This movie was just funny. It had a decent plot line and some great gags to fill it in. The jokes were just isolated, but completely ingrained into the storyline making them even funnier than they would be otherwise. It had some great costumes from Jim Henson's creature shop, and some clever and amusing twists to the plot as we traveled along.
My only complaints were that the main character, on two occasions, made some decisions that rested more with moving the plot than what his character would do. It would have better served the character for him to have been dragged away at the point where he just ran when the girl was captured. It just felt wrong.
The other was near the end when he chose to enter the final structure where I would have felt better had he been more hesitant and wanted to return to the others. I just felt his willingly going in was like abandoning everyone. Granted all this worked out, but again, it seemed odd.
The only other hiccup was an importance stressed on carrying a towel, but the reasoning behind this was never really explained. It is used a couple of times, but anything could have conceivably been used. The bad guys seemed afraid of a towel for some reason, but it seems a small thing to carry a towel to defend against one race.
Other than that, good show. Got a kick out of the Point of View Gun and the Improbability Drive.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Rings -- 2005
This was a short feature included on the Ring Two Unrated DVD. This short totally measures up the The Ring. It has the same level of creepiness and fear instilled in it, probably since it has the same central plot....but with a big twist.
If you have not watched The Ring or don't know the solution Rachel discovered at the end, then this will spoil it. If you have seen it, don't care to, or don't mind knowing, consider yourself warned and read on.
As a result of having to make a copy and make someone else watch it and so on, these Ring clubs have developed around the country. Well, this kid watches the tape for someone else he know to save their life, but they dare him to last until Day 7. They tell him to video everything he sees and diary everything that happens so they can know too. Well, as he goes through the week, he has someone to show the tape to so he can live.
Watching it all play out and knowing the consequences of his dangerous game makes this short a wild ride to watch. If you haven't seen the Ring, though, it won't make any sense at all. He surfs other internet Ring groups and learns more about what he is in for.
I won't give it away, but this short lead directly into the teaser of The Ring Two, so you can watch this short first and lead it into the Ring Two and it fits perfect. This short is worth the acquiring of the DVD.
If you have not watched The Ring or don't know the solution Rachel discovered at the end, then this will spoil it. If you have seen it, don't care to, or don't mind knowing, consider yourself warned and read on.
As a result of having to make a copy and make someone else watch it and so on, these Ring clubs have developed around the country. Well, this kid watches the tape for someone else he know to save their life, but they dare him to last until Day 7. They tell him to video everything he sees and diary everything that happens so they can know too. Well, as he goes through the week, he has someone to show the tape to so he can live.
Watching it all play out and knowing the consequences of his dangerous game makes this short a wild ride to watch. If you haven't seen the Ring, though, it won't make any sense at all. He surfs other internet Ring groups and learns more about what he is in for.
I won't give it away, but this short lead directly into the teaser of The Ring Two, so you can watch this short first and lead it into the Ring Two and it fits perfect. This short is worth the acquiring of the DVD.
Hitch -- 2005 -- PG-13
Through the Queen, I was subjected to this film whose trailers did not paint a promising picture. I was pleasantly surprised, though with a cleverly constructed chick flick with well-rounded characters and individual motivations and stories.
Early on, I was getting lost in the multitude of plots, and I worried they were trying to do too much. However, it all came together as we shot forward and the conflicts reached a satisfying height and resolution. All in all, one of the better romantic comedites I've seen in awhile.
Early on, I was getting lost in the multitude of plots, and I worried they were trying to do too much. However, it all came together as we shot forward and the conflicts reached a satisfying height and resolution. All in all, one of the better romantic comedites I've seen in awhile.
The Ring Two -- 2005 -- PG-13
I watched the Unrated Edition. As a sequel this poor film has to stand up to the sheer creepiness of the original and when compared, it pales. However, when considered as its own film, its actually pretty good. It does what so few sequels do, and that is take the old plot on a new ride. It handles the characters from the original and allows them continued development. It creates a really creepy atmosphere, and has its own share of scares and chills. It has good momentum throughout the movie, good development, and enough intrigue to keep you wondering without being annoyed that you don't know what is going on for most of the film.
It has some weak points, though. One is this elaborate deer attack that once you know what is going on (and watch the making of video that explains it) makes sense, but in the context of the film, really loses you. They explain that the deer react to Samara's presence, and any setup for this (even a barking dog beforehand) would have helped. A similar issue occurred in the Ring with a horse going crazy, so it works, but it never gets a sufficient explanation in this film.
The other problem is what I call Forced Conflict. This usually occurs with characters who like asking lots of questions, like detectives or doctors. This film has a psychiatrist who asked perfectly reasonable questions that the character could have simply answered to avoid all ramifications. Instead, the character clams up and refuses to answer even the simplest question: "Did you hit your son?" Why not answer this with a truthful resounding no? What does she say? "I want you to leave." To make this forced conflict even worse, the psychiatrist locks the character in her office to detain her for a moment while she gets coffee. The psychiatrist returns moments later to find the character escaped out the window. Can anyone say "You just incriminated yourself"?
This aside, it is a passable film when allowed to stand on its own. When placed aside the original, it doesn't measure up and feels like a sequel.
It has some weak points, though. One is this elaborate deer attack that once you know what is going on (and watch the making of video that explains it) makes sense, but in the context of the film, really loses you. They explain that the deer react to Samara's presence, and any setup for this (even a barking dog beforehand) would have helped. A similar issue occurred in the Ring with a horse going crazy, so it works, but it never gets a sufficient explanation in this film.
The other problem is what I call Forced Conflict. This usually occurs with characters who like asking lots of questions, like detectives or doctors. This film has a psychiatrist who asked perfectly reasonable questions that the character could have simply answered to avoid all ramifications. Instead, the character clams up and refuses to answer even the simplest question: "Did you hit your son?" Why not answer this with a truthful resounding no? What does she say? "I want you to leave."
This aside, it is a passable film when allowed to stand on its own. When placed aside the original, it doesn't measure up and feels like a sequel.
Batman Begins -- 2005 -- PG-13
The revival of the Batman franchise by taking us back to Batman's roots and tweaking them to be exciting. A LOT goes on in this film from Bruce Wayne trying to learn who he is to his return to Gotham to his antics around town before discovering what he needs to "be" Batman. To survive the trek from Bruce to Batman, though, takes some patience as it doesn't happen for the first hour of the movie.
The only disappointment is the attempted inclusion of a Batman villain, Scarecrow. When he was there, he was frightening, but he was way underused and never acheived any measure of being threatening. And his "defeat" was nothing short of shameful (he wasn't beaten by the bat). The real villain was very good, however, and Scarecrow could have been dropped entirely, and we would have lost nothing.
Don't get this film mixed up with the four that have come before. The implications here are that we're gratefully starting the franchise over (and forgetting about that Batman & Robin debacle). Unlike Burton's Batman film from 1988, Mr. and Mrs. Wayne were killed by a rogue hoodlum, just like they were in the comic books. There is an implication of a sequel that may include the Joker.
It was a very good film overall, and one of the best super hero films to come out.
The only disappointment is the attempted inclusion of a Batman villain, Scarecrow. When he was there, he was frightening, but he was way underused and never acheived any measure of being threatening. And his "defeat" was nothing short of shameful (he wasn't beaten by the bat). The real villain was very good, however, and Scarecrow could have been dropped entirely, and we would have lost nothing.
Don't get this film mixed up with the four that have come before. The implications here are that we're gratefully starting the franchise over (and forgetting about that Batman & Robin debacle). Unlike Burton's Batman film from 1988, Mr. and Mrs. Wayne were killed by a rogue hoodlum, just like they were in the comic books. There is an implication of a sequel that may include the Joker.
It was a very good film overall, and one of the best super hero films to come out.
Ultraviolet -- 2006 -- PG-13
This was a film with a decent premise done in by a bad script. The effects were clever enough but a little on the low budget side. The fights were well-choreographed, but strangely, completely blood-free.
When I first read the synopsis of this movie, I blanched. The plot seemed similar to something I had written and that I'm rather proud of. However, a weak script, hole-ridden storyline, and general cheesy-ness have quelled my concerns about this little film usurping my eventual domination of the genre.
My major problem was a lot of stuff that just didn't make any sense. Apparently whatever is going on makes perfect sense to those on the inside, but to me, I got lost in the shuffle. They figure out this kid Violet is toting around is supposed to be able to kill off the Hemophages (the vampire type people). Well, the plot moves from this to weirder places and then off to somewhere where I got lost. Sheis supposed to have 36 hours to live, and not only does she survive longer than that, she survives beyond the death or something, and I don't know why. The kid dies, then lives. I don't know why. Violet cries tears which are suppose to mean something. I have no idea what they mean.
The fight sequences are overdone, and waaay overacted. They were mostly laughable.
The characters are cardboard cutouts there to jump through the hoops the plot provides. They have no apparent motivation. Whatever the point to this movie was, it got lost somewhere after, oh, it was conceived.
It is apparently based on a comic book character. Perhaps this is a case of fanboy mania where those who have read the comics understand the movie, and the rest of us...well, we're out of the loop.
When I first read the synopsis of this movie, I blanched. The plot seemed similar to something I had written and that I'm rather proud of. However, a weak script, hole-ridden storyline, and general cheesy-ness have quelled my concerns about this little film usurping my eventual domination of the genre.
My major problem was a lot of stuff that just didn't make any sense. Apparently whatever is going on makes perfect sense to those on the inside, but to me, I got lost in the shuffle. They figure out this kid Violet is toting around is supposed to be able to kill off the Hemophages (the vampire type people). Well, the plot moves from this to weirder places and then off to somewhere where I got lost. Sheis supposed to have 36 hours to live, and not only does she survive longer than that, she survives beyond the death or something, and I don't know why. The kid dies, then lives. I don't know why. Violet cries tears which are suppose to mean something. I have no idea what they mean.
The fight sequences are overdone, and waaay overacted. They were mostly laughable.
The characters are cardboard cutouts there to jump through the hoops the plot provides. They have no apparent motivation. Whatever the point to this movie was, it got lost somewhere after, oh, it was conceived.
It is apparently based on a comic book character. Perhaps this is a case of fanboy mania where those who have read the comics understand the movie, and the rest of us...well, we're out of the loop.
Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children - 2005 - PG-13
I saw a preview for this film, and when I saw the title, I thought they were putting me on and advertising a video game. It looked pretty neat from the trailer, and upon discovering it was a movie, I had to see it.
The best part of this film is the animation. It's CG like Pixar and Dreamworks are famous for, but this animation kicks both of those studios' butts when it comes to the CG work. It is absolutely incredible. Realism is beyond compare for computer animation. It's one of those that you must see to believe.
This medium, of course, allowed for some amazing action sequences. The opening motorcycle chase was just incredible. There was also a one on one melee in a gutted church that was rather good as well. Lots of great shots that were nothing short of picturesque while some high speed this and that went on in front of it. Just a feast for the eyes.
This is, however, where the good part ends.
This thing is based on a video game, and I can only guess it translated well. There was a ton of exposition running non-stop from one end to the other to make sure the audience had a clue as to what was going on. This means that the character development was almost completely sacrificed. They tried to squeeze too much into their running time, so elements of the plot seemed odd or out of place at several moments.
Then, comes the friends of the main character. Who the heck are these guys? We go from ex-soldier guy with skill to these superheroes with no introduction. They come into the story completely out of no where like a deux ex machina finish to a large monster (who also came out of no where) in the middle of the film.
Then, it turns out the main villain is someone who does not exist until certain requirements are fulfilled. It was a neat final battle, but the final resolution escaped me.
I can see fans of the game throughly enjoying and understanding this film, but this is another that for me, who watches the movie and expects to understand, I got lost in the overwhelming plot laid out here.
The best part of this film is the animation. It's CG like Pixar and Dreamworks are famous for, but this animation kicks both of those studios' butts when it comes to the CG work. It is absolutely incredible. Realism is beyond compare for computer animation. It's one of those that you must see to believe.
This medium, of course, allowed for some amazing action sequences. The opening motorcycle chase was just incredible. There was also a one on one melee in a gutted church that was rather good as well. Lots of great shots that were nothing short of picturesque while some high speed this and that went on in front of it. Just a feast for the eyes.
This is, however, where the good part ends.
This thing is based on a video game, and I can only guess it translated well. There was a ton of exposition running non-stop from one end to the other to make sure the audience had a clue as to what was going on. This means that the character development was almost completely sacrificed. They tried to squeeze too much into their running time, so elements of the plot seemed odd or out of place at several moments.
Then, comes the friends of the main character. Who the heck are these guys? We go from ex-soldier guy with skill to these superheroes with no introduction. They come into the story completely out of no where like a deux ex machina finish to a large monster (who also came out of no where) in the middle of the film.
Then, it turns out the main villain is someone who does not exist until certain requirements are fulfilled. It was a neat final battle, but the final resolution escaped me.
I can see fans of the game throughly enjoying and understanding this film, but this is another that for me, who watches the movie and expects to understand, I got lost in the overwhelming plot laid out here.
Final Destination -- 2000 -- R
This film has probably one of the cleverest premises in recent history for a horror movie. It was actually original. What if you had a premonition of your own death and avoided it? The answer plays out in this film where death does not like to be interrupted in his plan and the survivors of a horrific plane crash are summarily killed in a variety of "accidental" ways.
The boy who saw the accident which should have killed them is ushered off a plane when he declares that it will explode on takeoff. He and several others are in the waiting area when the plane actually does explode killing everyone on board and traumatizing those remaining. Just when they think it's all over, the survivors begin to die as well.
The death sequences (not to be morbid) are extremely inventive. Since we are not dealing with a physical force, but one that is supposed to be supernatural and controlling the fates of everyone, the potential for creative sequences is very much there. Every once of these things could be well labeled a freak accident, since the chances of most of these actually happening in real life is slim to none.
One of the more creative: a woman is drying her hands and lays the cloth on a knife block. She is boiling water for tea and pours the water into a mug. She flips out whe she realizes the saying on mug has emotional impact. She dumps the hot water and grabs vodka from the freezer. Well, this causes the mug to crack and the vodka to leak out. She walks across the room with the mug in hand and adjusts something behind a computer monitor (I forget what this was, but it made sense). The vodka trickles out of the mug and down into the computer monitor. She continues fooling with whatever next to the monitor for awhile. Well, the vodka gets into the electronics, creates a short circuit, and the monitor explodes. She is cut by the flying glass. Then, the flames from the exploding monitor ignites the vodka trail on the floor leading into the kitchen. Now the stove is on fire. She makes her way into the kitchen to put out the fire and collapses from the blood loss. She looks up and sees a cloth to help stop the flow of blood. What's the cloth on? The knife block. Tug on the cloth. Knife block comes down and thunk! Knife in chest. But wait, she's still alive. Our boy comes to help her. The stove blows up and knocks a dining room chair over to push the knife in. Now she's dead.
While not all of the deaths show that level of creativity, there are many that do, and the final showdown is not to be missed since it doesn't get more unlikely than that, and yet well within the rules of the film.
Definitely a recommended one for its creativity, originality, and even rewatchability.
The boy who saw the accident which should have killed them is ushered off a plane when he declares that it will explode on takeoff. He and several others are in the waiting area when the plane actually does explode killing everyone on board and traumatizing those remaining. Just when they think it's all over, the survivors begin to die as well.
The death sequences (not to be morbid) are extremely inventive. Since we are not dealing with a physical force, but one that is supposed to be supernatural and controlling the fates of everyone, the potential for creative sequences is very much there. Every once of these things could be well labeled a freak accident, since the chances of most of these actually happening in real life is slim to none.
One of the more creative: a woman is drying her hands and lays the cloth on a knife block. She is boiling water for tea and pours the water into a mug. She flips out whe she realizes the saying on mug has emotional impact. She dumps the hot water and grabs vodka from the freezer. Well, this causes the mug to crack and the vodka to leak out. She walks across the room with the mug in hand and adjusts something behind a computer monitor (I forget what this was, but it made sense). The vodka trickles out of the mug and down into the computer monitor. She continues fooling with whatever next to the monitor for awhile. Well, the vodka gets into the electronics, creates a short circuit, and the monitor explodes. She is cut by the flying glass. Then, the flames from the exploding monitor ignites the vodka trail on the floor leading into the kitchen. Now the stove is on fire. She makes her way into the kitchen to put out the fire and collapses from the blood loss. She looks up and sees a cloth to help stop the flow of blood. What's the cloth on? The knife block. Tug on the cloth. Knife block comes down and thunk! Knife in chest. But wait, she's still alive. Our boy comes to help her. The stove blows up and knocks a dining room chair over to push the knife in. Now she's dead.
While not all of the deaths show that level of creativity, there are many that do, and the final showdown is not to be missed since it doesn't get more unlikely than that, and yet well within the rules of the film.
Definitely a recommended one for its creativity, originality, and even rewatchability.
The Producers -- 2005 -- PG-13
This film is based on the Mel Brooks' Broadway musical which also starred Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick, which was based on the 1968 film of the same name which starred Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder.
Probably the easiest part of any musical is characterizing the main characters, and as with any musical, this is done very well. You get a real sense of who the main characters are as well as the supporting cast through their own character songs and moments.
The film had plenty of funny moments to it, and it even had a solid plot. It follows a down-on-his-luck Broadway producer who figures out through his nerdy accountant that with some creative bookkeeping, a producer can make more money with a flop than with a hit. So begins the roller coaster.
The way it all unfolded was just hilarious and the potential for the awful quality was there right from the get-go. The musical ended up being a romp called "Springtime For Hitler." Note this film is set close enough to the end of World War II to make this topic incredibly sensitive, so the potential for this to be a flop was right there. I found myself laughing at a lot of this and the ensuing madness when (surprise) the musical didn't flop.
There were some problems though. One of them is just in the musical to movie translation (and this may have been present in the original film). The first main scene in the office was incredibly long. After the opening scene where our producer is discussed as having another flop, we go to his office where all the principal characters and plot are introduced. This scene runs for over fifteen minutes -- an eternity for a movie. I felt it needed something to break it up a little.
In addition, I didn't quite understand the consequences of the premise. Apparently, if you bring in more money from investors than you spend on the product...you can get into trouble? Why would you get into trouble? Or my main question: if you are caught, why can't you just give the money back? This point was never explained, and I'm guessing they thought the audience would just get it? I didn't. When the musical did not flop, I didn't understand why they couldn't just say they were cooking the books and realized they did not require the funds they'd originally requested and simply return the investors' money. This was the only unexplained point, and it was big enough in my head to make the last third of the movie questionable.
If you can get past that point and just roll with it, it's a fun film though.
Probably the easiest part of any musical is characterizing the main characters, and as with any musical, this is done very well. You get a real sense of who the main characters are as well as the supporting cast through their own character songs and moments.
The film had plenty of funny moments to it, and it even had a solid plot. It follows a down-on-his-luck Broadway producer who figures out through his nerdy accountant that with some creative bookkeeping, a producer can make more money with a flop than with a hit. So begins the roller coaster.
The way it all unfolded was just hilarious and the potential for the awful quality was there right from the get-go. The musical ended up being a romp called "Springtime For Hitler." Note this film is set close enough to the end of World War II to make this topic incredibly sensitive, so the potential for this to be a flop was right there. I found myself laughing at a lot of this and the ensuing madness when (surprise) the musical didn't flop.
There were some problems though. One of them is just in the musical to movie translation (and this may have been present in the original film). The first main scene in the office was incredibly long. After the opening scene where our producer is discussed as having another flop, we go to his office where all the principal characters and plot are introduced. This scene runs for over fifteen minutes -- an eternity for a movie. I felt it needed something to break it up a little.
In addition, I didn't quite understand the consequences of the premise. Apparently, if you bring in more money from investors than you spend on the product...you can get into trouble? Why would you get into trouble? Or my main question: if you are caught, why can't you just give the money back? This point was never explained, and I'm guessing they thought the audience would just get it? I didn't. When the musical did not flop, I didn't understand why they couldn't just say they were cooking the books and realized they did not require the funds they'd originally requested and simply return the investors' money. This was the only unexplained point, and it was big enough in my head to make the last third of the movie questionable.
If you can get past that point and just roll with it, it's a fun film though.
Aeon Flux -- 2005 -- PG-13
This is a movie version of an MTV animated series involving a group of people in the distant future -- survivors of an ancient plague that has decimated the entire world's population and relegated everyone to a small patch of one country.
I've never seen the MTV series, so I'm approaching this from a cinematic angle, and I found the movie to be quite good and complete. the story was creative and original with no glaring holes. I thought some of the things that happened we a little forced, but not so over the top that it stuck out real bad.
The characters were decently developed and I felt for them to an extent. I did occasionally find them to be a bit over the top in their actions, but it all worked out fairly well. The only complaint I would have involves the main villain (once he is revealed). The megalomaniac thing works sometimes, but I thought it was kind of silly in the context of the film when the full reasoning came to light. He just felt a little too cold hearted. His reasoning didn't quite make sense.
In addition, I felt that the main character was too powerful in many things she did. She survived some pretty outlandish things.
So in the end, it was a good film, but some contrivances from the filmmakers served to decrease its perfection in my mind. These things might work for superhero type films, but I want to deal with real people in extraordinary situations.
I've never seen the MTV series, so I'm approaching this from a cinematic angle, and I found the movie to be quite good and complete. the story was creative and original with no glaring holes. I thought some of the things that happened we a little forced, but not so over the top that it stuck out real bad.
The characters were decently developed and I felt for them to an extent. I did occasionally find them to be a bit over the top in their actions, but it all worked out fairly well. The only complaint I would have involves the main villain (once he is revealed). The megalomaniac thing works sometimes, but I thought it was kind of silly in the context of the film when the full reasoning came to light. He just felt a little too cold hearted. His reasoning didn't quite make sense.
In addition, I felt that the main character was too powerful in many things she did. She survived some pretty outlandish things.
So in the end, it was a good film, but some contrivances from the filmmakers served to decrease its perfection in my mind. These things might work for superhero type films, but I want to deal with real people in extraordinary situations.
House of Wax -- 2005 -- R
Theoretically, this is a remake of he 1953 film with Vincent Price, but the only similarity between this one and that one is the wax covered corpses, and the deformed man with the wax face. Beyond that, this is an original take on the old idea.
The idea behind this film isn't bad. You have an isolated town with a wax museum made entirely of wax. Some argue that the wax building would melt in the sun, but wax takes some extreme temperatures to melt, and I don't see it as a large error. Anyway, the entire town is essentially dead, so these brothers take it over, filling the shops and building with wax dummies to give the entire town the appearance of being a wax museum. Come to find out that these brothers are killing passers-by and covering their bodies with wax. The deaths are okay, the chases are pretty good, and the ending is kind of neat as well.
Characters are about normal for a horror movie in that you get just enough to know who they are, but not develop them to the point that you care. They also do their typical range of idiotic things such as exploring other people's houses and going places that the script tells them to. I rolled my eyes a lot during this film.
When would I have left if I were them? When I'd made camp and a truck drives up and sits there with its lights shining on the campsite. Knowing there was someone in the area who would do this, I would never go to sleep. We'd be out of there. What do they do? Go to sleep only to have a camera stolen and a car sabotaged. Can't say that I'm that surprised.
In the end, for a horror flick, it was okay, but certainly not the best, or even decent, film to come out last year. If they'd spent some time developing the characters and having them make intelligent decisions, that would have improved this film a lot.
The idea behind this film isn't bad. You have an isolated town with a wax museum made entirely of wax. Some argue that the wax building would melt in the sun, but wax takes some extreme temperatures to melt, and I don't see it as a large error. Anyway, the entire town is essentially dead, so these brothers take it over, filling the shops and building with wax dummies to give the entire town the appearance of being a wax museum. Come to find out that these brothers are killing passers-by and covering their bodies with wax. The deaths are okay, the chases are pretty good, and the ending is kind of neat as well.
Characters are about normal for a horror movie in that you get just enough to know who they are, but not develop them to the point that you care. They also do their typical range of idiotic things such as exploring other people's houses and going places that the script tells them to. I rolled my eyes a lot during this film.
When would I have left if I were them? When I'd made camp and a truck drives up and sits there with its lights shining on the campsite. Knowing there was someone in the area who would do this, I would never go to sleep. We'd be out of there. What do they do? Go to sleep only to have a camera stolen and a car sabotaged. Can't say that I'm that surprised.
In the end, for a horror flick, it was okay, but certainly not the best, or even decent, film to come out last year. If they'd spent some time developing the characters and having them make intelligent decisions, that would have improved this film a lot.
The Island -- 2005 -- PG-13
From the moment I saw the first trailer, I knew this was a remake of a film I saw on TV a long time ago called Parts: The Clonus Horror, and the film followed that plot line perfectly. However, this being a modern movie, it really improved upon some of the cheese that permeated that old plot and made for a better and more satisfying film overall.
We begin in an environment that reminds me of a cross between 1984 and THX-1138 where people are in a mostly sterile environment wearing nothing but white jumpsuits. They all long to go to a place called "The Island" which they believe is the only place to have survived a catastrophic contamination that destroyed much of the earth and forced them into the world they now live in.
While I had an idea of where this was going based on this earlier film, this movie was still satisfying and had its own surprises going along making it not a total waste of over two hours. Some of the chase sequences ran on too long, but they had some great effects here and there.
So in the end, a lot of it is very familiar, but it is tied together in such a way to make it worth watching.
We begin in an environment that reminds me of a cross between 1984 and THX-1138 where people are in a mostly sterile environment wearing nothing but white jumpsuits. They all long to go to a place called "The Island" which they believe is the only place to have survived a catastrophic contamination that destroyed much of the earth and forced them into the world they now live in.
While I had an idea of where this was going based on this earlier film, this movie was still satisfying and had its own surprises going along making it not a total waste of over two hours. Some of the chase sequences ran on too long, but they had some great effects here and there.
So in the end, a lot of it is very familiar, but it is tied together in such a way to make it worth watching.
Saw II -- 2005 -- R
The sequel to the thriller Saw has two basic storylines in its structure. One of them is very good with some awesome twists very much carrying on the tradition of the first film. The second storyline is nothing more than a basic slasher complete with a host of characters who will inevitably be killed in a variety of different fashions before really getting to know them making their deaths, while gruesome, mean nothing emotionally.
The primary storyline involves the pathos-injected serial killer, Jigsaw (or John, as he prefers to be called), building an intricate and complex game around and between a cop and his son, who are, of course, estranged due to a parental divorce. This is the primary plot device which propels the film forward in both elements and gives us some buy-in to the story. john makes his simple request and assures the cop that if he complies, he will see his son. Since he is also told everyone in the house where his son is will die within the same time frame of a deadly nerve agent, this creates an understandable amount of agitation for the cop. This conflict is played out in pretty much one location while they can watch the eight people in the house on a series of monitors. This plot climaxes beautifully, has no less than three excellent twists within that climax and really makes the film worth watching.
The second plot of the eight strangers in a house is ok, and serves the primary purpose to give the main plot something to argue over. However, these eight strangers are idiots. They don't listen. They don't cooperate. They are told some specific things, and don't seem to even care. They are told about an antidote in the room they start in, but they don't even try for it since that would involve conversation and character building. Instead, they set themselves to wander aimlessly through this house, insisting (no matter what stands in their way) that they will find a way out. They get themselves into the traps Jigsaw has made, and more often than not, die trying to decipher them...not that the deciphering is that difficult. For the first trap, they somehow know that the antidote is in syringes, but they have yet to see what the antidote looks like yet. How do they know it's not injestible? They woudln't. On another occasion, they actually get an antidote, but no one uses it. Why not? If fact, no one even mentions it even though the syringe clearly had something in it. Deleted scene? Overall, this part of the film just stinks because it is so plain in comparison to the main plot. It takes away from the enjoyment of the main plot due primarily to the amount of eye-rolling that goes on for me.
So the verdict is that this is a good and watchable film as long as you don't expect too much from our house guests, who act very much like they belong on Big Brother complete with their infantile antics. Go for the main plot. It is intelligent and clever and the twists are (as with the first film) definitely worth the wait
The primary storyline involves the pathos-injected serial killer, Jigsaw (or John, as he prefers to be called), building an intricate and complex game around and between a cop and his son, who are, of course, estranged due to a parental divorce. This is the primary plot device which propels the film forward in both elements and gives us some buy-in to the story. john makes his simple request and assures the cop that if he complies, he will see his son. Since he is also told everyone in the house where his son is will die within the same time frame of a deadly nerve agent, this creates an understandable amount of agitation for the cop. This conflict is played out in pretty much one location while they can watch the eight people in the house on a series of monitors. This plot climaxes beautifully, has no less than three excellent twists within that climax and really makes the film worth watching.
The second plot of the eight strangers in a house is ok, and serves the primary purpose to give the main plot something to argue over. However, these eight strangers are idiots. They don't listen. They don't cooperate. They are told some specific things, and don't seem to even care. They are told about an antidote in the room they start in, but they don't even try for it since that would involve conversation and character building. Instead, they set themselves to wander aimlessly through this house, insisting (no matter what stands in their way) that they will find a way out. They get themselves into the traps Jigsaw has made, and more often than not, die trying to decipher them...not that the deciphering is that difficult. For the first trap, they somehow know that the antidote is in syringes, but they have yet to see what the antidote looks like yet. How do they know it's not injestible? They woudln't. On another occasion, they actually get an antidote, but no one uses it. Why not? If fact, no one even mentions it even though the syringe clearly had something in it. Deleted scene? Overall, this part of the film just stinks because it is so plain in comparison to the main plot. It takes away from the enjoyment of the main plot due primarily to the amount of eye-rolling that goes on for me.
So the verdict is that this is a good and watchable film as long as you don't expect too much from our house guests, who act very much like they belong on Big Brother complete with their infantile antics. Go for the main plot. It is intelligent and clever and the twists are (as with the first film) definitely worth the wait
Skeleton Key -- 2005 -- PG-13
Dissenters aside, I thought this movie worked pretty well for what it was. Most of it occurred in one house with some pretty decent character development, though the main character could have been rounded out a little better. We got a feel for her outlook, but not much of her past life or future desires.
I thought the basic plot was pretty good and the twists were well thought out and tied together, along with a very sinister revelation near the end. That really helped this film a lot, but it still suffered from underdeveloped characters. While I will grant that there was a reason they appeared the way they were, it still would have helped if there was more substance to them.
Some of the sequences did not make a lot of sense. Why continue to go up to the attic just to explore the forbidden room? Especially after what it was doing earlier? Why defy the homeowners so much? Why, when threatened as she was, with the knowledge she had, did she stand directly in the path of danger? Why not run to her room where she had already protected herself? She seemed to willingly welcome the fate she ended with. In quite a few instances, the plot moved the characters instead of the other way around as it should be. This movie also has the distinction of being the only film I know of where a vehicle is unable to break through a lock on a fence. Kinda weird.
Everything else was well-explained, clever for the most part, and tied up neatly complete with a bizarre question mark of an ending for a minor character. So overall, not bad, it just lacked in a lot of other areas. I think a little more thought into the screenplay would have helped a lot.
I thought the basic plot was pretty good and the twists were well thought out and tied together, along with a very sinister revelation near the end. That really helped this film a lot, but it still suffered from underdeveloped characters. While I will grant that there was a reason they appeared the way they were, it still would have helped if there was more substance to them.
Some of the sequences did not make a lot of sense. Why continue to go up to the attic just to explore the forbidden room? Especially after what it was doing earlier? Why defy the homeowners so much? Why, when threatened as she was, with the knowledge she had, did she stand directly in the path of danger? Why not run to her room where she had already protected herself? She seemed to willingly welcome the fate she ended with. In quite a few instances, the plot moved the characters instead of the other way around as it should be. This movie also has the distinction of being the only film I know of where a vehicle is unable to break through a lock on a fence. Kinda weird.
Everything else was well-explained, clever for the most part, and tied up neatly complete with a bizarre question mark of an ending for a minor character. So overall, not bad, it just lacked in a lot of other areas. I think a little more thought into the screenplay would have helped a lot.
Red Eye -- 2005 -- PG-13
This was a film that had a really good beginning, and moved perfectly right into the big shocker on the airplane. The tension was really well done...for awhile.
After some time, it became kind of annoying that everything this woman did to escape was discovered every time, and in the most convenient ways possible. The guy was omniscent or something.
The entry into the third act was clever, but matters of convenience got in the way again as this guy managed to keep going somehow. It seemed a bit hard to believe in some ways, but I guess it worked. The subplot of the girl in the hotel was okay, and helped in a way to distract from the main plot, but not enough, so it was very easy to get bored with the single thing going on.
I will have to say that the final scene during the denouement of the whole film was simply golden. I laughed out loud.
After some time, it became kind of annoying that everything this woman did to escape was discovered every time, and in the most convenient ways possible. The guy was omniscent or something.
The entry into the third act was clever, but matters of convenience got in the way again as this guy managed to keep going somehow. It seemed a bit hard to believe in some ways, but I guess it worked. The subplot of the girl in the hotel was okay, and helped in a way to distract from the main plot, but not enough, so it was very easy to get bored with the single thing going on.
I will have to say that the final scene during the denouement of the whole film was simply golden. I laughed out loud.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - 2005 - PG-13
The fourth film adapting the Harry Potter series continues the tradition laid down in the third of allowing Stephen Kloves to adapt the book properly instead of trying to film the book as the first two films did. The result is a film that, like the books, is darker and scarier than the one before it. While it was diappointing that John Williams did not compose the music to this one, it is still a great film and a great addition to the HP series.
This film moves fast. Kloves followed the standard of adaptation very well by retaining the essential plot points of the book while writing a screenplay around them. We thankfully do not include the Dursleys here allowing us to pick up right in the wizarding world with the Quidditch World Cup and all the things that went with it. From there, we jet right over to Hogwart's and get into the point of the movie: the Tri-Wizard Tournament, that underage Harry, of course, has to participate in.
It's been awhile since I read the book, but I remembered much of it as I watched the film meaning it followed the story pretty closely. I'm sure there were some things missed, but given the length of the book, that comes as no surprise. The essence of the story was captured, and we got ourselves a dark, fast film with some solid character moments for the lead trio and those around them.
A moment I am grateful was touched on is the budding love-hate between Hermione and Ron that is back and forth in the books. They were given a solid scene to play out the emotions and they did it very well. Be very cool to see how they continue to blossom this one.
So, overall, if you've liked the movies so far, this one will not disappoint.
This film moves fast. Kloves followed the standard of adaptation very well by retaining the essential plot points of the book while writing a screenplay around them. We thankfully do not include the Dursleys here allowing us to pick up right in the wizarding world with the Quidditch World Cup and all the things that went with it. From there, we jet right over to Hogwart's and get into the point of the movie: the Tri-Wizard Tournament, that underage Harry, of course, has to participate in.
It's been awhile since I read the book, but I remembered much of it as I watched the film meaning it followed the story pretty closely. I'm sure there were some things missed, but given the length of the book, that comes as no surprise. The essence of the story was captured, and we got ourselves a dark, fast film with some solid character moments for the lead trio and those around them.
A moment I am grateful was touched on is the budding love-hate between Hermione and Ron that is back and forth in the books. They were given a solid scene to play out the emotions and they did it very well. Be very cool to see how they continue to blossom this one.
So, overall, if you've liked the movies so far, this one will not disappoint.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The Brothers Grimm -- 2005 -- PG-13
This movie looked intriguing from the trailers I watched, but the final product was actually kind of disappointing. I guess it's still possible to make a good trailer.
The main problem here from the beginning was the pacing. It moved slowly and continued to take its time meandering through the opening plot lines. I had some difficulty following how the brothers ended up in their precarious situation and what the emperor had to do with it as well.
After about an hour, the pace picks up a little bit and it becomes somewhat interesting, but as we continue through it, too much goes on. They are in and out of the forest too much which causes it to lose its nature of being a threat. They are captured, released, and chased over and over again. The final battle throws in nearly every character we've met so far, and it becomes more of an eye roller than anything else.
The outcome to the final battle strikes me as ill-conceived and very hard to believe, even for a fairy tale.
So what began as a good idea just kind of foundered in the making of the film. I think the script has some issues as well that should have been corrected prior to filming. Terry Gilliam, the director and of Monty Python fame, has directed perfectly good films before, but it seems he missed the mark on this one with a film that is too slow and too contrived for its own good.
The main problem here from the beginning was the pacing. It moved slowly and continued to take its time meandering through the opening plot lines. I had some difficulty following how the brothers ended up in their precarious situation and what the emperor had to do with it as well.
After about an hour, the pace picks up a little bit and it becomes somewhat interesting, but as we continue through it, too much goes on. They are in and out of the forest too much which causes it to lose its nature of being a threat. They are captured, released, and chased over and over again. The final battle throws in nearly every character we've met so far, and it becomes more of an eye roller than anything else.
The outcome to the final battle strikes me as ill-conceived and very hard to believe, even for a fairy tale.
So what began as a good idea just kind of foundered in the making of the film. I think the script has some issues as well that should have been corrected prior to filming. Terry Gilliam, the director and of Monty Python fame, has directed perfectly good films before, but it seems he missed the mark on this one with a film that is too slow and too contrived for its own good.
Must Love Dogs -- 2005 -- PG-13
Guess who got subjected to another chick flick the other night? If you said you did, then clearly we're in the same boat...just like the people in this movie were at one point.
We've reached the age of Internet dating and there's no better way to bring this into the social consciousness than to make it the backbone of a film about a divorcee who is afraid to "get back out there." Her sister places an ad for her, and she meets the love interest because his best friend responded for him...because he is also a divorcee afraid to "get back out there." The two have some good chemistry together and their scenes are really amusing and you want the best for the relationship.
This whole thing gets complicated by the "don't touch that one, he's still married" love interest which she goes after anyway. I know she has a journey to go through, but the film struggles with keeping these two plots remaining interesting as between their introductions and then the parts going, a lot of time passes as a lot of other things happen. For a time, I wondered if the one she shouldn't was out of the picture since the final love interest was in, but then he showed right back up.
Call it a personal preference, but I feel like the girl sleeping with anyone other than the final guy during the film only hurts her character and makes her less appealing. Final guy told his easy-to-bag date "no." Points for him. Must admit that cross-town condom hunt was very funny.
It has its ups and downs, but in the end everything was tied up nice and neat, and it was done as well as it could be done. I think we could have had a cleaner movie without the married (sorry, "separated") guy, but it still worked pretty well. It's no Sleepless in Seattle, though, which I'm sure I'm be watching soon...
We've reached the age of Internet dating and there's no better way to bring this into the social consciousness than to make it the backbone of a film about a divorcee who is afraid to "get back out there." Her sister places an ad for her, and she meets the love interest because his best friend responded for him...because he is also a divorcee afraid to "get back out there." The two have some good chemistry together and their scenes are really amusing and you want the best for the relationship.
This whole thing gets complicated by the "don't touch that one, he's still married" love interest which she goes after anyway. I know she has a journey to go through, but the film struggles with keeping these two plots remaining interesting as between their introductions and then the parts going, a lot of time passes as a lot of other things happen. For a time, I wondered if the one she shouldn't was out of the picture since the final love interest was in, but then he showed right back up.
Call it a personal preference, but I feel like the girl sleeping with anyone other than the final guy during the film only hurts her character and makes her less appealing. Final guy told his easy-to-bag date "no." Points for him. Must admit that cross-town condom hunt was very funny.
It has its ups and downs, but in the end everything was tied up nice and neat, and it was done as well as it could be done. I think we could have had a cleaner movie without the married (sorry, "separated") guy, but it still worked pretty well. It's no Sleepless in Seattle, though, which I'm sure I'm be watching soon...
Rent -- 2005 -- PG-13
I've been waiting years for this one. I got the cast recording of Rent in 1997, a year after it came out on Broadway.
This is a heck of a drama on screen. The relationships are engaging when watching them develop from the sweetness of Collins and Angel to the touching uncertainty of Roger and Mimi to the controlling/flirtatious rocky back and forthness of Joanne and Maureen, it seems to cover the basic types of relationship types we encounter or have even been in before. And then you have Mark who is just there giving us the tale from his vantage point, it seems, as he works to film his movie. Through Larson's wonderful music, we feel the trials these characters go through and the heartbreaks as they endure them.
The stage-to-screen translation worked very, very well and it delivers a powerful performance with nearly every main musical number intact. Some of the more recitative numbers from the show were changed into straight dialogue, and two songs were cut; Christmas Bells, which is a favorite from the show and I wish they kept and Contact, which I'm grateful was gone. I guess it was a fair trade-off.
Another bonus here is after listening to the cast recording for so long, most of the main cast in the movie was from the original Broadway cast meaning that the voices singing were exactly the same ones from the 1996 recording.
Yes, some of the subject matter deals with homosexuality, but that is not something rubbed in the face of the viewer; it's simply an element of the story such as space travel is for Star Trek...simply there and we move on. Will and Grace is 100 times more in your face than this show is about that topic.
So my bottom line is that this is still a wonderful show, and the filmmakers did a great job on the movie of it. The biggest danger is trying to make a movie out of a musical is losing some of the magic of the stage; it wasn't lost here.
This is a heck of a drama on screen. The relationships are engaging when watching them develop from the sweetness of Collins and Angel to the touching uncertainty of Roger and Mimi to the controlling/flirtatious rocky back and forthness of Joanne and Maureen, it seems to cover the basic types of relationship types we encounter or have even been in before. And then you have Mark who is just there giving us the tale from his vantage point, it seems, as he works to film his movie. Through Larson's wonderful music, we feel the trials these characters go through and the heartbreaks as they endure them.
The stage-to-screen translation worked very, very well and it delivers a powerful performance with nearly every main musical number intact. Some of the more recitative numbers from the show were changed into straight dialogue, and two songs were cut; Christmas Bells, which is a favorite from the show and I wish they kept and Contact, which I'm grateful was gone. I guess it was a fair trade-off.
Another bonus here is after listening to the cast recording for so long, most of the main cast in the movie was from the original Broadway cast meaning that the voices singing were exactly the same ones from the 1996 recording.
Yes, some of the subject matter deals with homosexuality, but that is not something rubbed in the face of the viewer; it's simply an element of the story such as space travel is for Star Trek...simply there and we move on. Will and Grace is 100 times more in your face than this show is about that topic.
So my bottom line is that this is still a wonderful show, and the filmmakers did a great job on the movie of it. The biggest danger is trying to make a movie out of a musical is losing some of the magic of the stage; it wasn't lost here.
Doom -- 2005 -- R
I watched the DVD Unrated version.
I don't know what it was about this movie. It's like a guilty pleasure. We're talking about a film that is mostly cliche sci-fi action.
I don't mind admitting this. Rooms stay dark for some reason, even though the lights get turned on in some rooms. In the dark rooms, no one tries. The guys are pulled off an imminent leave for the mission. Yeah, didn't see that coming... The group is from the Marines. always a sci-fi favorite. Each Marine has his own nickname. One was killed moments after his flashlight conveniently went out. Shots are clearly setup for something to appear in that big open space to the character's right. Kinda takes away the surprise. I asked myself why one sequence was so freakin' long as a guy conveniently dropped his gun clip causing it to skitter across the floor just out of reach. He was in a bathroom and instead of just going for his clip by opening the bathroom stall door and diving for it, he crawls under the door and reaches for it. I'm waiting for him to get pummelled, but as these movies go, that's too easy. It wasn't suspenseful; just annoying.
The character development is remarkably decent. Even though we get a whole slew of characters to likely give us a high body count, the development of these characters was done as well as it could be. Each had his share of a combination of cliches and flaws. My only complain on these was the character who was apparently added at the last minute to fill the need to be a kill. He had no development at all. He stood guard for awhile while everyone else ran around, and then inexplicably, he was used to come in a rare threesome to a particular room where he remained out of sight until the bad creature thing came by and lopped off his head.
However, in the late second / early third act, something happens. The movie actually starts to get interesting. Character development comes to a head as characters get knocked off. With the numbers dropping, characters get more screen time and you learn more about them. It even got exciting. The revelation of the creatures' origin was not much of a twist, nor was an escape by them. The big twist was the leader's solution to the problem. It was completely whacked, but made perfect sense.
But then we had something big happen. Here's the point where if you allow yourself to be sucked into the film, it becomes the guilty pleasure. A five minute plus continuous shot first person sequence styled right out of the game. The camera zip-pans around finding creatures coming up behind you and on top of you, and the gun is just going nuts as you're being attacked. From a forensical perspective, it's a little silly, but as just an entertaining sequence, it was awesome.
We ended with the obligatory and somewhat silly fistfight / wrestling match (we're dealing with The Rock here). You know, the kind where they put down their guns and duke it out like men (or monsters or whatever).
So when the credits rolled with its heavy metal rock parental advisory lyrics song at the end, I found myself stunned to discover I liked it. The movie is very entertaining. It had a decent plot, good characters, and some decent directing. It has some weak points, but I am able to overlook them.
But here's the catch: This movie is based on a video game. Personally, I think linking movies to video games is a horrible idea because the video game audience doesn't understand the drama in the film, and the movie audience doesn't understand the video game elements. The filmmakers here wisely made a film loosely based on the game and it's essential plot, but did not duplicate the video game. If you loved the game, you'll hate the movie. If you can detach yourself from the game, or have never played Doom 3 (the game this movie's plot is based on), you just might enjoy it. The title was this movie's doom as it lost over $40 million at the box office according to IMDB. Hope its video sales are better. I admit to buying a copy. I told you it was a guilty pleasure.
I don't know what it was about this movie. It's like a guilty pleasure. We're talking about a film that is mostly cliche sci-fi action.
I don't mind admitting this. Rooms stay dark for some reason, even though the lights get turned on in some rooms. In the dark rooms, no one tries. The guys are pulled off an imminent leave for the mission. Yeah, didn't see that coming... The group is from the Marines. always a sci-fi favorite. Each Marine has his own nickname. One was killed moments after his flashlight conveniently went out. Shots are clearly setup for something to appear in that big open space to the character's right. Kinda takes away the surprise. I asked myself why one sequence was so freakin' long as a guy conveniently dropped his gun clip causing it to skitter across the floor just out of reach. He was in a bathroom and instead of just going for his clip by opening the bathroom stall door and diving for it, he crawls under the door and reaches for it. I'm waiting for him to get pummelled, but as these movies go, that's too easy. It wasn't suspenseful; just annoying.
The character development is remarkably decent. Even though we get a whole slew of characters to likely give us a high body count, the development of these characters was done as well as it could be. Each had his share of a combination of cliches and flaws. My only complain on these was the character who was apparently added at the last minute to fill the need to be a kill. He had no development at all. He stood guard for awhile while everyone else ran around, and then inexplicably, he was used to come in a rare threesome to a particular room where he remained out of sight until the bad creature thing came by and lopped off his head.
However, in the late second / early third act, something happens. The movie actually starts to get interesting. Character development comes to a head as characters get knocked off. With the numbers dropping, characters get more screen time and you learn more about them. It even got exciting. The revelation of the creatures' origin was not much of a twist, nor was an escape by them. The big twist was the leader's solution to the problem. It was completely whacked, but made perfect sense.
But then we had something big happen. Here's the point where if you allow yourself to be sucked into the film, it becomes the guilty pleasure. A five minute plus continuous shot first person sequence styled right out of the game. The camera zip-pans around finding creatures coming up behind you and on top of you, and the gun is just going nuts as you're being attacked. From a forensical perspective, it's a little silly, but as just an entertaining sequence, it was awesome.
We ended with the obligatory and somewhat silly fistfight / wrestling match (we're dealing with The Rock here). You know, the kind where they put down their guns and duke it out like men (or monsters or whatever).
So when the credits rolled with its heavy metal rock parental advisory lyrics song at the end, I found myself stunned to discover I liked it. The movie is very entertaining. It had a decent plot, good characters, and some decent directing. It has some weak points, but I am able to overlook them.
But here's the catch: This movie is based on a video game. Personally, I think linking movies to video games is a horrible idea because the video game audience doesn't understand the drama in the film, and the movie audience doesn't understand the video game elements. The filmmakers here wisely made a film loosely based on the game and it's essential plot, but did not duplicate the video game. If you loved the game, you'll hate the movie. If you can detach yourself from the game, or have never played Doom 3 (the game this movie's plot is based on), you just might enjoy it. The title was this movie's doom as it lost over $40 million at the box office according to IMDB. Hope its video sales are better. I admit to buying a copy. I told you it was a guilty pleasure.
The Interpreter -- 2005 -- PG-13
A political thriller following a woman who works for the UN as an interpreter who overhears a plot to assassinate a controversial head of state. The Feds try to protect her, but she shields from them her complex past making their job only that much more difficult.
This is a film with multiple layers and pretty solid characters. The plot centers itself more around this woman as uncovering her past than it does who is following her, and this is pretty much on purpose. The questions linger throughout: did she hear something or not? Is she in on it or not? And the beauty of it all is that we really don't know until it's all over.
I found this to be a well-constructed plot that finally ties itself up fairly well by the final frame, though the denouement is a little shaky. Fortunately, for a political thriller, it doesn't bog us down in the politics. In fact, the movie centers around a fictional country, which while some complain that this is a poor device, works a little better than placing a real one in there since it allows for a statement to be made without centering anyone out.
Overall, good flick.
This is a film with multiple layers and pretty solid characters. The plot centers itself more around this woman as uncovering her past than it does who is following her, and this is pretty much on purpose. The questions linger throughout: did she hear something or not? Is she in on it or not? And the beauty of it all is that we really don't know until it's all over.
I found this to be a well-constructed plot that finally ties itself up fairly well by the final frame, though the denouement is a little shaky. Fortunately, for a political thriller, it doesn't bog us down in the politics. In fact, the movie centers around a fictional country, which while some complain that this is a poor device, works a little better than placing a real one in there since it allows for a statement to be made without centering anyone out.
Overall, good flick.
The Fog -- 2005 -- PG-13
This is a remake of the 1980 John Carpenter film that I have yet to see. We have a little island town with a dark past that finally comes back to haunt them in the form of a fog hiding the supernatural attackers.
Like many teen scream flicks, this one lacks in the character department first and foremost. The main male lead, whose name I don't even remember, has little to no development at all, even though he seems to be the main character. More time is given to the female lead, Elizabeth, but she up and does silly things that no one in their right mind would do (like hearing a noise and walking outside all the way down to the beach in her underwear). There are other characters, but what development they are granted is limited solely to the scenes they are in....if you're lucky.
One question I wanted to know waswhy these spirits chose this moment to return. There seemed to be a bigger backstory here that they never got into. The spirits seem to have a tie-in with the lead female, Elizabeth, but rather than explore this thread, the movie moves onward to another impressive, special effects-laden kill.
Elizabeth's final actions in the film save the day...but why does she do them? Nothing to this point indicated what needed to be done, and likewise when she did it, it occurred without reasoning or explanation. I thought I had a clue as to what was going on based on what I did know, but it didn't go that way and instead, did something that didn't make a lot of sense.
So while the pacing was decent, the characters were paper thin, and the plot had multiple pitfalls. I wanted to know why this started, or at least someone say there was nothing to trigger it. It might have been triggered by a bag of goodies that was torn open near the beginning, but that really doesn't make a lot of sense...however, it's all we have to go on.
Like many teen scream flicks, this one lacks in the character department first and foremost. The main male lead, whose name I don't even remember, has little to no development at all, even though he seems to be the main character. More time is given to the female lead, Elizabeth, but she up and does silly things that no one in their right mind would do (like hearing a noise and walking outside all the way down to the beach in her underwear). There are other characters, but what development they are granted is limited solely to the scenes they are in....if you're lucky.
One question I wanted to know waswhy these spirits chose this moment to return. There seemed to be a bigger backstory here that they never got into. The spirits seem to have a tie-in with the lead female, Elizabeth, but rather than explore this thread, the movie moves onward to another impressive, special effects-laden kill.
Elizabeth's final actions in the film save the day...but why does she do them? Nothing to this point indicated what needed to be done, and likewise when she did it, it occurred without reasoning or explanation. I thought I had a clue as to what was going on based on what I did know, but it didn't go that way and instead, did something that didn't make a lot of sense.
So while the pacing was decent, the characters were paper thin, and the plot had multiple pitfalls. I wanted to know why this started, or at least someone say there was nothing to trigger it. It might have been triggered by a bag of goodies that was torn open near the beginning, but that really doesn't make a lot of sense...however, it's all we have to go on.
Corpse Bride -- 2005 -- PG
Whoa, now this was wild. A perfect romantic musical comedy set against a horrific, gloomy backdrop. Probably the only cross-genre horror-romance I've ever seen. The only trouble you run into was when it's over, how do you feel? Were you scared? Did you laugh? Did you get that warm, fuzzy romantic comedy date movie feeling? Are you as confused as I am?
The cross-genre thing aside, this was a really great film. It played up all the classic "dead" conventions of body parts falling off and such, while simultaneously constructing a great romantic storyline with one of the best conflicts (live guy marries dead girl). It ran through the film wonderfully creating awkward situations and a wonderful climax.
The characters worked well for me, the pacing and transitions show that Tim Burton is a skilled director, and the Danny Elfman music and songs, while definitely sounding out of character for the traditionally dark Elfman, are quite good.
The only downfall is the musical sequences primarily serve to lengthen the dreadfully short 77 minute run time. I can't help but wonder why it was so short. Granted it moved really fast, but I kind of felt a little cheated when it ended so quickly. We could have tried to spend a little more time getting to know these characters, and it would have only benefited the film as a whole.
If you can wrap your mind around the bizarre genre cross in this one, it's definitely worth watching.
The cross-genre thing aside, this was a really great film. It played up all the classic "dead" conventions of body parts falling off and such, while simultaneously constructing a great romantic storyline with one of the best conflicts (live guy marries dead girl). It ran through the film wonderfully creating awkward situations and a wonderful climax.
The characters worked well for me, the pacing and transitions show that Tim Burton is a skilled director, and the Danny Elfman music and songs, while definitely sounding out of character for the traditionally dark Elfman, are quite good.
The only downfall is the musical sequences primarily serve to lengthen the dreadfully short 77 minute run time. I can't help but wonder why it was so short. Granted it moved really fast, but I kind of felt a little cheated when it ended so quickly. We could have tried to spend a little more time getting to know these characters, and it would have only benefited the film as a whole.
If you can wrap your mind around the bizarre genre cross in this one, it's definitely worth watching.
The Cave -- 2005 -- PG-13
So this movie follows a bunch of cave divers who like to explore the underwater world deep within a cave. They go deep in one cave, and once trapped, they discover sinister creatures down there.
The premise is clever and really shows how a good premise can get a movie made, but some of the execution is shoddy. Some of the shots seemed premature in that they didn't make sense until some later shots occurred.
one of the character actions didn't make sense until they explained, again, later. They hopped a ride on a water slide leading down a waterfall. I'm thinking, why are they going down? I thought they wanted out. Learned later in the film (not explained, but I picked up on it) that the water has to come out somewhere, so that worked.
Sometimes, the characters did things that really didn't make sense either. For instance, if I went down a tunnel into a chamber where I was attacked by a bunch of cave scorpians and then one of these freaky demon creatures, I wouldn't go back to everyone and say, "hey, I found the way," and then RETURN TO THAT CHAMBER! Children, we call that stupidity and find another way out.
This happened multiple times during the film too.
Finally, the group inevitably splits up after disagreeing about the best way out. One group climbs up some walls and down others which would put the fittest climber to shame and wear him out. The other decides to follow another underground current and see where it comes out.
Well, the climbers win when they find an exit. However, one of them heroically (or stupidly) goes back in climbing up and down walls AGAIN to find everyone else who followed the current! I'm thinking wait a minute! You don't know where that current went. It could have led straight out as well. Of course it didn't so he's a big hero, but somehow the tunnels led through a few more passages and...ta-da! right into the chamber where the first group was waiting. Wow, what are the astronomically minute chances of THAT happening? The climb was more believable.
Finally, there was this deal with a parasite in the cave water which was clever. It gave the thing a bit of a time element...except...what you're telling me is that through all that climbing, falling, bumping, and crashing, no one got a single scrape on their perfect form to admit this parasite? Having some trouble here.
Characters were ok. They weren't spectacular, but these types of films tend to lack in that area. Thin if any backstory, and very little motivational explanation beyond the character stereotypes. Overall, the combination of the attempt to make us care along with the sheer stupidity of some of the actions balanced us out to curiosity but not a relationship.
The plot itself was well formed and relatively sound. The pacing was fine. The underwater shots were amazing. I liked the creatures and the concept behind them. It basically had a big problem in believability allowing our hero to do too much to be heroic. If you can suspend your disbelief enough, it's good. If you prefer believability, not so good.
The premise is clever and really shows how a good premise can get a movie made, but some of the execution is shoddy. Some of the shots seemed premature in that they didn't make sense until some later shots occurred.
one of the character actions didn't make sense until they explained, again, later. They hopped a ride on a water slide leading down a waterfall. I'm thinking, why are they going down? I thought they wanted out. Learned later in the film (not explained, but I picked up on it) that the water has to come out somewhere, so that worked.
Sometimes, the characters did things that really didn't make sense either. For instance, if I went down a tunnel into a chamber where I was attacked by a bunch of cave scorpians and then one of these freaky demon creatures, I wouldn't go back to everyone and say, "hey, I found the way," and then RETURN TO THAT CHAMBER! Children, we call that stupidity and find another way out.
This happened multiple times during the film too.
Finally, the group inevitably splits up after disagreeing about the best way out. One group climbs up some walls and down others which would put the fittest climber to shame and wear him out. The other decides to follow another underground current and see where it comes out.
Well, the climbers win when they find an exit. However, one of them heroically (or stupidly) goes back in climbing up and down walls AGAIN to find everyone else who followed the current! I'm thinking wait a minute! You don't know where that current went. It could have led straight out as well. Of course it didn't so he's a big hero, but somehow the tunnels led through a few more passages and...ta-da! right into the chamber where the first group was waiting. Wow, what are the astronomically minute chances of THAT happening? The climb was more believable.
Finally, there was this deal with a parasite in the cave water which was clever. It gave the thing a bit of a time element...except...what you're telling me is that through all that climbing, falling, bumping, and crashing, no one got a single scrape on their perfect form to admit this parasite? Having some trouble here.
Characters were ok. They weren't spectacular, but these types of films tend to lack in that area. Thin if any backstory, and very little motivational explanation beyond the character stereotypes. Overall, the combination of the attempt to make us care along with the sheer stupidity of some of the actions balanced us out to curiosity but not a relationship.
The plot itself was well formed and relatively sound. The pacing was fine. The underwater shots were amazing. I liked the creatures and the concept behind them. It basically had a big problem in believability allowing our hero to do too much to be heroic. If you can suspend your disbelief enough, it's good. If you prefer believability, not so good.
Constantine -- 2005 -- R
If you watch this one, you'll like it or hate it. It's the type of fime that requires you to shut off the logic center of your brain and simply go with the ground rules that the movie lays down. If you try to make it religious, you'll hate it.
Now that we've gotten past that, this was a decent film. The main character had a huge flaw and a backstory that tied directly into the body of the film and the story. It was actually quite brilliant. The plot flowed very nicely throughout, and once you hit the end with minimal untied ends.
The only real complaint I had was this guy that was at the beginning. He kept showing up here and there throughout the film without any real intro of who he was or why he was doing what he was doing. We slowly get the idea that he is carrying an artifcat most necessary to the completion of the main plot, but how he becomes supernatural is really never fully explained. Pondering it after the movie ends, I can come up with an explanation plausible within the structure of the film, but I shouldn't have to. This film explained everything except that one point...maybe I missed it.
I might as well hit on the inevitable all-knowing character who lives is a weird location, but seems to have all the answers as long as you know the question. Constantine also has a "sidekick" that disappears for the central portion of the film when he isn't needed. It seems he serves his base purpose in the plot and goes "poof" when we don't need him.
Overall, it made for a good action film, and makes a borderline superhero type of film. I could see it as an underground comics type of hero, and I believe he is actually based on a comic book character. The most difficult part of watching this film is forgetting everything you know about religion and accepting what the film is saying for the duration. However, if you can do this, it's a great ride.
Now that we've gotten past that, this was a decent film. The main character had a huge flaw and a backstory that tied directly into the body of the film and the story. It was actually quite brilliant. The plot flowed very nicely throughout, and once you hit the end with minimal untied ends.
The only real complaint I had was this guy that was at the beginning. He kept showing up here and there throughout the film without any real intro of who he was or why he was doing what he was doing. We slowly get the idea that he is carrying an artifcat most necessary to the completion of the main plot, but how he becomes supernatural is really never fully explained. Pondering it after the movie ends, I can come up with an explanation plausible within the structure of the film, but I shouldn't have to. This film explained everything except that one point...maybe I missed it.
I might as well hit on the inevitable all-knowing character who lives is a weird location, but seems to have all the answers as long as you know the question. Constantine also has a "sidekick" that disappears for the central portion of the film when he isn't needed. It seems he serves his base purpose in the plot and goes "poof" when we don't need him.
Overall, it made for a good action film, and makes a borderline superhero type of film. I could see it as an underground comics type of hero, and I believe he is actually based on a comic book character. The most difficult part of watching this film is forgetting everything you know about religion and accepting what the film is saying for the duration. However, if you can do this, it's a great ride.
Madagascar -- 2005 -- PG
This was a cute little film that followed 4 animals as they are taken from their cushy zoo life to the jungle. The plot follows their life in the zoo, and then adapting to the jungle, and then overcoming a minor conflict between old friends who fall into different places on the food chain...oops.
This movie is not one to be taken seriously. The plot seems to primarily serve as a rail upon whcih gag after gag can be delivered, and as with all gag movies: sometimes they're funny, and sometimes, the aren't. The scenery and situations are meant to be funny and never to be realistic in any way as many, many, many quite impossible things occur.
There are also a fair amount of movie homages, but one they should have left out was Planet of the Apes. Sorry to spoil the ending if you've never seen that one, but the homage was clear as day for Charleton Heston viewing the Statue of Liberty, but the lion in this says, "Darn you all to heck." I've watched it twice now, and that line still sounds downright idiotic in its "censored" form.
It works for laughs and comedy, but there's nothing terribly deep here. The kids should enjoy it for its physical humor and those penguins. There's not much here for the adults this time.
This movie is not one to be taken seriously. The plot seems to primarily serve as a rail upon whcih gag after gag can be delivered, and as with all gag movies: sometimes they're funny, and sometimes, the aren't. The scenery and situations are meant to be funny and never to be realistic in any way as many, many, many quite impossible things occur.
There are also a fair amount of movie homages, but one they should have left out was Planet of the Apes. Sorry to spoil the ending if you've never seen that one, but the homage was clear as day for Charleton Heston viewing the Statue of Liberty, but the lion in this says, "Darn you all to heck." I've watched it twice now, and that line still sounds downright idiotic in its "censored" form.
It works for laughs and comedy, but there's nothing terribly deep here. The kids should enjoy it for its physical humor and those penguins. There's not much here for the adults this time.
Mr. & Mrs. Smith -- 2005 -- PG-13
This is the story of a couple that has been married for 5 or 6 years. They both own their own companies, and seem to be well of. Of course, their companies are competing assassination companies, and they end up being assigned to kill each other. If you ask me, that's not a bad premise.
The movie flows with some good pacing from point to point, and feels rather natural in its presentation. The fact that they've been able to keep their secrets from each other is a little hard to swallow, but if we let that slide, it works pretty well, especially in their confrontation against each other.
The believability slips in the final battle. I can't slip much without spoiling the movie, but since this is my primary complaint, I'll try to speak without spoiling. Let's say the outcome is hard to believe, and I don't feel like it ties up the loose ends of the movie well enough to accept the ending as being truly satisfying.
This rather large point aside, it makes for a good ride and not too big a waste of time like so many films tend to be.
The movie flows with some good pacing from point to point, and feels rather natural in its presentation. The fact that they've been able to keep their secrets from each other is a little hard to swallow, but if we let that slide, it works pretty well, especially in their confrontation against each other.
The believability slips in the final battle. I can't slip much without spoiling the movie, but since this is my primary complaint, I'll try to speak without spoiling. Let's say the outcome is hard to believe, and I don't feel like it ties up the loose ends of the movie well enough to accept the ending as being truly satisfying.
This rather large point aside, it makes for a good ride and not too big a waste of time like so many films tend to be.
King Kong -- 2005 -- PG-13
King Kong is a remake of the famous 1933 RKO film of a giant ape who takes a woman who was sacrificed to him and is subsequently captured and taken to New York where he climbs the Empire State Building and is shot down. Peter Jackson's follow-up to The Lord of the Rings epic is also an adaptation of pre-existing material, and while faithfulness is likely maintained to the original, the material appears to have flaws that not even the masterful scriptwriting team of The Lord Of The Rings can save.
The execution of the material makes it crystal clear that Peter Jackson knows what he is doing behind the reins of the film. The plot is followed logically and every major even happens for a sure reason so nothing runs out really unexplained. The special effects are top notch and the acting is good as well...but this film is not the near flawless perfection of Lord of the Rings.
I found multiple points in this film worth cutting out, but on the whole it worked rather well for me (the run time was over 3 hours). I liked the characterization of Kong himself and the relationship between him and Ann. Their relationship, which is mostly shown with little dialogue, is absolutely touching to watch as they go through their trials. It is this relationship that really takes the film up several notches on the ladder of great films because it is so well done. When the Empire State Building comes, you are just glued to the screen because that whole scene is all about Kong and Ann.
I felt that the other characters were mostly well-rounded, although there was a fair amount of the gratuitious 2 dimensional death fodder. I also think some of the subplots were unnecessary such as the kid, Johnny or whatever his name was.
The most glaring thing about the film that was just unbelievable (if you were paying attention) is Ann Darrow running full speed through the jungle BAREFOOT! The was one rickety bidge but she crossed it barefoot wthout so much as a cut on her perfect little feet.
I also felt that some of the actions were unnecessary and a little unbelievable. I mean, seriously. No matter how gorgeous the woman is, are you going to risk a freakin' crew to go back in there and try to rescue her from bloodthirsty natives? And even if you do that, are you going to trudge through an overgrown jungle to try and rescue her from an overgrown ape? And when the brontosauruses started running, I had to ask, why didn't they step back into the jungle out of the path of the beasts? After all, they just came out of the jungle onto that little road to start with. Sure, it made a cool sequence to watch, but it could have been easily avoided.
However, the three T-Rexes vs. King Kong? Wow. That was seriously cool. It also served an awesome purpose of solidifying the Ann/Kong relationship.
Definitely could have been shorter without any loss to story or character, and some of the plot hiccups were probably a result of the original material that was never changed when it was reenvisioned. These hiccups are ultimately forgiveable due to the awesome characterization between Ann and Kong as well as that killer T-Rex vs. Kong sequence that runs for a good 15 minutes without letting up. Overall, I enjoyed it and will probably actually buy the DVD when it comes out.
The execution of the material makes it crystal clear that Peter Jackson knows what he is doing behind the reins of the film. The plot is followed logically and every major even happens for a sure reason so nothing runs out really unexplained. The special effects are top notch and the acting is good as well...but this film is not the near flawless perfection of Lord of the Rings.
I found multiple points in this film worth cutting out, but on the whole it worked rather well for me (the run time was over 3 hours). I liked the characterization of Kong himself and the relationship between him and Ann. Their relationship, which is mostly shown with little dialogue, is absolutely touching to watch as they go through their trials. It is this relationship that really takes the film up several notches on the ladder of great films because it is so well done. When the Empire State Building comes, you are just glued to the screen because that whole scene is all about Kong and Ann.
I felt that the other characters were mostly well-rounded, although there was a fair amount of the gratuitious 2 dimensional death fodder. I also think some of the subplots were unnecessary such as the kid, Johnny or whatever his name was.
The most glaring thing about the film that was just unbelievable (if you were paying attention) is Ann Darrow running full speed through the jungle BAREFOOT! The was one rickety bidge but she crossed it barefoot wthout so much as a cut on her perfect little feet.
I also felt that some of the actions were unnecessary and a little unbelievable. I mean, seriously. No matter how gorgeous the woman is, are you going to risk a freakin' crew to go back in there and try to rescue her from bloodthirsty natives? And even if you do that, are you going to trudge through an overgrown jungle to try and rescue her from an overgrown ape? And when the brontosauruses started running, I had to ask, why didn't they step back into the jungle out of the path of the beasts? After all, they just came out of the jungle onto that little road to start with. Sure, it made a cool sequence to watch, but it could have been easily avoided.
However, the three T-Rexes vs. King Kong? Wow. That was seriously cool. It also served an awesome purpose of solidifying the Ann/Kong relationship.
Definitely could have been shorter without any loss to story or character, and some of the plot hiccups were probably a result of the original material that was never changed when it was reenvisioned. These hiccups are ultimately forgiveable due to the awesome characterization between Ann and Kong as well as that killer T-Rex vs. Kong sequence that runs for a good 15 minutes without letting up. Overall, I enjoyed it and will probably actually buy the DVD when it comes out.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory -- 2005 -- PG
I really liked this adaptation of the Roald Dahl novel. It dealt with the material a little differently than the 1971 musical version, however, it did it in a masterful way.
It looks like this movie was made FOR Tim Burton, not just by him. Danny Elfman set Roald Dahl's lyrics straight out of the book to clever and singable music (always enjoyed Oingo Boingo, his band). Willy Wonka was characterized like never before, and it even ended with a touching third act that does not exist in either the book or the 1971 film.
Really, the only weakness I felt the film had was an undercharacterization of the 4 other children that went into the factory. That being the weakest point of this whimsical tale in my opinion makes this a movie that is very much worth watching. Tim Burton is still a master of his art.
It looks like this movie was made FOR Tim Burton, not just by him. Danny Elfman set Roald Dahl's lyrics straight out of the book to clever and singable music (always enjoyed Oingo Boingo, his band). Willy Wonka was characterized like never before, and it even ended with a touching third act that does not exist in either the book or the 1971 film.
Really, the only weakness I felt the film had was an undercharacterization of the 4 other children that went into the factory. That being the weakest point of this whimsical tale in my opinion makes this a movie that is very much worth watching. Tim Burton is still a master of his art.
Frankenstein -- 1931 -- NR
The 1932 version of the film is nothing but plot. Boris Karloff definitely established the visual look and feel of the legendary monster, the sets are ominous enough, and the effects solid for 1931, but the script just had a plot and ran through it with no attempt to create any kind of characters or their relationships with one another.
Again, I am surprised at comments about these classics when they are purported to be the "greatest of all time" in respect to their genres. I suppose in that aspect that is true. Most monster movies have no characterization, and this one is no different.
Again, I am surprised at comments about these classics when they are purported to be the "greatest of all time" in respect to their genres. I suppose in that aspect that is true. Most monster movies have no characterization, and this one is no different.
The Bride of Frankenstein -- 1935 -- NR
As with all horror movies, Frankenstein got itself a sequel in 1935. However, where Frankenstein was all plot and no character, the Bride of Frankenstein has a paper thin plot leaving the writers with no choice but to fill their 75 minutes developing the characters. This results in a film that is far more satisfying than the first, creating a real sympathy for the monster and those around him.
Most of the development time was spent on the monster in rounding him out (they wisely gave him the ability to speak), and the movie could have been further improved by spending some time with Dr. Frankenstein and his wife. This aspect was lightly explored near the end, and I feel that conflict could have been much deeper had they taken just a little more time with it.
A vast improvement over the original.
Most of the development time was spent on the monster in rounding him out (they wisely gave him the ability to speak), and the movie could have been further improved by spending some time with Dr. Frankenstein and his wife. This aspect was lightly explored near the end, and I feel that conflict could have been much deeper had they taken just a little more time with it.
A vast improvement over the original.
Citizen Kane -- 1941 -- NR
This 1941 Best Picture winner definitely earned it. Most people are familiar with the infamous last word of Kane ("Rosebud"), and while I had an inkling I knew exactly what it was (thanks to a song from Animaniacs), I learned that unlike most films where knowing the goal spoils the movie, this word was not so much about Rosebud, but what Rosebud represented in Kane's life. Through the film, we learn all about Charles Foster Kane and his take on life and money and politics. We know what he likes and dislikes and wants and doesn't want. All of this was not to build to finding out what or who Rosebud is, but to explain why that was so important to him.
A modern film might spend 20 minutes at the end of the film explaining the meaning of Rosebud, but this film allows the audience to (gasp!) think for themselves and ponder just how deep the meaning goes outside the theatre. This is an amazing film for just that aspect; it was some amazing writing and ponders whather money (for Kane was the richest man in America) is really all it was cracked up to be. In fact, what Rosebud is is not known in the film until the last 30 seconds before the final fade out.
My only complaint was the old Jed Leland. When he as an old man chattered, I was bored to death. Fortunately, he wasn't allowed to talk for long and we got back into the history in short order.
This is an amazing film with an amazing script. I highly recommend it if you haven't seen it.
A modern film might spend 20 minutes at the end of the film explaining the meaning of Rosebud, but this film allows the audience to (gasp!) think for themselves and ponder just how deep the meaning goes outside the theatre. This is an amazing film for just that aspect; it was some amazing writing and ponders whather money (for Kane was the richest man in America) is really all it was cracked up to be. In fact, what Rosebud is is not known in the film until the last 30 seconds before the final fade out.
My only complaint was the old Jed Leland. When he as an old man chattered, I was bored to death. Fortunately, he wasn't allowed to talk for long and we got back into the history in short order.
This is an amazing film with an amazing script. I highly recommend it if you haven't seen it.
D.O.A. -- 1950 -- NR
This is a 1950 film noir movie that was remade several years later. It involves a man who was unknowingly poisoned giving him only a week to track down the guy who killed him. Like a lot of old thrillers, this was a fun ride. I think it skirted some believability when the main character (who is little more than a banker) was at home with a gun in his hand and chasing the unknown bad guy through an abandoned warehouse only to have him escape. He also as observant as Sherlock Holmes in nearly everything that went on. Some of this can be put down to the fact that he knows he's dying, so he has nothing to lose. This aside, like I said, it's a fun movie to watch, and kicks off real quick for the short attention spanners.
Climax! Mystery Theatre -- Casino Royale -- 1954
Full Title: Climax! Mystery Theatre presents Ian Fleming's Casino Royale
In 1954, the television show Climax! produced a 60 minute TV version of Fleming's first Bond novel shifting the characters a bit for American audiences. It had Jimmy Bond of the "Combined Intelligence Agency" who was working with Clarence Leiter of the British Secret Service (He was Felix Leiter of the CIA in the book). This was filmed Live in 1954 and had 3 basic sets: the casino, Bond's hotel room, and LeChiffre's hotel room. This is included as a bonus feature on the DVD of 1967's Casino Royale.
For what it was, this show did a phenomenal job of portraying Bond and his habits. It showed him as a competent agent with little humor and just there for the job. I enjoyed the drama infused and hardly noticed the international shift on Bond to an American agent. He was a strong character and well-developed along with the other characters.
This bonus feature alone is worth getting the DVD for that horrible "send-up."
Casino Royale -- 1967 -- NR
This "send-up" of the James Bond films to date (those being Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, and Thunderball) was not as good as I imagine the filmmakers were hoping for.
Having seen all of the other Bond films released now as well as read several of the books, this film failed to even make a mediocre Bond film. It had its share of silliness, but most of it wasn't funny. It spoofed very little of the Bond empire and made only passing references to its nature of women and gadgets. The majority of its comedic attempts fell absolutely flat; several scenes had no bearing on plot, character, nor did they produce any laughs; at several points in the movie, there were glaring holes in the structure as if there were supposed to be scenes, but they don't exist.
If you want a good spoof of the James Bond empire, try Austin Powers.
I can now say, however, that I have seen every Bond film that has been released. Yay for me.
Having seen all of the other Bond films released now as well as read several of the books, this film failed to even make a mediocre Bond film. It had its share of silliness, but most of it wasn't funny. It spoofed very little of the Bond empire and made only passing references to its nature of women and gadgets. The majority of its comedic attempts fell absolutely flat; several scenes had no bearing on plot, character, nor did they produce any laughs; at several points in the movie, there were glaring holes in the structure as if there were supposed to be scenes, but they don't exist.
If you want a good spoof of the James Bond empire, try Austin Powers.
I can now say, however, that I have seen every Bond film that has been released. Yay for me.
The French Connection -- 1971 -- R
1971 must have been a slow year for movies. If ever you wanted to know just how boring a detective's job can be, this film exemplifies it. It's 104 minutes I'll never get back. The characters experienced no growth during the course of this film, and the story never took off to any degree that I noticed. The only note-worthy scene was an interesting chase of a car following a city train. The car was under the tracks swerving and speeding. However, the setup for the chase was poorly executed and since I had no emotional investment in the picture by this time, it came off as really anti-climactic.
How this film managed to win 5 Oscars including best picture, best director, and best screenplay is a mystery I'll never know the answer to. For best picture, it beat out Fiddler on the Roof and A Clockwork Orange, both of which are vastly superior to this film.
How this film managed to win 5 Oscars including best picture, best director, and best screenplay is a mystery I'll never know the answer to. For best picture, it beat out Fiddler on the Roof and A Clockwork Orange, both of which are vastly superior to this film.
But hey, not all films are for all people. I didn't like it, but maybe I missed something.
Chinatown -- 1974 -- R
Jack Nicholson leads the cast of this 1974 kickback to the noir films of the past. A private dick, Gittes, is assigned by a Mrs. Mulray to track her husband because she suspects him of an affair. As soon as Gittes turns the pictures over to Mrs. Mulray, they end up in the daily paper. That's when the REAL Mrs. Mulray shows up threatening to sue Gittes for taking the incriminating pics of her husband. Gittes sets out to discover who this fake Mrs. Mulray was and why she would want to destroy Mr. Mulray, and then Mr. Mulray ends up dead and the girlfriend disappears.
This movie gives away nothing as it curves through its clever storyline. The characters were believable and well written (you can tell that when you comment while viewing what a character will do because that's how he is). It's rare to find a film that takes you on an unpredictable ride as it unfolds instead of one where you know how it ends before it begins. Definitely a recommended watching.
Now, if only it had a better ending...
This movie gives away nothing as it curves through its clever storyline. The characters were believable and well written (you can tell that when you comment while viewing what a character will do because that's how he is). It's rare to find a film that takes you on an unpredictable ride as it unfolds instead of one where you know how it ends before it begins. Definitely a recommended watching.
Now, if only it had a better ending...
Close Encounters of the Third Kind -- 1977 -- PG
Overall, this was a good movie with a literary feel to it. Three interlocking storylines come together at the end for the big alien interaction (hence the title, no big spoiler there). The question of "What is at the mountain?" drives the story forward the momentum stays very steady throughout.
The weakness? Richard Dreyfuss' character. His plot line keeps this movie from being perfect. This man has a wife and three children. He starts acting crazy, loses his job, makes his wife nuts with this UFO talk and his propensity to make mountains out of mashed potatoes. As she is on the verge of forgiving him, he goes over the top, destroys the yard (as well as steals from the neighbor's yard) and throws stuff in the kitchen window. This, of course, makes her take the kids to her sister's. Now, all this makes sense, but if they are in a real relationship, she would be willing, even after all this, to forgive him. After all, they have three children and a marriage that seems to be working just fine except for a few recent weeks which can be chalked up to insanity. How does it end for his wife? Her husband is completely gone and she is left with three children, no income, and a house with a mountain of mud in it making it almost impossible to resell without a significant amount of work. Sure, great ending.
If you can get over the complete abandonment of his family by Richard Dreyfuss' character, it makes a great movie, though. Everyone else's motivations and resolutions are perfect.
The weakness? Richard Dreyfuss' character. His plot line keeps this movie from being perfect. This man has a wife and three children. He starts acting crazy, loses his job, makes his wife nuts with this UFO talk and his propensity to make mountains out of mashed potatoes. As she is on the verge of forgiving him, he goes over the top, destroys the yard (as well as steals from the neighbor's yard) and throws stuff in the kitchen window. This, of course, makes her take the kids to her sister's. Now, all this makes sense, but if they are in a real relationship, she would be willing, even after all this, to forgive him. After all, they have three children and a marriage that seems to be working just fine except for a few recent weeks which can be chalked up to insanity. How does it end for his wife? Her husband is completely gone and she is left with three children, no income, and a house with a mountain of mud in it making it almost impossible to resell without a significant amount of work. Sure, great ending.
If you can get over the complete abandonment of his family by Richard Dreyfuss' character, it makes a great movie, though. Everyone else's motivations and resolutions are perfect.
The Exorcist -- 1973 -- R
Proclaimed the scariest movie of all time, the Exorcist has equally been called a journey of one man's faith. It involves a 12-year old girl who is possessed by a demon, completely throwing off the prognoses of doctors leading her mother to seek an exorcism through the help of a priest who is losing his faith following the death of his own mother. This movie is really creepy in some parts and downright bizarre in others. The prospect of such a thing actually occurring would be frightening.
This is not a traditional scary movie in any sense of the word, but an opinion of how bad a demon possession can get. The demon (once it takes over) is quite vulgar in every way, but how many scary movies can you find where the line "The power of Christ compels you" is spoken at least a dozen times in perfect context?
Great characters for the most part with only the part of Burke Dennings getting the short end of the character stick despite the implied size of the role from the other characters. The chld knew him; the mom was sweet on him; but he died without speaking so much as a handful of lines and having very minimal screen time (most of it drunk during a party).
It's not for all horror hounds due its very dramatic aspects (a component lacking in a lot of horror), but overall, a good watch.
This is not a traditional scary movie in any sense of the word, but an opinion of how bad a demon possession can get. The demon (once it takes over) is quite vulgar in every way, but how many scary movies can you find where the line "The power of Christ compels you" is spoken at least a dozen times in perfect context?
Great characters for the most part with only the part of Burke Dennings getting the short end of the character stick despite the implied size of the role from the other characters. The chld knew him; the mom was sweet on him; but he died without speaking so much as a handful of lines and having very minimal screen time (most of it drunk during a party).
It's not for all horror hounds due its very dramatic aspects (a component lacking in a lot of horror), but overall, a good watch.
Dead Ringers -- 1988 -- R
This film was billed as a Psychological Thriller and was even in Entertainment Weekly's list of the top 25 scariest movies of all time which is what led me to watch it. The problem: this is not a psychological thriller. A thriller requires a threat of some sort to be omnipresent, but this movie has none. No threat to anyone at any time during the movie. (Well, there is sort of one near the beginning, but it comes to nothing.)
This is a psychological drama trying to masquerade as a psychological thriller. Here's where the problem with this comes in. The premise of the film revolves around these interdependent identical twins (Elliot and Beverly -- and yes, that this is a woman's name is a sore point for Beverly) who share an apartment, their gynecological practice, and even women. One is a suave ladies man who generally picks up the women and then lets his introverted, book worm brother have a turn as him. The movie is without a doubt creepy in an "ew" kind of way, but that's about it.
The drama comes in when Beverly falls in love with a woman that he and Elliot had been sharing and now he wants her for himself. Beverly descends into drug use with her and since he is a doctor, he is able to procure pharmaceuticals for himself. She finds out about their "sharing" and is obviously disgusted by it, since she picks up early on that Beverly seems a little "schizophrenic." She is an actress who has to leave town for awhile, and Beverly has difficulty with the separation eventually returning to his brother to cling. Elliot decide he has lost touch with his brother and they need to re-synchronize so Elliot gets on the prescription drugs too, so they're at the same level. As these things tend to go, they both lose everything in the process. We won't even go into the "gynelogical surgical instruments for operating on mutant women." What the heck was that all about?
The problem comes in when everyone besides Elliot and Beverly are poored developed characters. We know the twins very well, but everyone else is out of the loop. Even the girlfriend actress doesn't get much development. While this is typical of a psychological thriller, a drama requires relationships to keep it interesting and moving, and the only relationship developed is that of the twins. Time is given to Beverly and the girl, but only between them. She, as a character, rarely gets much time.
The climax & ending makes very little sense. I think I have an idea, but trying to go past a simple reason to why the why is is convoluted in my own head to say the least. When the end credits started rolling, I was actually hoping for a final scene to explain what the heck just happened, but nothing. I watched the special features on the DVD, but nothing. I don't really have any clue why the climax went the way it did, or why the ending was the way it was.
The film was decent, but a lot of stuff happened that didn't make a lot of sense, and the ending just lost me giving me a poor last impression.
Fatal Attraction -- 1987 -- R
Classic love triangle flick that was nominated for best picture and has been spoofed over and over and over. A man (Michael Douglas) cheats on his wife for a weekend when she is out of town, and is then stalked by the woman he slept with (Glenn Close). Once you get past waiving your finger at the idiot for committing adultery to start with, his family becomes the victims of his wrongdoing, making the consequences of his actions the real plot of this story. After the affair, the movie kicks off and just moves non-stop to the end with several twists and turns along the way as Close's character keeps tightening the noose.
What makes the tale all the more enthralling is the realization that with everything that she is doing to him, he can't (won't) reveal what is really going on to his wife because if he does, he'll be forced to reveal his infidelity. Close's character knows this and continues her dirty game until he dies or gives her what she wants from him.
Blood Simple -- 1984 -- R
This debut for the Coen brothers who write and direct is an awesome thriller that takes four characters and keeps them guessing. They reveal to the audience everything that happens to each of them, and that superiority over the characters only heightens the drama watching the characters guess as to the intentions of the others.
Basically, a husband is upset about his wife having an affar and leaving him, so he hires a private investigator to take care of the situation. Well, the investogatr double-crosses him, and the roller coaster starts from there as everything just goes horribly, horribly wrong.
After watching it, I learned why it was such a classic. Definitely worth a viewing if you haven't yet seen it. The "R" rating is more for situational content than anything else. Minimal profanity, blood, or nudity, which is often the reason for the rating in a film like this.
Basically, a husband is upset about his wife having an affar and leaving him, so he hires a private investigator to take care of the situation. Well, the investogatr double-crosses him, and the roller coaster starts from there as everything just goes horribly, horribly wrong.
After watching it, I learned why it was such a classic. Definitely worth a viewing if you haven't yet seen it. The "R" rating is more for situational content than anything else. Minimal profanity, blood, or nudity, which is often the reason for the rating in a film like this.
The English Patient -- 1996 -- R
This won best picture in 1996 over Evita. Talk about a slow burning fuse. It took forever for anything interesting to happen in this film, despite all the war stuff, and people getting blown up occasionally. The beginning was intriguing enough: plane shot out of sky with two people in it; one survives all burned up. Sure, want to know who they are. The film moves through two different plots: one for the guy with the burned up face before his face got burned up in the past, and the other for the nurse who is caring for him in the present (1944). Anytime you feel like checking the runtime on a movie, there is a pacing issue in my opinion. However, this is also the type of film to ensure all loose ends are tied up and somehow it leaves you with a satisfied feeling when it's all over.
Another love triangle for the main storyline, it involves an illicit affair and how to (or not to) handle it. This time, both lovers are all over each other at the expense of the husband. Personally, this is never a plot I can get behind just because I don't think it's right, no matter how much you push the "meant for each other" envelope. I believe the decisions and promises you've made outweigh any "meant for each other" feelings you think you feel in the future. If you stick to your decisions and don't let lust carry you away, you will find you've been with who you were meant for already. So, bottom line: slow film, big drama, good drama, nice conflict, good story, but just not fond of "adultery is right" films.
Another love triangle for the main storyline, it involves an illicit affair and how to (or not to) handle it. This time, both lovers are all over each other at the expense of the husband. Personally, this is never a plot I can get behind just because I don't think it's right, no matter how much you push the "meant for each other" envelope. I believe the decisions and promises you've made outweigh any "meant for each other" feelings you think you feel in the future. If you stick to your decisions and don't let lust carry you away, you will find you've been with who you were meant for already. So, bottom line: slow film, big drama, good drama, nice conflict, good story, but just not fond of "adultery is right" films.
American Beauty -- 1999 -- R
This film won 5 Oscars in 1999 including best picture. It's a bizarre dramatic tale about what is supposed to be typical suburbia. If this is typical suburbia, then I want to move to Canada. Basically, you follow two people in their screwed up marriage and their screwed up daughter (who is probably more normal than the parents are). Dad is quite the pervert going for his daughter's little friend (and nearly having sex with her), and mom is quite the adulteress. Now, I understand their marriage is down the tubes, but they are still married. The daughter follows the parents' leads and hooks up with the weird camera-toting drug dealer next door flashing him and then sleeping with him.
Despite the weirdness of the storyline, the writing was actually good, the characters were well rounded, and the actions the characters took (no matter how strange they are in my world) made sense within their characters. It progressed nicely throughout with a good pace, and overall, it's easy to see why this was a good movie. The plot, though, is just messed up...
Despite the weirdness of the storyline, the writing was actually good, the characters were well rounded, and the actions the characters took (no matter how strange they are in my world) made sense within their characters. It progressed nicely throughout with a good pace, and overall, it's easy to see why this was a good movie. The plot, though, is just messed up...
The Crow -- 1994 -- R
This film was based on the underground comic book of the same name and was very gritty and dark. It followed a guy who was brutally murdered with his girlfriend, and then comes back a year later to avenge his own death under the watchful eye of a crow. Overall, the film was very good with lots of action, feeling, and plot. I really feel the weakest point was the beginning.
It opened with the death of our main character. If the filmmakers had tried to flesh out the guy and his girlfriend just a little bit before they were murdered (get some of those hopes and dreams stuff going), then their deaths would have had more impact. We would be expecting a movie about them, and then wonder what just happened when they get killed.
Doing this would have spoiled nothing since the guy learns most of it during the first 10-15 minutes of the film anyway. I think knowing the relationship between himself and the girl would have helped this movie tremendously. As it is, it's good, but it could have been better.
It opened with the death of our main character. If the filmmakers had tried to flesh out the guy and his girlfriend just a little bit before they were murdered (get some of those hopes and dreams stuff going), then their deaths would have had more impact. We would be expecting a movie about them, and then wonder what just happened when they get killed.
Doing this would have spoiled nothing since the guy learns most of it during the first 10-15 minutes of the film anyway. I think knowing the relationship between himself and the girl would have helped this movie tremendously. As it is, it's good, but it could have been better.
Big Fish -- 2003 -- PG-13
This fantasy tale from Tim Burton was a wonderful little yarn blurring the line between fact and fiction. The basic plot is a son's father's tall tales of his younger life. The son does not believe they are true at all beyond the very basest part of it might have happened.
As he moves through his father's tales (along with the tales showing us that fantasical life his father led), he finds more and more that the stories have more truth than fiction to them.
The story has a beautiful ending showing that Burton's flair for the dark and strange can easily be adapted to a very touching tale. Worth watching.
As he moves through his father's tales (along with the tales showing us that fantasical life his father led), he finds more and more that the stories have more truth than fiction to them.
The story has a beautiful ending showing that Burton's flair for the dark and strange can easily be adapted to a very touching tale. Worth watching.
Dracula -- 1992 -- R
aka: Bram Stoker's Dracula
Despite the title, Francis Ford Coppola's version of the classic vampire story holds true to the novel in some ways, but departs completely in others. The most outstanding example is that the novel is no where near as erotic and sensual as this film is. Pretty much the entire sequence of Dracula following Mina around town never occurred in the book. In fact, Mina is nearly nonexistent from the novel except where Lucy is concerned, and then she runs off to Jonathon upon hearing from him.
The relationship between Mina and Dracula is an element of the film only. The novel contained no Elisabeta and no sequence where Dracula was damned. Mina's desire to drink the count's blood, while so willing in the film, is described like this in the book: "The attitude of the two had a terrible resemblance to a child forcing a kitten's nose into a saucer of milk to compel it to drink." Mina herself says later that she was forced to suffocate or drink.
The film taken on its own, it plays remarkably well. The characters are fairly well rounded, and the plot moves at a good pace. The relationship between Mina and Jonathon is not as well as it really should have been made, since you feel like she should be with Dracula and even feel a bit sorry for the count when he loses her.
It did do a good job of condensing the novel into a conhesive whole with the wealth of characters contained in the book. Dracula is extremely creepy and very well conceived in this version. He doesn't walk; he glides. His shadow has a mind of its own. Very awesome. He also plays as a very threatening character; one to be feared and not underestimated.
Compared to novel: extra plot never contained kind of takes away from the horror element. As a film alone: excellent.
Despite the title, Francis Ford Coppola's version of the classic vampire story holds true to the novel in some ways, but departs completely in others. The most outstanding example is that the novel is no where near as erotic and sensual as this film is. Pretty much the entire sequence of Dracula following Mina around town never occurred in the book. In fact, Mina is nearly nonexistent from the novel except where Lucy is concerned, and then she runs off to Jonathon upon hearing from him.
The relationship between Mina and Dracula is an element of the film only. The novel contained no Elisabeta and no sequence where Dracula was damned. Mina's desire to drink the count's blood, while so willing in the film, is described like this in the book: "The attitude of the two had a terrible resemblance to a child forcing a kitten's nose into a saucer of milk to compel it to drink." Mina herself says later that she was forced to suffocate or drink.
The film taken on its own, it plays remarkably well. The characters are fairly well rounded, and the plot moves at a good pace. The relationship between Mina and Jonathon is not as well as it really should have been made, since you feel like she should be with Dracula and even feel a bit sorry for the count when he loses her.
It did do a good job of condensing the novel into a conhesive whole with the wealth of characters contained in the book. Dracula is extremely creepy and very well conceived in this version. He doesn't walk; he glides. His shadow has a mind of its own. Very awesome. He also plays as a very threatening character; one to be feared and not underestimated.
Compared to novel: extra plot never contained kind of takes away from the horror element. As a film alone: excellent.
Audition -- 2002 -- NR
This was a Japanese film with English subtitles. Had it been reviewed by the MPAA, then it would have an R rating for violence and sexuality.
Seven years after a man loses his wife, both his son and best friend encourage him to try to marry again. His friend, who is a producer, stages an audition to help the guy find the perfect wife. He centers on one girl, and even though his friend says she is wrong for him, he goes for her anyway.
This whole film is a slow creepy build to the final scenes where the girl's true intentions become clear. This definitely qualifies as a psychological thriller as the man learns more and more about the girl's spotty and almost non-existant past and the horrors she leaves behind her. The characters were well rounded and believable, and it had a fair share of truly freakish moments to make your skin crawl. It really is a worthwhile viewing of a film, even though you have to deal with subtitles.
There are some odd points. One was when the guy wanted to know where the girl lived, but he had no address for her. He had her phone number, and his son was seen on the internet. What one thought popped into my head? Reverse phone number lookup. Did anyone mention it? No.
The other point was a big one. This guy was never put forth to be psychic or anything else other than a normal guy. Yet as he explored, he got flashes of what went on in various places, and right before the climax, there was this long dream-ish sequence where the girl's backstory and life is almost completely filled in. He was even in the girl's house, a place he had never gone to. In a movie as strong as this was, this seemed like a cop-outish way to deliver a large amount of exposition in a short time frame, since it felt so clairvoyant in nature.
This aside, the flm was very good, and worth watching if you don't mind disturbing images. Some of the final scene even made my stomach turn.
Seven years after a man loses his wife, both his son and best friend encourage him to try to marry again. His friend, who is a producer, stages an audition to help the guy find the perfect wife. He centers on one girl, and even though his friend says she is wrong for him, he goes for her anyway.
This whole film is a slow creepy build to the final scenes where the girl's true intentions become clear. This definitely qualifies as a psychological thriller as the man learns more and more about the girl's spotty and almost non-existant past and the horrors she leaves behind her. The characters were well rounded and believable, and it had a fair share of truly freakish moments to make your skin crawl. It really is a worthwhile viewing of a film, even though you have to deal with subtitles.
There are some odd points. One was when the guy wanted to know where the girl lived, but he had no address for her. He had her phone number, and his son was seen on the internet. What one thought popped into my head? Reverse phone number lookup. Did anyone mention it? No.
The other point was a big one. This guy was never put forth to be psychic or anything else other than a normal guy. Yet as he explored, he got flashes of what went on in various places, and right before the climax, there was this long dream-ish sequence where the girl's backstory and life is almost completely filled in. He was even in the girl's house, a place he had never gone to. In a movie as strong as this was, this seemed like a cop-outish way to deliver a large amount of exposition in a short time frame, since it felt so clairvoyant in nature.
This aside, the flm was very good, and worth watching if you don't mind disturbing images. Some of the final scene even made my stomach turn.
Blade Runner -- 1982 -- R
A futuristic sci-fi offering with Harrison Ford as a Blade Runner named Deckard, a person who tracks down a certain model of android and "retires" them. The movie follows 4 of these androids and his quest to take them down.
The movie was very cerebral in nature with lots of exposition about genetics and making these androids who are lifelike. There were some action scenes, but not very many of them. The characters tended to be very flat in nature, which would have been more expected had this film delivered more of a thrill ride. Ford's character, though ostesibly the main character, didn't get rounded out very well at all. We learned nothing of his past at all to give him any kind of depth, so his actions appeared to be primarily plot driven.
The final scene climbing around the outside of the building should have had more punch to it, but it felt very anti-climactic since I was uncertain as to why he would have chosen outside as a viable option since the stairs would have been far more logical.
The androids' fear of dying was put forth fairly well, but it didn't really create much tension as it was probably intended to. To finalize the whole thing, the movie ended somewhat ambiguously, whch considering how ambiguous the movie was throughout, was entirely appropriate.
The verdict? It was ok and kind of weird, but lacked a little something to make it good.
The movie was very cerebral in nature with lots of exposition about genetics and making these androids who are lifelike. There were some action scenes, but not very many of them. The characters tended to be very flat in nature, which would have been more expected had this film delivered more of a thrill ride. Ford's character, though ostesibly the main character, didn't get rounded out very well at all. We learned nothing of his past at all to give him any kind of depth, so his actions appeared to be primarily plot driven.
The final scene climbing around the outside of the building should have had more punch to it, but it felt very anti-climactic since I was uncertain as to why he would have chosen outside as a viable option since the stairs would have been far more logical.
The androids' fear of dying was put forth fairly well, but it didn't really create much tension as it was probably intended to. To finalize the whole thing, the movie ended somewhat ambiguously, whch considering how ambiguous the movie was throughout, was entirely appropriate.
The verdict? It was ok and kind of weird, but lacked a little something to make it good.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde -- 1931 -- NR
This early screen adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's perenially adapted novel of good vs evil plays out very, very well in this early incarnation. The initial change was well setup, the character relationships were well defined, the actual change played out realistically rather than cheesy, and the Jekyll/Hyde struggle was very well done.
Some complaints: the silly complaint is that because this is an early talkie version of the story, the pronunciation of the name was not as standardized as it is today. In this version, Jekyll's name is pronounced "Jeekle". Made me nuts.
On a more relevant note, I felt that Hyde was occasionally too rational. He is supposed to be Jekyll's dark side, and it makes perfect sense for his dark side to have some rationale, just as his rational side has some darkness, but Hyde gave a very rationale speech and was very much Jekyll in Hyde's clothing on a scene near the end when he had to convince a friend to get the antidote for him. I can see a little rationale, but that was really too far. I had trouble believing that Hyde would be THAT rational, regardless of the situation.
That aside on a first watching, I really enjoyed it, and felt it was a worthwhile film. The version I watched on DVD also has the 1941 version, and the qualty of the recording is quite good and clear.
Finally, as a bit of trivia, this is not the first screen version of this story. There have been over 50 screen versions of the story dating back to 1908. Before this version in 1931, there were 9 different silent versions of the story, three of them in 1920.
Some complaints: the silly complaint is that because this is an early talkie version of the story, the pronunciation of the name was not as standardized as it is today. In this version, Jekyll's name is pronounced "Jeekle". Made me nuts.
On a more relevant note, I felt that Hyde was occasionally too rational. He is supposed to be Jekyll's dark side, and it makes perfect sense for his dark side to have some rationale, just as his rational side has some darkness, but Hyde gave a very rationale speech and was very much Jekyll in Hyde's clothing on a scene near the end when he had to convince a friend to get the antidote for him. I can see a little rationale, but that was really too far. I had trouble believing that Hyde would be THAT rational, regardless of the situation.
That aside on a first watching, I really enjoyed it, and felt it was a worthwhile film. The version I watched on DVD also has the 1941 version, and the qualty of the recording is quite good and clear.
Finally, as a bit of trivia, this is not the first screen version of this story. There have been over 50 screen versions of the story dating back to 1908. Before this version in 1931, there were 9 different silent versions of the story, three of them in 1920.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari -- 1919 -- NR
This was a weird and interesting film. It involves a Dr. Caligari who has a somnambulist (someone who sleeps all the time) named Cesare that can tell your fortune. Meanwhile, while he's in town, murders are occurring. A man who lost his best friend to the murderer works to unravel the mystery of Caligari and Cesare before more deaths occur.
For a silent film, it was interesting to watch, and easy enough to follow. The intertitles, though long in nature, were done in an interesting to read font that fit with the character of the piece. The sets were really bizarre to look at as well (I believe this film was classified as German expressionism). It even had a decent twist at the end.
For some weak points, the characters were hardly delved into at all beyond their basic function in the story, and we weren't even told the name of the girl until near the end. Almost no relationships were established between the characters -- only a thin one between the main character and his best friend who was murdered -- so I believe that made the story a little thinner than it could have been.
For a film that was still falls under the experimental time of filmmaking, it managed to age very well over the years. Despite its weak points, we did get some change in the characters, and something good to watch.
For a silent film, it was interesting to watch, and easy enough to follow. The intertitles, though long in nature, were done in an interesting to read font that fit with the character of the piece. The sets were really bizarre to look at as well (I believe this film was classified as German expressionism). It even had a decent twist at the end.
For some weak points, the characters were hardly delved into at all beyond their basic function in the story, and we weren't even told the name of the girl until near the end. Almost no relationships were established between the characters -- only a thin one between the main character and his best friend who was murdered -- so I believe that made the story a little thinner than it could have been.
For a film that was still falls under the experimental time of filmmaking, it managed to age very well over the years. Despite its weak points, we did get some change in the characters, and something good to watch.
Duel -- 1971 -- PG
Gives road rage a whole new fearful meaning. This film follows a salesman as he goes to try a get an account. He takes a road trip and on the way, he passes an old ugly truck. Well, the truck passes him and then hits the brakes. The film is off.
This film equates to one really long suspenseful chase between the salesman and the truck (who is, incidentally, the antagoinst of the moive, not the driver of the truck). This does what movies do best: take a mundane everyday situation and blow it completely out of proportion, and it does it well.
Some minor complaints I had were quelled for the most part. I thought he should call the poice from the beginning, and thank the Lord the character touched upon the idea, but explained why he couldn't at the time. His later attempts to contact authorities were stifled by the truck's presence.
My only other possible complaint was that the whole thing could have been stopped if the guy just went back home. The truck was always waiting ahead of him on the road, so a simple move of turning around and kissing the account good-bye (or at least delivering a solid reason why he didn't show) would have been what I'd've done if I were being chased by a murderous truck. The account was made out to be very, very important, which is probably why he kept going.
This aside, for Spielberg's directoral debut, it was really good. It had a lot of suspense and kept me watching a truck and a car driving down a road for the 90 miute run time...and that is really saying something.
This film equates to one really long suspenseful chase between the salesman and the truck (who is, incidentally, the antagoinst of the moive, not the driver of the truck). This does what movies do best: take a mundane everyday situation and blow it completely out of proportion, and it does it well.
Some minor complaints I had were quelled for the most part. I thought he should call the poice from the beginning, and thank the Lord the character touched upon the idea, but explained why he couldn't at the time. His later attempts to contact authorities were stifled by the truck's presence.
My only other possible complaint was that the whole thing could have been stopped if the guy just went back home. The truck was always waiting ahead of him on the road, so a simple move of turning around and kissing the account good-bye (or at least delivering a solid reason why he didn't show) would have been what I'd've done if I were being chased by a murderous truck. The account was made out to be very, very important, which is probably why he kept going.
This aside, for Spielberg's directoral debut, it was really good. It had a lot of suspense and kept me watching a truck and a car driving down a road for the 90 miute run time...and that is really saying something.
Das Experiment -- 2001 -- R
See? Now this is the reality show I wanna see. Some scientists concoct an experiment in which they take some volunteers and assign some to be guards and some to be prisoners. The idea is to watch how the people react to each other in their assigned roles over a period of two weeks. The experiement ends after 6 days.
Talk about brutal, once we hit the prison after the 20 minute act one, it just becomes more and more interesting from a psychological standpoint. At first, no one takes any of it seriously, but when the guards step into their roles and begin taking action and humiliating the prisoners, psychological hell breaks loose.
This one has a remarkable amount of characterization for the main characters, and while there are no major revelations in watching it, it is a fascinating bit of study to behold. The movie is supposed to be based on the true story of a similar experiment, many of the scenes happening exactly as they were portrayed on screen.
The thriller-esque plot keeps its pace up very, very well as the guards' desire to torture the prisoners increases and the prisoners slowly de-humanize. If you can handle German with English subtitles, it is a very interesting movie to watch.
Talk about brutal, once we hit the prison after the 20 minute act one, it just becomes more and more interesting from a psychological standpoint. At first, no one takes any of it seriously, but when the guards step into their roles and begin taking action and humiliating the prisoners, psychological hell breaks loose.
This one has a remarkable amount of characterization for the main characters, and while there are no major revelations in watching it, it is a fascinating bit of study to behold. The movie is supposed to be based on the true story of a similar experiment, many of the scenes happening exactly as they were portrayed on screen.
The thriller-esque plot keeps its pace up very, very well as the guards' desire to torture the prisoners increases and the prisoners slowly de-humanize. If you can handle German with English subtitles, it is a very interesting movie to watch.
Casablanca -- 1942 -- NR
Recognize these quotes?
Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she had to walk into mine.
- Kiss me. Kiss me as if it were the last time.
- Round up the usual suspects.
- Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
- Ilsa, I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.
- Play it, Sam.
- Here's looking at you kid.
American Graffiti -- 1973 -- PG
This was George Lucas's second film following the bizarre THX-1138. This one followed a group of graduates on a single night before two of them were slated to go off to college. Cleverly scored by an all night radio station playing songs of the era, the character development and resolutions were downright perfect with clever twists and funny moments throughout. I had a little difficulty getting into some of the situation at the beginning, just because I couldn't relate, but once we got past that point, it was very good, and its success gave Lucas the money and clout he needed to produce his space movie a few years later.
While the cast would have originally been headed by the star, Ron Howard, along with a slew of unknowns, almost every major member of the cast still has a movie career to this day (over 30 years later), only one of the top seven listed in IMDB not having a film out in 2005 and most with something in 2006. Beyond these top 7 (which include Richard Dreyfuss and Cindy Williams (Shirley from Laverne and Shirley)), we also have Harrison Ford hidden further down the list, and I believe he are aware of the bigger, better things he went onto including working for Lucas again on his space movie a few years later.
Overall, a very good movie with the elements it takes to make a good film.
While the cast would have originally been headed by the star, Ron Howard, along with a slew of unknowns, almost every major member of the cast still has a movie career to this day (over 30 years later), only one of the top seven listed in IMDB not having a film out in 2005 and most with something in 2006. Beyond these top 7 (which include Richard Dreyfuss and Cindy Williams (Shirley from Laverne and Shirley)), we also have Harrison Ford hidden further down the list, and I believe he are aware of the bigger, better things he went onto including working for Lucas again on his space movie a few years later.
Overall, a very good movie with the elements it takes to make a good film.
Cape Fear -- 1962 -- NR
This is the original version with Gregory Peck. I also read this movie got 161 cuts from the British censors, and they still wanted an X rating for it due to themes of sadism and child endangerment. Interesting.
This film was very, very good. It started out with a curiosity of this guy looking for someone else who is a lawyer. It escalates into stalking and then worse. The suspense is tight right from the get go. Things just keep getting worse as our hero tries to protect his family, but with every turn, the villain has the upper hand. Even in the final masterplan, things go horribly wrong.
If you like suspense flicks, this one definitely has it where it counts. We really care about the man and his family, and have some concern for what the bad guy is going to do. Recommended.
This film was very, very good. It started out with a curiosity of this guy looking for someone else who is a lawyer. It escalates into stalking and then worse. The suspense is tight right from the get go. Things just keep getting worse as our hero tries to protect his family, but with every turn, the villain has the upper hand. Even in the final masterplan, things go horribly wrong.
If you like suspense flicks, this one definitely has it where it counts. We really care about the man and his family, and have some concern for what the bad guy is going to do. Recommended.
The Apartment -- 1960 -- NR
At its base, this film is a formulaic romantic comedy following the old form faithfully from beginning to end. However, this film does this very, very well.
Although the running time is over 2 hours, I barely noticed the time passing, it was paced so well, and the plot and development continued moving effortlessly from scene to scene, each of which was remarkably well written. A few scenes started running a little unnecessarily long, but they were very few and still served a purpose by doing so.
This film had a very clever plot to begin with, and it continued twisting into something equally clever and heart-wrenching with the girl hung up on someone else, and the boy doing his best to deal with his secret feelings for her.
Everything tied up real nicely without a cheesy line around. Very excellent movie. It did earn itself a best picture for its work.
Although the running time is over 2 hours, I barely noticed the time passing, it was paced so well, and the plot and development continued moving effortlessly from scene to scene, each of which was remarkably well written. A few scenes started running a little unnecessarily long, but they were very few and still served a purpose by doing so.
This film had a very clever plot to begin with, and it continued twisting into something equally clever and heart-wrenching with the girl hung up on someone else, and the boy doing his best to deal with his secret feelings for her.
Everything tied up real nicely without a cheesy line around. Very excellent movie. It did earn itself a best picture for its work.
Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery - 1997 - PG-13
Having watched all of the James Bond films since the last time I saw this first installment of the Austin Powers Trilogy, I found it funnier than ever before. It follows Superspy Austin Powers (a clear James Bond knockoff) as he is crygenically frozen in case Dr. Evil (a clear Ernst Blofeld knockoff) returns to wreak havoc on the world. Not only are several Bond locales and lines and situations spoofed in this films, but several spy film standards are commented upon and torn apart (such as placing the victim in an easily escapable situation using an overly elaborate scheme to destroy them while all the while, a modern character insists he just get a gun and shoot them, but he is told tht's not the way it is done).
I thoroughly enjoyed this film, and having a thorough understanding of the Bond saga made it all the more funnier.
I caught references to Dr. No, Goldfinger, Thunderball (lots), You Only Live Twice, and Diamonds Are Forever. There are likely more. This is a really great send-up on the Bond films. But as a stand alone films, if you've never seen and spy flick, it still works just as well, has a solid plot, well-rounded characters, and a solid and satifying resolution.
I thoroughly enjoyed this film, and having a thorough understanding of the Bond saga made it all the more funnier.
I caught references to Dr. No, Goldfinger, Thunderball (lots), You Only Live Twice, and Diamonds Are Forever. There are likely more. This is a really great send-up on the Bond films. But as a stand alone films, if you've never seen and spy flick, it still works just as well, has a solid plot, well-rounded characters, and a solid and satifying resolution.
Alexander -- 2004 -- R
This extensive film covers essentially the rise and fall of Alexander the Great in a style that intercuts elements of a documentary with standard drama of dueling storylines. One storyline begins in Alexander's youth and follows him until he becomes king. The other starts at his first battle as king and follows him to his death.
With only a couple of minor hiccups at the beginning of the film, mostly due to the tri-fold skippage of the style from documentary told by one of Alexander's generals to the two other storylines, the film flows pretty well after the first half hour is over. I watched the director's cut which boasts a run time of nearly three hours. It comes top about 2 hours and 38 minutes without the credits.
Though it ran long, the film occasionally tried to do too much. It had multiple relationships for Alexander to go through including those with his mother, father, wife, male lover, generals, his army, and his people along with an ongoing inner conflict with himself. Tackling all of these relationships along with delivering a solid war movie caused the relationships to founder here and there as the movie progressed, which some taking off very well and then falling away as the movie went on.
What happened over and over again when a new relationship was introduced is a quick rundown of how the relationship works and some conflict inherent between that relationship and the rest of Alexander's life. Beyond this, the matter is dropped until needed and then there is relatively little development, just a little plot that uses what was established. In fact, a lot of the development is attempted through the documentary portions rather than viewing the character interaction. In my opinion, this hurts much of the character progression, but it does keep the film moving.
Overall, if you are into Greek history or historical or war dramas, it works well from the angle, but as a straight drama, I think it falls a little flat.
With only a couple of minor hiccups at the beginning of the film, mostly due to the tri-fold skippage of the style from documentary told by one of Alexander's generals to the two other storylines, the film flows pretty well after the first half hour is over. I watched the director's cut which boasts a run time of nearly three hours. It comes top about 2 hours and 38 minutes without the credits.
Though it ran long, the film occasionally tried to do too much. It had multiple relationships for Alexander to go through including those with his mother, father, wife, male lover, generals, his army, and his people along with an ongoing inner conflict with himself. Tackling all of these relationships along with delivering a solid war movie caused the relationships to founder here and there as the movie progressed, which some taking off very well and then falling away as the movie went on.
What happened over and over again when a new relationship was introduced is a quick rundown of how the relationship works and some conflict inherent between that relationship and the rest of Alexander's life. Beyond this, the matter is dropped until needed and then there is relatively little development, just a little plot that uses what was established. In fact, a lot of the development is attempted through the documentary portions rather than viewing the character interaction. In my opinion, this hurts much of the character progression, but it does keep the film moving.
Overall, if you are into Greek history or historical or war dramas, it works well from the angle, but as a straight drama, I think it falls a little flat.
The Forgotten -- 2004 -- PG-13
This thriller started out really well. It was bizarre and had a lot of question thrown out here with an even bigger question mark on how to find them. Then it got weird. It crossed over into soap opera land where characters refuse to ask the simplest and most logical of questions. A world where someone calls and gets interrupted with a whole other story, and then the person who interrupted never learns the reason the other person called, and it was probably important or they wouldn't have called. The characters did stupid things. Who in their right (or wrong) mind would sleep in someone's abandoned house? Especially if they're being followed? The characters' stupidity and lack of asking questions forced the movie to keep going since it left those loose ends untied. The problem I had was they could have been tied very easily, and it shouldn't be that easy.
This might be considered a spoiler so consider yourself warned.
About 45 minutes in, one of the characters made a vague suggestions about "someone other than the government" and "abducted." The word alien was never used, but I thought "Oh, this better not be an alien movie." Yeah, instead of a clever way for the government or even her husband to cover this up, it was alien involvement. Talk about a freakin' cop-out. It completely ruined all the wonderful things they started with. Grumble...
Had a happy ending and the extended original ending was better than the theatrical which was supposed to be frightening. I just can't get over that stupid alien bit.
This might be considered a spoiler so consider yourself warned.
About 45 minutes in, one of the characters made a vague suggestions about "someone other than the government" and "abducted." The word alien was never used, but I thought "Oh, this better not be an alien movie." Yeah, instead of a clever way for the government or even her husband to cover this up, it was alien involvement. Talk about a freakin' cop-out. It completely ruined all the wonderful things they started with. Grumble...
Had a happy ending and the extended original ending was better than the theatrical which was supposed to be frightening. I just can't get over that stupid alien bit.
Christmas With The Kranks -- 2004 -- PG
Based on the book entitled SKipping Christmas by John grisham (of all people), this is a film that deals with one extreme after another, and not always in a totally believable fashion.
The basic premise follows a couple whose daughter is gone, and so in order to save money, they opt to skip out of Christmas and take a cruise instead (saving them $3000 overall for the Christmas season). While the premise is clever enough, it is taken to such an extreme that believability falters in the presentation.
I can understand, perhaps, not doing a lot of the expensive things that makes Christmas such a great expendature, but they refuse to do the inexpensive and even free stuff just to be good neighbors or friends. They completely shut out the world in order to boycott Christmas, which did not strike me as the intention. Additionally, the wife is both ok and not ok with this throughout the film at times praising his genious and at other times condemning his stupidity but all the while playing along with his idea.
Many of the situations are funny and decent conceptions, but too many times, the jokes are not played out to their fullest potential. It's there and then gone.
It's difficult to say whether Tim Allen's character is supposed to be likable or not. He spends a fair amount of time being a Grinch, and one wonders whether he really enjoys Christmas as an annual occasion. Near the end, his personality begins flowing in one direction only to take a complete turn to complete an almost forgotten subplot and deliver the message of the film and get him his grand character development moment. It would have been more beautiful if he remained as he had been throughout the film instead of going more with the flow.
Act III begins with a great twist to it that jump starts the momentum of the film and carries us to the end, but Act II almost gets dull with the continuous motion of "here's another Christmas tradition", "No", "here's another Christmas tradition", "No." And let's take a moment to prepare for the cruise, and back to the tradition-no routine.
So, bottom line. Is this the greatest film the world has ever known? No. Does it make for an amusing film to watch with the family so laughs are shared and a good is had by all. Sure. The comedy is easy and funny. The story is easy to follow. It has a feel-good, sappy, Christmas-movie ending. So, if you want a film to just watch to escape another round of Rudolph. Here you go. If you're looking for an award-winning Christmas movie, time to put It's a Wonderful Life back in.
The basic premise follows a couple whose daughter is gone, and so in order to save money, they opt to skip out of Christmas and take a cruise instead (saving them $3000 overall for the Christmas season). While the premise is clever enough, it is taken to such an extreme that believability falters in the presentation.
I can understand, perhaps, not doing a lot of the expensive things that makes Christmas such a great expendature, but they refuse to do the inexpensive and even free stuff just to be good neighbors or friends. They completely shut out the world in order to boycott Christmas, which did not strike me as the intention. Additionally, the wife is both ok and not ok with this throughout the film at times praising his genious and at other times condemning his stupidity but all the while playing along with his idea.
Many of the situations are funny and decent conceptions, but too many times, the jokes are not played out to their fullest potential. It's there and then gone.
It's difficult to say whether Tim Allen's character is supposed to be likable or not. He spends a fair amount of time being a Grinch, and one wonders whether he really enjoys Christmas as an annual occasion. Near the end, his personality begins flowing in one direction only to take a complete turn to complete an almost forgotten subplot and deliver the message of the film and get him his grand character development moment. It would have been more beautiful if he remained as he had been throughout the film instead of going more with the flow.
Act III begins with a great twist to it that jump starts the momentum of the film and carries us to the end, but Act II almost gets dull with the continuous motion of "here's another Christmas tradition", "No", "here's another Christmas tradition", "No." And let's take a moment to prepare for the cruise, and back to the tradition-no routine.
So, bottom line. Is this the greatest film the world has ever known? No. Does it make for an amusing film to watch with the family so laughs are shared and a good is had by all. Sure. The comedy is easy and funny. The story is easy to follow. It has a feel-good, sappy, Christmas-movie ending. So, if you want a film to just watch to escape another round of Rudolph. Here you go. If you're looking for an award-winning Christmas movie, time to put It's a Wonderful Life back in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
