I went to see Quantum of Solace, the latest James Bond movie, with Daniel Craig as Bond.
The Good, the Bad, the Verdict...
The Good:
Character development. The movie is, a first for the Bond movies, a direct sequel, following directly on the events of Casino Royale, and featuring a couple of characters and actors from that movie. As a result, I think this is the first time that Felix Leiter has been played by the same actor in multiple JB movies. So we see Bond continue the path that leads from the death of Vesper in the first movie. And M and Bond continue to develop their relationship
Hints of a metaplot and another evil Agency: This movie makes it clear that there is another secret agency out there, a la SPECTRE. Its equally clear to me that the agency is going to be around for multiple movies, since Bond only stops one plot of theirs in this movie.
I liked the shootout during Tosca sequence. It reminded me of the "Opera and fight" sequence in The Fifth Element.
The Bad:
The cinematography is too Bournish. I felt like I was watching a JB, Jason Bourne Movie, rather than a James Bond movie. Part of the point of Bond films is seeing the action in beautiful places. Here, there is a car chaser along a beautiful road near Siena, Italy...and we never really get a sense of space or the beauty of the landscape. Its all lost in jump, ragged cuts of two-second shots.
A lot of what makes Bond movies Bond movies are missing. I don't expect a paint-by-numbers, but there are distinctive things you want, and expect. No Moneypenny. No "Bond, James Bond.". Heck, even the bedding of the Bond girl seems very off tone and perfunctory. The movie is short, never lets up and never lets Bond have "time off". Every Bond movie that I have seen has let us see "Bond at rest" or "at play" (often with a Bond girl). Here? Nada. The movie is never fun. Never.
Bond is too thuggish. Sure, Connery's Bond could be rough and tumble, but he had a veneer of civilization to him. This Bond? Thug, Thug and Thug. Worst of all, there is a moment where the character breaks for me. An incident occurs and as I watched the movie, I said to myself. "Bond never would have done that. Never."
The Verdict:
If this wasn't JB and a JB movie, it would be a perfectly reasonable and acceptable action hero movie. As it is, it doesn't *feel* like a Bond picture. If I watch most of the older movies, and that includes (by the end anyway) Casino Royale, I can feel that I am in Bond's universe.
This movie? No. It never feels like Bond. Its not just because this is Brooding Bond, its the entire tone the series has taken. Jason Bourne could have done this movie with minimal changes and that is just wrong.
I may be a novice at James Bond as compared to many of my friends, but I was disappointed. For a JB experience, I'd rather rewatch From Russia With Love, For Your Eyes Only, or Tomorrow Never Dies.
Virgin Territory is a wannabe medieval sex comedy starring Haydn Christansen and Tim Roth.
Intending to inhabit the same territory as Casanova and a Knight's Tale (both starring the late Heath Ledger), this is a moderately entertaining (intentionally?) anachronistic teenage sex comedy. The plot is pointless to describe, involving a woman betrothed to two men, Haydn as a playboy who winds up hiding in a convent with sex-crazed nuns, gratiutious nudity, and a not-in-this-world Russian count who seems to have the only firearm in Florence.
It is all very silly, sillier I think than even the intention of the producer and director. The direction itself is lackluster, the fighting scenes not very well done.
There is a fair amount of luminous young female beauty in the movie (and I suppose the male leads might appeal to those of the fairer gender). Aside from that eye candy, there is not much else to commend watching this film.
It wants to be as good as the movies cited above, but it doesn't manage to do it.
Another Adam Sandler movie, with some of its weaknesses, but also hidden strengths not found in his cruder films.
Adam Sandler plays Henry Roth, Hawaiian zoo marine biologist with committment issues. In point of fact, he's mastered the art of seducing tourists for short stands, breaking off contact just before they return to the States.
His happy world is turned upside down when he meets Lucy (the luminous Drew Barrymore). Lucy has a problem with her memory. In a very cinematicized version of a very real condition, Lucy cannot retain any new memories more than a day. Her family has arranged her life to make her believe its always the same day she expects it to be.
Henry's intrusion into his life changes her...and it changes him, too.
Aside from the cruder aspects of the comedy, Fifty First Dates is truly a sweet little comedy set in gorgeous Hawaii. Barrymore is always an impish, enchanting presence on the screen, and she works well with Sandler. Sandler does well as a romantic lead here, better than I would have expected given his major reputation (Happy Gilmore, rather than Punch Drunk Love)
It's an inoffensive movie that won't change your life, but its an entertaining way to spend your time.
And, this movie managed to give me a craving for the one thing Minnesota and Hawaii have in common--Spam.
A slightly different werewolf movie from the 90's starring Michelle Pfeiffer, James Spader, Christopher Plummer, and in a meaty starring role, Jack Nicholson.
"I'm just marking my territory"
While I might slightly prefer vampires to werewolves, done right, werewolves can be a lot of fun in a cinematic sense. Wolf gives us a somewhat different story, setting it in the modern day, and making the focus of the action the relationships and effects that a werewolf bite has on the main character, Jack Randall, a washed up book editor (Nicholson).
Randall is being pushed out of a job, from above (Plummer) and below (Spader). With his job in a shambles, a werewolf bite is exactly what Randall needs to get some new life. He's drawn to Plummer's daughter (Pfeiffer) and pursues a relationship with her. He begins to fight back for his position and the people in the book business he cares about. All of this, even as he comes to terms and struggles against what has happened to him...
While the set up for the denouement with a fight between Spader and Nicholson seems contrived and out of tone with the rest of the movie, even with that slippage, the characters make this movie work, not the special effects of werewolf transformations.
A little horror movie set in the frightening world of high school, with some pre-stardom roles for Famke Janssen, Elijah Wood, Jon Stewart, and Josh Hartnett amongst others.
With a decent cast, the movie takes a familiar Body Snatchers plotline and makes it a a good and fun popcorn movie. Only a set of outcast students at the school start to guess what is going on, as the discovery of a strange organism on campus progresses to a full on horror movie as converted students and teachers start taking over everyone.
There is a lot of derivative scenes and ideas in the movie, from obvious "twists" to scenes practically lifted from previous movies of this type. You probably could run a drinking game based on this movie and get yourself hammered easily.
Still, even with that, with good actors, a lot of sins can be forgiven, and I do. I was entertained by the film. If you like (teenage) horror movies, the Faculty is certainly better than many of the paint-by-numbers "Scary Movie N" movies that seem to dominate the genre these days. There is an actual plot and characters rather than a clotheslines for pop culture references.
I enjoyed it.
And who wouldn't have wanted Jon Stewart as their HS Science teacher, eh?
So I finally got to see the Dark Knight, the second movie in the rebooted Batman series by Christopher Nolan. With Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman, Aaron Eckhart, Michael Caine, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and of course, the late Heath Ledger.
Dark. Complicated. Amazing.
I don't want to discuss the details of the plot. Instead let me tell you what you want to hear. That Ledger's performance is so self-encompassing that its difficult to remember that you are watching someone play the role, he inhabits it so completely. That the movie really isn't so much Bale's as it is Eckhart's, and Oldman's, and Ledger's (as Dent, Gordon and the Joker). Sometimes, Bale's Wayne/Batman seems to be more of a reactive than an active force in Gotham City.
The cinematography and directing are excellent. Nolan knows how to direct, and how to plot (he co-wrote the screenplay, and it shows). The action sequences work hand in hand with the more expository and character-development scenes.
Its not a perfect movie, though. I think this movie looked too MUCH like the Chicago in which it was filmed. Batman Begins felt like Gotham, with the geography and structure of the city. The Dark Knight's city feels much more like it was set in Chicago. I think this made the events more palpable for the viewers but made the mise en scene less mythological.
I think the use of music could have been better. I have said before in a previous review that you sometimes only notice how important music is to a movie when it is lacking. In the Dark Knight, the music was somewhat lacking. Some of the action scenes could have been improved with better music (and a few of those scenes lack music entirely.) I do wonder if this was a deliberate choice, trying to make the events more palpably real--since life doesn't often come with a soundtrack.
The movie is dark and disturbing, and has a downer of an ending. This is not a happy movie by any means, even as Batman defeats the Joker. It's a hollow victory, which has much more than a taste of ashes.I enjoyed the movie a lot, though, but an anodyne of a more positive, uplifting movie afterward was needed on my part.
And I am glad I am not riding any ferries anytime soon.
So what turned out to be a very stormy night, I went with a co worker after work to see "Hellboy II: The Golden Army", directed by Guillermo Del Toro and starring Ron Perlman and Selma Blair.
The movie makes a few concessions to people who may have seen the underestimated previous entry, sketching in who and what Hellboy is, a demon from another dimension working for the not-very-secret Bureau of Paranormal Investigations. A misfit in a group of Misfits, Hellboy wants to fit in, be recognized, be loved for what he does: thumping those who go thumping in the night.
This time, instead of Rasputin and Gods of Chaos, we have an Elf Prince as the antagonist. A bedtime story by Hellboy's discoverer in a flashback tells us the tale of the Elves and their Golden army, an unstoppable force that is put to slumber for a long time--until Prince Nuada decides that humans have raped and pillaged the Earth enough, and will even kill his father for the chance to start up the army again. And then there is his twin sister, who opposes his plan, but is bound to him all the same...
With a surprising amount of pathos, regret, and complexity to the storyline and the conflicts, Hellboy II hits on nearly every cylinder, every time. Dealing with a rampaging forest god, the last of its kind, gives a surprisingly poignant tone, for example.
Del Toro shows his penchant for fantasy creatures, too, with a Goblin Market which is the fantasy equivalent of the Mos Eisley cantina in the sheer number of strange creatures. The Bureau team, including Hellboy himself, look completely unremarkable in this amazingly detailed space where I couldn't possibly catch everyone and everything happening on the screen.
Love, hope, sacrifice, rollicking action, and a healthy dollop of humor, the cinematic experience of the movie was a treat for both me and my friend from work. As a story and a film, its not quite as good as the superb Pan's Labyrinth, but as a comic book movie, it gives Iron Man a real run for its money.
I liked it a lot, and I will definitely buy it on DVD. I think the movie is enhanced for seeing the original, but its not strictly necessary to do so.
I just missed the start time of Wall-E on Sunday, so I went to see this.
I am pretty sure that I should have waited for the next showing of Wall-E.
There are some good things to the movie. Great set-action pieces. I enjoyed the director's work in Night Watch and he plays with that sort of stuff here, too. Not all of the action is equally good, there are some scenes with some muddle and confused shots.
Although she is freakishly thin, Angelina Jolie puts in a good performance. Freeman...well, this role reminds me of his role in Dreamcatcher or Hard Rain: he's better than the material around him. Ditto for Terence Stamp.
And then it gets ugly. A lot of this plot is just a mess, to say nothing of the moral issues, which the movie doesn't seem to decide what it wants to believe. And I am not sold on a reveal that causes a re-evaluation of earlier events. Looked in a linear fashion after the fact, I don't buy the plot.
And then there is the misogyny. It was odious how this script treats its female characters. (And there are, besides Jolie's dominatrix-as-trainer, only two, plus a walk on). I have female friends who I wouldn't blame for walking out of this movie.
I was hoping for something as turn-off-brain-and-enjoy-the-improbable-action along the lines of Shoot Em Up. I didn't get it.
Another classic epic movie, revolving around the Boxer Rebellion in China, starring Charlton Heston, David Niven and Ava Gardner.
Part of the stream of epic movies from the 50's and 60's, Fifty Five Days at Peking shows the Boxer Rebellion mainly from the point of view of the diplomats and staff pinned in Peking as China writhed under tumult of the xenophobic Boxers.
Sure, its a dramatization and simplification of the history and the issues. (We only get bits and pieces of the history on *why* the Boxers have a grievance, and a reasonable one, at what has happened to China). The movie works as a straight epic adventure, with Heston as an American army officer leading the defense of the diplomats, and getting a bit of romance with the Russian Baroness played by Ava Gardner in the process. Feats of heroism, derring do in an exotic environment against long odds and a a massive faceless enemy. Yeah, you may have seen this before. But isn't it refreshing to see this sort of movie *without* CGI?
I have a weakness for this sort of movie, but I suspect the slow pacing will throw off a lot of modern viewers. Still, I especially liked the leads performances.
I wish they would give this movie a proper reissuance on DVD--the quality of this release was mediocre at best. That's the worst thing I can say about this movie.
I decided to see if this 80's comedy still held up after a quarter century. Starring Steve Guttenberg and a young Kim Cattrall.
The plot is simple (and was repeated in many sequels and knockoffs). The Police Academy is asked to broaden their selection criteria, and so wind up with a bunch of misfits.
Guttenberg plays Mahoney, a wiseacre of a recruit who is practically at the Academy against his will. Along with him are Florist Moses Hightower, a mountain of a man who likes to tend flowers and Larvell Jones (Michael Winslow) has the ability to imitate the sound of virtually anything (He was later in Spaceballs). Also in the academy are guy-magnet Debbie Callahan (Kim Cattrall), squeaky voiced Laverne Hooks, gun loving Eugene Tackleberry, and Leslie Barbara, a cadet who has been picked on one too many times.
The Academy staff seeks to wash out these unorthodox recruits, as they make their way through the training program. And of course, when trouble rears its head, its the unorthodox recruits who find themselves on the firing line...
Dumb 80's comedy, although by the standards of a lot of comedy these days, its pretty average, or even a little more intelligent. Granted, that's not a high bar, and there are plenty of better comedies from the period. And while I have no desire to see it again anytime soon, it made me laugh.
Another movie lent to me by the same co-worker who lent me Cloverfield, Anchorman... stars Will Ferrell, Steve Carrell and Christina Applegate.
Ferrell plays the titular character, a news anchor in the early 80's in San Diego, Master of his Domain. Carrell (amongst others) play his tight-knit crew, a male bastion and preserve. The arrival of ambitious Veronica Corningstone (Applegate) threatens both the camaraderie and the sexism rampant in the newsroom and the industry. And the plot of the movie, with lots of jokes of sometimes questionable taste, flow from that simple premise.
Okay, its stupid comedy, but it was funny as hell. I've slowly warmed to Ferrell over the years, and he does well here as Ron. The rest of the cast does well too. The directing is good, capturing the feel of 80's television very nicely.
There is even a cameo by Tim Robbins as a Public Television anchor, in an extremely funny "comic fight scene" between rival news casts.
I liked this movie far more than I had any right to.
Thanks to a co-worker, I got to see the DVD version of this movie which came out early this year, about a monster attack on NYC
With a cast of unknowns, Cloverfield documents a monster attack on NYC. The central conceit of the movie is that everything is seen through the videocamera that one of the characters, Hud, employs throughout the film.
What this means is the movie is an exercise in "shaky-cam" style, but at the very least there is a justification for it. I could probably not have watched this movie in a theater without getting nauseous; on the small screen the shaky-cam style was more palatable.
As far as the movie itself, the movie does all right. I appreciated the New York milieu (although their sense of geography is very compressed). While the characters do act stupid in some situations, those actions do seem to flow from understandable choices. The young unknown actors do okay in their roles, but nothing spectacular. The material they are given is middling.
The movie doesn't try to explain everything, and I think that obfuscation works for this movie. It's a moderately entertaining movie, which, being short, doesn't outstay its welcome.
Movie director Sydney Pollack has died of cancer at age 73.
He directed a number of Oscar winning movies, including Tootsie and Out of Africa. He also did a bit of acting now and again too.
My best memory of his work though, is a DVD extra on the DVD of his movie The Interpreter. On it, he decries, and deconstructs brilliantly the idiotic process of "panning and scanning" a movie to fit on a 4X3 television. He shows, in patient detail, just how much is lost out of a movie, especially movies with complex visual cues such as in his movies.
So after my trip to Minnehaha Park, I went to see the new Indiana Jones movie...
After Indy has impressed Mutt with his physical skills and abilities
Mutt: "You're a teacher?"
Indy: "Part Time"
Even the Original Trilogy of the Indiana Jones movies had problems (Temple of Doom, anyone?) but I am not sure why Spielberg decided to do this one, twenty five years after the fact, save for the word that is the answer to 99 out of 100 questions. "Money".
Still...
The year is 1957. The Red Scare grips America (I thought I was watching Good Night and Good Luck early on. The KGB has infiltrated Nevada to try and get something out of a mysterious warehouse. Their unwilling accomplices are two kidnapped men--Dr. Jones and his friend Mac (Ray Winstone, showing he acts better than when not covered in CGI like in Beowulf). The Russians are not taking Indy to find the Ark of the Covenant (although it gets a cameo shot). Instead, these Russians (led by the mysterious Irina (Blanchett) are after something in a magnetic coffin. And so the movie is off and running...
The structure of the movie is the old formula. Opening action sequence, followed by time at the college, long trip to the final destination with a stop or two along the way, and then the final locale and action sequences. Along the way we meet Mutt (Shia Lebouf), Professor Oxley, the only man to have been to the mysterious city tied in with the titular skull, and back from Raiders, Marian (Karen Allen).
Lots of references and homages to the three films, and even a reference to the Young Indiana Jones series. The movie gets far on nostalgia. This is good because overall, the movie lacks a bit of punch after all this time. Don't get me wrong. It's a perfectly entertaining summer blockbuster, with good special effects, exotic locales, and action adventure goodness. It's just not up to the standard of Raiders or Last Crusade. (It's definitely better than Temple of Doom though).
I think the movie could have used a rewrite to get some more juice in, remove some of the more annoying things, and clear up some lacunae. Indy only uses his bullwhip in the beginning, for instance, and after making a big deal of taking a motorcycle all the way to Peru, Mutt never uses the thing once they get there. Indy is way too capable, physically, for his age or even a reasonable pulp movie. (Surviving a nuclear blast and the refrigerator he is in shot hundreds of feet through the air. Um, no.) Plus, Irina's supposed psychic powers are underplayed and not utilized. Lastly, the finale lacked emotional heft.
More Marian and (especially) Irina, and less Mutt would have been good. I think Irina would make a wonderful casting call for a Faiellan in an Amber game, especially since she has a fetish for wearing and using a sword.
I was entertained. Not as bad as it could have been--but its not the first or third movie. Live with that, and go see it. You know you want to.
I took myself to see Iron Man in the theater today.
Iron Man is a comic book origin story starring Robert Downey Jr in the title role, with Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts, his able and willing assistant, Terrence Howard as Col. Rhodes, his military-oriented friend, and Jeff Bridges as his turncoat friend and colleague Obidiah Stone.
Iron Man is admittedly one of the mid-majors in terms of the Marvel superheroes. He doesn't have the cachet or name brand recognition to the general public of Spiderman, or the Hulk. Sure, he's been one of the Avengers, the "flagship" superhero team in the Marvelverse, but even there, Captain America is usually the hero.
So, Iron Man was an unusual choice for a superhero movie.
With his own personal problems with addiction and the pressures of stardom, Robert Downey Jr is an inspired choice to play playboy Tony Stark. It's one of those pitch perfect castings that will be very difficult to successfully recast years from now, just as Tobey Maguire has probably given us a Spiderman difficult to top, and Christopher Reeve is still THE movie Superman.
The story is taken from some of Iron Man's origins, updated to the 21st century. Stark is a playboy/weapons magnate, who gets captured while showing off his toys in Afghanistan. Set to building weapons, and plagued with shrapnel buried close to his heart, Stark invents both a new power source, and a exo-skeleton suit to escape his captivity. Upon returning from this, his desire to end his business' darker aspects leads him to conflict with Stone, who doesn't see anything wrong with "ironmongering."
We get to see all aspects of Stark's life, from the glamour to "the toys". We believe that Stark really could build v1.0 of the suit in a cave in Afghanistan, especially when we can see what he can REALLY do when he has the full resources of his own factory-cathedral in his home.
Iron Man isn't quite as good as Spiderman II, the Incredibles, or X-Men II, but its pretty damned good. I think its only real weakness is a consequence of choosing Iron Man as a superhero--the lack of a true nemesis. Sure, having Obidiah put on a suit and fight Iron Man works as a final antagonist, but Iron Man (in this movie) doesn't get to face a nemesis like Magneto (The X Men) or Doctor Octopus (Spiderman), etc. It's a fact of life that superhero movies reach the pinnacle by having a villain worthy of the adversary. Iron Man doesn't quite have that in this movie.
And yes, the physics are "comic book" physics. Stark probably should have died several times over in this film. I dealt with it.
Iron Man is a very, very good superhero movie that I fully intend to purchase on DVD.
And yes, the credit cookie is a lot of fun.
If you have any interest in superhero comic book movies, or even just action movies in general, you owe it to yourself to go and see Iron Man.
One of the last old school Disney animated films, with voices by Michael J Fox, James Garner and Claudia Christian.
Like the Kingdom, the movie I reviewed previously today, this movie starts off on an odd note. In this case, it starts off with a prologue which is, of all things, subtitled. Depicting the fall of Atlantis, we are set up before the opening credits for the idea of Atlantis before we flash forward to the early 20th century. There, we meet bookworm nebbish Milo Thatch (Fox), orphan, isolated, and misunderstood in the bowels of a Museum in Washington D.C. This archetypal Disney protagonist believes in the existence of Atlantis, although his fumbling attempts are derided by the academic community. However, he comes to the attention of a mysterious benefactor, who has an offer the disgraced Milo can't refuse--join an expedition to Atlantis...
Wait, you've seen this movie before, haven't you, when it was called Stargate. I found the parallels between the two movies startling once I thought about it. Milo and Daniel Jackson are first cousins, cinematically. Strange location that is difficult to get to, with hazards and dangers. Translation of an ancient language that only the protagonist knows how to read, whose translation is key to the plot. A romance/relationship with one of the natives (Kida and Sha'ri, respectively). Hidden agendas on the team that the protagonists are accompanying (although Garner's character here is a full on antagonist unlike Colonel O'Neill in Stargate).
The Disney movie is a step or two behind Stargate in the characterization and plot elements though. We barely get to see the Disney steampunk sub before it crashes, we barely get to know Milo's companions, or even Atlantis itself, before things ramp up into conflict. Still, especially because it parallels one of my favorite movies, and features the epynomous mythic civilization, I enjoyed Atlantis the Lost Empire.
An action thriller set mostly in the epynomous kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with a powerhouse cast starring Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Garner and Chris Cooper.
After a terrorist attack to an American housing compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where families and the spy Francis Manner are murdered, FBI agent Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) is unhappy that Saudi Arabia is not keen on the idea of American help in the investigation.
He blackmails the Saudi Arabian consul to get five days of investigation in the location, with a small team including Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman. And as strangers in a strange land, they arrive in Saudi Arabia. The US Ambassador doesn't want them there roiling the waters; the group is wary of local customs and mores, and their only ally seems to be a Saudi Arabian Colonel equally devoted to finding the terrorists.
And then the action really starts.
The movie starts off with a political/history lesson in the form of computer graphics giving a thumbnail sketch of what Saudi Arabia is, in history and on the world stage. Its a slow way to start the movie; however the movie cures any threat of slowness by jumping to the terrorist attack. Similarly the rest of the movie runs like clockwork, with exposition and political dealings punctuated by action sequences.
While the camera work for the action sequences is that hand-held style that seems all the rage today, I have to admit that its all well done. In addition the movie manages the tricky balancing act of showing an investigation in Saudi Arabia without devolving into stereotypes on either side.
I am a little surprised, now having seen it, that the movie didn't do as well as it did at the box office; there is decent acting and good action here to be found. The directing, by Peter Berg (better known for his acting) is not bad (except for that silly camera work affection).
It makes for a good popcorn movie that has a little bit more of thought to it than a typical action movie. I think the critics (including my new favorite, Kenneth Turan), were a just a tad too harsh on it.
Another Woody Allen movie with Scarlett Johansson, and also starring himself, and Hugh Jackman.
Johansson plays Sandra Pronsky, a American journalism student visiting well-to-do friends in England. During a magic show run by Sid Waterman (Woody Allen), she inadvertently encounters the ghost of Joe Strombel (Ian McShane) a recently deceased reporter. While on the ship of the dead, Strombel has learned who might be the tarot card serial killer, and his attempts to bring this news back to the land of the living have brought his shade to the attention of Pronsky.
Excited by the possibility of the story, Pronsky with Waterman's reluctant help seeks out the son of Lord Lyman, Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman), the possible killer fingered by Strombel. In the process of investigating him, though, Lyman falls for her, and more to the point, Pronsky falls for him Is she really falling for a killer?
It's a fairly typical and simple Woody Allen movie. Allen plays his usual role, with self-depreciating humor. He does seem to like to film Johansson, who doesn't come across here as glamorous as she normally does, but beautiful enough that we can see why Jackman's Peter Lyman would fall for her, easily.
The twist in the movie is fairly predictable, but this movie relies on characters and dialogue more than actual plot. Its not the greatest movie in Allen's career, but its certainly entertaining enough for those who like his work. And I do, and I did.
It's amusing that this is one of two movies that year that not only both have Jackman and Johansson in it, but involve magicians and are set in London. (The other, of course, is The Prestige).
Yes, I decided to go for a blast to the past for this 80's movie starring a young Kim Cattrall, 80's teen movie star Andrew McCarthy, James Spader and Estelle Getty.
I saw this movie innumerable times on TV and otherwise in the 80's, and a re-watching shows that I still nearly know the movie by heart. Despite it being an average movie on any sort of objective grounds, its one of those movies that has gotten into my head and never left.
Cattrall plays Ema Haire, "Emmy", an Egyptian woman who longs for a more interesting life than being married to a camel dung merchant. Granted her wish by the Gods, we later learn she appears in subsequent times and places. Where she appears now is in the body of a Mannequin painstakingly created by McCarthy. He's a frustrated artist who can't hold a job...until he inadvertently saves the life of a department store owner (Getty), who gives him a job in appreciation. And then he learns the mannequin he created can come to life, but only for him...
Yes, the movie has something of a Pygmalion vibe going here. There are other subplots, too, involving a takeover attempt on Getty's company, a flamboyant artist (Meshiach Taylor), and a unhinged security guard.
The movie plays to stereotypes in a somewhat benighted 80's manner. The only character who treats Taylor's sexuality and love life with any sort of respect is McCarthy. The way other characters treat "Hollywood" was cringeworthy and wouldn't work in a movie made today. An oversexed co-worker of McCarthy's ex-girlfriend is also an exaggerated stereotype whose conduct is more than borderline sexual harassment.
Beyond that, though, the movie still was amusing, especially since I knew it by heart. Sure, there is zero character development. the direction is only okay, but the leads do a good job in their relationship to each other. And it has a funny and funky animated opening credits sequence.
If I saw this movie fresh for the first time today, I probably wouldn't get it and wouldn't like it, but since its part of my cultural DNA, I still have a fondness for the movie, despite its strong drawbacks and weaknesses.
I saw a bit of this on the Sci-Fi Channel and decided to rent it to see how bad it could be
Sean Patrick Flanery plays schlub Harry Balbo. This worthy, after another day of quiet desperation at work, runs into a violent crime in an alley.
He believes that he has seen the Head Ripper serial killer, except that it's a gorgeous female vampire who can rip the head off a man. His co-workers laugh at him, the Police do not believe him. Strangely obsessed by the woman, soon contacts a neighbor named Strickland, which is a vampire hunter, for help.
Instead of killing her, though, Balbo captures the vampire, and then, unable to finish her off, is driven to efforts to keep her alive...
Even though the movie has Michael Biehn in it, he can't quite redeem this low budget production. While the movie does start to try some interesting ideas, it never really goes anywhere with them. And the tonal shifts in the movie don't quite work. The movie isn't sure if it wants to be a comedy, a deliberately unfunny comedy, or a dark meditation on a lonely man and his vampire.
I did like the ending, though. I will give it that.
A movie I have only seen bits and pieces until now, starring Alec Guinness and William Holden.
"Madness, Madness..."
One of David Lean (who also did Lawrence of Arabia amongst other movie's) epics, and adapted by a novel from Pierre Boulle (who wrote the book that became Planet of the Apes), Bridge on the River Kwai is set mostly in a Japanese POW camp in Southeast Asia during W.W. II. Sessue Hayakawa plays Colonel Saito, whose goal is to get the prisoners to build the titular bridge. Guinness plays British Colonel Nicholson, who had been ordered to surrender to the Japanese, and is willing to play along--if the Japanese follow the rules of war and prisoners properly. Holden plays American Major Warden, who believes that the first duty of a prisoner is not to cooperate, but to escape.
Warden soon escapes, and Nicholson's ramrod stubborness and sense of honor starts to convert the project into an operation run and led by the British prisoners. But when Warden arrives in Ceylon (Sri Lanka), his real identity is discovered. And then he is given an offer he can't refuse...to return to the camp and destroy the bridge that Nicholson and the remaining prisoners are so painstakingly creating...
Great cinematography. Great acting and the unwinding of the two threads of the plot (in the camp and Warden's flight and return). Kwai won 7 out of the 8 Oscars for which it was nominated, including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor for Guinness. (This IS the movie that cemented Guinness' reputation. Its arguable that this is the movie that, later, would help give him the role of Obi-Wan in Star Wars.
Hayakawa lost as Best Supporting Actor to Red Buttons for Sayonara.
Its a movie epic and great enough that, along with Lawrence of Arabia, it gets a mention in "We didn't start the fire" by Billy Joel. While I think Lawrence is just slightly better work, Kwai is a fine example of the movie epic. Rent it, and see why.
A movie about lucid dreams and how that life intersects this one, but shot in a straightforward manner, starring Martin Freeman, Gwyneth Paltrow, Simon Pegg, and Danny Devito.
The movie starts in a puzzling manner, and never gets its footing afterwards. The movie begins with what feels like a memoriam, with several characters talking about a musician and his life and work. The movie jumps back a couple of years to see that musician, to discover he is Gary, a sad-sack commercial jingle writer (Freeman) who is dissatisfied with his relationship with his girlfriend (Paltrow), and just about everything else.
So when Gary starts having recurring dreams about a mystery woman (Penelope Cruz) who seems to offer more and more of herself to him every night, they act as a catalyst and inspiration for Gary. He takes an active interest in lucid dreaming - the act of becoming aware of and even controlling one's dream state - getting all sorts of tips from a New Age-y, self-styled expert (Danny DeVito).
And his obsession with that starts unraveling his real life relationships with his girlfriend and everyone else. And then a real life version of his dream girl appears...
The movie seems to want to mix the fantasy and real life worlds, but there is a lot of actors and stuff here, which doesn't hang together all that well. The movie starts off on that odd tone and never really finds its footing afterwards. Much of the movie is simply dull, and the direction is amateurish at best. Devito does gamely with his role, but there isn't much life otherwise in this movie.
There are much better movies with these themes out there. This, unfortunately is a waste of talent.
SfSignal.com held a contest giving away a few free copies of this movie originally made for the Sci-Fi channel. I didn't win that contest, and decided to Netflix the movie anyway, especially since it stars two Firefly/Serenity veterans (Morena Baccarin and Adam Baldwin)
I need not have bothered.
The movie answers of the cinematic historical mysteries. Before he re-made the movie in a color edition, Cecil B DeMille made a silent movie rendition of the Ten Commandments, constructing a huge set on the California desert coast. After the movie was completed, instead of dismantling, or leaving it in place, the set was deliberately and consciously buried.
This movie purports to explain why...it was to secretly bury an ancient evil which had come over with the Pharaonic Egyptian artifacts on the set. Now with the rising sea threatening to flood the area forever, a group led by an archaeologist (Baccarin) seeks to unearth the lost set, not knowing what they will unleash. Baldwin plays the grandson of one of the workers on the set, having independently come there for sentimental reasons with his grandfather.
Evil is unleashed, people start to die, and its a struggle to survive.
It's bad. Some of the baddies created are literally two-dimensional cutouts from the set, in a fight scene which is deliberately funny. Aside from the terrible special effects, the story is weak, and worse, we don't get a sense of the evil and what it wants to do, besides just killing people. No motivation or real background for the evil is given.
And the worst sin of all...the acting is poor. Baldwin, who played Jayne in Firefly/Serenity, is a wimp here. The anti-casting simply doesn't work, just like everything else in the production.
Avoid. Avoid. Avoid.
Like a couple of friends in various parts of the country, I went to see this movie at the Theater, starring Jet Li and Jackie Chan, together for the first time.
The plot is relatively simple and revolves around American Jason Tripitikas. Obsessed by kung fun action films, his friendship with a Chinatown pawnshop owner is an entree, with his getting mixed up in a robbery attempt to that very same store, to the land of mythic China by means of a magical staff. I thought the framing story in the present was weak and not much effort was placed on it.
Once he is in mythic China, the story more appreciably improves, as he gathers a band of allies, Lu Yan (Jackie Chan), Golden Sparrow, and, after a classic misunderstanding, a warrior Monk (Jet Li). The plan is simple--get to the Jade Warlord's palace, and free the Monkey King to whom the staff really belongs--and who can get Jason home.
While the movie contains numerous references and motifs taken from other martial arts films (ranging from Drunken Master to the Bride with White Hair) this movie really is "Martial arts movie for dummies." With a 14 year old American as the protagonist, the point of this movie is clearly as a gateway/introductory movie for that age group. That said, while the movie isn't anywhere near as good as modern Chinese epics like Hero or Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, its an okay movie at a Matinee price.
And it should be required viewing for Exalted players and GMs.
An Oscar nominated film about the Regency Crisis of 1788, with a cast that features Nigel Hawthorne in the title role, Helen Mirren as Queen Charlotte, and also starring Ian Holm, Rupert Everett, amongst others.
Americans have so much trouble with their own history, as I mentioned in a review of To Kill a King, that asking them to understand the history even of their parent nation, Great Britain, is often asking far, far too much.
Even I, reasonably educated about British history, didn't know about this episode of British history. Before the formal Regency of 1811-1820, King George III had a bout of madness that threatened his reign in 1788. The Madness of King George (which I had originally thought was about the formal Regency period) is actually set in this time frame.
The movie itself is about many things. The portrait of a King whose grip on sanity is slipping through his fingers. The machinations of power around him, as Parliament and the family wonder just what to do with a living, but clearly non functional, monarch. The ambitions and chaffing of a son whose relationship with his father, poor when the father was in good health, steadily decline as the mental health of the King declines.
The Madness of King George mixes these political questions with broad humor. I found out after the fact that Hawthorne played the title role on stage for months before putting him on film. And it shows. Hawthorne (nominated for an Oscar) *owns* this character. He infuses the King with a vitality and a fullness of performance that makes me wonder just how the hell Oscar voters passed up this performance in favor of Hanks' Forrest Gump. Mirren was nominated for an Oscar, too, although I think her performance is very good (but simply not as good as Hawthorne). The rest of the cast does ably as well.
And with great use of sets and good cinematography, the film ably transports the viewer to late 18th century Britain.
I enjoyed it.
A movie nominated at the Oscars for Best Picture, starring Keira Knightley and James McAvoy.
Knightley plays Cecilia Tallis. McAvoy plays Robbie Turner, the son of a servant of the noble family. We watch them flirt, and fall for each other. Narrating and watching it all is sister Briony.
As the movie unspools, its clear that she notices the attention that her sister is getting. In point of fact, she witnesses an act of passion between the pair. And so, when a crime of sexual assault strikes the estate, she fingers Robbie (falsely) as the culprit.
The word of the daughter of a noble counts for more than an older servant's son, and so he is sent to jail, and subsequently to France for the Second World War. We watch as he retreats across France toward Dunkirk, with the promise of seeing Cecilia again in London...
The movie jumps between the three locations and time periods, the full story and motivations of the characters only coming to full fruition and light in the denouement.
I didn't cotton to this movie at all.
The reason is that, without spoiling it too much, is that when we learn what really occurred, it emerges that Briony is a highly unreliable narrator. Worse, her character and her motivations were repulsive, selfish and damning.
With her as the real center of the movie, the movie left me with a strong distaste. I don't deny there is good acting here, and good cinematography and direction. (The scenes at Dunkirk for example were particularly well done). But its all a facade, fake and when I learned what really happened...I had the same sort of moment one has with hurling a book across the room. I wanted to hurl the movie across the room.
Charlton Heston, the Oscar-winning actor who achieved stardom playing larger-than-life figures including Moses, Michelangelo and Andrew Jackson in historical epics and went on to become a best-selling author, a contentious Hollywood labor leader, an unapologetic gun advocate and darling of conservative causes, has died. He was 84.
Heston died Saturday at his Beverly Hills home, his family said in a statement. In 2002, he had been diagnosed with symptoms similar to those of Alzheimer's disease.
While The Ten Commandments is probably his best known role, I remember Heston for other characters, too. The titular character in Ben-Hur (for which he won his one Oscar). Taylor (Planet of the Apes). Rodrigo Díaz (El Cid). General Gordon (Khartoum. Great film!). Detective Thorn (Soylent Green). Most definitely the Cardinal in the Three/Four Musketeers.
He even had a small role in In the Mouth of Madness as a publishing house head.
Rest in peace, Mr. Heston.
A remake of the 1973 movie about an assassin for hire and the men arrayed to stop him, starring Richard Gere, Sidney Poitier, and Bruce Willis.
Bruce Willis plays the title character, an assassin for hire. After a joint US/Russian operation in the former Soviet Union against a crime boss, the crime boss in turn hires The Jackal to get revenge on the United States for the temerity of participating in the operation.
The Jackal is a faceless assassin at the top of his game. In order to beat him, FBI Deputy Director Preston (Poitier) springs Declan McQueen(Gere), an IRA sniper who has a connection to the Jackal, in order to stop him before he finds and kills his target. But just who his target might be is an open question...
It's a pretty good action film, with some decent performances from the leads and secondary characters, highlighted by a small humorous role for Jack Black. In particular, Willis plays a good bad guy for a change of pace from his usual protagonist roles. I'm not completely happy with how the denouement plays out, though. I think the endgame could have been done better.
This remake of The Body Snatchers stars Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig.
I have a thing for Nicole Kidman, and it is for that reason, mainly, that I decided to see this remake of the Body Snatchers, with a medical twist. Also, both of the leads later starred in The Golden Compass (although not meeting) and I wanted to get a sense of their chemistry if they ever make more of the Pullman novels into movies.
And I have a thing for Nicole Kidman, but I repeat myself.
Anyway, the Invasion is a remake of The Body Snatchers using an alien virus brought to earth by a shuttle disaster. Kidman plays Carol Bennell, a psychologist estranged from her ex-husband, a now single mom who has the buddings of a relationship with her colleague Ben Driscoll (Craig).
As it emerges that more and more people are acting strangely...and that the turnover occurs during sleep, Bennell desperately tries to protect her son, and herself, with the former possibly having the key to a cure.
It's a mishmash.
The movie starts off promisingly as a psychological thriller, but it devolves into a zombie movie mentality, complete with chase scenes and action sequences. The tone of the movie, promising in its opening act, is completely and utterly lost, and not for the better. Worse, there is zero chemistry between Kidman and Craig. And its a bad sign when some of the minor characters come across as better and more interesting than the main ones.
The cinematography is okay...but I could tell that the movie had been edited and changed, a lot. The flow was completely off. It seems to me that it did badly in a test screening, and it got changed. And not for the better.
I was highly disappointed.
A trippy low budget movie about future soldiers on alien planets in war, starring Kurt Russell.
Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson (who directed) Soldier is the story of Todd, who has been trained and used as a soldier his entire life. The opening sequence shows us in brief snippets his upbringing and his missions, as he has grown to become the best soldier in his unit.
When a new breed of genetically bred super soldier makes Todd obsolete, and dumped on a garbage planet, Todd's story takes a classic plot twist when a group of squatters/refugees takes him in, just in time for the same super soldiers who made him obsolete come calling for a fight. The "obsolete" Todd has to fight the same soldiers who beat him once already.
With Kurt Russell as Todd, can you expect anything except victory?
While the movie is solidly in its execution of the fighting and action, there are a few things in the movie that raise its score in my book. First, the subtleties of the movie were not lost on me. References in dialogue and on screen make it clear, to me, that the movie takes place in the same universe as Blade Runner. While Todd is not Roy Beatty, he is still a figure who, deep down, wants to be more than what he has been all of his life.
Even more unusual is the deliberate choice of Todd's personality. Although he is on screen for more than three quarters of the time, his dialogue is minimal. His lack of communication reinforces his isolation and his strange nature.
The minor characters, both in the refugees and in the military command that Todd is driven from and later faces, do well with their roles for the most part. The movie makes good use of Sean Pertwee, Connie Nielsen, Jason Isaacs and especially Gary Busey. I don't think Jason Lee as Caine 607, Todd's nemesis, is quite the right casting--but it might just be that Russell, even silent, has far more charisma as an actor than Lee does.
I liked the movie more than I expected I would. It's not a great movie, but its a decent one.
An action/police procedual movie "inspired" by the work of Issac Asimov, and starring Will Smith.
I was reluctant to see this movie for a long time, until my friend Bridgette convinced me that it was worth watching. My reluctance came from the fact that the movie is very unlike the original Asimov stories, with only the Laws of Robotics and a few names making the transition.
The movie stars Smith as Del Spooner, Chicago police officer who has a real grudge against robots. This is hinted at in the opening title sequence, and is later explained in full detail just why Del has a problem with robots that no one else seems to share or understand. His boss at the precinct can't control him, his beloved grandmother chides him for his attitude, and he rubs everyone and everything raw, especially when it comes to the mechanical entities which now dominate Chicago and the rest of the U.S. in 2034.
So when Robot inventor Dr. Alfred Lanning (played in holograms by James Cromwell) dies in an apparent suicide, but asking for Del in his death message, Del's dislike for robots is put to the test as he visits the gargantuan building that holds US Robotics. Del's abrasive personality and style are matched against the cool and collected Dr. Calvin (Bridget Moynihan). It seems at first that Del's presence is useless and worse than useless. However, the apperance of Sonny (Alan Tudyk) and evidence suggesting that Lanning could not have committed suicide starts a chain of action sequences and investigations that reveal an audacious plan involving the latest model of robot to be released...
While the movie is 65% action and police procedural, and 30% science fiction, the movie does have a small dose of philosophy and the spirit of the original Asimov work As a minor spoiler, I will reveal here that, while not put directly in those terms, the movie's plot revolves around the "0th law". The first time I saw the movie, I recognized this immediately, and on this re-viewing, I appreciate that Proyas (who also directed Dark City) subtly inserted this distillation of the three laws. Proyas is a great director even if this movie, with its car chases and pyrotechnics does not play to his greatest strengths.
Cromwell does fine as a hologram, Moynihan does okay as Calvin. Tudyk provides a human face to Sonny the robot. Still, this movie, like many of his movies, belongs to Smith's Del Spooner. Smith is as always a protagonist which the viewers can follow. Even if, unlike many of his roles, Del's personality and history have a dark edge that (until this movie) Smith had never really explored before in movie roles. I note wryly that this is the second SF movie he has been in that he has been a police officer. (Men in Black being the first).
The movie IS a summer blockbuster type movie, but definitely in the upper tier of that subset of movies. The movie doesn't fail to entertain and I enjoyed it a lot.
Another descent into film noir, starring Jeanne Crain, Paul Betz and Michael Rennie
Crain stars as Jeanne Crain Ruth Stanton, now Ruth Bowman. Recently married in a whirlwind courtship and sudden marriage to Betz' John Bowman, the newlyweds are going to celebrate their new marriage with an impromptu cruise. Mr. Bowman has made all of the last minute arrangements, and everything seems perfect as the couple boards the ship.
When John disappears shortly before the ship sails, howeverm things take a turn for the worse for Ruth. What's more, the stateroom she and John reserved is empty, she has no ticket of her own, and there seems to be no evidence of John on board whatsoever. The crew is justifiably suspicious of her and her story.
Did she imagine her marriage? Is she crazy? Are the phone calls she is getting from John, hiding on the ship real, or all a part of her delusion? Or is something even more sinister going on? Michael Rennie plays Paul Manning, the ship's doctor, and possibly the only person that Ruth can trust...or can she?
Dangerous Crossing is a great example of 50's film noir. Crain plays a convincing protagonist, whetber or not we believe what is happening to her is real, or all in her mind. Her performance could easily have gone into histronics; Her performance, however, is nuanced, engaging and solid. Dangerous Crossing films her well and keeps our interest in her plight and her struggles to find out what is really happening. Rennie does well as Dr. Manning, the person who seems to be the only person on Ruth's side as the convoluted series of events unfolds. The rest of the cast does fine by the movie as well.
It's not a major work of Film Noir from the period, but its a good representative sample of what the genre is like (with more than a touch of Hitchcock to the plot). This new DVD release shows how beautifully the movie was originally filmed; the cinematography is technically excellent and enhances the viewing experience.
I liked it.
A dramatic rendition of the story of Oliver Cromwell and his friend Sir Thomas Fairfax, in the lead up to the deposal of King Charles I in the 17th Century. To Kill a King stars Tim Roth, Rupert Everett and Dougray Scott.
Americans have a limited view of their own history, and so it would not surprise me if a poll of Americans would reveal that the majority of Americans have no idea that England has had several civil wars. As for me, even before reading the history, I first was introduced to the Roundheads and Cavaliers in a Choose Your Own Adventure book, of all things.
So I know a little bit about the story of Cromwell going into this dramatic rendition of the events that lead up to the death of Charles I and the establishment of the brief English Republic. The movie centers around Sir Thomas Fairfax (Dougray Scott) General of the Puritan army and friend to Cromwell. Roth plays Cromwell, the heart and soul of the Puritans.
Everett plays Charles I, the king whose self-confidence and excesses threaten to remove the crown from his head...and his head from his body.
I was somewhat disappointed. The movie has a strong Royalist bias, for one thing.
Cromwell is painted early and often as a psychopath. (The choice of Roth to play him was not lost on me). Early on, he nearly kills a man senselessly and needlessly. This characterization continues throughout the movie. The movie, too, depicts the trial of Charles in a short and perfunctory manner, which dilutes the performance of Everett in the role. He's simply not given a lot to work with here, as the movie focuses on Fairfax and Cromwell. And the center of the movie, Fairfax, is portrayed by Scott in only an average performance.
Even as there were so few female performances in the movie, I thought Olivia Williams did all right as Lady Fairfax.
The direction of the movie, I thought, was poor to middling. Especially when the movie does anything other than characters talking or conversing in a room, the cinematography reveals itself to be underdone at best. (One scene of Fairfax rushing through his house is particularly bad but its only one of the more egregious examples).
The movie does gets points in my book for tackling subjects and characters which don't get much cinematic depiction. Still, this movie doesn't rise much above the level of an average made-for-tv movie.
Next, a martial arts action movie vaguely resembling Remo Williams or Big Trouble in Little China with its mixture of seriousness, action and humor. Bulletproof Monk stars Chow Yun Fat and Seann William Scott.
The movie begins in Tibet,as Chow Yun Fat plays an apprentice monk ready to be better than his master, and take his place in protecting a scroll which provides the reader with enormous power. Escaping an attack by an obsessed Nazi, sixty years later, still young by the power of the scroll, the monk with no name discovers a "rough gem" in Seann William Scott's pickpocket Kar, who has raw talent of his own.
And, elderly, the Nazi still schemes to get his hands on the scroll, even as Kar and the Monk's path also tangles with the daughter of a Russian Mafia head, who may be equally worthy of education...
It's not great cinema by any event. And I can see how some people might be put off with the tonal shifts, which I think are fine except when they come too fast and furious. Its a mildly entertaining movie which isn't particularly offensive...or memorable for that matter. It doesn't rise (or sink) to the level of guilty pleasure or cult classic.
It's so good to have a working DVD player again!
Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas is an animated feature with the voices of Brad Pitt, Catherine Zeta Jones, Joseph Fiennes and Michelle Pfeiffer.
For those who have seen Stardust, one of the best parts is Michelle Pfeiffer's portrayal of the witch. When I first heard that she was going to play that role, I was excited, because that character shares much in common with her character here.
In Sinbad Legend of the Seven Seas, Pfeiffer voices Eris, Goddess of Discord. And discord is what she does as she meddles in the life of Sinbad (Pitt). This Sinbad is a pirate and freewheeling mercenary rather than the more traditional hero of the Arabian Nights. Too, Sinbad's base of operations have been westernized to the city of "Syracuse".
The story follows Eris' manipulations to prevent the city of Syracuse from keeping a magical book which promotes peace and harmony--anathema to Eris. With Joseph Fiennes as a princeling of Syracuse and Catherine Zeta Jones as his fiancee who stows away on Sinbad's ship, there is even a love triangle of sorts for adults. Mostly, though, the movie is a quest tale, as Sinbad goes in search of the book, beyond the edge of the world.
It's not in the A-list of animated features, but it supports an impressive cast who do well with their roles, and its entertaining. And yes, there is a message, although its very gently given.
I liked it.
The last movie I've gotten to watch on my now dead DVD player, the Darjeeling Limited was directed by Wes Anderson and stars Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody, and Jason Schwartzman.
Wes Anderson films are known for their quirkness, their unusual camera shots and pans, interesting soundtracks, and (oftentimes) roles large and small for Bill Murray and Angelica Huston.
The Darjeeling Limited, the story of three estranged Whittman brothers who try to bond with each other on a long train trip across India, is no exception to any of these generalizations. The story of Francis, Peter and Jack,their trip goes awry almost from the start, as they keep secrets from each other, and have misadventures with pharmaceuticals, poisonous snakes and other hazards on their long journey that Francis, the impresario for this trip, reveals is to find their mother, who has joined a convent.
With edgy relations between the brothers, quirky and often dry humor, strange situations and strange characters, The Darjeeling Limited is an enjoyable movie. The soundtrack, I don't think is up to the fae madness of the Portugese rendition of Bowie songs in Life Aquatic..., but it holds up well.
The DVD also included the short film Hotel Chevalier, starring Schwartzman as his character Jack, and Natalie Portman as his girlfriend. (She is seen in the briefest of cameos in the feature film). The events of Hotel Chevalier are alluded to in the main film, too, showing that they are clearly set in the same movie universe.
Director Wes Anderson seems to, in terms of theme and mood, likes to hit similar chords in his films, but he manages those chords well in The Darjeeling Limited. I enjoyed it.
The Extended/Director's Cut of the rendition of the epic directed by Wolfgang Petersen and starring Orlando Bloom,Eric Bana,Brad Pitt and Peter O'Toole, amongst others.
I completely disliked the original cut of this movie, which I went to see in theaters in 2004. Based very loosely on the Greek Myth about what happens when ambition and wife-stealing collide.
So why, do you ask, would I bother watching the extended cut?
Well, readers will recall that I recently reviewed a book by Barry Strauss on the real Trojan War. I was induced, by positive comments in the book and the knowledge that there was a director's cut of the film, to give it another try.
It's not perfect, but it's far more reasonably entertaining than the dreck of the first film. This cut adds about a half hour to the film. In addition, the movie is re-scored and in some cases, the color balance of the film is improved. So its longer, re-sounded and looks brand spanking new.
The new footage comes in drips and drabs, adding much more color and character to the main characters. Odysseus, for instance, is introduced in a much better manner in this version of the film. With the extended cut, the anachronistic pro-atheistic stance that the original film has is much less evident. No, we don't have any divine interventions or divine entities as characters. But at least this time, the movie doesn't have that strange anti-religious tone anywhere near to the same degree. And we actually get to really see Troy get sacked in this cut rather than the "breeze over" in the original movie.
The movie is not *strong* in this new cut, but for me, anyway, it was far more palatable and made the movie better.
I still have a couple of reviews to catch up on, but since I went to see this movie in the theater today, I decided to review it next.
10000 BC has no major stars save narration by Omar Sharif, and is directed by Roland Emmerich.
Creator of some SFish movies such as Stargate, Godzilla, Independence Day, and the Day after Tomorrow (as well as movies like the Patriot), Roland Emmerich hasn't directed a movie since the Day after Tomorrow.
He returns to the director's chair in 10000 BC, a movie which heavily throws back to movies like 1 million BC, Quest for Fire, Conan the Barbarian, The Scorpion King, and liberal borrowings from other films, including his own Stargate. The movie has characters with apostrophes in their names, invented language for the antagonists (the protagonists speak intelligible language), and mishmashed anthropology, history, and biomes.
The story revolves around D'leh, a hunter in a mountain valley tribe who hunt mammoths. The herds have become less frequent and reliable over the years, and the tribe's shaman, Old Mother, has predicted change coming to the tribe, and danger.
After D'leh proving himself in a mammoth hunt and endearing himself to his woman,Evolet, who came to the trip while just a young girl, an attack by four legged demons (horsemen) set D'leh off on a quest to rescue the captured members of his tribe. Those captured members include, of course, the lovely Evolet.
And so D'leh and his companions go on an epic journey, having adventures, meeting allies, and dealing with fearsome creatures on their way to discovering the ultimate origin of the horsemen--a pyramid building civilization using slave and mammoth labor, and ruled over by a god-king. In the course of D'leh trying to free his tribesmen, he and his allies are faced with the forces of this civilization arrayed against them.
The events in this movie could not have taken place on the Earth that we know. D'leh and company deal with Mammoths, terror birds(!), a sabertooth tiger sequence straight out of Androcles and the Lion, and the civilization at the end suggests that the God King and the world he has built here is a descendant remnant of lost Atlantis. So from all of those perspectives, its a complete mess.
As pure fantasy fiction taking place on another world, once I decided this was not the Earth we knew, the movie was actually decent. I didn't have high expectations but the movie managed to exceed those very low expectations. The CGI was okay, the acting (especially since it was all unknowns) was okay. The story was a simple and direct mythic one, straight out of the Hero with a Thousand Faces. Even with the plot holes and other problems, it managed to entertain me for a couple of hours.
With my DVD player broken, I should catch up on the reviews that I "owe", eh?
Next up is a small independent view starring and directed by Steve Buscemi, "Interview". The other lead in the movie is Sienna Miller.
A character movie with characters who actions and motivations in the end are ultimately unbelieveable, Interview wastes an opportunity to truly explore issues and characters between a reporter and a starlet.
Pierre (Buscemi) is a fading political reporter, assigned to write a fluff piece on Katya (Miller), a young blond starlet who acts in slasher movies and a Fox show about single girls in the city. The interview, at a restaurant, goes badly: she's late, he's unprepared and rude. After leaving, he bangs his head in a fender bender and she takes him to her loft to clean the wound. Lubricated by alcohol and competitive natures, the interview resumes. She takes phone calls from her fiancé, Pierre reads her diary on her computer. They discuss wounds, he expresses concern, father-daughter feelings arise. Out come camcorders to tape their darkest secrets.
I thought it would be a juicy exploration of these two characters, but the script doesn't quite pull it off. The characters are too different, too abrasive to each other. and too unlikeable. The pacing and actions seem weird and off--why Buscemi goes ahead and starts browsing Katya's computer, for example is never really clear. Or the mindgames Katya plays are not really well thought out.
And there is a twist at the end which is less of a sting in the tail than a final nail that we really didn't get to know these characters at all.
The relationship between the two is humanly awkward, but its not very good cinema. I didn't care for the movie.
An amazing fantasy created by George Pal, and starring Tony Randall as the titular characters, and a pre-I Dream of Jeannie Barbara Eden.
The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao harkens back to a simpler time in movies, with simple special effects and makeup sitting in for the more usual CGI and elaborate displays of more modern movies. In this sense, and the gentle nature of the fantasy, it reminded me strongly of the Adventures of Baron Munchausen.
Seven Faces stars Tony Randall in early 20th century West, visiting the tone of Abalone, Arizona. With an uncertain water supply, and a robber baron seeking to buy the town outright, Abalone doesn't seem to have much of a future. Even a newspaperman doesn't seem to be able to stop the inevitable buy-out.
Dr. Lao's arrival, however, is a catalyst for the townspeople to see themselves in new ways, with their encounter with Dr. Lao's circus of characters (all amazingly brought to life with makeup, costumes and the acting ability of Randall). (William Tuttle, who did the makeup, won an honorary Oscar for his efforts).
Dr. Lao's circus consists of , besides himself, Merlin, Pan , the Abominable Snowman , Medusa, a sentient Giant Serpent and the fortune teller Apollonius of Tyana. Various members of the town (including the robber Baron Clint Stark) meet these characters, and are subtly changed, thereby.
And so too, does Dr. Lao and his circus change the town.
More than just being a "Throwback" fantasy, Dr. Lao does have parallels to Munchausen. A mysterious visitor to the town. Inhabitants of the town entertained and enlightened by that visitor. An adversary in a position of authority and power over the town who is defeated by wits rather than brawn.
If you think that Tony Randall's acting begins and ends with the Odd Couple, you owe it to yourself to see this charming little film.
Joseph L. Mankiewicz's classic tale of ambition in the Theater, starring Bette Davis as the aging theater star Margo Channing and Anne Baxter as Eve.
One of those classic movies that I've never seen before now, All about Eve tells the story of its title character, Eve Harrington. Besotted and charming her way into a circle of theater friends around an aging actress, her charm and self depreciation hide a sinister plan of manipulation. People slowly come to see Eve's manipulation for fulfillment, but her machinations are soon well in hand...
Betrayal, manipulation, ambition and more, the movie is a classic character study of Eve, Margo and the others in their circle. The movie relies on us being invested in watching these characters react to each other and especially the young ingenue in their midst, and just how far she is willing to go in the pursuit of her signalminded goals. The casting is great, especially the leads, and there is even a small role for Marilyn Monroe.
The movie won six Oscars, including Best Picture. Both of the leads were nominated for Best Actress; neither won. (The winner that year was Judy Holliday in Born Yesterday).
I enjoyed it.
I was inspired to rent this classic from the 80's, although a viewing proved that I didn't remember it as much as I thought I did. Starring Jeff Bridges, David Warner, and Bruce Boxleitner.
Computer Users and Programmers team up to prevent the Singularity by stopping the plans of a rogue amalgamation of software called the MCP.
That's the short, geeky version of the plot. The movie revolves around a sentient piece of software, the Master Control Program (MCP). With dominance over a pre/non Windows cyberspace, its influence into the real world is through its original creator, Ed Dillinger.
Jeff Bridges plays Kevin Flynn, former ace programmer. His efforts to stop the MCP in the verite world gets him literally zapped into the computer environment, and forced to play games that he is not only expected to lose, but die in the process. Fortunately, he soon meets Tron, a program created by fellow programmer Alan Bradley, oddly looking much like his creator, and the two together set off to escape the games and stop the MCP in its tracks.
Tron has been described as the "first Matrix" and there are definitely parallels, playing with levels of reality, computers as entities, and more. Although the graphics are primitive today, the story and the breadth of imagination are still top notch, and the movie is shorter than I remembered. It's a bit slow until we get Kevin into the computer world, but the movie picks up wonderfully at this point.
I remember fondly playing videogames based on the movie, and watching lightcycles, tanks and disc throwing in the movie brought back not only previous viewings to mind, but those games as well. I had forgotten or never really recognized some of the details and commentary that this movie showed on this viewing. For instance, there is a strong spiritual element to the movie, on both the virtual and verite levels. And the music is very good, too.
The technology of the computers in the verite world are primitive by today's standards--dumb terminals, no signs of Macs, Windows or even Linux. However aside from that, the movie is still damned fun and entertaining. A landmark Science Fiction film.
I wouldn't mind owning this movie in my DVD collection.
The Ebb and Flow of Movies: Box Office Receipts 1986 - 2007 - The New York Times
"Summer blockbusters and holiday hits make up the bulk of box office revenue each year, while contenders for the top Oscar awards tend to attract smaller audiences that build over time. Here's a look at how movies have fared at the box office, after adjusting for inflation."
Take a look at it, play with it!
A thriller about a woman who turns from meek to vigilante in the wake of a brutal attack that claims the life of her fiance. Starring Jodie Foster.
Foster plays Erica Bain, a popular host on a public radio program in NYC. She has a loving fiance (Naveen Andrews) who works as a medical professional. Life is good.
Her idyllic life is shattered during a brutal attack in Central Park by a trio of men. Her fiance is killed, her dog is lost and she is left for dead. When she finally recovers herself from the attack, finding little help from the police, she buys an unregistered handgun.
And when she finds call to use it on a armed robber in a bodega a few days later, she begins a new career, one of an avenging vigilante...
Aside from the transformation from meek victim to firearm wielding vigilante, the movie is a average thriller with a good performance from Foster. The cinematography is good, and the performances from the supporting cast are decent.
The movie does fall short in a couple of areas for me. The initial transformation of the character is a bit hard to take. We get no sense whatsoever that she would be interested in an illegal handgun and suddenly, soon, she owns one to protect herself. (A deleted scene from the movie makes the transition in the wake of her injury a little easier, but its cheating to include that in the narrative of the movie). Also problematic is one of the other deaths in the movie that Erica undertakes, being a very different tone, method, reason and motivation than the others.
And, finally, the ending, when the detective pursuing her (Terrence Howard) acts in an extremely unprofessional and atypical manner that helps gives the movie a Hollywood-esque ending. However, in the process, I think the ending to an extent breaks the character of Detective Mercer and makes things far too pat for Erica.
Overall, it was a disappointment.
The epic story of Colonel T.E. Lawrence and his efforts to unite Arab opposition to Ottoman rule during World War I. Lawrence of Arabia stars Peter O'Toole,Alec Guinness, Omar Sharif, and in one of his last roles, Claude Rains.
"...Lawrence of Arabia, British Beatlemania..."
Lawrence of Arabia tells the based-on-the-life-story of the title character, a complicated British officer. The movie is told in flashback, we open the movie with his death in a motorcycle accident in Britain, and then moves back in time to 1916 Cairo. Lawrence, an intelligence officer attached to the British forces there, is given a mission to discover what the Arabs are doing in their chafing under Ottoman rule.
And so the movie really begins.
Gorgeous cinematography, beautiful desert, striking vistas. Lawrence meets the head of one of the tribes, and, in a wide interpretation of his orders, proceeds to attach himself to the Arabs, helping them strike at the Turks. We get full scale on attacks, raids, attacks on train lines and other such shenangians. We see Lawrence's relationship develop with his new friends, mainly embodied as Guinness' Prince Feisal and Sharif's Sherif Ali. And of course his complicated relationship with his own command, who have their own ideas of what the post WWI Middle East should look like...
Lawrence was a complicated figure both in real life and as depicted in the movie. Hero, patriot, opportunist, sadist, and a man with complicated and contradictory impulses and loyalties. The movie does an excellent job showing that Lawrence was far from a simple man. Its one of those long epic films (over three hours, and featuring the now disused trio of Overture, Entr'acte and Exit music. Its not a movie to watch, savor and enjoy without the time to do so.
Lawrence of Arabia won 7 Oscars, deservedly so. However, Peter O'Toole failed to win, losing to Gregory Peck's depiction of Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird. O'Toole's depiction of Lawrence is a bit overwrought, and while it is not a travesty that he lost the Oscar, it is a pity that he has not managed to win since, either.
The romantic comedy from the 90's, starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, with Greg Kinnear, Parker Posey, Jean Stapleton, David Chappelle, and Dabney Coleman.
Watching the movie again, I enjoyed it, even if its somewhat dated in terms of technology, and I deduced a sort of creepy aspect to the entire romance between the main characters.
Ryan plays Kathleen Kelly, owner of a small children's bookstore has an email penpal relationship with a mysterious and unknown friend. Hanks plays Joe Fox, scion of the Fox Books superstores, who is about to open a branch right across the corner from Kelly's little store. A harbringer of doom for the little bookstore which can't afford a coffee bar or to discount books as Fox does.
What Kelly and Fox don't know (at first for the latter) is that they are the falling-for-each-other penpals as well as the business rivals...
The movie is funny and poignant, in the "romcom" sort of vein. The characters do talk about fate and destiny and other such natterings that frankly annoy the more cynical and practical.
The leads and their supporting cast do a very good job. Ephron knows how to get good results out of her cast, especially Hanks and Ryan.
Where the movie falls down a bit, I think, is in two aspects.
First, the romance between Joe and Kathleen as themselves (as opposed to their online personas) seemed somewhat short and didn't quite work for me. I could see Joe's side of it, since (a bit of a spoiler) he becomes aware that Kathleen IS his penpal. I just don't quite see how Kathleen manages to fall for Joe, especially because of the business animosity.
The second bit is that, once Joe does find out who Kelly is, he does seem to play with her as regards to her online penpal. It seemed slightly cruel the way he talks about him in the third person. I see where Ephron was trying to go with it, but it felt a bit creepy on this viewing.
Still...with a good cast, snappy dialogue, and wonderful chemistry between the actors (not just Ryan and Hanks mind you), the movie seems destined to hold a place for when someone is in the mood for unabashed, romantic comedy. At least, it does to me.
And now time for the late night, science fiction, double feature, picture show...starring Tim Curry and Susan Sarandon.
It's just a jump to the left and a step to the right.
I'm not sure how to review the movie. Nearly anyone who reads this has seen it in one fashion, venue or form or another. Many probably own a copy, or know someone who do.
It's been a few years since I saw it last, so I did get to see it with fresh eyes. The silliness, the camp, the costumes, and of course the musical numbers. The plot is a clothesline on which to hang the music and the wackiness. Its very silly fun.
And the movie brought back memories, mainly through the music. On nearly the last night I saw Lisa alive, we were driving back from Fresno to Bakersfield. The sky was a gorgeous quilt of stars, undimmed by light pollution. And the music we listened to was the soundtrack to the Rocky Horror Picture Show.
It brings a tear to my eye to think about it.
There are probably three kinds of people in the world--people who love the movie, people who can't stand the movie, and people who have somehow missed it. I don't think a movie like this allows for much of a middle ground.
A recent adaptation of the Shakespeare play, with Al Pacino as Shylock, and also starring Jeremy Irons and Joseph Fiennes.
The Merchant of Venice is a difficult play, and the reason is the character of Shylock, really the center of the film.
Is the play anti-semitic? Is Shakespeare indulging in the attitudes prevalent at the time? Is it an enlightened play, showing how Shylock is driven to his actions and attitudes because of the environment in which he must dwell?
For that reason, its not as popular a play as other works by the Bard, and so this recent movie adaptation is a chance to see it and see what and how a director and cast interpret the material.
I was not disappointed.
Michael Radford (who directed Il Postino) seems to take the view that the play is really an indictment of anti-semitism and the consequences to what it leads to. This is highlighted by Pacino's portrayal of Shylock. We see him early on, spat on and treated foully by the citizens of Venice. When Irons' Antonio stakes a loan to Shylock on behalf of his friend Bassiano (Fiennes) so that he can win the heart of Portia, we feel sympathy for Shylock. Here, because he has to make a living, is in the position of loaning money to a man who just treated him like dirt just days ago.
And so when Shylock sets his awful terms (a pound of flesh) if the loan is defaulted, Shylock's attempt at revenge makes him seem less like a common criminal than someone who is trying to "fight the system."
Aside from the powerful portrayal by Pacino, the rest of the actors and the players do a decent, if not spectacular job. I found Portia and the suitors to be a middling subplot. I didn't buy how Portia and Bassiano fall for each other, though. And while Irons is a great actor, he seems of the wrong generation to be the best buddy of Bassiano to put up the stake of his own flesh to begin with.
The movie is filmed beautifully, evoking nicely the setting of early 16th century Venice. Radford does a good job with the cinematography and knowing when to show us the grandeur of spaces, and when to focus and let the actors fill up the screen.
Still, to see Pacino eat up the screen as a Shylock who knows he deserves better than what Venetian society is giving him made the movie worthwhile to see. Sure, Shylock gets his comeuppance as per the play, but until and when he does, we can see that Pacino as Shylock has made his point, in full.
A movie that knocked me on my a$$ the first time I saw it (enough that I rushed out to get the soundtrack), and watching it again, it still manages to do it.
McDowell plays Alex, a teenage sociopath whose nights consist of getting buzzed on pharmaceutical laced milk, assault and battery, a touch of rape, and always the "ultra violence." His cheerfully brutal existence takes a turn for the worse when he accidentally commits a murder, and having estranged his companions, is set up by them to take the fall.
In prison, however, he gets a chance to be free...at a terrible price.
Based on the Anthony Burgess novel, the movie has unforgettable images, startling musical counterpoints (Beethoven!) and of course McDowell's performance going for it. I don't think "like" is the right word to describe a reaction to a movie of this power and brutality. It is similar to "liking" a deadly creature which you are engaged with, on a real level. You can't ignore it, fail to appreciate it, respect it, and pay rapt attention to it.
A Clockwork Orange was nominated for 4 Oscars, including Best Director and Best Picture, but won none. (It lost to, in all of those categories,the French Connection).
If you can stomach it, you should see it at least once.
Another movie based on Hill House, this time using the theme of a psychological study run by Liam Neeson, and also starring Catherine Zeta Jones, Lili Taylor and Owen Wilson.
It starts off promisingly and then falters.
Neeson's Psychologist Dr. Marrow recruits three subjects who are told they'll get help for insomnia, and installs them in the ornate and gloomy gothic pile, where alarming, but not quite scary, things start to happen immediately.
The three patients are played by Lili Taylor, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Owen Wilson. Prof. Marrow is joined by two assistants, but in one of the screenplay's several clumsy moves, one of them is injured during the first night, the other takes her to the hospital, and that's the last we ever see of them. Taylor's Nell, is the key figure in the film and its center for reasons revolving around the plot.
The problem is, the characters are very underwritten. Much more could have been done with the characters after their initial, promising arrivals on screen. Even Taylor's Nell, the center of the film gets saddled with a very clumsy script, dialogue and direction. (It's telling that Taylor's best scenes are when she is talking to herself, by herself). And the movie doesn't quite scare me.
It's a pity. The House is a wonderful place to film a movie and some of what the movie does right is in showing us that. Jones' Theo calls it "Charles Foster Kane meets the Munsters" and she's right. With such a locale, its a shame the script doesn't hold up to the potential.
Forest Whitaker gives an Oscar-winning performance as Idi Amin in this story of a Scottish Doctor (James McAvoy) who comes to know the brutal, charismatic dictator of Uganda.
My friend Mike strongly recommended this to me, and I am glad he did.
The center of the movie is McAvoy's Dr. Nicholas Garrigan, a Scot who comes to Uganda and after a chance encounter with Amin, becomes a personal physician, advisor and confidant to the brutal dictator. Spoiled, rich and blind, the story of the movie is about his awakening to the realities and brutalities of Amin and his regime.
At least, that's the way the movie is written and how it is intended. And McAvoy does a decent job with his role. Not spectacular but solid acting.
Yet, all of this is thrown into eclipse by Forest Whitaker as Idi Amin. Every moment on the screen he is on works, and once he makes an appearance, the movie suffers when the movie shuffles him offscreen. He takes over the role and the movie in a real and palpable way that cannot be denied. His Amin is by turns magnetic, charming, charismatic, brutal, dangerous, and insane. Whitaker captures each of these in turn, changing his mood in an instant, and it never, ever feels false.
Whitaker was nominated for (and won) an Oscar for this role, and now that I've seen it, I can confirm that it would have been a miscarriage of justice had he not won. It's a good movie...but its a stellar performance and one worth watching for Whitaker's role alone. It is a brutal film, though, once the violence and dark nature of Amin's regime, always lurking, comes out on the screen in full. Definitely not a film for kids.
Martin Scorsese's first attempt at an "Oscar bait" period epic, starring Daniel Day Lewis, Michelle Pfeiffer and Winona Ryder as upper crust socialites in 1870's New York City.
Gorgeously filmed, wonderfully acted and subtle in the way that many of his other films are Gross, The Age of Innocence is a very atypical picture for Scorsese. There are no action scenes, no violence, nothing of the sort. Its a slow period picture.
With the occasional voiceover to help as a scorecard, the Age of Innocence tells the story of Newland Archer, successful lawyer and fiancee of Ryder's May Welland. All is peaceful in their genteel world, until the arrival of Pfeiffer's Duchess Ellen Orlenska, estranged American wife of a Polish Duke, now back in New York and seeking to carve a new life. Unaware of just how much she is flouting social conventions, its not until Archer's intervention that Ellen has a chance at happiness...
But what about Archer's happiness? And May's?
Before he tore up the screen in Gangs of New York, Lewis provides an excellent center for this trio of actors. I have no idea how he managed to avoid getting a nomination at the very least...although a check of the records show that he was nominated (and lost) for a different picture that year--for In the Name of the Father. Ryder's role shows hidden depths to the character, and Pfeiffer is luminous and complex. There are plenty of smaller roles for actors like Sian Phillips and Jonathan Pryce as well. The movie relies heavily on all of these performances. The movie could easily have been overwrought, or underdone, or ponderous if the performances were not pitch perfect.
And the cinematography is excellent, too. We buy into the 1870's view of New York (and a few other locations) completely and utterly.
The Age of Innocence was not nominated for any major awards like it clearly was designed to do, save for a Best Supporting Actress for Ryder (she lost to Anna Paquin for The Piano). Still, its an enjoyable movie and an excellent part of the director's body of work. I enjoyed it.
Brian De Palma's attempt at a space epic, starring Gary Sinise, Tim Robbins, Don Cheadle, Jerry O'Connell and Carrie Nielsen.
In the 2020's, exploration of space has proceeded apace. With an improved space station leading the way, a Mission to Mars is planned and sent. Disaster strikes the first visitors to the Red Planet, as an anomalous formation lead the crew into a deadly encounter. With only one member of the crew known to be alive, a second mission is launched to rescue him, and to find out just what happened.
This rescue crew features a husband and wife crew, a young scientist, and a pilot who should have been on the first mission save for a tragedy in his past. Now, the rescue mission provides a second chance for him to prove himself...
Mission to Mars is not a complicated movie. And really the center of the movie is Gary Sinise's Jim McConnell, ace pilot and Mars expert. I don't think its entirely a spoiler to say that one of the four crew perish on the rescue, leaving McConnell as the leader of the mission as he was always meant to be.
The movie is somewhat derivative. The dialogue is weak and the science is in some places very suspect. (The DNA and genetic stuff really rubbed me the wrong way) The talents of the actors are, frankly, underutilized.
The visuals are good, and the movie makes a halfway decent attempt to show "daily life" on a ship bound for Mars. The movie does present some SF ideas effectively. Still, the movie could have been much more and much better, and in the end comes up short.
Another remake (yes, a pattern..) of a classic movie, starring Geoffrey Rush, Taye Diggs and Famke Janssen.
The movie starts off with Janssen watching a "In Search of" ripoff featuring a story about a fictional Mental hospital in Los Angeles, closed after a devastating fire and patient riot. The head of the hospital was revealed to have been a mass murderer, having done horrible things to his patients. Closed but not torn down, the hospital has remained on its hillside location ever since...
What a place for a birthday party for the wife of a amusement park mogul, eh? Rush plays the amusement park mogul husband of Janssen who makes his money scaring people to death. He fulfills his wife's request for a party, but decides on a guest list different than the one she wants.
But when a small group of strangers to both of them show up for the party instead...its clear that something else is at work. And after the hospital goes into lockdown and the husband, wife and their guests are trapped inside, and the murderous acrimony between Mr and Mrs Price is clear, it soon becomes evident that the night is going to be a long and deadly one.
Sure, its a relatively average horror film from first viewing. And yet it has decent actors amongst the cast, and aside from one thing at the end, has pretty good art direction and production values. The movie plot is not complex and is pretty standard, but its perhaps a bit of a spoiler in that one of the ultimate survivors is, in a clear reversal of the pattern, usually the type of person who gets killed off first in these movies.
One annoying thing, though, is that the end of the movie has a sun rising over the Pacific Ocean...something impossible to see in Los Angeles! Even given these nits though, the movie is entertaining and fits well within its genre.
A remake of the original, starring Nicole Kidman, Matthew Broderick, Bette Midler, Christopher Walken and Glenn Close.
Kidman plays Joanna, a high powered executive at a TV network with a string of hit shows. In the presentation of the upcoming season, a murderous participant from one of the pilots shows up, and his attempt to kill Joanna as well as his previous victims leads her to be fired by the network.
Broderick, her husband, moves her and their family to the eerily perfect upscale community of Stepford, Connecticut. There the women are strangely perfect and mannequin like, and the men enjoy things behind the doors of the Stepford's Men's Association. Joanna tries to fit in, and then tries to figure out what's really going on with the help of Bette Midler's Barbie Markowitz...
The movie is a mess though. While there are neat comedic bits, there is a large disconnect between what the nature of the Stepford Wives really are. The movie contradicts itself on their nature. One scene implies and shows the women as robots; whereas the reveal in the finale shows them as merely being controlled and still human. Deleted scenes show that the original direction the movie was taking seems to be the "robot" idea, and somewhere along the line, they changed the reveal in the ending..and cut out the scenes which implied robots,.but left in one scene which still shows a robotic wife.
Its a pity. With an appealing cast, I wanted to like the movie. This very sloppy approach ruins it for me, though.
The third of the POTC movies, in addition to the returning Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightley, Geoffrey Rush and Johnny Depp, the movie also stars Chow Yun Fat.
Its not quite as good a climax as one might hope for in the trilogy, although its fairly entertaining. The movie starts off with almost ridiculous grimness as we are treated to a public execution commanded by the real antagonist of the piece, Lord Cutler Beckett. From there, we join our heroes as they make a desperate play into Singapore to obtain a map that will lead them to Davy Jones' Locker...and the lost Jack Sparrow. There, they tangle with Chow Yun Fat, one of the pirate captains who squats in his den like a deadly spider.
And from there...well, the plot is convoluted and long and it forces you to remember and pay attention to events from the previous movie as well as this one in order to keep it all straight. Lots of double dealing, alliance switching, and conflicts, one of which descends into comedy and self parody.
The action scenes and special effects are well done. There is lots of eye candy.
As far as that convoluted plot...There are a few missteps, in my opinion, especially given the "with a whimper" fate that befalls the mighty Kraken (and off screen no less). The movie goes to perhaps too much excess on every front (including the extravagence of having Keith Richards play Sparrow's father in a brief cameo).
And the movie makes a huge mistake, as far as I can see, and perhaps someone can correct me. At the Brethren Court, we see the nine Pirate Captains...including Jack (who had to be rescued) and Barbarossa. But...wasn't Barbarossa only a captain after he stole the ship from Jack in the time before the first Pirates movie? And if he was a captain, why was he serving under Jack on the Pearl in the first place? Is the first movie retconned thereby?
Thus the problems of an overcomplicated plot, and its this over-cleverness that is a hallmark of the movie along with the special effects.
The movie entertains, but its not without its problems.
Another Movie lent to me by my co worker, The Gameplan stars Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.
Johnson plays Joe Kingman, a hotshot, playboy, bachelor quaterback for a Boston team which has had some success, including the playoffs, but has never managed to get to the Championship game (no NFL name rights were given, so all of the teams are generic). His plan for this year to make that happen is interrupted by the unexpected arrival of his eight year old daughter,Peyton Kelly, a daughter he never knew he had. Its a fish out of waterstory as Quarterback Joe has to become Dad Joe too for a month...
Yes, its a Disney movie, and the setup is implausible, the action is gentle family fare, and there are morals aplenty.
Given that, and in that context and genre, The Gameplan does okay. Sure the entire scenario is implausible and it can be difficult to get past that. However, this is the sort of movie that a family can watch with an 7-9 year old and know precisely and exactly that its going to be harmless and entertaining fare.
I enjoyed the cameos from Boomer Esiason and Marv Albert playing themselves as sports commentators. Like "Lilo and Stitch", the movie also makes decent use of Elvis as an icon, although I thought more could be done with this. There also seems to be a quasi romance between Kingman and Peyton's ballet teacher.
An amusing bit about this movie is the championship game set up as how it relates to the Superbowl this year. Its probably not a spoiler to reveal that Joe does lead his underdog Boston team to the championship game, against a heavily favored team that has won three of the last four championships.
And that team is from...
New York.
The latest in the movie adaptations of Rowling's novels.
The frame of the story of the movies is now clearly a simpler version of the novels' story, as the ever thick novel in Rowling's story is pared to a bare bones movie of 138 minutes. While 2 hours and 18 minutes is not a short movie, it is short by the standards of the material in the book.
The plot you likely know by now. Harry deals with an attack of Dementors on him and Dudley, and escapes being expelled by a congregation of wizards at the Ministry only to find the Ministry meddling in Hogwarts affairs in the personage of Dolores Umbridge.
And Voldemort's plans continue apace...and another link between the Dark Lord and Harry is documented.
The directing is okay (although I am more of a fan of Alfonso Cuarón's directing Azkaban the best). The problem with the movie is that while its entertaining, too much of it is in reference to things only in the books. We see Tonks and Kingsley, and Kreacher, for example, who are designed for the Potter readers to go "Aha!". Non readers, though, who do watch the movie, are going to miss out. And the characterization of the characters we know and love best is sadly diminished from the book. (Neville in particular comes to mind here)
There is some good stuff here, from wordplay to the satire and social commentary on the educational system. And the special effects and conflicts are well done and displayed, especially the battles at the Ministry.
I suppose my grumblings about the shortcomings of the movie are protesting a bit too much. The movie could have done much worse, and focused on less crucial scenes from the book and done less effectively.
Lent to me by a co worker, Rhonda, War is an action movie starring Jet Li and Jason Statham.
An action movie about treachery and revenge, War tells the story of FBI Agent Jack Crawford (Statham). Driven by the desire to find a mysterious assassin for hire, Rogue (Jet Li), his quest gains poignancy early when his partner is killed in an attempt to nab the assassin.
Several years later, Crawford is divorced, and enthused by the opportunity to nab Rogue, who has surfaced again to participate in a feud between a Japanese Yakuza magnate, Shiro Yanagawa, and a Chinese gang leader, Li Chan.
And the playing out of that feud, and the principals reactions to each other, is the sum and total of the movie. The movie is not that long on character development, preferring to throw an action scene every few minutes to keep the audience from being bored. So critiquing the acting is somewhat difficult, since its mostly in the context of the action scenes.
With that said, since Statham and Li are usually fighting,