Slowly Learning...

Here are the three latest films in short...

Wanted: Fantastic action film. Think Matrix meets Fight Club, but without as much story as Fight Club, and with better acting than Matrix. Not overly deep, but one of the most entertaining movies I've seen lately, and isn't that what really counts?

WALL·E: Yes he's cute, yes it's another well done Pixar film. And thankfully this one falls mostly into the good Pixar films that are a little different (see also Incredibles, Monsters Inc, and to some extent Finding Nemo). Is it without it's problems? No. First off, on a minor note, the "predicted" human future. It was a little funny seeing everyone over the top fat and lazy, but it almost seemed a little preachy at times. "Repent and change your ways or the human race will become fat, lazy and trash the entire planet!" But I can overlook that because they didn't come right out and preach that. The biggest issue was the inclusion of live action. I love pixar movies and the way most can reel you in, but you completely break up the flow and the feeling of emersion if you cut away to real people (and as much as I love Fred Willard, he does not belong at all).

Hancock: I loved the idea, a super hero who doesn't care, and I hoped they could pull it off. And I guess in some ways they did. What really threw me through was the fact that Charlize Theron was in the film (as one of the three major characters) yet this was never told to us in any previews. *Semi-Spoiler Alert* Now I know that she is part of the "twist" and that they wanted to keep that a secret, but if you have one of the biggest female names in Hollywood in your film as a major character, yet you don't hype that at all then it pretty obvious the first time you see her that there is going to be a twist involving her. So it doesn't really work well at hiding her. However I did enjoy seeing MR. F married to Jason Bateman, and she did do quite a good job. However in the end the film was watchable and entertaining, but not fantastic.

RATINGS: Worth Rewatching In the Theatres (as I have already done); Worth Seeing For Full Price (especially if you have kids); Worth Seeing Once (but maybe wait for a matinee or something cheaper).

PS - I cannot wait to see how Death Race turns out (can it be as awesomely bad as the original?), and props to anyone who caught the Arrested Development reference.

Posted by Thom at 8:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Going in I figured I'd see an over-the-hill Indy doing Indy things in the familiar Indy ways. Needless to say I was surprised to learn that I had actually stumbled upon the new X-Files movie two months early! I know Indiana Jones has always had that mystical element to it, but throwing us UFOs and aliens pretty much from the get-go, that was too much. Now I could go into what was good about it, but there wasn't that much. Anything that was good you can see by re-watching the previous three. So let's get into the bad.

1 - Stop throwing the hot young flavor of the week into action films like this. I have nothing against Shia LaBeouf, and I loved him in Transformers, but he does not belong here. Indy with his female side-kick is ok, and I'm even willing to grant you Shortee and Bond, but stop throwing in these young hot stars (I'm talking to you Die Hard).

2 - If you are looking for a magnetized case in a gigantic warehouse (one that is probably a half mile across), throwing gunpowder into the air is not going to work. That was the biggest stretch of the whole film. And if somehow the gunpowder trick works, then the object has to be so magnetized that you would not be able to go near it with any sort of metal. My physics may be a bit rusty, but I'm pretty sure most electromagnetic forces aren't that strong from that far away.

3 - Surviving a nuclear explosion at ground zero in a fridge? Sure... That one will work. On top of that having the fridge blown two miles clear of the site, with Indy inside (and unharmed), without it popping open, and then having Indy just hop right out when it lands? Come on.

Now, I'm willing to suspend disbelief for a great many things in action films, but there is a limit (on the number of these events and the magnitude of each of them. And Crystal Skull exceeds both those limits. Oh and could anyone have taken the film seriously at all after hearing the title? That's worse than when I heard Episode II was going to be called "Attack of the Clones!" Which gets me to what is probably the main issue with this movie. Spielberg directed it (and Lucas wrote it). I remember the good old days when the Lucas Films logo made me tingle with anticipation. Now it just makes me shiver with disgust. Oh how the times have changed. And don't think you're fooling me Mr. Spielberg with those stupid monkeys and prairie dogs. You can't try to squeeze Ewoks into this movie!

And finally...

4 - Why does Indy even try? The bad guys always end up getting whatever they are all after, and it inevitably kills them all and takes itself with them, leaving Indy and his pals alive with nothing to show except for piles of dead Nazis (or Russians in this case). I say just let them have it, seriously.

RATING: No matter what I say people will see it, but don't say I didn't warn you. Stick to the old ones and forget this one was ever made.

Posted by Thom at 4:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yes, I have a backlog; and yes I am getting them all out in once as fast as possible. So here we go!

21 - Entertaining story (although most likely highly exaggerated), but I do enjoy gambling stories. But why is a pre-med taking combinatorics and non-linear equations?

Baby Mama - Not Tina Fey's best work I've seen, but still good chemistry between Fey and Poehler. And it had Maura Tierney actually looking good again.

Bank Job - Strong, classic heist movie that goes well beyond the heist. However, I do have some issues with Saffron Burrows as a model (not my type at all).

Forgetting Sarah Marshall - One of the best romantic comedies I've seen (but still probably one of the weaker movies from this team). And be prepared for the most male nudity you've seen outside of porn (or possibly Jackass).

Iron Man - I may rip on Robert Downey Jr. and his roles at times, but I always enjoy his work, and once again he doesn't disappoint. Fantastic blend of comic book and action in one (probably the best one I've seen).

The Forbidden Kingdom - Think Karate Kid meets some bad martial arts film (I know that may be redundant) and that's what you get with some kid roaming ancient China. Throw in the fact that Chan and Li are two very different martial arts actors and you have a very unbalanced weak attempt.
Side note: Jackie Chan and Jet Li are now a combined 99 years old (and it's showing).

Priceless - Very odd French romantic comedy about sugar-daddies and sugar-mommas, but funny through and through (with a few tugs on the heart strings). And while Audrey Tautou is still hot, she looks waifishly thin.

Prince Caspian - I liked this one better than the first, which I also enjoyed a lot, but perhaps it was because of a story that isn't quite as familiar as Lion, Witch, Wardrobe. However if they plan on doing the books in the order they were written, while keeping the same actors they may run into some issues down the line.

Sydney White - Teen comedies are my guilty pleasure (and so are Amanda Bynes movies), so this was a very guiltily pleasurable evening. Sure the plot is about as predictable as can be, but I do enjoy clever takes on old works (and nice to see Snow White as opposed to another Shakespearian remake).

Vantage Point - Interesting concept, not so great execution with some timing issues. And nice to see Matthew Fox break out his highschool spanish for no reason at all!
Note To Hollywood: Hispanic does not equal Spanish. If the movie is set in Spain, don't try to pass of Mexicans as extras.

What Happens in Vegas - As much as I try, I can't help but like Ashton Kutcher. I know most of his roles are as pretty-boy idiots, but he plays it so well.

RATINGS: Netflix, Dollar Theatre, Matinee, Full Price, Full Price, Skip It, Student Discount, Full Price, High Netflix, Student Price on top of a Matinee Ticket at the Dollar Theatre, Dollar Theatre.

Posted by Thom at 3:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Two months later, and three new reviews...

Definitely, Maybe -
Yes, this is a chick flick. And no, that didn't stop me from going alone (the girl was out of the country at the time). All that being said, I was rather sure that I'd enjoy the film (I figured Ryan Reynolds and Abigail Breslin would make up for any predictability that came with the romantic comedy tag), and I really did. Much like Teen Comedies, I occasionally have a soft spot for well done Romantic Comedies, and this was one of those.

The quick plot line is that a father tells his daughter the story of how he met her mother (his soon to be ex-wife), but includes two other women in the story, so the daughter has to guess which is her mother. That was a nice little twist on the tired boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy wins girl back route that seem to litter the RomCom field. Top that off with a lovable performance by the always funny Reynolds (I like his acting skills, but he has to be put into some form of comedic role, see Blade III) and a great supporting role by Breslin (as much as I loved her work in Little Miss Sunshine, thank god they didn't try to force her into more of the film when it was a story of flashbacks to before she was conceived). The script, while still rather predictable, was clever and well done enough to make it believable and engaging, while still being funny and entertaining.

All in all it was one of the best RomComs I've seen. And as for the three love interests, I'll leave you with the mystery of guessing which one I find attractive and would have gone for.

RATING: Worth a Full Price Admission (even if they are up to $9.50 in Rochester, I can only imagine what they are in other cities), Worth a High Netflix Rental

Charlie Bartlett -
Like I have said time and again, I have a soft spot for teen comedies. Take some young actors, some old plot line (sometimes with a minor twist), an unbelievable high school locale (who really goes to school in a gothic castle and finds a date to the prom with the hottest girl in school a week before the dance?), toss in a collection of pop-punk/pop-ska songs (approximately half of which are covers) and out pops something that I will tend to watch at least once, most likely will enjoy, and almost most definitely should be embarrassed to like. Well Charlie Bartlett isn't quite there. It treads a strange middle ground. It has most of the elements of a typical TeenCom, but then it seems to also draw inspiration from other films such as Art School Confidential, Rushmore, and Igby Goes Down. Two of those three I find to be fantastic films (you can probably guess which two). However, Charlie Bartlett is closer to the third of those three. It is still entertaining, but it never quite feels at ease with itself. I guess in a way that could be a clever ploy of Jon Poll. An unsure story of teens who are unsure of themselves, but I think that would being giving the same man who made Cabin Boy, Scary Movie 3, The Beautician and the Beast, and Dunston Checks In too much credit.

Kat Dennings give a solid performance (realistic, if not a little bland) and Anton Yelchin was fabulous as Charlie (one of the better performances in a TeenCom that I've seen). And Robert Downey Jr. did a great job as well, but playing a partially washed up alcoholic seems about as much a stretch for him as playing a paranoid druggie in A Scanner Darkly was. Still you have to respect the man for being able to keep getting work and plug along (and not be dead from an OD or something by now). But apart from that everyone else seemed rather bland.

RATING: Worth a Cheap Ticket or Matinee, Worth a Middle of the Road Netflix Rental (but put the other two films I mentioned ahead of it if you're in the mood for a deeper comedy featuring teens, or get 100 Girls or 10 Things I Hate About You if you're in the mood for a TeenCom)

In Bruges -
Here is another movie that fell prey to a lack of focus. The trailers all present the film as a fun (partially) dark comedy, and while those elements are there, there is also a lot more to the film. Unfortunately, the "lot more" doesn't feel like it meshes with the dark comedy elements.

I really did appreciate the range shown by both Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson, and it was nice that they were allowed to show that off (I always knew Gleeson had it, wasn't so sure of Farrell), but throwing in the more serious stuff knocked the whole film off balance. To be fair though, the serious stuff felt a little more natural. While sitting there I felt like I was watching a bastardized version of a drama somebody had written. I couldn't help but think that originally all the zany bits were missing (save a few humorous moments here and there), but when it got to the producer/director/etc. they thought, "Hmm, these funny bits play really well. We should go back and put more in!" but didn't think of the consequences of what it would do to the flow of the film as a whole.

Maybe I was expecting too much, but what I'm trying to say is that I would have loved to see a British Comedy with some dark themes (so basically a British Comedy), or a serious piece with a few jokes thrown in for good measure (and I think that this cast was talented enough to handle either beautifully), but the combination of two just did not work in the end and I was left watching a bi-polar flick in need of some serious lithium.

RATING: Worth a Dollar Viewing, Worth a Low Netflix (but don't think you're really missing anything if you don't catch either)

Posted by Thom at 12:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've been meaning to write this for a couple weeks now. And I keep putting it off. And then I think of new complaints. And then go to write and put it off again. But now it is officially time to just list my complaints (and maybe a couple good things) about the movie. Oh and there will be plenty of "spoilers" if you can call them that.

1 - Why does the government blow up the bridges to Manhattan and impose a deadline for evacuation if they are just checking everyone and taking them out by helicopter anyway? Also, while it is nice and showy and dramatic, isn't there a better way to take out the bridges other than fly by missiles?

2 - If they destroyed all the ways to get to Manhattan, how do the pair of survivors who are making their way to Vermont get to and from the island so easily?

3 - Do you seriously expect me to believe that this virus that has killed and/or mutated about 99.9% of the population is stopped by the "cold air in the mountains of Vermont"? I've been to Vermont and gone skiing. And yes it does get cold there (especially in the high altitudes of the mountains in the winter), but I've seen colder. And also the "camp" that they arrive at in the end isn't exactly in the mountains. If the weather there is all that it takes to stop the virus, then all of Upstate NY and Canada would have been fine.

4 - Why do they introduce a clearly interesting plot avenue that they can go down (Zombie-Vampires might have social structure, order and so "human" emotion still), and then dismiss it all in one fell swoop.

5 - Stop having the Uber-Zombie-Vampire! Am I really supposed to believe that a highly trained Marine would miss a 6'4" Zombie-Vampire from less than three feet away with an entire clip of an assault riffle? Seriously? That is even harder to swallow than 6 billion people dying from a virus in the course of like 2 years.

6 - Why do almost all of the Zombie-Vampires look exactly like John Malkovich? Even the female ones look eerily similar. Creepy. (Note: This is one of the few positive things I can say about the film).

So there were lots of problems. And very few good things. I haven't seen the first two incarnations of this book, but I can almost guarantee that they were better.

RATING: See the originals and skip this one, and then let me know how the original ones were.

Posted by Thom at 10:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I figured this movie had to be decent when I got to the theatre and the line to get in was out the door (this was the Little Theatre screen 1, so all of the people in line were there for this movie) and I was not disappointed. There really isn't any aspect of the film that I can say was bad. The acting was stellar between Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Jason Bateman, and J.K. Simmons. I even felt Jennifer Garner (who I greatly dislike) was perfectly cast. The pacing was fantastic, the music was beautiful, everything just worked. My mother had expressed interest in seeing the movie but couldn't go tonight, and I walked out thinking that if she wanted to go tomorrow night I would go with her. I'd even be willing to pay for both of us. I enjoyed it that much. And I would expect that anyone else would too. As much as I have decided that I don't like comparing movies (unless there is a direct connection), I have to say that it had that Little Miss Sunshine feel, yet with something more.

So with lack of complaints there is not a whole lot to go into, but I did check out the writer Diablo Cody's biography on imdb. She is quite interesting to say the least. Definitely someone that I'd love to hang out with and get to know better.\

RATING: Worth waiting in the cold to pay extra to see; Skip the Netflix, just buy it on DVD.

Posted by Thom at 11:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Based on what I've heard about the book (I have yet to read the series), there is a strongly anti-religion element in the story. In fact I've even been told that at the climax the children end up killing God. Now I'm not fervently anti-religion, but that sounds like an very interesting take on things. However, as I heard going in, and saw at the movie, most (i.e. all) of the religious elements had pretty much been stripped out in making the movie. Go Hollywood!

Now before I go on and rip the film apart I must warn you that I have been watching a lot of Zero Punctuation lately. And I might come off a bit harsh. So be it.

First off, the film flowed like they tried to jam a 1300 page novel into 90 minutes. This is especially troubling seeing as how the novel is only 432 pages, and the film clocks in at 113 minutes. If you're trying to keep it short for the kids, cut out some of the plot from the book. But in the case of the movie it seemed a bit mature for children who couldn't have sat for more than two hours. Then again I know that the attention span of the population as a whole has shriveled up, so maybe that's the problem. In any case the film gives you the sense that all the action takes place over a two day period.

But enough about the pacing (or lack there of). Let's talk about the cast. Nicole Kidman delivers one of the weakest performances I have ever seen out of her. And that's saying a lot. However, Dakota Blue Richards does deliver fantastically. It had to be sad for Nicole when she is out-acted by a 13-year old with no real prior screen experience. And as for the rest of the cast... Well with the pacing the way it is, and the multitude of characters just thrown at us, it's impossible to judge any of their performances. They all seem to be on screen for such short spurts that rating them on that would be the equivalent of calling someone fluent in French because they could conjugate the verb etre. I liked most of the other players (Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Sam Elliot, etc.) but I had no time to appreciate them.

And then there is the story. Let's keep this one brief and just nail down a couple problems/questions/issues I had.

First off, Lyra gets the compass, has no idea what it is, can't read it, gets a 30-second explanation of how it works from another man who doesn't fully understand it, and can suddenly not only read it but have clear as day visions about what she wants to know? That's some talent.

Two, Iorek Byrnison regains his title as king of the icebears, yet still has his oath to Lyra to repay. So he helps her get to the children they are trying to save. Now these children are housed in a building in the middle of nowhere, guarded by heavily armed soldiers with wolves. So after she goes in on her own, gets in trouble, but manages to get the children out (this I can swallow, somehow), Iorek comes to her rescue, alone. You are king of the freaking bears! They have to do what you say. Bring them along! I mean Iorek alone manages to take out what seems to be half the soldiers. With an army of freaking bears you could complete destroy them. Thankfully a slew of other briefly introduced characters also come to the rescue.

Three, the admission by Kidman that she is Lyra's mother and that Daniel Craig is her father is so forced and poorly acted that I expected Lyra to discover two seconds later that she was trying to trick her. In fact I was all but shocked that Lyra didn't at least use the compass to ask if Craig was her father, rather than just repeat (at least two dozen times) "we need to go save my father". But I'll grant her not looking based on the fact that if any orphan is told that a man she loves is her father she might very well be willing to accept it on blind faith.

In the end, there were entertaining parts of the film, brief as many of them may be. And Dakota Blue Richards did an outstanding job. And it did make me want to read the books (if only to see how badly they destroyed it), and movie that makes you want to pick up a book can't be all that bad can it?

RATING: Worth a cheap matinee or dollar theatre ticket, save the netflix queuing until the other two have come around and you can catch them all at once (or can decide that they really are not worth it at all)

Posted by Thom at 1:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Lars and the Real Girl - Hilarity and sadness follow when a socially awkward Ryan Gosling finds a way to become even more socially awkward real imaginary girlfriend. More serious than I expected, while still funny and entertaining.

Enchanted - Another odd cross between a children's movie and an adult film (see also Stardust), but this time with more accessibility to both crowds (while still with jokes and an allusions that only the older crowd will get). And while it is funny, it is also little cutesy and predictable (I have to say that I saw the ending coming a mile away), but it is a story book style tale, so that's what you get.

RATINGS: Worth a Full Price Admission/High Netflix Rental; Worth a Matinee/Rainy Day Netflix Rental (unless you really are obsessed with Dr. McDreamy)

Posted by Thom at 1:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I finally got back to the movies, and saw these two films. However, it's been a very rough week for me due to many factors, so I'm just going to keep this short. If you are really interested in my extended opinions of these two films just send me a message.

Death at a Funeral - Kind of dark, yet funny in a British way.

The Darjeeling Limited - Wes Anderson being Wes Anderson with a spiritual journey aspect, yet somehow getting me to like Owen Wilson and Adrien Brody (two actors I've never been fond of).

RATINGS: Entertaining if you like British comedies, but nothing stunningly spectacular; Entertaining if you like Wes Anderson, but probably not going to convert you if you don't.

Posted by Thom at 8:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Four short reviews...

Superbad - Comedy of the summer, comedy of the year, and possibly the comedy of the generation? No complaints at all with this one.

Stardust - Better than I expected, but still not that great. Also, stop casting De Niro just because he'll whore himself out to anything. He works for some roles, but not this one. He has the accent range of Connery (i.e. none), and when everyone else in the movie is British sounding he sticks out like a sore thumb. Also the "tough guy" who is really soft inside is way too overdone at this point.

Once - Finally got around to seeing this one and I'm glad I did. Everyone who told me I'd love it was right. I wasn't expecting such a musical touch to the film, but it worked great. The music and performances drew me in and then the bitter-sweet love story just got me hooked.

Shoot 'Em Up - I love Clive Owen and movies that don't feel the need to hide a story behind action, so I was very excited about this film. And then I was let down. The claims of a constant shoot-out are greatly exaggerated. If it had been that then I would have been thrilled, and I could have possibly overlooked all the terrible terrible puns (are there really any other kind though?). In the end it reeked of a high budget style film that is trying to be a B-list cult classic. And that on top of the moral that they were driving down our throat.

RATINGS: See it now, see it again, and see it once again on DVD; Skip it unless you have nothing better to do; Throw the DVD onto the top of your Netflix list, and go out and snag the soundtrack too; Go rent Crank if you want to get your over-the-top action fix.

Posted by Thom at 4:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There's not a whole lot to say here, which is good, because I'm not in the mood for a long review. Basically this film gives you more of the Bourne franchise. If you like the first two, this one will definitely appeal to you. If you didn't like the first two? Well then this probably isn't for you.

They haven't changed a whole lot, which is a good thing. There wasn't all that much wrong with the first two. They weren't overwhelming or outstanding, but they were solid additions to the Action/Thriller style genre. The stories are all solid, and don't have any gapping holes. It's also not an over the top CG fest, which is a nice change. And to top it all off, you get to look at Julie Stiles (or Matt Damon for the women out there).

My only complaint with the film (other than the fact that the ending would have been better if they cut it off about 2 minutes sooner) is the camera work. Every shot (action or not) seems to shake as if being handled by someone having a seizure. And the constant zoom-ins? Come on. Add to that the fact that the action scenes cut shots every two seconds, and you have a hard time following any of the action. The only way to tell who's winning the fight is to wait to the end and see who is left on the floor. If this is the style or the times (which it appears to be), then it's time to move on. If you can't get people who can shoot an action scene without cutting every two seconds, then get a new film crew. And if you can't get actors who can stage a fight where you don't have to constantly change shots, then get new actors. You're all highly paid, and we are paying highly (especially with some theatre costs now) to see a movie, not try and imagine what's happening out of "scrambled porn vision".

But in the end, the overall movie makes up for the shoddy camera work enough to make it watchable.

RATING: Worth Full Price for Fans of the Series (worth a matinee for others)

Posted by Thom at 6:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Good reviews or bad reviews this was one of the films that I knew I would end up seeing. I grew up on the Simpsons, and unlike some of the people in the audience in the theatre, I remember when it all started. I also remember when the show used to be good. That is when they should have made this film, back in the glory days. Now it is just a last ditch effort to keep some life in the franchise and rake in a few last bucks. To be honest, the film isn't terrible, but it's not good. It's basically what we've all come to expect from the past few seasons of the Simpsons. There are a few really good lines that make you laugh out loud strung together by long stretches of "I guess that's funny" or "wow, this show really has lost it". But those brief good moments are just enough to keep you going, giving you that false sense of hope that maybe this will be where they turn it all around! But sadly it isn't. The show jumped the shark a good 5-6 seasons ago and has just continued to tread water since then. And this film is just an 87 minute version of that show that is trying to hold onto the long gone glory days.

RATING: Worth a Matinee Ticket (Unless you are a die-hard fan or really have loved the last 5 seasons), Worth a Netflix rental (of the first 11 seasons on DVD).

Posted by Thom at 12:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I know that this film is long gone out of the theatres, and has already won all types of awards, but I just got around to seeing it and thought that I should put in my two cents.

I had heard all sorts of wonderful things about this movie. From the stellar cast, to the great directing, and the great story (which was apparently very different from the Chinese film). Let's look at each one by one.

The Cast
Jack is good as always, and I do like Matt Damon (God knows why), and even Leo isn't too bad here. Sure the accents are sometimes a little overdone (or non-existent), but I can over look that. That falls more into the second category. There are even some good supporting roles by Marky-Mark and Martin Sheen, plus the entire Irish Mafia bunch seemed perfect. But God help me, Alec Baldwin... That was one of the worst performances I've seen. I don't know how he became so popular. This man cannot act his way out of a paper bag. But fear not Alec fans, for he won't suffocate in that bag, for I highly doubt he could act his way into one either. I was trying to come up with good things he's done and was only able to come up with the Narrator in Royal Tenenbaums (not a real acting role) and Bob in State and Main (but playing a bad actor isn't really acting either. That's like Courtney Love as a coke whore or Eminem as a white rapper from a trailer park). Please people, stop casting him! He almost singlehandedly killed the film.

Directing
Eh. Not terrible directing. But you could have gotten some better work out of some of your actors. And how hard is it to direct a movie that has already been made four years earlier? I'll call this one a wash.

Story
This is the same exact story as Infernal Affairs. I repeat. This is the same exact story Infernal Affairs. Oh, there is the twist that both Damon and Leo are sleeping with the same woman (nothing big there), and there is the "twist" or adding Marky-Mark to the cast and putting in the little extra to the ending. However, all this addition does is make the ending make no sense at all. I could go indepth with my explanation here, but I'll leave it be. If you really want to hear it message me or email me and I'll freely share it with you. In any case, the part of this movie that makes any sense at all is the same exact story as Infernal Affairs (just set in the US instead of China).

RATING: This wasn't a terrible movie, but the Best Picture of the year should not be a remake, especially not a remake of a movie that is only 4 years old! See it if you want, but I strongly urge you to rent Infernal Affairs instead. However, avoid Infernal Affairs II and III from what I've heard.

Posted by Thom at 1:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So here are the last three films that I've seen in the theatres (long overdue) in condensed versions...

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix:
Harry and the crew are getting older, things are getting rougher, there are webs of lies and deceit, and there is an annoying lady in pink. That pretty much sums up the film. There isn't really a lot of new stuff, but it's fresh enough to make another installment in the septology. If you enjoyed the first 4, you'll like this one. If you didn't like the first 4, this one isn't going to convert you. Also, if you plan to see this one you really should see/read the first 4. Otherwise you have a good chance of being lost.

Black Sheep
People are experimenting on sheep; it goes wrong, very very wrong; the sheep start eating people; sheeple develop; there's lots of fantastically lame humor (and excessive blood and guts). Basically think Shawn of the Dead, but with zombie sheep and set in New Zealand. It's a Zombie-horror film that doesn't take itself too seriously and is lots of fun (if you are willing to stomach the guts; not a problem for me).

Sicko
Micheal Moore is back; he's still fat; he's still annoyed with the government; he's not politically biased... Wait, what?!? Yup. He attacks both sides in attacking the health-care system in the US. I must say that this is quite possibly his best documentary to date. It seems slightly less biased than his previous works (however you still do have to take everything that he says/presents you with with a grain of salt) and once again renewed my fervor to leave the US (possibly for Canada or Western Europe).

RATING(S): Worth an average ticket (or just rent it), Worth any ticket (but you'll probably have to rent it), Worth a full price ticker (or a good rental).

Posted by Thom at 1:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I delayed seeing this movie so that I could go with Dave while he was in town, otherwise I'm sure I would have gone opening night. I've always been a big transformers fan. One of the greatest xmas gifts I received this year was the new edition of the Transformers movie from Nicki. So how did the new one stack up? Hard to say.

However, I must get something off my chest first. I refuse to refer to this as the "Live Action Transformers Movie". It is not live action. It is CG. True that is not animation in the sense of the original show, but it's not live action. The TMNT movies were live action (the old ones) because they had people in turtle suits. If they had used people in robot suits for this, then I'll grant them live action. But they didn't (thank God!), so they don't get to claim live action. End of story.

So anyway...

The story (if you can really consider it that) was good, and all over the place. But then again look at the stories of any transformers episode/movie. Is that what we're really going for here? No. So in any case, the story gets a pass, whether it needs it or not.

The main attraction was the action and CG. Both lived up to what I would have hoped for. The detail was phenomenal on the robots themselves, and the fights were great. Although, for some of the action it would have been nicer for some wider shots. With the tight shots it was sometimes hard to distinguish what was going on.

So where are the faults... Well I was afraid that there would be way too much focus on the humans, but there really wasn't. They were there, and a part of it, but not the sole focus. I do have some issues with some of the writing/casting though. As much as I am a fan of John Turturro, they could have cut out him and everything about him and I would have been much happier. Also, the ultra young, ultra hip leads all around, while expected, is just overdone. The saving grace of that was making the main lead into a dork. Still, he does end up with the hot chick...oh well. It's Hollywood.

The biggest fault is that the movie was all over the map. At times it was dramatic and serious, then it's a fast paced action/sci-fi film, then it's almost slapstick in nature, and so on. All could have worked, on their own, but jumping from one to another just seemed like they lacked focus and vision in the whole project. It's almost as if each segment of the film were roughly sketched, given to separate teams to develop, and the teams had no contact with each other. It's almost like that game where everyone writes a line to a story, and then you put it all together, and it's funny cause it's so off the wall and doesn't flow at all. Except they decided to do that with a big budget film. Odd choice, but to each their own.

In the end, I could over look the faults and enjoy the goodness that is Transformers on the big screen. I mean they even got Peter Cullen as Optimus Prime! (He was the original Optimus) And they had Hugo Weaving as Megatron. (Double score). So the voice acting of the Transformers themselves was great. They even threw in a couple lines from the original film (One shall stand, and one shall fall!). All in all it was better than I expected in some areas, slightly worse in others, but overall very enjoyable.

RATING: Worth a Full Price Ticket, Worth a High Netflix

Posted by Thom at 6:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I had been waiting so long for this film that I had almost forgotten it was coming out. Normally when that happens with a movie I begin to lose interest or I'm disappointed when I finally do see it. Not so this time. Not only was I excited when I heard it was finally here, it only took about 5 minutes into the film before I remembered how much I loved Night Watch (the first in the trilogy). And it didn't stop there.

For those unfamiliar with the series (which is probably most people, since it is a Russian series), this is the second part of a trilogy based on novels by Sergei Lukyanenko. Yes, he is Russian, and yes this movie is from Russia (hence why it was at the Little and not Regal). Also, from what I've heard, this film is shattering box office records over there (or it was when it was out). So yes, this is a subtitled movie (oh no, reading!), but these aren't your normal subtitles. Instead of being an after thought, the subtitles in this film play a supporting role. They are dimmer when someone talks form the distance, shake with violence and anger, splatter across the walls... Not only do they not detract from the experience (although I have never personally felt subtitles did that for me), they enhance it.

But enough about the text, let's get into the film itself. The same cast returns, which is fantastic since they were perfectly cast the first time around (especially the anti-hero lead). Often times the acting can seem off in some foreign films from less than standard locals, but not here. I can honestly say that I didn't have a problem with any of the acting (which I can't say about any of the Hollywood releases that I've seen as of late, and they are supposed to have the real actors?).

The story is a blend of action, drama, horror, and comedy, but in a way that actually works. I tried to define a genre for this movie with a friend who has also been up on the series, and the best she could come up with is Epic Trilogy. While the underlying plot (Light vs. Dark, Good vs. Evil, Super-humans vs. Vampires) isn't overly inventive, the way it is put together is. While it is good vs. evil, it isn't black and white. Our hero here isn't exactly a boyscout, but he's not Satan either, he's in the middle there. In the end, the story isn't perfect, but with the atmosphere and effects and acting there are very few holes. But you must keep in mind that this is both a sequel and an adaptation of a novel, so there are some parts that may not seem fully explained or may seem rushed. So I highly recommend seeing Night Watch first (hell, I just highly recommend seeing Night Watch whether or not you plan on seeing Day Watch). If you don't see it first there is a big chance that you will be lost in a lot of areas. Even if you do, there is still a chance you can get lost in all of it.

RATING: Worth Full Price (and even worth a second viewing in my opinion), Worth a High Netflix, Waiting With Anticipation For Dusk Watch

Posted by Thom at 3:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The first film was mostly panned, being compared to Spiderman, X-men, and Batman Begins. And still they decided to make a sequel. It's hard to say if that is really a good or bad thing. Personally, I never thought that the original was as bad as people said. It just wasn't the same as the other movies. It was short, sweet, and action oriented. It was a comic book in movie form, not a movie about a comic book. But enough about the first movie. Let's talk about number two.

First the bad. I know Mr. Fantastic and the Thing are rather indestructable, but how does being on fire stop the human torch from getting hurt when he falls 30 stories? And for a quick geography lesson, when you head to the South of China, you won't find the Great Wall.

As for the good...there is one thing that makes Fantastic Four work. There are no secret identities. There are no masks (or glasses) to try and fool the public. So it doesn't matter if everyone is unmasked all the time (unlike in Spiderman 3). Also, the Four have fame and sponsorships. This is the 2000's. If you are famous, you'll have sponsors. It's an odd thing to say, but this makes it almost seem like a more realistic superhero movie. The other positive it has going for it is that it doesn't have the problem that so many other sequels seem to have. Unlike all these other sequels/triquels/etc., this film doesn't drag on for 3 hours. They kept it short and sweet at 89 mins. That's right. No need to try to drag the story out (I mean there is none anyway), so let's keep it short and sweet.

In the end, Fantastic Four-2 isn't much of a step up from the first one. It is basically more of the same. it's just that this time around they were given more leeway because it was being compared to movies like X-3 and Spiderman 3 (both complete shit), as opposed to X 1 & 2 and Spiderman 1 & 2 (very solid comic book movies). In that light this film is almost brilliant! However, if they do come along with a Fantastic Four 3, let's just hope it doesn't fall prey to the Comic Book 3rds. For if it does, then God help us all. That could be one of the most horrendous films ever.

RATING: Worth a Mid-Priced Ticket, Worth a Netflix Rental Somewhere On the List, i guess

Posted by Thom at 12:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've already done three other reviews today (my fault for putting them off), so this one is gonna be short.
Great Acting:
- Nathan Fillion with a slight depature from his normal style (with enough of the old style still there to make him charming and funny)
- Great work from Keri Russell (kind of sad that I haven't seen her in more stuff)
- Andy Griffith as a cranky old man. 81 years old and still going strong.
- And a good job by the rest of the supporting cast.

Great Story:
- Depressing and funny all in one. There seriously parts to make you laugh and cry.
- Haven't seen too many other films about making pies in a diner, so I have to give points for originality.
- Even the awkward funny parts worked for me in this film (I'm still up in the air over Napoleon Dynamite because of the constant awkwardness of the whole film).

Intangibles:
- Indi films always seem to have a certain charm to them, and this one is no exception.
- There are some very strange pies developed in the film, yet they all sound like they'd be quite good.
- Does have a strong chance of making you crave pie after you leave the theatre. This isn't always a good thing at 11:30 at night when most places aren't open anymore. So be warned, and plan in advance.

RATING: Go See It. It's Good.

Posted by Thom at 2:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Now I know this doesn't seem like my typical movie outting, but there was very little left out there to see, I had heard very good things (dispite the fact that it was yet another movie about penguins), and it made for the perfect outting with my animation friend before she skips town. So how did it all turn out? Quite well I'd say.

The story is nothing new: young hotshot shooting for the top of his sport (Cars), bad-ass jerk of a champion/competitor to beat (Cars), dopey stoner friend/sidekick (Cars), young hotshot trained by a reluctant old-time champ (Cars), love interest who is closely connected to the old champ (Cars), young hotshot learns valuable lesson as he fails to win the big event but manages to win the hearts of everyone (Cars), and cameos by animal versions of real life athletes in the sport (Cars).

So basically it was Cars, but with surfing penguins. And normally such a blatant "remake" doesn't work out, but this one stands above Cars in enough ways to distance itself and work. The voice acting was better (John Heder, Jeff Bridges, Zooey Deschanel, James Woods, Diedrich Bader, and Brian Posehn as opposed to Owen Wilson, Paul Newman, Bonny Hunt and Larry the Cable Guy), the minor tweeks of the story seemed to work better, and I could connect better with penguins over cars (as odd as that might sound). This wasn't a Madagascar vs. The Wild thing. Partially because both of those films sucked, and both would have sucked even if the other didn't exist, but mainly because Surf's Up still shined through depsite the fact that Cars came first. Also, the documentary/reality show angle of the movie gave it that extra umph.

RATING: Worth at least a matinee (perhaps more if you enjoy animated films), Worth a Netflix

Posted by Thom at 2:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I had heard almost nothing about this film going in. Maybe I don't watch enough TV, maybe I don't go to the right movies to see trailers for it. I don't know what it is, but I hadn't seen any preview. The only way I even knew it existed was searching through what was playing at the local theatres. And I'm glad that I did that. This was a very high quality psychological thriller. I don't want to give too much of it away, but it was well acted (even by Dane Cook, who thought I'd ever say that!), well written, and well directed. And it didn't fall prey to the trap of most thrillers where they throw in so many twists at the end that they are just hoping you will get too confused to realize that with all the twists, the first 90 mins of the film no longer make any sense. And to top it all off, while it is still just a movie, it is one of the more realistically plausable thrillers I've seen. All in all it was one of the higher highlights of my mass collection of movies I've seen recently.

RATING: Worth Full Price At Just About Any Theatre, Worth a High Netflix Rental

Posted by Thom at 1:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The majority of the cast returns (minus the female leads), and delivers a respectable performance, but it's not quite all there. It's nice that they've returned to Vegas for this one (Europe just didn't seem quite right in the second film), but even with the return to familiar territory (or perhaps because of it) this installment just doesn't have the same spark. The con's in the other two films are out there and rather unbelievable, but this time they seem to take it to a new level. True Terry Benedict assumed that Danny Ocean had robbed his casino, but Ocean at least had a minor alibi. This time, Ocean all but admits to it. That's not a con. That's just stupid. Plus there seems to be way too many schemes going on in this one.

The nice ironic twist was when Benedict suggests they use the same scheme as before, and there's a big no, because you don't use the same con twice. Then, the movie itself turns around and uses the same twist as the second film. Not sure if that was intentional, but I'm hoping it was.

Overall it's a respectable entry to the series, but doesn't compare to the original. If you really want to see an Ocean's movie, go rewatch the original. Sure you may have seen it before (and if you haven't I suggest you do), but then again there isn't all that much new in this one.

RATING: Worth a Cheaper Ticket, Worth a Rental

Posted by Thom at 1:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I didn't catch this one until it hit the dollar theatre, and I'm almost sad that I waited that long, because it rocked! So let's do this one in bullet pointed Pros and Cons!

Pros
- Is a continuation of the earlier live action films (sort of), basically telling veiwers that if you don't know who April O'Neil, Casey Jones, or any of the other characters are, too bad. I love the balls of that.

- Looks very nice. Not the most visually awe-imspiring breakthrough, but solid all around and still impressive at times.

- Patrick Stewart. I guess he was trying to make up for X3 by lending his voice to this one. Unless he's a TMNT fan at heart, in which case he completely solidifies his place as the best captain of the Enterprise, ever.\

- Buffy and Ziyi. While my infatuation with Sarah Michelle has faded, it's still nice to see her working. And I highly approve of casting an actual Asian person (although wrong country, oh well) to play an Asian character (rather than have someone fake an Asian accent). Plus how can you go wrong with Zhang Ziyi? Even when it's just her voice she's still ass-kickingly hot.

- Splinter Fighting. Unlike Yoda's fight in Ep. II, Splinters fighting actually worked for me (I know, people love the little hopping Yoda, but it was just too out of character in my book. Especially when he just goes right back to limping around. Come on Lucas!).

- Turtles all the way. It wasn't an outstanding in any area, but it delivered a true TMNT performance. It was so solidly done that I was nostalgic enough to back and rent the first two movies (Go Ninja, Go Ninja, Go!). By the way, for those who don't fully remember, Turtles 2 is hillariously bad. If you haven't seen it in a while (or ever) you have to go out and rent it.

Cons
- No Shredder. But they still had the Foot.

- 13 Becomes 2? They have 13 monsters, and we only get to see like 2 or 3 of them in action? Plus there are some inconsistences on the monsters too. But the story telling in a Turtles film is never the important part.

- Lame Humour. But what do you expect from TMNT? It just wouldn't be right without it.

RATING: Worth a Full Price Ticket, Worth a Netflix Rental (along with Turtles 1 and 2).

Posted by Thom at 2:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I knew that I would see this movie eventually (no matte how much I knew that I shouldn't), so I stopped by for a matinee the other day, and got about what I expected. Just to review, the first film was great (funny, witty, not overly serious), the second film sucked (I don't think I can say anything good about it), and the third film fell in the middle (but more towards the second).

All the same cast returns in this one (for better or worse), along with a slew of new people who aren't really developed since we already have too many characters involved. The acting is rather uninspiring apart from Johnny Depp who, unlike Tobey Maguire in Spiderman 3, gives another great performance and tries to singlehandedly save this doomed movie. He doesn't, however.

The problems are deep and numerous. First off, as the series progressesd, the films started to take themselves way too seriously. The beauty of the first one was that it was almost an Aciton/Comedy, not the Action/Drama that we're force fed here. It still has its funny moments, but almost all of them are due to Depp. The story itself is just terrible too. There is so much trickery and backstabbing and sideswitching that I just lost interest in any part of the story that might have been remotely interesting. Other parts of the plot seemed to just come and then disappear without much explanation (See: Calipso and/or Raising the Dead).

That isn't to say that it was all bad. The action was quite good, and the effects were very well done, however when both were put together it was completely over-done and turned into yet another rock-em sock-em CGI fest. What ever happened to good old fashion action? Or to a good old R-rated action film? (Yes I have seen the trailers for the new Rambo, and yes maybe that will save that oft ignored sub-genre). Some may like it (many will/do I'm sure), but I'm sick of all the CGI. I can handle wires, but let's at least see some stunts in a movie!

In the end this wasn't as bad as it could have been. It had its moments, and it was better than the second (while still 168 mins, at least this one had an ending). If you enjoyed the second film (God help your soul), you'll most likely enjoy this one as well. In fact, even if you didn't like number two, there's still a chance that you'll like number three. But I still can't reccomend it, it'd be too much of a burden on my conscience.

RATING: Worth Waiting Until Rental (If you feel the need to finish off the trilogy)

Posted by Thom at 2:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This seems to be the Summer of Triquels, and most all of them are or look to be terrible. That being said, I ventured out last night and caught the third Shrek movie (which I refuse to refer to by it's official title because it just annoys me when movie people try to get clever like that). I can honestly say that Shrek is the best of the lot of 3rd installments. However, that's not saying much seeing as how the others are just terrible.

This film is about what you'd expect. Lots of big names doing the voice acting. Many famous fairy tale characters in "real life" situations. A couple of wise cracking sidekicks. And of course, since this is the third movie, a pregnant wife. The problem here is that there is nothing new or unique to any of it. It's all extremely predictable. While there are funny moments, we've really seen it all before.

There is nothing new or exciting to spark any life into the series. It's like Mike Myers has his cash cow, and he keeps feeding us the same milk. At least in the second film there seemed to be a slight change to it, making it more of a paradise of anachronisms. Not here. It's all the same old things over and over. And surprisingly, Justin Timberlake doesn't save it!

The movie does look good, once again, but also once again, it's nothing new or spectacular. The animation is solid, but not stunning.

In the end, if you enjoyed the first two movies, and are just looking for more of the same, then this movie will deliver. But is that really worth the $8-$12 that it costs to see a movie in the theatre these days? I personally don't think so. It's just another case of what seems to happen all the time in movie and video games. The people in charge have found something that works, and rather than venture out into something new (and risk failure), they stick with what has gotten them there and milk it for all it's worth.

RATING: Worth a Cheap Ticket (cheaper than matinee), Maybe Worth a Netflix Rental?

Posted by Thom at 5:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I went into this film with the highest hopes. I mean Jack gave it a 5 in the local paper, and he's almost always wrong, so it must be good! Well, Jack was wrong. However, that's just because 5 is way too generous a rating for this film. I don't know if this is as bad a turn as X3 was, but it is close. So where do I begin...

Well for starters, they should never have left the writing credits to the Raimi brothers. I love them, but they aren't the fit for writers here. Everything was way over the top and extreme!, in the really bad way. I mean the new goblin is now riding a flying snowboard? Yeah... But it doesn't stop there. The Raimis seemed to throw every cliche possible into the film. They even have the recently rejuvenated Spiderman runs past a sickingly gigantic, patriotic American flag.

So poor writing, at least we'll have good acting to gloss over that, right? No chance. This was easily the worst acting I've seen since Episode II. I thought all along, Topher Grace (who I love in most everything he does) was the worst possible choice for Venom. The only way it even remotely works is because Toby is somehow a bigger dweeb than Topher. And let us talk about Toby. He had the stupidest grin on his face the entire movie. It was as if he was secretly laughing at all of us in the audience ("look at me, I'm making millions to film this piece of shit and I know all of you are gonna go see it!").

And speaking of the connection between Topher and Toby, why does the Venom symbiote give Topher fangs? I knew it made you stronger and all, but I never knew it also turned you into a Vampire. And only one person comments on Spiderman's new black suit? One?!? What? That's as unbelievable as no one knowing Clark Kent is Superman because he wears glasses!

Oh, and please stop unmasking yourselves every 2 seconds! You are super heroes, keep your identity hidden. Also, this would solve the problem of having to look at Toby grinning like a moron all film. But I guess it is true. Put on a black outfit and comb your hair in front of your face and you're emo. As soon as Peter Parker puts on the black suit he goes emo, complete with the emo hair. I swear I laughed so loud when I saw that that I got looks from the people around me.

Basically there is a line in films between serious and whimsical. This film doesn't blur that line. It more hops from one side to the other in a random zig-zag fashion that makes you nauseous. I mean Fantastic Four was a terrible movie too, but at least that one knew where it stood and stayed on that side of the line. You have to at least respect it for that. As for Spiderman 3, it falls prey to the curse of the third. Just like X3 and Batman 3, this movie can't even hold a candle to the first two. Now I'm just scared that like Batman they'll make a fourth that is even worse...

Quick Post-Notes:
- Sand cannot cry and/or fly of it's own will. Therefore, Sandman should not be able to cry and/or fly.

- A pumpkin bomb that only scars Harry Osborne would not kill Venom and Eddie Brock.

- Always trust your butler for forensic advice. I mean who could possibly know better than him?

RATING: Worth a free ticket if you have 2.5 hours to kill? Maybe a dollar theatre ticket just so you can see for yourself how bad it is? Worth not putting on your Netflix queue (unless you have nothing else to watch, in which case I can recommend a great many other movies for you).

Posted by Thom at 7:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Really you can decide if you should go to this movie based on one simple question:
Do you like the ATHF show?
IF "yes", go to the film
ELSE "don't go"
END

The movie is just like the show. It makes almost no sense. It skips all over the place. It has crude moments (that were almost too much at times). But it's also funny as hell. Basically they could have divided this up into about 15 min segments and aired it on TV, but they threw in a pseudo-plot and made it into a feature film. And much like the show, some of the spans are funny, some fall flat. But just like the show, Master Shake steals the show with his complete madness.

RATING: Worth Full Price for Fans, Worth Skipping for everyone else.

Posted by Thom at 4:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As I have found, movies that look semi-appealing to me and receive a rating in the 60-70 range on Rotten Tomatoes tend to be some of the most entertaining. These movies tend to be directed more towards certain audiences and not at the market in general, and most of the reviewers miss this in the process of rating them. When the negative feedback includes comments like, "After a while, all of the excess, however glorious, just gets, well, excessive ... By the end, I didn't know which I wanted more: a cigarette, or, like, a whole bottle of aspirin", then I know that this is what I am looking for. True, this film didn't have quite the story (or feel) that SinCity did, but it was still a visually appealing experience with plenty of action to keep you entertained.

Were there faults? Yes. The actual story parts seemed to drag and not really draw me in, and the sex scene was just completely awkward. Still, the overall feel and effect of the film was about what I expected.

If you're looking for a deep story that is completely accurate, look elsewhere. If you want an entertaining ride with interesting semi-historically accurate figures and events, this is the one for you. (Also, the grandness of the Imax experience for the film nicely adds to it all).

RATING: Worth a full price ticket, Worth an immediate rental on netflix.

Posted by Thom at 3:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is a highly praised movie, and I can certainly see that. There are some great performances (I especially liked Robert Downey Jr., but how much of a stretch is it for him to play a coked out alcoholic?), and it was very well done (when has David Fincher gone wrong?), and as far as I can tell it was rather historically accurate. However that was one of the biggest problems too. Much like the original case (as far as I know, if I am wrong with any of this please feel free to correct me), it was never actually solved. Not to ruin it for anyone, but in the end we have some strong cases made, but no definite killer. It's like watching Usual Suspects (which I highly reccommend since it is one of my alltime favorites) and never finding out who Kaiser Soeze is (or just having five different people who could all plausiblly be him). Also, the nearly 3 hour length is a bit much. I know there needs to be a sense of gaps of time passing, but it just seemed a little stretched out and long for me. It might work for a book, but for a movie they needed to maybe focus in on just a few less characters.

In the end, I can't say I was too disappointed for the amount I paid to see it (which was full price, but still less than $9). But if you really want to see a real quality film about an actual serial killer I reccommend renting The Boston Strangler. In my opinion this 1968 film had everything this one had, but done better.

RATING: Worth something between a full price and a matinee ticket, worth a Netflix rental.

Posted by Thom at 9:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm bogged down with work this week, so I'm gonna keep this short with bullet points. (plus this is a rather old one, so you've probably already heard plenty about it).

- Once again a male-vocal Bond song sucks. Can anyone name one good Bond song done by a man? (Choosing Chris Cornell doesn't help things any though since I hate just about everything he's ever done).

- Eva Green was a fantastic Bond girl. Not only did I find her extremely attractive (Me liking a Paris woman? Never!), but her role was perfect too. It's nice to have some physically empowered Bond women (Michelle Yeoh, Halle Berry) it's also nice to see one who is mentally strong and has some nice actual wit to her (not just lame Bond puns). Also, did I mention I thought she was hot?

- The story worked great, assuming you treat it as Bond before he became Bond.

- I love Daniel Craig, but I'm still not sure about him as Bond. However he does seem to have the toughness of Connery with the possiblity of the sauveness of Moore. Gotta give him more time before I rule him out or in.

- The poker game was lame. That final hand is only believable in the scene from The Croupier (when Clive Owen stacks the deck). Otherwise, not gonna ever happen. Thankfully they didn't rely on that and had plenty of side action going on there.

- I enjoyed that while there were the special effects moments, the movie didn't completely rely on them. There was plenty of semi-realistic action to fall back on.

- As much as I loved Pierce, after the last couple Bond flicks I wasn't really excited for the new one to come out. However, I can honestly say that this Bond movie actually made me anxious to see the next one (assuming they stay on this new modern Bond path).

RATING: Worth full price (especially for Bond fans), but you'll probably have to get it on DVD now (which I reccommend highly).

Posted by Thom at 9:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Oh. My. Lord. I don't know where to begin with this one. THis was perhaps one of the most rediculous movies I've ever seen. In fact, I had to take notes during the movie just so I wouldn't forget it all. Let's take a look at those notes now...

The action was great, especially since there were no wires or anything that have become standard in martial arts action movies. Just pure natural action. The fights were even more impressive considering some of the long single shots used. However, that's about where the movie ends.

Plot? Story? Acting? All those things seemed to be missing. Basically the movie was sort of like Double Dragon, but with less of a plot to it. Jaa fought a progression of street thugs, to the tougher inline blader thugs, to the tougher thugs on bikes, to the tougher thug on a motor bike, to the mini-boss: a thug on an ATV. The constant stream of random encounters with what seemed like limitless bad guys was straight out of an old school side scroller. They even had the gangsters dressed in 80's punk outfits. Classic. Even better, the massive white dudes that he had to fight (Abobos?). Throw in a final woman boss with a leather outfit and a whip, and you pretty much have the Thai take on Double Dragon.

But that's not it, there was plenty of other things to report. First off, the mud bath striptease...yeah, nice out of place touch. And the Austrailians being shocked that some of the Thai women were being sold as prostitutes? No way! Not Thai women! No one ever thinks of Thailand as a place that you can easily buy sex.

In the end though, the action just didn't do it. The complete lack of plot, the terrible acting (I've seen better actiing in porno), and just about everything else was just too much to overcome. Still, for a cheap laugh with some entertaining action it could be worth it.

RATING: Worth the time it takes to watch it, but probably not worth the money it takes to obtain a copy to watch.

Posted by Thom at 7:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When I saw the preview for this one, and 27% on Rottentomatoes, I figured maybe I'd get another Crank. Alas, it wasn't quite there.

There was one hell of a cast (Jason Bateman, Common, Ray Liotta, Jeremy Piven, Ryan Reynolds, etc.), with some less than great ones thrown in (mainly Ben Affleck, who thankfully gets killed rather fast, and Andy Garcia, who I haven't seen do a good job in a single film), and the idea is a good one (slew of bounty hunters converge on one hotel to take out a mob snitch with a million dollar bounty on his head), but it just didn't come together. Out of the entire cast of characters I'd say that about 3 of 4 even made any sense at all: Ray Liotta as a hard nosed FBI agent, Tommy Flanagan as the methodically precise hitman, and Jason Bateman as the fucked up sexual confused, strung out lawyer. Ok, that last one really didn't make complete sense, but I love Jason Bateman and it was funny as hell. And when no one else really makes much sense, it's hard to really get into any of the characters or root for them. Something is definitely wrong when you're cheering for the heartless methodical killer, or at least I feel like something should be wrong with that.

In the end, the action was solid, but a bit over the top for a thriller, and the story was clever, but too convoluted for a shoot-em-up. Basically there was either too much story inserted here (for a nono-stop action style flick) or not enough story (to pull off the thriller/twisted story angle), depending on which way you want to go. If they had just stayed on one path or the other then it might have worked...but they didn't; and it didn't.

RATING: Worth a Buck? Maybe? Or at Least Worth a Free Ticket...

Posted by Thom at 5:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Apparently this film is on just about every Top 10 list of the year, and I guess I can see that. But then again I can't really remember what else 2006 held for movies.

It is a wonderfully done adult fairy tale, comeplete with some of the classic elements: young girl in a fantasy land, evil step-parent, mythical creatures, etc. Ofelia is even dressed like Alice at one point. However, Disney did not get it's hands on this one, thank god, for this truely is an adult fairy tale. From the almost over the top violence (I've heard arguments against it, but I personally thought it was justified and worked), to the rather frightening fantasy creatures (not only do the "good" ones look half-evil, the evil ones feel like they're straight out of Silent Hill or Resident Evil).

However, there are faults in it. For one, the evil step-father. How can he be so ruthlessly determined in his cause, and be a tracker of mythical Native American levels, yet be completely blind to all the moles in his organization, which are painfully obvious to the viewer (as well as a little girl who's almost completely trapped inside her imaginary world? At times he also seems too evil, but then again it's not too far fetched to believe someone so determined to bolster the Facist cause would act like him.

Also I'd have thought that the Spanish army would have had a few more troops stationed there to fend off all those rebels. In the final conflict they had but 20 troops left to fight off 50 rebels. But that's just nitpicking on my end.

My biggest problem would probably be with the lack of fantasy elements. I know that a lot of other things were happening in the story to help bring it along, but I wanted to see more of Ofelia's magical world. That is where the true magic in most parts of this film were found. The rest was mostly just a war picture.

RATING: Worth a Full Price Ticket (but not for the young or squimish), Worth a High Netflix.

Posted by Thom at 5:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I may be in the vast majority here (and judging by the 91% rating on rottentomatoes I am) but I was not overly impressed. I've read multiple reviews calling the movie "fast paced" and I'd have to agree. The problem is that the film is fast paced because they seem to be trying to squeeze too much information into too little time. There are two big problems with adapting a book into a film, you either cut too much out (leaving the story impossible to follow) or you put too much in (leaving no time for actual development). This movie falls prey to the later of the two. Sure it gives a nice sense of urgency to everything, but it also leaves little time for a back story or anything else. I would have almost preferred to see this as a mini-series as opposed to a single film. Maybe then more of the actual story could have been explored.

The movie does has a very nice cast with Clive Owen, Julliane Moore, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Michael Caine, but there isn't enough time to actually develop all of them. You get bits and pieces of each, but not enough of an glimpse that you can really relate to them.

So let's talk about the story here. In the future the people have become infertile (at least the women have apparently), which I guess has driven the world insane (not really explained fully), except England is still (semi)functional but they have great disdain for foreigners and round them up and put them into camps and/or kill them. However there is one woman who has been found to be pregnant and must be escorted safely to an organization that we are told nothing about (other than their name: Project Human?) which will somehow save us all? Maybe there's a good reason for all of this, but for me it just seems like pointless chaos without proper explanation. And for those reviewers who claim "it is a terrifying vision of the future, all the more gripping for ringing so true," what are you talking about? The main problem with the future that seems to be presented in the film is that people can't have babies anymore. I'm personally unaware of that becoming a problem any time soon. Sure there is the issue of illegal immigration, but that seems to be more of a setting for the movie (in the "refugee camp") than anything else. (Although I must find it humorous that "homeland security" ships all the immigrants off to "sex hill refugee camp.")

The one good thing in the film was the action sequence of Owen making his way through the camp overflowing with violence at every turn as the millitary and rebels are fighting. The single camera shot as Owen works his way through cover and around gun fire is fantastic. But, it feels like a cut scene from a new first person shooter, not a shot from a film. It's something that I want to play, not watch.

Perhaps my biggest problem is that I've seen/read too many dystopic views of the not so distant future, and this one just doesn't stand up to that in my eyes. Give me V For Vendetta over this anyday.

RATING: Worth a Dollar Theatre Ticket, Worth a Netflix Rental (if only for the scene of Owen working through the camp).

Posted by Thom at 9:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So before I leave, here are my thoughts on the last three films that I've seen (in short format):

Short Bus:
Let's start with the obvious, it's no Hedwig. Not even close, but it's still got its moments. The film is definitely on the edge, and almost accurately realistic in it's in your face sexual nature. The main problem I found is that it almost felt like a musical (almost never a good thing in my book), but without the music. It had that stage-type, over the top style to it that comes from the stage, and never works on the big screen. Better luck next time.
RATING: Worth a mid-level Netflix (but only if you can stomache the graphic sexual nature of it all).

The Illusionist:
I originally got this movie confused with The Prestige (Hollywood has got to stop releasing so many obviously similar movies at the same time), but eventually I got all that sorted out. This is the one with Tyler Durden, not Batman starring in it... So now that that one is settled, what about the film? I'm a big Ed Norton fan, and somehow after everthing I see him in (even stuff like The Italian Job) I like him more. But you do have to take him with Jessica Biel in this one (pretty, but not much on the acting side). Thankfully (**Semi-Spoiler Alert**) she dies and isn't that big a part of the film. Another plus is the "classic"? style it's shot in. It gives it that very old-timey feel to it with the yellow hue to everything and the blurry/bunrt out edges of the film. It really does help to set the mood for the entire film. However, Paul Giamatti has given us better performances, and he just seems a little out of place for most of the film. **More Semi-Spoiler Alert** And the "twist" at the end isn't that much of a twist after all. Anyone who's seen any sort of thriller-style movie will have hashed it all out long before the end. But all in all it was a very entertaining film.
RATING: Worth the $5 double feature price I paid (and probably more), Worth a rather high Netflix rental.

The Science of Sleep:
I'm going to keep this one short and sweet for you all with just a short checklist of questions.
1 - Have you seen Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and did you like it?
2 - Do strange, twisting, nearly impossible to follow story lines entice you?
3 - Did you think that Eternal Sunshine was too easy to follow and understand?
4 - Does a movie in three different languages interest you?
5 - Especially when some of those languages are poorly spoken and literaly translated?
6 - Do you like to laugh?

If you answered "yes" to 1-3 of those questions you should probably see this movie. If you answered "yes" to 4-5 of those questions you should definitely see this movie. If you answered "yes" to all 6 of them, then you must see this movie.

However, on one negative note, there did seem like there were bits missing at times, like they were left on the cutting room floor, or just left out to the script for some odd reason (perhaps Gondry needed Kaufman, one of the other greatest imaginative minds in script writing, to help him work it all out better). So you do have to be prepared for what seem like gaps or leaps in the progression of the characters.
RATING: Worth almost any full priced admission ticket, Put it on the top of your Netflix list.

Posted by Thom at 2:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I know my movie reviews have been a little infrequent lately. This is partially because I haven't had much time to write about the movies I've seen, but mostly because I haven't had many chances to see much of anything. I'm hoping to change that up soon though and get back onto a schedule of at least two movies a week. However, giving myself more time to reflect upon what I have seen has eliminated that bias towards over-praising anything halfway decent. That having been said let's look at Fearless.

Touted as Jet Li's final martial arts epic, I thought I should go take a look. Jet Li is a fantastic martial artist actor, and once again he does very well with the work in this film. However, it just isn't as good as some other things I've seen come out of China (including other things from Li himself). The fighting was well done, but the story was (although "based on actual events") tired. The movie is based around a fighter who as a child who gets into martial arts, but for all the wrong reasons, but still rises to be a fantastic fighter, but a sub-par person. After being too brash he loses what is left of his family, falls off the face of the earth, winds up in an old rural village where he rediscovers himself (learning to see from a blind girl! Wow, can we be more cliche?). He eventually comes back home and tries to mend his old ways and burnt bridges, leading him to defend his country's honor in the face of foreign imperialists. Yes, very nice and shows us all a lesson of redemption, but I've heard it before. In fact it seems like we hear something like this every year. And the action and stunts in this film didn't save the story. And although my 2 years of Chinese doesn't make me an expert in the language, the acting itself was also sub-par. And that other typical saving graces of Chinese action films, the beautiful settings and scenes, just wasn't there. It seemed to mostly take place in the same old city streets that we always see in films. Even the rural village wasn't all that pretty. I've seen the country, it's a beautiful and diverse land. How can you not work some of that in there?

So in the end, the action was nice. The message that the two greatest fighters in the world were from Japan and China was funny (although probably accurate as well). But the acting, story, and settings were all sub-par. It just didn't fit together as a great movie. If they had made it as a purely action movie maybe I could have enjoyed it more, but pairing it with the story just detracted from that in my mind.

RATING: Worth a Dollar Theatre Visit, Worth a Low Level Netflix (although I'd reccommend getting a better movie from the same genre instead).

Posted by Thom at 4:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

First, a quick note to advertisers: Tony Bennett may be 80 years old, and he may be a decent muscian, but I cannot celebrate "80 years of fantastic music" from him with the people at Target. First, fantastic might be a stretch. But in any case I highly doubt he was making music straight out of the womb.

But onto the movie. The other day I went to see Confetti, a respectable Britisih mockumentary. They really did do their best, and the characters are creatively British, but the style just didn't flow perfectly. Maybe I've been too spoiled by movies such as Best in Show, This is Spinal Tap, etc. but this wasn't quite up to those levels. I give them credit though. They did try their best. And I do love Jessica Stevenson and it is nice to see her again (new Spaced? Please?). I also felt like the ending fell a little flat. It was almost so predictable that it was a twist, but not quite. And it didn't have the clever "follow-ups" that are present in the other films. True we get to check in on the three couples, but a five second blrub isn't good enough for me. All in all, it was an average film. Not terrible, but not great.

RATING: Seeing as how it's probably no longer in most theatres you're probably a little late there, but feel free to catach it on video. It is good for some laughs on a rainy day.

Posted by Thom at 11:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So as I sit watching Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl on USA, I am reminded about how good things once were, and how bad they became. The first was such a clever, well done film, and the second was, well shit. It's sad that this happens ever so often. Another perfect example, the movies playing on TNT. The Matrix parts one and two. Great movie in number one, then shit in the second. So if history continues, the third Pirates movie should be slightly better than the second, but still bad. Oh well, at least we'll always have the first one.

Which brings me to another movie point. Well it doesn't really bring me there, but I'm gonna jump to it anyway. When I review movies it might seem like I'm all over the place sometimes. And I know that I am. The thing you have to consider though is how you rate movies. In my mind you can't really compare a good drama to a good action flick. They are similar, but two different beasts. That is why I appreciate the MTV Movie awards more. They understand that the best movie of the year can be something other than a intense drama. Then again, I still think that idea of "movie of the year" is a bad category to begin with. It's far too subjective. That's like naming "food of the year!" It just doesn't work. So taking that into consideration, let's look at my latest viewing.

Only Human is a nice, but played out story, of a girl bringing her new boy friend home to her family, who will undoubtablly hate him. This time she's Jewish, and he's Palestinian. Nice twist, and a nicely funny family with some comic moments, but I've come to expect much more from foreign/indie films. The family may be disfunctional in many ways, but I've already seen that this summer (Sunshine), and it was done much better in that film. And the story, while having its moments, isn't unique enough to make it stick out. Plus, with a movie focused so strongly on a family unit, I never felt like I got to know any of them. Maybe it would work if there was some sort of previous backstory, but seeing as how this movie wasn't that engrossing to begin with, I doubt I'd want to really watch the back story.

Basically the movie boils down to the "family pet", the small wounded duck. He's kind of oddly funny and cute, but we never really get to know him. Plus, he sort of wanders off at one point, there's a small comotion about him being missing, but then he's sort of forgotten about. Very much like the film as a whole. It's cute and funny, but we don't get to know the people very well, and in the end it's very forgettable.

RATING: Worth a really cheap ticket, with a Netflix rental when most of your list is up.

Posted by Thom at 8:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"This is as detestable a hard-R offense (equal-opportunity offender though it may be) as has ever been released to theaters." - Keith Uhlich, Slant Magazine

Keith, you are so right, and that's what makes Crank so good. Unlike Trust the Man, this movie pretty well tells you what it's going for, and delivers. If you've seen the previews, you know what you'll be getting. It isn't brainy; it isn't all that deep; hell, most of the time it's totally off the wall and unbelievable, but it does deliver. It is a high paced, gratuitously violent film. Basically this is what Running Scared was striving to be, except this movie actually accomplishes it (oh and replaces the dreadful Paul Walker with the always entertaining Jason Statham). It's pretty much non-stop movement and action, and all done in a good way. It was unique camera angles, techniques, layerings, etc. It's not the standard Hollywood action shots left and right.

In a lot of ways this film seems to be everything that conservatives seem to have problems with in games and movies. It's violent for the sake of being violent. It's grusome without apology. It's got blatant sex (in public none the less!). There was swearing left and right. And it rarely shows any consequences of the actions the characters take. Maybe that's what I really loved about it. It was everything "wrong" with our culture wrapped up in a neat little package.

To quote Geoff Pevere, of the Toronto Star, "Crank qualifies as a superior piece of slick, shallow-souled trash. And I mean that in the best sense of the term."

RATING: Worth a Full Price Ticket (if you're looking for pure action), Worth a Rental/High Netflix Place

Posted by Thom at 6:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So Trust the Man has been panned in the local paper (of course that means nothing), as well as on Rottentomatoes.com (that holds a little more water), and after seeing it I have to agree, and disagree. This isn't a 3 out of 10 movie (like Jack gave it), and probably is better than the 26% it's gotten on RT, but then again, if I had to give it a thumbs up or down I'd proabably have to go with down.

The cast isn't all that bad either. Duchovny actually does a good job in a comedic role, and I thought Maggie Gyllenhaal was good as well. But in the end, the movie just seems to be trying to play too many roles, and doesn't really seem to get any of them right. It's a comedy, without enough laughs, a "real-life" style drama that's too far fetched and unbelievable to be realistic at all, etc... I just can't feel for any of the characters, or care too much about them in the end. And the overly obvious ending (oh my, they all get together and live happily ever after?!?) was just too much when lumped with the rest of the film. Sure it did have some very good and whitty moments, but they couldn't hold together all the rest. And for a movie centered around four characters, I never felt I really got to know any of them beyond the superficial surface level.

I don't want to make it all sound like it was terrible, because it wasn't. I did enjoy myself through the majority of film, while in the theatre. But after I left, I just wasn't satisfied. And as I walked around and thought about it more, that feeling just grew. So it was good about about 2 hours of entertainment, but nothing past that.

RATING: Maybe Worth a Cheap Night, Maybe a Mid to Low Ranked Netflix Rental (not much more than that in either case though)

Posted by Thom at 6:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So I had time, overlooked the Wilson factor (at least Luke is the less bothersome of the two), and caught a dollar screening of My Super Ex-Girlfriend. And if I had known that Eddie Izzard had such a sizable role I might have even gone sooner! And I was pleasently surprised.

This isn't a great film. I'll admit that. And I wouldn't have wanted to pay full price for it (what is that now, like $25 a ticket or something?). But it was, well an Ivan Reitman movie. It was funny, but only as good as the cast. And Luke Wilson is no Bill Murray, not even Dan Aykroyd for that matter, but he's still funny. Unfortunately, it just seems like a role that we've seen him in already. Over and over again. He needs to get a little more range, or at least some new and different scripts before I really give him any credit as an actor.

And as for the rest of the cast:
- Uma Thurman (who I've never thought is as stunning as everyone else seems to think she is) is ok, but basically I feel like she over acts (in just about everything), which works for Tarantino films, but not comedies like this.
- Anna Faris may be attractive (still not sure if she can act), but she always just seems dumb to me. I just get this feeling she's a complete ditz in real life too.
- Eddie Izzard (whom I've grown to love, through a sort of infection that I believe was spread to me from living with Cross too long) just isn't up to what I expect from him. Maybe it was just the role he was given, but he was much better in The Wild (a horrible disgrace for an animated film), or even Ocean's Twelve.
- Rainn Wilson (no relation to Luke/Owen) was the only one who actually out did what I expected of him. He was completely out of character from what I'm used to seeing him as, and he was fabulous at it. His honry, apathetic, manner was great. He just sold it all for me. Props to Rainn, the best Wilson actor out there!

So what else can I say about the story? It was an Ivan movie. At least this one didn't sputter out like the second half of Stripes. It just sort of stayed average throughout.

RATING: Worth a Really Cheap Ticket (which is probably the only kind of theatres you'd find it in now anyway), worth a Netflix Rental (but not too high on the list, maybe somewhere in the middle of the queue).

Posted by Thom at 12:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)