies. Even Joel Schumacher has “The Lost Boys” and “Flatliners”. Not that I don’t have great expectations for Abrams, but let’s not go comparing a child in the field to one of its greatest titans.

Back to the movie. Not even the greatest films can escape petty criticisms, and Star Trek has quite a few. The sky diving scene. Why is it that the 23rd century has space ships but no personal rocket-packs? In fact, the most ridiculous sequence of events in the movie is Sulu opening his cloth parachute, landing on the platform, and then pushing a button to rapidly retract the chute into the mechanical bag-pack while arming himself with a spring-loaded, fold-out sword and dodging laser fire. Which of the things in the last sentence sound outdated? Answer: cloth parachute. Sure swords are sort of outdated, but it was a super cool fold-out, so nobody can gripe about that :-) Unfortunately, as cool as swords are, this movie did not see fit to get a decent choreographer, the fight with Sulu and his enemy proceeded to be nothing but uninspired sword swiping. I’m not asking for a full fledged fight, but just one or two moves from any Jet Li movie would have been enough.

Along the lines of action sequences, what was that arctic animal chase all about? I assure you, I enjoyed it very much while it was occurring, but in retrospect it doesn’t fit the bill. Two monsters, one large and the other ginormous chase Captain Kirk through the snow. One, it makes no sense that a human can outrun a large animal. Most humans can’t even outrun a hippo. Two, it makes no sense that a human can outrun said animal in the snow, since the creature likely has adapted to its arctic home over many centuries. This scene seemed more like a Star Wars nod than a necessary action sequence. All the same, I enjoyed it.

Another unnecessary/stupid ‘action’ sequence was the whole bit with the water pipes. Scotty gets sucked into a water pipe, and Kirk spends 3 minutes on screen time trying to help him out. Uh-oh, but the clock is ticking because the water pipe leads to a ridiculously dangerous chamber of blades. This scene was much like the part in “Transformers” where the robots play around in the Witwicky backyard for what seems like an eternity. There is nothing really entertaining about it for adults, but kids love it. On that note, I guess I can’t really gripe about this scene too much; instead I should appreciate even more the brilliance of Abrams in attempting to target a large audience. This guy…I tell ya.

One of the biggest gripes for the movie, that many fans share, is that Kirk is a fool. As I mention in the review, I am a big fan of the new, reckless Captain Kirk, but on a more serious note, he really doesn’t seem like captain material. It is slightly unbelievable that a goof ball who gets into nothing but trouble would be allowed to take over command of the Enterprise without objection. The script tries to address this by making Kirk out to be a prodigy in the academy and the only option when times are dire, but even then it’s hard to swallow. Well, hard to swallow for some, not me. I ate it right up! But what the movie really needed to do to create a credible character was give Kirk a moment of wisdom every once in a while. True wisdom, not just his “I think this will work, let’s try it” antics. Giving him more apparent intelligence like Shatner had, would make the new Kirk more convincing.

But then again, I’m just a dude, what do I know.

2009-06-09T22:41:00.000-07:00

The Black Dahlia(2006)

Short

This film tries its best to recreate the noir crime drama; and though it succeeds in creating the atmosphere it fails to deliver a compelling mystery. With the solution to the crime coming out of left field, you get no enjoyment in trying to solve the case before the protagonist do. Intead of being left with, “Oh I can’t believe I didn’t think of that,” you get “Oh..well I guess…that could be the solution.” Though I have little positive to say about the film, it is not a completely terrible movie; the production value shows visually and makes it quite entertaining to see. But with poor performances and a plot that lingers, this is a ‘watch if it happens to be on TV and you have nothing else to do’ kind of movie.

Full

Not being fond of this genre of film, nothing compelled me to watch it right away (hence the late review). But since I see every movie eventually, it was only a matter of time before “The Black Dahlia” found my DVD player. The result, honestly, as I expected. With the major cast being Hartnett, Johansson, and Eckhart, you already know that 2/3 of the performances are going to be rubbish; and with a director like Brian De Palma (a roller coaster of success) 60% of the time you can expect a dud.

The plot

Two men of a brotherly status, Dwight (Hartnett) and Lee (Eckhart) join the police force after retiring from successful boxing careers. After the brutal death of an actress, Lee becomes obsessed with solving the crime. This jeopardizes the relationship he has with his girlfriend Kay (Johansson). Dwight being an assistant to the case, but much less involved, serves as a buffer between the lovers and often comforts Kay in her times of need. This inevitably leads to a tangled love affair. But this isn't the only tangle found in the plot. The story gets think and twisty as revelations are made about the homicide which lead to the solving of the case.

Reasons to see it

There really aren’t any good reasons to see the movie, so below I’ll just list the positive things I have to say about it.

The boxing is great. Though our characters are retired from their careers, we get one last boxing match out of them yet. This five minute treat is right up there with ‘Cinderella Man’ and ‘Rocky’. It’s well shot, it's brutal, and it's believable. Too bad there wasn’t more of this in the film (Yeah I know, this isn’t a boxing movie, but still…)

Another feat that was accomplished very well in this movie was setting the mood. Though the movie fails to deliver a convincing story, the costumes, lighting and score really pull you into the time period. From cars to guns, this movie doesn’t miss a detail.

The Negatives

The acting or the dialogue. I can’t quite tell whether the dialogue given to the actors was bad, or whether the actors just did a poor job reciting it (I am excluding Eckhart from this complaint, of course). Either way, this is a flaw that is impossible to overcome while watching the movie. Many conversations are spoken very fast as if everyone already knows what the other is going to say (it sounds very rehersed), and many lines fall flat as soon as they leave the actors lips. Also, is it just me or is Johansson no good? I feel that I have been convinced that she is a decent actress, but I haven’t seen her live up to this claim in any of the movies that I’ve seen her in recently (and I’ve seen them all). Her poor performances in the last few films have made me rethink how good she actually was in her past films ('Girl with a Pearl Earring' and 'Lost in Translation'). I suppose I’ll sort this out eventually, but for now, she is no good in 'The Black Dahlia'.

There were not enough interesting characters. Don’t get me wrong, the film tried to make every character interesting, but unfortunately, it did not succeed. With the exceptions of Lee (Eckhart) and Ramona Linscott (well played by Fiona Shaw) most of the characters never obtained my interest or investment.

Though Palma is no stanger to violence or raunchiness, I do feel that it was ill placed in this film. (I enjoyed American Psycho, so I’m not just a sensitive sissy.) The violence and nudity in the flim do help to tell the story in such a way that the audience feels privledged to all of the information, bue it bothered me be lingering on screen too long and occasionally being unnecessary. I understand the concept of trying to create a visual impact, but most of the scenes shown created an impact taht did not aid the film. I think implying the image or flashing it briefly is really all the audience needed to get the point in this story. This is a gripe that should serve as a warning to those who are faint of heart.

In short…

...See the movie if you want to, it takes itself seriously enough that an avid movie watcher might find enjoyment here. However, the movie does not come recommended by me, and I definitely advise those that watch movies to be entertained, to steer clear of this one.

2009-06-09T22:39:00.000-07:00

The Dark Knight(2008)

Short

One of the best hero movies to date. It accomplishes the near impossible feat of besting "Batman Begins" and even enters the realm of Oscar nomination. A must see for action fans as this movie boasts some of the best sequences in the genre. However, I caution the sensitive viewer, as this movie can be dark and disturbing at times.

Full

Wow. What a great movie. After seeing "Batman Begins" in 2005, I thought the franchise had peaked. There was no way you could convince me that Batman could be better. Then came "The Dark Knight". The story is solid (well written, well told) and revolves around a villain classic, the Joker. The hype of Heath Ledger's performance was legend well before the movie even hit the big screen, and like most, I was a big skeptic. I tell you now, Heath ledger is awe-inspiring in this role and should serve as an example to all actors who follow him. Know the role, read the source material, be the role, and be convincing. But ledger is not the only star in the film and performances are superb all around. The only major problem—at least to our ears—is the grating voice of Bale. Not that his native Australian rich tone bothers me, it’s the Batman cover-up voice that has got to go in future films (and there is sure to be another). I’m impressed that Bale can keep it up for so long without damage to his throat.

The plot
Batman has become an icon in Gotham City and crime rates have dropped. But leave it to the joker to disturb the peace. The joker (Ledger) is a psychopath that is bent on creating anarchy just for the sake of doing it--no motive and no regard for life, not even his own. Batman is now faced with a villain far worse than any he’s ever known and must bring him to justice.

Reasons to see it
All of them. Name something that you want to know is good about the film, and I’ll tell you that it is. The score, the acting, the plot, the dialogue, the visuals, the action, everything. Sepaking of action, this movie delivers. All catagories are represented in this film: combat, vehicle chase, shoot outs, infiltration, etc. This film in fact contains what I will claim to be one of the best action sequences I’ve ever seen.

The Negatives
I already mentioned the voice.
Other than that, the film runs a little long. The entirety of the 2.5 hours is entertaining (please don’t think otherwise), but with the addition of a plot twist toward the end, the extra length seems a little unnecessary. Again, it’s still very entertaining, but it was also very entertaining at 2 hours.

In summary…
…with a great story and lots of action, the movie can feel very dense after 2.5 hours. This is made more apparent by the very dark attitude of the new Batman films. This film is darker than its predecessor and can leave you emotionally drained by the end. So be warned,if movies like this are not your cup of tea (ex. "Seven" or "the Machinist",). But the flaw of being a little long is negligible when compared to the mountain of positives. A movie well worth watching.

2009-06-09T22:32:00.000-07:00

Iron Man(2008)

Short

My personal vote for best super hero movie of the onslaught of Marvel movies that have hit the big screen in the last decade. With a combition of great action, story and witty/entertaining charaters, this movie even makes my list for one of the best movies I’ve seen in the last few years as well. This is definintely one of the most entertaining times I’ve had watching a movie since the podrace in "Star Wars: Episode I". The movie is bright, up-lifing, and a great adaptation of the comic. Robet Downy Jr. is the heart of this film and since no scene is complete without him, the film beats hard and strong for the etire two hour duration. A must see.

Full

Robert Downy Jr. is simply sensational in his role as Tony Stark. Women love him and men want to be him. The character alone is entertaining enough to fuel the film, but add a couple of action sequences and you have a movie that has story to support the explosions, always a good combo. For those who don’t know Iron Man, you don’t need to. The movie never once relies on a fan basis for understanding the story. Another check in the "Pros" box.

The plot
A world reknowned weapons designer, Tony Stark is kidnapped by terrorist while doing a weapons demonstration in the Middle East. He is held for ransom by the organization of insurgents, the Ten Rings, in an obscure cave in the desert. Though Stark is told to build the terroist a weapon of mass destruction, he builds a suit of armor instead. He uses the suit to escape the caves and returns to America. There he decides to wage his own personal war on terrorism with a new and improved body suit capable of everything just shy of teleportation and time travel.

Reasons to see it
Robert, Robert, Robert. A phenomenal performance by a great actor. Downey Jr. was meant to play Tony Stark and you could convince me that Tony Stark was written to be played by Downey Jr. Nuff said. Though the movie relies a little heavily on his presence, the fact that the movie is about him, makes this point moot.

A suit of armor, and a terrorist army in the same movie. Need I say more. This set up is a recipe for a series of great action sequence. And this is where the movie does things really well. I’m not just talking about the sequences themselves, but their placement and number in the movie. Director Jon Favreau (Mike from swingers) knew not to make the same mistake that "Spiderman 3" had made before it; attempt to cover up a weak storyline with random action sequences. Instead "Iron Man" tells a rich story that uses action for enhancement, not focus. So, though some will argue that there are not enough action sequences in the film, I would argue quality over quantity. Maybe you could convince me that the film could use just one more sequence, but I’m pretty content with the awesome-ness that is present.

A great script and story. One thing that really helps this hero movie is that it does not rely on a fantasy premise. No gamma rays, radioactive spiders, or solar flares. Though I’m not claiming that the creation of an armor suit is the most realistic scenario, it is the closest that we are likely to get for a hero film. Aside from this reality basis, the film also makes use of contemporary issues that make the villain someone the audience can inherently hate. Thus we don’t have to suffer any silly, gimmicky twists in the plot like kidnapped girlfriend, hurt little kid, or anything else that is meant to make us hate the villain as much as the hero.

Great supporting performances. Everyone plays their roles perfectly, giving us a cast of characters that we can become fond of and become invested in.

The Negatives
You see the movie and send me some (if there are any). I’m too blinded by the greatness of the film to find them.

In summary…
…see the movie. With a witty script and strong performances, it will be time well spent.

Spoiler Grumbles
WARNING: Please do not continue reading unless you have either seen the movie or do not mind having aspects of the plot spoiled.

I love this movie too much to mention the petty complaints, but I will mention the only major one I can think of, Gweneth Paltrow.
Do not get me wrong, I like Gweneth and think she is a very capable actress; however, the role she is given in this movie can never make up its mind as to whether it is 'strong female' or 'damsel in distress'. I don’t mind either character, but I get confused when one minute Pepper Pots (Paltrow's character) is barking orders at Shield Agents and then the next she's screaming “I just can’t do it.” Now please don’t think me too dense to understand what the script was trying to do--it was trying to get the both of best worlds. Tyring to create a strong, independent damsel in distress. I understand this, but until it becomes a common charcter in action movies, I’ll have trouble reconciling the bi-ploar charatersitcs.

I suppose it comes from the years of being conditioned with one of two action females: the strong female who is laying men out left and right to prove that she is an equal, and the women who is so helpless that she even offends guys. One type of character I have seen with Farvre’s style of female is the type from the TV show "24". This is the women who is strong and independent to a fault such that she becomes a damsel in distress. Ex. She is so strong that she will bring down the terrorist single handedly, but when she arrives, she is captured and used as bait for the hero, Jack Bower. Jack then has to sacrifice himself (or something ridiculous) to save the women, when he would have just blown the place up initally if the women hadn't interferred. Foolish.

But then again, I’m just a dude, what do I know.

2009-06-09T22:03:00.000-07:00

The Good Shepherd(2006)

Short

If you were concerned that "The Good Shepherd was just going to be a long political intrigue movie, you were right. But if you thought that it was going to be a long, boring, political intrigue movie, think again. With performances that ring loudly and a script that sets a fast pace, there is nothing boring about "The Good Shepherd". If you are not completely savy on politics, no matter; though you may miss some of the historical references, the story is explained well enough that even a complete layman (such as myself) can understand it. If you are intested in this genre of movie, and you haven’t seen it, you should be disappointed in yourself. For those who despise these types of movies, steer clear, because this one is dense. For the rest of you, I strongly recommend this as time well spent.

Full

Though I am not a history buff or involved in politics beyond following the presidential elections, I wanted to see this movie. Why? Three reasons: Eric Roth is the writer ("Forest Gump" and "Munich"), a star studded cast, and because I love movies. Though the reports from many of my sources came back as “boring and too long”, I saw it anyway. After all, when the people I know say that something is “boring”, they mean that it’s a 'thinking man’s' movie. Since I like to fancy myself as a thinking man, I saw it despite thier warnings. Contrary to my assumptions, you do not have to be a thinking man (or women) to enjoy this film. In fact, if you have not seen it, I recommend that you do when you have time (more specifically 2hrs 48mins).

The plot
You follow the story of silent, humorless Edward Wilson (Damon) from his days as a Yale student to his life as a CIA agent. Though this sounds like nothing special, the journey takes us through world war II, the cold war, and the bay of pigs. Thrown into the mix of historical references is a dysfunctional romance between Edward and a wife that barely knows him, Margaret (Jolie). With dabs of drama and conspiracy the tale is made more entertaining than it sounds on paper.

Reasons to see it
Everything! The acting is exactly what you’d expect from a cast of Damon, Jolie, Baldwin, and De Niro. Though Damon’s character is silent and almost without personality, his performce stands out amongst the rest. His convincing performance as a cold, stoic patriot of America fuels every silence in his dialogue with a dissertation of thought. I am really surprised Damon isn’t on more people’s lips as being one of the best actors of this generation. Speaking of cast, this movie also delivers what seems to be a Joe Pesci cameo (a great personality that his been the italian thug in mob movies since "Goodfellas"—maybe even before). Kudos to the casting team for thier superb choices.

The pacing. If this plot was shot something like “Good Night and Good Luck” (which some of you might mistakenly lump "Shepherd" together with), I admit that the movie would probably be boring. But the rapid pace of the direction and that fact that not one piece of dialogue is a waste of screen time, gives the movie a more lively feel and keeps the audience from falling asleep. Though the complete lack of action sequences in this political thriller may tempt you to start to doze, you’ll find that you can’t. Do you know why? Because you are engaged. The level of politics and historical references made in this film do not alienate the viewer, as the film thouroughly supplies the necessary information to understand what is happening at all times. I find this important becuase many political thrillers often leave me in the dust of their target audience of historians and scholars.

Some quick notes: the score is very complimentary to what you see in the film. The great unsung heroes of film are the music composers (minus John Williams). You may not realize this, but the music often helps to set the mood for scenes. Fowler and Zarvos do a great job keeping the music at the same mood and pace as the direction (P.S. didn’t know De Niro had this in him). The last note I'd like to make is on the thought provoking dialogue. With quotes from great poets and writers alike, the film offers those who want to be intellectually challenged plenty of material to think about. “What is more important, your country or your son?”

The Negatives
To be honest, if there are faults with this movie, I’m just not smart enough to figure them out. If I have to write something to balance out the list of positives, I’ll just say that there is nothing uplifting about this movie. Though the tone is meant to be dark and dreary, some people don’t enjoy movies without a happy ending. Well aside from the fact that America is still standing today, there is no heart-lifting done by this film.

In summary…
…this is a great movie that border lines on great art. If this sounds even semi-interesting to you, see it and you wil not be disappointed. If you want a romantic comedy or mindless action flick, steer clear.

Spoiler Grumbles
WARNING: Please do not continue reading unless you have either seen the movie or do not mind having it spoiled.

I really don’t have any legitimate grumbles about this film, as I said, it’s near perfect. However, I will gripe about Angelina Jolie. This is the 5th movie in a row where I’ve seen Jolie playing Angelina Jolie. We all know the role, strong female lead who can hold her own against any man and goes about leading the movement to shatter social norms. Please don’t get me wrong, I am all about strong women romping the oppression social stigmas. After all the absence of double standards is the future. I’m just saying that Jolie should expand her range. I’ve yet to see her play a role in which she doesn’t de-masculinate (sp) every guy she sees or a role in which she plays the 'cute doe' instead of the 'sexy temptress'. I’m sure she can, I would just like to see it (please point me in the right direction if I’ve missed a movie recently).

Then again, I’m just a dude, what do I know.

2009-06-09T20:38:00.000-07:00

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor(2008)

Spoiler Grumbles
WARNING: Please do not continue reading unless you have either seen the movie or do not mind having it spoiled.

I already started grumbling in the 'Negatives' section. Though I could go on with each of those points for a time, there are so many other atrocities, that I’ll change the topic here.

Why is it that everyone knows so much about ancient myth except me? In this movie, if the mummy knows about a secret Fountain of Immortality, everyone else who’s last name is O’Connell knows too. This happened at every turn in this movie. "Oh no the mummy is getting the ‘space activator for Neptune’s sandal'", and to that an o’Connell will respond, “it is rumored that the sandal is the source of contacting the heavens.” Really, if this thing is such common knowledge, why in the world haven’t people already discovered it and taken it public? It’s only when a mummy comes that the Fountain of Immortality becomes interesting. Afterall, I think the world would be very interested to know such information, espcially medicine.

Let’s take a step back to the beginning of the film. Son o’Connell is walking through a booby trapped ridden tomb of an acient Chinese Mummy. No matter how many traps he and his crew spring and no matter how many people in their crew die, the characters never start to take caution. Why? Do they want to spring every trap for fun? Even funnier, every time someone dies from a trap, the group just moves on. No regard for human life at all. Let’s sacrifice as many living people as we can to find one dead guy that will…cure cancer, end world hunger, something. No, in fact mummies do nothing but sit in museums (or in this case try to take over the world). What a foolish premise (I apologize to the archeologist of the world, but even they must think that this movie is a little ridiculous and not representative of the actual career at all).

What is up with all the horrible fighting in this movie? An assassin comes to kill one boy and an old man. Too bad for her, she didn’t know that son O’Connell mastered every form of combat in his years of sand walking. Not only does a skilled assassin with the element of surprise fail to kill the boy and old man, she runs away when the two targets finally empty their guns. Why was the assassin running? Did she forget that you're supposed to strike when you opponent has empty guns? I guess not. Dumb. Along these lines, why are bad guys such terrible shots. An army of Chineese soldiers (wearing Japanese helmets?) are unloading on the O’Connels with machine guns and bazookas, and the O’Connels kill them all. "But they had guns," you say? It wouldn’t matter if Fraser had a banana peel, he was going to win. I understand the need for having the good guys win, but why can’t it be done more convincingly, even in a kid's movie? I believed the fights in "The Spiderwick Chronicles."

Another great scene, the Mummy (Jet Li) has super powers and he is coming for the Pool of Immortality, and the best you do to guard it is to have some tired old women stand watch. You do remember that if he gets to the pool he will destroy the world, right? I guess that’s not such a big deal. I'm surprised they didn't just decide to put a fence around it. What would I have done? Collapse the pool with dynamite, O’Connells always carry TNT in one of their pockets. Then no one would be able to have it. What does the world need immortality for anyway? This is something I never understood in any film. Why have someone stand guard for an eternity over something you want no one to touch? If no one should touch it, just destroy it. Am I thinking about this the wrong way?

Oh, let me not forget the Yeti. Do I need to say more? Probably not, but I will anyway. The yeti were awesome. I actually really liked them and thought they were one of the best things in the film. Were they believable, did they make sense, were they necessary, were they not stupid? The answer to all of these questions is 'No'. This is a good example of 'just because something seems like a cool idea don’t find an excuse to use it in a movie for no reason. Plus, did they really do the field goal thing? Sigh…

My last gripe is the army battle. Don’t get me wrong, I love army battles. I like it every time the "Mummy" movies have a big 'dead people' fight. But in this situation, after the two "Mummy" episodes before, to which there were plenty of witnesses, why don’t these people just call the army or something. The Mummy would never get away with any of his evil plans if the British Military just dropped some missles on the Mummy's army before they got to the wall, or if they crushed the mummies with a tank. You would think that they would do something like this to protect the world. Though I agree that just having two people fight off an undead army in the desert is probably the best idea, I think this alternative might be considered.

But then again, I'm just a dude, what do I know.

2009-06-09T20:32:00.000-07:00

The Dark Knight(2008)

WARNING: Please do not continue reading unless you have either seen the movie or do not mind having aspects of the plot spoiled.

Just to finish up what I was saying before, that batman voice is obnoxious. That can’t be comfortable to speak with. It doesn’t even sound good. It’s even scary after a while and can become annoying. If I was a child and both Batman and the Joker were standing side by side, the Joker holding a knife and Batman with outstreched arms, and both calling me to them, I would pick the joker. That’s no way for a hero to speak.

But a more major gripe, why did they have Two-Face killed at the end of this movie (though some will say that he is not dead)? Not only does he add another 30 minutes to the movie, he has so much potential to be his own movie villain. He is created toward the end of the movie, kills two random crime lords, and then dies in an anticlimactic fall. If this was the story of some no-name villain, this would be fine. But this is Two-Face, a smart clever villain with all the characteristics to wreak havoc on Batman’s life. Though I will admit that he was very cool while he lasted, his charcter was a little robbed for storyline. I think they should have left the story at the hospital. Harvey escapes, steels a bus, and is never heard from again until the end of the flim in which he is sitting in an arm chair in a dark room, silently flipping his coin. Fade out, credits. This sets up the third movie (which has a hard act to follow) for a Two-Face and second villain combo. In my opinion they should use Bane. He is perfect for this new fanchise. His charcter is dark, and his sadomasicim outfit is disturbing. With his addiction to some strength enhancing drug in a city that is hunting Batman, a story almost writes itself. I feel a script coming to my fingertips now.

My final grief is that the movie is so miserable. Don’t ge me wrong, I loved the film. I watched it twice in theaters. But in all honesty, I like my hero flicks to be uplifting. This is why "Iron Man" rates my list higher than "The Dark Knight" (stop your booing). "The Dark Knight" is miserable for 2.5 hours and then has the audacity to end miserably as well. Batman doesn’t even win. He is charged a villain and chased into the darkness and credits. There is nothing happy about this movie except that Gotham isn’t left buring to the ground.

But then again, I’m just a dude, what do I know.

2009-06-01T18:49:00.000-07:00

Flyboys(2006)

My Cinematic Reivew

My personal Review

Short
Though this movie has the makings for failure—unseasoned cast, James Franco, a likely cliché French love story with a romanticism of an obscure World War I story ("Pearl Harbor"-esk)—the film is surprising. No, I didn’t say that it was good, but I was actually entertained. At 2 hours and 20 minutes, the film is way too long, and with an empty plot, you often wonder what is being accomplished with the time. Also, the acting and script are pretty sorry. So what did I like..the air battles. In no way do the abundant action sequences make the movie worth seeing, but they do make it less painful. So let me cut to the chase, this movie is no good, but if you enjoy aerial battles it is worth a look late night on TV (where you have the option to change the channel periodically).

Full

To be honest, I already said most of my thoughts in the short. The movie has bad acting, a weak script, and some history re-writing, but I liked the arieal battles. However, keep in mind that these planes are not much more than a motor with wings in the sky, so don’t expect explosions (which I was). In fact, the first few battles seem anticlimactic by ending with a plane merely trailing smoke as it falls to the earth. But after the first few, you get into the mind set and start to appreciate the battle antics more.

The plot
A French military unit recruits some Americans to be pilots in the good fight…WWI. Blaine (Franco) is the 'rebel without a cause' who quickly climbs to squad leader and leads his men to many victories. He also falls in love with a French women whom he is forced to resuce from danger periodically. The film eventually ends with the completion of a successful mission that may have no grand significance unless you are a great war buff.

Reasons to see it
The aerial battles. With decent special effects and some pretty good ideas, the visuals of these battles are pretty entertaining. The script does a poor job of making us care about any of the characters, or who dies, but their deaths can be interesting. Being accustome to modern technology can throw you for a loop when you learn things about how pilots used to fly 'old school'. Yeah, overall, lots of fun to watch.

The Negatives
Everything else.
The acting is even lower than sub-par and the script can be noticeably foolish at times. In fact, the people that seemed like the best actors were the ones with the least dialogue, but even they failed to pull off convincing emotions.

The love story is not actually as bad as it should be, it does have its cute parts. But for anyone who almost lost their minds during "Pearl Harbor", this movie isn’t doing you any favors.

In summary…
Don’t see the movie unless you have some special reason for doing so (crush on James Franco, really like WWI, or bet your frinds that you could sit through the whole thing). But personally, I sort of enjoyed it, so maybe someone will like it.

2009-05-27T21:40:00.000-07:00

Star Trek(2009)

Short
This is officially the first great blockbuster of the summer. Great script writing and action direction make for one of the best Star Trek/Sci-fi/movies ever made. An entertaining plot and, more importantly, entertaining characters will keep you engaged from beginning to end. If these things are miraculously lost on you, then the visual effects are surly enough to keep you stimulated. The remake is just shy of perfect and does a great job paying homage to the original series. Without reservation, I say see it! No matter who you are or what types of movies you like, you’re sure to be entertained.

Full

“Star Trek is for nerds.” That is likely the first statement you made when you saw the trailer (if you were not a Star Trek fan). Personally, I’ve seen all ten of the previous movies but was never a fan of the show; which I found out recently only ran for three seasons (with as popular as it is, I thought for sure it dominated television for longer than 79 episodes). But if you are a fan of good movies, then regardless of your past Star Trek affiliation, this is a must see. Great acting, great special effects, great characters, great script, great fun! If you are really concerned about catching subtle references made to the fans, then watch “Star Trek 2-4” of the old movies (it seems that all of the references come from these three movies and most of them coming just from the second one).

The plot
Nero (Bana), a member of the Romulan alien race, seeks revenge for the destruction of his planet. The target of his revenge: Spock, a member of the Vulcan alien race who live their lives through calculated, emotionless decisions. When Nero’s plan for revenge crosses with the Enterprise’s plan for galactic peace, the fight for the future begins. The crew of the Enterprise, consisting of the well known James T. Kirk (Chris Pine), will stop at nothing to stop Nero from using ‘red matter’, a weapon of mass destruction (literally), to consume whole worlds.

Reasons to see it
The movie is a time traveling gig. I know, I know. Time travel movies usually have so many problems that they often end up with major plot holes. Well such is not the case for this film. In fact, I would argue that the time travel idea was brilliant on JJ Abrams’ part. The idea here is not that going back in time to kill your father results in you disappearing in the present; it’s more along the lines that altering the past simply creates a parallel reality. I’ll say it again, brilliant. As much as many people will cry out that the industry should stop making Star Trek movies and just end on this good note, it is very unlikely. If a movie makes money these days, it is guaranteed to have a sequel, even if the sequel makes no sense (“Crank 2”). What the parallel reality concept allows JJ Abrams to do is to make “Star Trek” sequels that don’t have to adhere to the current plot lines of the universe. Ex. If McCoy dies at the age of 40 in the original universe (not true by the way), Abrams can just ignore that and keep McCoy alive until he’s 80 in this new universe. Get it? Abrams is essentially free to do whatever he wants with the story. Say it with me, brilliant!

Without giving away too much of the story—which is pretty much classic Star Trek (bad guy threatens the universe, enterprise fights them, bad guy blows up)—let me just say that it is nothing special. What makes the movie so great, is the characters and special effects. The latter is pretty obvious. You can see in the trailer that this movie has top notch computer animation and knows how to use it. But what you may have missed is that the cast of characters in this movie, especially the new take on Captain Kirk, work great together. There is almost no limit to how much each individual character entertains. This is only made better when they interact with each other. Two obvious characters of note are Kirk and Spock. Kirk is transformed from the cool, sure, conceptually reckless Shatner to a more blatantly reckless daredevil reminiscent of the Obi Wan of Episode II. Being a fan of extreme sports, I’m all about this new Kirk character. He keeps the story exciting and has a lot of great one-liners. As for Spock, though I was indeed a fan of the emotionless, calculated Leonard Nimoy, the new “human” Spock is much easier to relate to. If Keanu Reeves has taught us anything, it’s that emotionless characters are rarely enjoyed.

The Negatives
I have to admit, as much as it kills me, there are one or two scenes in the movie that borderline on juvenile. But with the PG film targeting a large audience, it makes sense that these scenes are present; so to grip about it probably isn’t appropriate.

In summary…
…I think this movie is a great bit of script writing that many other action/sci-fi movies should learn from. Abrams knew that special effects alone wouldn’t do the trick (“Terminator Salvation”), so he enlisted his tried and true friends Roberto and Alex (“M:I 3” and “Transformers”) to the task. The result, great movie with compelling characters.

2009-05-27T20:29:00.000-07:00

Religulous(2008)

Short
If you want to see a movie about a man who goes around telling people that they are stupid for having faith, this is your movie. However, if you were expecting this Bill Maher 'Documentary' to have really good arguments against religion and to be amusing due to the ignorance in which the public tries to combat them, you are mistaken. Though this movie can educate the audience on many aspects of religion and can ocasssionaly bring up interesting issues of faith, these are not abundant enough to make the two hours worth the time. I do not recommend this movie unless you truly have time to kill.

Full

First and foremost, my religion is of no consequence during this review. I’m not biased against the movie because Bill Maher makes fun of my faith, this is not the case (my faith isn’t even mentioned in the movie--the film stays to Muslim, Catholic, Mormon, and Jewish, none of which I am). I went into this movie expecting Bill Maher to go around clowning people about relgion. Asking questions like “why do you believe in God if the Bible was written by man”, and having the public respond “because the Bible says so.” Kind of funny and if clever scenarios are created during conversations, this could be a pretty amusing journey for Bill Maher Well, this is not the case. In fact, all Maher does is goes around to people of faith and tell them that they are stupid for being a part of a religion. Who wants to watch some pompus jerk run around the world attacking theological figures. I don’t.

The plot
It’s a documentary, there is not plot. The idea is that Bill Maher travels the globe interviewing the public and occasionally holy figures about their religions. Pulling no punches, Bill tells everyone why they are wrong and stupid.

Reasons to see it
The documentary can be quite educational about some of the religions of the world. I like to think that I have a pretty good grasps of how most religions function, but I often found myself surprised at some of the differences and similarities between religions that I did not know about. On the other hand, the educational value may be better achieved by reading a book or even Wikipedia.

Bill is educated. The only thing worse then a self-important jerk telling you that you are stupid is a self-important jerk that doesn’t know what he is talking about. Fortunately, Maher is well read and always has quotes on hand that he can use to dispel many of the arguments that he encounters on his journey.

It’s also very amazing to see people stick so hard to their faith in the face of such doubt. Though this can be seen as ignorant at times, it is sort of refreshing to see faith so strong.

The Negatives
The triage of religion as foolish because the dogma contains a few outdated concepts is absurd. Sure, talking snakes don’t exist and vigin births are impossible but that doesn’t mean that the principles of religion are not true. Don’t kill, be a good person, live in moderation; none of these aspects of religion are destroyed just because the story of Jonah living in a fish is likely false.

Bill Maher’s approach is not designed to be entertaining which is something documentaries have to be in order to be successful (either that or informative, which aside from the aforementioned point is not true here either). I think he might have been better off taking a Socrates approach, in which he asks questions that he already knows the answers to and just continues his interrogation until the person he is questioning is backed into a corner of ignorance. Merely wandering around telling people that religion is not true is a poor strategy choice.

In summary…
A promising premise that is not well delivered. Unless the topic of religion really interest you, or you think that Bill Maher is as amazing as he thinks he is, I don’t recommend this film.

2009-05-20T17:25:00.000-07:00

X-Men Origins: Wolverine(2009)

Cinematic Review

My Personal Review

Short
The premise: get ten big guys on screen, give them mutant powers and have them fight for two hours. At first glance, this premise is genius. However, it is only after watching the movie that you realize the flaw; it is near impossible to create 15 fight sequences that are all well done. The movie spends each fight trying to out-do the last and then starts to fall into the realm of 'stupid' about 3/4 the way through as fights become almost silly. But on the positive, Jackman is great, many of the fights are still very cool, and the story is legitimately interesting. In summary, see it. It’s entertaining enough.

Full

Sigh…I was so excited about this movie. I’m not particularly a comic book fan, but I am a super hero fan; and as such, I get excited every single time Marvel makes a movie. And as we all know, only 7 of the 18 movies and 2 remakes were any good. For everything else in life, if the odds are 35%, you could count me out. But like a fool, I let me expectations and hopes sore when I see the trailer for "Wolverine". Unlike its Byran Singer directed predecessors, which made the franchise cinematically profitable, Wolverine does not succeed as a great movie.

The plot
The movie starts with a child Logan developing his mutant ability to project claws from his knuckles. Being outcasts from society, Logan (Jackman) and his brotherly-friend Victor Creed (Schreiber) protect each other through nearly a century of history bringing them to present day. It is here that their paths separate when Logan realizes that he does not have the blood lust that his ‘brother’ has. This realization is brought about when Logan and Victor join a secret military task force run by William Stryker (Danny Huston). On a mission in Africa, Logan refuses to kill innocents and abandons the group, including Victor. Refusing to be denied his most valuable mutant, William Stryker sets out to make Logan’s life miserable, using Victor as his tool. Wolverine must now fight the military and their mutants to win his freedom; even if he has to kill Victor to do it.

Reasons to see it
Hugh Jackman! I don’t really think I need to say more…he’s awesome. And for you ladies, his shirt comes off frequently, so be prepared.

The first 30 minutes of the movie are great. The movie starts with an incredible amount of promise. The opening credits are well done and help to establish the relationship between Logan and his brother Victor with minimal dialogue—a task not easily achieved in film. The two are recruited into a task force and we are introduced to a slew of pretty cool mutants. They go around for 15 minutes engaging in some pretty solid action sequences. The first 30 minutes contain what are likely the best action sequences you’ll see in the film.

It is also in the first 30 minutes that we are introduced to the only person the only character capable of outshining Logan (Jackman), Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds). Wade was my favorite character in the movie and Reynolds my favorite actor (aside from Jackman, obviously). Unfortunately, his screen time is limited—but very quality. I’m very pleased to hear that Reynolds is getting a spin-off. Let’s just hope it is better then the movie at hand.

Another great actor that needs to be mentioned is Liev Schreiber. The is the best portrayal of Saber tooth/victor Creed that we are likely to get. It’s not just his acting, but his appearance is spot on. The shaggy side burns, the running on all four, what a great rendition of a classic villain. I will tell you up front that the fights between Victor and Logan are by far the best in the film.

The Negatives
Though there is tons of action in this film, it isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. After the exposition, the movie falls into a pretty repetitive formula: ‘two guys cross paths, say “hi” to each other, and fight. For the first 30 minutes this formula works like a charm. However, by minute 31, you begin to realize that the film is not going in any other direction. For those who don’t mind mindless combat movies, this is just fine. I happen to fit into this category, so I continued to enjoy the movie for another 20 minutes. But tragically, it is about an hour into the movie when the script writers and choreographers run out of ideas. The result being another 47 minutes of some pretty silly action sequences.

The most noticeable being the fight involving Gambit. Gambit fans please don’t get excited. Gambit is my favorite character in the X-men universe (as judged by the 1990’s animated series), but he might as well have been a towel wrapped around Wolverine’s shoulder for all the good he contributed to this film. So sad… But Gambit isn’t the only comic character to suffer in this movie. One of the greatest factors that amped my anticipation for this film is one of the greatest factors that contribute to its flaws. I was very excited when I found out that there would be nearly 13 mutants in this flick. Unfortunately, that just means there are nearly 13 mutants that are put at risk for being ruined. Not to be pessimistic, but did you see “X-men: The last stand”?

In summary…
…the movie is just a bunch of guys fighting for 2 hours with a very loose scaffold of a story. To be honest, the scaffold is stronger than you’d think, but it is primarily built to promote fighting, and those plots are never very strong. As I’ve mentioned earlier, there are a lot of great fights scenes in the first 30 minutes of the film that almost make the movie worth seeing at a matinee, but even they suffer from poor visual effects. (I know! A big budget movie with computer animation that is easily outdone by some television shows.) In the end, see it if you like superheroes, but shy away if you’re on a budget; hold out for “Star Trek” or “Terminator Salvation

2009-03-28T07:20:00.000-07:00

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor(2008)

For a kid's movie

My Personal Review

Short
Though the movie is ridiculous at times and generally silly all around, it serves to be entertating for anyone who knows what to expect (aka. don’t go in expecting an Oscar winner). The third movie in the "Mummy" series suffers from being slightly…stupidier than its predecessors, and completely abuses Chineese history. With these major considerations aside, the film is laden with enough special affects and childish comedy to serve as an entertaining Tuesday or Wednesday night for the family. But it would be best enjoyed if it costs you no money to see (aka. watch it on TV).

Full

Another installment of "The Mummy" that follows the trend of getting worse with each successive film. Though I would argue that the first "Mummy",despite being ridiculous and stupid at times, was very entertaining, I can not say the same about the third movie. With a switch in directors, the translation of the film's style is noticeable. The movie tries to be the same, silly good time as its predecessors, but it seems more like a familiar, dumb waste of time. You can also tell that the production crew picked a mummy from ancient China so that they could hop on the 'kung fu train' like all current movies. I like kung fu, but it is so poorly done in this film that you wish they hadn’t even made the attempted.

The plot
A mummy from a contrived history of China is awaken by the O’ Connells. And as usual the unstoppable force of the mummy will consume the world. That is of course if Brendan Fraser isn’t there to save the day. From the moment the mummy is awaken, we follow the characters on a series of quests to prevent the mummy from becoming all powerful. Can Brendan save the world...again?

Reasons to see it
Special effects are always fun no matter what context they are in. And this film boasts enough to make me question the economics behind funding movies in Hollywood. Though the visuals do often make you feel like you are watching a cartoon, they are definitely necessary for the movie to maintain your attention (a sign of poor script design).
Also…Umm…I guess that’s it.

The Negatives
The acting is atrocious. Though it wasn’t very notable in the previous films, I just felt that I should mention it here as well.

The characters seem bored of this trilogy, which really shows in some of the tired dialogue. Unfortunatly the boredom is contagious and even though you haven’t seen the movie before, you feel bored too. It made me feel like I had seen the movie but just couldn’t quite predict what would happen next. Weird. This is a classic mistake of not knowing when to stop a fanchise.

The dialogue is poorly written. Though it is possible that the bad acting makes the dialogue seem worse than it is, i'm gonna say that factor only contributes 30%. The rest is just bad writing. The endless phrases of , “the mummy must not be awaken or the whole world will be in danger”, “he must not make it to the mountain, or no one will be safe” becoming extremely annoying. These phrases are hopelessly vague, and no one really seems to know what a mummy would do to the world if unchecked--we didn’t find out in the previous films and you definitely won’t find out here. All we know is that they must be stopped or “all will be lost.”

The lack of a solid plot and the lack of an attempt to pretend that there is one. The movie is a series of childish, special effects driven, action sequence one right after the next. There isn’t even a façade of story depth (something we saw in the second "Mummy"). The jokes are terrible too. I don’t even know if kids would laugh at them.
Also, the soundtrack is no good.

In summary…
...this movie is very silly, but can be a good time for anyone who has nothing else to do. I mean, absolutely nothing else to do.

2009-01-28T08:30:00.000-08:00

The Spirit(2008)

Everyone Can Agree

Short
This movie is terrible with no redeeming qualities. It never finds its tone as it can’t make up its mind between being a kids movie and a graphic novel adaptation. I’m sure some of you men doubt that the women in this movie aren’t redeeming, Scarlett, Eva, Jamie. Trust me, I hoped this to be the case too, and I was sorely slapped in the face. I assure you that the women are no more redeeming than Sam Jackson. The movie has a bad premise, bad acting, bad style choice and bad everything else. Don’t see this. Take your money and just throw it in the trash. The only difference then is that you will not have wasted two hours of your life.

Full

The movie starts out with a standard “don’t judge me yet” intro in which we get the crime noir feel with hints of ”Sin City”. We then meet the villains of the movie who seem to be potentially entertaining and the overall feel of the movie might take with you if it proceeds accordingly. But then you are side blinded by with pure stupidity as The Octopus (Jackson) and the Spirit (Gabriel Macht) fight in the mud for five minutes. Nothing cool happens and no entertainment is had. Maybe the children in the audience would laugh at Jackson beating the Spirit with a toilet seat, but even that is wishful thinking for the film. Worried that the film would never recover from this stupidity, I watch 30 minutes further to find out that it doesn’t. I assure you by 1 hour and 30 minutes it’s only worse.

The plot
There is no story of interest, and what is there is too stupid for me to waste anymore sentences on.

Reasons to see it
There is no reason to see this movie. Not one! Sure the stylistic visuals are cool, but just watch "Sin City".

The Negatives
Suffice it to say there is nothing redeeming about this film. The script is terrible. The actresses, though very attractive, add nothing to the film, not even eye candy. Wearing near full turtle-necks, you would have to be pretty shallow to suffer this movie for a quick, unexciting towel scene with Mendes. In fact, it’s hard to tell why these women are in the movie and what role each of them is supposed to play. Either that or the script is too meaningless to discern them.

In summary…
...this movie is a complete waste of time and money. If you don’t value either, then this movie is still a waste of your life. See anything else excluding ghost rider and dumb and dumber and you will have spend your time infinitely better.