THE CINEMA PROJECT

District 9

2009-09-08T13:39:00.000-07:00

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

T

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

2009-09-08T13:38:00.000-07:00

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

T

Public Enemies

2009-07-06T00:17:00.000-07:00

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

T

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

2009-06-28T13:05:00.000-07:00

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

T

The Hangover

2009-06-21T23:56:00.000-07:00

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

T

Up

2009-06-21T23:53:00.000-07:00

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

T

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian

2009-06-07T15:23:00.000-07:00

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

T

Terminator Salvation

2009-05-22T23:37:00.000-07:00

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 3^rd 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

T

Star Trek

2009-05-18T00:05:00.000-07:00

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 9^th was so dull it was nearly unwatchable. The 10^th 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

T

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

2009-05-18T00:00:00.000-07:00

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

T

Watchmen

2009-03-04T23:55:00.000-08:00

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

T

Friday the 13th

2009-02-14T23:48:00.000-08:00

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

T

Taken

2009-02-09T23:59:00.000-08:00

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

T

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans

2009-01-28T20:27:00.000-08:00

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

T

My Bloody Valentine 3D

2009-01-18T23:36:00.000-08:00

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

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

2009-01-09T23:49:00.000-08:00

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

T

The Spirit

2009-01-01T20:24:00.000-08:00

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

T

The Day The Earth Stood Still

2009-01-01T20:21:00.000-08:00

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

T

Australia

2008-12-07T12:33:00.000-08:00

This movie was a mix of a lot of things, and quite long. It takes place in late 1930’s Australia, where two cattle ranches are competing for a government contract to supply beef to British troops fighting in the war. The ranches are of course owned and operated by wealthy English types. When one of the families needs money, and the wife in England wants to sell and the husband on the ranch does not, she makes the trip to Australia and then the adventure/romance/comedy ensues.

I did not really spot a lot of bad acting in this movie. Everyone was watchable, and with the exception of the antagonist, every character was fun to watch- including the kid. I normally hate child actors, and the parts written for them, but this kid did a pretty good job. The only “beef” I had with this movie was the length. Coming in at just shy of 3 hours and having the “Lord of the Rings Syndrome” with several endings (some even in the middle of the movie) there to make you sit up, think ‘that was nice’, and promptly sit back down because it just keeps going. Not that it was a bad thing, there were not a lot of slow parts, but this could have easily been two movies; or one with a lot of un-needed parts. Just allocate a large chunk of time if you plan on indulging in this over blown piece of cinema.

And, yes, if you want some deep reading artsy-fartsy stuff, it has a bit of that too. Not only is it action and comedy and romance and looming war, but there is a bit of reading between the lines. Most of it is the civil rights and racism issues that are reminiscent of 1960’s to 1950’s divided America. It is between the white culture and the native, and the assimilations into each, intolerances of each, and about those who walk those borders of the civilized and the wild, and the black and white. With that being said, the main kid in the movie echoes Hick Finn a little too close (he is also the narrator, and takes quite a bit of getting used too).

All in all: Rancher Action and Romance Action

Lives up to the pre-views? Didn’t see any

Stars (out of five): 4

T

Quantum Of Solace

2008-11-18T22:54:00.000-08:00

I love the Bond movies. Even the campy ones (just not as much). 'Casino Royale' was one of my favorites, so naturally I was looking forward to this one a lot. And for as much as I loved 'Casino', I did not feel like watching it again. That is kind of what happened with this movie. The whole movie had the feel that it was not a sequel, but simply the last half of 'Casino' released two years later. Granted, it did have its own plot, different villains, etc. but there was far too much time spent wrapping up the mysteries left from 'Casino', and not enough time focusing on the potentials of this movie. It had a great idea; and a good way to go about getting bond in the middle of it. The villain was great: Mathieu Amalric played the wealthy power hungry yuppie who was ready to loose his sanity at any moment. Craig did the top-notch bond again, and all was right in the acting world.

But sadly enough, only the third movie will tell whether this installment will be the 'Empire Strikes Back', or the 'Austin Powers II' of Craig's Bond story. Because, sadly, even though the action was good (a little too quick edited for my taste though), acting was great, and what original story it had was good, but it relied too much on 'Casino' to be a great stand alone Bond film. If you want my advice, take an afternoon and watch 'Casino Royale' and this one right after, and pretend they are not supposed to be separate movies.

All in all: Wit & Wild

Lives up to the pre-views: I guess…

Stars (out of five): 3.5

Max Payne

2008-10-28T00:40:00.000-07:00

I do have to admit; I never played the video game. And I know that a video game-to-movie is always going to be a little ‘over the top’. But for a movie like this, the fact that it was a video game had nothing to do with the cinematic train-wreck that was this film. There was a lot to give you hints that this was going to have a chunk of the supernatural in it, and you were even lead to believe that at several points in the movie.

In fact, there were several points in the movie that made you feel as if it could not make up its mind if it wanted to be a supernatural thriller, or a gritty crime drama. And both paths set up for nothing new. What I will give this movie good credit for is having really good cinematography, special effects and great action. But sadly that is all it had going for it. The supernatural ‘hints’ left many more questions to be answered, and lots of illogical plot holes. As a matter of fact, some of the inconsistencies left plot holes so big I actually though about walking out at one point. However, I did decide to stick around for the inevitable and quite gruesome shootings… they always make it worth the ticket price if nothing else does.

Lives up to the pre-views? No.

All-in-all: Holes- of the bullet and plot variety.

Stars (out of five): 2

Appaloosa

2008-10-15T13:18:00.000-07:00

I do have to admit; I have never been a huge fan of Western Movies. The most recent ones however, including this one, have pleasantly surprised me. This movie centers around two travelers, one of which is a former soldier, who go from town to town as gunmen for hire. The catch on that is, they are more like ‘sheriffs for hire’. They go to towns with big law problems, and are hired by the town’s leaders to protect the place. And when they finally end up in Appaloosa, New Mexico, to save the city from a murderous rancher on the outskirts of town and his rough brawler ranch help- the movie goes down a predictable and generic ‘trail’.

Even though it has a bit of a standard setup, the acting is excellent- making it much more of a character study that any kind of action film. There are a few twists in it as well, making for a little more action than you would think for a character study, and the action is actually quite suspenseful. In fact, the moments before the shootouts are more tense than the shootouts themselves.

Normally Western movies center around a lone gunman who is brining justice to a lawless town, and therefore bringing about the end of his era. That is the era of the range riding gunslinger who lives by the laws of the land, rather than the government. This movie does that very much as well, setting up those who want a life in a new ‘modern’ era, and those who know they can’t survive in such a change of ‘times’, and with a very pleasant existentialist tone at the end of the film- towards those who the onset of a better era will leave in the dust.

Lives up to the pre-views: Didn’t see any

All in All: Duos and Duels

Stars (out of five): 4

Choke

2008-09-25T15:50:00.000-07:00

Choke is due out this week. I saw this last January at Sundance. So, instead of doing a new review, I am going to take the lazy route with this one. Here is my review of Choke, from last January on The Mad Scientist blog (of course, with the features here added):

Well, I am going to start off by saying that the book is better than the movie. It always is. This movie is an excellent adaptation however. There were only a few small changes and creative liberties for times sake. The show was pretty much step by step the book. Sam Rockwell did an excellent job as the main character. He channeled Palahniuk’s writing perfectly. The rest of the supporting cast was good as well, with the exception of the mother character. She left a little to be desired. For those of you who are easily offended this movie is not for you. There is a LOT of vulgar/pervasive content. But what would you expect? The movie is about a sex addicts. That is incidental in the story however. The main ideas of the book, mostly the twisted and unusual take on the concept of a ‘savior’. The driving point of the book (one of my favorites by Chuck P.) is where and how do we find a ‘savior’? The main character runs a scam by pretending to choke to death in high-end restaurants, and have the wealthy patrons ‘save’ him. By the old Chinese concept that once you save someone’s life, you are responsible for that person, so they send him money and nice gifts, which he uses to pay for his mother’s mental hospital bills. They become his savior by a sort of twisted means. But that is not the only way this is explored. He has his mother’s doctor translate her diary. She finds that through some weird turn of past events he may be a direct descendant of Jesus. He of course does not want to be the savior of humanity and goes down some paths that he thinks are self destructive, and end up unintentionally parallel to that of Jesus, and craziness ensues as only Chuck P. can produce. The main questions are accurately presented: If we save someone who is pulling a scam, is it still saving? Are we saved in our lives by the highs from our addictions? Do we save ourselves through rehab and sobriety? Is a savior just a religious idea, or can we find them in the most unlikely of places? Can one surrounded by smut and pervasive behavior be saved by love?

All in all: Saviors, Sex and Sarcasm

Lives up to the pre-views? Yes.

Stars (out of five): 4

T

Righteous Kill

2008-09-21T15:14:00.000-07:00

In reading other reviews for this movie, I was not expecting much going into it. However, with that being the case, I was pleasantly surprised with this movie. I wanted a gritty cop crime drama, and that was exactly what I got. The two actors I thought did an excellent job. They were their normal characters though, Pacino was the normal seeming crazy guy and Deniro was his usual hot-headed mean guy. Not a large step out of the norm for either actor, but always fun to watch.

The movie centers around two cops who are on the trail of a murderer. the problem is, they come to the conclusion that the killer is also a cop, making him very hard to catch. The killer targets bad people who have slipped through the justice system and remain on the street, and most of them are cases that the buddy cops had worked on. Not only that, but the crimes they are investigating drag up some shady and illegal things the two of them had done years before to put a child killer behind bars.

The movie was very entertaining, despite seeming like a long episode of CSI, a plot twist I guessed mid way through the movie, the presence of 50 Cent as supporting cast (quite painful), and the fact that both of them just seemed too old.

All in all: Wrinkles and Wrong-Doers

Lives up to the pre-views? Mostly.

Stars (out of five): 3

T

Bangkok Dangerous

2008-09-08T15:01:00.000-07:00

This movie centers around a hit man (Nicholas Cage) who is hired by a Mafia boss to kill four people who are ‘bad for business’ so to speak. Then violence ensues. But there is not as much action as one might expect- the majority of the movie gravitates around the killer character and the people (two in particular) he interacts with during his job. The movie starts with him describing his routines and “rules” he follows, and how lonely he kind of is. So, basically, it takes a turn from indiscriminant killing to tell a story a guy who is essentially isolated from humanity, and how he breaks some of his “rules” to be a little more on the normal side of life.

The big problem with ‘hit man’ types of movies is setting up the killer to be a protagonist. There are only a few routes that one can take. The most cliché is the ‘I only kill bad people’ type of approach. I applaud this movie for not doing that. Or there is a ‘they needed to be killed, because some other higher power said they did’ type of scenario (a perfect example is Wanted). This show did not take that route either. In fact, it made no apologies for the main character, and what he does. To set him up as a protagonist with that being the case, they give him the guilt of what he has done (yes, even innocent people) to grapple with. Unfortunately for this movie, it was not done enough, nor is it enough material for an entire movie. But the touches on this subject are well done- it just needs more, a lot more. Then it would have been a much better movie. My biggest complaints were: the middle drags, and all of his social interactions have been done before, in these same types of movies nonetheless (and much better). There are spots of action here and there, and the final scene is a bit odd. It is meant to demonstrate how once you go down this kind of path, your life cannot go back to the way it was- I think. Like I said, it’s not that well done.

All in all: Life-taking Lifestyle.

Lives up to the pre-views? No, much less action than one would expect.

Stars (out of five): 3

T

Tropic Thunder

2008-08-19T15:46:00.001-07:00

When I first saw the pre-views for this, my first reaction was: oh, I’ve seen all this crap before. And really, you have. The movie centers around a group of over the top actors filming a war movie, and by a twist of fate and a cruel idea from the director, they are plunged into some real life combat with scary mercenaries working at a heroin refinement plant. Basically, actors thinking bullets and danger are all part of the set, and comedy ensues. Aside from having a less than original plot, it’s quite entertaining. And who goes into a comedy expecting great acting and a superb plot?

There are even fake pre-views and ads at the first for the characters movies, and those are some of the best moments of the film. And Robert Downey Jr’s character transforms himself into an African-American guy, and plays an absolutely hilarious racial stereotype, which steals the comedy thunder of Jack Black and Ben Stiller when they are on camera together. Jack Black and Ben Stiller do their usual comedy routines; Black does the loud and crazy guy, and Stiller does his clueless and illogical dumb guy. That alone carries the first half or so of the movie. Once again, even though you have seen it before, it’s still pretty funny.

The latter half of the show gets a little slow. The funny parts get more and more sparse, and it mostly just spends its time setting up for the end, which has quite a few chuckles, but does not redeem itself for letting you get a little bored. I’m not kidding, there were a few times I thought of listing points in the movie that would be ideal piss breaks.

All in all: Nonsense and nuisance in a neat package.

Lives up to the pre-views? Falls a little short.

Stars (out of five): 3

Pineapple Express

2008-08-14T10:32:00.000-07:00

First thing's first: you must go into this movie not expecting typical stoner humor. The humor is mostly conversational sarcasm, with only a bit of over the top type physical comedy. The main character works a government job, dates a high school girl and is constantly smoking pot. When his job puts him into a situation where he accidentally witnesses a murder, he and his burned out hippie dealer must go on the run from a ruthless drug lord and crooked police officers. The typical buddy comedy conflicts arise, and there are parts where I was rolling in laughter. However, be prepared to mostly chuckle at the witty (or wit-less) banter of stoners.

The movie is also surprisingly brutal at times, and makes you laugh at rather harsh violence. There are several fist fights that actually make you cringe when they are hit and slammed into things, but still making you giggle the entire time- especially when lots of silly things are used as weapons. There is one character that gets shot pretty much every time he is in a fight, and just does not seem to die. It's great humor. You just have to be in the right mind-set to be able to get the most out of this movie.

Even though this is great entertainment and I loved watching it- nothing out of the normal plot formulas for this type of flick occurred. The dialogue was great, the little physical comedy was great, the acting was timed for comedy delivery perfectly- it just failed to leap into anything that is original. And it very well could have, just some wasted potential. I would recommend seeing it, but I would not buy the DVD.

Lives up to the pre-views? Falls a little short- or not.

All in all: Stoned banter and stray bullets.

Stars (out of five): 3

The X Files: I Want To Believe

2008-07-27T11:14:00.000-07:00

I grew up on The X Files, but as the series went on, you have to admit- it got a little campy. In fact; very campy. The alien plot got very over the top, almost to the point of silly. Really, it did, with the alien bounty hunters and the oil and the bees and the syndicate and the Lone Gunmen (if not just for comic relief) and the list goes on and on. The thing I always loved about the series though was the fast paced questioning of moral and ethical issues, ant the episodes with ‘stand alone’ plots. Yes, those were campy too, especially as the series went on. However, the best ones were when they left a lot open, and the supernatural elements were merely tools to examine whatever issue that the two sides could disagree on. All in my opinion of course.

When I heard this movie was going to be a ‘stand alone’ type of plot, I got giddy with excitement. And all of the anticipation had paid off. It had everything I loved about the show, and none of the stuff that I even came close to thinking was campy in any sort of way.

The movie starts off with both of them having left the FBI, and Scully is now a doctor at a Catholic hospital, and Moulder is on the run from the FBI. The two of them get asked to come back by some new agents to assist on a case involving a missing agent. The reason they asked for Moulder specifically is that their only lead in the case is a pedophile priest who is claiming to be a psychic, and leading them to all kinds of gruesome evidence. That is all I am going to tell you. The rest will be up to you to enjoy in this fantastic new adventure.

Here’s a bit of caution: do not go in expecting any aliens, explosions or CGI. Expect a thriller of moderate scale, a fast paced ethical discussion. And when you come out, there are two questions you should ask yourself: Do you believe? And more importantly to the point of the film: what cost would you pay to save a persons life?

Lives up to the pre-views? Above and beyond them.

All in all: Thinker’s Thriller

Worthy sequel? Oh yes. Yes, YES!

Stars (out of five): 4.5

T

Penelope

2008-07-23T20:02:00.001-07:00

If you like Beauty And The Beast fairy tale type movies, then this one is right up your alley. I am not a particular fan of this type, because no matter what, you know how it is going to end. The differences in these types of movies is purely cosmetic. Despite having such great talent, including but not limited to: Christina Ricci, Reese Witherspoon and James McAvoy, it was indeed the average 'what you would expect' type if Disney-esqe barf.

However, even though it is not something I would usually see, I would definitely say that it does indeed deliver what it promises. To really enjoy this and get the most out of it, you must really like this kind of movie, or be a girl under the age of 9. I will grudgingly admit though, I was entertained at some points, and laughed a bit.

All in all: Princess Paradise-ish.

Lives up to the pre-views? Yes. Yes it does.

Stars (out of five): 3.5

T

Wanted

2008-07-20T12:51:00.000-07:00

This movie seemed right from the start to be a mix between The Matrix and Fight Club. And that is exactly what it was through out the duration of the movie. Not that that is a bad thing though, it was thoroughly entertaining, fun action and lots of slow motion shots of bullets going through people’s heads. Mostly what you would expect from a graphic novel turned movie, the characters were a little shallow, and I hate to say, but there was not a lot of chemistry between the leading man and Jolie’s character (I don’t think there was supposed to be a lot anyway). It also got a little ‘bizarre’, when you figure out where they get the orders of who to kill from, and pretty much everything in the textile mill. But again, it is a comic book turned movie.

The films saving grace was the tremendous amounts of action- including excellent car chases, lots of guns, physically impossible bullet tricks, good knife fights, a very tense scene on a train, and of course Morgan Freeman in a pretty cool role (he has an absolutely hilarious line at one point).

The message from the main character at the end is worth the price of the ticket alone. It makes you want to get out and do something with your life. That is something that we could all use at one time or another, and in any amount.

All in all: Action and Gore Galore

Lives up to the pre-views? Mostly, it’s a little more ‘odd’ than you would expect.

Stars (out of five): 3

T

The Dark Knight

2008-07-14T16:14:00.000-07:00

I think I will start first with the elephant in the room: every one wants to know about the Joker. I will just say that Heath Ledger is spectacular. He is to The Dark Knight as Anthony Hopkins is to The Silence Of The Lambs. I had my doubts about Heath when he was first cast for the role. He did not disappoint. He has given us a Joker for the ages, and he did not simply expand on Jack Nicholson's role, but made it into something all his own, and it is top notch.

The thing that was my favorite about the first movie was the fact that it was actually about Batman, and not just about the villains. This one has enough of a balance between the two, and enough story and interest on both sides, that you simply do not want this movie to end. It will be the fastest 2.5 hours you will spend in the theatre, and you will wish it was more.

One thing I might suggest: do not go to this movie just for the Joker. Yes, he is spectacular, but there is so much rich talent throughout this movie, even the scenes he is not in are captivating. Christian Bale does the usual Bruce Wayne/Batman from the first movie, and does an excellent job with his character facing the new circumstances. The character of Harvey Dent was much richer than that of the Joker, and could easily carry the film in his absence.

Beware! Even for a comic book movie, this may be too dark and disturbing for children. The PG-13 rating cannot be stressed enough, it can be very brutal and disturbing at times. And if you are not a fan of comic book super hero movies, this one is not to be missed. If you have any doubts, just go see it any way. You will be glad you did (just leave the kiddies at home)!

All in all: Best of the best

Lives up to the pre-views? YES!

Worthy sequel? YES! YES!

Stars (out of five):5

T

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

2008-07-09T16:06:00.000-07:00

I loved the first Hellboy. It is one of my favorite movies in this genre. The main reason being the narration and the message at the end of the film. I went into this movie not really expecting much more of that, being that I couldn't see how they could do something similar, and they did not. This film was not as dark and did not have as strong of a message as the first, but this one delivered all of the action that the first one had lacked. Granted- the first one packed a solid punch, but admit it, you got tired of him fighting those dog-monster things all the time. The new one has much more action, and more humor. I won't give anything away, but I was rolling in laughter at one point.

Be prepared however. A lot of movie sequels of this type have a tendency to get much weirder that you might expect (think Pirates of the Caribbean 2 & 3), I don't know if it's just a temptation that the director can't resist or they are just trying to go above and beyond in some way. This one is no exception. But unlike others of this type, it comes off well. The 'extras' don't get in the way of the story, unlike most others that throw them in there just for the sake of doing it. So, if you want a good ride with all the action that the first may have lacked, this is a must see. Even if you were not a fan of the first, or have never seen the first, this will definitely not disappoint.

Stars (out of five): 4

All in all: Action & comedy smoothie

Lives up to the pre-views? Yup.

Worthy sequel? Oh yes.

T

Hancock

2008-07-01T18:19:00.000-07:00

You will go in expecting the story of a superhero that is a bit of a slob and a screw up, and he makes himself into kind of a Superman character (that is what the pre-views lead to). And for the most part, that is what this movie is about. There are a couple of twists however, that make it much more than just that. I do applaud the writers for not going into the ‘origins’ story to great detail, because when watching the movie, it would have distracted from the entire tone of the film. And as the movie goes on, the middle part drags a bit, but the beginning and end are superb, despite being a little predictable. The movie was filmed well enough that you really don’t mind that you see a few of the plot points coming a mile away.

The popcorn rating is high: there is enough action in the beginning and end (especially the end) that will keep you on the edge of your seat, and enough comedy to keep you chuckling there. Charlize Theron’s character is also a surprisingly vital role (she was barely seen in the pre-views) and she does a ‘goood…job…’. But like I said before, the middle part drags a bit, so be prepared for small amounts of boredom. Once again, like I Am Legend, Will Smith is great- the story in this movie just gets ‘love handles’ around the mid-section, and the bad film making is not his fault. For the record: I am usually not a big Will Smith fan because a lot of what you expect when you see him is a Men In Black kind of character, but he is proving himself to be quite a good actor.

All in all: Action & Comedy Smoothie.

Stars (out of five): 3.5

Lives up to the pre-views? Yup.

T

Futurama: The Beast with a Billion Backs

2008-06-29T13:15:00.001-07:00

The plot of this show sounds like a great comedy in the making. Basically, a rip in space opens up a gateway to another dimension, and a planet sized monster with giant tentacles creeps its way through. The monster is not any kind of “evil, conquer all” type of beast- it’s just lonely! And in ‘the mood’ (you know what mood I mean)!

With all of that hype and promise of hilarity that synopsis brings, you would think that the delivery would be difficult. And it is. The Futurama team did an excellent job filling the shoes however- there was a little left to be desired, but that is to be expected from a TV Show to Movie type of thing… and a cartoon at that.

The main plot does not begin until about 45 minutes into the move though. That is something that you may need to keep in mind when watching this. The monster makes a brief appearance in the first part, and the ‘rip’ is there throughout. But the first 45 minutes or so are almost an entirely different movie. But that does not make it any less hilarious! In fact, it makes it better I think, because there is more of a stage to bring in other elements and sub-plots that are laugh out loud funny (to me anyway). the comedy is the usual Futurama wit, meaning that you may not laugh at first, but when you go back and think about what you just watched, you can not help but chuckle.

All in all: Fantastic and witty.

Stars (out of 5): 4

T

WALL*E

2008-06-27T22:40:00.000-07:00

This movie was Pixar’s best since The Incredibles if you ask me (and that is exactly what you are doing if you are reading this). Lots of the fun, adventure and the usual Disney stuff come out the ears. If you are looking for a good date movie, this would be ideal. However, you must like physical comedy, because for the first part of the movie, there is virtually no dialogue (the robots don’t talk much). The animation is also quite spectacular. It just gets more and more realistic (the robots anyway). There are a few live action people in this one (including Fred Willard, a personal favorite of mine). There is also a strong hint to get off your butt and go do something.

All in all: Good Entertainment.

Stars (out of five): 4

T