Dan's Movie Info

2007-10-22T13:28:00.000-04:00

This movie sucked. It was terrible. I'm not even going to waste my time and yours explaining why it sucked. Just know that it did. If you get an opportunity to watch it for free on cable TV, then sit down, turn on the television, and watch something else. Because it sucked. Probably one of the worst movies I've seen in years. You have been warned...

Superbad

2007-08-22T13:06:00.001-04:00

Superbad = Superawesome!

Watch this movie at the theater!

Sweeny Todd

2007-07-27T10:28:00.000-04:00

Not a movie review, but a kick-ass poster for the upcoming Tim Burton-directed movie-musical Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.

Transformers

2007-07-24T12:10:00.000-04:00

Caught this movie out at Cape Cod, and was mildly surprised. Although it ran a little too long for my taste (the flick is about 2 1/2 hours), it was a surprisingly entertaining movie, thanks in no small part to Shai LaBeouf.

The plot is simple: Transformers destroyed their world in a civil war. Bad transformers come to earth. Good transformers come to stop them. CGI ensues...

The special effects were good - too good. More often than not, the fight scenes were shot too close. We got great shots of gears and other transforming movements, but I wanted the camera to pull back a little bit (and in some cases, a lotta bit) so I could actually see the fight and put it in context.

My other gripe is the names of the Transformers. I realize that this is because of the source material, and not the movie, but come on! The bad Transformers get cool names like Bonecrusher, Starscream, Frenzy, and Devastator. The good Transformers get bullshit pussy names like Jazz, Ratchet, and - I kid you not - Bumblebee. Devastator vs. Bumblebee. Who would YOU put your money on in a fight?

For me, this movie succeeds due to the stellar work of Shai. In everything in which I've seen him (Holes, Disturbia, etc.), he brings a likability, believability, and sense of humor to the roles. He can play both cool and geeky with ease. And I cannot wait to see him as Indiana Jones's son in the upcoming Indy 4 movie. There is absolutely an Indiana Jones / Han Solo quality about his acting.

So, as far as Transformers goes, it was a fun way to spend a rainy day. A relatively forgettable movie, but fun while it lasted!

Pan's Labyrinth

2007-02-02T14:01:00.000-05:00

Alright, it's been since February since I saw this, and I'm just now getting around to updating my blog, so I'll keep it short and sweet. Rent Pan's Labyrinth. Very good movie. But don't expect it to be the fairy tale story the trailer predicts....

Snakes On A Plane

2007-01-22T14:01:00.000-05:00

Last night I rented "Snakes On A Plane." This film got SO much internet play, and word of mouth spread so voraciously online, that my interest was peaked. I became even more interested when word came out that the director shot additional footage to get an R rating, rather than PG-13.

Plus, Samuel L. Jackson fighting snakes! On a plane!! How bad could it be?

Answer: Pretty bad.

This movie was too bad to be good, and not bad enough to be entertaining. With so many varieties of snakes in this world, I hoped that there would be a greater cross-section of snakes in the film. With one notable exception of a guy getting squished and swallowed by a boa constrictor, every one else was bitten. Lots of snakes, lots of bites - including bites on every imaginable part of the body (Yes. Even THERE.) - but it wasn't enough to make up for a very sub-average movie.

I won't even get into the gaping plot holes and the sudden, dramatic-less ending.

Basically, watch this movie when it airs during late-night TV on the USA Network. Until then, there are many other films to rent. Don't bother with this one.

The Nativity Story

2006-11-29T11:26:00.000-05:00

Hey all. You may remember awhile back I reposted a hilarious review of Basic Instinct 2, written by a guy who goes by the name "Massawyrm" on one of my favorite websites: www.aintitcool.com. Aintitcool.com most recently got mentioned in the last episode of Studio 60!

Anyway, Massawyrm posted a great review of The Navitity Story on the aintitcool website, and has graciously given me permission to repost it here. You know that any review of The Nativity Story that compares it to both Terminator and Ewoks: The Battle For Endor is going to be funny.

So, without further ado, here's Massawyrm:

Hola all. Massawyrm here.

You know, leave it to Hollywood to capitalize upon the success of a really great movie. But despite the obvious potential for a sequel (I mean, come ON! The end of the first film even showed him coming back. They were totally trying to set up a sequel) Hollywood opted to make a prequel to Passion of the Christ. I guess with the sheer amount of deserving deaths awaiting the Jews from the first film, Gibson’s probably got the rights to that story locked down pretty tight. So a prequel it is.

This time around Jesus is being pursued by the ancient world version of a Bond villain, simply named Herod, who, knowing of Jesus’s amazingly bad assed ability to take a lickin’ and keep on tickin’ (I mean, really, he’s like Roman era John McClane) that he’s gonna try to kill him before he’s even born. So he sends out an army of Roman soldiers to try and find the unwed mother pregnant with the savior of humanity.

I know, I know, I know. I know what you’re thinking. I liked this story a lot better when it was called The Terminator. I guess someone at New Line thought that it would be better with Roman soldiers instead of killer robots. Which is exactly why James Cameron is a genius. Everything is better with killer robots. Especially the story of Jesus.

But don’t think they removed all of the science fiction elements, because for some reason Dr. Bashir from Deep Space 9 keeps beaming down into people’s dreams to boss them around. You’re going to have a son and you’re going to name him Jesus. No shit. I hope she names him Jesus, because that’s kind of who the movie is about. Which is kind of sad when you think about it, because Jesus doesn’t even show up until the end, and even then, you only get to see him as a baby. I guess Caviezel wasn’t available. Sometimes you have to write around that kind of thing.

Then there’s this weird plot about this ambiguously gay trio of wise asses who notice that three stars are going to conjoin and when they do the single greatest badass in cinema history will be born. So they spend the whole movie riding camels and cracking jokes just to stop by and say “Oh, hey, look. It’s the single greatest badass in cinema history. In, like, 33 years that guy is totally gonna get the shit beat out of him.” Then they leave presents. One guy leaves gold, another leaves frankincense – then the third guy gives the other guys a look like “What the fuck? We said nothing over $20. Now I look like a total asshole. All I brought was myrrh.”

Okay. I’ve got to give it to New Line. I mean, I really see where they were going with this. Someone was thinking Hey, if Passion of the Christ could make $600 Mil with an “R” rating, imagine the amount of money we could make with a “PG” rated film! Just think of it! A family rated Christian Film! Um, yeah. As a life long Christian, I’ve got some news for you. Christians? We make pretty shitty movies on the whole, especially when we try to make movies for other Christians. If you have any doubts about that, I highly recommend you spend a day or two watching the Fox Family channel. Not that I’d actually recommend that, but it would certainly prove my point. The Christians that are good enough to slip through the cracks seem to be few and far between – kinda like white guys in the NBA.

But, for a moment, let’s examine The Nativity Story as if there had never been a film made with the word “Passion” nor the word “Christ” in the title. As a family film, as a Christian film and as a story of the birth of Jesus, this film isn’t half bad. In fact, compared to other Christian films, it’s pretty damn good and ultimately watchable. There are a few odd choices that some folks might not care for – like the three wise men being played for laughs (I’m not kidding) - but all in all, it certainly isn’t painful or preachy.

All of the actors do fine jobs, especially Ciaran Hinds (Miami Vice, Munich, Sum of all Fears) as Herod who really does an excellent job bringing him to life and Alexander Siddig (Syriana, Deep Space 9) does a really good job with some pretty bland dialog taken straight out of the Bible – managing to breath emotion into some very stiff material.

However, there WAS a film called Passion of the Christ. And it completely raised the bar on this kind of film. Gibson took a lot of risks and made a film that transcended religion and proved to be a religious film that even non-believers could enjoy and be affected by. By presenting the film in its original languages (despite the use of Church Latin, rather than the original pronunciation) and with such raw, unfettered brutality in the torture sequences, Passion had this feeling of authenticity, as if you were there at the actual crucifixion.

And despite having heard the story every Palm Sunday once a year for every year of their life, and despite being able to recite the tortures in order, verbatim – Christians saw the death of Christ in a way they never imagined it. And through the violence and suffering, Christ’s ultimate message of love despite all things shone through loud and clear. For many it was an epiphany, an understanding of exactly how far Christ went to make his point about loving your enemies no matter what. And despite the “R” rating - despite the violence that many Christians vocally take issue with in other films – the film brought tears to the eyes of many and became the gold standard of Christian filmmaking. And it even managed to touch many non-believers, especially those whose only exposure to the teachings of Christ are through the boneheads that picket Wal-Mart every year for their use of the phrase “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.”

But this film ain’t Passion of the Christ. It ain’t even close. By whitewashing several of the elements of the Nativity and by flinching when it should go all the way, the story of the birth of Christ (which if you’re not completely familiar with it, isn’t exactly the sweetest of stories) doesn’t seem the slightest bit profound or enlightening. The film spends enough time setting up Herod’s order to kill all of the male children in Bethlehem under the age of two, but then drops it and pulls its punches when it needs it most. Mary and Joseph get a few wayward glances over the whole “unmarried pregnancy” thing, but it gets a pass with an offhand joke. And the manger is a surprisingly clean little cave that just happens to have animals in it. Even the hardship of the journey seems a bit toned down.

And having seen a film in its original historical language, watching another from the same time period performed in English seems to remove all authenticity. Remember how in Ewoks: The Battle for Endor all the ewoks suddenly spoke English rather than their original dialect of Yub Nubs? Remember how wrong and disconcerting that was? It’s kinda like that. It just doesn’t feel right.

This feels in every way like a “YOU’VE READ THE BOOK, NOW SEE THE MOVIE!” kind of film. It’s not going to make you look at the Nativity story in a new light, it won’t cause you to re-examine or strengthen your faith. And to anyone not of the faith, it’s probably gonna bore you to tears.

But it is family-friendly. And I can definitely see this as a great tool for sharing the story of the birth of Christ with children on Christmas Eve if you are one of those “He’s the reason for the season” folks. But there’s absolutely no reason at all to see this if you’re not Christian. It just doesn’t have anything special to offer.

Until next time friends, smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em.

Massawyrm

Dan again. Jesus, that was funny. Get it? Jesus?

Nevermind.

An Inconvenient Truth

2006-11-27T10:34:00.000-05:00

I rented this Al Gore global warming documentary last night, and found it disturbingly informative. I'd heard some great things about the documentary and, after watching it, was curious about what critics who didn't like the film said.

So I went online to the old stand-by: rottentomatoes.com. On Rotten Tomatoes, there are 126 positive reviews for "Truth" and 10 bad reviews. I wondered about the political leanings of the critics who didn't like this film.

First, let me point out that, with the notable exceptions of The New York Post, the remaining nine negative reviews all come from such stalwart media juggernauts that include Metromix.com, The Movieboy.com, Internet Reviews, Film Threat, 7M Pictures, and TonyMedley.com.

And, while I haven't read all the bad reviews, I've perused a few, and came up with some really wonderful chestnuts of idiotic logic that clearly show that these people hate the messenger, as well as the message. This one is my favorite:

"Moreover, it isn't clear that slightly warmer temperatures are bad. Some studies have suggested that it would produce a longer growing season, thus being a net plus for the planet. Of course, none of these opposing theories are presented in Al Gore's documentary, other than the times he ridicules those who disagree with him with a mocking tone, suggesting that they must be idiots." Steve Rhodes, Internet Reviews.

Yeah, that's right. Global warming is GOOD for the planet!! How could Al Gore have NOT mentioned this "opposing theory"? Gee, Steve, maybe because it's RETARDED??

Other negative reviewers focus on the claims that humans are causing global warming:

"Global warming is one of the left's pet projects. Consistent therewith the film complains that the United States is one of the two advanced countries who have not signed on to the Kyoto Protocol, another of the left's more boring refrains." Tony Medley, tonymedley.com

Gee, I wonder who Tony voted for?

You see, An Inconvenient Truth isn't about who is causing global warming. It's about the fact that our country, once the leader in innovation, is doing nothing about it. Hell, even China has stronger emissions restrictions on its vehicles that the USA.

People are so quick in this country to lay blame that they don't bother trying to fix the problem. It's all about "Whose fault is it?", rather than "How can we fix it?"

This movie tries to get the leaders of the world to even ASK the last question.

In light of recent disclosures, THIS is funny...

2006-11-07T11:43:00.000-05:00

Mission Impossible III

2006-11-01T13:31:00.000-05:00

In a word: Meh.

Hollywoodland

2006-10-20T08:59:00.000-04:00

Here we have another first time guest critic: Eddie Kent, Billy Joel fan extrodinaire, and now obviously Hollywoodland fan extrodinaire. I, too, really enjoyed this film. Great film noir. Hey, Eddie - nice tux!

Without further ado, here's Eddie!

My wife and I were intending to see Jackass 2, but since the free passes were not able to be used at this time, we chose to see a deeper, dramatic film, Hollywoodland. It was the right choice, because this is a great movie. Sometimes moving, many moments suspenseful, and at times haunting. This film had it all. The acting was phenomenal, and I believe that Ben Affleck's somewhat brief performance of Superman star George Reeves, will finally give his acting some respectability, and quite possibly an Oscar nomination, if not a win for Best Supporting Actor. Adrian Brody was great as always, and Diane Lane gave a remarkably intense portrayal of Toni Mannix, the wife of MGM studio executive Eddie Mannix, with whom Reeves had an affair.

The story centers around the mystery surrounding the apparent suicide of actor George Reeves (Ben Affleck), TV's Superman on June 16, 1959. Dead by a single gunshot wound to the head, the LA police determine the cause to be suicide, closing the case. The actor's mother, Helen Bessolo, doesn't believe her son could do such a thing, and hires $50 dollar a day private detective Louis Simo (Adrian Brody) to try and find out the truth. Simo decides to string his payday out by saying he thinks it could be murder, but soon discovers that he may be closer to the truth than he thought. Simo uncovers the steamy affair Reeves had with Toni Mannix (Diane Lane), the wife of MGM studio exec, Eddie Mannix. Louis follows many leads, some that become dangerous as he nears the truth. He also sees some parallels between Reeves and his life, and begins to understand the actor's reasons for possibly killing himself. During the film, all angles are shown as to what might have happened, ranging from an accident, to murder, to finally the suicide. There are many questions still left unanswered concerning Reeves death, and it's this that left me feeling haunted for quite awhile after leaving the theater. I did some reading up on the case, and it made the movie that more fascinating.

This is one of those movies that has superb acting, a good story, and makes you think a little. I would highly recommend seeing this film, because this is one of those movies that gets it right.

Dan, again. Thanks Eddie! And I agree: I think Ben Affleck may very possibly get at least an Academy Award nomination.

Little Miss Sunshine

2006-09-15T09:39:00.000-04:00

This movie was fantastic. I can't say it enough. Fantastic, fantastic, fantastic.

The movie begins with a close up a the face of a little girl watching a beauty pageant. And you can see by the way she mimics the pageant winner, that THAT is what she wants. And that is what the movie is about: dreams, wishes, striving for what you want.

A middle-class family (very quickly on its way to lower-middle class) decides to make a road trip to California when their young daughter gets to compete in the Little Miss Sunshine beauty pageant. Never mind that she's chubby. Never mind that she wears huge old lady glasses. Never mind that you have no idea what she and her grandpa (played to perfection by Alan Arkin) are cooking up as her "talent."

The direction is great. Directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris deserve all the praise they get for this film. The cast is near perfect. So good, in fact, that I must call out each performance:

Greg Kinnear plays Richard, the husband and father of this family. He's a motivational speaker peddling his personal system for success into a possible book deal. Richard is an ass, and I firmly disagree with almost everything the characters spouts out, but as the movie progresses, I found myself rooting for him anyway. The reason is that Kinnear makes Richard a lovable loser. Cliche, I know, but true.

Toni Collette plays Sheryl, the wife and mom. She's great, but then again, she's great in everything. Sheryl serves KFC for dinner every night.

Alan Arkin plays Grandpa, the senior citizen of the group, just got kicked out of his nursing home for doing heroin. I loved his explanation of his life at the home: "You go to one of those places, there's four women for every guy. Can you imagine what that's like? Ho oh. I had second degree burns on my Johnson, I kid you not."

Paul Dano plays Dwayne, the 15-year-old son who "hates everyone" and has pledged a vow of silence until he becomes a pilot. He hasn't spoken in 9 months, and converses with everyone via notepad. This actor is great - without saying a word, he conveys so much. A very funny, very touching performance. I hope to see more from him.

Abigail Breslin plays Olive, the aforementioned chubby Little Miss Sunshine contestant. She is fantastic. Not obnoxious. Not grating. And, most importantly, not Dakota Fanning.

Finally, there's Steve Carell. Steve plays Frank, Sheryl's suicidal, homosexual Proust-scholar brother. This is Steve's best film performance. He is funny, subdued, and takes a really nice dramatic turn. I hope to see him in some serious films. I see Oscar potential in his acting. No shit. And in this movie, he is so serious, he is absolutely hysterical.

Go see this movie. The woman with whom I saw this had never even heard of the film, so she saw it with no idea what it was about. As soon as the credits started to roll, she said, "Well, looks like I'll have to pick that one up on DVD."

I second that.

Clerks 2

2006-08-10T08:34:00.000-04:00

Hey all! Yet another guest critic! This time, it's good old Rob, with his take on Clerks 2:

Let me start out by saying that I live in New Jersey. I recognized many of the places in the opening of this movie more so than the opening sequence in The Sopranos. Which I suppose, is a good thing. Clerks 2 focuses on Dante and Randall and their lives as 30-something men. Now if you've seen the first Clerks, you know that Dante is the good guy who always seems to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Who can forget his lament, "I wasn't even supposed to be here today!" His fun loving, wise cracking buddy Randall likes to antagonize and go with the flow. The Yin to Dante's Yang. If you didn't see Clerks, well now you know those two characters. Jay and Silent Bob are back and pretty much as you remember them. ---Side note, if you've ever met my brother-in-law Pat, Jay does an ode to him at one point of the movie. Also, I swear my step-bro Mike is in the bathroom in the dance sequence.

In this movie, Dante and Randall are working at Mooby's, a burger place you may have seen in previous Kevin Smith movies. Smith does a good job of letting his movies stand on their own while also tying them together. He furthers this by having cameos from actors in previous Smith movies. When the movie starts, Dante is ready to change his life. New job, new wife, and a new home. This meets with some resistance from Randall. Dante wants to grow up and start his life while Randall is fairly content with how things are. But, if his buddy is going to move on, he'll go out in memorable fashion.

What comes next is what caused critic Joel Siegel to stand up and walk out of a movie for the first time in the 30-plus years that he's been reviewing. In the words of Kelly, a character in the movie, let's call the event "interspecies erotica."

Two new characters are introduced in this movie: Becky, the manager at Mooby's, and Elias, Mooby's Employee of the Month. Both were enjoyable characters, with the naive and Transformers-obsessed Elias stealing more then a few scenes.

Smith fans will enjoy the director's usual nod to Star Wars. Especially in a Lord of the Rings vs. Star Wars exchange.

A couple of old Smith stalwarts make cameos in the film. I must say though that I was pretty disappointed by them. I was expecting them to be either a former character they played or at least, a bit more creative. Also, those of you expecting Bob to be the font of wisdom in this flick as he's been in others will be disappointed. They played off that, but I would rather have seen him dispense chocolatey nuggets of emotional goodness as in movies past.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. It has the sarcastic wit of Clerks with the heart of Chasing Amy. It resolved in a nice way. Some may have seen it coming, but hell, I get stumped by Blue's Clues. I'd give it a 7 out of 10. I'll probably pick it up on DVD and complete the Jersey Chronicles.

Well, there you have it. Vulgarity, Lord of the Rings, and bestiality. Sign me up! Thanks, Duroc!

The Descent

2006-08-04T09:56:00.000-04:00

This movie is awesome. It reminded me of a Stephen King kind of story. Probably because the movie doesn't waste time explaining why there is a tribe of blind, humanoid creatures living in an unexplored cave. The women who go off spelunking don't know, and never really find out, so neither do we.

This movie is scary. Jumps o' plenty, and lots of gore. I was surprised that the six women were so independently identifiable. Often, especially in horror movies, the characters all kind of bleed together (no pun intended), making one virtually indistinguishable from the next. Either that, or each woman has her own "trademark" - the tough one, the smart one, the bitch, etc. The Descent does that to an extent, but each character is more than her own one-trick-pony.

Plus, the women have their secrets they keep from each other. And these secrets affect the way they react to what's happening around them. There are even moments of genuine surprise. When one woman does something completely unexpected, the audience gasped audibly. A nice change of pace for a horror movie.

If you like horror movies, this one is NOT TO BE MISSED!! An excellent, fun movie. But don't believe me - Here's what "real" critics are saying about The Descent:

"This is one of the scariest movies featuring female heroines since the Alien series."
-- Jack Mathews, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

"The Descent is a sharp hammer to the head and a claw to the gut, a blood-drenched creep show that wants to eat you alive. Beware, and bon appetit."
-- Tom Long, DETROIT NEWS

Four Stars. "This British horror-thriller recalls grueling, adrenaline-pumping classics like Deliverance, Jaws, Alien and Dead Calm. It's that good."
-- Jim Emerson, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES

"An object lesson in making a tightly-budgeted, no-star horror pic work through razor-sharp technique and committed performances alone."
-- Derek Elley, VARIETY

"The babes are buff and the scares bountiful in Neil Marshall's full-throttle horror freakout about six women on a caving expedition."
-- Manohla Dargis, NEW YORK TIMES

This is a good horror movie.

Rocky Balboa

2006-07-11T11:28:00.000-04:00

I can't believe I'm going to say this: I want to see "Rocky Balboa."

For those of you who don't know, a sixth (yes, SIXTH) Rocky movie premieres this December, and the trailer is now available online. They wisely opted out of using "VI" in the title, electing instead to just call the movie "Rocky Balboa."

Now, before you judge, watch the trailer here.

Rocky looks old, outta shape, tired, and lost. In other words, he looks like he should look. Oh, and Adrian is dead, but Paulie is back.

The concept makes some sense: ESPN airs a computerized fight between the current champ and Rocky. Rocky wins. The buzz begins. Rocky, meanwhile, decides that he'd like to step back into the ring, just to fight in a few small-time fights. You can see where this is headed....

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

2006-07-10T12:41:00.000-04:00

I don't have a lot of time to post a full review of "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang," but let me say this: Robert Downey, Jr. and Val Kilmer both deserve to get better movie offers after their performances in this movie. They were awesome. Very funny movie, but it also works as great film noir.

Without getting into great detail, the premise isn't all that new: Downey plays a small time NYC crook who ends up accidentally auditioning for a movie. He gets sent out to LA for a screen test for a role as a private investigator, and is placed under the tutelage of Gay Parry (played with hilarious glee by Val Kilmer), a real private investigator. Of course, they stumble onto a real crime.

The performances were wonderful across the board. Some actress named Michelle Monaghan stars as Harmony, a down-on-her-luck actress and mandatory romantic interest. And she's great. Not to mention damn hot... (That's her in the Christmas outfit ---->)

Great movie. I really can't recommend it enough. If you're looking for a good rental, and want a comedy, a mystery, an action thriller, film noir, and a touch of independent film edge, rent Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Really. It's that good. I'm buying it.

Superman Returns

2006-07-03T09:26:00.000-04:00

I saw Superman Returns Saturday, and I've been struggling about how I was going to review it. You see, I liked this movie. I really did. The acting was decent, the direction solid, the effects serviceable. It was about 2 1/2 hours, and did not feel like it took that long. Hell, the little kid playing Lois's son didn't even annoy me. It was a good movie.

I did like Superman Returns. And yet, I can't help but be disappointed. Because, in spite of everything I liked about the movie, the long and short of it is that it wasn't the Superman movie I wanted to see. I didn't want to see Superman longing for Lois. I didn't want to see Superman all melancholy and shit. I wanted to see Superman kicking ass and taking names. And other than 2 (well, 2 1/2) solidly "super" scenes of the aforementioned ass-kicking, we mostly see Superman pining away for the life he left 5 years earlier.

The plot: Superman disappeared 5 years ago. In those 5 years, Lois Lane had a kid, got engaged, and won a Pulitzer for her article: "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman." (My, aren't those grapes sour?!?) Also, Lex Luthor is now free, because Superman was called as a witness in Lex's criminal trial, and Superman didn't show. Now, Superman has returned (and Clark Kent's returned too! What a coincidence!).

The movie was good. But it's a solidly romantic Superman movie. As an action movie, it needed some more action. Yes, the movie showed Superman using all his powers - heat vision, super breath, flying, strength, etc. And, in one great slow-motion shot, you get to see what happens when the Man of Steel takes a bullet point-blank range directly into his eyeball. (Answer: He doesn't even blink.) But the film remains solidly a chick flick with some action thrown in to make the men happy. I hope it does well, because I want to see another Superman movie. Brandon Routh channels Christopher Reeve to perfection. Director Bryan Singer wisely uses the same music and opening credits as the original. It truly is a wonderful homage to Superman, and Superman II. (Let's just pretend III and IV were never made, shall we?)

I just wanted to see a ballsier Superman movie, that's all.

Firewall

2006-06-26T15:11:00.000-04:00

Let's put it this way: I rented Firewall, and a little more than one hour in, the DVD crashed and wouldn't play.

And I didn't care.

16 Blocks

2006-06-23T10:05:00.000-04:00

There are few actors in Hollywood who, solely by their presence in a movie, make me want to see it. Bruce Willis is on that short list (along with John Cusack, Paul Giamotti, and Kurt Russell). And Bruce Willis is the only reason I wanted to see "16 Blocks," a fairly standard buddy action movie about an aging, alcoholic cop (Jack Mosley, played by Bruce), assigned to transport a witness (Mos Def) 16 blocks in NYC to testify before a grand jury. Of course, the people against whom Mos must testify are going to try to kill him before that distance can be crossed.

This movie could have been rather blah. In lesser hands, it would've been. What maked me like the movie wasn't the action, or the plot (which has been done over and over and over again). I liked it because of Bruce and, surprisingly, Mos Def. Bruce has no qualms about playing a character as old as Bruce really is. And Mos is great. A wonderful character role that, while very grating, is also very real.

Truthfully, there isn't as much action in this movie as I expected - and that's a good thing. There's action, make no mistake about that. But there are some good character moments, and they work. Now, the plot device requiring Mos to get to the courthouse by no later than 10am is a stretch. A big time stretch. But I see why it's there. It's there because it would just be too easy for Bruce and Mos to just hide, and wait for the heat to cool. But they can't because there's this fabricated time limit the screenwriters gave them. It's a bullshit time limit, but I'll allow it.

So. I liked 16 Blocks. But don't expect anything new by way of plot. It's all been done. And I mean ALL. As soon as you see the microtape recorder, you know someone's gonna get taped unknowingly. As soon as Mos asks Mosley a logic riddle (one that the writers lamely took from one of the thousands of forwarded e-mails we've all seen before), you know that, at the end of the movie, Jack is going to give Mos the right answer, thereby solidifying their moment together. And, (I'm really not giving anything away here) as soon as you meet Jack's former partner, you KNOW that he's a bad guy.

But Bruce and Mos carry this weak plot on their shoulders solidly. And they both deserve the credit for this positive review. Without them, frankly I wouldn't have been able to recommend this film. With them, it's a definite renter.

X-Men: The Last Stand

2006-05-30T11:33:00.000-04:00

Let me say this about X-Men: The Last Stand": If you haven't read the comic books, you'll like this piece of fluff summer popcorn movie. I have not read the comic books, and I liked it.

This is the third (and final?) installment of the X-Men franchise. Everyone's back, although some characters are brought to the foreground, some sent to the background, and some killed outright. A "cure" for being a mutant is created, and the government is allowing mutants to "voluntarily" sign up to be cured. Of course, they are also designing weapons to use the "cure" as well...

This movie is what you expect. Don't expect high cinema. Don't expect great dialogue. Expect a visual and audio assault of explosions and action (interspersed with characters talking about stuff you don't really care about, other than to bridge the gap between ass-kickings).

There are deaths, although because I had no real emotional investment in any of the characters, their deaths didn't really shock me. One death in particular bugged me, though. An X-Man who is featured prominently in the first two films is killed off rather early in the movie - off screen!! The first time you find out the X-Man died was when a character says " 'Insert name of dead character here' is dead." That was it! I kept waiting for the big reveal, i.e. "No! 'Insert name of dead character here' isn't dead! Here (s)he is to save the day!" I was wrong. (S)he was really dead. Very odd.

Which brings me back to the comic books. A guy with whom I work read all the comic books, and refuses to see the X-Men movies because he knows that a lot has been changed. I told him this morning about the movie, and the deaths, and he responded: "This just confirms that I will never watch these movies."

I'll never understand why a studio refuses to follow a film's source material. It alienates the built-in fan base. Stupid.

Anyway, if you're in the mood for a good, PG-13 action movie with minimal blood, this could be it. Unless, of course, you're an X-Men comic book super-freak. Then you might want to sit this one out.

The Portal

2006-05-16T16:47:00.000-04:00

I don't know why I haven't posted this before....

"The Portal" is a very short film written and directed by my good friend Michael Busch. It stars his brother Gary, Jared Nelson, Jennifer Pokon, and yours truly. Vincent Scalise has a "special appearance" credit which I personally find hilarious!

Anyway, the link to this film is on the right side of this page, over there --->

Check it out, along with Mike's other short films!

Poseidon

2006-05-15T12:48:00.000-04:00

Hey all. Now, I have NOT yet seen Poseidon, but, I know a woman who has. Valerie works with Krysten (she of the "Silent Hill" trashing). I have never personally met Val, but we've traded a few e-mails. Val is a ball-busting woman who, word has it, can fart better than most truckers. Which, personally, I find rather attractive, in a odd, troublesome kind of way. What can I say? I'm weird, and I'm a pig.

Val saw Poseidon this weekend, and, as you will see, had herself a grand old time. I suspect that whenever I see this movie (be it at the theater, or on DVD) I will enjoy it as well. Remember, people: This is a summer action/disaster movie. This ain't The Color Purple, for crying out loud!

Without further ado, here's Val:

If ever you have been on a modern-day cruise ship, you feel every shake and shimmy of Poseidon as it is turned over by a very large tsunami-like wave in the ocean.

Very quick character building in the first 15 or so minutes of the movie. The director captures the magnitude and massiveness of a 1,000 foot long party vessel that is voyaging on New Year's Eve. The six story lobbies, with glass elevators, the two and three story dining rooms, the disco, ... every room, ...every hall, depicted perfectly.

Parties and dancing come to a halt as the ship is slowly churned to its side and eventually ends up completely upside down afloat in the ocean. As the passengers are told to remain calm since rescue parties should arrive in several hours, there are of course a handful of passengers that include Richard Dreyfus and Kurt Russell that choose to find their own way out instead of staying in the main room of the ship with several hundred other people. The movie follows them as they risk their lives, to save them, the ship filling behind them with water.

I found myself holding my breath each time they had to swim through water without air pockets. I found my hands getting clammy, and my body getting hot in reaction to the movie.

Dan again. Wow. Her body was getting hot in reaction to the movie. I may very well have to take a date to see this one! Too bad Val's married!

Good Night, and Good Luck

2006-05-10T09:27:00.000-04:00

"Good Night, and Good Luck" (GNGL) is the true story about how Edward R. Murrow (remarkably played by David Strathairn) and his producer Fred Friendly (George Clooney) help bring down Joseph McCarthy(portrayed with perfection by Joseph McCarthy) and the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Clooney, who also wrote the screenplay, has firmly established himself as a solid director. Shot entirely in black-and-white, Clooney uses only actual footage of McCarthy in his film, rather than an actor. It works amazingly well. Strathairn was fantastic, although I would have liked to have learned a little more about the man.

The supporting cast was excellent, although, again, every character was so professional and relatively low key, that it was hard to get a real read on any of them, with the minor exception of Reporter Joe Wershba (Robert Downey Jr.) and another staff member (Patricia Clarkson), who are forced to hide their marriage because of network rules. Ray Wise is great as Don Hollenbeck, a fellow newsman deeply worried about being labeled a columnist. A very touching performance.

This film is rather timely, given what's going on in this country and the world. GNGL clocks in at a shade over 90 minutes, and its a perfect length. I liked this film MUCH better than Clooney's directorial debut "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind."

Rent this movie.

Wolf Creek

2006-04-26T11:56:00.000-04:00

"Wolf Creek" claims to be based on a true story. It's not. The "true story" upon which this film is supposed to be based is that a guy named Ivan Milat once killed 7 backpackers in the Australian Outback. So, "Wolf Creek" is based upon Ivan to the extent that, once, there was a guy who killed people in the Outback. Other than that, ignore the "true story" tagline.

Wolf Creek follows the story of three 20-somethings, English tourists Liz and Kristy, and their Australian guide Ben. How these two ladies hooked up with Ben isn't really explained, but I suppose its not necessary. You get the sense that they just kinda met him in a bar one night, and he started tagging along.

The movie is billed as a horror movie, and it is, but not until over half the movie has passed. The first hour plus is all about the three travelers. While there absolutely is a sense of foreboding throughout the first hour of the film, nothing "horrorish" really happens until their car dies at Wolf Creek, in the middle of nowhere, and friendly Mick Taylor happens to stop by to give them a hand.

Then these bozo tourists begin to make every possible mistake to get themselves into a very difficult situation. Mick, of course, is one bad-ass nutjob, who has a nice little hobby of picking up stranded people in the Outback, taking them back to his compound, and torturing them and killing them. No other motivation is explained. I would have liked to have known what was going on with him. As the movie played out, it really only appeared that Mick did such sadistic things because, well, he liked to.

I can recommend this movie, with a caveat. There are several moments during this movie where I wanted to jump into the scene and bitchslap the characters. For example, if a guy has your friend tied up, and the beheaded remains of some nameless woman hanging on a meathook, and the killer's back is to you, and you have a loaded rifle pointed at the back of his head, you do NOT yell at him to stop and turn around. You shoot the bastard immediately. And when you finally do shoot him, grazing his neck so he falls unconscious, you do not hit him gently on the back with the butt of the empty rifle, and then drop the rifle. You take the shotgun from the table, or the revolver from the table, or the knife from his sheath, and you KILL HIM! Sigh. It kinda pissed me off. Crappy, lazy writing there.

The performances were all good, and there were some surprises that I didn't see coming. So, if you've read this review and still want to see "Wolf Creek", you'll probably like it.

Silent Hill

2006-04-24T11:47:00.000-04:00

I haven't seen this movie, but my friend Krysten went to see it Friday. And this morning, we traded IMs about the flick. Here is our exchange, in which she succinctly states her opinion in her opening message:

Krysten: Silent Hill - SUCKED
Daniel: Really?
Daniel: That's the word I'm hearing.
Krysten: Oh it was bad - wait till i tell you.
Krysten: Sooooooooooooo bad
Krysten: The theater was laughing - and it wasn't a comedy/horror.
Krysten: You're gonna love this...
Krysten: There was this scene when she's trying to get through the bowels of the hospital to save her daughter...
Krysten: and she has to get past these mummy-like creatures...
Krysten: there's a whole troop of them.
Krysten: But apparently, they only come alive when there's light shined on them...
Krysten: so to test this theory, she shines a light on them...
Krysten: and the camera angle is straight on this group of zombie/mummy things...
Krysten: and all at once they start twitching and walking - in unison - towards her - and the camera...
Krysten: [My friend] rob & i both turn to each other and say: "Thriller video!"
Daniel: Nice.
Krysten: And the theater is laughing - it SO looked like the thriller video - it was pathetic.
Krysten: It was so obvious...
Krysten: The dialoge sucked ASS
Krysten: There was some cool death by barbed wire at the end - but not worth 2 1/2 hours.
Krysten: It was SUCH a disappointment.
Krysten: Towards the beginning of the movie they're discovering all the weird shit in this town..
Krysten: the woman and this female cop she partners up with...
Krysten: so this thing comes out of nowhere and starts lurching toward them...
Krysten: it's nasty...and it's spewing acidic black shit...
Krysten: and the cop is standing there with th gun pointed straight at it...
Krysten: and they just keep watching it in horror...
Krysten: finally like half the audience is like "Shoot the fucking thing already!!!"
Krysten: It was hysterical.
Daniel: lol
Daniel: Standard horror movie stupidity.
Krysten: Oh bad bad bad.
Krysten: I could go on, but why?

There you have it. Good enough for me to know I won't be seeing it.

A History of Violence

2006-04-13T14:20:00.000-04:00

Viggo Mortensen stars as Tom Stall, an average Joe, in the perfect marriage, with the perfect family, in the perfect little village, owning the perfect family diner. All is right in Tom's world.

Until, that is, a couple of bad-asses show up to rob his diner, and Tom kicks their collective asses, making him an instant national hero. Now, a Philadelphia mobster (Ed Harris) is knocking on Tom's door, convinced that he is really Joey Cusack, the long-missing brother of a mob boss (William Hurt), wanted for turning on the mob. Hmmmm. Maybe I should put that another way. How about: Wanted for going against the mob. Yeah. That sounds less sexual.

Is Tom really Joey? Is it a case of mistaken identity? Can't tell you. Gotta watch it.

Tom's family's reaction to the ultimate issue - who is Tom Stall - struck me as a little unusual. They seemed too eager to doubt. Especially against the backdrop of the perfect family life they had before that fateful night in the diner.

I liked the character of Jack Stall, Tom's son. I thought Ashton Holmes was decent in the role, although he looked way too old to be playing a high school student. Heidi Hayes played the young daughter, and reminded me why Dakota Fanning remains Hollywood's go-to-girl when in need of a little blonde girl for a movie. Heidi, frankly, sucked.

I really liked the movie, though. Originally a graphic novel, it has some really good fight scenes, although this is not an action movie, but a movie about violence. (I guess the title kinda gives that away, huh?) I have some fundamental questions about the movie, and its outcome, but I can't present them here without giving things away.

Overall, I definitely suggest you rent it. Oh, one other thing: There are some surprisingly graphic sex scenes between Tom Stall and his wife (Maria Bello). So, I guess that's another reason to rent it.

Good movie.

Domino

2006-04-10T12:20:00.000-04:00

"Domino" is very loosely based on real-life bounty hunter Domino Harvey, a former model and daughter of actor Lawrence Harvey. The real Domino was on hand during filming, but died of a drug overdose in June 2005 before it was released. No mention of her death is in the film, other than a "In Loving Memory of" tag in the credits.

Domino started out as a decent film - not at all like I expected. But, the chaotic edits and wild jumping back and forth through the chronology of events got a little tiresome. Domino becomes a bounty hunter under the tutelage of Ed Mosbey (Mickey Rourke), and Choco (Edgar Ramirez). Her success as a bounty hunter gets them a TV reality-show pilot, hosted by Beverly Hills 90210's Ian Ziering and Brian Austin Green, playing themselves.

Ian's and Brian's portrayals of themselves are hysterically self-deprecating. They get lap dances, smoke pot, demand that their agents get their careers back on track, and, my favorite, cry like little girls when taken hostage.

The movie as a whole, however, I simply cannot recommend. Well, that may be a little harsh. It's an ok movie. Certainly not great, but nowhere near as bad as, say, Alone In The Dark. If you want to see Keira Knightley naked, then watch it. Otherwise, look elsewhere. There are better movies to rent.

2006-04-05T10:55:00.000-04:00

Basic Instinct 2

2006-03-30T16:54:00.000-05:00

No, I have NOT seen this movie. However, I read an absolutely hilarious review of it by a guy by the name of Massawyrm over at www.aintitcoolnews.com that I simply had to repost here. As you can read below, this isn't the T&A-fest we were hoping for - in fact, it sounds a whole lot worse. The comparison of seeing Sharon Stone naked with "walking in on your Aunt Mildred getting out of the shower" had me pissing my pants!

Without further ado, here it is:

Hola all. Massawyrm here. Where the fuck is Joe Eszterhas when you need him? No seriously. Where the fuck is he? I mean, clearly we live in a world where someone was willing to dump buckets of money into a remake - ahem, sorry - sequel to the 1992 Verhoeven sleazefest classic Basic Instinct – one might imagine that they might go back to the source and squeeze one last epically debaucherous ride out of him. But no. Eszterhas may have become synonymous with the worst of the worst when it comes to screenwriting, but you gotta give it to the guy: he was the king of sleaze. His movies weren’t just bad. They were fucking epics of jaw-dropping magnitude. Flashdance, Basic Instinct, Sliver, Jade. Hedonistic, misogynistic, seedy pieces of trash one and all. And every single one of them was a step closer to his opus, his masterstroke, his monument to female degradation – mother fucking Showgirls. Yeah, now you’re with me.

When MGM released their super slutty, heavily unrated psudo-trailer on the net a few months back, word on this project began to change. All of a sudden the jokes about how bad it could be was readily replaced by talk of excitement about just how over the top and, once again, sleazy this was going to be. Curiosity began to stir and many of us waited with baited breath, wondering aloud: was this going to be another Showgirls, another trip into a hypnotically unbelievable sex romp with a budget?

In a word - no. As it turns out, that trailer MGM dropped on us was complete, utter horseshit – a farce of such unrelenting chutzpah that I can’t even begin to explain. But I’ll try, by god I’ll try.

Whether we like it or not, Basic Instinct is a classic and easily somewhere in the top 10 of most influential films of the 90’s. It single handedly legitimized softcore, and along with The Hand that Rocks the Cradle and Single White Female became the standard by which every single femme fatale ‘erotic thriller’ of the era was either compared or plagiarized. While I won’t even begin to argue that these films are good, they opened up a whole market of ‘adult’ filmmaking that allowed men to watch nudie movies while systematically claiming to be watching real films. Hell, late night Skinimax is nothing BUT Basic Instinct whackfest knockoffs – and Blockbuster Video made a very lucrative industry out of forbidding NC-17 films in their stores, while producing through subsidiaries their own ‘thriller’ softcore that had the benefit of being ‘unrated’ not ‘NC-17’. Would we even know who Shannon Tweed is if not for her endless strea of Basic Instinct clones?

So if you’re going to make a sequel to something that defined an entire genre, you’ve gotta do it right. It’s gotta be sexier, filthier, bloodier and quite simply, downright unwholesome. And that’s certainly what they’re selling in the internet ‘trailer’ and the countless Sharon Stone interviews meant to drum up controversy (the woman who a decade and a half ago publicly threw a fit about the infamous bush scene is now advocating oral sex for minors on talk shows and discussing how much she loves sex.) But that ain’t actually what they’re selling. You see, if you’ve seen the internet ‘trailer’, then you’ve actually seen 75% more sex than is actually in the film. Virtually every frame of sex and nudity that appears in Basic Instinct 2, you’ve already seen. Let that sink in for a moment. I’ll wait.

Yes, there are exactly three sex scenes in this movie. One with a single nipple and some bobbing man ass. Another with a single nipple and some bobbing man ass. And a third, with two expose nipples, and yes, dare I say it, more bobbing man ass. That semi hot looking threesome in the ‘trailer’? Never actually appears in the film - the third person in that three-way…never actually appears in the film. And outside of the sex, there is one, single, gratuitous nude scene. Of Sharon Stone. All told, there is perhaps 20-30 seconds of actual sexual content in this film. So it never actually achieves any level of ‘trashy’ that someone might be seeing this for. Oh, sure, it trrrrriiiiiiiieeeesss to be sexy, complete with a tracking down the legs shot that worked great 15 years ago, but now follows a trail of freckles and liver spots that feels more akin to walking in on your Aunt Mildred getting out of the shower than it does watching Basic Instinct, causing your balls to slowly creep back into your abdomen. Okay, yes, 40+ women can be sexy. But there are magazines for that kind of thing, and there’s a reason porn shops keep them on the back shelves of the racks – because they are reserved for ‘special’ kinds of men. If liver spots speak ‘experience’ to you, then the gratuitous shots of a braless Sharon Stone wearing a nigh see-through blouse with her under-the knife perkiness peeking out might bring you to half mast. Otherwise, the film isn’t sexy at all, but rather just seems kind of sad.

What’s left is a miserable train wreck of a thriller groaning under the weight of dialog so bad it becomes epic in it’s own right. You see, while this film isn’t epic in the same fashion as an Eszterhas thriller, it easily, without hyperbole, becomes a top entry into the ‘worst sequel to a blockbuster film of all time’ list. It makes Godfather 3 and Episode I look like gargantuan successes, and manages to make Speed 2 and Jaws: The Revenge seem watchable by comparison. Seriously, this movie is just…that…bad.

Allow me to read from the book of BI2 for a moment, to illustrate more effectively the type of trite, overblown dialog that pervades this film. When asked what she writes about (Sharon Stone’s character Catherine Tramell, as you might recall, is quite possibly the worst successful novelist ever set to film – really, the passages she reads aloud in BI2 make us AICNers read like Nobel fucking laureates) Stone's answer is this (quoted verbatim from the film)

CATHERINE TRAMELL
The lurid, the violent, the sexual.
The basic instincts.

Oh yeah, baby. They go that far. The entire film is filled with the kind of lame, self-referential bullshit that will either make your asshole pucker tighter than a drum or cause you to laugh out loud uncontrollably. Laid atop one of the weakest, unnecessarily convoluted plots known to man it achieves brand new levels of ‘WTF were they thinking?’ making this the surefire leader of the pack for the Razzies, easily sweeping in the categories of Worst film, Worst director, Worst Actress, and most notably and ironically, the Joe Eszterhas Dis-honorary award for Worst Screenplay. Normally, I scoff at the Razzies for picking only on mediocre to kind of bad big budget or big star failures – but this is exactly the type of film the Razzies love to roast, and is a failure of such a spectacular level – one that misses absolutely everything that it aims for - that this year they can’t help but be right on the money. Distributing a film that even manages to come close to how bad this is seems pretty much like a mathematical improbability.

But there’s something to be said for a movie this bad. And that is that it’s really, truly, amazingly funny. When it’s not being boring as all fucking hell, that is. It’s filled to the brim with beautiful nuggets of pure gold that any drunken film watcher will split their pants laughing at. But this is only recommended for the most astute and well trained of ‘bad movie watchers.’ This isn’t amateur level bad. This requires someone ready to deal with soul crushing banality for minutes at a time to enjoy the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I mean, it’s just plain gawd awful. I would say that the studio behind it should simply be ashamed of themselves for even thinking of letting it show on a single screen – but it’s an MGM film and those people practically wear masks to work out of embarrassment already. For them it’s nothing but another can of film atop a pile of buttfucked properties.

This is the single worst, most unbelievable film I’ve seen on the big screen since Torque. And if given the Sophie’s Choice of sitting in a chair with a gun to my head having to choose between watching one of the two, I’d suffer Torque again. Something about Bike-Fu makes me chuckle. That, and I hope to god to never have to see Aunt Sharon naked again.

Until next time friends, smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em. I know I will.

Massawyrm

Walk The Line

2006-03-28T09:02:00.000-05:00

I enjoyed this movie quite a bit - not because I thought the movie was amazing, but because the performances were.

A lot has been made of Reese Witherspoon's performance as June Carter Cash. And rightly so. She was excellent. But so was Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash. Joaquin sounds so much like Johnny, that if I didn't know any better, I would've thought they dubbed Johnny's voice in. There's a lot of singing in this movie, and the vocals are great, across the board.

The movie was good, but, like so many other true stories of musicians, the tale remains the same. During the Academy Awards, Jon Stewart joked that he enjoyed "Walk The Line" the first time he saw it when it was called "Ray". And, you know what? He was right. Same story, different races.

This movie was good, but was not Oscar good. If I had seen it in the theater, I wouldn't have been disappointed. But seeing it at home, on DVD, it was absolutely worth the time. Rent it. Good movie.

Inside Man

2006-03-27T11:05:00.000-05:00

My friend Rob has been busting my balls because of my Brokeback Mountain / The Unit reviews. (See the comments to both of the reviews, below.) Well, now I'm adding to my double entendre reviews by watching the latest Spike Lee movie "Inside Man".

Inside Man stars Denzel Washington as an NYPD hostage negotiator biding his time to make Detective First Grade, when a bank heist creates a hostage situation with over 50 hostages and the number one negotiator is on vacation. Bank robber Clive Owen and a group of cohorts have taken hostages while robbing a bank in Manhattan. But it is clear from the beginning that this is no ordinary bank robbery, and you, the viewer, are left to wade through the myriad of clues and flashbacks (and flash-forwards) to figure out what exactly is going on.

I really enjoyed the style of this movie. Jodie Foster makes up for "Flightplan" with a great performance as the person the people with power go to when in a jam. The acting is great, and Spike Lee makes a great turn as a director of an action/thriller. Plus, it's always great to see Clive Owen on screen. I can't wait to see him in the Sin City sequel.

When I left the theater, my first thought was that the movie went on a little too long, and could have been edited down. But the more I thought about the film over the weekend, the more I liked it. There are some truly wonderful small roles acted by some really gifted unknown actors and actresses - I expect to see many of them go on to bigger and better things. The supporting cast is excellent.

This movie isn't for everyone, and I suspect that many of you will agree that it drags a little. But you should at least put it on your list of movies to rent.

Doom

2006-03-16T12:03:00.000-05:00

Doom, the movie, is based upon the wildly popular Doom video game - one of the first games of its kind to feature 1st person bloody death and mayhem. By the way, both the computer games Doom and Doom II kick ass, and although I haven't yet played Doom 3, I'm sure that kicks ass too.

The plot: Some really bad shit happens at a research facility on Mars. The marines are sent in a la "Aliens". Sarge (played by The Rock) leads a group of so-called "elite" soldiers. If these bozos are the future of our "elite soldiers," we're in deep trouble. They suck.

Doom is a sub-average scifi horror movie. The scares are minimal, the horror negligible, and the action typical. There is, however, one moment in the film where, for about 4 minutes, all the action is in the 1st person, just like the game. It's a very effective twist, although after about 3 minutes and 30 seconds I started to feel a little motion sick. And I don't get motion sick.

Doom is what it is: A forgettable escape. You watch it, are mildly entertained, and then forget all about it when it's over.

I still liked it better than Wedding Crashers. (See below.)

Wedding Crashers

2006-03-15T16:00:00.000-05:00

Well, everyone I know who saw this movie has raved about it. I've heard that it was hilarious - just as good as The 40-Year-Old Virgin - great, raunchy fun.

They were wrong. It wasn't hilarious. It's not even CLOSE to the fantastic The 40-Year-Old Virgin. And it was neither great nor raunchy. Nor fun.

What I found when I rented Wedding Crashers was an average romantic comedy trying to be labeled a bawdy, American Pie-type movie. As far as I'm concerned, the trailers for Wedding Crashers are false advertisement.

I was very disappointed in this movie. Frankly, I found it lame. Right down to the stereotypical scene where a man runs into a church to stop the wedding because he loves the bride. Stupid. Trite. The few great funny moments were drowned out in a sea of stupid romance.

Rent it if you want. I don't recommend it.

The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

2006-03-10T11:44:00.000-05:00

The Hills Have Eyes (hereinafter "THHE") is a remake of Wes Craven's 1977 film of the same name. Wes directed and wrote the original, and has now been promoted to Producer of THHE.

The premise: An extended family (Mom; Dad; their teenage son and daughter; their married daughter; her husband, their baby; and 2 German shepherds (named in both versions Beauty & Beast)) is driving to California and decides to take the long way to see America. Their SUV and Streamline Trailer crash in the middle of the desert. There's no cell phone service. They are then beset upon by radioactive, mutated cannibals. Let the bloodbath begin.

If you saw the original, THHE follows it to a "T". The opening sequence is fantastic. After the credits, the movie takes its time, introducing the audience to is characters while they travel along. There are all the stereotypical jumps - a loud orchestral swoop, a startled scream, and a bird flies through the window. "Whew. Just a bird." But they are all used to decent effect.

Once the violence starts, however, it doesn't let up. This is a very gory, disturbing movie. Very gory. Lots of body parts. Cannibalism. Rape. Burnings. Explosions. Dismemberments. An axe is used frequently. And lots, and lots, and lots, of blood. If gore ain't your thing, don't see this. I, however, like my horror gory, so I thought it was pretty cool.

One of my friends with whom I saw this was disappointed, because, among other reasons, he was hoping for a little more social commentary, along the lines of Land of the Dead. The social commentary IS there in THHE, but there isn't much, and what is there is literally stabbed into the skull with a brutal, strong vengeance. See the movie, and you will understand that my use of the word "literally" is correct.

So, where does this review leave me? I don't know. I can say that I really enjoyed this movie. I can also say that this movie isn't great - hell, it may not even be good. But I liked it. So, I guess I'll say that if you enjoy graphic, gory horror movies, then this movie may be for you. Personally, I can't wait for the unrated DVD!

The Unit - TV series on CBS

2006-03-08T16:09:00.000-05:00

Well, it's not a movie, but I believe it worthy of a recommendation.

See, I love my TV. And SO often series that I really enjoy get cancelled immediately. Firefly, Wonderfalls, Love Monkey, Jake In Progress. All gone. So I'm taking it upon myself to try to get people to give a new show a try...

Last night, I saw the series premiere of a new show on CBS called "The Unit." TV Guide describes it as follows:

A covert team of U.S. Special Forces operatives undertake missions around the world while their wives attempt to carry on a normal life back at home, living on a military base and keeping their husbands' secrets.

While that description is accurate, it makes a thoroughly compelling series sound like a bad Chuck Norris movie. Judging solely on the premiere episode, The Unit is an awesome show, with fantastic potential. It could very well become my favorite series currently on the air. I suppose I should've expected nothing less of a series created by David Mamet!

It stars Dennis Haysbert (President Palmer from "24") Scott Foley (some guy from "Felicity") and Robert Patrick ("Terminator 2" and Jumped-The-Shark X-Files). The actresses playing the wives are all relatively unknown - at least to me. I was surprised at how much I liked the wives' backstories.

The Unit is a group outside of every other military branch. It is completely autonomous. The action was great. The missions were difficult, but not "Mission: Impossible" difficult. And the drama between the wives, including the wife of the newest Unit member, is excellent. Foley is the newest member, and his wife and their young daughter had no idea what they were getting into. The wife insists that, under the Army regs, they are allowed to live off base. Haysbert's wife gently pats the young woman on the shoulder and says, "You're not in the Army. You're in the Unit."

Give the show a chance. It's very, very good.

Flightplan

2006-02-19T22:08:00.000-05:00

I watched Flightplan this past weekend with some friends.

Shame on you, Jodie Foster. Shame on you.

Brokeback Mountain

2006-02-13T12:14:00.000-05:00

I saw Brokeback Mountian this past weekend and, while the performances were stellar across the board, the movie itself left me, well, rather bored.

Brokeback Mountain tells the story of Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Ennis (Heath Ledger) - two cowboys who first meet in 1963 while herding sheep in Wyoming on Brokeback Mountain. (If they're herding sheep, are they sheepboys?) These two men develop a romantic relationship that stretches into a life-long bond. However, due to both the times and geography, neither man is comfortable leaving their public lives of heterosexuality for the true love they have for each other.

Brokeback Mountain is based on a short story by Annie Proulx. And it is clear to me that it was a SHORT story. Brokeback Mountain - the movie - draws out this short story over 2 plus hours, when it could have been told in an hour. Long, silent portions of the film, encompassing beautiful scenery shots, seemed never-ending.

Now, I recognize that it may take a decent amount of set up to allow Jack - the more "out-of-the-closet" of the two - and Ennis to cross that line and begin a sexual relationship. However, for me, it just took too long. Once their relationship starts, the story of the rest of their lives after Brokeback Mountain is a very interesting, very compelling tale of two homosexual men from the south.

But, for me, it just took too long. I recommend this movie as a rental, absolutely. The story is a great story. But I think I'd like the short story better.

Oh, and one final note: I just don't understand the stigma that this movie generates. I tell people that I saw it, and am surprised at the people who immediately look at me questioningly. For example, I went out for a drink after the movie with the two women with whom I saw it. At the bar, we spoke with a group of young 20-something men, who instantly wondered whether I was gay because I saw Brokeback Mountain. That makes no sense. Did they wonder if I was a cowboy? No. Do they think I'm a Jedi for seeing "Star Wars"? Do they think I'm a martial arts master for seeing "Kung-Fu Hustle"? Do they think I'm an African-American Civil War soldier because I saw "Glory"?

I just don't get close-minded people.

Serenity (and Firefly)

2006-01-03T13:15:00.000-05:00

In 2002, Joss Whedon (he of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame) created an incredible television series that aired on FOX. That series - Firefly - was set 500 years in the future and followed a crew of a cargoship as it took different jobs - legal and illegal - while travelling the outer rim of the known galaxy. The show ingeniously combined both Western and Sci-fi genres to make wonderful atmosphere and dialogue. Unfortunately, Firefly was shamefully cancelled after FOX aired only a small portion of the completed episodes (and on varying nights, of course).

When Firefly came out on DVD, it was gobbled up by hundreds of thousands of rabid Firefly fans. And Universal took notice. The unthinkable then happened: Universal greenlit a movie with a $40 million budget, and gave Joss Whedon his feature film directorial debut. That movie is Serenity.

Now, I LOVE Firefly. I own the series on DVD, and introduced the series to no less than ten people who had never before heard of it (thank you, FOX, for your crack publicity team). And all of them instantly became fans. The series is wonderful. The Sci-fi Channel has been re-running the series (including the four or so episodes that never originally aired). If you get a chance, watch an episode. Any episode. The great thing about Firefly is that you can jump into the middle of the series and watch any episode and not get lost. Each episode is for the most part self-contained.

Anyway, that whole preface brings me to Serenity, the movie. To explain - Firefly is the class of cargo ship upon which the crew travels. Serenity is the NAME of this particular Firefly class ship. The entire cast is back for this movie. And it is awesome.

I won't get into specifics about the film. Suffice it to say that the characters are wonderful and, true to Joss Whedon form, expect deaths amongst those characters. Heartbreaking deaths. However, if you haven't watched the TV series, do not expect those deaths to resonate within you to the extent of a Firefly fan. You can (and will) like Serenity, but you will not be as emotionally invested in the characters without having seen the series.

So, what does all this mean? It means that you should see Serenity. But, if you truly want to enjoy Serenity to the extent I did, I suggest you first see at least a couple Firefly episodes. And for those of you who like really good sci-fi (and westerns!), I recommend that you just bite the bullet and BUY Firefly on DVD. Because this series is fantastic, and has great re-watching value! THEN, BUY Serenity.

Being first....

2005-12-30T11:11:00.000-05:00

Cinderella Man

2005-12-30T09:06:00.000-05:00

Say what you want about Russell Crowe, the person. Russell Crowe the actor is great. And he is great in Cinderella Man.

Cinderella Man tells the true story of James J. Braddock, a 1930's boxer who struggled through the Depression to put food on his family's plate, and light and heat in their home. When he gets an opportunity to fight a match with only one day's notice (and a guaranteed payment of some much needed money), he jumps at the opportunity to provide for his family. Paul Giamatti (Sideways, Private Parts) plays Joe Gould, Braddock's manager. Paul Giamatti is an actor who increases instantly the credibility of any movie in which he appears. Renee Zellweger plays Mae Braddock, Jim's wife. She's serviceable, although the character is a little whiney.

Ron Howard directs. With the exception of Apollo, I think this is his best work. Great direction. The fight scene's are great.

But don't think that this is another boxing movie. This is a great, true, character driven story. Braddock is a decent loving man and father. There is a wonderful moment when Mae is preparing dinner for the family before Braddock goes to a fight. They're almost out of milk, and they can't get more because their milk bill is past due. Mae just smiles honestly, kisses her husband, and mixes some water into the remaining milk. And when their daughter is still hungry after having her dinner (which consisted entirely of one piece of balogna), Braddock just tells her that he dreamed of having a huge steak dinner and he's still full, so he gives her his piece. Braddock would rather fight on an empty stomach than see his daughter hungry.

Throughout the whole movie, there is one constant: Jim Braddock is a decent man. The boxing matches take up so little of this 2-plus hour movie. This is a fantastic movie along the lines of Rocky.

I'm going to buy it. And you should at least rent it.

Cry_Wolf

2005-12-21T09:24:00.000-05:00

Wow, did this movie blow.

I rented this unrated version of a supposed "slasher" movie, expecting to see a mediocre horror flick with lots of teenagers getting killed. What I got was a piece of crap "thriller" that remained PG quality in terms of violence, and starred actors who all looked old enough to be well into their twenties, playing rich high schoolers in a private "prep" school.

Oh, and Jon Bon Jovi also appeared in it as a journalism teacher. Had I known that JBJ was in it, my expectations would have been reduced accordingly.

Anyway, a group of 8 or so "popular" students decide to play a "lying game" by spreading a rumor that a woman killed in town was a victim of a serial killer (a.k.a. "The Wolf"). Unsurprisingly, more victims start to turn up, and "The Wolf" starts instant messaging one of the "popular" students (a.k.a. "The New Kid").

This movie sucked. It was boring. It was uninspired. It was stupid, stupid, stupid. If you watch it, let me know so I can laugh at you.

King Kong

2005-12-20T09:12:00.000-05:00

We all know enough about this movie so I don't feel that I have to go through the traditional "This is what it's about" blah blah blah.

This movie is excellent. Naomi Watts deserves an Academy Award nomination. Director Peter Jackson once again shows that not only is he amazing when it comes to special effects, he is wonderful with the actors. King Kong and Ann Darrow (Watts) have a beautiful, touching connection never before seen in either the 1933 or the 1976 versions. Kong is an old, lonely gorilla, desperate for some kind of interaction. The tragedy that follows is heartbreaking.

Kong is also one bad ass ape. Kong takes on three (yes, three) Tyrannosaurus Rexes (Rexi?) all at once. What a fight!

Be aware that this movie is over three hours long. Truthfully, a good 30-40 minutes could have been edited off. Just a shade too long. The first hour is devoted entirely to characterization and setup. Kong is nowhere to be seen. Once the second hour hits, however, and the crew lands on Skull Island - hold on to your seats! But any quibble I may have about the length is secondary to the spectacle that is "King Kong."

Jackson gives us such eye candy: a Brontosaurus stampede; giant spiders and centipedes; giant flying bat-like things; the list goes on.

All in all, a very good movie. Well acted, well directed, and very enjoyable, even if it is too long.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe

2005-12-12T15:31:00.000-05:00

I preface this review by saying that I have read and re-read the Narnia books untold times. I love them. I'll never forget how much I wished I was able to visit this wonderful world, closing myself up in my bedroom closet, and pretending that I was entering Narnia.

I'll also never forget learning in high school that the books were a huge metaphor for Jesus, and how cheated and duped I felt. Aslan is JESUS??? Are you kidding me? I felt so used. Of course now, as an adult, it is really obvious. I have re-read these books several times as an adult, and still love them as pure fantasy, ignoring in my own mind the obvious Christian symbolism. And I love them.

So, how did the film stack up to the first book? Wonderfully! First, Tilda Swinton as the White Witch. WOW. She is damn spooky. Next, the kids. All of them are pitch perfect, with particular mention of Georgie Henley, who IS Lucy.

Finally, the special effects: They're great, of course. Aslan and Mr. and Mrs. Beaver are so wonderfully realized, and the wolves are damn scary! Now, this is NOT a film for little kiddies. Although there is on obvious lack of blood throughout the movie (imagine a battle scene with thousands of actors, and not one drop of blood), there is one particular moment with Jesus, um... I mean Aslan and the minions of the White Witch that is quite terrifying.

I can't wait for the next films. Although no official word has been released, I can't imagine that they wouldn't follow this remarkable film with Prince Caspian, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, The Magician's Nephew, A Horse and His Boy, and all the other books in the series. See this movie.

UPDATE: It has been officially announced that Disney has slated "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian" for a December 2007 release! Woo hoo!

Sorry for the absence!

2005-08-29T14:44:00.000-04:00

Man, I suck. I haven't updated this blog in awhile, so I'm not even going to try to post reviews of all the movies I've seen between Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and now. Suffice it to say that those of you looking for movies to rent should look long and hard at "The 40-Year-Old Virgin", and "March Of the Penguins".

Further, you must, at all costs, stay away from "Sahara". Yikes! That movie blew. It was bad. Really bad. Really, really bad. Someone must have had some really incriminating photos of William H. Macy to have gotten him to play the small role that he has in this wretched film. Don't say you weren't warned.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

2005-07-26T06:10:00.000-04:00

This movie is a faithful adaptation of the Roald Dahl book (with the addition of a very decent backstory for Willy Wonka). We all know the story, so I won't bother with the set up.

Alright, first off: In spite of what many critics (including, most notably, Roger Ebert) have said, Johnny Depp's Willy Wonka in no way reminded me of Michael Jackson. Yes, he's weird. Yes, he's a recluse who lives in a fantasy world. And yes, he opens up his home to children. All that is true. However, there is one HUGE difference. Willy Wonka hates children. He doesn't even bother to learn their names (which leads to some funny moments with Wonka hollering, "Little girl! Little boy!"). Yes, there is the "grand prize" for one of the children, but it is for the child who, in Wonka's words, is the "least obnoxious". Wonka does not like children, families, or people in general.

The child actors are all great - especially Freddie Highmore as Charlie. The Oompa Loompas are fantastic, as well. They are all played by the same actor (Indian actor Deep Roy), and are very tiny.

But what I liked the most about the movie was its entire feel. It has captured perfectly the bizarre world (both outside and inside the factory) from Dahl's book. It looks beautiful. It is funny. It is a great, fun movie.

Coach Carter

2005-07-21T23:30:00.000-04:00

Good movie. A little too long. It's basically "Hoosiers", with black folks.

Hide and Seek

2005-07-17T20:15:00.000-04:00

This rental disappointed me. Robert DeNiro and Dakota Fanning star as father and daughter who move out to the country from NYC to learn to cope with the death of mother, who commits suicide in the opening scene.

Daughter creates an imaginary friend to help with the loss, but, of course, things "aren't right" with the little girl - or her imaginary friend.

This flick was all setup and no payoff. DeNiro's character is supposed to be a psychologist, but seems woefully inept when dealing with his obnoxious, spoiled daughter. The "shocking twist" is telegraphed from a mile away, and didn't surprise at all. No scares whatsoever. Even DeNiro can't save this one. Really a rather boring movie. In a word: Yawn.

War Of The Worlds

2005-07-05T07:32:00.000-04:00

A lot has been made of the wackiness that is Tom Cruise. Yeah, it looks like he's gone off the deep end. But, to review effectively this movie, I must ignore all of that.

This was a really good movie, right up to the end. The end blew.

Now, I'm NOT talking about how the war ends. The war ends the usual way. The same as the book, the same as the other movies. What I'm talking about is the film's "epilogue". It's wrong. I'm sorry: I can't go into more detail than that without giving things away. But mark my words, there should have been some changes to the end.

ANYWAY, the rest of the movie was great. The effects are amazing (of course). But what surprised me was how much I enjoyed Cruise's performance. Cruise plays "Ray", a blue collar union guy, divorced, with 2 kids. He's a crappy father. It's his weekend with the kids, and he forgot. He's unresponsible. He's a child. He has nothing but condiments in his refrigerator. And he's stuck with his daughter and son when "it" hits the fan.

I really liked the development of Ray's relationship with his kids. Dakota Fanning is very good. Yes, she's annoying in this movie, but it's a believable annoying. She acts like an 11-year-old girl who is watching the world be destroyed, and isn't with her mother. I've never seen the actor who plays the 15-year-old son, but he's decent. Filled with self-righteous anger and resentment toward his father. There are some great character development moments in this movie, between and amongst them all.

This is an epic, end-of-the-world movie told on a very personal level. There's no Army general discussing tactics. You don't see the President. You don't see any famous landmarks get destroyed. You only see what the family sees. And they see a lot. It has a "Signs" feel to the story-telling; that is, if the family in "Signs" lived in New York City.

But, in spite of how much I really liked the film, the ending soured me. I'll probably get it on DVD, and just stop the film at a certain point, and pretend the actual ending was never there. Yeah. If I can do that, then I can recommend this movie wholeheartedly.

George A. Romero's Land of the Dead

2005-07-04T21:09:00.000-04:00

This is the first George Romero zombie movie since 1985's Day of the Dead. This is a George Romero zombie movie with a budget. And it kicks ass. FINALLY, FINALLY, FINALLY an R-rated horror movie! (See my rant in my "Cursed" review in the March 2005 archives.) This movie is bloody, gory, violent, scary, and excellent.

"Some time ago" the zombies appear (aka "Night of the Living Dead"). By the time this movie takes place, the remaining humans are in Pittsburgh (played by Toronto). The city is walled up on one side, and protected by the rivers on the other sides. The really rich folks (led by Dennis Hopper) live in a huge glass highrise, while the poor people live outside the building, under constant threat of zombie attacks.

The humans have this kick ass vehicle called "Dead Reckoning" that is used to go out and forage for food, gas, liquor, whatever. They just mow down the ever-shambling zombies. Until, that is, one particular gas station attendant zombie sloooowly begins to learn.

That's right. The zombies are adapting. Nothing huge - they don't start driving; they don't open diners; they don't start jumping up and down on Oprah's sofa proclaiming their love for Katie Holmes. But, for the first time, you see a zombie use a gun. (By the way, when the zombie uses the gun, it is a very effective scene.) And, the zombies learn that they can cross water by simply walking....

The guy from that TV show "The Guardian" stars as the good guy soldier trying to earn enough money to leave town. (He's planning on going up into the wilderness of Canada.) John Leguizamo is "Cholo" (yes, that's his name), a guy who thinks he's earning his keep to be allowed into the highrise with the rich, white folks, but has a surprise coming.

This is a good zombie movie. Not for the faint of heart. But if you like zombie movies (you know who you are), then this is a great one to see.

Batman Begins

2005-06-20T15:29:00.000-04:00

Batman Begins is a superhero movie that takes itself seriously - and rightly so. Finally, a Batman movie has come along that captures how dark and brooding Batman is supposed to be. This is a great film. So far, it is THE movie to see this summer.

Batman Begins is a giant do-over of the previous, ever-worsening Batman movies. Pretend that the first Batman films (starring Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, and George Clooney) never existed. And smile. Because that was the only way that a good Batman film could have been made. Never in my life had I seen a franchise plummet from such an auspicious start to drivel.

Christian Bale is the best Batman and Bruce Wayne to date (Sorry, Michael Keaton!). Michael Caine is a standout as Alfred. Hell, even Katie Holmes serves her purpose.

The script is fantastic. The Batman origin is explained in detail. Why a bat? Where'd he get the suit? Where'd he get the Batmobile? What's the story with the Batcave? And "where did he get all those marvelous toys?" All these questions are answered.

I could go on and on about this movie, but the bottom line is: This isn't a great action film - it's a great FILM.

See it. You will not be disappointed.

Alone In The Dark

2005-06-07T12:34:00.000-04:00

FOR GOD'S SAKE, DO NOT, DO NOT, DO NOT, DO NOT, DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE. This horror movie, starring Christian Slater, Stephen Dorff, and Tara Reid (playing an archeologist, which should have been warning enough), is, quite possibly, the worst move I have ever seen. Ever.

Don't say you haven't been warned.

Assault On Precinct 13

2005-06-06T23:09:00.000-04:00

I first saw the original Assault On Precinct 13, by John Carpenter, many years ago, and loved it. I loved it for many reasons, including the fact that the little girl from Disney's Escape From Witch Mountain gets shot in the chest in point blank range right through her vanilla ice cream cone. The original Assault took its time (as so many of those 70s "action" movies do), and when the action finally got going, it was great.

I rented the remake, intrigued with the good reviews and the changes made to the story. While the original took place in LA, with a brutal, 1970s multi-cultural gang laying siege to the closing Precinct, this new one takes place on New Year's Eve in Detroit, during a raging blizzard. The gang is gone, replaced by rogue cops.

The premise is this: Ethan Hawke stars as the sergeant in charge of Precinct 13. 13 is closing its doors for good at midnight. There is a skeleton crew, including a retiring cop (Brian Dennehy) and a slutty receptionist (Drea de Matteo). Lawrence Fishburne is a bad ass cop killer that has been arrested, and can name up to 35 cops on his payroll, including a bigshot cop, played by Gabriel Byrne. While transporting Fishburne and some other convicts to jail, the bus is diverted to Precinct 13 due to an accident that closed the road. (By the way, a lot of critics complained that, because of this unexpected diversion, the bad cops would never have been able carry out their plans. I say, "Rubbish." It seems clear to me that the bad cops were the ones who diverted the bus to 13 by falsely reporting the accident. Pay attention, people!)

This movie was great. I loved it. I now OWN it. The acting is impeccable. The backstory to Ethan's character is great. Maria Bello is solid as Ethan's therapist, unfortunately stuck in 13, and the subsequent assault, due to the blizzard. John Leguizamo is fantastic as the junkie convict.

Most surprisingly, there are unexpected moments during the film which are not your typical standard fare in action movies. It's better than the original. It takes the original's idea, and creates characters for whom you care. Well, "care" may not be the right word. "Find interesting" is perhaps more like it. The changes to the story are appropriate. It's a really good film. Plus, as an added bonus, there are a lot of people that get shot in the head.

Star Wars III - Revenge of the Sith

2005-06-01T20:03:00.000-04:00

When I first saw the trailers for Star Wars III, my first thought was, "Damn you, George Lucas. Damn you for giving me hope."

You see, I, like many of you, was literally offended by Phantom Menace. It was that bad. Attack of the Clones wasn't much better. Both of these films defiled Star Wars as I knew it. Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi (to a lesser extent) all created such wonderful, film-going experiences for me. The Star Wars world was amazing.

Then Episodes I and II came out, and I was reminded why Empire Strikes Back was my favorite - George Lucas had virtually nothing to do with the film! He has a "Story by" credit, but didn't write the script, and didn't direct the movie. Empire was good BECAUSE Lucas kept his hands off. And Phantom and Clones sucked because Lucas was involved too much. He lost touch with his audience. He created Jar-Jar Binks. He created a young Anakin Skywalker that actually said the line, "Yippee!" He cast that poor little kid to play Anakin in Phantom, and it became painfully clear that that kid was in way over his head (hence the name Mannequin Skywalker by the critics). He created bad guys that were only robots. He turned the Star Wars franchise into kids' movies. And badly written kids' movies, at that.

So when I saw that trailer for Revenge of the Sith, I was concerned because it looked good. It looked dark. It looked like a grown-up movie. And George couldn't possibly make a movie that was this good. And when it was announced that it was going to be rated PG-13, my expectations, against my better judgment, began to rise.

So I go see the movie on opening weekend. And, God help me, I liked it. Quite a bit. Yes, the writing was bad. Yes, it became clear that George doesn't know how to direct a romantic couple. But it didn't matter. The story was there. It was good. It was dark. Anakin's turn to the Dark Side is complete.

Don't get me wrong - the film has its faults. The aforementioned dialogue is bad. And I felt that that actual moment Anakin turned to the Dark Side was given short-shrift. He literally goes from "My God, what have I done?" to kneeling before a Sith Lord pledging his allegiance within 10 seconds. But, in the grand scheme of things, it didn't matter.

The special effects are, of course, awesome. I'm not even going to spend much space in this review for that. I EXPECT good special effects in any movie that needs them. But the payoff, the resolution to all six movies, was worthwhile.

So, I am VERY happy to report, that the movie was good. Good enough, in fact, so that I've decided that when the inevitable 6-pack Star Wars Anthology comes out on DVD, I'll buy it. True, I'll never watch Phantom or Attack, unless my nephew wants to see them. But Revenge of the Sith was a good conclusion. And, for all you true Star Wars geeks, it resolves all your questions.

As a side note, I'd have to rank Revenge of the Sith as the third best film in the series - better than Return of the Jedi. For me, from best to worst, the ranking goes: Empire, Star Wars, Revenge, Return, Attack, Phantom.

One final thought. For those of you with children, some day they will need to see these films. Do them a favor. Show them in the order they came out. These final three films work best as a tragedy from the beginning. Don't start the viewing process with The Phantom Menace. Start it the way it needs to be started - with Star Wars Episode IV - A New Hope.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

2005-05-08T22:55:00.000-04:00

I preface this very tepid review with the fact that I've read all five books in the Hitchhiker's Guide trilogy (yes, trilogy). Love the books. The movie? Not so much. I saw this movie with two friends who never read the books. Their take on the film is pretty much the same as mine (although one of them liked it a little better than I did).

The story revolves around Arthur Dent, a human having the worst morning a human ever had. He wakes up, finds his house on the verge of demolition, finds out his best friend is in actuality an alien, and sees the earth destroyed to make way for an intergalactic highway. All this happens within the first 15 minutes of the movie. From that moment on, Arthur and his alien friend, Ford Prefect, are thrown into one bizarre situation into the next. And that pretty much sums it up.

It just didn't make it for me. While there were a few very funny moments ("Cheeky mouse"), the film as a whole seemed just a little too desperate to encompass both the book's eccentric, very British sense of humor and a story that middle-America could enjoy. By trying to do both, it did neither.

What makes writing this review so difficult is that there's not many specific items to which I can point and say "That didn't work." It's a case of the sum of the parts just didn't create a good whole. Disappointing. The funniest parts of the movie were the few tangential asides that were lifted directly from the book, and narrated in the movie. Unfortunately, those few remnants weren't enough to enable me to recommend this flick. Bummer.

LAND OF THE LOST !!!

2005-04-24T16:23:00.000-04:00

Alright, I know this isn't a movie review, but I just had to put this up. It has been announced that Universal Pictures is going to make a "Land of the Lost" movie, and they want it to star....

WILL FERRELL! Will Ferrell as Marshall! Too cool.

Any of you have any ideas for the rest of the cast? Any suggestions for who should play the 2 kids, Will and Holly? Personally, I'd love to see Chris Kattan as Chaka! If you have any ideas, post them as a comment! I can't wait to see Will Ferrell taste rock soup!

The Final Cut

2005-04-20T22:54:00.000-04:00

This was a very good movie. Robin Williams stars as Alan, a "Cutter" in the near future. See, parents, at their option, can have their children, before birth, fitted with a microchip in their brains, which will record every single thing they see throughout their lives. When a person with such a chip dies, a cutter is hired to completely review the deceased's life and create a "Rememory" - a film documenting all the "wonderful" parts of the dead person's life which will be played at a memorial service.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "That would take a lifetime to review." Well, it doesn't, because the cutters have a great computer which initially reviews the whole life, and sorts out everything into subfolders: Sleep, eating, personal hygiene, masturbation, personal trauma, etc. A cutter deletes all the "offending conduct" - wife beatings, pedophilia, etc. - and then selects the moments which, in his opinion, best suit the life, and the deceased's mourners.

While preparing a Rememory, Alan sees something that could affect his whole life, and goes on a desperate search. So, that's the setup. A side note - Mira Sorvino stars as his girlfriend. Mira Sorvino??? Where the hell has SHE been?

A very good movie now available on DVD. Rent it.

Sin City

2005-04-20T22:48:00.000-04:00

Wow. Just, wow. Amazing movie. Beautifully shot, wonderfully acted, and incredibly, incredibly violent. I WILL own this movie. As long as you can handle multiple dismemberments, beheadings, people getting eaten by wolves, and a man getting his wee-willy-winkie ripped off, then you should see this movie.

The Ring 2

2005-03-28T07:57:00.000-05:00

I was one of those people that enjoyed "The Ring", while at the same time not understanding completely all the hype that surrounded it. "The Ring" was a serviceable scary movie. It had its jumps; it had its scary moments; hell, it even had a creepy, black-and-whitish dead girl ("CBAWDG" for short) climbing out of a well (and a television screen).

You will recall that, in "The Ring", CBAWDG only presented herself (and killed people) 7 days after the person watched a videotape. In this sequel, the videotape is all but gone, present only in the inevitable opening scene. Now, CBAWDG wants a mother, and apparently the only one available is Naomi Watts. The same little kid actor is back playing Naomi Watts' son. In "The Ring", the kid called his mother "Rachel" rather than Mom. In "The Ring 2", they use that little bit of info to announce to the audience when the kid is possessed by CBAWDG. (For only when CBAWDG is in control does the kid call Naomi "Mommy".)

The movie was ok. It had a couple spooky moments, and I never get tired of that spooky, stop-action style of filming that makes ghosts move all herky-jerky. Totally creeps me out. But the film ends with a lot of unanswered questions. I can understand if they didn't answer the questions to keep the issues open-ended, but it comes off more as sloppy writing than anything else.

In the end, this movie offered nothing new to the genre. You don't see CBAWDG kill anyone on screen. In fact, the actual deaths in the movie are very few (I can think of only a couple). It rates an "Eh".

Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle

2005-03-24T07:18:00.000-05:00

Harold is an Asian-American accountant who works in a cubicle, is bullied by his peers, wants to date his beautiful neighbor, and, during the night in which this movie takes place, wants to satiate his marijuana-induced hunger with a White Castle “slider”.

Kumar is a guy of indeterminate (at least by me) Middle Eastern ethnicity who’s a ne’er-do-well wise-ass slacker who continuously interviews for med-schools, just to keep his father paying Kumar’s rent; and, during the night in which this movie takes place, wants to satiate his marijuana-induced hunger with a White Castle “slider”.

Harold and Kumar are the Cheech and Chong of the 21^st Century. However, the similarity between H&K and C&C ends with the pot. H&K are intelligent young men who enjoy their pot, but spend the majority of this movie on a quest for it, not just using it, all the while trying to find the elusive White Castle. Along the way they meet a variety of bizarre characters – Jaime Kennedy in an uncredited cameo as a very gross, pus-spewing hillbilly [UPDATE: Rob Wrate notified me that this character was not played by the aforementioned Jaime Kennedy, although he does have a later cameo]; an inexperienced pot-dealer at Princeton; an over-the-top doctor (played by Ryan Reynolds); violent skinheads; and, my favorite – Neil Patrick Harris playing himself.

Neil Patrick Harris (or “NPH” as he’s referred to by one Doogie fan in the movie) is hilarious. Playing himself, he hitches a ride with H&K, and the following dialogue ensues:

Harold: Neil, you wouldn’t happen to know how to get on the highway from here, would you?
NPH: Dude, I don’t even know where the f**k I am right now. I was at this party earlier tonight and some guy hooked me up with this incredible “X” - next thing I know I’m being thrown out of a moving car. I’ve been trippin’ balls ever since.
Kumar: That’s crazy, dude. We’ve been having a pretty crazy night, too. We’ve just been driving around looking for White Castle but we keep getting sidetracked.
NPH: Yeah, dude, you fascinate me. Forget White Castle, let’s go get some p**sy!
Harold: Huh?
NPH: It’s a f**king sausage fest in here, bros. Let’s get some p**ntang, THEN we’ll go to White Castle.
Kumar: No, Neil, you don’t understand. We’ve been craving these burgers all night.
NPH: Yeah, I’ve been craving burgers, too. Furburgers. Come on, dudes, let’s pick up some trim at a strip club. The Doogie line always works on strippers. [singing] Lapdance...
Kumar: [pause] There’s a gas station. I’m gonna see if I can get some directions.
NPH: You don’t need dir- gah! Hurry up, dudes, hurry up! I’m losing wood.

As you can see, we ain’t in Kansas anymore. Watch this movie. Oh, and rumor has it that a sequel is in the works: “Harold and Kumar Go to Amsterdam”. Please, let this be true….

Troy

2005-03-14T07:31:00.000-05:00

Hmmm. What can I say about "Troy"? It was ok. One of the biggest problems for me was that I only liked two of the characters - Hector (played by Incredible Hulk Eric Bana) and Priam (played by Peter O'Toole). All the other characters were incredibly annoying. Achilles (Brad Pitt) was an arrogant prick. Paris (Orlando Bloom) was a selfish wussy. Agamemnon was a royal ass. Briseis (Rose Byrne) was a traitorous bitch. Odysseus (Sean Bean) was decent enough, but with little screen time. The female characters were all pretty much props which the male characters used as motivation. No real character development for any of them.

I'm sure that the movie studio had visions of this film being an "Epic". It's not. Not even close. It's long, that's for sure - it comes in at 163 minutes. And it has enormous battle scenes. But it lacks the solid script required to fall into the "Epic" category.

So, where does that leave me and this review? Not sure. I guess it was ok for a $4 rental. It passed the time, and I, for the most part, wasn't bored. Sorry, "Troy", but that's the best I can do.

Exorcist: The Beginning

2005-03-13T19:25:00.000-05:00

I rented "Exorcist: The Beginning" this weekend. It tells the story of Father Merrin's first fight with the big, bad, pea-soup-spitting, head-spinning, mother-insulting, possessor of little children.

The unusual thing about this prequel is that it was actually written and filmed twice. The first prequel was written and directed by Paul Schrader. However, after the producer saw it, it was prompty discounted as not being "scary" enough. Paul was given the sack, and Renny Harlin was brought in to write and direct an altogether new prequel. Paul's prequel was shoved on a shelf somewhere, never to be released (although I've heard rumors that it will still see the light of day somewhere).

I guess the highest praise I can give "Exorcist: The Beginning" is that it was better than I thought it was going to be. Some decent thrills, and an interesting back-story. Not high cinema, though, that's for sure. But, in a pinch, it can be used to satisfy your scary movie needs. Nowhere near as good as the original "Exorcist", but volumes better than "Exorcist II: The Heretic".

2005-03-11T12:53:00.000-05:00

This squirrel has nothing to do with movie reviews, but he sure is nuts.

"Cursed" review

2005-03-11T11:46:00.000-05:00

A werewolf movie starring Christina Ricci and Jesse Eisenberg (aka, the brother of that creepy Pepsi girl; Kid with the dorky hat in "The Village"; and star of the canceled-too-soon TV show "Get Real"). Now, I should preface this review by saying that my expectations for this movie were about 700 miles under the basement. In other words: low. Going in with such sub-standard expectations, I enjoyed this movie. Unfortunately, it suffers from what so many horror movies are currently suffering: a PG-13 rating instead of an R. (See also "Alien vs. Predator"; and "The Grudge".)

How the hell do these movie studios think they can put out a successful werewolf movie without ever actually showing the werewolf killing anyone?? The victims always were dragged out of frame before they were killed. I understand if they wanted to do it for suspense purposes, but it was so clear that they really did it to keep the PG-13 rating. Disappointing. But not a terrible movie - especially if you don't mind a little cheese with your horror. Plus, Scott Baio and Craig Kilborn star as themselves. Bonus.

[NOTE: There is an "unrated" DVD version of this movie which is better. More gore. It is clear that they originally filmed this movie as an R-rated movie, which was then cut to hell to bring it to PG-13. If you're going to rent this, rent the unrated version.]

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

2005-03-11T11:35:00.000-05:00

Good ole' Natalie Walters suggested that I blog my reviews. Wonderful idea, Nayat!

I'll start with a quick review of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow....

Stars Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Giovanni Ribisi. Angelina Jolie (with an eyepatch) is in the movie for maybe 5 minutes. Other than the actors and the props with which they interact, everything in this movie is CGI. EVERYTHING. And it looks beautiful.

It also sucks. This movie is all form and no substance. The script is dreadful. The plot stupid. The acting is horrendous. And the movie is sooooooooooooooo BORING. It was only 1 hour and 40 minutes, but I swear to God it felt at least 9 hours long. Do not rent this movie. Ugh.