Tuesday, September 8, 2009

District 9

District 9

I heard great things about this movie before I went to see it. Naturally I had pretty high hopes, and most of them were met. It was a great movie, but not quite the new sci-fi classic I was expecting. The movie centers around a group of aliens that have seemingly come here by mistake. The ship they arrived in was not functioning, they were malnourished, and stranded. They are placed in a slum style camp called District 9, where they are being held while the world governments try and decide what to do with them, and by a corporation that is seeking only to try and figure out how their weapons work.

A bit more of a thinking type sci-fi movie than what has come out recently, it stands as a bit of an allegory to racism, and reminiscent of the holocaust and the concentration camps of World War II. My problem with that was the fact that they did not use it in any other way to motivate one to think, and just used it to try and provoke a further emotional response. Other than that, it’s pretty damn good. I was entertained the whole time. Just don’t bother wondering why out of the 1.8 million aliens there, only 2 were trying to fix the ship…

All in all: Extra Terrestrials with a Twist

Lives up to the pre-views? Better.

Stars (out of five): 4


G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

I was never a fan of the toys and cartoon as a kid. But, as a kid, I was familiar with the G.I. Joe basic story line and other goings on and what-nots. I think the caliber of the cartoon might have actually been better that this movie. the movie starts out in 1600’s France , where the villains ancestor is on trial for arms dealing. Then it cuts to the not too distant future, where the villain McCullen (Eccleston) is talking about these little nano-bot things, that seem to be ripped off directly from the remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still. They consume and destroy matter, and have a potential to be a kind of super weapon. Not only that, they become a type of a cause-all end-all plot device that tries to explain all plot holes and other idiocy that is sure to ensue. When they are stolen by a mysterious and highly trained group of mercinaries, the main protagonist Duke (Tatum) joins the elite fighting force, G.I. Joe, and then the hilarity and action ensues to the predictable and rushed ending.

From the pre-view, it looks a lot like a live action version of Team America : World Police that is trying to take itself seriously. Unfortunately for this movie, that is pretty much exactly how it plays out. Only less funny; and it’s not intentional, and quite over loaded with tacky and lengthy back stories. The only redeeming factor in this movie is the action sequences. I will have to admit, they are fun. Just go for the explosions and army style gun fights. Everything else is kinda mind numbing.

All in all: An Army of what?

Lives up to the pre-views? Does it matter? Both terrible.

Stars (out of five): 2


Monday, July 6, 2009

Public Enemies

I knew a little about Dillinger when I went into this movie, and I was surprised at how accurate it was to his life. Don’t think that it is a true biopic though; they did fudge quite a few things, but nothing too important. All of the cool events of Dillinger’s life are there, and done and stylized to the max that one could expect. Depp did an excellent job with the character, brining his own interpretation—and it’s one that’s always fun to watch. Bale on the other hand, did not have much to work with, but did not even do a good job with it. He spent most of the movie forcing a Southern accent that never came across natural. I think everyone left the theatre knowing he was capable of more.

Most of the reviews for this movie bash it for not having a point. Moreover, it does not paint a picture of who Dillinger was: either a folk hero type of Robin Hood, or a vicious robber and killer. I don’t think that was what Mann was trying to do with this movie, but it is going to take some explaining.

Being that it takes place during the Great Depression, there was an attitude that was very against the banks and financial institutions, and that is what I think made Dillinger into somewhat of a folk hero, but he also kills quite a few people, and some innocent. The FBI is guilty of their own wrongdoings, and not the great law enforcing center of justice. They are sometimes also painted as merely protecting the banks money. However, Mann does not set up a clear line of right and wrong, so what we have is a smart tale of two clashing historic figures; Purvis and Dillinger, in a land where morals and ethics are quite flexible, and both sides pushing conflicting ideals. There are only a few drawbacks, and the big one is that the movie is somewhat anti-climactic. But I think Mann’s hands were a bit tied by historical fact, and he did the best with it.

All in all: Hold ‘Em Up & Hunt ‘Em Down

Lives up to the pre-views? Better

Stars (out of five): 4


Sunday, June 28, 2009

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

I will admit that I liked the first movie. It was not a great film by any means, but as a huge fan of the toys and cartoon as a kid, I thought it was fun. As a matter of fact, from opening to closing credits, I was 5 years old again. The sequel brought much of that back, though this one seemed a bit more “silly” than the first. In fact, I think I will just make a list of problems with the movie, to save typing:

There were many side characters brought in for nothing more than comic relief, and failed to serve their purpose.

There were many scenes (especially when he arrives at college) that could have been comfortably left on the cutting room floor, and made this movie far less bloated.

Filled with seemingly much tackier dialogue than the first, making it quite laughable.

There was also a feeling that it has been geared towards a much younger audience, and as a result had a Phantom Menace stink through much of the film. There were plenty of crude jokes, seemingly making it kind of inappropriate for the age level they are targeting.

There was a very weird plot line with older robot aliens that have come to earth before that was not covered well, even in the two and a half hour run time.

One of the older robots has a beard. Yes, a metal beard. I did not know robots had to shave.

So why go see it then?

For the same reason I liked the first one: nostalgia, fun and action. Shia LaBeouf did his usual ok acting job, and Megan Fox is always fun to watch. Not just because she is pretty, and not because of her acting talent (she is not that bad really, but she needs some work before we see any Oscars) but just because she steals every scene she is in, and does a great job of what was written for her. And the robots and explosions; go see them beat up on each other and blow things up. Just don’t start watching it, and expect it to transform into a better show.

All in all: Brainless Bots & Blasts

Worthy Sequel? About the same as the first.

Lives up to the pre-views? Nah.

Stars (out of five): 2.5


Sunday, June 21, 2009

The Hangover

The premise to this movie does not make it look all that interesting. The movie centers around four life long friends, one of whom is getting married in two days, in Las Vegas for a bachelor party. When they wake the next morning, all sorts of destruction, messes and other signs of a wild night fill the suite they are staying in. not only that, but the groom is missing. Upon discovering that, they piece together the happenings of the night by various clues, and as the hijinks of the previous night unfold they are also forced to deal with the consequences of the wild party they have no recollection of.

There were numerous hilarious moments in this movie, as well as several scenarios that can not help but make you chuckle. The acting was surprisingly good for a comedy, and there was not one tired character in the whole show… Right down to the vengeful little fat kid with the taser. You just have to see it for yourself. There was also the character of the socially inept brother-in-law-to-be Alan (Zach Galifianakis) who stole every scene he was in.

The one inherent problem in this movie is that once you have seen it, there isn’t really a point in watching it again. The hilarity comes from watching the events unfold, and once they have, the situations are not that funny themselves. That makes for a movie that will be much less entertaining the second time around.

One more thing to be made aware of, should one be a little queasy: the character of Alan does not like to wear pants, and there is not a lot left to the imagination.

All in all: Headache Hilarity

Lives up to the pre-views? Better.

Stars (out of five): 3.5



Well folks, Pixar has done it again. I thought this one was on par with WALL*E, and maybe even more so with the charm. When you go see a Pixar movie, one expects lots of funny moments, and a lot of heart warming fun. This one brought the goods, again, and entertained from start to end.

The movie follows an snappy old man, who had dreamed of adventure his whole life, and has always let the daily grind get in the way. And one day, when what little he has left is on the brink of being taken by greedy developers, he decides to get out on the adventure of a lifetime, and to the place he has always dreamed of visiting… in his house that is lifted by balloons. Finally having set out on his adventure, things get a little complicated when he encounters a stow-away: a naive kid named Russell.

Filled with all the humor and wackiness one would expect from Pixar and a story premise like that, you are in for a great ride. However, I thought this one was a little more on the sentimental side than other movies they have made. Many people cried almost the whole way through the show. So, expect to laugh, and maybe bring some tissues.

All in all: Humor & Hijinks

Lives up to the pre-views? Yes.

Stars (out of five): 4.5


Sunday, June 7, 2009

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian

I only went to see this movie because we had missed our show time for Up. I was not particularly excited about this movie, but wanted to see it anyways. I thought the first one was not bad, and quite entertaining at points. I don’t think I would be that sad if I never saw it again, but there are worse things to watch than the original Night at the Museum. One of those worse movies to watch is the sequel.

The movie catches up with the night guard from the first film (Stiller), who has now moved on to other things. Eventually, he gets pulled in to helping his magic friends out of a bind at the Smithsonian. Sounds like a great premise right? Has potential for more great laughs and adventure, right? Sure it does. But unfortunately it does not deliver them very well. Yes, there are a few laughs and some excitement, but the film wastes most of it’s time going from side show to side show, one special effect after another, and making every odd object they possibly can dance and/or sing (the cherubs from the fountain are quite painful to watch).

The story itself is actually pretty lame, and not very interesting. I’m not going to go into a lot of detail, because there really isn’t much. And another note of caution: don’t think too hard. It will just make it worse. One example of some questions to avoid pondering: “With that racket, explosions and smashing, why has not one alarm gone off? Where are all the other security guards?”

There are other equally mind numbing holes in this movie, especially with the villain, and the other ‘side-shows’ with plenty of modern day tacky catch phrases. So why see it? Well, it’s still fun. There are a couple of laughs, and the character of Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams) is quite charming, with lots of witty jokes at her expense. Ben Stiller does his usual lovable doofus who learns a valuable lesson, if you are a fan of that… but he’s still not at his best. However, it will entertain the kids.

All in all: Tour de Tasteless

Worthy sequel? No.

Lives up to the pre-views? Nah.

Stars (out of five): 2.5


Friday, May 22, 2009

Terminator Salvation

I have a few words of caution for those who are about to go see this movie. That is, remember that it is a Terminator movie. It’s not going to win any Oscars, and they were never meant to. These movies, with the exception of the 3rd installment, are a personal favorite of mine. The reason for that is a little tricky. The first and second movies open up a huge philosophical “can of worms” so to speak. They bring about the weird paradoxes of time travel, raise questions on human nature, what it means to be human, what makes us human and a few other debatable situations of free will and fate. That’s not my favorite thing about these movies though.

What makes me love those movies is the fact that they sit right on top of those subjects, with all the potential to be very deep and insightful, and they do nothing with it. They spend 2-is hours blowing things up. It’s so close; almost a thinker movie, and then everyone gets shot.

It makes me grin every time.

This one is no exemption. Christian Bale does a great job brining us a brooding, but optimistic Jon Connor, and Anton Yelchin does an acceptable job as a teenage Kyle Reese. The real treat in this movie is the character of Marcus Wright. Sam Worthington gives a great performance as the guy you want to root for if you could bring yourself to like him. And his character has a potentially fascinating arc, and of course, it’s happily lost to everyone in gunfire.

Remember kids, it’s just an action movie. Not “best picture of the year”. Just go see it and have some fun. Oh, and it has a T-800 with the face of Arnie! That’s a real treat for the fans.

All in all: Metal Limbs and Mediocrity

Lives up to the pre-views? Yup.

Worthy sequel? To 1 and 2, yes. Forget 3. Please.

Stars (out of five): 4


Monday, May 18, 2009

Star Trek

When I first heard about this one, I had some serious doubts. The Star Trek movies have been sucking pretty hard lately. In fact, the 9th was so dull it was nearly unwatchable. The 10th one just tried to follow the Wrath of Khan formula for a quick thrill, and for the most part failed. So, naturally, my first thought was that they are going to go after the old stuff, and muck that up too.

And I was delighted to find that was not the case. Every actor brought their characters alive, and most gave a new demention to them that was either drastically understated, or not there in the original. Chris Pine was an excellent choice for Kirk, and Karl Urban stole every scene he was in. even with Leonard Nimoy reprising his famous role as Spock, I often thought that he was out shined many times by Zachary Quinto. Other fantastic performances are there as well, including Bruce Greenwood, John Cho, Simon Pegg and an excellent villain by Eric Bana.

The action was quick and great, and most importantly they did not do a lot of quick crazy shots that can ruin any action movie if not done correctly.

I am looking forward to many many more. Go see it. You will thank yourself. In fact, see it twice.

All in all: Spock on Spock!

Lives up to the pre-views: Goes Boldly Beyond

Worthy sequel: Oh yes. Best Yet.

Stars (out of five): 4.5


X-Men Origins: Wolverine

I am going to start off this review with the fact that I am not a “purist”. Moreover, I have not read the Wolverine Origins graphic novel(s), nor do I follow the comic books on a regular basis. I used to as a kid, but not so much anymore. The reason I bring that up, is because I think it has affected many reviews unjustly.

Let’s start with the good news first. The acting was much better than one would expect from a movie like this. Hugh Jackman did his usual Wolverine routine, and to be quite honest; it’s the great one we are used to. He makes watching that character very fun, if not the best part of that movie. Liev Schreiber I thought did a good job as the antagonist, a heartless self serving remorseless killer, who seems to enjoy it a little too much. There were a lot of scene stealers, who were at the top of their game, and perfect for the roles, such as Ryan Reynolds, Kevin Durand and Will.i.am. I had a feeling that Taylor Kitsch would disappoint as Gambit, and he did.

Now the bad news folks. The movie was filled with plot holes and sloppy story telling. Not only that, but there were a little too many “one liners” that just seemed a bit out of place. I am not going to go into any details on the plot holes, because it would requite some spoilers.

Overall, lots of action, explosions and all that good old mutant fighting you have come to expect from the series. Really, it’s better than the third movie, but don’t expect it to be up to par with X-Men 1 & 2; it’s definitely worth a look, just don’t think too hard.

All in all: Mutants and Mayhem

Worthy Sequel: Yeah. Better than the last one.

Lives up to the pre-views? Yup.

Stars (out of five): 3.5


Wednesday, March 4, 2009


The movie follows two generations of the costumes heroes. The first generation having gotten old and retired, killed or just disappeared. The movie starts off in October of an 'alternate' 1985, where the second generation of heroes are forced to quit by the government, go to work for the government or continue to do the job outside of the law. When one of them is murdered (one from the first generation), the new generation investigates, and starts to unravel a huge sinister plot stretching both generations that will change the course of our world.

I had heard about the graphic novel before, but as most comic books bore me, I never thought to read it. However, it came highly recommended by some friends of mine who were very excited about the movie. So I gave it a try, and it did not disappoint. The graphic novel was brilliant. It made me very excited as well to see the movie. The movie did not disappoint either. It was surprisingly true to the source material. Very little changes and omissions were made. The characters were just as vivid and rich as they were in the book, and the director translated that to cinema almost flawlessly. The characters of the heroes are portrayed as 'human' as well, being that they have many flaws, and are definitely not the 'up standing citizens' as heroes are often portrayed in the genre.

In fact, the "heroes" torture, kill and suffer from weird personality disorders. Some have a nostalgic view of the past, where heroes are the good guys, and the lines between good and evil are black and white, and finding that is not quite the case any longer (or ever was). Some are fixed in the belief that what they do is right, and no matter what awful things they do, their ends justify the means. They vary from being amoral to nihilistic to lunatics to having no humanity at all. And those lines are not always clear either.

With characters that complicated and fascinating, and a critique of society and humanity as sharp as this, there is a reason the graphic novel made Time Magazine's 100 Best Novels list. the movie may not be destined for that much fame, but it excellently captured all of the fantastic elements of the comic. So to say the least; the movie is as deep as you look, and fulfilling on all levels.

The acting is spectacular. I even thought the worst characters still did a great job. You leave wanting more of The Comedian and Rorschach. Even with all of the story lines running at the same time, the movie is still watchable and not too confusing. The action and visual effects are very stylized, and well done. Even the long running time (2.5 hours) just fly’s by (for me anyways).

I just have one bit of advice: This is not a kids superhero movie. Leave them at home. It is rated R for a reason folks.

So who is watching the Watchmen? ...Hopefully you are. And I can only hope that you will get as much out of it as I did.

All in all : )

Lives up to the pre-views? Much MUCH better.

Stars (out of five): 4.5


Saturday, February 14, 2009

Friday the 13th

I am not a huge fan of most of the original movies. The majority of them are terrible, and the rest are barely watchable, and unintentionally humorous. The original movies reek of low budget, lack of talent and predictability. So why is Mr. Voorhees so popular then? Why even bother remaking that stuff? The answer is simple. He has made his mark as a horror icon, and deserves a movie, or movies, that will live up to the stigma he has. So, then, why the stigma? Well, it is more of ‘what is scary about Jason’ than the movies themselves scaring you. Jason Voorhees is the ugly looking possibly retarded kid who drown at Crystal Lake as a child, and has ‘returned’ (I have to use the word ‘returned’, because the ‘how’ (zombie, healing abilities, mistaken for dead) varies depending on the installment you are watching) to exact revenge on those who enter his sanctuary, and mourn the loss of his mother.

Jason, along with other zombie types, is scary because of two things. The first is that you fear his presence. His appearance, being really ugly and hiding behind the emotionless mask, is almost if not completely sub-human; and can make anyone uncomfortable. He has a towering stature that make any physical confrontation seem impossible, and the skin being dirty and almost rotten is supposed to revolt you- and does so quite well. The second thing is that he is the Big Lumbering Death, and like the story of the tortoise and the hare, he will catch up to you no matter how fast you run and kill you (even though, once again, depending on the installment you are watching he may be really slow, or quite speedy and smart).

One element is a little more complicated, and something I noticed and is probably only interesting to me. It stems from the fact that he is always killing the teenagers who are partying. I think this might make him somewhat of a contemporary version of Grendel. Take that for what you will. It makes him just that more interesting when thinking about it.

Anyways, back to the film itself. This installment, or remake- whatever, has no new input into the story. They do nothing new on the creative side, and nothing to add to the character of Jason. There is no new setting, and everything is the same as the old ones: big killer slashing his way through partying teenagers. So why see it?... Why not. Why not watch one of the most recognizable horror icons do what he does best. This time with better acting, better filmmaking, and a bigger budget and waaayyy more style and grit. Be prepared for a popcorn munching good time.

All in all: Grit & Gore Galore

Lives up to the pre-views? Sure.

Lives up to the original(s)? Yes and no.

Stars (out of five): 4


Monday, February 9, 2009


Wow- I have been slacking lately. I saw this movie days ago, and now I just get around to posting the review. Anyways, it starts out slow, and Liam seems really sappy in the role of the retiree trying to re establish his relationship with his estranged teenage daughter. When things seem to be going well, she goes on a trip to Paris with a friend, and then is promptly abducted.
He then embarks on a hunt and find type mission with his CIA given skills, and murders and tortures his way to his daughter, who is caught up in a high class underground sex-slave trade operation.

That is really all there is to review about this show. Some of the acting is lame, and from the premiss, you have a good guess how the show will go… and from that I give it a thumbs down for creativity. But the action ans suspense is nonstop. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time. Ans I will say this too: he would make an excellent James Bond. I really believe that after this show. Liam can do gome good action.

All in all: Popin’ Caps & Popcorn Perfection!

Lives up to the pre-views? No, Better

Stars (out of five): 4


Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans

I can't think of a decent way to write a review for this movie. The mythology that they have built around these movies has a life all its own; you go in knowing exactly what to expect, or you won't go see it at all for the same reason. The first two movies ere not great by any means, but they were not bad mindless entertainment. They had action and gore and not much else, and this one was no exception. However, the first two movies were fun to watch once and then never see again. This one lacked even more than the others. I got bored at parts. The others at least had the action to fill in the gaps of bad acting and story.

This installment was more character driven, and that was a bad choice. Not only were the characters not that interesting, but the acting was a little subpar on almost every level. The story also failed to grab an interest. I found myself not really caring if the vampires or the werewolves won whatever battle this is. Not to mention that it is a prequel. I hate to say it, but if you have seen the others, you know how this is going to toss up in the end.

But, if you are going to see a movie like this, chances are you are not looking for something Oscar worthy. Chances are you are looking for a story that is only a vehicle for cool costumes, good makeup, lots of evil-doers, and violence and gore by the bucket load. This delivers just that- so if that's what you want, this is just what the doctor ordered.

All-in-all: Sucking: of the Blood and Cinema Variety.

Worthy Sequel? I thought the first two were better.

Lives up to the pre-views? Sure does...

Stars (out of five): 2


Sunday, January 18, 2009

My Bloody Valentine 3D

The first thing I heard about this movie is that it was terrible. That it sucked. That all the acting was atrocious, and the plot was predictable, cliché and done many times before. And for the most part, that’s all true. Except there were a few scenes were the acting wasn’t all bad, and the main characters did do their best job with the script provided. The main sheriff I thought did a pretty good job, and Jamie King is always fun to watch. Even though her acting is not really academy award winning, it’s good enough, and way too good for a movie like this.

Other than the grievances above, this movie has a couple other major problems. First, not only is the plot rather run of the mill, it has far too much back story. The movie starts out ten years in the past, where a mining accident kills everyone in the mine, except for one guy, and he is in a coma. A year later, he comes out of the coma, and for some reason is now a psychopath and kills more people, and is stopped. And nine years after that (present day now), the killings mysteriously start again. It’s almost like they wanted to make the sequel more than the first installment. Or they were looking for a means, any means, to make this less boring- even if it consists of long and unnecessary back story.

The second real problem is the 3D. Not that the 3D is not cool, but it has the same issues that Beowulf fell victim to. There are too many scenes that are gimmicky, and only good with the 3D glasses. Once this is out on DVD, you will just have pointless and stretched scenes of things waiving in your face.

The 3D is the only reason I will recommend you see this movie. Even for as bas as the show is, it’s still a lot of fun. Just be prepared; if you have a weak stomach or are easily offended by nudity (there is a heavy amount in one part), this show is not for you. I would like to think that it goes without saying that given it’s a horror movie; there is a lot of gore. But this one seems to have more than the average. And all the blood, guts, mutilated corpses and violence are in 3D, so it might add a bit more to the, well, ‘icky-ness’ of the show. Leave the kids at home!

All in all: Blood Bath & Bland

Lives up to the pre-views? Sure. What else would you expect though?

Stars (out of five): 1.5


Friday, January 9, 2009

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

I will admit- I was intrigued by the idea of this movie. It's about a guy that ages backwards! How interesting. But how can they make an entire movie of just that? Let alone one that is almost three hours long? The answer is to fill it with a heavy dose of romance and heartache and the like. In fact, this was more of a chick-flick than anything else. They really did not focus on the oddity of his aging as much as one would think. It simply spans his life from beginning to end (or end to beginning?) and people he meets, the loves that he has, and of course the true love that keeps getting away.

The movie starts out in a hospital where the main love interest Daisy (Cate Blanchett) is old and on her death bed, just before the landfall of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. She is with her daughter, who is trying to spend as much time as she can with her dying mother (already reeks of chick-flick stuff, right from the start). The old lady asks her daughter to fetch a diary from her luggage, one that she has apparently not read yet. Her daughter begins reading, and then we get a narrated biography of Benjamin Button, in his own words.

The side characters that he meets along the way are a lot more interesting than the main ones I thought. His father did an excellent job, the tugboat captain stole every scene he was in, and there was even a small role of an English lady he has an affair with played by Tilda Swinton. Not to say that character is a scene stealer, I just love Tilda Swinton, and pretty much everything she does. Sadly, that is what I came out of this movie with- an enjoyment of the supporting characters, and another run-of-the-mill bleeding-heart love story that depressed the hell out of me.

All in all: Melancholy Romance and Wrinkles

Lives up to the Pre-Views: I Suppose...

Stars (out of five): 3


Thursday, January 1, 2009

The Spirit

I like Frank Miller. The Sin City movie was great. Never before, or since, have I seen a comic book movie that has made me be interested in the graphic novel behind it. Granted, we probably owe more to Robert Rodriguez for that than Frank Miller; but still- it was great.

That has left big shoes to fill for a lot of other comics he has done. 300 was acceptable. I still don’t want to run out and get the comic, but it was ok. Here, now, we have his latest called The Spirit.

Now keep in mind, he actually did not write these comics. They were written and drawn by someone else, he just wanted to bring them to the big screen. And now that he has, I am concerned that there will be a lot of people who will not get, well, the ‘sense of humor’ of this movie.

To be quite honest, by most standards, it’s terrible. The acting is bad, the plot is bad, everything; bad, bad, bad. But there is a subtle tongue-in-cheek tone to this movie that most will not pick up on, and it will keep them from liking it as much as they could.

There is humor in it. Much more than people will see. It pokes fun of itself, and of the entire genre of comic books and movie crossings. It’s absurd, visually fun to watch, and I think has the potential to be the Evil Dead of comic book superhero films. The unfortunate thing is that most won’t get this, and if that was the intent of this movie, it didn’t get across well enough to catch on. I think instead of everyone just going to see a silly, goofy noir comic hero not take himself or anything too seriously, they are going to see a cinematic disappointment of great magnitude.

All in all: Noir and Nonsense.

Lives up to the pre-views? No; quite different.

Stars (out of five): 3.5


The Day The Earth Stood Still

It has been years since I have seen the original. In fact, even when I was young and had the opportunity to watch the original, I remember falling asleep or something, but I certainly don’t remember watching the entire movie. The original had the aliens land here in the flying saucer, and the human looking one warn us about the use of nuclear weapons, and how we were going to destroy everything, and then I remember very little after that.

This one was pretty much more of the same. Keanu Reeves has the role that was perfect for him, an emotionless alien who comes with a message of doom and despair. In the new one, we are warned about destroying the planet and wrecking the Earth’s rare life support capabilities. In lieu of saving the planet, we are won’t be exterminated like cockroaches.

The original had almost every tacky and cliché element in it that you would expect from a sci-fi film in the 1950’s to 1960’s nuclear scare era. Unfortunately, we seem to be putting some of the same stamps on a lot of films that we are making these days. Thanks Al Gore. Any ways, back to the film.

The movie was watchable. There, I said it. I kind of liked it as a matter of fact. Even though Keanu was in the really bad/perfect role, the special effects were really good (except for G.O.R.T., I will get ot that later) and the other actors did a really good job. And other than the message being a little predictable, the movie kept me entertained the entire time.

Oh, right, G.O.R.T. yeah, he was in it. And the problem here is that they did not bother to give him as much of a makeover as they did the rest of the film. In fact, they did not even bother to change that ridiculous name, just made an acronym for it. And not only that, they short changed him on the special effects too. All the other spheres and alien craziness were quite detailed and good. Except for G.O.R.T.- he looked like something right out of Shrek; and without much to do.

All in all: Extra-Terrestrials and Exterminators.

Lives up to the pre-views? Yeah, it does. Take that for what you will.

Lives up to the Original? Probably. I can’t say I care much.

Stars (out of five): 3.5