Movies? We don't need no stinking movies!

Harry Potter Finale on the Way: Rating the Potter actors Part 1

2011-07-13T17:07:00.000-07:00

I was thinking that with the final of the eight films on the way this summer a little run down of the casting and how well they have done through the years would be in order. If nothing else I thought it would entertain myself and perhaps a little bit entertaining to you other people out there.

Michael Gambon/Richard Harris (Albus Dumbledore)
One of the only casting changes in the film and this one was only done because, sadly, Richard Harris died between movies. I will be honest, I don't love either one of these guys in the role although both of them obviously are fantastic actors. I don't think either of them fully embodied what Dumbledore really was although both of them pull of some of those traits well. Richard Harris was better in some ways, Gambon in others. Harris was closer in the sense that he was unflappable and unperturbed by anything and everything, but in all honesty he was to old and frail to play the role fully. He was just not physically imposing enough to emote the charisma and bearing that Dumbledore had. I could never see Harris putting on the asskicking boots ever and I don't think I could have bought a wizard's duel between he and Voldemort. Gambon has that in spades, and in the last movies really pulled off some of Dumbledore's more comedic lines as well. But on the whole he plays the character a little too...emotional and raw at times for my tastes.

Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy)
Felton went through the most dramatic physical change of any of the actors in the film, I think. Between films he changed so drastically that I really just couldn't believe that it was the same kid. Overall he has done a very good job. He was perfectly smarmy to a tee in the earlier movies, and plays the older darker, yet not quite deatheater dark Malfoy quite well. He pulls off the character playing it as one that believes he has huge amounts of entitlement but not much self-confidence to really go with it.

Jason Isaacs (Lucius Malfoy)
Isaacs was one of the people I was most excited to see cast. I don't know why, but I have always been a fan of his. Even when he is playing a character that isn't evil, he just always seems to radiant a cold, calculating, pompous, evil aura. I think it has something to do with his eyes. But mostly, I was just excited because in one of those conversations people always have before the movies came out, I picked him as the perfect choice to play Lucius. I think he is doing a fine job. He plays the early Lucius well, but is a good enough actor to convincingly pull off the emotional chance Lucius makes towards the end.

Domhnall Gleason (Bill Weasley)
A fairly minor character on the whole in the books, and an incredibly minor character so far in the movie. A big fail on this one. Bill is supposed to be Rockstar cool. The coolest one in the family. This guy is not remotely that. Actually he kind of looks like a guy the twins would have pranked mercilessly then beat with a bludger bat.

Thor Movie Review 8/10!

2011-06-08T13:10:00.000-07:00

Originally I was kind of skeptical when I saw that Kenneth Branagh. I really just wasn't sure what I thought about him directing a superhero action movie. Branagh has only directed his Shakespearean stuff and a version of The Magic Flute. Not exactly a the kind of resume that makes me think he can deliver on a high budget, action heavy, special effects smorgasboard. Then it hit me. Branagh is the perfect guy to direct Thor. Thor is Shakespearean. You have father/son issues, you have a jealous brother, you have treachery. Thor really is something like Hamlet with super powers. Lots of directors can get action right, but it takes a special kinda director to see those elements in a film and know how to bring them out WITH the action.

I really liked the Thor movie, despite the fact it had Natalie Portman in it. (just not a fan, I just don't see her as very talented, and I don't think she is attractive either) The casting was excellent. Anthony Hopkins as Odin is just freaking awesome, but where the casting really shines is with Thor and Loki. Chris Hemsworth was perfect for Thor. Much like Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark, I just completely bought him lock, stock, and barrel as the god of thunder. He just looks and acts the part. He SHOULD be a huge action star, but he wouldn't have been such a success in this film if the role of Loki wasn't cast just as well. Tom Hiddleston is fantastic. He is everything that Thor is not, dark to his blond, slender to his muscular, crafty and wily to Thor's brute strength. Hiddleston plays this incredibly well. Loki is a reason why Branagh was perfect for this movie. He sells him as a somewhat oily, but not evil character in the beginning that has a tragic twist that plunges him into the throes of despair. He sells Loki as a tragic character, rather than one of pure malignant evil. At times, I felt sorry for him, I could see how he made the decisions he made, even if I didn't agree with them. That is an indication that a villain has been done well, we know why he is the villain, rather than just being told he is the villain.

All in all, I can't recommend Thor enough. It looks great, is well acted, and is as entertaining a summer movie as you will find.

Battle:Los Angeles 7/10!

2011-03-29T12:35:00.000-07:00

Black Hawk Down meets Independence Day with a little bit of District 9 thrown in. That's exactly what it is. This film was incredibly derivative of those titles. BUT, thats not really such a bad thing. I liked all of these films, and I enjoyed this mashup of the three. Blackhawk Down is one of the few movies I have ever seen that really created a sense of tension in me. It makes me feel like my blood pressure is rising. It's a very tense film. Battle: Los Angeles establishes that same sort of tension in me. It is a very visceral movie, filmed almost exclusive with hand held cameras, and artificially produced news footage. Those of you that get motion sick should probably avoid it however. Because it appears to be almost entirely shot with hand cameras it very shakey, like Cloverfield, or Blair witch project. I myself got a little nauseous during it, just do to the way the camera shook. Thats not a criticism of the film, its just a style choice, just a warning to those that might have trouble with this type of film. I knew several people who had that issue with Cloverfield and Blair Witch, and this one is more action oriented, and more likely to cause a problem in that regard.

This movie doesn't really bring anything knew to the table, pretty standard military drama except for the aliens. It is fairly well acted, Aaron Eckhert is always someone I enjoy, and the rest of the cast was at least competent. The one person I don't understand is Michelle Rodriguez. She routinely gets cast in films, and I really don't think she brings anything to the table. The movies she are in are good sometimes despite her, not because of her. The movie does, however, introduce some interesting concepts about the aliens, but they are really only mentioned in passing. They really show the aliens as a faceless enemy. They are pretty scary though, mostly because their weapons are incendiary based rather than ballistic. It's pretty scary when all the injuries are burns, probably do to our inborn fear of fire as a people.

All in all, this film doesn't really bring anything original or new to the table. However, it was still pretty enjoyable, and if your in the mood for a gritty war movie with a science fiction twist I would say go see this. Just take your motion sickness medication.

Paul Movie review 7.5/10!!

2011-03-26T01:23:00.000-07:00

I am unashamedly a huge fan of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. I even follow them on twitter, and actually read what they tweet even. Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz are two of my favorite films, and when you combine that with the fact they were playing a couple of nerds like me in Paul, I was seriously looking forward to this film. I was not disappointed. It's not as brilliant a film as the other aforementioned films, but it was funny, and I enjoyed the nerd moments quite heartily.

This movie is a bit different than their other fair because it is a little more offensive. This guys like satire and spoofing stereotypes and in this one they chose one to make fun off that hits a little to close to home for many people in the bible belt. They chose to poke fun at protestant religious zealotry. I am not convinced the film was completely anti-Christian as much as it was anti-extremist, but, I can see how the argument for either can be made. I think, that, how offended people get by the anti-Christian sentiment depends a little on what kind of Christians you know. The type of Christian made fun of is the Christian that uses by rout arguments to answer anything that doesn't fit into her schema as a perfect fit. To be critical and attack anything that isn't what she believes in, violently and ignorantly. But underneath it all, she is just a superficial hypocrite that desperately wants an excuse to do drugs, swear, and "fornicate" as she puts it. Many people will say that kind of person doesn't exist and they are just trying to label all Christians as this sort of person. Those people, of course, haven't spent much time in NorthEast Arkansas. Perhaps, because I despise seeing this kind of person myself, I took the approach that this film was more that extremes in anything were bad, and there were steps taken to show that a more moderate approach in all views is the better one. The problem is I don't think they made that nearly as clear as they could have. Regardless, I am pretty certain that there isn't much chance that this film is going to piss someone off.

That being said, I still thought the movie was funny, cute, and ended with a feel goody sort of feeling in which every character learned a little more about themselves in the end. The exposure to Seth Rogen was pretty limited, and he didn't have anything to do with the script, which was a good thing. I like him better when he sticks to acting and leaves the writing and directing to someone else. I would recommend this to most any of my nerd friends, but if you have thin skin this one probably isn't for you. It has a lot of aspects to it that would prevent anyone with a good solid background in nerdery from getting a lot of the jokes. It is a bit of a movie that was made for nerds by nerds with a bit of a feel good type story thrown in on top to hook the straights.

Drive Angry Movie Review 4.5/10!

2011-03-25T02:04:00.000-07:00

Generally, this is actually the exact type of movie that I like. It's supposed to be a retro style movie, in the vein of what Robert Rodriguez did with Machete. But it's not tongue in cheek cheesy enough to come across as an homage and its not really filmed in a gritty enough style to match the script. Problem number 1 with this film is that it has Nik Cage in it. I used to not be this way towards him, hell, I used to like him quite a bit, but frankly, he has been phoning it in for awhile. He is terrible in this film. He is getting dangerously close to Corey Feldman type laughability at this stage of his career. Seriously, he has ridden bad mullet hair and weird forced laughter for way to many miles.

There actually were a few things about this movie that liked. The Accountant character (apparently the guy who counts the souls in Hell) was actually really funny and well acted. The chase sequences were also really well done. (I guess with the title there has to be good car scenes) The action in general was pretty actually all pretty bad ass. The problem for me in this film basically breaks down like this. First, it was supposed to be a gritty seventies triple feature kind of movie, but their campy stuff fell flat, and it was filmed entirely to smooth for the suspension of disbelief required to not just shake your head in disbelief at the dialogue. Secondly, Cage just can't act any more. Either that or he just doesn't care anymore, one or the other. And in the end there is one other very large problem for me with this film. This doesn't happen very often, but on the whole this movie was just to vulgar for me. It didn't advance the plot, it wasn't funny, it wasn't part of some overall campy charm. It was just disgustingly vulgar. Even though, with all of the crap, I still kind of enjoyed seeing it, but due to that I could never recommend it to anyone, or watch it again.

Season of the Witch Movie Review 3.5/10!

2011-02-15T12:40:00.001-08:00

When I saw how terrible this movie was doing with critics and fans alike I decided that I had to see it. I was probably going to see it anyway because for some reason I see most everything Nic Cage is in, and because I really like Ron Perlman. But the reviews were so odd a scathing I really wanted to see for myself what all the abuse was about.

When we are watching movies we tend to judge them a bit based on how we saw them. If we see them in theatre we tend to be a bit more scathing of them. If we rent them we tend to be less judgmental but still a little bit critical. If we, say, watch it on Netflix streaming, most of us can get some enjoyment out of stuff thats actually pretty terrible. The problem is Season of the Witch is a pretty decent and entertaining made for me TV movie. It looks and feel like one of the Sy/Fy channels made for sy/fy movies. This would be a fantastic success if this was in fact a made for TV movie. Unfortunately, its not. This was a mainstream release with with a made for TV special effects budget, that sadly, includes a lot of moments that use special effects.

This movie misfires a bit on a few points. I think most of this problem lies with the direction and the script. I actually thought the story was kind of interesting, not very deep, but a fairly interesting concept, but although the story is interesting, there are just parts of it that have problems. This is supposed to be a period piece. Not like A Knights Tale, which is a period piece that is tongue and cheek and uses modern language, and terminology as part of its charm. This is truly supposed to be set during the Crusades. Yet, they drop modern language (mostly swearing) in ways that truly stick out. It doesn't fit the situations, it feels forced, and mostly it just doesn't make any sense. Nic Cage is emotionless, even more so than usual, but this might be because of the less than inspiring dialogue. Ron Perlman is Ron Perlman. Big, imposing, ugly. Just the way I like him. The supporting cast is in general, sub-par. The one thing I liked visually was the terrifying way in which they portrayed the black death. It was, of course, completely inaccurate, but despite that, I think they did a good job about showing how terrible and terrifying this disease was. The disease makeup was the best part of the effects, and that could be because it was apparently actually makeup instead of CGI designed by some kid in his basement.

The effects really were terrible. I don't want to go into to much detail about it because I would have to give away the plot, and I don't want to do that. Seriously, though. I am not using hyperbole when I say its about the same as late night made for TV science fiction. Actually, probably not as good as some of the stuff I have seen. Its probably about Alien Apocalypse level.

All of that being said, if I was bored at home at had gotten this in from Netflix, I would have enjoyed it well enough, just like I enjoy movies on Sy/Fy, but as a mainstream release this was just, production quality wise, inferior to what it should be.

The Green Hornet Movie Review 6.5/10!

2011-01-27T17:46:00.000-08:00

So, the Green Hornet. A classic old school action hero. I resist saying comic book hero, because he really isn't. He got his start as the hero of a radio serial and most people remember him because of the television show, which starred Bruce Lee as Kano. He became a comic book hero well after all of this. That being said, in today's culture he is at best a third tier hero character. He has waned in the public eye and honestly, I think most people probably don't even know who he is. I kind of wonder how many people who only nominally follow comic heroes got him mixed up the Green Lantern, or Green Arrow. My guess is quite of a few of them. That makes this movie quite a risk. Unlike a lot of franchises, this one doesn't really have a large built in fanbase. Actually, it doesn't have much of a fanbase at all.

All that aside, I really did enjoy this film. It compiled a pretty decent cast, although they are really under utilized. I get the feeling that Seth Rogen enjoys hearing the sound of his own voice. Jay Chou is no Bruce Lee, but he does well enough, and he and Rogen seem to play well off of each other. Cameron Diaz isn't much in this movie, her role could have been played by just about anybody. I am not a huge Diaz fan, but the fault is not really her rather than the fact there just really isn't anything special about that role. Generic love interest #3, come on down. Christoph Waltz is very quirky and entertaining, but with him as well, it really felt like he could do so much more.

This movie has some rough edges, and I think the biggest part of it is the lack of a likeable character. Rogen just is kind of a jerk in this movie. Even after he decides to "cleanup" he still is just a jerk. It's Rogen's normal loveable dope character, just take out the loveable part. And since he had a lot of control of this movie, he gave himself LOTS of lines. Way more than was really required. A few times during the film I found myself rolling my eyes and saying "ok lets just get on with it."

That being said, I really did enjoy this movie. Despite the douchebaggery of Rogen's character, I will really felt this hero had a little more of an everyman feel. If you take out the wealthy partying media mogul aspect. It probably has more to do with the fact the Green Hornet had no powers, and no special skills. The one downfall is that it really plays out like a fratguy version of Kickass, which is kind of unfair since the Green Hornet is an old idea, but I could see today's pop culture thinking that sort of thing. Final verdict. See it.

Tron: Legacy Movie Review 7/10!

2011-01-26T18:40:00.000-08:00

Tron is a nerd movie. There is no question about it. It is a movie that has a cult, nerd audience. Not everyone who likes it is a hardcore nerd of course, but most of the hardcore nerds love the original. I am a hardcore nerd, and I have seen the original, but I am one of the exceptions to this rule. So, although I did enjoy this movie quite a bit, and I didn't enjoy it quite as much as a lot of the fans did. It has also been years since I have seen the movie, so I really watched this movie with a pretty clean slate, trying to be as objective as I could. Still, I thought this was a pretty quality film, and I enjoyed it quite a bit.

What this movie does well, it does really well. The grid feels dark and menacing and wondrous, like a surreal world that mimics the real world, which I suppose was the intent. The action scenes are really quite amazing in 3-D, but there are fewer of them than you might expect. The scenes with Tron and with Jeff Bridges after he stops being a hippy are both really good. Now as a comment on Jeff Bridges. In Actuality, he kind of mails this performance in. He is capable or doing a lot more, basically, this character was the Dude, but in Tron world. It was still good of course, because Jeff Bridges is just cool in general, but I really got the feeling that he wasn't really doing anything except being himself. I bet his takes were all done in one shot more or less. It kind of had that feel to it.

Bottom line, this is a pretty decent film. If you liked Tron you will like this one, but this is not the type of film that will transcend genre and be enjoyable to people who are not already a fan of the franchise or the genre.

True Grit Movie Review 9/10!

2011-01-03T10:05:00.000-08:00

A statement I have heard several times in the last few months was "True Grit? That's a movie they shouldn't remake, people should just leave well enough alone." Well, there are two things to address here. Firstly, they are not attempting to remake the movie True Grit, rather this is another adaptation of the novel written by Arkansas Novelist Charles Portis. This happens all the time, people remake novels in a variety of different ways. Secondly, people tend to look at John Wayne with rose colored glasses. His role of Rooster Cogburn is unquestionably the defining role of his career, and the stories of how he labored during filming make it pretty legendary. But the truth his, John Wayne as a person is more iconic than John Wayne the actor was talented. He was a larger than life personality that played the kind of roles that people wanted to root for, and that the country needed. However, he was not the most gifted in terms of raw talent. Jeff Bridges is.

As for the movie, frankly, its fantastic. What I was most surprised about was how funny this movie was. You don't get this from the trailer. Jeff Bridges comic timing is dead on, and the comic dynamic between Matt Damon, Bridges, and newcomer Hailee Steinfield is absolutely fantastic. This film has a small and intimate cast, and they must have spent a lot of time together, because the chemistry between them is rare, and has a very authentic feel to it. Aside from the acting, the movie is also beautifully shot, and creates that sweeping western feel that is much needed, but not always obtained, in creating a great western. It really creates a feeling of being on the trail, and of traversing the wilderness.

As a resident of Arkansas, I am glad to point out that a large part of this movie takes place in Arkansas, and that the town of Jonesboro is mentioned. I kind of like that.

I am keeping this pretty short, because honestly, there isn't much to say. Its a fantastic film, and I don't really want to give much of it away because I want everybody to go see it. SO GO SEE IT!

Due Date Movies Review 6/10!

2010-11-15T14:17:00.000-08:00

Many of you know that I actually don't see many comedies. I don't like them generally, because mostly nowadays it seems that they thrive on presenting one of two character types. A. The character that is just a normal dude, sometimes they have a flaw of some type, maybe they are to nice, or perhaps they have trouble with anger and letting things go, or they can't let go of a girl they were in love with. Regardless of their flaw, they are basically just a normal and decent enough person, and B. The terrible backwards, freakishly weird, and borderline mentally ill character. With A, you get incredibly embarrassing situations that he can't figure out why he deserved to be in them, or why it keeps happening to him, yet they keep happening, making the watcher feel just how uncomfortable and painful it would be in those situations. With B, its much the same thing as A, except the person is completely responsible for all of these terrible things happening to himself, or another person, and completely doesn't understand at all that is mental illness and idiocy is causing all of the trouble. I find this generally to be completely boring, and a bit uncomfortable, which is probably what they are going for.
This movie has both A and B in it. The characters aren't real, in fact there is nothing really believable about them at all. Robert Downey Jr. is a good actor, but, in this role that only makes it watchable, not really good at all. On the whole, this film has some laughs, I did laugh a few times in the theatre, but like I said earlier, I just don't like films that make me laugh because this person is such a sad person, I prefer to laugh because something is witty, not because something is ridiculous. Also, this film tried to force transitions between absurd comedy into drama way to often, and in such a clumsy way that it was actually more humorous than the jokes. I give this movie a 6 because there were some funny moments, and frankly, I do consider comedies in general to have less production value and quality in them, so I tend to rate them purely on amount of laughs pulled in the theatre. The crowd seemed to enjoy it alright, but there weren't as many laughs in the theatre as one might expect from this cast, and this director.

RED movie review 8.3/10!!

2010-10-19T17:47:00.001-07:00

There are a couple of different old people tropes that tend to show up again and again. They have some overlapping similarities, but there is one very distinct difference. Probably the most common is the Obi-wan Kenobi archetype. This is the one where there is an old and wizened person who has the ability to guide a young hero and impart knowledge onto him that will help him deal with a threat that he once could have handled but now can no longer deal with, thus he needs to prepare the young hero to handle the challenge. Generally he imparts his knowledge, but something happens and he either dies or is captured, usually as a means to empower and inspire the young hero, allowing him to ascend to new levels that he could not reach due to reliance on the elders knowledge. Dumbledore in particular is an Obi-wan type, and is probably the next most well known after the original. Actually, he might be more well known, now that I think about it. The other archetype is similar. They generally are wise, and also try to guide the younger hero, preparing him to take up the banner and lead the next generation, however, the difference is this guy is not done kicking ass, as has no plans to go into that peaceful night without putting on the boots and applying it to tail end for extreme affect. I generally refer to this as the Gandalf archetype. This character is generally peaceful, prefers non-violence, and will go out of his way to not do violence. However, if you push him, and it generally takes a lot of pushing, he will gleefully hand you your ass. This guys are awesome because they have been kicking butt for so long they generally aren't intimidated by anyone or anything, and the confidence is generally played out as extreme calm in all stressful situations, which in the end just makes them look like more of a badass. Master Splinter from TMNT is one of those, General Iroh from Avatar: The Last Airbender is a more recent one. It is a regularly used one in comic book and fantasy literature. And without a doubt its probably my absolute FAVORITE archetype period. I just love these guys, and I find them way more interesting than the various young dude hero archetypes.

Perhaps because of my love for the old guys that can give a beat down, I really enjoyed this movie. Its fluff, there isn't much to it, but its entertaining and has something that a lot of action comedies don't. Its actually funny. First off, this movie is good because of the cast, not because of the writing or any particular quality in the movie making. The story is just so so, but the characters have enough decent dialogue to work with. Bruce Willis, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Morgan Freeman, and Mary Louise Parker are what makes this movie entertaining. Mary Louis e was actually my favorite of the lot. She was very funny in her role and really sold the quirky nature of her character. Not to mention she is absolutely freaking hot. It also works well because she is the love interest with Bruce Willis, and although she is smoking hot, she is also of an age with Bruce Willis so it doesn't come across as creepy or unrealistic. There isn't really much to talk about as far as this movie goes, its fun, its got a great cast that work well together, it has good action, and it has good cinematography. If you like these types of movies you will not be disappointed. Oh, and I like Karl Urban in it too, although I might be the only Karl Urban fan in existence other than his mother.

Resident Evil: Afterlife Movie Review 3.5/10!

2010-09-27T17:15:00.000-07:00

I am a gamer, therefore I generally like video game movies, just purely for the nostalgia if for nothing else. I I will admit that I haven't really played any of the current gen RE games, but it seems like a stretch that this series really counts as video game movies. Despite the lack of sticking with the source material, I enjoyed the previous movies just for the zombie killing and Umbrella Corp. evilness. It does not extend to this film.

One thing you have to get right in a film like this is the fight choreography. The opening fight choreography is ABSOLUTELY terrible. Like Ben Affleck/ Jennifer Garner bad from the Daredevil movie. It does get better toward the end but overall its pretty terrible. Seeing as how people are only going to see this because of hot chick zombie killing action, you just have to get that right. The plot is generally pretty secondary in a movie like this, but there are a couple of head scratchers here. First , *spoilers* they depower Alice because I am guessing they wanted to get back to this being survival horror, which apparently they figured they couldn't do with her being kind of all powerful crazy. I don't really have a problem with them doing that, it just felt so out of place and contrived. Secondly, they tried to give us an antagonist with a face, rather than just the mindless zombies that you generally see. That’s also a fine idea, except that he was just as faceless and flavorless as the zombies. He had no real development, and didn't feel like he belonged in the plot at all. They tried to combine two story arcs when there really should have just been the one. Honestly, I am really stretching to analyze this movie, the truth is, its just not very good, even for what it is

Retro Movie Review: Django 6/10!

2010-09-19T18:03:00.000-07:00

This is a movie that many people have never heard of, but it is one of those that has often influenced directors throughout the years. Video games and manga/anime have been particularly influenced through out the years. Trigun, Cowboy Bebop, and Star Wars all have been influenced by this film. In fact the name of Jango Fett is a direct reference to Franco Nero's iconic character. The new animated movie "Rango" with Johnny Depp is almost certainly referencing this film as well. In fact, the new movie Machete even has a character named Django in it. With Rodriguez's general tributes to spaghetti westerns it seems pretty obvious that is a reference to this film.

Regardless of its influential nature, this is not a great a film. Even taking into account the time the film was made, the rating I am giving it is rather generous. This movie is a Spaghetti Western, and there are varying degrees of what a Spaghetti western is. Someone are just made in that style, some of are made in Italy with lots of Italian extras to take advantage of the cheap location. Some are actually made in total with Italian actors and not even done in English. This is one of the latter. There is a subtitled version available but most people are only going to see it in the dubbed version, which honestly, is pretty bad, even for a dub. This movie is famous for about three reasons. One, the name Django itself is just a good one, and it sticks in the head. Two, its probably the most violent movies of its time, and received the Italian equivalent of an NC-17 rating. And third, the images of Django dragging a coffin along behind him. Other than that this is not a fantastic film it is merely a decent one.

Machete Movie Review 8.5/10!

2010-09-16T13:34:00.000-07:00

First of all, I am giving this movie a high score not because this is my type of film, but because it is actually an incredibly well made film. However, that does not mean this movie is for everybody. Actually I wouldn't go so far as to say this movie is even for MOST people. This film most readily makes me think of a movie like "Black Dynamite," and indeed the two are very similar and have many things in common. This film though, has a similar film grain, and look and feel to a film like "Django," where the film and style quality of a movie like "Black Dynamite" more closely resembles a film like "Shaft." Actually there is even a small character named Django in this film, whose line makes a reference to the film as well. What is this film exactly? Is it a serious film? Is it a mocking film? Is it an exploitation film? Is if making fun of exploitation films? Basically all of the above. Robert Rodriguez unquestionably was trying to make a well made film. Sure, it was bloody, and cheesy, and unrealistic, but it was supposed to be. The attention to detail in accomplishing its retro-seventies campiness was quite spectacular actually. The music was excellent, and incredibly well timed with the scenes. The cinematography is excellent. Despite the style and graininess Rodriguez does have a very good talent for framing his scenes and using the minimum amount of technology for the maximum movie making effect.

The acting in this film is pretty darn good. Mostly its character
Guys, being put in roles for who they are and what not. For example, Lindsay Lohan plays a drugged up internet model Lolita. Not exactly a huge stretch to see her in that role. Robert De Niro and Don Johnson are both good in their roles, but their acting is really what gives them appeal in this film. The appeal is just seeing THOSE guys in these absurd roles. Everybody In this film is good in their own quirky little ways. Jeff Fahey plays a good evil jerk with his cold dead eyes. Cheech Marin, Michelle Rodriguez, Jessica Alba, and in particularly Danny Trejo all do their jobs well and contribute to making this oddball of a film work. As I said earlier, this movie isn't for everybody. It also isn't movie making of the quality of, say, an Inglorious Basterds, but it is very much done in that style. It takes that same spaghetti western style and runs with it, but turns it into a modern Mexican exploitation spoof so to speak. Some of the absurd things it says will actually hit pretty close to home in this day and age, but even with that, people should not take its message seriously. Its trying for shocks and laughs, not trying to pound home a political point. If you like the absurd violence and laughs of "Planet Terror" then this film is for you. If you don't like that type of film, then you should run from this film fleeing.

Movies in 3D. When to see them.

2010-08-26T16:52:00.000-07:00

Since about January of 2009 3D has been a pretty bid deal. In that Month My Bloody Valentine came out in 3D drawing a whole lot of attention to the format. Since then there have been lots and lots of movies in 3D. Some of them have been really good (Avatar, Up, How to Train your Dragon) and some have been really really bad. (Clash of the Titans, note this is a judgment on the 3D quality, not the quality of the film) There are some variables that make whether or not to go see a 3D film a good idea or not. First of all, the price is an issue. 3D tickets are more expensive that regular tickets. Secondly, as a matter of technical issues, not all 3D movies are created equal. Generally speaking animated films are better in 3D than live action, that is unless the movie specifically sinks a lot of money into creating the film from the ground up. Part of the reason Avatar was so good in 3D is because most of the really great 3D moments was during the 300 Million dollars worth of CGI. So when you are thinking of seeing it in 3D research the film a bit, and see if it was made for 3D, or if its just a terrible post-production addition like Clash of the Titans. Thirdly, it really depends on the theatre. Theatre screen brightness is measured in a unit called Foot Lambert units. A really good theatre will have its screens showing at about anywhere between 10 and 14 Foot Lamberts. Avatar showed at 4 to 4 1/2 Foot Lamberts on really good screens. Most 3D movies show at about 2 to 3 Foot Lamberts. Thats REALLY dim compared to the regular showing. When compared to the fact that unless a movie theatre is a really good one, (I.E. the only really good one I know of in Little Rock is the Chenal 9, and I have been to all of them, oh yea, and any Malco theatre doesn't count) they already have some brightness issues with their films. So when they play a 3D film it gets REALLY REALLY dim. Once again this situation doesn't apply nearly so much to animated films. So the general rule of thumb is to check your movies, see if it was shot with 3D in mind rather than added as an afterthought and also to only go to see them in a quality theatre or you will be disappointed.

Piranha 3-D Movie Review 5.5/10/

2010-08-26T16:25:00.000-07:00

This is an homage film to the creature films of the 70's and 80's. Its not complicated, its not fancy, but it also doesn't take itself seriously. This film wasn't the result of some idiot guys going hey, people are stupid I bet they would like a movie about piranhas. (anaconda anyone?) Its the result of some guys going "hey remember those cool creature features from the 70's and 80's? It would be really cool if we made a tribute to those old films." As it is, its simple, gory, and filled with ridiculous over the top characters. Did I mention its gory? Really, really gory. Not Asian horror gory that makes you shutter and have nightmares, but American movie gory where its just so over the top and ridiculous that it just makes you laugh. If you enjoy cheesy old horror movies this is without a doubt the film for you. If you don't like that sort of thing, its 100% not for you. Oh yea, there are also a lot of nudity. And some really creative nude cinematography. And it has Jerry O'Connell and Elizabeth Shue (she is still hot) in it, so you can't go wrong really.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World Movie Review Nerd Rating 9.5/10 Unbiased Rating 7.8/10

2010-08-26T16:08:00.000-07:00

I decided to wait a week before I wrote my review of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. It was a movie I was really excited about, and my knee jerk reaction whilst coming out of the theatre was that it was an incredibly awesome movie and girls with pink and blue hair are really hot. But over the last week I have put a lot of thought in determining rather or not this is a great movie.

This movie is different than a lot of movies, honestly, I don't think I have ever seen a single movie that is so specifically targeted towards a particular sub-group of people. However, as someone who generally tries to rate movies with as little bias as possible, does that make this movie good, great, or bad?

For people in my demographic, this is an undeniably great movie. Its a film based off a comic series and is chock full of references to all those things that people that are "nerds" so to speak, find incredibly enjoyable. In my one and only viewing I counted over 40 direct video game and gamer culture references. Not to mention the fact that the overall style and feel of the movie is based primarily on things such as the Naruto anime and manga series. However, is that all this film was trying to accomplish? In direct comparison this film reminds me off another nerdcentric movie that came out a few years ago, Serenity. This film was an answer to some sort of conclusion for a very rabid fan base of the show Firefly. This film was targeted specifically to these fans, but nevertheless was a quality film regardless and was able to appeal to more than just the fan base. There is a difference in this two films though. Serenity was made for that fan base, and although it was a mainstream release there was not a very much marketing at all, other than the type of marketing that reached the target audience. Scott Pilgrim on the other hand had a main stream marketing campaign, although not expansive and ridiculous like a lot of summer films get. Its pretty obvious that although its a movie targeted for a particular group, it was also trying to attract a wide range of people to the theatre to see it. Did it accomplish its goal?

The reason I gave a dual ranking for this film is because since I fit into the demographic and of course loved the film to a silly level. However, as someone who really believes in giving a fair critique I fell that I have to give an unbiased rating for those that don't fit into the targeted demographic. So how good a movie was it? It was a really quality movie, a good movie, but not really a great movie. It had a few flaws that, although still quality, kept it from being a great film. I spent some time questioning people that went into the film knowing there would be references to things that they would have no chance in heck of ever getting, or understanding even a bit of it. Generally they enjoyed the film but the entirely of the film was spent with a pervasive feeling that they were missing something. That there were so MANY references, homage, easter eggs, etc, that just the shear number they missed out on was a detracting distraction to enjoying the film to its fullest. Also, I would say that this film goes on for about twenty minutes to long. Its so frenetic, random, and aleatoric even, that its kind of exhausting. Its a pretty long film, and frankly with about twenty minutes left I was thinking "you know, I would be ok if this movie would end right now." These two things generally are a relatively minor negative. Overall, its a brilliantly shot, acted, and casted film. Kieran Culkin was actually my absolute favorite as Wallace. But these two negatives brings down the rating just a little bit. So I give it a 9.5 nerd rating and a 7.8 (still a very good rating) for the unbiased.

The Expendables Movie Review 7/10!

2010-08-15T13:55:00.000-07:00

There isn't much that can be said about this movie. You get basically exactly what you might expect from this movie. Lots of explosions, lots of one liners, the general moral debate about losing oneself in a mercenary lifestyle, basically this movie includes every cliche from eighties action movies and really thats not a bad thing. This film is an homage to those types of movies. Its not a great movie, thats why I can't really rate it any higher than a 7, and frankly thats a bit of a stretch, BUT its not really trying to be a great movie. Its try to deliver exactly what it delivered. Nostalgia for the old action days and never before seen combinations of some of the greatest aging action stars in existence. The one liners were good, and they had about a 75% hit rate. Jet Li's character in particular was pretty funny. Yes, the plot was fuzzy at best, and yes the Eric Robert's villain made lots of decisions that made absolutely no sense (could be part of the whole 80's action movie homage) but that isn't really why you go to see this movie. If you like 80's testosterone laden action flicks, or if you like some of the major action stars that are in this film then you will love this movie. If you aren't into that then you would like it. There is no middle ground, this isn't the type of movie that will win over new fans, either you love it or you don't. If your have testosterone in your veins go see it, if not then go see Charlie St. Cloud.

Inception Movie Review 8/10

2010-08-05T12:31:00.000-07:00

There will probably be a few *spoilers* in this so if you haven't seen it you might not want to tread any further.

Ok, as many of you know, I generally have an aversion to Leonardo DiCaprio, and rarely see his movies, and never, ever go to see them in the theatre. I decided to make an exception to this to see Inception, mostly because I really like Christopher Nolan's directorial style. Despite the fact the DiCaprio was in this film I was not disappointed at the quality delivered in this twisty, surreal dream of a movie.

Firstly, the reason this movie only gets an 8 is because, although it is a very good film, it is far from perfect. I will get to some of those issues later in the review, but first I want to discuss the cast. Mostly, this is an excellently cast and superbly acted movie. But there was a couple of misfires. Ellen Page is a talented actress, but she really didn't bring much to the table here other than the fact that she is super cute. Her character is rather bland, and she is far better at playing a snarky, sarcastic, 40 year old in an 18 year old body than she is the subdued and serious role. Also, Marion Cotillard is just a bit overrated, and really wasn't very good in this film. I know a lot of people love her in Taxi, (the original, not the crappy Jimmy Fallon/Queen Latifah remake) and a lot of people like her in Public Enemies, but she really just doesn't do it for me. Partially what bothered me about this film is her somewhat stony acting (kind of normal for her) and the fact that she couldn't decide if she was French, English, or American, oh she of the changing accent. Leonardo DiCaprio was what I expected, an above average performance, but hampered a bit by his limited emotional range and his fall back facial expressions that he uses as crutches. All in all though, he does do a good job. I actually like him better now that he is an adult, and I kind of respect the fact that he unashamedly keeps a bit of a gut. The rest of the cast is sublime. Joseph "Cobra Commander" Gordon-Levitt nails his part well as the less imaginative straight man Arthur. His brief but excellent interaction with Tom Hardy's Eames is excellent. Hardy himself does an excellent job in this film. Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins, 28 Days Later) is good in his roll, and Dileep Rao (Drag Me to Hell, Avatar) is also very good. My favorite is Ken Watanabe who plays Saito. He is an excellent actor that is vastly under used in American cinema. All in all, the casting and acting in this film is rather excellent.

The film itself is beautifully shot. The dream sequences were beautiful, in particular the second level of the dreams inside Fisher was magnificent. It was only basically in the hotel, but the twisting rooms, and the fight scenes with Gordon-Levitt were fantastic. However, that does bring us to some of the factors that brought the movie down just a hair for me. I didn't really buy there explanation for why the second dream level had no gravity because they were in free fall in the first dream level, but the lack of gravity and what was happening in the second dream level had no real affect on the stability of the third dream level, although all of this happening still had a tremendous affect on what was going on in limbo. At times it basically felt that he was sacrificing continuity a bit just so he could make his plot fit. I don't really have a problem with that, but it made the plot a little thin during this phase of the movie. These sorts of inconsistencies is why the movie gets an 8 instead of a higher rating. Also, it seems like limbo isn't that big a deal, didn't he just kill himself in limbo to get out of it? Why could't that have worked again?

As for the interpretation of the film, there are about a zillion ways in which you can interpret it. Firstly, the use of the totems as a way to separate reality from dream, particularly in the case of DiCaprio's top that he spins. The top failing to keep spinning is not a good way of determining reality. As they said several times, the dreamer makes the rules. And if you believe, truly believe or even really want to believe that your dream is reality, then the rules you set forth will make the top behave as the dreamer wants. So at know point is the top stopping its spin a 100% surety that the dreamer is in reality and not still in the dream. Secondly, there is quite a bit of symbolism to part of the dream being a hell of sorts. This could be interpreted as this is all DiCaprio being in his personal hell and seeking redemption. They refer to the bottom level as limbo, and essentially it does seem to be a sort of purgatory for him. He refers to that level as being "down there" and when he talks about his kids to Mal he says he wants to see them again "up there." Also in his memory vault in the elevator the memory with the most personal torment is on the bottom level, going down from the top to the bottom for the most torment. Also another parallel to hell. Thirdly, the most talked about part of the movie is the ending. Did the top stop spinning? Did it really matter? Is he still part of the dream? It doesn't really matter, he could make it fall if he wanted even if he was in the dream. It was I think, wobbling as if to fall more so that it showed in the other scenes when it was still spinning. In the end scene it was wobbling, looking as if it would fall. Some people will point to the age of the kids to say that it was probably a dream, I just don't think that much time has past, or he is projecting his kids as they are into his dreams. Me, personally, I am tired of movies that always have bad endings, thats kind of a trend in movie making right now. I would prefer to think that everything worked out for him and he was in reality. I actually do think that him just leaving the top spinning and the camera closing before it stopped had a different point that the obvious. The real point wasn't that he might or might not be in reality, it was that he had closure and absolution and just didn't care anymore because he was at peace. I really do highly recommend that anyone who enjoys good cinema go and see this film and go and see it in the theatre so that complete and full immersion into the dream is possible. Who knows, maybe we aren't in reality when we leave the theatre.

Why do we insist on remaking foreign films?

2010-08-02T18:15:00.000-07:00

Recently I noticed that there was going to be an American studio version of "Let the Right One In." For those of you that don't know, its a Swedish film that is an absolutely phenomenal piece of film making that just so happens to be about vampires. For some reason, apparently being about the highest rated Vampire film on http://www.rottentomatoes.com isn't good enough. I mean really, we can do lots of things to improve on its 97% fresh rating and its overall 8.1 score right? The American version is called "Let me In" and already loses cool points with me for not only renaming it, but choosing an absolutely terrible name. This isn't like "Last Man Standing" or some other homage flick like that. This is a trend where studios see a foreign film, decide they really like, then boom, buy the rights to it and make a really crappy direct remake. Normally its with horror movies, The Ring and the Ring 2, One Missed Call, The Grudge, The Eye, (this one was particularly terrible) are all Japanese movies that were decent, but turned into lesser American remakes. However, Let the Right One In and maybe Funny Games, is the only time I have seen a really great critically acclaimed movie given this treatment. Its a truly great movie, why does it need a remake, why not just show it in American theatre's with subtitles? The answer is simple, and sad. American's won't go to the movie theatre to see a movie with subtitles. Its surprising the amount of people I have met that have never seen a movie with subtitles. Studios know, from experience, that making a whole new movie makes more money than distributing a subtitled movie to theatres. And that is just freaking sad. All these great movies, that deserve attention, just won't get it. This is actually pretty evident in the promotional material for Inglourious Basterds. This movie has a larger portion of the film subtitled than it does spoken in English. But watching the promotional material, there is never any real hints that it is subtitled. Why? One would have to think its in large part because many people would have been turned off to realize that most of the best scenes in the movie take place in German or French. American's are missing out on lots of really great films just because they don't want to read some subtitles.

Retro Movie Review Memento 9/10

2010-07-28T14:56:00.000-07:00

Mostly Christopher Nolan gets pub for being the man behind Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, but with the popularity of Inception people, are starting to get a handle on the dark twisty directing style that is really his bread and butter. Also, seeing as I am actually unsure yet as to whether I will pay to go see Inception, I decided to temper that by retro reviewing this one.

Memento was not the first movie he directed, but it is the movie that really put him on the map and was his first movie to actually have a cast and a budget. (even though it was a small one) He made some smart casting decisions by casting the always great Guy Pierce as Lenny and surrounding him with a cast of solid supportive character actors. Oddly, he snagged two of the cast from the previous years Sci/Fi smash the Matrix. Carrie-Ann Moss and Joe Pantoliano both had major roles in that movie, and are the two major supporting actors in Memento. They both give excellent performances. Also, you can see a cameo by Jorja Fox in this film as Lenny's wife when she is shown in the flashback scenes. She is more commonly recognized in her role on CSI as Sara Sidle. The acting will not be a disappointment in this film which is important since this is primarily a character and dialogue driven film. Guy Pierce particularly sells this film with his continually ability to make the fact his characters memories keep disappearing believable. The acting however, is not what makes this movie distinctive as a Christopher Nolan vehicle.

What Christopher Nolan loves to do, and does well, is winding a plot that makes it difficult to separate the reality from the fiction. He is striving for more than just a simple plot hook with a twist at the end. He is trying to craft a movie that makes the audience completely engage with the characters, yet been completely in the dark about what is real and what isn't. A Nolan film is unmistakeable in its artistic value. Its dark gritty, and his style is very distinct. Its hard to describe but you know it when you see it and by all accounts Inception might be his opus when it comes to this style and reality bending. But this all started with Memento, which deals with something nearly as fragmentary and illusory as dreams, memory. If you are a lover of the movie Inception, then you owe it to yourself to watch the movie that started Nolan on this path, and if you have seen it then you should go re-watch it, Memento is truly a great movie.

The Sorcerers Apprentice 5/10

2010-07-18T22:32:00.000-07:00

Oh Nick Cage you take some of the weirdest roles. This movie is actually pretty well acted, with pretty good casting. The special effects are passable, and the only reason this movie is rated higher is because the script and story are very humdrum. Nothing all that exciting or special, but at least its not poorly written. Honestly, I actually rather enjoyed this movie and the key thing that this one has going for it is that its completely family friendly and sometimes I just enjoy seeing a movie that doesn't suck that is loaded with violence and swearing (not that i don't love movies with violence and swearing, but every now and then you wan't something different) and frankly every now and then you just want to watch some fluff where you know everything will work out all right in the end, and all the protagonists will get the girl and all the villains will get plasma bolts to the face. There isn't really much to say about this movie, it just is what it is. Somewhat bland, fairly well acted, family friendly, and decent. Given that there really aren't that many quality movies out right now I have no problems recommending this one, it just isn't going to be winning any awards and its not something that you will watch more than once. I know this is a pretty short review, but there isn't much to say about this movie really. Oh, yea, I really like Alfred Molina, so maybe that made me just a hair biased.

Predators 6.5/10

2010-07-18T22:12:00.000-07:00

I will admit that I am not a fan of the original Predator that came out in the eighties. In fact its one of the few iconic eighties movies that I don't like, as those films are some of my absolute favorites. I don't know why, but it just didn't speak to me. The sequel equally didn't do it for me, and the Alien vs. Predator franchise just seemed completely hokey to me, although I did watch them. This movie though, I enjoyed, and it bucked the trend of reboots of old franchises being absolutely terrible.

This movie is essentially a survival horror movie. People that know this genre understand what to expect, and it really doesn't deviate from that very much. This movie does very well in casting its rag tag group of survivals, which is integral to any survival horror film. Of course this characters are just archetypes with no real depth, but hey, this is Predators not Citizen Kane. Walton Goggins (best known for the shield, and for you real nerds Major League: Back to the Minors) was excellent and hilarious as a crazy death row murderer. Topher Grace was also really good, and I generally hate him. Laurence Fishburne was also good in a bit of a cameo role, and any movie with Danny Trejo generally gets two thumbs up from me. Oddly, the only thing that I mildly disproved of was Adrien Brody, and he is probably the best actor of the bunch. Its not that he was bad in the film, but lets be honest, its just hard to buy Brody as a toughened amoral professional mercenary, he is just hard to buy as a bad ass.

Overall, this movie isn't deep. There isn't any setup, just boom, people together, on a planet, dealing with it. They devise they are on an alien planet being hunter ridiculously fast, and cope with it way better than they should, lets be honest, most people would go catatonic at that point, but who cares. Just show me the funky alien killing machines, and thats what they did. Like I said folks, there is nothing new here, no revolutionary plot twists, just pretty well done survival horror. If you enjoy this sort of thing you will not be disappointed, if you are looking for movie of the year potential then you will be. I would recommend seeing it if you are a remotely a fan of the franchise.

The Last Airbender 0/10 Worst Movie of the Year.

2010-07-18T20:06:00.004-07:00

I have never, ever, received so little for the price of a movie ticket than I did with this movie. This is, probably the worst movie I have ever seen in a mainstream release. It has replaced Eragon as the worst movie with a budget I have witnessed and has created absolutely new lows in movie making. I don't know if ever I have left a movie theatre with absolutely nothing good to say about a movie. The only thing I can say is that I laughed a lot. At the terrible dialogue.

Firstly, the special effects were terribad. The opening scenes in the snow were laughable and you could actually pick out the halos around the characters where they were either put on a screen of imposed over CGI. That beautiful trailer we all saw that had all the ships and the kid in the tower in an epic war scene, totally not in the movie, and in fact nothing anything near that good or cool is in the movie. Truly hack work. This movie is so melodramatic that from hence forth all melodramas shall be known as airbenders, but that’s the least of this movies worries really. I don't really prescribe to all the hubbub about them not casting enough Asians. This is a made up world, and if they wanted to cast some white folk, and some Indo/Pak kids that’s fine with me. This movie had people of all flavors and there were plenty of Asians cast. However, they should have casted some kids in the lead roles that had at least a smidgen of acting talent. Sadly the worst of the worst were two of the characters that received a lot of air time. Noah Ringer, who plays Aang, the Last Airbender was terrible, even when held to standards for his age. This was his first gig, and frankly, I am wondering if he dad knew the casting director or something, because he should still be an unknown. He wasn't the worst though, Jackson Rathbone takes that honor. He plays Sokka a non-elemental bending semi-warrior who serves no real purpose to the plot but to say stupid things and deliver lines with all the emotion of a robot. Of course this is probably how they taught him to do things on the Twilight set.

Perhaps, though, these guys could have done something if they were giving anything, and I mean ANYTHING to work with. This is the worst script I have ever had the misfortune to stumble across. The lines are absolutely laughable. This literally makes Twilight look like an Oscar winner. Its generally a pretty good sign of poor script writing when actors that are generally average to good in quality are as equally terrible as the untested young talent. Dev Patel, who has talent, place a flat, completely non-dynamic character. Cliff Curtis, Shaun Taub, Aasif Mandvi are all at least adequate, but all come up short here. The other problem is this movie lacks any sort of resolution whatsoever. It was clearly made to be in a series of movies, but it makes it shamefully obvious that its part of a series. Unlike most other series, which has a full arc in each film this one just sort of ends like the first night of a three night mini-series on NBC. What makes it worse is that since its so terrible and is getting such terrible reviews there won't be anymore movies. Given the way this one ends THERE IS NO REASON TO WATCH IT. Its seriously like watching half of a movie and then stopping right before a lot of stuff happens, and never going back to it. Tell you what, I will sum it up for you:

There are a bunch of 14 year olds standing around, giving bad lines with even worse delivery, they do monumentally stupid acts for no particularly reason while one or more of them watch and say with little emotion "no don't you dare do that exact act in which you are going to do." Then they do that act and something else happens, then they get on a terrible CGI'd luck dragon clone and go somewhere else where they do some sort of combat that looks like it should be part of stomp. Then he doesn't something with water and the movie blacks out. The fire lord says something to his daughter blah blah blah, then you get ready for the real parts of the movie to start, oh but then it ends. Generally I believe that quality and enjoyability are not mutually exclusive, but there is a point in which a movie is just so bad that there really just can't be an reason to enjoy it. This movie is one of those. I just can't see how anyone can honestly say they enjoyed this movie. And from the rotten tomatoes reviews it doesn't really look like anyone has.

The A-Team 7.5/10

2010-07-18T20:06:00.000-07:00

There are various ways in which to judge a movie. Sometimes you don't judge purely on the quality of the product. The A-Team is ridiculous. The plot doesn't always make sense, there is very little logic, the action is huge and over the top, the characters are caricatures, but, it works. Why does it work? Why do components that generally make a bad movie result in an entertaining movie here? Well, its because it captures and epitomizes the spirit of the TV series perfectly. Sure, they could have made a gritty, dark, artistic movie, and it probably would have been high quality, but, that wouldn't have fit very well, the characters would have been off and it would have born no resemblance to the action series that so many people love. And, its darn funny as well. The characters are very well done, with the only stretch being Rampage Jackson, and his performance wasn't to terrible for a guy that’s really just not an actor. Bradley Cooper was excellent as Faceman but Sharlto Copley truly stole the show with his characterization of Murdock. He is not exactly a household name but he played Wikus in District 9 and he is very, very good. Very surprising given his inexperience. He is a guy to watch for in the future. Jessica Biel doesn't really add anything, but she is hot, and this type of movie does require at least one really hot girl to be in it. Its not going to win an Oscar or anything, but if you liked the television show you will love this movie, and if you are not a fan of the television show you can do a lot worse than watching this flick.

The Loser 6.5/10

2010-07-18T19:51:00.001-07:00

So what is the difference between a summer pop corn flick that is enjoyable and one that makes you want to shoot the screen with a .50 caliber sniper rifle? Generally with me its how serious the movie takes itself. This is, of course, mostly due to who is directing. Some directors think they are creating a dramatic masterpiece no matter how crappy the premise and load it with dramatic chipmunk type shots and overly dramatic lines filled with gravitas like they are all being uttered by David Caruso in his most serious of moments. The converse is movies like The Losers. This movie is fun, and it knows what it is. A movie filled with over the top characters that quip one liners and blow crap up. Its fun, its quick, its mindless. Its not the best movie in the world, but its summer popcorn entertainment and its worth seeing. There are no Oscar winners in this movie, but the acting is good enough considering all they have to do is shoot stuff and do their best Spider-man one-liner impression. And Zoe Saldana, man, she is smoking. You know a girl is attractive when she still manages to look hot as a CGI alien, so of course she is good looking in this film. This movie is sure a heck of a lot better than any Miley Cyrus/Nick Sparks compilation.

Robin Hood 7.5/10

2010-07-18T19:50:00.005-07:00

So I really liked this movie. I am not sure why its not doing so well with the critics. Some of the reviews say that it isn't an original take on the Robin Hood legend (notice the proper use of the word legend rather than myth) but I question what they really mean by that. I am not sure what they were expecting, it not something that can have a numerous about of different takes. But I digress. To put it in today's comic book nomenclature perhaps this movie should be entitled Robin Hood: Origins. This is not a retelling of the events of Robin Hood and his merry men stealing from the rich to give to the poor, this is the story of the events and circumstances that put him there. This movie does have an excellent cast and they do a good job in this film. Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett are really good, and in all truth the movie would actually be better with more scenes of them interacting. The movie has freaking MAX VON SYDOW in it, how can you go wrong with that? Mark Addy is good, and frankly I have always wanted to see him play the role of Friar Tuck, although I certainly do wish that the movie had more of him. Denis Menochest made me smile in a small role, mainly because he was so good in Inglourious Basterds. And Mark Strong is his typical villain (go go Sinestro, is he even capable of playing a good guy?) William Hurt and Kevin Durand also do well in supporting roles as William Marshall and Little John (his line, "What are you getting at? I am proportional" which of course makes me wonder where an uneducated 12 century thug knows the word proportional)The action scenes are good, although not great, and the final battle really seems to be set up to look like a bit of a Normandy re-creation. I will admit that I am a Robin Hood fanboy, I have been since I saw the old Disney Robin Hood cartoon, and this movie is good enough to have kept me entertained and enjoy the retelling of one of my favorite legends.

Clash of the Titans 5.5/10

2010-07-18T19:50:00.003-07:00

Clash of the Titans Movie Review 5.5/10!
It seems to be that lately we have been inundated with a rash of movies that are perfectly content with being decent, but not great. Particularly this year I was left the movie theatre feeling that I was entertained, but that what I saw was just missing something. Maybe movie makers don't really want to take chances anymore, and they like to retread the same old formulas out there because they are safe. They would rather a movie be safely average and make money than take chances on greatness and have a bomb. I don't know that I really fault them for this logic. Great movies don't always equal more money, or even any money at all. Greatness in film is often not appreciated by the masses and the benign blockbuster film with good advertising generally is. In fact a couple of movie insiders from the Scene Unseen Movie review podcast often have said that the key to making money with a movie actually has nothing to do with its quality, only the quality of its advertising. This movie has that sort of thing going for it to a certain degree. They advertised the fooey out of this thing. Lots of epic shots of monsters and of Liam Neeson saying "Release the Kraken." This movie was going to make a decent amount of bank just because of the advertising campaign, and recoup a lot of its making costs. Once again I can't really fault the movie companies for this, it does make them money. However, I really don't like it when the advertising is the best part of the film, and when the trailers give a false impression as to the plot of the movie. (in this film its who the primary antagonist is) On the whole I didn't leave the theatre feeling that I hadn't enjoyed my time, I found the film enjoyable enough, and I didn't feel like it was wasted. Its not a bad movie and I wouldn't tell people that they shouldn't see it if they like this type of film. But it was a decidedly average film, not great and the question I keep asking myself is with this wealth of source material how can you not make a great film? I mean seriously this is a remake of an already pretty darn good film, so they can only go up from there right? This film does a few things right. The period people (although no more accurate than any other movie) felt right. I bought into the fact that these were an ancient people. The costumes looked really good, with the exception of Zeus' light can't quite focus on you armor, which just looked silly and cheesy. Sam Worthington, although not exceptional, gave a far better turn than he did in Avatar, and his performance was solid. Ralph Fiennes was as freaky and scary as he always is in these roles, and frankly I think the movie could have benefitted from more of his. Liam Neeson was fine, but he wasn't really given all that much to do. Zeus was actually far less epic and frequent in the film that the trailers would have you believe. Once again, not Neeson's fault, and he wasn't bad, aside from his terrible armor, he just wasn't given much to do. The movie did a few things badly that really detracted from the film. Firstly, I immediately got popped out with believability with Sam Worthington in this role. I know he was a demi-God, and physically stronger and all of that, but young Perseus has a conversation with his adopted father when he was, at the oldest ten. Then it pops up 12 years later, and it shows Worthington. I leaned over to my friend that was watching the movie with me and said "Huh, 22 years old and he already has crows feet." He responded, "hard life man." Its just really hard to buy him as a 20 year old kid. Even a 20 year old demi-god kid. My question is, why pop up the 12 years later subtext at all? It had no bearing to the plot, its not like it wasn't obvious this was sometime in the future, why do it? All it did was make people go huh, that 20 year old looks 35. But that’s just a personal peeve of mine, and I am sure that wouldn't annoy most people. Other than that this movie had real problems in production, not so much in the acting and story. It looked like the shot the film with actually 8mm retro color film. Sometimes that’s not a bad look, but in this film it kind of made things look washed out, with a lack of vibrancy. Everything kind of looked gray scale and it was not pleasing at all. The monsters looked a little to cartoony for the gravity of the situation, and for you old school gamers the Kraken totally looked like one of the Weapon's bosses from Final Fantasy 7, or even Bahamut from Advent Children. If you haven't seen the original go and see that one instead of this one, it’s a better movie, but this one is still entertaining enough despite its flaws, so if this type of movie interests you, then by all means go out and see it. If you love the original, you will probably be disappointed, but if not, you will just have a couple hours of mindless action entertainment.

RepoMen 3/10

2010-07-18T19:50:00.001-07:00

I am tired of going to see movies that have a good idea behind them but have lousy script writing and direction that forces them to crash and burn in a miserable experience. This movie has the potential to be excellent. In fact some of the elements are very good indeed. Liev Schreiber was really fantastically smarmy and slimy in his bottom line make the money role as Frank. However, he really is the highlight of the movie. *Spoiler* Normally I attempt to do reviews of movies without giving any spoilers, but with this one I am not going to do that. There were a couple of things with this movie that just completely ruined it. I hate movies like this, movies that try to suck you in, make you involved in the plot and then bam, some ridiculous twist that invalidates everything you have watched. Like, for example, the movie Identity where you discover the entire movie took place amongst the multiple personalities in a killers head, or like Stutter Island, another movie that has this type of result. I think its cheap. I think it’s a cliché, cheap, non-thinking way of turning a plot twist, and utterly useless to telling a good story or delivering a quality movie. In this particular movie this twist happens when Jude Laws character gets smacked in the head with a large hook. In the movie he wakes up later, goes on to invade the Union and escapes with both the girl and his best friend to the beach, where he writes a best selling book. But the twist so to speak was he never woke up from getting hit in the head with that hook, Jake just had a neural net installed on him so that his coma would be a happy one. This was poorly done, first of all, because it should be fairly obvious. Fake heart or no, Jude Law's character is just human, and no human could survive the amount of force. As soon as it happened I literally said out loud in the theatre "no one wakes up from that." And point of fact, he didn't. Terrible movie making there. After this point it turns into your standard kill everyone to infiltrate the blah, blah, blah, and it culminates in a terribly melodramatic scene in which they scan each others internal organs sans pain killers to get them erased from the system. It was a disgusting and ridiculous scene that was supposed to show how far true unfettered love would go, but in reality, they were trying to give a slap in the face to the people who believe this type of unfettered, unending love is possible. More like a punch into the face of the people who find this appealing. Why? Because even in the convention of the movie this type of love was in fact, not possible. This only existed in a very badly damaged brain. So, so sad that the second half of the movie destroyed what could have possibly been a very decent flick.

Greenzone 3/10

2010-07-18T19:49:00.003-07:00

I really wanted to like this movie, I am a big fan of the Bourne Series of films so I thought that a new film with Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon would likely be very enjoyable. I was wrong, everything about this film is generic and bland. It wasn't that it was a terribly made film, it wasn't. What it was, though, was terribly boring. Rarely can I remember ever being completely bored in a movie theatre. Well, I was during this film. The story is interesting, as it attempts to explain the scenario for why there were no WMD's found in Iraq. But it is poorly done in its execution. In Greengrass style the camera is hand held and shaky. But it doesn't seem to work as well as it does in the Bourne series, it plays more like motion sickness than realism in this film. The characters themselves are bland and vanilla. I never really related to Damon's character because he just didn't really seem believable, he just seemed like a stock character from a generic war movie. The supporting cast should have been great, but they really didn't have much to work with so they were really a non-entity in this movie. All in all, I felt like it was the first time this year I felt like I had truly wasted my time at the theatre.

Edge of Darkness 5/10

2010-07-18T19:49:00.001-07:00

Mel Gibson graces us with his presence once again on the silver screen. What's it been, like ten years? Of course he has directed and been in the news, but this is his first screen appearance in quite some time. This is pretty vintage Mel Gibson. A role that he can play well falling out of bed after a hard night of drink at a Bar Mitzvah. It is his bread a butter, a revenge flick. A wise man once told me that almost all movies can be broke down into only three categories: Love stories, coming of age stories, and revenge stories. This man is for the most part right, and as far as crazy ass revenge goes, Mel Gibson has cried over more lost children and dead lovers than most Hollywood stars. He does what he always does in this movie. If you like him in that roll then you will like this movie, if you don't and that annoys you then this movie isn't for you. The story is interesting, although none of the characters are really fleshed out and it feels like you only get snapshots of each one. The story feels like there should be a lot there, and there is a reason for that. This was a six part BBC miniseries that was compressed into one not very long movie. So you get a skeleton outline of a story that was supposed to be much more complex and interesting, and instead is only mildly intriguing. Its a decent movie, worth passing a couple of hours with if you have nothing better to do, but I would recommend that you wait for netflix and watch it on a night when your snowed in.

Book Of Eli 5.5/10

2010-07-18T19:48:00.005-07:00

This movie was kind of a disappointment. I thought that having Gary Oldman and Denzel Washington opposite each other in a pseudo-biblical post-apocalyptic battle field would be highly entertaining. I was disappointed. It was somewhat entertaining, but it was nearly as good as I thought that it would be. The movie is your standard post-apocalyptic nightmare. Basically a Mad Max/Postman/The Road standard fair kind of stuff with a bit of Fahrenheit 451 thrown in. Of course nothing is ever really explained as to what happened in the world to make it this way except for some vague allusions to things that happened like "a whole was ripped in the sky" and "after the big flash." I guess, that's ok as it wasn't all that important to the plot, but still that sort of sets the tone for this movie as it seems to have lots of things that just are with no explanation for what the heck is going on. This movie was bad, and would have received rating probably of 6.5 or 7 except for a couple of things. There is a big twist of sorts and the end and to be honest it was bad for the movie as it really just didn't make that much sense. My issue with can't really be discussed without giving out a ton of spoilers which I prefer not to do, and the ending just left me with to many unanswered questions and to much Why the hell did this happen this way to get more than a slightly above average rating. As is kind of a theme it seems with the movies I have watched this year this movie had a lot of potential but underachieves and fails to reach that potential.

Legion 4/10

2010-07-18T19:48:00.003-07:00

From the previews I really didn't think this movie was going to be that good, but since I have a mancrush on Paul Bettany I knew I was going to go see it as soon as I saw the first trailer. Essentially this is a Zombie apocalypse movie but instead of some virus the zombies are created by Angel possession. Yea, I know, sounds silly, it was pretty silly when I was watching it. Listening to an audience can sometimes give you a clue as to the quality of a movie. If the entire audience is laughing at inappropriate times then its probably a good example of a poorly written script. I don't expect my action movies to have Oscar quality scripts, but I do expect them to no be so painfully bad as to make the audience laugh when it should be feeling something else. There isn't really that much action in the movie, and the dialogue scenes between the characters are painfully cheesy and forced. The one bright spot of the film is how they implemented the angel wings into the big fight scene. Basically the bottom line on this film is that it had an interesting idea but do to poor, poor pacing, cheesy melodramatic over acting, and a script that lacked the proper cohesion to tell the story kept it from actualizing any of he potential that was there. If your going to the theatre and you have to choose between this movie and Book of Eli, see Book of Eli, its better, although only marginally. It somehow manages to take itself far less seriously, which is saying something considering how seriously Book of Eli took itself.

Sherlock Holmes 8/10

2010-07-18T19:48:00.001-07:00

Boondock Saints 2: All Saints Day 5.5/10

2010-07-18T19:47:00.003-07:00

Avatar 6/10

2010-07-18T19:47:00.001-07:00

Ok, first of all I would like to say that the special effects in this film are in fact fantastic. At times its hard to tell where real actors end and CGI begins. However, that doesn't hold a lot of water with me. James Cameron is the Yankee's of film making. If you throw enough money at something then eventually you will get what you want in the end. Sure, the special effects were fantastic, but pretty much anybody could have thrown that much money at enough design studios and accomplished the very same thing. This is the kind of special effects you get when you throw three times the average blockbuster at a movie. If you spent 300 million freaking Gremlins it would be the most realistic CGI ever, its just the nature of the beast. The point I am trying to make is that you can't throw a lot of shiny glitz my way and expect me to go ga ga over it. I will enjoy it perhaps, but in no shape or form do special effects make a movie good. There are terrible movies with GREAT special effects, and there are great movies with terrible special effects. So kudos for the design studio, but the quality of the effects does not terribly alter the way I rate a movie much either up or down, it does some of course, but it is not going to change a 5 into an 8 or vice-versa. The idea, which gets so much credit for being original, is absolutely not. This Avatar concept is old, well used, and not original. In fact most of the stuff in the film isn't all the original. That's not a bad thing, there aren't a whole lot of original stuff out there, I am just saying that Cameron gets no originality points with this film, the Avatar idea, things named Pandora, and especially, most especially the aboriginal people are not new thoughts. ( "I see you" Mudpeople from Sword of Truth anyone?) This movie is essentially been made already. This movie is essentially "Dance with Wolves" on a distant moon. Ok, its exactly "Dances with Wolves" on a distant moon. Personally, I am not much of a fan of James Cameron, I don't care much for his brute force style of films, and his dialogue is sketchy at best. He has come up with some memorable lines, but on the whole his writing is not terribly consistent. Which is proven by this film. There are some GREAT moments. Very visceral, very intense. But there are some slow, slow parts. Its almost as if you could break this into two movies, one of which is great and one of which is pretty bad. The real problem with it seems to lie more with whats on the cutting room floor. This movie is edited terribly with what seems to be a large chunk of pertinent story line that didn't make it into the film. I could very well see a 4 hour directors cut coming out in a year or so, and I could also very well see me changing my opinion on this film and liking it very, very much. As it is, in its current cut there were to many times during the film where I was asking myself, "why in the world is this happening." Not because I didn't understand the plot, its pretty simple, but because things kind of happened with very little explanation, however, they had the feel that it was originally set up to explains these situations in a lot of detail. I can only infer in the originally story that there was some sort of prophecy involved that was explained on the story board but only briefly alluded to in the final cut. Even with all of my misgivings about the film though, I still enjoyed it. I thought it was an entertaining movie with incredibly visceral battle scenes that affected me more than I have been emotionally affected by a battle scene in a very long time. But my no stretch of the imagination is this the best movie of all time as some are proclaiming, or even the best movie of the year. Its a spectacle, its something you should see, IN THEATER. Don't wait for DVD even on BLU-RAY this will be lacking. In fact, I doubt I will ever watch this movie again because I think it will just lose so much on the small screen. Oh, and Sam Worthington, whom I thought was the one redeeming feature of Terminator Salvation, disappointed me at times in this film. Some of the better lines of the film come out sort of garbled by him, as if he has a big jawbreaker in is mouth. Don't know why that happened, but I didn't like it. FINAL WORD: See this movie, See this in theater, see it in 3D IMAX if you can, its worth the higher priced ticket. Its emotional, visceral, and enjoyable, but its not that revolutionary.

The Men Who Stare At Goats 5/10

2010-07-18T19:46:00.003-07:00

Alrighty, this is one of the stranger movies I have seen lately. The closest I can categorize this movie is as a dark comedy, but its really not quite dark or cynical enough to really be called "dark." Its sort of a tweener movie, its not light enough to be a regular comedy, but its not quite dark enough to be a cynical dark comedy. In a movie like this, the thing that makes it is quality dialogue and well written characters. Not just the main characters, but all of the little bit parts as well. This is something that a director like Quinten Tarantino excels at. Grant Heslov and Peter Straughan not so much. The movie started promising, with a nice Ewan McGregor voice over, and the meeting with the first "psychic" he encounters, a man named Gus Lacy. It was quirky, entertaining, and set the pace for what I thought would be a very good movie. But it sort of went downhill from there. What it seems to be is a group of good actors given a very mediocre scripts with characters that they had very little that they could do with. They seem to be mailing it in. Kevin Spacey is just particularly wasted. There is nothing about his character that uses his talents, or requires him to be playing it. I could have played that character just as effectively. Its not really Spacey's fault I don't think, he just wasn't given anything to work with. George Clooney's character was also a null, it could have been played much more over the top. Jeff Bridges is entertaining but he is really just channeling the "dude" into a similar role, definitely nothing that we haven't seen before. Another odd thing about this movie is that it was a completley male cast except for a line or two by MgGregor's ex-wife in the movie. This isn't a good or bad thing, I just thought it was interesting. I did find Clooney calling McGregor a Jedi, but that was funny for the wrong reason I think. All in all I was very disappointed with this movie, I am glad I only paid 5 bucks to see it. Its not the worst movie in the world, if you were looking for a Friday night movie to rent then it would possibly be a decent choose, but don't waste a movie ticket on it.

Zombieland 8/10

2010-07-18T19:46:00.001-07:00

When I think about Zombie movies there are two things that generally come to mind first. George Romero and Shaun of the Dead. They are pretty much the pinnacle of zombie greatness. Romero has pretty much mastered the zombie genre, and Shaun of the Dead sort of spun it on its head. Zombieland doesn't really resemble either of these. Zombieland is a good movie, good but not great. It is not a scary movie at all, as its pretty much a straight comedy. I mean its not scary at all, its a coming of age story that just sort of happens to have zombies in the background. The laughs are good, but not great, and the story is cute. I think I laughed out loud twice at the most. That doesn't mean it wasn't funny, and admittedly, and I don't laugh that much during movies, but still it was not a super crazy laugh your ass off type movie. The cast is good, Woody Harrelson is great in this movie, and Emma Stone is hot, and has the most freaky big eyes I have ever seen. I think she must be an anime character. Jessie Eisenberg really doesn't do it that much for me though, he basically does a Michael Cera impression, but he just isn't quite as good at it than the original. There are two things though that sold the movie for me though, one was a suddenly touching at sad moment with Woody's character about 3/4 of the way through involving a duct tape wallet, and a particularly awesome cameo by a very cool guy. All in all I recommend seeing this movie, its no Shaun of the Dead as its laught just aren't anywhere near its caliber, but its cute, funny, and worth seeing.

Retro Movie Review: Big Trouble In Little China 9/10

2010-07-18T19:45:00.001-07:00

There are a lot of movies from the 80's that have made cult status, and Kurt Russell happens to star in my two favorites, which also both happen to be John Carpenter flicks. The first one of course is "Escape from New York" with Kurt Russell playing the trench coat wearing Snake Pliskin. My favorite however, is the classic "Big Trouble in Little China." This movie is to this day one of my all time favorite movies, and I routinely put it into my top fives. This great thing about this movie is John Carpenter knew what he was doing. Unlike a lot of other campy cheesy horror/action movies from the 80's this ones camp and cheese is by design rather than by accident. Its funny cheesy moments are still funny, the corny one liners still hold up. Sure the special effects are bad, but you know what, its a testament to a great movie when its still entertaining even if they have terrible special effects. How can you go wrong with a movie that has a villain that is 1 part 1000 year old decrepit old man and 1 part 8 foot tall Chinese sorcerer? Who knew green eyes were so important? I do know one thing though, its all in the reflexes.

Retro Movie Review Dead Alive 5.5/10

2010-07-18T19:44:00.000-07:00

Ok, many of you know me and know that I have healthy interest in the horror movie genre. This is one of those films that I have been wanting to watch for a few years, but just never got around to watching. Now I know why. Its actually known as the bloodiest movie of all time by volume. This movie was so over the top gore fest that even I, the horror movie veteran, had trouble stomaching it. Before we get to those gory details though let me give you a bit of background information about this little movie.

This is an independent film made in New Zealand and released in 1993. It is directed by none other than Peter Jackson, yes the Lord of the Rings Peter Jackson. Turns out before he was doing wizards and hobbits he was actually quite the king of splatterhouse. This movie is pretty simple. Boy meets girl, boy has issues with his mother, boy's mother gets bitten by a Sumatran rat monkey, turns into a zombie, boy has bigger issues with his mother. That pretty much sums of the plot. Along the way there are some veiled attempts at this foreign concept called acting, but really such inconsequential notions aren't needed in this flick.

This movie is over the top gory, and is thin on anything other than the gore. I mean seriously there are parts where it looks like they just turned on a bunch of bloody sprinklers, soaked the set in blood and then were like "Damn, we need a lot more blood." The special effects are terrible, and I guess blessedly, the blood doesn't even really look like blood at all. Its kind of an orangey watered down ketchup really. I am trying to think of something positive things to right, or even things to actually give a critique about, but it just isn't there. This movie is gross, gory, bloody, disgusting, and absolutely a must watch if your a horror junky. I really think this movie was just a gimic to try and see if they could make the bloodiest low budget movie ever. Its a tough match between this one and "Zombie Strippers."

Inglourious Basterds 10/10

2010-07-18T19:43:00.001-07:00

Oh where to start, where to start? This movie, in this moviegoer’s humble opinion, is Quentin Tarantino’s masterpiece to date. I am sure many will argue and say that it is and will always remain Pulp Fiction, and there are even a few who claim that title for Reservoir Dogs. I will still contend that this movie bests all of those. This is what he wants to make, a spaghetti western. If you were to go back and watch, say, Fistful of dollars or the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly you will see the comparison, most noticeably in the slow pacing, cinematic framing, and the intense prominence of dramatic music in the score, which is fantastic. This movie would not be what it is without Tarantino’s use of music, particularly of note is his use of Fur Elise during the opening scene.
First of all this movie uses a little bit of misdirection in its marketing. Not in a bad way I would say, just in way to try and keep a little mystery about it. It is an ensemble cast movie, and even though Brad Pitt is featured heavily in the preview, the movie is not focused primarily on him. He is a major character in the movie, but he gets no more screen time than any of the several other major characters. Like Pulp Fiction, this movie has several different character driven plots going on at the same time. This movie is not an action movie, and the violence, although typically Tarantino intense and gory is not the focus of the movie and is actually pretty sparse. This movie is, first and foremost character and dialogue driven, and folks, it is brilliant. The opening scene sets the pace, with a drawn out suspenseful scene completely driven by character dialogue and pacing, before given into the action. This type of thing seldom affects me, but towards the end of the scene I was sitting towards the edge of my seat. It’s this way for the entirety of the film.
And speaking of the dialogue, this movie almost counts as a foreign language film. If you have issues with subtitles this will be a problem. I didn’t count, but, I would say there is more French and German used than English in this film. However, Tarantino made a very smart move. He cast all foreign language actors to speak the French and German language sections. So all of these scenes are accurate and the accents believable. Other than Pitt probably the most recognizable actor is Diane Kruger from National Treasure 1 and 2. Even she, although you wouldn’t know it from her acting, is a native German speaker and has citizenship in Germany. I am used to subtitles as I watch a lot of foreign language films, and by 20 minutes in I had forgotten the subs and was immersed in the wonderful acting by the French and German speakers. Tarantino also uses this convention where if the point of view character cannot speak the language then the subtitles are not given for what other people are saying. It’s a nice touch of realism.
Brad Pitt does play one of the main and most memorable character and he does a fine job. However, a foreign film veteran named Christoph Waltz really steals the show. His performance, which he gives in three languages, English, French, and German, is fan-freaking-tastic. He is an absolute scene stealer, and is riveting anytime he is on the screen. If he doesn’t at least receive a nomination for Best- Supporting actor it is an injustice. I will say though, this movie overall is very well acted, and he is just the best of what is actually an incredibly stellar cast.
I cannot recommend this movie highly enough. I am aware that its few extremely brutal scenes means that it will not appeal to everyone, but those that could stomach it should see this movie. I also recommend that it be seen in the theater. The cinematography is such that it really is best to appreciate it on the big screen.

Retro Movie Review L.A. Confidential 9/10!

2010-07-18T19:41:00.001-07:00

I get asked every now and then what my favorite movies are and for some reason even though its definitely one my five or six favorite movies, I always forget that this one exists. This is an absolutely fantastic movie folks, and if you haven't seen it you need to go add it to your Netflix queues right this minute. It has an absolutely fantastic cast, featuring Kevin Spacey, Guy Pierce, and an early career showing for Russell Crowe. They each play very different but equally conflicted police detectives on the 1950's L.A.P.D. Their boss is the always good James Cromwell, and the rest of the extended cast, although not so well known, turn in some very good performances. The plot is twisty, with a sort of noir flair storyline but not shot in the film style of film noir. There is really much to say about this film except GO SEE IT NOW!!

Retro Movie Review, Our Man Flint 7.25/10.

2009-08-25T17:42:00.001-07:00

How many of you enjoyed the Austin Powers movie series? This movie is the original Austin Powers type of character. Our Man Flint is movie that was made in 1966 and was made as a parody to the recently popular James Bond series of movies. The movie chronicles the Ultra cool super agent Derek Flint (play by James Coburn) as he takes on a trio of mad utopian scientists that are controlling the world’s weather. This movie is often described by watchers and cheesy or just plain goofy, but really it’s just a whole lot of fun. It is of course very tongue and cheek and very campy, but this is by design not because it was just a bad movie. The strong point of this movie is the performance that James Coburn put in. Many who know this actor would find it hard to believe he would be able to play the suave, ultra chic, ultra-competent sex magnet that the character Derek Flint is supposed to be, however he pulls it off very nicely. James Coburn is very different than Austin Powers or any of the Bonds in his characterization. He is very polite in his rebelliousness, and instead of being condescending to his superiors he is always polite and says sir. Rather than being the suave rebel he is more that annoying person you know that absolutely knows everything about everything and is the best at everything he does and on top of that is also the most polite person you have ever met. He has a boyish smile and disarming manner that makes him both charming and despicable at the same time. This works exceedingly well for the role of Derek Flint, because it distinguishes him from the Bond role very well. I won’t go into a lot of detail because this is not an incredibly thought provoking movie. What it is though is a very fun movie that if you choose to enjoy it and not take to seriously will provide a good two hours of entertainment.

Movie Review District 9 9.5/10

2009-08-24T18:09:00.001-07:00

District 9 is one of the most original movie ideas I have ever encountered and I have seen a ton of movies. The idea is relatively simple it is an alien movie that is a comment on the human condition. Think to yourself as you are reading this these questions: What would you do if an alien race came to your city? What would you do if these people were refugees needing sanctuary in your city? What would you do if you discovered they were emaciated and badly in need of food and care? What would you do if it seemed they were not smarter, and perhaps in many ways were not as advanced as we are? These key questions are the pivotal ideas of this movie. We, as humans, do not have a good track record when dealing with people that are different on first contact, and we have an even worse track record of dealing with refugees. I wish to regress a little bit and talk about the production before I continue you into the plot points. It is important to point out that this movie was made on 30 million dollars, which of course by today’s standard is a pittance. Despite the low budget this is an effects heavy movie, and I must say that given the budget the effects look fantastic and the shot of the space ship hovering about J-Berg is fantastic. The main actor has never really been in anything other than this, he is reprising his role from the movie short that this movie was adapted from. It was shot in South Africa and acted by South African’s, which I think is very important, that essentially makes this a foreign film, and this should not be overlooked. Anyway back to the plot at hand. This movie in some ways reminds me of another alien movie, “Signs.” Not because the plot or style is in anyway similar, but because , like “Signs” is an alien movie that isn’t really about the alien part. Yes, this is an alien movie, but despite the fact it’s full of aliens, and DNA shifting and advanced weaponry this is more than any of that a comment on the human condition. And frankly, although riveting, it’s difficult to watch. For example the aliens are referred to always as “prawns” which is what they call shrimp in some other countries. They are called this because they do in fact resemble shrimp in some ways. This is of course a parallel for racial slurs that have been used in South Africa, or as we are in the U.S. some particularly nasty slang that we are all familiar with. In the movie they use the same rationale that people have always used, to paraphrase “well that is what they look like, so it is ok right?” That’s the kind of things people are always saying to rationalize the cruel things that they say. This movie touches on everything that has happens in regards to refugees or to those of the minority race. A termination of rights, thoughts of them being less than human (I mean human in the sense that they are viewed as being below the need for basic rights much the way slave owners used to refer to African Americans) serious exploitation and controlling of monopolies, and every similar theme, such as the common racial epithet “they all look the same.” And of course the usual movie them is there, that everything is always about weapons and money.
As for the actual production of the movie, it was pretty spot on. The actors are talented and perfect for their parts. The movie is shot in a documentary sort of way, it starts out as a documentary on the aliens and on the lead character Wikus, and in the middle it drifts from the documentary footage and starts showing you the actual events in Wikus’ life that lead to his notoriety. The two approaches are very well integrated and it doesn’t seem clumsy at all. This movie is not one that is going to make you feel good. In fact it is going to make you feel like crap more than likely. I realized as I was watching this movie that I totally bought everything they were trying to convey, and I realized at that point that I have very little faith in humanity. However, despite that I think this is the one film this year that I think everybody should see, but be warned it’s depressing and has some fairly gross parts.

Best Scene: When Wikus’ has his hand bandage removed by the Doctor.

Best Line: “there you go, souvenir from your first abortion. “

Drag Me To Hell Movie Review 9/10

2009-08-23T17:40:00.001-07:00

Sam Raimi do us all a favor and unentangle yourself from that Spider-Man franchise and get back to making the movies you were meant to make. For the last few years I have seen just about every horror movie that has come out. That means I have seen a lot of bad horror movies. In fact, I can't recall the last time I saw an American horror movie that was worth the price of cereal price. (well grindhouse was good, but almost more of a comedy than a horror movie) There have been a few foreign films of quality, but on the whole the American genre has gone to just remaking Japanese and Korean Horror/Thrillers, well, horribly. Finally there is horror movie that I was glad I went to the theatre and watched. This movie is a perfect combination of campy and funny (something Raimi does very well, Army of Darkness anyone?) and extremely scary. This is an awesome and hard to obtain combination. Alison Lohman is good as the main protagonist, although she does have the body of a ten year old boy. Justin Long is equally good, and the product placement around him is hilarious. If you don't recognize him by name, you will recognize him when you see him, as he is known not only for acting, but for starring in a certain products commercials. The supporting cast is good as well, although don't be looking for any A listers in this film. If you like horror movies do yourself a favor and go out and see this one, its a rockin good time and worth the trip to the theatre. Prepare to laugh, be scared, and be grossed out all at the same time.

Terminator Salvation 6/10

2009-08-23T17:39:00.001-07:00

I am different from most people. I go and see a movie then I check Rottentomatoes to see how it is doing. After watching it tonight I expected to log onto Rotten Tomatoes and see it with at least a decent rating. I was very surprised to see how poorly it was doing. I really liked this movie, which is odd, because I really, really dislike all of the Terminator movies. This one however, got my attention. Maybe it was just because of the nice flashy special effects, and see a huge robot on the screen. Or maybe it was the fact that it had the kid who played Chekov from Star Trek and Charley Bartlett in it. The weakness of the movie is its storyline, and a few of the acting performances. Moon Bloodgood won't be winning any awards she was in it because she is hot (although oddly I think Bryce Dallas Howard is way hotter) and neither will Michael Ironside. The plot is a bit thin, and the storytelling a bit wooden, but honestly, I don't think most people are watching this movie for the screenplay. Christian Bale is good as usual, but it was a bit annoying that he dropped into his Batman voice from time to time, he really needs to avoid that. Sam Worthington put in a surprisingly good performance, and is a bit of a scene stealer, he is definitely a less is more type of actor though. The kid, Anton Yelchin, is really good and he is without a doubt a rising young talent. It must have been a hell of a month for him with both this movie and Star Trek coming out. Its good to be him, must be a tough life for a 20 year old. He has come along way since Hearts of Atlantis. All in all a good film, great special effects, some decent acting, its a popcorn flick, but hey that doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable.

In Bruges Movie Review 9/10!

2009-08-23T17:38:00.001-07:00

Movie Review In Bruges 9/10
This is a beautifully acted, directed, and filmed movie, but the real strength of this film is the excellent script. Movies this well written don't come along that often. Normally I am not that bit a fan of Colin Farrell, in fact I really think that he has tossed up some stinking piles of dung in his acting career, but here he is masterful playing of Brendan Gleeson's calmer character wonderfully. For some reason, Farrell just seemed so much more natural and comfortable in this role, and I think honestly its because he gets to be an Irish guy, essentially getting to act with his native accent. Its funny how as American's most of the time we praise American actors when they pick up a foreign dialect, but we hardly ever appreciate when a foreign actor flawlessly pulls of an American accent. Back to the subject at hand, the story is masterful, making you feel a wide range of emotion, while connecting with the characters in a personal manner, and sometimes in very odd ways considering they are in fact hit men. Ralph Fiennes is both disturbing and scary in his role as Harry, and its a performance worth watching. If you haven't seen it and enjoy dark comedy and compelling stories go out and rent it tonight.

Star Trek Review 8/10

2009-08-23T17:37:00.001-07:00

I really liked this movie, and I don't even like Star Trek. It had a great feel to it, and some good action sequences. Chris Pine is great as a young James Tiberius Kirk and how can a movie with Simon Pegg in it not be good? It is a great homage to the television show, and creates a feel that truly gives the impression that they are boldly going where no man has gone before. Oh yea and Karl Urban is great as Bones. Not bad for a Rider or Rohan.

Angels and Demons Rant!

2009-08-23T14:49:00.001-07:00

First of all I have to give warning that this review will contain spoilers. I have always been the type of person that is never to put out by the adaptations of books to the silver screen. I have always said that they should be viewed as two separate entities and as long as the spirit of the story and characters were intact. Dan Brown is not a great writer, I enjoyed his books marginally, but I understand both as a folklorist and historian (yea I know they seem at odds) that there are major points of inaccuracy in his books. However, he deserves better than this. I have never said this about an adaptation before, but this is a PERVERSION of his work, and this, keep in mind is not a work that I am overly passionate about. This movie was an abomination, I wanted to get up and leave for the first time ever in my rather ridiculously long list of movies that I have seen in the theatre. Those that know me understand what this means, I like all movies, and generally can enjoy just about anything. Now lets start this long critique of this horrible movie.

First of all the assassin is absolutely horrible. In the book this character although not deep was fleshed out enough to be a terribly frightening villain. In this movie he is bland and faceless. In fact bland and faceless might be giving him to much credit. Also he is mostly neutral, when given the chance to kill Langdon and Vittoria he doesn't, instead he just walks off. It could have been terribly scary, instead he was a total zero.

The Camerlengo first of all is a horrible character in the movie. For some reason they changed his name to Patrick for no good reason what so ever. He is supposed to be an impressive figure, able to control any room he is in by the shear force of his personality. His is portrayed in the movie as almost simpering and about as charasmatic as Keanu Reeves on a downer.

The character of Leonardo Vetra is not present which is amazing as he is a key central character. He is shown once in the movie at the beginning but his name is changed and he is not branded, he is murdered and his eye taken out but that is it. He and his duality of priest and scientist was key to the plot, as well as the fact he was Vittoria's father. It was ridiculous that he was not in the movie and his key parts of the plot missing.

Maximilian Kohler is not present in the movie and he to is integral to the plot, and he is somewhat replaced by Commander Rictor, he is a major character in the movie, but was not present at all in the novel.

The key fact that is missing from the movie and is the absolute cornerstone of the novel's plot is the fact that the Camerlengo is the biological son of the late pope. This was the whole reason for the book in the first place, THIS WAS THE PLOT. It was the why this book was written it was the most key part of the plot and it was just gone. There was no explanation in the movie for why he did what he did, no explanation at all. He just ends himself by fire with no explanation what so ever. It was horrible, it essentially meant that the movie had no point, no explanation for why the events took place. It also means that along with Vittoria's father not being mentioned, that the most interesting parts of the characters were left out. It was ridiculous, I can't put it into words really, its like having a Harry Potter movie with Voldemort not being there. It was just silly.

Also the fourth cardinal was killed in the book, but saved in the movie, in a very dramatic scene that shouldn't have been there. He then became pope and the man who became pope in the book became a very old camerlengo. And more on that man, in the movie he was supposed to be a liberal progressive priest who was wise, open, and a very good character. In the movie he was portrayed as an arrogant old man stuck in his ways except for the last 2 minutes of the movie where he makes a sudden and a 180 of a character shift.

This movie was horrible, and if you liked the book at all avoid this at all costs. It barely has any resemblance. It seems they were trying to make a buck on the name but didn't want to give the book true representation. Oh yea, and they made it seem in the movie that this happened after the Davinchi Code, which is false and unneeded and just plain stupid. This is the first movie ever that I wish I had never seen, and the number of movies I have seen requires a number with 4 digits in it.