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.
Showing posts with label PG-13 Rated. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PG-13 Rated. Show all posts
Sunday, February 1, 2009
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
