Goodbye 2008. Did it end like a Hollywood kiss, complete with a camera pan to the sky? Or was it full of hype, yet utter disappointment? With the year come and gone, here's the top ten money-makers. And not a single pretentious art-house flick amongst 'em. Suck on that, Ebert.
#10) Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who! - $155M
Never did see this. I hear it's popular with the lil' ones. But so is Speed Racer. Yeah.
#9) Quantum of Solace - $165M
Not nearly as good as Casino Royale. But I still like this start, restart Mr. Bond.
#8) Twilight - $170M
A vampire movie that feeds on testosterone. Just like the undead in Sex and the City.
#7) Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa - $175M
I must say, this is surprisingly high considering the first was pretty weak.
#6) Kung Fu Panda - $215M
It's so full of awesome, not even Chuck Norris could squelch it.
#5) WALL-E - $224M
Really close to The Dark Knight for my best of the year. It warrants a second watching.
#4) Hancock - $228M
How Hancock beats WALL-E is unfathomable. Seriously? Hopefully none of you bought the DVD.
#3) Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - $317M
Yeah, yeah. You like Hancock and I like Indy. We're even.
#2) Iron Man - $318M
Great story. Weak villian. Definitely awaiting the sequel and the VH-1 Behind the Movie special.
and of course...
#1) The Dark Knight - $531M
I've seen it twice and still want to see it again. They are re-releasing it in theaters ahead of the Oscars to build up hype for Heath Ledger and to try and topple Titanic's $601M total. Go see it in IMAX if you can.
Thanks 2008. Now get out of here and fetch me Twenty Oh Nine.
Merry Christmas everybody. I hope in this season love, friendship, and togetherness you didn't leave out that most important of traditions - consumerism. What Would Jesus Buy indeed.So yeah, this movie is about the American Commercialization (thanks, Scott!) of Christmas. More to the point, it's about how evil it is. The plot follows "Reverend Billy" and his Church of No Shopping as they protest in a bus. I guess the Church of No Originality was already taken.
"Billy" isn't a real person. He's more of a caricature of a televangelist. I found myself wondering what Billy was like with the cameras off since he never seems to drop the act. For example, when the church is performing an exorcism on the sign outside Wal-Mart headquarters, he falls face first into the Hedge of Protection around it. No, literally, he fell into the bushes. In the scene following, he's all depressed that he didn't actually fly into the sign. Bravo for staying in character, Billy. Unless that's really you. Then I'll back away slowly.
You would think that Wal-Mart plays the Great Satan in this church. But you'd be wrong. The Great Satan is Mickey Mouse. Maybe it's because I don't have kids, but when I think of over-consumerism, Disney's not that high on my list. I'm guessing the Church of No Shopping needed a mascot to crucify and since Wal-Mart doesn't have one, the Mouse would have to do.
So the movie is odd, to say the least. So odd that it detracts from its message. Yes, hyper-consumerism is bad, but our economy depends on Black Friday. So like everything in this world, use some wisdom and find the balance.
And may you all have a very Merry Christmas.
Grade: C
When was the last time you saw an episode of The X-Files? The shark-jumping movie came out ten years ago and I stopped watching the show long before then. So now you know how I went into the latest X-Files flick.Because it's been long enough for Scully and Mulder to have been replaced with Spears and Lohan in our collective memories, The X-Files: I Want to Believe has a stand-alone plot, having nothing at all to do with the series. I guess Hollywood decided to give the aliens to Indiana Jones this year. What? Too soon?
Unfortunately, the movie both succeeds and fails because it stands alone. Since I can barely remember what Scully and Mulder look like, I can watch this without being an X-phile. That's a good thing. It probaby would have helped if I had remembered why Mulder's sister was so important, so if you do, you'll catch a few more things than I did.
The bad part is that the plot does not belong in the X-Files universe. There's some surfacy psychic/religious nonsense, but the basic plot really belongs in an Ashley Judd movie. Mulder has no use in a normal murder mystery. Is the movie creepy? Yes. Supernatural? Nope. But you will definitely remember the big reveal for a long time.
So yeah, this movie only got made for the diehard fans. If that's you, you saw it over the summer. If you have any passing interest, give it a go. There's plenty of worse stuff out there.
Grade: B-
"Klaatu barada nikto" is one of the most famous lines in science fiction. From the X-Files to The Rockford Files, the line has been referenced everywhere (Wikipedia is awesome). It even made a special appearance in The Greatest Movie Ever Made, though not in it's original form.The phrase originated in the, um original The Day the Earth Stood Still from 1951. For a simple, stupid phrase, it's sure got some legs. But now, Hollywood has decided to repackage the movie all Keanu-fied with new effects. Whoa.
I've yet to see the 1951 version. It's a classic and the one thing Version 2.0 has going for it is the desire to watch the original. If you've been reading RottenTomatoes, you'd think that's all it's got going for it. I didn't think it's bad as everyone says it is.
Regarding Keanu... Let's face it, the man was made for Neo. But in a world devoid of The Matrix, Keanu would have been made for Klaatu, the humanoid, stoic alien in The Day the Earth Stood Still. Now let's just hope for Point Break 2: Point Breakier.
So I didn't know much of anything about this movie, and while what I saw wasn't the best ever, I enjoyed it. I may have gotten a little preachy at times, but this one's definitely worth a rental.
Oh, and that famous phrase? Yeah, it's not in this. Go figure.
Grade: C+
Every now and then I come across the "Pfft, You Are a Movie Idiot Unless You've Seen These" list. Inevitably, Dark City is always on it and my ego turns into Eeyore.
But recently, the Director's Cut was released and I finally sat down to watch it. The first character you meet is Jack Bauer. Except he's playing a slightly deranged doctor instead of Chuck Norris' worst nightmare. That caught me off guard a bit, but eventually I settled in.
As I've started watching more movies for this blog, I've been noticing more of the style directors throw into a movie. For example, did you know that in The Fifth Element, there is a full circle in the background of nearly every shot? In Dark City, Alex Proyas puts most of the lighting in the background so that everyone is shadowed or a complete silhouette. Foreground light is used sparringly, mostly to highlight something important or Jennifer Connelley. Can't say I'd do things any different if I were Alex.
One last thought. What's the difference between a "twist" and the big "reveal" at the end? I think they've meant the same thing to me, but after Dark City, I'm going to start paying more attention. The big "reveal" in this is the reason it's on so many of those lists. Maybe it's a twist. I don't know. But it goes on my list of Best.Endings.Ever. Seriously. Watch this movie.
Grade: A
Guy Ritchie is the poster boy for British Heist flicks. Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels are classics filled with great scenes and memorable characters. He even did those BMW commercials that were all the rage a few years ago.But then Mr. Ritchie married Madonna and everything went down the crapper. Or the loo, as they say across the Pond.
Revolver was Guy Ritchie's project back in 2005 - around the time things started getting bad with the missus. (side note: That's the first time I've written "missus" other than "Mrs." I had to look it up). Instead of being a heist movie, Revolver is the familiar cousin - a British Con flick. Since "con" has a negative meaning, I'm assuming this was done on purpose as a reflection of his marriage.
The movie is a complete mess. The plot is all over the place and for some reason, there's an excessive use of famous quotes. There are four or five in the opening credits, and if that wasn't enough, all of the characters join in the fun throughout the movie. It's like Bartlett's Familiar Quotations was passed around set and everyone had to work his favorite into the film somehow.
Despite all the flaws, I can't blame Guy Ritchie. After all, how could anyone create a complex con story, full of twists and red herrings, with the wife nagging about Kabbalah classes.
Grade: D
Every now and then, a movie comes along with a gimmick it tries to sell. In Vantage Point, the gimmick is 20 minutes of plot told from different angles. It's cinema with Instant Replay.As far as gimmicks go, this one's not the worst you've seen. In fact, it's what got me interested in the movie to begin with. But in order for something like this to work, it has to treat the audience with some respect. Unfortunately, this doesn't.
The plot centers around a Presidential assassination at a UN rally in Spain. There are a half dozen or so different viewpoints of the action (Secret Service, News crew, Tourist, etc), but each one follows a set formula: Introduction to the character, where they are at the assassination, and finally a big reveal before the film rewinds and you move on to the next character.
Sounds great on paper, but that big reveal at the end? Yeah, it always stays hidden from the audience. For example, in one of the early scenes, a Secret Service agent is reviewing some footage from the news crew and finds something important. But you don't get that information. No, you just get a long, drawn out shot of Mr Secret Service agent with a stupid look on his face.
Thrillers can't do this and be taken seriously. Imagine a murder mystery where the killer is known by the good guys within the first five minutes after the fingerprint database gets a hit. But his identity is artificially hidden from you until the end. Now that I've given that example, I'm sure there's some great movie out there that did that. I don't care. For most, the audience needs to be pulled into the experience by the clues and drawn down a specific, logical path only to come to a surprise, logical conclusion. None of this "hide the important details from the audience" nonsense.
Vantage Point is not horrible. But you're left wishing you could rewind it and have it magically get better the second time through.
Grade: C
You ever miss a movie that everyone else on the planet has seen? And then you have to suffer for months hearing about how great it is. Each passing day slowly chips at your psyche while you wake up every morning with the thought of, "Today I'm less awesome than yesterday."
Tropic Thunder was like that for me. I kept hearing about how it was the funniest movie of the summer and that even Tom Cruise Haters love it. Well it finally showed up last week and to use the newest, official word in English language...it was meh.
Now obviously a movie with this much anticipation is going to be a letdown. But it was more than that. You see, Tropic Thunder is just Galaxy Quest with an R rating. And not as funny. Sure there are parts that are great. Robert Downy Jr, for instance. But it's the same "actors get thrust into a real life situation while thinking they are still acting" plot dropped into Vietnam, Sim City-style.
Galaxy Quest was (is) great because it's a very quotable movie. Just like So I Married an Axe Murderer. Those comedies get their laughs from the witty dialog that allow you to insert into everyday situations for a well-timed joke.
Tropic Thunder opts for shock jokes. Those can be funny, but only if used with restraint. For example, a child that drops a surprise F-bomb in the grocery store can be hilarious. A child that curses like a sailor is not funny and only makes people uncomfortable. Same with movies. Unfortunately, Tropic Thunder wears out its shock limit and runs out of funny.
Skip this and go watch Galaxy Quest.
Grade: C
Did you know there was a Star Wars movie out this summer? Did you know there's also a cartoon series on right now? Did you know Star Wars has been relegated to the bargain bin of cinema? All true.The TV series first introduced me to this version of The Clone Wars - not the 2003 version of 10-minute shorts. That series was pretty good. No, I'm talking about the series that the movie was a giant commercial for. I tried watching an episode. I mean, I really tried and I couldn't survive more than ten minutes.
It's with that experience that I went in to the movie version of The Clone Wars. Believe me, I was prepared for the biggest raping of Star Wars since Greedo fired that first shot. As it turns out, it wasn't that bad. Oh it was awful, but it was better than the TV episode.
Those of you who have seen this know that I'm not exactly the target audience. It's a kids movie, bar none. They even introduce a kid Jedi as the main character. That's sign #1 that someone is going to call a lightsaber "cute." The Sith aren't really evil, either. They're more of a galactic annoyance. Sort of like a parent who won't let you stay up late.
That's really my only complaint with The Clone Wars. It's an average movie that most kids will probably love. We (sort of) grown-ups can suffer through it without many side effects.
Grade: C-
Quantum of Solace is finally here. The first Bond movie as a direct sequel pulled in over $70M this weekend. That easily shatters the record for a Bond flick. And after Casino Royale, this should be no surprise.
Casino Royale was great because of the emotional turmoil Bond went through. Quantum of Solace picks up that journey and carries it to the next step. Not a conclusion, though. This leaves Quantum feeling like part two of a trilogy. Not a bad thing, but the movie can't stand on its own as well as the first. That also means you must see Casino Royale before this one.
Now that we have two movies in this Bond "reboot," I've come to discover certain elements. First, the action scenes are freaking awesome. I think Quantum has one too many, but that's only a minor quibble.
I've also noticed that Bond's cars are more beautiful than his women. That's normal. But here, the cars get demolished to the point where every man in the audience lets out a painful "oooh." Don't believe me? Go see Quantum this week and listen.
Another point on the cars. In the old Bond movies, 007 would drive Aston Martins or upscale BMWs (looking pristine) in the poorest of third-world countries. Here, Bond actually drives what's available in the region. It's a small thing, but it's a nice touch of realism I appreciate.
One last point. The reviews are very mixed for Quantum of Solace. I think it fits perfectly with the universe set up in Casino Royale, but I will concede that the villian is mostly forgettable and the plot is a lot simpler this time. But none of those distracted me from loving it. Think of it as leftover pie. Yeah, it's not as great as when it was first out of the oven, but it's still pie.
Grade: A-
Now that we have two movies in this Bond "reboot," I've come to discover certain elements. First, the action scenes are freaking awesome. I think Quantum has one too many, but that's only a minor quibble.
I've also noticed that Bond's cars are more beautiful than his women. That's normal. But here, the cars get demolished to the point where every man in the audience lets out a painful "oooh." Don't believe me? Go see Quantum this week and listen.
Another point on the cars. In the old Bond movies, 007 would drive Aston Martins or upscale BMWs (looking pristine) in the poorest of third-world countries. Here, Bond actually drives what's available in the region. It's a small thing, but it's a nice touch of realism I appreciate.
One last point. The reviews are very mixed for Quantum of Solace. I think it fits perfectly with the universe set up in Casino Royale, but I will concede that the villian is mostly forgettable and the plot is a lot simpler this time. But none of those distracted me from loving it. Think of it as leftover pie. Yeah, it's not as great as when it was first out of the oven, but it's still pie.
Grade: A-
What was the last, good post-apocalyptic movie you saw? Escape From New York? Mad Max? Those are classic, fun movies. They're also almost thirty years old. For all of you who saw them in the theater...HA HA!But why is this genre so full of crappy movies? Fear of a nuclear holocaust has been with us for over fifty years. Plagues aren't exactly a new idea, either. But for some reason, Hollywood can't get past Mad Max. Come on writers, I'm begging for a great story within that desolation.
So Doomsday is yet another crapfest set fifty years after "the virus that changed everything." It's a British movie, so I found it hilarious that the virus pops up in Glasgow and all of Scotland has to be quarantined behind a wall. Perhaps the director got tired of all the praise Braveheart got, hehe.
The movie doesn't decend into Mad Max territory right away. Instead, it starts out pretty good. The movie takes place in 2067 and has a very "near future" feel to it. Of course, this is accepting a future that has a wall around the whole of Scotland.
But then tragedy strikes. At about the 20-minute mark, every scene is worse than the one before it. Consistently. To the end. I'm not kidding. The director stops filming Doomsday and moves to Mad Max. After a few minutes of that, he moves to Braveheart. It's like he visited Scotland for the first time and said, "Hey look! Castles!" He would then tell his writer with confidence, "They would survive a plague. And people would give up central plumbing to live in one."
Yeah, I'm still trying to shake this from my memory. Please avoid it.
Grade: D-
Of all the Summer Movies I missed this year, Kung Fu Panda is the one I most wanted to see. That probably gives some embarrassing insight into my psyche, but this is the internet where everyone finds a home. Mine just has an extra bouncy castle or two.Anyway, Kung Fu Panda is Dreamworks' latest entry into the Animated Talking Animal genre. In earlier days, these movies relied heavily on pop culture references. Thankfully, Kung Fu Panda stands on its own and only gets its influences from proper Asian cinema. OK, maybe not proper Asian cinema. But I am talking about good kung fu movies and not something with Steven Segal.
Jack Black plays the titular panda and you'll probably have mixed reactions to that. But what I find hilarious is blatant, comedic arrogance and for that, Jack Black is perfect. There's a line in the beginning where the people were "blinded by his awesomeness." Having Jack Black deliver that line adds just the right amount of awesome to make it funny. Trust me.
Like all good kung fu movies, this one's a pretty simple morality tale of finding your strength within. It tells the tale well, but there was also some good stuff about finding peace in things we can't control. Those scenes went deeper than I expected from a bunch of talking animals, but it's great stuff. The kind you steal and offer to others when they're down.
Kung Fu Panda was everything I hoped it would be from the trailers. Check it out.
Grade: A
How much do you know about Genghis Khan? From what I remember of my history classes, he was a ruthless Mongolian who conquered most of Asia. Mongol is a film out of Russia that tells his story... the first part anyway.You see, Mongol is the first film in a trilogy of the khan's life. It starts way back when Genghis was just a little nine year old mongoloid. One day, he and his father were having a Mongolian BBQ with their enemies when his dad gets poisoned. Thus sets little Genghis on his Blues Brothers-like journey to get the clans back together.
Mongol reminded me a lot of Braveheart mixed with a good Western. There were lots of good father - son moments and the love story brought back memories of Scotland. Wait. A love story? Yeah. Mongol paints a completely different picture of Genghis Khan than what you may have. To be fair, it is only the first movie, so the man has a few more hours to get ruthless.
That all said, the movie is awesome. The cinematography is so good, I now want to visit Mongolia. And the director didn't use a lot of CG work. According to IMDB, he actually imported 1500 horses for the battle scenes. And it all looks violently fantastic.
Mongol lost the Oscar this year to La Vie en Rose. I haven't seen that one yet, but Mongol definitely deserved the nomination. Check this one out for sure.
Grade: A
You ever watch a movie and come away feeling that something just ain't right about it? 88 Minutes did that to me. It's an entertaining two hours, but acted like a diversion while someone robbed me.The movie is a Pacino flick that fits squarely into the thriller genre. He plays a forensic psychologist who gets a phone call from Mr. Heavy Breath saying he's got 88 minutes to live. What is a forensic psychologist? I'm certain they just made it up. CSI has made forensics cool and that helps psychologists - who are still dull and boring unless they are talking to mobsters.
Whenever you have a title like 88 Minutes, there had better be a good reason for it. I'm happy to say the writers got this right. The number is significant and fits very nicely into the plot.
Unfortunately, I think that's the only thing I can compliment the writers on. The dialog wasn't all that great. There are some recognizable actors in this that only have one or two lines and weren't integral to the story. I'm not sure why they were even in this.
Another is that everything seems forced. The characters don't necessarily act unnaturally, but everyone acts as if their primary motivation is to advance the plot. There were lots of contrived conveniences here.
This one's far from great; far from horrible. Overall, it's forgettable.
Grade: C
The Iraq War is certain to be a topic for movies these days. But it's one I find myself not ready to enjoy. Perhaps it's a little too soon, or maybe it's just not a subject full of much entertainment yet. But movies are supposed to pull emotion out of difficult subjects, so maybe the timing is perfect.
In the Valley of Elah is a movie centered around the war, but not so much about it. It treats it as a fact of life and the story itself could be told in any number of situations.
Tommy Lee Jones plays a dad whose son goes AWOL days after returning from Iraq. There have been plenty of "find my son" movies in the past and this one holds up well. Except for the end that I'll get to later.
The plot is very well told and of course Tommy Lee Jones and Charlize Theron give excellent performances. The writers give you enough information to string you along and the movie had my full attention the whole way through it.
Now I expected the tone of the movie to be anti-war. And it is. But it crosses another line and appears to have an anti-military bend to it. That bothered me as I didn't feel the director didn't need to go there. The plot was strong enough on its own that I didn't need him injecting his own thoughts into scenes.
That all culminates at the end.
The character Tommy Lee Jones plays is well defined in the movie. He's a man of character, with some very notable flaws. However, in the last scene, the director strips all that character away and replaces it with himself. This causes Tommy Lee Jones to do something that was really unnecessary. It made me angry and really turned me off of the rest of the movie. Which is sad because the rest is so very good.
So I don't know how to recommend this. One the one hand, it has a great story you will probably enjoy. But the end put me in a really bad mood.
I think I'm going to tip the scales to the negative. If you've seen this, let me know what you thought of the last scene.
Grade: C-
With Halloween fast approaching, I thought it appropriate that I watch something scary. Since I don't do well with horror flicks, I thought watching the Rolling Stones in HD would qualify.
So I got interested in Shine a Light when I heard Scorsese was directing it. But the final product turned out way different than I was expecting. I had hoped Scorsese would chronicle the Stones through one of their tours. Instead, I just got a single benefit concert. That's not a bad thing by any means, but filming a single concert is kind of a waste of talent for a director of that caliber.
The best part of the whole movie is right at the beginning where Scorsese is trying to coordinate how the concert will be filmed. The Stones pay very little attention to the man and I can only imagine how painful that must have been after years of actors following his lead. It all culminates with Scorsese getting the set list minutes before the concert starts. It's pretty funny.
So as a concert, it's pretty good. Of course that'll depend on how much you like the Stones. But if you do, the guys still know how to put on a show and all the songs still sound great. They do lose points for putting "Paint it Black" in the bonus features instead of the main film, but at least it's there.
Grade: B
Outside of a Geico commercial, have cavemen been a huge source of entertainment? Yeah, there was that Brendan Fraser movie, but that doesn't count because of Pauly Shore.Well, the guy who made Independence Day thought there might be a story, but halfway through the movie he realized there wasn't anything there. And like a good director that only has part of a story, what does he do? Ad-lib, of course.
Let me explain. When I think of 10,000 years before Christ, I think of men dressed in furs hunting woolly mammoths and saber-tooth tigers. It's like Dances With Wolves with bigger tatankas. And that's exactly how the movie starts out. There's a tribe of people up in the frozen tundra (possibly Green Bay) trying to make a living on mammoth steaks.
But then, tragedy strikes. Members of the tribe are kidnapped by raiders, bound in metal shackles, and transported to Egypt. Now let's disect that...
I'm no expect in metallurgy, but I've never heard of cavemen miners. Sort of makes all that bone useless, don't it? And from what I recall, mammoths and saber-tooth tigers were up in Siberia. That's a long ways from Egypt. And since no one ages in the movie, I'm guessing the director assumed we knew nothing of geography. It is an American movie, so he gets a pass for that.
But here's where I lost it. Let's assume the Iron Age happened a few thousand years early, and let's assume the ancient barbarians were all Egyptian. Even if I take all that, there is absolutely no way I'm going to believe the mammoths were domesticated and built the pyramids.
No, 10,000 B.C. Just no.
Grade: F
There seems to be this sub-genre of British Heist movies hitting us from across the Pond. Starting with Robin Hood, it seems as if the Brits have this fascination with thievery. Or perhaps that's just the stuff they export over here 'cause we're the ones who like the five-finger discount.The Bank Job is your typical bank-robbery-gone-bad-but-not-in-the-way-we-expected-to movie. In fact, it's so typical I was bored out of my mind for the first half.
Supposedly the movie is based on a true story in the 70s. Someone had some risque photos stored in a bank deposit box that needed to be dealt with. That's fine and all, but the parts before and during the actual "bank job" are pretty freakin dull. The movie tries to manufacture some suspense during the job, but I couldn't tell if those things actually happened, or if the director just realized the robbery was historically boring and needed a little spicing up.
Things begin to pick up once the crew finds something of interest in the vault and I found myself paying more attention. Parts are good, but the ending just kind of left things unsettled. Then, to top it all off, the final credits say that the events are true but the names have all been changed "to protect the guilty." That makes me think I'd find more truth in the Wikipedia article.
As you can see, Jason Statham is in this. He and lots of other people with accents are good enough for the genre. Not bad, but not great. Just like the movie.
Grade: C+
What makes a good Western? If I had to narrow it down to three things, I'd say a good gunfight, a train/stagecoach robbery, and Clint Eastwood. Since Mr. Eastwood has gone behind the camera these days, it's up to others to fill his saddle. In Appaloosa, Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen take the reigns.As a genre, Westerns rarely drift from the Lone Ranger type of hero. In many of Clint Eastwood's movies, he rarely had a name. This all helped define the cowboy archetype - rugged, stoic, and alone. The tagline in Appaloosa's poster even says, "Feelings get you killed." As you can tell, we're in familiar territory here.
And this is where Appaloosa shines. With Ed and Viggo playing typical cowboys, Renee Zellweger comes along and turns this into a character study. Where most Westerns take the Cowboy as a given and go forth on a good vs. evil story, Appaloosa actually examines the psyche of the Cowboy...in the middle of a good vs. sort of gray story. This all results in a slower paced movie, but I enjoyed the ride.
Like always, Jeremy Irons plays the villian. But he does a great job giving his character a personality without slipping into Jeremy Irons. I wish all actors were that good.
If you're in the mood for a Western, this one's solid. Not perfect, but certainly worth your two hours. Ed Harris directed and there are some shots that are simply brilliant. Definitely watch this if you love great cinematography.
Grade: B+
Remember Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? Or Hero? Or House of Flying Daggers? All are fantastic Asian movies that you need to see at least once in your life. So color me surprised when I found out The Forbidden Kingdom is nothing like them. Instead, you are just one "Eye of the Tiger" short of a cheesy 80s movie.The movie starts out ok by filling in your typical Asian backstory of an evil ruler coming to power. But soon after, things jump to present day and introduce us to our hero. I have no idea who the kid is, but he's obviously the guy you call when you can't get Shia LeBeauf. And no, that's not a compliment.
Anyway, by some "crazy random happenstance" our hero ends up with a magic staff just as Cobra Kai shows up to beat his whiney ass in slow motion. Shia Jr. is saved by magically teleporting to ancient China - a land where everyone speaks and understands English and who pay no attention to the white kid wandering around town.
You can probably tell where this is going. Those of you who grew up in the 80s definitely know where this is going, so I'll just leave it there. Instead, I should talk about Jackie Chan and Jet Li - the whole freaking reason this movie got made. At least I'm hoping that's the case and not some director's dream of making Karate Kid 7.
Right off the bat, Jackie Chan is awesome. He plays a Drunken Master and plays it well. It's one of those roles where he looked like he was having fun in every scene. That alone got me through this.
Jet Li is, well, Jet Li. Like the rest of his movies, he doesn't say much. He just jumps around and kicks some ass. And honestly, I'm ok with that.
If I were a kid today, I might look at this movie like I do The Neverending Story (you're welcome for getting that song stuck in your head). But as an adult (sorta) expecting classy Asian cinema, oh man was this a disappointment.
Grade: C-
In preparation for Quantum of Solace (the next Bond flick), I watched Casino Royale again. I hadn't seen it since the theaters and it was nice to remember what made this such a great movie.Back in '06, I had a lot of doubts about Hollywood rebooting the Bond series. Casino Royale squashed just about every one of those. Daniel Craig made an excellent Bond and the rest of the characters were perfectly suitable. The villain even cried blood. Can't do much better than that.
I also enjoyed the fact that the character is now going through a contiguous story arc. In the previous movies, you could pretty much count on them having very little relation to the others. Quantum of Solace picks up right where Casino Royale left off, continuing not just the main plot, but also the emotional journey of Bond. He seems more like a real character now and I'm hoping for good things in the sequel.
Now two years old, it's interesting to see the Texas Hold 'Em scenes not holding up very well. It caused some minor ripples in the fan base when Bond ditched Baccarat for Poker, but the game was hot back then, so I didn't mind. Now that the fad is fading, I think the scene may have been better with Baccarat.
There also weren't any typical Bond gadgets in the film. Even watching a second time, it didn't bother me. But I am hoping for some sort of tech in Quantum. Maybe not as campy as in previous movies, but something that should be out in five years would be cool to see.
So if you're excited to see Quantum of Solace next month, definitely rent this to freshen up your memory. If you've never seen it, you need to. The intro chase scene is one of the best ever.
Grade: A-
Oh man was I wrong about this one. This is one hilarious movie. Non-stop laughs for two hours. Mike Meyers is a genius that should be emblazened in the annals of history as a comic genius. And Verne Troyer. Oh man. There's no one better-
OK enough of this nonsense. This movie is pure garbage. Seriously. Mike Meyers ran out of jokes four movies ago. Yet for some reason he's still getting paid to tell them every year, just in a different costume.
The Love Guru has Mr. Meyers playing Austin Powers as an Indian Self-help Guru. Verne Troyer plays a hockey coach for the Toronto Maple Leafs. Why? Because Mike Meyers is a huge Leafs fan. Can't fault him for that, really. But I can fault him for having a scene with Rob Blake taking a faceoff at center ice with the game tied and six seconds left. So not only does Mike insult us with his comedy, he insults our hockey knowledge, too.
And about that comedy. Most of the jokes you've heard before. The new stuff centers around the "guru" making new phrases out of words. Like "Guru" becomes:
Gee
yoU
aRe
yoU
And "Bible" becomes:
Basic
Instructions
Before
Leaving
Earth
I think I learned that one when I was six. Well, Mike, I got a new one for you:
Comedy
Recycled from
Austin
Powers
Not even a cameo by Jim Gaffigan could save this.
Grade: F
Anyone know why we had a Speed Racer movie this summer? I don't remember it ever being popular, even when I was a kid. I just watched it because it came on after Robotech. It did have a cool car, so I'll give it that.There was only one reason I had any interest in seeing Speed Racer... the style. Yes, 100% green screen movies are pretty common now, but this is the Wachowski brothers. They did some pretty amazing things with The Matrix, so I had hopes they could do something unique with this, despite the subject matter.
Before HD, there was one movie that everyone bought to show off their new TV - The Fifth Element. Why? If you needed a reason other than "multi-pass," the movie had the most vibrant colors that even a crappy TV looked good. I'm guessing many LCDs and Plasmas will be showing Speed Racer at the next CES. The movie is gorgeous. If any of you just bought a new HDTV, throw this in to impress your guests. Just be sure to have the sound muted.
OK, the story ain't that bad. Every scene of dialog is just setup for the next race, so while it's not great, there isn't enough plot to make it horrible. Just the look of the tracks will keep most of you interested. It held my tiny brain captive, anyway.
Since I can only recommend this based on its style, there's probably not many of you interested. So when it runs on HBO next year and you're flipping channels. Stay for a bit and watch. Your eyes will thank you.
Grade: C+
As you know, Iron Man was one of the big summer movies this year. I happen to miss it which earned me much ridicule from my friends. For months I've had to endure "you still haven't seen Iron Man" in weekly intervals. So when it was finally released on DVD/Blu-Ray this past week, I was excited that my wait would soon be over. Then, when Netflix shipped me the Blu-Ray on Friday, the small chamber of my heart where Giddiness reigns created a squeal of delight that caused a small amount of discomfort for the neighbor's dogs.I know as much about Iron Man as I do the Tin Man. Maybe a bit less. But that allows me to look at the movie with a fresh perspective. While I had some high expectations about the quality of the film, I had none regarding the actual story, canon, or universe of Iron Man.
What I noticed immediately is that Marvel is respecting their characters when they make the jump from comic to movie. I guess it started with X-Men or Spider-Man, but the movies today refreshingly lack the campiness of the comic book movies of the past. I'm hoping we never have to go back to the George Clooney Batman flicks ever again.
Jon "You're So Money" Favreau takes the helm of Iron Man and does a brilliant job. He's able to place a super hero in our world while still keeping things within the boundaries of what can be accepted as believable. The story is sort of typical super hero stuff, but it's a formula I still enjoy watching.
Definitely see this if you haven't. You might even become a fan of Robert Downey Jr.
Grade: B+
Beverly Hills Chihuahua opens today. If you've seen the trailer, enjoy this:
Thanks Rifftrax. That made my day.
How well do you like biopics? I tend to enjoy them, but only on the same level as a documentary. I get more out of the history than I do of the actual story. Usually that's because they tend to follow a formula. So much so that you can set your watch to the point where drugs enter the scene, or the character breaks up with the love interest. In any other movie that causes a two-hour bore-fest. But for me, the nuggets of history keep me engrossed.Music Within tells the story of the guy that started the American with Disabilities Act. Maybe not the actual act, but he got the ball rolling so that it was an election issue in 1988. What I found so fascinating (and maybe a bit disturbing) is that I remember most of the late 80s, yet for some reason I thought the ADA was something that came out of the 60s. I must have been too busy jamming on my Casio keyboard to care.
The movie stars Ron Livingston. You know him as the guy from Office Space. That movie holds such a special place in my heart that any other movie starring someone from it automatically gets bonus points.
If you end up renting this (and you should at some point), be sure to watch the bonus features. There's a talk given by the guy the movie is based on where he describes his life. All the events are in the movie, but to hear him actually tell the story is fantastic. It adds a whole new element to his fascinating life.
This is also one of those movies designed with the soundtrack in mind. It's filled with classic tunes from the 60s and 70s. Had they released the soundtrack just as a classic rock compilation, it may have made more money than the movie.
I'd bet most of you have already made up your minds about renting this. It's an interesting story I knew nothing about, so I enjoyed it. If you need a good biopic to watch, this'll do nicely.
Grade: B
A few years ago, a story came out about a group of MIT students who raked in millions by beating the odds at Blackjack. They didn't cheat at all. Instead, they used a fascinating system to maximize the odds in their favor. 21 is Hollywood's take on that story - an obvious cause for concern.If you don't know how the system works, the movie does a pretty good job of explaining it. Since I did, some scenes got a little tedious, but if you know nothing about it, they shouldn't be a problem. If anything, you'll come away thinking you and your Texas Hold 'Em buddies can pull this off in Vegas. Hollywood has a habit of leaving out important realities. Please keep that in mind. Otherwise, tell Vito I tried to warn you.
Unfortunately, 21 doesn't fill the cast with actual MIT students, so you get sexy, waify twenty-somethings who hold graphing calculators upside down and wonder where the Bejeweled button is. The main guy is the same dude from Across the Universe and I apologize for yet another rant about that crapfest, but 21 ends with a complete bastardization of a Rolling Stones tune. It's like the guy hates love and only stars in movies that feast on the soul of classic rock. You wanna talk about typecasting. Doogie Howser is in paradise compared with this guy.
Enough about that. Even though the movie drips all things bad about Hollywood, the film's worth seeing. Yes, the ending blows. Yes, things are too predictable. So put on your mental filters beforehand and pull out the true story. You'll enjoy it.
Grade: B-
Cloverfield has been sitting in my Netflix queue for an eternity and it finally showed up in 1080p goodness this weekend. Was it worth the wait? Not exactly.As we all know by now, Hollywood has this love affair with reinventing old stories. JJ Abrams (who you know from LOST and Alias, also did Cloverfield) is reinventing Star Trek later this year (yes, with the Kirk and Spock crew). Cloverfield is just a reinvention of Godzilla. Some may disagree with that since it's set in New York and the monster is different, but it's basically the same story...just without the charm.
When the Blair Witch Project came out, people loved its style. Then, when they actually saw it, those same people threw up in the theaters from all the Shaky-Cam nonsense. I'm not sure why JJ Abrams decided to do a Godzilla movie with the Blair Witch Shaky-Cam. At home, it wasn't too bad to watch, but I can think of a few scenes that would have been painful in the theater. Note to Hollywood: I really wish that fad would fade.
So you can go two directions with a disaster movie. You can focus all the attention on the destruction and let some special effects artists earn a raise. Or, you can try to create a story in and around the distaster and hope it's good. Usually, we don't see that route taken by directors because the stories are crap. Always.
Cloverfield stumbles on both paths. A monster attacking New York is great for special effects. In fact, I've seen that city destroyed so many times in movies, I'd bet every inch of it has been digitized. Unfortunately, the monster doesn't get much screen time. This means the action has to center around the poorly crafted love story. The motivations behind dragging these idiots around Midtown are flimsy, at best.
The biggest problem is that nothing is explained and nothing is resolved. It's like you took a book and ripped out the first and last five chapters. You get the gist of the story, but with no supports on the ends, it collapses on itself.
Most of you have probably seen this by now. What did you think?
Grade: C+
Back when The Number 23 was released, the Internet Prophets of Doom began shouting, "This movie sucks!" - "Jim Carrey's career is OVER!!!" - "First!" - "I like Angelina Jolie!!!!11"Checking out RottenTomatoes.com, the movie is sitting at 8%. And yes, it's that bad.
Let's start with flaw #1. As you can see from the poster, Jim Carrey goes crazy in this. Having a character go from normal to crazy in 90 minutes is a tough challenge. I'm assuming it's tough, because so few movies do it right. Remember that scene from Episode III?
Anakin: I just killed Jedi Master Samuel L Jackson. I'm ready to serve you.
Emperor: Excellent. Go kill some kids.
Anakin: Yes, of course.
The Number 23 has the same problem. Jim Carrey goes crazy because he reads an odd coincidence in a book, then decides he needs to kill someone. Those types scenes are unbelievable because no one acts like that. Which brings me to flaw #2, which is sort of related to Flaw #1.
Characters should not realize they are in a piece of fiction and do things no one would ever do in reality. You notice this when the writer lets his characters get away from the plot, so they must do something completely illogical, unnatural, or just plain stupid to advance the story. You could make a drinking game for the amount of times this happens here.
And lastly, the grandaddy of all flaws. Want to know what's so special about the number 23? Well too bad Mr. Needy. You don't need to know that kind of detail. But you say the movie is named after it and therefore must be important? No stupid, that's just a trigger to get Jim Carrey to kill someone. It could have been 42 or blue or even Pooh Bear. It's not important, so just deal, ok?
Yeah, this is as bad as everyone says it is.
Grade: F
What an odd history Afghanistan has had these past twenty years. In a very short amount of time, you've got the Soviets, the Taliban, and Bin Laden. No wonder everyone is telling stories about the place.Charlie Wilson's War takes a look at the Afghanistan of the 1980s. Billy Joel tells us that's when we got "Russians in Afghanistan." While you were more concerned with Wheel of Fortune and Sally Ride, the highlight reel of the Cold War was being filmed in Kabul.
The movie takes a very light tone with the subject. This is great as a little sarcasm helps cover the fact that we had basically three guys fund a war against the Soviets. Let that sink in a bit before your thoughts wander back to Vanna White.
Looking at the poster, you know right away that the cast is superb. But still, Tom Hanks and Phillip Seymore Hoffman play their best characters ever. They have a chemistry that even rivals the Scrubs musical episode. Seriously, if you've never heard "Guy Love," make it a priority to do so. Stat.
If you missed this one in the theaters (like I think a lot of people did), it's definitely worth checking out.
Oh, and this is my 100th post. Sweet.
Grade: A
All this time and I have yet to talk about Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. Just how awful is my oversight? Dr. Horrible is the greatest thing to you and the internet since Google.The movie runs 45 mins (in three acts) and stars Neil Patrick Harris as a mad scientist, with a video blog, and his attempts to join the Evil League of Evil. Oh, and it's a musical.
"But John," you say. "Across the Universe made me hate all musicals - past, present, and future." I understand. Believe me, I do. But this is a "Sing-Along" musical which means these songs will bring joy and wonderment - not bile and vomit.
Despite its awesomeness, Dr. Horrible is an important step in entertainment. You see, back during the Writer's Strike, Joss Whedon got some friends together and made this piece of genius on the cheap. But instead of releasing it via normal channels (TV, Theater, DVD, etc), he released it on the internet, for free.
Right now, I watch about 90% of my TV online. I'm *this* close to canceling cable and probably will by year-end. Granted, I'm not normal...but I like to think I'm living in the future of entertainment medium. Dr. Horrible is, hopefully, the first step of many.
You need to watch this. Multiple times. Go now to Hulu.com.
Grade: A+
How does Uwe Boll do it? He's easily the worst director of our time (though Michael Bay comes close), yet he gets an incredible list of actors to star in his "movies." I mean look at that poster. You recognize everyone on it. And right now you're asking yourself why Jason Statham is starring in a crappy fantasy movie. I asked the same thing.And it's just not those four. You will recognize nearly every actor in this. It's like there was a bet around Hollywood on whether or not Lord of the Rings would be a success. Everyone that lost had to star in a crappy fantasy flick from Uwe Boll. It's the only possibility I can think of.
So what exactly is this star-studded yarn? It's a crappy fantasy movie. Actually, it's not that bad. In fact, it's Uwe Boll's best movie to date (the fact that I've seen more than one should be an indication that I'm behind on my medication). Seriously. None of the major characters disappear in the middle of the story, and most of the plotlines have a resolution. It's almost like a real movie.
Of course, the camera edits are bad. The dialog is laughably stupid. And the acting is horrid - especially Ray Liotta. Someone needs to make a drinking game for every time Ray makes a "What the hell am I doing here" expression. Jason Statham does a decent job for what it is. But my favorite was Ron Pearlman who should have starred as Hellboy. Would have made for a better movie, methinks.
So next time you gather a bunch of friends around for a Friday Night Crapfest, watch this. Make sure the beer is flowing, though. It'll help. A lot.
Grade: C (Yeah, it really wasn't that bad)
My Babylon A.D. rant spurred my friend to invite me over for a Fast & Furious Trilogy night. Three films about cars that may have been better if they'd been done like Pixar's Cars.
Let's bust these out in order:
The Fast and the Furious - First off, if you go into this expecting high drama, you're an idiot. In Vin Diesel's "Book of Badassery," it says that Vin Diesel don't do drama. Vin Diesel may steal the plot to Point Break, but Vin Diesel don't do drama. Got it?
Second, this movie is about cars. Real cars. After watching, you may find Greenpeace members spontaneously twitching in the street.
2 Fast 2 Furious - Holy crap this is awful. You know how you can put sugar in a gas tank to make a car sputter and die? With this, they added additives of Lame.
Paul Walker, or God's gift to hair product, is back. But Vin Diesel got replaced by Tyrese Gibson, proving that Vin was the smarter of the two. Oh and the series moved to Miami for absolutely no good reason.
So if you look over the checklist, that's crappy acting, crappy plotline, crappy driving, and crappy location.
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift - For the third movie, the director ditched every concept from the first two movies. All new actors, all new location (guess where), all new cars, and all new driving (drifting). And you know what? It's the best of the three.
OK, yeah, calling it the best is like saying Unagi is better than Uni to someone who hates sushi, but for sushi lovers (and lovers of candy-coated cinema), this flick's not bad. Of course, it could be that my subconscience was telling me that the torture was nearing its end, but I like to think that I got a little enjoyment of watching cars skid around corners.
So the final Grades:
The Fast and the Furious: C
2 Fast 2 Furious: D-
Tokyo Drift: B-
Let's bust these out in order:
The Fast and the Furious - First off, if you go into this expecting high drama, you're an idiot. In Vin Diesel's "Book of Badassery," it says that Vin Diesel don't do drama. Vin Diesel may steal the plot to Point Break, but Vin Diesel don't do drama. Got it?
Second, this movie is about cars. Real cars. After watching, you may find Greenpeace members spontaneously twitching in the street.
2 Fast 2 Furious - Holy crap this is awful. You know how you can put sugar in a gas tank to make a car sputter and die? With this, they added additives of Lame.
Paul Walker, or God's gift to hair product, is back. But Vin Diesel got replaced by Tyrese Gibson, proving that Vin was the smarter of the two. Oh and the series moved to Miami for absolutely no good reason.
So if you look over the checklist, that's crappy acting, crappy plotline, crappy driving, and crappy location.
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift - For the third movie, the director ditched every concept from the first two movies. All new actors, all new location (guess where), all new cars, and all new driving (drifting). And you know what? It's the best of the three.
OK, yeah, calling it the best is like saying Unagi is better than Uni to someone who hates sushi, but for sushi lovers (and lovers of candy-coated cinema), this flick's not bad. Of course, it could be that my subconscience was telling me that the torture was nearing its end, but I like to think that I got a little enjoyment of watching cars skid around corners.
So the final Grades:
The Fast and the Furious: C
2 Fast 2 Furious: D-
Tokyo Drift: B-
Those of you who have been reading these reviews know that I enjoy character studies. I like looking into the wounds of the past and seeing how they affect the actions of the present. It allows opportunities to explore subjects that might be too difficult through any other medium.Lars and the Real Girl is such a movie. It tries to tackle extreme loneliness and isolation resulting from past childhood wounds. By necessity, the movie takes a fairly light tone and usually pokes fun of itself. It's quirky but not in the "Hey I'm an Indie movie" kind of quirky. For the most part, it gets things right.
The basic plot is that Lars buys a lifesize doll and pretends she's his real girlfriend. Remember that movie from the 80s where the store mannequins come to life and some guy falls in love with one? It's like that, except the mannequin stays plastic. And Roxette didn't do the soundtrack.
Lars is played by Ryan Gosling. The range he shows in Lars proves how great of an actor he is. I've liked him in other stuff I've seen, but not once did I think I was watching "that guy from The Notebook." I'm looking forward to more stuff from him.
Overall, the movie does a pretty good job and making you feel for Lars and his fake girlfriend. I was fine with things up until the end when the movie decided to take itself way too seriously. Those of you who have seen this probably know what I'm talking about. While Lars may have had a problem distinguishing real from fake, I had no problem at all remembering that his girlfriend was a doll. When the director starts thinking that I've forgotten that fact, problems ensue. I won't spoil it for ya, but you might be tempted to scream, "Come on!! She's a doll!!" at your TV.
Just on the subject matter alone, this might be worth a rental. It's not perfect, but at least they don't completely screw it up.
Grade: B-
On the whole, I like Vin Diesel movies. Sure, they're not great, but he portrays this sort of masculinity that's not been seen since Chuck Norris. The kind that makes you stand in the theater and yell, "That's testosterone, bitches!!!" Try it when you go see his next one. Don't worry about feeling embarrassed. It's a Vin Diesel movie, the place will be empty.And that highlights Vin's problem. He's great at picking movies with interesting worlds and backdrops, but the plotlines lack focus. Just take a look at the Riddick movies for an example.
So does Babylon A.D. break the trend? Sadly, no. In many ways, it's worse.
For the first two-thirds, the movie's not bad. It's a simple story of "get the girl to New York" but it's got a Cyberpunk feel to keep things interesting. Sure, it's ripped off of Blade Runner, but if you're gonna rip something off, might as well be the best, right?
But here's where the (plagairized) world building falls apart. Vin meets several characters along the journey that he seems to have a connection with. I expected all that to be revealed over the course of the movie, culminating to a satisfactory ending. Afterall, that's how stories work. Instead, we get a completely new plot in the last act. Seriously, there comes a point towards the last half hour where everything after it has no connection to what came before. It's bad. I'm talking Hancock bad. My friend and I sat through the credits trying to figure out what the writer/director were going for. I think we got it figured out, but man did they screw it up.
So yeah, skip this.
Grade: D
Labor Day has passed so it's time to see how well the Summer movies turned out.
The big winner, of course, was The Dark Knight. Over the weekend, it passed the $500M mark, making it the #2 movie of all time. Titanic is over $600M and there's not many big movies in the fall to slow Batman down. It might take it.
Two other movies crossed the $300M mark: Iron Man and Indiana Jones. Iron Man comes out on DVD in two weeks, so I can finally watch it. I hear it's awesome.
Here's the Top 10 Breakdown:
1. The Dark Knight --- $506M (and counting)
2. Iron Man --- $318M
3. Indiana Jones --- $316M
4. Hancock --- $227M
5. Wall-E --- $218M
6. Kung Fu Panda --- $214M
7. Horton Hears a Who (really?!) --- $155M
8. Sex and the City --- $153M
9. Prince Caspian --- $142M
10. The Incredible Hulk --- $135M
The Dark Knight and Wall-E were my favs of the summer. How 'bout you?
(thanks to BoxOfficeMojo for the data)
Hey all,
Sorry for the lack of reviews. I've been out traveling this week. I'll be out next week as well, so there won't be many updates. Unless, of course, there's something interesting on the flight.
I may have something this weekend. Otherwise, I'll catch you in September.
Die Fälscher won the Oscar this year for best foreign language film. In English, the title is The Counterfeiters. I don't know why they changed it because Die Fälscher is much cooler to say, especially if you do your best Schwarzenegger impression. Try it. You agree with me now, don't ya?As you may have guessed, the movie comes out of Austria and is about a Jewish counterfeiter in Nazi Germany. As far as Holocaust movies go, it's nice to have a story that's unique. I haven't checked, but it seemed like a true story, so that makes it all the more interesting.
Another fascinating aspect is that the main character, the Jewish counterfeiter, is a jerk. In most other WW2 movies, the Jews are portrayed as gentle victims. The guy is a victim here as well, but when the Nazis comes busting down his door, we're not exactly talking about Anne Frank, if you know what I mean.
But, of course, this sets you up for a great character journey. Since this isn't a Hollywood movie, you don't get a Hollywood ending. Instead, you get a real, natural, human ending. By the credits, I had an emotional connection with the guy and I got to wondering what I would do if I were put in his shoes. Few movies do that and it's nice to come across those that do.
This is obviously a serious drama, so make sure you're in the mood for it. And for a bit of reading, unless you speak German. But definitely catch this one in the near future.
Grade: A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
