John's Movie Musings

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

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-

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-

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