Happy New Year, everyone. I've never done a list like this before, but thought it might be fun. Now I'm only going to count movies that were released this year. Older movies I caught on DVD won't make it.
So here goes, in no particular order...
BEST:
So here goes, in no particular order...
BEST:
- 300 - Some people didn't like this one. Personally, I think it should be required viewing for any guy to get his "Man Card."
- 3:10 to Yuma - If I had to pick one movie for Best of the Year, this would be it. This is a must see for everyone who loves movies. It's perfect.
- No Country for Old Men - Think Fargo set in Texas. Tommy Lee Jones will probably win the Oscar for his work here. The movie itself could win, too.
- Zodiac - This was a creepy movie about a serial killer in California. Well acted and extremely well paced for a movie that covers several years.
- Grindhouse - Obviously these two had to make the list. Go watch both of them. Now.
WORST:
- Wild Hogs - Imagine two hours of jokes about the biker in the Village People. This one's worse.
- Blades of Glory - I like Will Farrell, I really do. I just don't like him in any movie where he's the main star. This was better than Anchorman, but that's not saying much.
- Bridge to Terabithia - Some of you who saw this will assume I'm a cold-hearted bastard for listing this one. I can handle that. But the movie still sucked.
- The Invisible - Worst.Ending.Ever.
- Ghost Rider - You know that prank where you set a bag of poo on fire and leave it on your enemy's doorstep? This is like that, but the bag of poo is in your DVD player.
BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENT:
- TIE: Spider-Man 3 / Transformers - Two movies I had such high hopes for, dashed upon the cold, rocky coast of mediocrity.
Still left to see:
There are still many movies I'm waiting to see. Hopefully they'll be included in the Best and not my Worst list. They are...
I Am Legend, The Bourne Ultimatum, Ratatouille, Superbad, The Kingdom, Stardust, Charlie Wilson's War, Sweeny Todd, Juno, Across the Universe, and The Kite Runner.
I hope everyone has a great 2008 (Note to self: Trademark "Two-thousand Great")!
Every time I watch a documentary these days, I go in expecting two things:1) It'll lean politically left.
2) There will be a bunch of people whining on camera.
Who Killed the Electric Car? fulfilled both of my expectations.
The movie tells the story of GM's failed EV1 in the 90s. Never heard of it? It was the first electric car by a major automobile manufacturer and was only sold in Saturn dealerships in California and Arizona. I vaguely remember it, but it was neat to learn a little more about the car and its short life.
The problem is that this movie portrays the car as the savior of mankind and how the evil, ignorant men in power killed our one chance of salvation. I got the feeling the car should have been named JC1. More tears were shed over the death of this car than the actual number of them produced.
To be fair, the movie puts the blame on a number of different "suspects." There's Big Oil, GM, consumer ignorance, and the CA government. Bush wasn't even in office when GM killed the project, but he gets blamed, too. The best quote to describe the EV1's demise is "death by a thousand cuts" and the film does a good job of describing each of those.
Also, the film never really talks about the problems the car had. It said a typical charge would last about 60 miles, but it didn't say at what speed. It also didn't say how long it would take to charge, only "typically overnight." It also didn't describe how much horsepower it had, nor its safety rating. Electric cars are awesome, but there are some big technological hurdles to conquer before they are viable. With gas prices rising and technology getting better, I bet we see an EV2 on the market in the next 5 years.
So should you rent this? It did have some interesting points to make, especially since I don't remember the car all that well. If you can handle a bunch of people whining about a crappy car, then go for it. Otherwise, just start reading Popular Mechanics for the next innovation in alternative fuels.
Grade: C
Like I mentioned in the Planet Terror review, Death Proof is Quentin Tarantino's yang in the Grindhouse movies (Note to self: stop talking about Tarantino's yang). But unlike Planet Terror, this one is not a horror movie. Sure, there's lots of gore and violence, but it's not horror.Rose McGowan makes an appearance has a blonde with two normal (boring) legs, but Kurt Russell stars as the obligatory creepy guy. He stalks women and laughs like a creepy guy and even demonstrates a creepy way to eat nachos. But he's got a personality and a cool name (I won't spoil it) that makes ya want to have a few beers with him. All in all, he's awesome. Some critics say this is Kurt's best role ever. That's saying a lot when you've got Snake Plissken on your resume.
Like Rodriguez, Tarantino plays around with the Grindhouse Special Effects(tm). Instead of having the film skip and melt, he plays with the edits. Back in the old days (or maybe they still do it), an editor would cut the different takes and piece them back together into one continuous reel. Now imagine if those cuts weren't exact and missed a few frames that should have been left on the floor. That would get real annoying if it happened a lot, but Tarantino is a genius and everything works to perfection.
The one thing that everyone will tell you about this movie is the car chase. Fact, it's the best car chase in movie history, even beating out The Blues Brothers (/dwight schrute). Yeah, it's that good.
So as you may have guessed, you need to watch both Grindhouse movies. Invite some friends over, let them in if they bring beer, and have an outstanding evening. Which one is best? Well, that's what the drunken arguments at midnight are for.
Grade: A
Yes!!!
Los Angeles, CA (Tuesday, December 18, 2007) Academy Award-winning filmmaker Peter Jackson; Harry Sloan, Chairman and CEO, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. (MGM); Bob Shaye and Michael Lynne, Co-Chairmen and Co-CEOs of New Line Cinema have jointly announced today that they have entered into the following series of agreements:
* MGM and New Line will co-finance and co-distribute two films, “The Hobbit” and a sequel to “The Hobbit.” New Line will distribute in North America and MGM will distribute internationally.
* Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh will serve as Executive Producers of two films based on “The Hobbit.” New Line will manage the production of the films, which will be shot simultaneously.
* Peter Jackson and New Line have settled all litigation relating to the “Lord of the Rings” (LOTR) Trilogy.
Said Peter Jackson, “I’m very pleased that we’ve been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line. ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is a legacy we proudly share with Bob and Michael, and together, we share that legacy with millions of loyal fans all over the world. We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle Earth. I also want to thank Harry Sloan and our new friends at MGM for helping us find the common ground necessary to continue that journey.”
(Ain't it Cool News)
OK, first off, look at the poster for this movie. Is your first thought, "Holy Crap! I need to see this!!!"? [Notice the proper use of British punctuation.] If that thought is the furthest thing from your mind, stop reading and go back to watching Martha Stewart. You are way too intellectual for this movie. And by "intellectual" I mean "boring." For the rest of you, continue reading what you already know.Planet Terror is Robert Rodriguez's ying to Tarantino's yang in their Grindhouse movie. Because the majority of the movie-seeing public is boring, the movie tanked in the box-office. To help recoup some money, they cleaved Grindhouse in two like you would a zombie. I missed it in the theater, so I have no idea if anything is different, but I heard rumors that the DVD versions are a bit longer. I consider that a win in my book.
In order to describe the greatness of Planet Terror, I have to discuss The Greatest Movie Ever Made, a.k.a. Army of Darkness. That movie was (is) brilliant because of its B-movie horror flick, cheesy goodness. And Bruce Campbell. Planet Terror doesn't give us Bruce Campbell, but gives us Rose McGowan with an M-16 for a leg. She's basically how I'd picture Bruce Campbell if he started injecting estrogen. It's not a bad second, really.
Rodriguez styles up the movie to make it look like you're watching in a real Grindhouse. The reels skip off track, colors bleed, and the film even melts at an (in)appropriate time. Any more authentic and you'd have to mix bubble gum in your cat's litter box and spread it over your living room.
So, if you are a fan of Robert Rodriguez, cheesy horror flicks, or ever wondered how Bruce Campbell would look with breasts, you owe it to yourself to watch this one. As for me, I'm waiting for the HD version so it can sit right next to the HD DVD of Army of Darkness.
Grade: A
SPOILER WARNING! I'll do my best to be vague on the plot points for those of you who have no idea what this movie is about. But I'll have to talk about a few things, so stay away if you care.As a book, The Golden Compass was fairly entertaining and a bit offensive, theologically . When I read it a few weeks ago, I knew the movie was coming out and half expected it to translate well onto the big screen. As a movie, The Golden Compass is like having a 10-year old tell the story while hopped up on sugar and cocaine. It moves so fast, I honestly have no idea how people can follow along if they've not read the book.
There are obvious shortcuts a movie must make due to the medium. In this case, the opening scene pans over Oxford, through a tear in the fabric of space (which looks freakin cool) into another Oxford as a narrator explains multi-dimensional worlds, souls & daemons, and Dust. I think most of this could have been inferred by the audience, but maybe not.
They took another shortcut with Ms. Coulter. From the start, it's fairly obvious she's a bad guy, and they make no attempt to conceal her connection to the Gobblers. In the book, that section seemed to be drawn out and fairly boring. In the movie, it's played out in two scenes. First, a long explanation of kids being kidnapped, followed immediately by the golden monkey kidnapping kids. When Lyra escapes Ms. Coulter's house (in a badly changed scene), we're only twenty minutes into the movie.
I never liked Lyra in the books, and on-screen, she's no better. The actress (by Hollywood law, named Dakota) does a decent job. But playing a spoiled brat doesn't make me like her or want to root for her.
The theological issues that have people up in arms have been neutered in the movie version. The Church is only called the Magisterium, and all references to the Authority are left intentionally vague so that it could be "authority" (lower case). On the other hand, some references are left in. Those against the Magesterium are called heretics and the Dust explanation is described as human's ancestors once rebelling against the Magisterium's authority (or Authority).
For good things, the actors are all perfectly cast with the best being Sam Elliot. That man can definitely play a Texan. Kathy Bates plays his daemon hare and fits perfectly. Iorek is voiced by Ian McKellen. Not a bad choice, but it was a bit too close to Gandalf.
The CG is also very well done. Pan's shape-shifting moments look natural and are very cool to watch. When someone dies, their daemon disintegrates into Dust particles. It's very well done, but a bit overused by the end. The only problem is Ms. Coulter's golden monkey. I'm not sure if another CG team worked on him, but he's the least convincing looking in the film. Which is sad because he's arguably the most important to get right.
The ending is also changed significantly. I'm not sure why the director chose to do this (maybe he ran out of time), but the movie ends far before the book. It leaves less of a cliffhanger, but I thought the movie version of The Subtle Knife had already been greenlit.
So to sum up, if you've read the book, I'd watch this only if you're curious about the changes. If you've not read the book, I honestly have no idea how you could keep up with the "blink and you'll miss something important" pace. Whatever you do, don't take any bathroom breaks.
Grade: B- (Because I had to kill some time this afternoon, it only cost me $5, and I was curious to see what they did with it)
Amazing Grace tells the true story of William Wilberforce, the English theologian who worked his entire life to abolish the slave trade. I've read a bit of Wilberforce's writings and his story is amazing because there are so few people who have truly changed the world for the better. He died three days after Parliament passed the law abolishing slavery in the entire British Empire.For the movie, Wilberforce is played by Ioan Gruffudd. Don't recognize that name? He's Mr. Fantastic in those (Not-so) Fantastic Four movies. It's good to see him in a different role, but I had a hard time believing he couldn't stretch his arm across the House of Commons to slap his opposition.
The biggest problem with the movie is the title. William Wilberforce did not pen "Amazing Grace." Former slave ship captain, John Newton did. Newton is in the movie, but the song seems largely out of place. When Mr. Fantastic starts singing it in a pub (in a wrong tempo) and the drunken patrons start weeping into their ales, it's hard to not laugh at the absurdity. Then, when he sings it at his wedding, you have to watch that your eyes don't roll out of their sockets.
A better title would have been Wilber Force. After receiving his mission from God, Ioan Gruffudd could have gone on a quest to get his anti-slavery band back together. With a visit to the Quarry Man, the Smelter, and Jessica Alba, you've got the makings of a great movie.
Overall, I just wasn't in the mood for this movie. It's been getting fantastic reviews (har har) by critics, so I may have to give it another chance later.
Grade: C+
Many times, I'll throw a movie into my rental queue simply because I read about it on another site. Sometimes, I get lucky and find something truly outstanding. Other times I go look up "crap" in a thesaurus. Angel-A sits in the median of those limits. No, Angel-A is not an average movie. It just contains equal moments of pure brilliance and utter rubbish.Made by the same guy who did The Fifth Element, the basic premise is this: take everyone's favorite Christmas movie, It's a Wonderful Life, set it in Paris, and trade Clarence for a 6-foot, leggy blonde named Angela. Oh, and have everyone speak French. The plots are similar (they meet on a bridge and the movie is in black & white), but there are no "Here's what the world would be like if you were dead" moments.
Differences aside, Angel-A really shines in the basic plot points. (But maybe that can't be helped when you copy a formula?) Besides the obvious sight-gag of Angela towering over a wimpy French guy, the movie stays light and funny, but tackles some emotionally heavy issues. There's a scene where the two have to dry out in the women's restroom. After Angela is chastised for having a guy in there, she responds, "Oh him? He is a woman, too." That scene sets up the rest of the film as Angela tries to restore this man's masculinity. For the most part, it all works very well.
Angel-A's problems come with the ways Angela helps her "assignment." As a self-described "sexy bitch," Angela uses only her sexiness to achieve her goal (read that last sentence with your best sleazy French guy accent). In this world, "sex sells" is not only a mantra for advertising, but for angels, too.
The movie tries to give a backstory to Angela, but it's mostly garbage. I think the director knew this so not much time is spent on it. I'd forgotten about it until it showed up at the end to make a chick-flick cheesy moment, vomit inducing.
So overall, the movie's not horrible. It's great in spots, but severely objectionable in others. Watch only if you've ever wondered what Clarence would be like as a sexy bitch.
Grade: C
Pathfinder starts out with the following floating text:
600 years before Columbus
North America was invaded by
ruthless marauders intent on
settling its shores.
Something stopped them.
North America was invaded by
ruthless marauders intent on
settling its shores.
Something stopped them.
The opening scene shows a Native American woman stumbling on the ruins of a ship filled with dead vikings. So I think to myself, "Awesome! This is going to be a story about some creature from Indian mythology and how it killed all the vikings." WRONG! Instead, I got a cross between Rambo II and Disney's Pocahontas. It was like picking a chocolate and hoping for caramel, but getting toothpaste instead (/obligatory Jim Gaffigan joke).
Karl Urban plays the Pathfinder. Or at least he plays one of them, because it seemed like everyone was called "Pathfinder" at some point in the film. The word is used so much, my MST3K "we have title!" jokes grew stale 30 minutes into it. They do try to change it up a bit with dialog like, "Go. Find her. I must take a different path." But when literary word play like that gets delivered from a dying man, I started to lose a little support for the WGA strike.
My parting advice: If this one ever crosses your path, find a different one.
Grade: D
I like biopics. Regardless of how much poetic license is taken, I always feel like I've learned something after watching one. Sorta like The Discovery Channel if sharks fell into drugs and booze before turning their life around and finally eating the man that's been keeping 'em down.
But biopics have to have one thing that separates them from documentaries. They have to tell a story, and they must follow the rule of stories. That is - a beginning, a climax, and a satisfying ending.
Talk to Me is a fine example of why this must happen. The movie begins the story of Petey Green in a 1960s Washington D.C. prison. Petey is acting DJ for the convicts and through a series of humorous conflicts, he ends up in a real radio station.
At this point in the movie, everything is great. The characters are likable. The setting is interesting. I'm really into it. Then, the movie's big climax comes with the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. and everything gets even better.
But then the movie falls apart. You see, the whole MLK moment happens about an hour into the movie. With another hour left, there's really no other place to go but down. Sure, Petey gets rich and famous, but it's all incredibly slow and boring. The manufactured conflicts that come are nothing compared to the first half. They even made Johnny Carson boring. How is that possible?
As a story, Talk to Me's beginning is great, the climax is fantastic, and the ending comes an hour too late.
Grade: C
Ain't it Cool News posted a new poster for The Dark Knight.
How cool is that?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
