This film is currently playing only in one theater in Atlanta (on 3-4 screens, though), but I drove into town and was pleasantly surprised by the high number of people in line for the 11 a.m. showing (thankfully there was also an 11:30 a.m. showing that I was able to attend since the line was so long, and the theater only had one ticket window open that I didn't get my ticket until after the 11 a.m. showing commenced). Suffice it to say, the Friday showings were totally sold out, and the 3 showings I peeked in on were all sold out today.
Now with a film that received so much critical praise early in the "best of 2005" season, is it possible to keep an open mind about its touted "greatness"? I tried, limiting myself to the trailer of the film, and eschewing most of the other details about the film.
My initial thoughts on the aspect ratio was one of "why is this 1.85? It just screams 2.35 to me, but I will have to entertain the notion that director Ang Lee wanted to paint a more intimate portrait of the yearning and love between the principal characters, Jack and Ennis, and from that standpoint, 1.85 is a more proper aspect ratio. But the gorgeous scenery from Brokeback mountain would have benefited from a 2.35 aspect ratio.
Surprisingly, for a film with a running time around 135 minutes, the scenes blend in and move without a lot of inconsequential material, the film just quietly pushes through the passage of time at a pace that almost feels natural because as you get older, time does whisk by, with only high points from the years to mark its passage.
Set in 1963, buoyed by a summer of shepherding sheep, Jack and Ennis develop a friendship that turns into something deeper for the two of them, but at the same time, it's something with dire consequences and outwardly forbidden. The film hits the right notes in depicting the shackles of societal convention that forbidden love engenders. The pain from living a less-than-truthful life can take its toll, and the quality of the storytelling is worthy of motivating viewers to re-examining their own lives should parallels exists.
The performance of Heath Ledger (Ennis) is very good, just a smidge better than Jake Gyllenhall's (Jack), it was easy to buy the onscreen chemistry between them. Also, Michelle Williams does some good work as Ennis's wife. Ang Lee and the screenwriters do a wonderful job of never losing the viewer, and choose the right angles to present the scenes to sustain the storyline in a confident manner, with nary a mis-step.
Is it worth its hype? All I can say is that it didn't disappoint.
I give it 3.75 stars, or a grade of A-.
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
King Kong
My thoughts on PJ's King Kong: I think there's a pretty good 2 hour film within this overly long 187 minute valentine to PJ's cinematic youth.
The running time is too long because what we get doesn't really build enough emotional ties to the characters, thus, they sort of just fill up screen time and undercut the momentum of the film. There are scenes on Skull Island that are excessive and don't really impact the overall story that much.
The film is too indulgent in depicting the perilous arrival to Skull Island, while it might have been an interesting exercise to film, there's little dramatic payoff for such an extended scene.
The special effects of King Kong were well executed (but in some scenes he still moves too fast, lacking inertial impact of the movements), sadly, I can't say the same about the dinosaurs (this mainly due to improper lighting of the dinos in fast-action sequences).
I did not like Jack Black's performance in this film at all. It seemed like every close-up he had, he seemed so concerned about not blinking his eyes, which made it appear that he was trying to burn a hole in whomever he was speaking to or looking at. Naomi Watts turns in a good performance, but I still get tired of seeing her never closing her mouth fully in her close-up scenes (I am not sure she's capable of it for an extended amount of screen time). Adrien Brody has a throwaway part, with little background to get too invested in his survival on Skull Island.
I thought most of the musical score while on Skull Island went overboard, being too bombastic in spots where it didn't need to be.
I thought the ESB scene in the end went on and on and on and on. PJ was driven to show every single plane's fly-by over the course of that pivotal sequence.
Whatever Ann Darrow was afraid of, she sure as hell wasn't afraid of heights. No siree, no acrophobia for Ann.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
The running time is too long because what we get doesn't really build enough emotional ties to the characters, thus, they sort of just fill up screen time and undercut the momentum of the film. There are scenes on Skull Island that are excessive and don't really impact the overall story that much.
The film is too indulgent in depicting the perilous arrival to Skull Island, while it might have been an interesting exercise to film, there's little dramatic payoff for such an extended scene.
The special effects of King Kong were well executed (but in some scenes he still moves too fast, lacking inertial impact of the movements), sadly, I can't say the same about the dinosaurs (this mainly due to improper lighting of the dinos in fast-action sequences).
I did not like Jack Black's performance in this film at all. It seemed like every close-up he had, he seemed so concerned about not blinking his eyes, which made it appear that he was trying to burn a hole in whomever he was speaking to or looking at. Naomi Watts turns in a good performance, but I still get tired of seeing her never closing her mouth fully in her close-up scenes (I am not sure she's capable of it for an extended amount of screen time). Adrien Brody has a throwaway part, with little background to get too invested in his survival on Skull Island.
I thought most of the musical score while on Skull Island went overboard, being too bombastic in spots where it didn't need to be.
I thought the ESB scene in the end went on and on and on and on. PJ was driven to show every single plane's fly-by over the course of that pivotal sequence.
Whatever Ann Darrow was afraid of, she sure as hell wasn't afraid of heights. No siree, no acrophobia for Ann.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Capote
Finally saw this film today, and I finally have a Best Actor candidate to get behind in the Oscar races this year. Hoffman is amazing in this role. He simply disappears and it's just Capote on the screen, and he is able to convey the emotions and turmoil he feels and readily wears on his sleeve at the trying times during the "research" phase for "In Cold Blood".
I thought the pacing was pitch-perfect, and this film about how "In Cold Blood" came to be was very interesting and makes for a suitable companion to Capote's book.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
I thought the pacing was pitch-perfect, and this film about how "In Cold Blood" came to be was very interesting and makes for a suitable companion to Capote's book.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
Syriana
I liked how Gaghan was able to weave seemingly unrelated characters threads in this film, which depicts how powerful forces like the oil industry, political factions of different countries, intelligence agencies, and terrorists converge, to show that even in ever-changing political/economic climates, the resultant mixture in flux may seem like oil and water, but it still provides economic and political benefit to the players, but not without getting their hands dirty or producing undesirable by-products.
It's a very subdued film, not much background music to intrude on the events as they unfold, and while it seems calm on the surface of things, it's constantly boiling underneath the calm facade.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
It's a very subdued film, not much background music to intrude on the events as they unfold, and while it seems calm on the surface of things, it's constantly boiling underneath the calm facade.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
Chronicles of Narnia
I thought the first act was probably overly long, but the middle act wasn't long enough. It would seem the children just accept their prophetic destiny and almost overnight become capable of waging Braveheart-like battle (at least for Peter, the oldest). The final act had some nice battles of mainly CGI creatures and characters, but for a film aimed at children, at least the bloodshed was held to a minimum, but it was savage, nonetheless, I was sort of surprised to find out it was only rated PG.
The child actors are very good in their respective roles, and the CGI characters were acceptable, though sometimes Aslan looked a little bit less sharp when humans were the shot with him. I didn't like the direction as much as I had hoped. I felt that the director could have chosen better angles for some of the scenes.
But even with some of the misgivings of the pacing of the film, I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
The child actors are very good in their respective roles, and the CGI characters were acceptable, though sometimes Aslan looked a little bit less sharp when humans were the shot with him. I didn't like the direction as much as I had hoped. I felt that the director could have chosen better angles for some of the scenes.
But even with some of the misgivings of the pacing of the film, I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Just Friends
Anna Faris was a riot, and the brotherly violence was hilarious between Reynolds and Marquette. Even Klein was pretty funny in his role as the "too good to be true" suitor in competition with Reynolds' character. Smart did what she could being the object of desire.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
Pride and Prejudice
This film will make you chuckle and laugh, cry and sniffle. Keira Knightley is really good as Elizabeth, and her entire performance anchors the film in a sublime extension of romantic longing, while projecting strength against societal expectations.
If you're a fan of Jane Austen novels, this latest film adaptation of "Pride and Prejudice" won't disappoint you.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
If you're a fan of Jane Austen novels, this latest film adaptation of "Pride and Prejudice" won't disappoint you.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Rent
I've never seen "Rent" as a play, so everything was new to me in the film.
I think the non-singing transition scenes were okay, but also lacked in keeping a congruent vibe to the musical numbers at times.
I did enjoy the musical numbers, and some of the songs are just so heartwrenchingly sad and beautiful at the same time. No doubt I got teary-eyed in many spots, but the emotions were earned.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
I think the non-singing transition scenes were okay, but also lacked in keeping a congruent vibe to the musical numbers at times.
I did enjoy the musical numbers, and some of the songs are just so heartwrenchingly sad and beautiful at the same time. No doubt I got teary-eyed in many spots, but the emotions were earned.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Walk the Line
This was a good film covering Johnny Cash's early years, gaining a musical foothold in Tennessee, struggling with balancing a home life with the touring, and his ups-n-downs when it came to June Carter and to the pills that threatened to undermine everything for him at the height of his musical career.
Joachin Phoenix started out a little shaky as Johnny Cash, but he owns the role once the middle act gets going, and his vocal performances get better and better as the film unfolds, after about 30 minutes into the film, I forgot it was Phoenix on the screen and just accepted him as a young Johnny Cash, warts and all. Reese Witherspoon is solid as June Carter, and presents a hint of what she must have gone through in the 1960's after her divorce while remaining in the public eye performing with Johnny's tour.
As a film, it might have been tightened up a bit, by maybe 5-10 minutes, but that might have meant a musical number getting cut, so I can forgive the 135 minute running time.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
Joachin Phoenix started out a little shaky as Johnny Cash, but he owns the role once the middle act gets going, and his vocal performances get better and better as the film unfolds, after about 30 minutes into the film, I forgot it was Phoenix on the screen and just accepted him as a young Johnny Cash, warts and all. Reese Witherspoon is solid as June Carter, and presents a hint of what she must have gone through in the 1960's after her divorce while remaining in the public eye performing with Johnny's tour.
As a film, it might have been tightened up a bit, by maybe 5-10 minutes, but that might have meant a musical number getting cut, so I can forgive the 135 minute running time.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
I found the film uneven, and the direction simply uninspiring. I really missed Cuaron's direction in the 4th HP film. In terms of character interaction, Cuaron creates cinema, Newell creates made-for-afternoon TV material. I also thought that this film just lacked scope and depth, I blame that on the screenplay and the director.
Ron is almost overboard as the whiny jealous guy, and Hermione doesn't show much character growth from the previous films. Harry continues to be such an improbably passive character, it can be daunting at times because I never get the feeling that Harry is anything more than a plot device to get us from the 3rd film to the 5th film with this 4th installment of the HP franchise.
Also, for a film that covers the school year, it seems so grey and dank throughout the year-long 3-phase contest for a place in Hogsworth history.
Just one trivial nitpick - why does Harry keep his glasses on underwater?
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
(P.S. I've never read the books, so I look at the HP films simply in terms of cinematic adaptations with no literary baggage, just previous film baggage)
Ron is almost overboard as the whiny jealous guy, and Hermione doesn't show much character growth from the previous films. Harry continues to be such an improbably passive character, it can be daunting at times because I never get the feeling that Harry is anything more than a plot device to get us from the 3rd film to the 5th film with this 4th installment of the HP franchise.
Also, for a film that covers the school year, it seems so grey and dank throughout the year-long 3-phase contest for a place in Hogsworth history.
Just one trivial nitpick - why does Harry keep his glasses on underwater?
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
(P.S. I've never read the books, so I look at the HP films simply in terms of cinematic adaptations with no literary baggage, just previous film baggage)
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
If you can handle Pulp Fiction-like violence and dialogue, then this is a must-see film for you. I think I must have laughed at 2/3 of the dialogue coming out of Val Kilmer's mouth, that's a helluva ratio. Downey Jr. is also spot-on, and delivers his lines for comedic pay dirt time after time.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
Derailed
Pedestrian and predictable. See it only if you must stare at Clive Owen and/or Jennifer Annison for a couple of hours, but keep those expectations low.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
Shopgirl
It was okay. It's worth a matinee. The narration wasn't really needed, and detracted from what was already shown on-screen. It was like Steve Martin saw my thumb and decided he needed to hammer it over and over again.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
Chicken Little
I didn't see this film in 3D, but I might. I did see in conventional 2D and found it to be a lot of fun, and I loved the quick bits of humor in small bursts, plus Chicken Little is just so darn cute, and inventive. Its running time was just about right, not too long, not too short (even if its running time was around 80 minutes).
I give it 2.5 stars or a grade of C+.
I give it 2.5 stars or a grade of C+.
Jarhead
I wasn't as enamored by this film, mainly because I didn't think the characters were all that interesting, or fleshed out enough to hook into their perspective of being in the military (as compared to other military/war films). Perhaps it was the cadence of the film as it went from one "highlight" to the next, which just never got in a good rhythm for me.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
The Weather Man
It's true, this film is unfocused and hazy. Nicolas Cage at times has fits of man-child disease, both in speech and actions/reactions, and then he has other periods as he has avoided the responsibilities of adulthood/parenthood. There are some funny bits, but they just don't provide any footing into this meandering life of an up-and-coming weatherman with an ex-wife and 2 kids that he barely "knows". Toss in the weatherman's father (an under-utilized Michael Caine) subplot, the film just never really gels enough to make a compelling case for its underlying theme, which is to turn the weather into a metaphor for the trappings of adulthood. Like the weather, you never know how it's going to go, most of the weather forecasting being a guess on the wayward currents of the winds, but if you think it's going to rain, then it's best to bring an umbrella, otherwise being unprepared can lead to a wet and soaking mess to deal with when it could have all been avoided. Adulthood, like the weather, can't all be controlled, but there are things that can be done to minimize the unpredictability. The sooner you learn that lesson, the easier it becomes to cope with life's rainstorms.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
Prime
I'm of two minds on this film. The 1st and 2nd acts of this film are funny, engaging, sexy, and mortifying for the Meryl Streep character, of course played for even more laughs at the pathos involved as a therapist with a patient who's dating her son (unbeknownst to the patient for longer than it should have gone on). The last act gets more serious, a little bit cliched, a little forced in almost covering all the bases of what can go wrong with May-December romances (this time, it's an older woman, younger man-child). I think it's about 5-10 minutes too long overall (even though it doesn't quite develop the supporting cast as human beings, but moreso as comic relief), but still, it's got a nice rhythm in wringing out a lot of the comedic aspects from the central plot/hook of the film.
I did like the chemistry between Bryan Greenberg and Uma Thurman. Uma's pretty good letting the audience into her character's feelings and anxiety, and she still looks great for her "age". Streep is comedy gold in the early goings, but she still keeps on a maternal course in wanting the best for her son, even if it's not quite what she's suggest in her role as a therapist.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
I did like the chemistry between Bryan Greenberg and Uma Thurman. Uma's pretty good letting the audience into her character's feelings and anxiety, and she still looks great for her "age". Streep is comedy gold in the early goings, but she still keeps on a maternal course in wanting the best for her son, even if it's not quite what she's suggest in her role as a therapist.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
The Legend of Zorro
Suffice it to say, I liked the kid, Joachin, for his spunk and energy, moreso than the rest of the cast for this movie, I'm afraid.
It tries its best to feel like one of those old fashioned Saturday matinee adventure serials, but whatever spark that Banderas and Zeta-Jones had in the first installment, it's waned considerably in the sequel. I had a hard time making out what Banderas was muttering in the early portions of the film as Zorro, but the stunts and actions were pretty nifty, but not enough to sustain an overly long film.
Oh, if you want to see how botox can kill an actress's ability to emote facially, just watch Catherine Zeta-Jones in this film, I can't believe she's won an Oscar after seeing her in this movie.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
It tries its best to feel like one of those old fashioned Saturday matinee adventure serials, but whatever spark that Banderas and Zeta-Jones had in the first installment, it's waned considerably in the sequel. I had a hard time making out what Banderas was muttering in the early portions of the film as Zorro, but the stunts and actions were pretty nifty, but not enough to sustain an overly long film.
Oh, if you want to see how botox can kill an actress's ability to emote facially, just watch Catherine Zeta-Jones in this film, I can't believe she's won an Oscar after seeing her in this movie.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
Stay
Director Marc Forster follows up "Finding Neverland" with a strange, trippy little film called "Stay. You can see his directorial style all throughout the film, and the scene transitions are pretty fun and interesting, but the storyline is flawed in some ways, and the story isn't as interesting as the directorial effort that went into the film. Visually, it's a film that requires a couple of viewing to soak up all the information within the camera frame, but I would think the subsequent viewings would also command some focus because of the deficiency in the storyline itself.
The acting was good, proficient, but since the film comes across as a directorial exercise, that's why the acting feels secondary to the material, and I don't find fault in the choices made by the main trio of Ryan Gosling, Ewan McGregor, and Naomi Watts.
I recommend it as a matinee if you're in the mood for taking in the visuals that this film offers.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
The acting was good, proficient, but since the film comes across as a directorial exercise, that's why the acting feels secondary to the material, and I don't find fault in the choices made by the main trio of Ryan Gosling, Ewan McGregor, and Naomi Watts.
I recommend it as a matinee if you're in the mood for taking in the visuals that this film offers.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
North Country
Charlize Theron delivers a good performance of a flawed mother of two trying to earn a living at the iron/steel mines in Minnesota in 1989, and faces on a daily basis plenty of harassment by a group of men who don't like women working at the mines, since taking away jobs for other men. A landmark court case evolves from this scenario.
Director Niki Caro takes her time in setting up the characters, and conditions. I thought the pacing was just about right for this dramatic material. The supporting cast is good, but then again, having 3 female Oscar winners in the cast doesn't hurt. There are 'good' men and not-so-good men, and there are women who are scared for their livelihood, in spite of the harassment they have to with deal with, and have many doubts about future employment opportunities (at their current wages) which prevent them from coming forth with their own accounts of harassment at the work place.
I give a 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Director Niki Caro takes her time in setting up the characters, and conditions. I thought the pacing was just about right for this dramatic material. The supporting cast is good, but then again, having 3 female Oscar winners in the cast doesn't hurt. There are 'good' men and not-so-good men, and there are women who are scared for their livelihood, in spite of the harassment they have to with deal with, and have many doubts about future employment opportunities (at their current wages) which prevent them from coming forth with their own accounts of harassment at the work place.
I give a 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Doom
The only 2 good things about this movie were possessed by Rosamund Pike, I'm afraid.
And for that I give it 2 stars or a grade of C.
Oh, I did like the BFG.
And for that I give it 2 stars or a grade of C.
Oh, I did like the BFG.
Elizabethtown
Well, I saw it, and it was so devoid of fleshing out the characters (for a film with a running time over 135 minutes, that's pretty hard to do, but Crowe manages to do so in spectacular fashion), so they are always at arm's length away, or further. When you write a film in which your audience doesn't care for the lead characters, the film is in big trouble, and that's the main failing of this film.
Claire (Kirsten Dunst) just shows up and plays perky flight attendant/life coach/cheerleader to Drew (Orlando Bloom) for no good reason except that's what she has to do. Claire is reduced to being a plot device, and the film just doesn't have much to say. Drew's mother is a total cliched character, and his sister doesn't have much to do either. Drew's relatives in Elizabethtown just aren't all that interesting.
The other thing that has started to bother me is the use of popular songs to tell the audience how they should be feeling at a given point in the film, instead of earning those feelings with good screenwriting and acting performances. Crowe has finally hit the wall with his penchant to use songs in his films.
Can't recommend the film at all, even for a matinee (Go see Wallace & Gromit or Serenity, instead).
I give it 1.75 stars, or a grade of C-.
Claire (Kirsten Dunst) just shows up and plays perky flight attendant/life coach/cheerleader to Drew (Orlando Bloom) for no good reason except that's what she has to do. Claire is reduced to being a plot device, and the film just doesn't have much to say. Drew's mother is a total cliched character, and his sister doesn't have much to do either. Drew's relatives in Elizabethtown just aren't all that interesting.
The other thing that has started to bother me is the use of popular songs to tell the audience how they should be feeling at a given point in the film, instead of earning those feelings with good screenwriting and acting performances. Crowe has finally hit the wall with his penchant to use songs in his films.
Can't recommend the film at all, even for a matinee (Go see Wallace & Gromit or Serenity, instead).
I give it 1.75 stars, or a grade of C-.
A History of Violence
I found this film to be a head-scratcher. How acceptable is violence? I guess that's the point, but my problem was that stupidity is the driving force of the drama. Stupid people pushing around "docile" people until docile people react with violence and show a scary natural acumen for such violence.
What's the difference between stupid people inciting violence and docile people returning in kind with violence? Does it matter? Of course, self-preservation is primarily all you need to make it acceptable. Deep down, every one of us has the propensity for violence, how far do we need to be pushed to engage in it? Violence isn't always bad, it's a means to an end. It's never the best option but it's always an option. Some people exhaust the options before resorting to violence, others use it as a primary option.
I know there are people who will take difference positions on the "sex on the stairwell" scene, but I take the negative view, even though it may have ended up "consensual", it started out rather distasteful and progressed and ended in the same fashion for me. But who was the victim here? At times, I think it was the viewers.
I thought the 3rd act was just more stupidity on display, which undermined whatever point Cronenberg was trying to make.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of C+.
What's the difference between stupid people inciting violence and docile people returning in kind with violence? Does it matter? Of course, self-preservation is primarily all you need to make it acceptable. Deep down, every one of us has the propensity for violence, how far do we need to be pushed to engage in it? Violence isn't always bad, it's a means to an end. It's never the best option but it's always an option. Some people exhaust the options before resorting to violence, others use it as a primary option.
I know there are people who will take difference positions on the "sex on the stairwell" scene, but I take the negative view, even though it may have ended up "consensual", it started out rather distasteful and progressed and ended in the same fashion for me. But who was the victim here? At times, I think it was the viewers.
I thought the 3rd act was just more stupidity on display, which undermined whatever point Cronenberg was trying to make.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of C+.
Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit
If you liked the previous W&G films/shorts, this film won't disappoint. It's funny, silly, whimsical, and cute. The only reservation for a film that attracted a lot of kiddies in the audience is the amount of rifle use in the storyline.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Flight Plan
While Jodie Foster puts in a good performance, almost to the point where it really does feel like everyone else on the plane was watching her give an acting clinic at times, the 3rd act does make you scratch your head and it just becomes more and more implausible due to far too many plotholes.
See it at a matinee if you're a Jodie fan, but know that it's not as good it could have been, and relies on too many cliches to elevate it out of the thriller genre.
I give it a 2 stars, or a grade of C.
See it at a matinee if you're a Jodie fan, but know that it's not as good it could have been, and relies on too many cliches to elevate it out of the thriller genre.
I give it a 2 stars, or a grade of C.
The Corpose Bride
I thought it was pretty good, with care given to show the living with a drab color palette, while the dead had a nice vibrant color palette.
I found the story fairly simple without an immense amount of characterization to load down the film, but, again, Burton films are almost always about flair, and bizarre design sense, fun to look at and watch.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
I found the story fairly simple without an immense amount of characterization to load down the film, but, again, Burton films are almost always about flair, and bizarre design sense, fun to look at and watch.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
The Constant Gardner
I found myself getting ahead of the story, so it didn't quite work as a mystery, but as a story of discovery (Justin finally understanding Tessa), it does work on that level. The price of discovery is what probably elevates the story to something above the ordinary, and it's only upon reflection that its story of discovery find its emotional heart in a sea of corruption.
But I did have a problem buying Weisz as a 24 year old (I'd peg her age around 30-35).
I give it 3 stars or a grade of B.
But I did have a problem buying Weisz as a 24 year old (I'd peg her age around 30-35).
I give it 3 stars or a grade of B.
Red Eye
While having a short running time, most of it was tension-filled, and the plot wasn't overly complicated, which kept the film moving at a nice pace. Good performances by Racehl McAdams (hope she's around for a long while, she's easy on the eyes), and Cillian Murphy as the charming baddie. I was grateful that the characters don't act idiotic in a genre thriller film, and director Wes Craven gives the viewers a few "Boo!" moments just for show, but they aren't the focus of the story.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
The Island
In 3 pretty distinct acts, Bay borrows liberally the most in the second act, which is an insane chase sequence
Warning Spoiler!
that pays homage to The Matrix Reloaded and Return of the Jedi
, and I couldn't help but laugh at the frenetic nuttiness on the screen. Say what you what about Bay's directorial efforts, at least the money spent shows up on the screen.
The film never quite has the balls to asks the really tough questions, given the subject matter, and sort of glosses over them in lieu of our 2 protagonist going on the run (some of it reminded me of Logan's Run on steroids). There are a few headscratching moments in the 3rd act, and while visually kinetic, it is more style over substance once again.
This is a popcorn movie, do leave your brain at the door (you really won't need it), and strap in, and try to have a little fun with the big action sequences. Oh, be prepared to see tons of product placement in this film, it got comical after a while for me.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
Warning Spoiler!
that pays homage to The Matrix Reloaded and Return of the Jedi
, and I couldn't help but laugh at the frenetic nuttiness on the screen. Say what you what about Bay's directorial efforts, at least the money spent shows up on the screen.
The film never quite has the balls to asks the really tough questions, given the subject matter, and sort of glosses over them in lieu of our 2 protagonist going on the run (some of it reminded me of Logan's Run on steroids). There are a few headscratching moments in the 3rd act, and while visually kinetic, it is more style over substance once again.
This is a popcorn movie, do leave your brain at the door (you really won't need it), and strap in, and try to have a little fun with the big action sequences. Oh, be prepared to see tons of product placement in this film, it got comical after a while for me.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
Stealth
If you let a second unit director direct a movie involving jet fighters and an AI-controlled jet fighter, then "Stealth" is pretty much what you'd expect. While the character build-up is threadbare, and the leap in logic needed to accept the AI-controlled jet fighter (UCAV) being able to follow internal directives to keep the conflict going in the movie is large and wide, it's a bumpy and mostly forgettable ride. It will appeal to the fast-action, blow-em-up crowd, and it has a bit of fun with the opportunities to launch missiles and create big loud explosions, just don't expect a taut screenplay that explores AI and stealthy military warfare.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
The March of the Penguins
This film finally hit Atlanta, and it's a mesmerizing look at the arduous process penguins endure to bring forth new life. It was a fascinating documentary about the penguin's tremendous struggle, in spite of the incredibly cold climate in the south pole, and the long distances between their mating grounds and the seas (food), just to keep their species alive.
If it's playing in your city, it's worth a trip to the theaters.
I give it a 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
If it's playing in your city, it's worth a trip to the theaters.
I give it a 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
Dukes of Hazzard
The film starts out a little rough, with some empty "space" in some scenes between the characters, but once the cars start to rev and haul ass around Hazzard county and "Atlanta", it's a fun ride for its threadbare plot.
Sheev grew on me, he just cracked me up once they established his quirks. I recommend it as a matinee joy ride.
I give it 2 stars or a grade of C.
Sheev grew on me, he just cracked me up once they established his quirks. I recommend it as a matinee joy ride.
I give it 2 stars or a grade of C.
Sky High
This film will play to kids (its intended audience) well enough, the plot and the twists are definitely unsophisticated, but underneath it all, it uses having cool "super-powers" as a metaphor for high school life (popular vs. non-popular) and cliques. Lots of fun action-related gags, though the middle act drags a bit in this predictable tale of the hero being tempted by the dark side.
Overall, still fun, though.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
Overall, still fun, though.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
Must Love Dogs
Match.com must love the publicity it'll garner from this movie.
I thought it was good, though a little cloying because Sarah and Jake just have really good chemistry, and the obstacles to them getting together seemed a little contrived, but not enough to not recommend it.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
I thought it was good, though a little cloying because Sarah and Jake just have really good chemistry, and the obstacles to them getting together seemed a little contrived, but not enough to not recommend it.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
The Bad News Bears
I was sort of disappointed in this Richard Linklater directorial effort in this film. Gone are most of nice small moments from the original, and in their place are just scenes that feature bad child-acting, and no zip, no fire, no pizazz. The broad strokes (pun intended) are too wide and paint this Buttermaker as a caricature, and the little leaguers are stuck in a game that should have been called due to the 10-run rule in the first inning.
The new Amanda has no acting chops (but good pitching form), which severely undermines the core relationship of the film, so you're left with a film feels like a hangover: some details are sort of fuzzy, some parts appeared to be blacked out, and bigger moments diluted. I will say that the kid playing Tanner got a few laughs from me, but it wasn't enough to salvage the film.
I give it 1.75 stars, or a grade of C-.
The new Amanda has no acting chops (but good pitching form), which severely undermines the core relationship of the film, so you're left with a film feels like a hangover: some details are sort of fuzzy, some parts appeared to be blacked out, and bigger moments diluted. I will say that the kid playing Tanner got a few laughs from me, but it wasn't enough to salvage the film.
I give it 1.75 stars, or a grade of C-.
Wedding Crasher
This was a good old fashioned R-rated comedy filled with adult sitautions and the use of swear words that adults would use in such situations to express themselves. Loved the chemistry between Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn. There were quite a few moments of nervous laughing from build-up of the characters interacting with one another that had me in stitches, I think I even slapped my knee a few times as well. Also, the screenplay sprinkles in quieter scenes to let the audience catch their breath, and allowed for a nice flow to the film.
If the concept of wedding crashing intrigues you, check out this film, it's got plenty of laughs for you if you relax and just go along for the ride.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
If the concept of wedding crashing intrigues you, check out this film, it's got plenty of laughs for you if you relax and just go along for the ride.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
I was pleasantly surprised by this film, and 20 minutes into it, I was really into it, laughing at all the silly gags, and taking in the bizarre set design that enhanced the look and feel of the film. Johnny Depp's Willy Wonka is very strange, in an odd way, you never quite know what depths lie his mischievious streak, perhaps that's the idea, but a little off-putting, nonetheless. Using one guy for all the oompa loompa's was a push for me, some of it was good, but such uniformity in a race sort of dulls my interest in them, even if they have different voices. The children are pretty good in their roles, Freddie Highmore continues to impress with his wisdom beyond his years, and his earnest portrayal of a boy with a good set of values, in spite of temptation that awaits him. The film seldom drags, lots of funny little quips, and big sight gags were a treat, plus I almost fell out of my seat towards the end of the film as Mike TeeVee's segment came to bear. That was good stuff.
Tim Burton's directorial flavor certainly enhanced this film, and this is the sort of material that suits his odd cinematic eye, and he does a fine job transporting the audience to another place while maintaining that fine line between humorous winks to the audience and out and out strangeness for such an environment that is the Wonka Chocolate Factory.
I give it 3.75 stars, or a grade of A- (deducting for Johnny Depp's choices while portraying Willy Wonka as he did.)
Tim Burton's directorial flavor certainly enhanced this film, and this is the sort of material that suits his odd cinematic eye, and he does a fine job transporting the audience to another place while maintaining that fine line between humorous winks to the audience and out and out strangeness for such an environment that is the Wonka Chocolate Factory.
I give it 3.75 stars, or a grade of A- (deducting for Johnny Depp's choices while portraying Willy Wonka as he did.)
Dark Water
I thought this was an average film, it never transcends the genre, and it's not that it's predictable, but rather it's just mundane and boring. The final scenes just go on and on and on (a la "The Return of the King"), I welcomed the credits by the time the final roll of film was through.
If you must watch Jennifer Connelly for a few hours, do it at a matinee, it's not worth the price of a night time ticket.
I give it a C-, or 1.75 stars.
If you must watch Jennifer Connelly for a few hours, do it at a matinee, it's not worth the price of a night time ticket.
I give it a C-, or 1.75 stars.
Fantastic Four
For 2/3 of the film, I had a good time with the film, but having to balance the levity by the FF with the the Dr. Doom segments made the last third of the film very uneven.
The interplay between the FF members was pretty good, much of it was true to the spirit of the characters in the comics. Johnny Storm provided most of the yuks, and usually at Ben Grimm's expense. I can't say there was great on-screen chemistry between Reed Richard and Sue Storm, but it wasn't horrible.
After the "origin" segment is over, the film sort of putters along, but it never gains a lot of traction, so the final act is average, not terrible, but not great either.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
The interplay between the FF members was pretty good, much of it was true to the spirit of the characters in the comics. Johnny Storm provided most of the yuks, and usually at Ben Grimm's expense. I can't say there was great on-screen chemistry between Reed Richard and Sue Storm, but it wasn't horrible.
After the "origin" segment is over, the film sort of putters along, but it never gains a lot of traction, so the final act is average, not terrible, but not great either.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Batman Begins
"Batman Begins" is "Batman Done Right". The opening 1st act covers of Bruce Wayne's training, and the backstory of his relationship with his father, and search for his identity after witnessing the traumatic childhood murders of his parents in that fateful, dark, alley. The tone of the film once Bruce returns to Gotham is just right, and the flow of the film is steady and exciting, and then it gives the viewer a chance to breathe, and embrace the world of Bruce and Batman, one that is rooted in a realism that belies its comic book origins.
The film is very good at providing the logistics of being Batman with the resources of billionaire Bruce Wayne at his disposal, and the production values are top-notch, and just plain fun to see on the big screen as proper respect was paid to them.
The inner character study of what drives Bruce Wayne towards the Batman persona is handled well, and the natural progression makes for a believable character arc, and his somewhat strained relationship with the world, and even his closest childhood friend, Rachel.
The villains are good, and provide more than enough of a challenge for Batman's initial foray into super-heroics. The dark humor present in the film is just right, never getting so dark and somber as to suck the life out of why a man would be driven to save people from the criminals who rely on society's indulgences. There are out and out laughs at key points that belie the turn of events to good effect.
The cast was uniformily good, even Katie Holmes' Rachel had enough of a moral compass and guts to be courageous in the face of heavy odds. Gary Oldman really "got" Gordon and he and Bale had a good give-n-take going on. Michael Caine as Alfred was a nice casting choice, not only good chemistry with Bale, but their relationship was based on family, not just of the servant-master dynamic. Morgan Freeman's turn as Lucius Fox provided some depth and charm to man who provides Batman with his wonderful toys. Liam Neeson and Cillian Murphy are also good in their roles, and drove the plot along very well. Besides some ancilliary characters, I couldn't complain about the cast at all.
So far, Batman Begins was the best movie viewing experience of 2005 for me. The audience was into the film, they laughed at the right moments, and were awed by some of the really nutty second unit footage that was pretty entertaining to watch. And to top it off, they applauded at the end as well.
I give it 4 stars, or a grade of A.
The film is very good at providing the logistics of being Batman with the resources of billionaire Bruce Wayne at his disposal, and the production values are top-notch, and just plain fun to see on the big screen as proper respect was paid to them.
The inner character study of what drives Bruce Wayne towards the Batman persona is handled well, and the natural progression makes for a believable character arc, and his somewhat strained relationship with the world, and even his closest childhood friend, Rachel.
The villains are good, and provide more than enough of a challenge for Batman's initial foray into super-heroics. The dark humor present in the film is just right, never getting so dark and somber as to suck the life out of why a man would be driven to save people from the criminals who rely on society's indulgences. There are out and out laughs at key points that belie the turn of events to good effect.
The cast was uniformily good, even Katie Holmes' Rachel had enough of a moral compass and guts to be courageous in the face of heavy odds. Gary Oldman really "got" Gordon and he and Bale had a good give-n-take going on. Michael Caine as Alfred was a nice casting choice, not only good chemistry with Bale, but their relationship was based on family, not just of the servant-master dynamic. Morgan Freeman's turn as Lucius Fox provided some depth and charm to man who provides Batman with his wonderful toys. Liam Neeson and Cillian Murphy are also good in their roles, and drove the plot along very well. Besides some ancilliary characters, I couldn't complain about the cast at all.
So far, Batman Begins was the best movie viewing experience of 2005 for me. The audience was into the film, they laughed at the right moments, and were awed by some of the really nutty second unit footage that was pretty entertaining to watch. And to top it off, they applauded at the end as well.
I give it 4 stars, or a grade of A.
Herbie Fully Loaded
Thankfully, there wasn't any appreciable airbrushing away of Lindsay's chest in the film (saw it today), though it probably marks the last time she'll look "healthy" for some time to come now that she's into her bleach-blonde-thin-as-a-rail phase currently.
The film is light, fun, doesn't over-reach, yet doesn't quite bore the audience. It's a shame the trailer gives away the ending manuever. For what it was, it rates a 2.5 stars or a grade of C+.
The film is light, fun, doesn't over-reach, yet doesn't quite bore the audience. It's a shame the trailer gives away the ending manuever. For what it was, it rates a 2.5 stars or a grade of C+.
Cindrerella Man
Well, I was "in" this film from the get-go, no nodding off from me. Nowadays that counts for something for me, as truly uninspiring films will have me tune out within the first hour, but that didn't happen with me in this film and its 2 hours and 20 some odd minutes.
I may have known the outcome of the fight at the end, but consciously repressed it, and the fight was pretty amazing at capturing the raw intensity of a true underdog against some mighty tough odds. I caught myself ducking and dodging during some of the punches that landed or missed. That's when you know you are into the fight that is on the screen.
Is there a magical moment in this film, not really a huge one, but there are a lot of small little moments of fortitude that propel the storyline and offers enough nuggets to become involved in the story of a perceived over-the-hill boxer with 3 children and a wife during the depression era, and somehow he not only gets a last minute swan song of a chance, but a series of chances to reach the pinnacle of his profession, that of boxing. Can you over-value how inspirational Braddock's rise of the top was for the people during the depression era? I think Ron Howard was able to balance it without going over the top with the allegories, while providing the viewer with a concise tale of Braddock's seemingly unbelievable story in the early 1930's.
Crowe looked pretty credible as a pro boxer, and the fights were staged convincingly, and many punches were landing when they were thrown. Zellwegger's role of a supporting wife is okay, she gets a few good scenes of standing up for herself and her family, but it is a supporting role that doesn't draw huge attention to itself. Giamatti is the spark of the film when he's on the screen, it's another good supporting turn for him as well.
Overall, I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
I may have known the outcome of the fight at the end, but consciously repressed it, and the fight was pretty amazing at capturing the raw intensity of a true underdog against some mighty tough odds. I caught myself ducking and dodging during some of the punches that landed or missed. That's when you know you are into the fight that is on the screen.
Is there a magical moment in this film, not really a huge one, but there are a lot of small little moments of fortitude that propel the storyline and offers enough nuggets to become involved in the story of a perceived over-the-hill boxer with 3 children and a wife during the depression era, and somehow he not only gets a last minute swan song of a chance, but a series of chances to reach the pinnacle of his profession, that of boxing. Can you over-value how inspirational Braddock's rise of the top was for the people during the depression era? I think Ron Howard was able to balance it without going over the top with the allegories, while providing the viewer with a concise tale of Braddock's seemingly unbelievable story in the early 1930's.
Crowe looked pretty credible as a pro boxer, and the fights were staged convincingly, and many punches were landing when they were thrown. Zellwegger's role of a supporting wife is okay, she gets a few good scenes of standing up for herself and her family, but it is a supporting role that doesn't draw huge attention to itself. Giamatti is the spark of the film when he's on the screen, it's another good supporting turn for him as well.
Overall, I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants
I actually liked this movie a lot, which surprised me, a little. I saw it mainly because of Amber Tamblyn and Alexis Bledel (of Joan of Arcadia fame, and Rory of Gilmore Girls fame, respectively), but the other 2 girls, America Ferrera and Blake Lively hold their hold very well against their other sisters in the film. None of them looked out of place in the film, acting-wise. Oh, Blake Lively is going to turn some heads, she's the hottie of the quartet.
The subplots of the 4 teenage girls who spend a summer alone, but tied together by a pact they make in sharing a pair of jeans that oddly enough fit all 4 gals, even though the body shapes are different enough to raise an eyebrow over such a fortuitous fact of life. The stories weave in and out, but I was never confused by the intercutting, and found the stories to have some meat to them as it was a summer of love, love of life, love of family, and love of a lossed one. They support each one gets from the letters that accompany the weekly shipment of the jeans/pants is more than enough for each girl to confront their issues, and to somehow resolve them, or become at peace with them.
The demographic for this film is mainly teenage girls, but the 3rd act has enough emotional grit to make it worthwhile for a matinee, especially if you are a fan of some of the actresses in the film.
I give it a 3 stars, or a grade of B.
The subplots of the 4 teenage girls who spend a summer alone, but tied together by a pact they make in sharing a pair of jeans that oddly enough fit all 4 gals, even though the body shapes are different enough to raise an eyebrow over such a fortuitous fact of life. The stories weave in and out, but I was never confused by the intercutting, and found the stories to have some meat to them as it was a summer of love, love of life, love of family, and love of a lossed one. They support each one gets from the letters that accompany the weekly shipment of the jeans/pants is more than enough for each girl to confront their issues, and to somehow resolve them, or become at peace with them.
The demographic for this film is mainly teenage girls, but the 3rd act has enough emotional grit to make it worthwhile for a matinee, especially if you are a fan of some of the actresses in the film.
I give it a 3 stars, or a grade of B.
The Longest Yard
This movie will provide some comic relief with a wide array of characters that have fun with the material, though the plot was pretty sketchy at best.
If you've seen the trailers, you pretty much know what kind of movie you're going to get, and for the most part, there are enough laughs to warrant at least a matinee viewing along with a crowd (because comedies are funner to me with a crowd that's not afraid to laugh).
I give it a 2.75 stars, or a B-.
If you've seen the trailers, you pretty much know what kind of movie you're going to get, and for the most part, there are enough laughs to warrant at least a matinee viewing along with a crowd (because comedies are funner to me with a crowd that's not afraid to laugh).
I give it a 2.75 stars, or a B-.
Serenity
This is a dark and gritty film, but the dialogue sparkles, and final stanza is pretty good.
I think non-Firefly viewers will have a little bit of a problem keeping up with who is who and the relational aspect, but Whedon did what he could to bring them up to speed in minimal time.
I'm going to give it a B+ for now, but I think Firefly fans will enjoy it.
I think non-Firefly viewers will have a little bit of a problem keeping up with who is who and the relational aspect, but Whedon did what he could to bring them up to speed in minimal time.
I'm going to give it a B+ for now, but I think Firefly fans will enjoy it.
Unleashed
I found this film a little uneven. For script purposes, I guess you just have to accept the exceptional generosity of the Morgan Freeman character, Sam, and his step-daughter, Victoria. Re-introducing Danny into being a human being was kinda sweet and syrupy, but some of it was cute, and Jet Li was able to get that lost innocence across in his reaction to a new world of possibilities after been raised a "dog" who did his "owner's" (Bob Hoskins) bidding whenever the leash was taken off Danny.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B- (but worth catching in a matinee).
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B- (but worth catching in a matinee).
Kicking and Screaming
Overall, a fun soccer romp featuring Will Ferrell doing what he does best, going for a laugh no matter how silly it makes him lood.
There were plenty of laughs for the family-oriented film, and most could sympathize with the situations of how nutty competition can get when adults lose sight of why the games are played by the kids.
I give it 2.5 stars or a grade of C+ (specifically for being entertaining for its genre.)
There were plenty of laughs for the family-oriented film, and most could sympathize with the situations of how nutty competition can get when adults lose sight of why the games are played by the kids.
I give it 2.5 stars or a grade of C+ (specifically for being entertaining for its genre.)
Kingdom of Heaven
This movie is at least 30 minutes too long because the first 90 minutes are fairly uninteresting, especially with the characterizations of the principals engaged in this tale of the battle of Jerusalem during the Crusades. The character introductions just didn't have that cinematic pop, and I was left confused by who was what and who would be important in the overall scheme of the film.
Orlando Bloom either didn't have much to work with via the script, or just couldn't elevate the material to make the opening half of the film all that involving. And then with an hour left, someone flips the switch and Bloom's character suddenly goes from simple blacksmith to super military strategist and leader of men (and boys) in order to protect against the muslim march to Jerusalem. I didn't buy the transformation, but the last hour of battle scenes was pretty good, though a lot of it felt familiar if you have seen the recent medieval fare of flicks (LOTR, Alexander, Troy, etc). Ridley Scott showed some restraint in the use of his patented violent action scenes with the strobe-y effects a la Gladiator.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+ (mainly for the last hour)
Orlando Bloom either didn't have much to work with via the script, or just couldn't elevate the material to make the opening half of the film all that involving. And then with an hour left, someone flips the switch and Bloom's character suddenly goes from simple blacksmith to super military strategist and leader of men (and boys) in order to protect against the muslim march to Jerusalem. I didn't buy the transformation, but the last hour of battle scenes was pretty good, though a lot of it felt familiar if you have seen the recent medieval fare of flicks (LOTR, Alexander, Troy, etc). Ridley Scott showed some restraint in the use of his patented violent action scenes with the strobe-y effects a la Gladiator.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+ (mainly for the last hour)
Crash
Relations and interactions, toss in all manners of races, fears and past actions, in "Crash" you get a fast-moving, unrelenting film exposing a web of tangential connections of many characters while tackling the sticky issue of racial prejudice that exposes the good and bad of human nature. The film is filled with a wide spectrum of colorful choices, never clinging to absolute morality, its pulse going in and out of focus like the heartbeat of racial tensions. You'll laugh and cringe at the observations and stereotypes that the characters espouse and deal with to regain some control and some order in their own lives.
Providence plays a part in the quite a few of the storylines, and the coincidences might feel too coincidental, it works for the most part as writer/director Paul Haggis takes on this topic while weaving a narrative dependent on many different little inter-connected stories, and you just never know how they inter-connect until they do.
The cast is uniformily good given the scant setup for their characters, as Haggis' economical script cuts the dialogue down to the bare minimum without leaving the viewer confused or stranded in the stories.
It's worth seeing at the theaters.
I give it 3.75 stars, or a grade of A-.
Providence plays a part in the quite a few of the storylines, and the coincidences might feel too coincidental, it works for the most part as writer/director Paul Haggis takes on this topic while weaving a narrative dependent on many different little inter-connected stories, and you just never know how they inter-connect until they do.
The cast is uniformily good given the scant setup for their characters, as Haggis' economical script cuts the dialogue down to the bare minimum without leaving the viewer confused or stranded in the stories.
It's worth seeing at the theaters.
I give it 3.75 stars, or a grade of A-.
Revenge of the Sith
While the world of Star Wars was more than amazing, the main thing I didn't like was Hayden Christensen's acting in the 1st and 2nd act, as the one-on-one scenes just laid flat on the screen. The cringe-inducing dialogue was just poor because it didn't feel natural, but rather forced because of all the burden from having to bridge the history between the OT and the PT together. The film is a lot better in the final act where the action is almost non-stop, and the acting is better and dialogue is minimal enough not to induce more cringing from me. There were some inconsistencies in the film w/r/t the rest of the OT, but I'll save those for the discussion thread.
For now, I'm going to give it 2.75 stars or a grade of B- (mainly for the last act because I'd grade the earlier acts a C for uninvolving sequences that felt perfunctionary and stilted.)
For now, I'm going to give it 2.75 stars or a grade of B- (mainly for the last act because I'd grade the earlier acts a C for uninvolving sequences that felt perfunctionary and stilted.)
Kung-Fu Hustle
I also thought this movie was a hoot, and many scenes were very reminiscent of live-action Looney Tunes action. There are a few jarring plot transitions, but the fights scenes are so much fun, I forgave any and all plot-related clumsiness.
Go see it with an audience, much more laughter mileage to be had that way.
I give it 3 stars, or a B for knowing its genre and hitting the mark with that audience.
Go see it with an audience, much more laughter mileage to be had that way.
I give it 3 stars, or a B for knowing its genre and hitting the mark with that audience.
A Lot Like Love
Sadly, this film was a cute, albeit dull, look at a pair of people who find their way back towards one another in sporadic hookups over the course of 7 years after a chance encounter on an airplane flight from Los Angeles to New York City, and it was a bumpy ride to start off such a relationship that was plagued by both time and distance, indeed.
Ashton Kutcher and Amanda Peet have good chemistry, but the material never gave them really interesting personalities, and that made them seem a bit on the boring side, add in a dash of neuroses for good effect. Thus, in the end, it's the story of 2-dimensional characters whose intermittent flirtations and meetings that undermines an emotional payoff in the end.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
Ashton Kutcher and Amanda Peet have good chemistry, but the material never gave them really interesting personalities, and that made them seem a bit on the boring side, add in a dash of neuroses for good effect. Thus, in the end, it's the story of 2-dimensional characters whose intermittent flirtations and meetings that undermines an emotional payoff in the end.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
The Interpreter
I thought was was good thriller/pot-boiler, not a great one, not a home run, but a serviceable couple of hours as the audience is presented with a UN interpreter who overhears a plot to assassinate a south African leader on his way to deliver a speech to the UN. The characters played by Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn are wary of one another, but it becomes a hot-and-cold relationship as the story unfolds.
I didn't think Kidman and Penn had much chemistry, though. But, I don't think Penn has much chemistry in general with his co-stars. At least he gave a restrained performance inline with his character's occupation, which served the film well enough. Kidman's character is pretty much an onion with layers, but depending on how invested you get into her past history is up the viewer. At some points, I found her backstory somewhat interesting, but not really scintillating or riveting.
Pollack's direction is pretty good, though it might have served to edit it down by 10 minutes or so for such plot driven film. My audience skewed towards adults in their 30's-50's, and were well-behaved, soaking in the film's rhythms as the plot pushed forward towards a deadline that could not be pushed back.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
I didn't think Kidman and Penn had much chemistry, though. But, I don't think Penn has much chemistry in general with his co-stars. At least he gave a restrained performance inline with his character's occupation, which served the film well enough. Kidman's character is pretty much an onion with layers, but depending on how invested you get into her past history is up the viewer. At some points, I found her backstory somewhat interesting, but not really scintillating or riveting.
Pollack's direction is pretty good, though it might have served to edit it down by 10 minutes or so for such plot driven film. My audience skewed towards adults in their 30's-50's, and were well-behaved, soaking in the film's rhythms as the plot pushed forward towards a deadline that could not be pushed back.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Fever Pitch
This film was a like Valentine given to passionate baseball fans, and of course, the object of that affection and passion is the Boston Red Sox.
Fallon (Ben) and Barrymore (Lindsey) have cute chemisty together (though not as good as Sandler and Barrymore), and for the most part, you buy their relationship along with that big white elephant in the room (Ben's passion for the Red Sox). The humor is more on the chuckle and laugh-with-them variety, not something that you'd expect from the directing team of the Farrelly Brothers, but they were well-restrained with the unsightly gags, and concentrated on the story at hand, capturing a sweet romance in spite of a man's obsession for the Red Sox.
It's a nice film to catch as we enter the start of the 2005 Major League Baseball season.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Fallon (Ben) and Barrymore (Lindsey) have cute chemisty together (though not as good as Sandler and Barrymore), and for the most part, you buy their relationship along with that big white elephant in the room (Ben's passion for the Red Sox). The humor is more on the chuckle and laugh-with-them variety, not something that you'd expect from the directing team of the Farrelly Brothers, but they were well-restrained with the unsightly gags, and concentrated on the story at hand, capturing a sweet romance in spite of a man's obsession for the Red Sox.
It's a nice film to catch as we enter the start of the 2005 Major League Baseball season.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Sin City
I'm not sure what my expectations were going into the film (tried to stay relatively spoiler-free, with the exception of the trailer), but this movie met and exceeded my expectations, and the interweaving of the 3 main stories with minor bookends was a good time at the theater. The marriage of comic books to film just took a nice jump in quality and raised the bar very high for future projects to come.
The only minor quibble was the noir-ish voiceovers that pushed some of the details through for the audience, but overall, I liked it a lot.
I give it 3.75 stars, or a grade of A-, may get upgraded if I see it again later.
The only minor quibble was the noir-ish voiceovers that pushed some of the details through for the audience, but overall, I liked it a lot.
I give it 3.75 stars, or a grade of A-, may get upgraded if I see it again later.
Guess Who
I had a good time laughing at Bernie Mac's character's reaction to white boy Ashton Kutcher (Simon) playing the boyfriend of Bernie's daughter Teresa, returning home for Bernie's vow renewal with his wife of 25 years. Pretty decent laughs mined from the black-white tension caused by Simon's presence. Ultimately, it turns out to be pretty heartfelt by the end of the film, and you might even find yourself tearing up from either the laughs or the tugging at the heartstrings.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
Miss Congeniality 2
I thought it was a decent screwball comedy that evoked a lot of laughter from the afternoon crowd I was with at the theater today. I laughed alot, and Sandra Bulloch definitely doesn't take herself too seriously, which added to the laughs and likeability.
Not the greatest film ever, but for a couple of hours, it's fluffy entertainment.
I give it 2.5 stars or a grade of C+.
Not the greatest film ever, but for a couple of hours, it's fluffy entertainment.
I give it 2.5 stars or a grade of C+.
The Pacifier
While this was one of those "movies-by-the-numbers", there was an underlining of sweetness that made it an okay viewing experience. It bordered on syrupy, but I didn't have high expectations, and it almost met them anyway. So, a decent family flick, but not really sure if the concept warranted the big screen treatment.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
The Ring 2
I'll have to admit that I provided at least 2 bits of unintentional bits of humor for people sitting around me by falling asleep and I caught myself snoring a little bit before waking up for the rest of the movie (my dream was better than the film at that point, I'm afraid).
This film is about 30 minutes too long given the thin script, and the lack of real creepiness and scares. The ending segment is so predictable and underwhelming, I can only hope that this is the end of the line for "The Ring" franchise. Naomi Watts must be a mouth breather because I think I can count on the fingers of my hand the times I did not see her front teeth exposed, it got distracting after a while.
Even if you go in with low expectations, I would proffer that you'll still come away disappointed and unimpressed.
I give it 1.5 stars, or a grade of D+.
This film is about 30 minutes too long given the thin script, and the lack of real creepiness and scares. The ending segment is so predictable and underwhelming, I can only hope that this is the end of the line for "The Ring" franchise. Naomi Watts must be a mouth breather because I think I can count on the fingers of my hand the times I did not see her front teeth exposed, it got distracting after a while.
Even if you go in with low expectations, I would proffer that you'll still come away disappointed and unimpressed.
I give it 1.5 stars, or a grade of D+.
The Upside of Anger
Mike Binder wrote and directed a star vehicle for Joan Allen, and the results are pretty good. Plenty of laughs and chuckles from anger and exasperation from Terri (Joan's charater) and her relationship with her 4 daughters, and a blooming kinship with a neighbor (Kevin Costner) after her husband leaves her and the family.
If you're in the mood for a dramedy, I think this film should hit the spot.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
If you're in the mood for a dramedy, I think this film should hit the spot.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Hostage
This film feels like Die Hard flipped around, with Bruce Willis playing the cop on the outside, trying to talk a small boy through the worst night of his life as he and his dad and sister are held hostage after things go haywire, and the 3 bad guys are stuck in a messy situation.
Motivations are reinforced, and propel the characters through a night where nothing goes right for the characters involved. There is a bit of over-emoting on Willis's part in spots, and there is some pretty so-so overwrought acting from the bad guys. But as the film makes it way through the twists and turns, it's never boring, but the ending needed a little more tweaking in my eyes.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Motivations are reinforced, and propel the characters through a night where nothing goes right for the characters involved. There is a bit of over-emoting on Willis's part in spots, and there is some pretty so-so overwrought acting from the bad guys. But as the film makes it way through the twists and turns, it's never boring, but the ending needed a little more tweaking in my eyes.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Robots
This film is full of subtle bits of humor, and it never gives the audience time to catch up before moving to another bit, plus the humor is more intended for those up on pop culture and that isn't always going to be the kids watching the film, so the laughs aren't bust-your-gut funny, but for me, it was chuckle-worthy for daring to "go there" in certain scenes. The 3rd act was a lot of fun, visually, though.
Plus, how can you not like a film that incorporates a dash of
Warning Spoiler!
2001: A Space Odyssey with one of the robots doing the "Daisy" song as it's losing steam/power
?
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
Plus, how can you not like a film that incorporates a dash of
Warning Spoiler!
2001: A Space Odyssey with one of the robots doing the "Daisy" song as it's losing steam/power
?
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
Because of Winn-Dixie
I mainly saw this film because it was directed by Wayne Wang, and I wasn't let down by this tale of a lonely girl who forms unlikely friendships after adopting a dog that runs rampant through a Winn Dixie store while she's doing some shopping, after her preacher father moves him and her to a very rustic small town.
It's a nice film for adults and children alike, and it doesn't do much pandering, and it can be enjoyed on different levels. Kudos must go to AnnaSophia Robb, who is the lonely girl, Opal, and is really good in this film. Also, the dog(s) playing Winn Dixie also do a nice job (I know, it's mainly editing, but still).
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
It's a nice film for adults and children alike, and it doesn't do much pandering, and it can be enjoyed on different levels. Kudos must go to AnnaSophia Robb, who is the lonely girl, Opal, and is really good in this film. Also, the dog(s) playing Winn Dixie also do a nice job (I know, it's mainly editing, but still).
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Constantine
The film needed more cynical humor because there are some good comedic moments, but it missed other opportunities, and given the genre and material, I think it would elevated the material on a human level because of the stakes at hand (mainly the hinted-at past relationships/occupations of Constantine and Midnight, and others before adopting their current roles in the universe). That said, the film could have been tightened up by about 10 minutes.
But, I wasn't all that bored with the film, but it did lack some oomph that could have made it a better film.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
But, I wasn't all that bored with the film, but it did lack some oomph that could have made it a better film.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
Ong-Bak
I saw this film today. I thought it was shot a little too dank and dark for my tastes, but the action is pretty jaw-droppingly amazing. Tony Jaa's eye-foot coordination is crazy insane. After awhile, though, I think I suffered fatigue from all the martial arts action as it got to be a little too repetitive and cartoony at times, plus the multiple angle replays seemed to throw off the momentum of the action sequences.
There are quite a few good laughs that develop from the action sequences, and chase scenes. Sometimes, the action felt like videogame martial arts action in its intensity and brutality (as in "They'll definitely leave a mark" variety of blows and kicks).
The forces at play are a little too stark in good and bad, but as a vehicle to show off Tony Jaa's skills, it's not bad.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
There are quite a few good laughs that develop from the action sequences, and chase scenes. Sometimes, the action felt like videogame martial arts action in its intensity and brutality (as in "They'll definitely leave a mark" variety of blows and kicks).
The forces at play are a little too stark in good and bad, but as a vehicle to show off Tony Jaa's skills, it's not bad.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Hitch
Overall, pretty entertaining in the early going, with Kevin James (Alan) hamming it up quite nicely, and Will Smith (Hitch) having to rein him in and show him the ways of romancing the opposite sex. I didn't think Eva Mendes (Sarah) was a good foil for Will Smith, though. Amber Valletta was mainly the object of Alan's romantic heart, and provided an average performance (though as a supporting character, it was okay). And as with most romantic comedies, it's a roller coaster ride, but both sides learn a little about themselves in the process.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Hotel Rwanda
I thought this was a very good film, not a great one, but very good. It will make you angry, it will humble you, it will make you shed tears for the victims of the genocide in 1994 in Rwanda while the world sat on their hands and did little to curtail the massacre before so many people had to die for some irrational division of ethnicity.
Don Cheadle gives a great performance, he anchors the film in his ingenuity and hope as he tries to keep his family alive against heavy odds given the situation that developed. Sophie Okonedo was good, but I'm on the fence as to it being worthy of a best supporting actress nomination.
If you know a little or nothing about what happened in Rwanda (1994), you owe it to yourself to see this film.
I give it 3 stars or a grade of B.
Don Cheadle gives a great performance, he anchors the film in his ingenuity and hope as he tries to keep his family alive against heavy odds given the situation that developed. Sophie Okonedo was good, but I'm on the fence as to it being worthy of a best supporting actress nomination.
If you know a little or nothing about what happened in Rwanda (1994), you owe it to yourself to see this film.
I give it 3 stars or a grade of B.
In Good Company
This film succeeds in crafting characters that you care about by the time the credits roll around. Both Topher Grace and Dennis Quaid come up strong, though the screenplay feels a little bloated at time, or there are many more quiet moments than the trailers would lead you to expect. It's not a full-on comedy, but the funny moments come out of the real life drama and circumstances. All in all, a pleasant viewing experience, and it leaves you wanting just a little more.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Elektra
My 2 syllable review: Ho-Hum.
If you were scratching your head while watching this movie, it was probably because you were never given much of reason to care about any of the characters in the film, and by the time it mercifully ends, you wondered how they made time slow down so much. It's not as bad as Catwoman, but it just flat-out boring, one of the worse things a movie can be.
I give it 1.75 stars, or a C-.
If you were scratching your head while watching this movie, it was probably because you were never given much of reason to care about any of the characters in the film, and by the time it mercifully ends, you wondered how they made time slow down so much. It's not as bad as Catwoman, but it just flat-out boring, one of the worse things a movie can be.
I give it 1.75 stars, or a C-.
Beyond the Sea
As a director, Kevin Spacey is average, and I felt he just didn't have a good grasp what would make for a satisfying viewing experience. I found his direction boring, even the musical numbers at times because the camera angles just don't have a finish to them, or were placed in the wrong spot for the scene, the camera moved awkwardly or not at all, relying on zoom cuts instead.
As a singer, Spacey's got a good voice, and is entertaining. Can't say I didn't enjoy those scenes that features him singing Darin's tunes. The film itself is a bit of a jumbled mess, trying to be artsy in spots as the story jumps around without sufficient payoff for such choppiness, all for the sake of being edgy, I suspect.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
As a singer, Spacey's got a good voice, and is entertaining. Can't say I didn't enjoy those scenes that features him singing Darin's tunes. The film itself is a bit of a jumbled mess, trying to be artsy in spots as the story jumps around without sufficient payoff for such choppiness, all for the sake of being edgy, I suspect.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Million Dollar Baby
In a totally crowded theater I watched this film, drenched in its humanity and humor like a fighter in between rounds being wiped down, taking in numerous jabs to the body and mind. I bobbed and weaved along with the rhythmic feints and punches. The film dances with you, pulls you in, jabs back, you push forward, it draws you in more, and gives you a roundhouse right you never see coming. But after the stars fade away, you're left with a story of hope, perserverance, and second chances.
Clint Eastwood, Hilary Swank, and Morgan Freeman all turn in wonderful performances. They inhabit their characters, and the story is about these characters, their drive, their foibles, their insecurities, their past, their inner demons, their hopes, and their dreams.
Eastwood's direction is tight, taut, on-target, nary an errant frame is introduced, and the screenplay is also up to the task at moving the story along at the pace it deserves, while providing a framework in which the 3 main characters are allowed room to pursue their dreams in spite of the obstacles in their paths.
I give it 4 stars, or a grade of A. A cinematic knockout!
Clint Eastwood, Hilary Swank, and Morgan Freeman all turn in wonderful performances. They inhabit their characters, and the story is about these characters, their drive, their foibles, their insecurities, their past, their inner demons, their hopes, and their dreams.
Eastwood's direction is tight, taut, on-target, nary an errant frame is introduced, and the screenplay is also up to the task at moving the story along at the pace it deserves, while providing a framework in which the 3 main characters are allowed room to pursue their dreams in spite of the obstacles in their paths.
I give it 4 stars, or a grade of A. A cinematic knockout!
The Life Aquatic
To me, this film gave me the same feeling that Ocean's Twelve did, one where I got the feeling Wes Anderson's stable of actors were just going through the motions, and not bringing much to the table to produce interesting (to watch) characters.
There are some chuckles here and there, but some of the 2nd half sequences are just so improbable that it does require the audience to accept it as a fish story (i.e. filled with hyperbole and exaggeration), and that just made the film stagnant for me.
Go see it if you're curious, but don't have high expectations.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
There are some chuckles here and there, but some of the 2nd half sequences are just so improbable that it does require the audience to accept it as a fish story (i.e. filled with hyperbole and exaggeration), and that just made the film stagnant for me.
Go see it if you're curious, but don't have high expectations.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
The Aviator
I think my problem with this film is Leonardo Dicaprio, he's still a boy acting in a man's world, and I think Leo did his better work in the 2nd half of the film, but it wasn't enough to elevate "The Aviator" to a great film in my eyes.
This was a 4-act film, and the 3rd act is pretty grueling to watch, justifiably so, but it sort of slowed down the cinematic momentum of the film for me. The screenplay needed some trimming, probably about 20 minutes (mainly in the 2nd and 3rd act). The direction is quite good, though, but not surprising considering it's Scorsese at the helm.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
This was a 4-act film, and the 3rd act is pretty grueling to watch, justifiably so, but it sort of slowed down the cinematic momentum of the film for me. The screenplay needed some trimming, probably about 20 minutes (mainly in the 2nd and 3rd act). The direction is quite good, though, but not surprising considering it's Scorsese at the helm.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
The Phantom of the Opera
I thought this adaptation from the stage to the cinema for "The Phantom of the Opera" was a little on the long side, clocking in around 140 minutes, I did think the 3rd act was pretty good, but the middle act just sort of sags with an unfocused narrative pushing the story along.
I disliked Gerard Butler's singing voice as the Phantom, and with the mask on, he reminded me of John Travolta. I also wanted more operatic singing from the Phantom, but Butler's gravelly rock voice wasn't as pleasing to the ear has the rest of the cast. If that was Emmy Rossum's voice, then I'm pretty impressed, very nice, pure voice, pleasing to the ears. Usually I can't stand Minnie Driver, but her hammy/diva-like Carlotta was pretty funny. Patrick Wilson's singing voice was adequate, nothing outstanding, though.
So, good opening act, slow 2nd act, but the 3rd act is pretty involving.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
I disliked Gerard Butler's singing voice as the Phantom, and with the mask on, he reminded me of John Travolta. I also wanted more operatic singing from the Phantom, but Butler's gravelly rock voice wasn't as pleasing to the ear has the rest of the cast. If that was Emmy Rossum's voice, then I'm pretty impressed, very nice, pure voice, pleasing to the ears. Usually I can't stand Minnie Driver, but her hammy/diva-like Carlotta was pretty funny. Patrick Wilson's singing voice was adequate, nothing outstanding, though.
So, good opening act, slow 2nd act, but the 3rd act is pretty involving.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Meet the Fockers
I'll admit it (and make no apologies for it), I was snickering and laughing throughout most of "Meet the Fockers", though it broke no new ground for comedies, the characters of Bernie and Roz Focker found new ways to truly embarrass the living hell out of Greg in front of his prospective new in-laws and wife, and that was pretty funny stuff.
Of course, Jack (De Niro) got a lot of screen time since he is the retired CIA guy who still doesn't trust this impending union between his daughter Pam and Greg. There are a few gags that are spoiled by the trailers, but there are other bits that are funny as well.
Is it funnier than the first film, I'm not sure, but Bernie Focker (Hoffman) did crack me up a lot. It's a fun way to spend a couple of hours.
I give it 2.75 stars or a grade of B-.
Of course, Jack (De Niro) got a lot of screen time since he is the retired CIA guy who still doesn't trust this impending union between his daughter Pam and Greg. There are a few gags that are spoiled by the trailers, but there are other bits that are funny as well.
Is it funnier than the first film, I'm not sure, but Bernie Focker (Hoffman) did crack me up a lot. It's a fun way to spend a couple of hours.
I give it 2.75 stars or a grade of B-.
The Flight of the Phoenix
It was fair, I wasn't all that caught up in it, but it was cool to see House (Hugh Laurie) in the film.
Miranda Otto was in the film, and it looks like she took some of her income from the LOTR films and got her front teeth capped (less gappy now).
Giovanni Ribisi was okay in his usual odd/eccentric way.
Literally, Dennis Quaid was on auto-pilot in this film.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
Miranda Otto was in the film, and it looks like she took some of her income from the LOTR films and got her front teeth capped (less gappy now).
Giovanni Ribisi was okay in his usual odd/eccentric way.
Literally, Dennis Quaid was on auto-pilot in this film.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
Lemony Snickets
Not familiar with the source material, I came away from this movie in the bored category, and I probably wasn't the target audience for this film. But my viewing was marred by 3-4 shutdowns of the projector, so the presentation was poor, so that might have affected my enjoyment from the movie. I never got drawn into the story, and never quite connected with the characters, well, except for the baby sister who had some good lines. I don't think this will be one of those universally loved films, but those who have read the books will most likely appreciated the production values and casting.
I give it 2 stars or a grade of C.
I give it 2 stars or a grade of C.
Ocean's Twelve
I wasn't feeling it for this film, I think the tone was a little more subdued, mainly due to the change in locale from Las Vegas in Ocean's Eleven. It's pretty tough to juggle so characters and not short-shrift them, so on that account, the screenplay is okay in that respect.
I'm not sure if fans of the first installment will love this film, but there are some fun bits, just not enough of them for me. Are there twists and turns, of course, I just wasn't as impressed with the overall film, so by the time the film ended, I don't think I would need to see Ocean's Thirteen.
Did I think the actors felt like they are going through the paces? I think so, some of it is intentional, some of it just seems that the material just didn't give them enough room to do some interesting within the plot of the film.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
I'm not sure if fans of the first installment will love this film, but there are some fun bits, just not enough of them for me. Are there twists and turns, of course, I just wasn't as impressed with the overall film, so by the time the film ended, I don't think I would need to see Ocean's Thirteen.
Did I think the actors felt like they are going through the paces? I think so, some of it is intentional, some of it just seems that the material just didn't give them enough room to do some interesting within the plot of the film.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
Spanglish
I really got into this film, it's just so well done. The acting, the direction, the screenplay all hit the right notes, and made for a really rewarding viewing experience in which this viewer got involved with the characters and their stories that get interwoven into a narrative that transcends the language barrier between American and Mexican cultures.
I'll get this out of the way: Paz Vega is going to find a lot of fans after this film opens big, she is absolutely magnetic on the screen, you can't keep your eyes off of her while she's on-screen, and she does a fantastic job in her role. Tea Leoni is also pretty good, and it's a juicy part for an actress, with emotions running the gamut from beginning to end. Adam Sandler was also adequate for the role, though his comedic streak peeps out every now and then, but it's tamed enough to keep his character believable within the framework of the story. The children were also up to the task of keeping up with the adults, and give nice performances.
James L. Brooks makes it look so easy, you simply enjoy the film as it unfolds itself, and the narrative is always flowing freely but strongly, and I'd be hard pressed to toss out any of the scenes, so I think the screenplay was pretty tight, and allowed the characters reveal themselves as the story progressed in a very natural manner, and there is so much heart at the core of the film.
If you are looking for a good dramedy, this is the film for you, it does so many things right, and deserves a large audience.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
I'll get this out of the way: Paz Vega is going to find a lot of fans after this film opens big, she is absolutely magnetic on the screen, you can't keep your eyes off of her while she's on-screen, and she does a fantastic job in her role. Tea Leoni is also pretty good, and it's a juicy part for an actress, with emotions running the gamut from beginning to end. Adam Sandler was also adequate for the role, though his comedic streak peeps out every now and then, but it's tamed enough to keep his character believable within the framework of the story. The children were also up to the task of keeping up with the adults, and give nice performances.
James L. Brooks makes it look so easy, you simply enjoy the film as it unfolds itself, and the narrative is always flowing freely but strongly, and I'd be hard pressed to toss out any of the scenes, so I think the screenplay was pretty tight, and allowed the characters reveal themselves as the story progressed in a very natural manner, and there is so much heart at the core of the film.
If you are looking for a good dramedy, this is the film for you, it does so many things right, and deserves a large audience.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
Blade Trinity
I think this film suffered a lot from some of the casting choices for the bad guys, especially Domenic Purcell, but Parker Posey did what she had to work with.
The action scenes in the first half of the film are poor and uninvolving, the problem is not in the way of hyper-chaotic camerawork, but had more to do with lack of good camera angles and positioning. The editing just felt awkward, not at all smooth or seamless. Goyer's lack of directorial experience was on display in abundance in the first half. Pretty soon, the viewer gets losts in the action scenes in a confusing way. It does get a little better in the last act, barely, but again, there is still a lot of uninspired staged action sequences that don't do justice to the action pedigree of the earlier Blade films.
The plot in the beginning starts in one direction, but spirals into something less, not more. There is one sequence in the film towards the middle that just felt so awkward, like an idea that should have inspired revulsion, but, again, the scene just never has the right ominous tone, and feels like it was just put in to pile on the vampire hate. It could have easily been excised from the film with little impact on it.
But, as a comedy, Blade Trinity works during the humorous scenes, most of them feature Ryan Reynolds in them, so, for an action film, it made me laugh. Some of the dialogue in those scenes are so over-the-top and sharp and aim below the belt (both figuratively and literally at time), you can't help but laugh at the character's assessment of the situation at hand.
At times I wondered why Blade is saddled with so little in terms of dialogue, rarely managing a complete sentence in most of the scenes. Wesley Snipes might have been paid $10,000 for every word he uttered in the film, if not more (just speculating). Yes, I get that Blade is a brooder, a man of little words, but a man of action.
Jessica Biel tries to make us believe she's the more than the capable daughter of Whistler, but after a while, you just roll with the punches and just accept that she can kick some serious vampire butt.
Domenic Purcell is badly miscast as Dracula, I could never really buy into him in this role, even with the establishing scenes to make him all scary and fearsome.
So, if you're looking for some laughs, show up about an hour into the film, but if you're looking for a tight, action-packed film, you might need to look elsewhere.
I give it 2 stars or a grade of C.
The action scenes in the first half of the film are poor and uninvolving, the problem is not in the way of hyper-chaotic camerawork, but had more to do with lack of good camera angles and positioning. The editing just felt awkward, not at all smooth or seamless. Goyer's lack of directorial experience was on display in abundance in the first half. Pretty soon, the viewer gets losts in the action scenes in a confusing way. It does get a little better in the last act, barely, but again, there is still a lot of uninspired staged action sequences that don't do justice to the action pedigree of the earlier Blade films.
The plot in the beginning starts in one direction, but spirals into something less, not more. There is one sequence in the film towards the middle that just felt so awkward, like an idea that should have inspired revulsion, but, again, the scene just never has the right ominous tone, and feels like it was just put in to pile on the vampire hate. It could have easily been excised from the film with little impact on it.
But, as a comedy, Blade Trinity works during the humorous scenes, most of them feature Ryan Reynolds in them, so, for an action film, it made me laugh. Some of the dialogue in those scenes are so over-the-top and sharp and aim below the belt (both figuratively and literally at time), you can't help but laugh at the character's assessment of the situation at hand.
At times I wondered why Blade is saddled with so little in terms of dialogue, rarely managing a complete sentence in most of the scenes. Wesley Snipes might have been paid $10,000 for every word he uttered in the film, if not more (just speculating). Yes, I get that Blade is a brooder, a man of little words, but a man of action.
Jessica Biel tries to make us believe she's the more than the capable daughter of Whistler, but after a while, you just roll with the punches and just accept that she can kick some serious vampire butt.
Domenic Purcell is badly miscast as Dracula, I could never really buy into him in this role, even with the establishing scenes to make him all scary and fearsome.
So, if you're looking for some laughs, show up about an hour into the film, but if you're looking for a tight, action-packed film, you might need to look elsewhere.
I give it 2 stars or a grade of C.
House of the Flying Daggers
I think people expecting another "Hero" when going to see HoFD is a big mistake, and would easily infringe upon their enjoyment of HoFD.
I think Yimou's directorial style is in abundance in this film, and, while there are the 'cool' scenes/shots, at its core, it develops into a love story, and its scale is much smaller than "Hero" and not even the same type of story.
By the end of the film, I got caught up in 3rd act, and I think it's beautifully set up and wrings out as much emotional content as possible from the given situation and characters. To me, that's Yimou's main focus in making this film, and he carries it off well.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
I think Yimou's directorial style is in abundance in this film, and, while there are the 'cool' scenes/shots, at its core, it develops into a love story, and its scale is much smaller than "Hero" and not even the same type of story.
By the end of the film, I got caught up in 3rd act, and I think it's beautifully set up and wrings out as much emotional content as possible from the given situation and characters. To me, that's Yimou's main focus in making this film, and he carries it off well.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
Closer
"Closer" is a story on how the lives of 4 people intersecting in the oddest ways to produce heartache and lust in the various straight pairings that occurs between them all. The backdrop of the setting being London never quite overshadows the core of the story, but adds a bit of flavor (and thankfully doesn't dredge up any memories of Notting Hill).
The screenplay was very tight, always moving forward, almost at too quick a pace, the dialogue was as sharp as it needed to be to propel the plot along briskly. Mike Nichols does a good job directing not only the material, but the actors as well. He's on quite a roll this year (the other good effort for him being "Angels in America" on HBO).
The performances by the 4 principal actors (Natalie Portman, Jude Law, Julia Roberts, and Clive Owens) were all up to the task of the material, but I think I'd give the edge to Clive Owen in the acting category for this film over his cohorts, he is what his character is, with not much "star" baggage and, boy, does he live up to the "all's fair in love and war" motto.
Yes, for fans of Natalie, this film represents a departure from her earlier work, with a more brazen adult role in terms of occupation (stripper) while still holding on to an emotionally immature outlook on love and life that fits with her character's age.
Julia Roberts didn't annoy me as much, though her character is internally and emotionally messy. Jude Law's charm helps glide his character through the film, but his self-destructive romantic side gets the better of him all throughout the film.
Anyhow, a good flick that is hard to look away from because it is like a shark, always moving forward, damn the consequences.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
The screenplay was very tight, always moving forward, almost at too quick a pace, the dialogue was as sharp as it needed to be to propel the plot along briskly. Mike Nichols does a good job directing not only the material, but the actors as well. He's on quite a roll this year (the other good effort for him being "Angels in America" on HBO).
The performances by the 4 principal actors (Natalie Portman, Jude Law, Julia Roberts, and Clive Owens) were all up to the task of the material, but I think I'd give the edge to Clive Owen in the acting category for this film over his cohorts, he is what his character is, with not much "star" baggage and, boy, does he live up to the "all's fair in love and war" motto.
Yes, for fans of Natalie, this film represents a departure from her earlier work, with a more brazen adult role in terms of occupation (stripper) while still holding on to an emotionally immature outlook on love and life that fits with her character's age.
Julia Roberts didn't annoy me as much, though her character is internally and emotionally messy. Jude Law's charm helps glide his character through the film, but his self-destructive romantic side gets the better of him all throughout the film.
Anyhow, a good flick that is hard to look away from because it is like a shark, always moving forward, damn the consequences.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
Sideways
Alexander Payne manages to balance a child-like outlook with the weight-of-the-world weary outlook in this film pairing up Jack, man-child, (Thomas Haden Church) and his best man Miles (Paul Giamatti) on a road trip for Jack's last week as a free man before he gets married.
Jack and Miles are very funny together and know how to push each other's buttons, and share a long history of friendship, which requires both to accept the other's faults, pretty much unconditionally as this yarn is unravelled to many comedic, honest, and true moments.
The film gives the viewers a cursory look into the world of wine-tasting, and all the nuances that go into it. This springboards into using wine as a metaphor for life, a scene that Virginia Madsen nails as Mya when she and Miles discuss how they developed their passion for wine. Sandra Oh is also good as Stephanie, a cool chick that Jack is immediately attracted to, and Jack experiences a whirlwind romance within that week that almost defies belief, but it's so much fun, it's easy to overlook otherwise.
Giamatti is the emotional anchor for the film, and he gives us an all-too-flawed human character who's emotionally adrift, but wants desperately to find solid ground again and set down some roots and be considered someone worthwhile, which gets some play in his quest to become a published author.
A solid film, and one worth looking out for if you're in the mood for strong characterizations and some good comedic bits that buoy the film throughout this particularly life-affirming week between Jack and Miles.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
Jack and Miles are very funny together and know how to push each other's buttons, and share a long history of friendship, which requires both to accept the other's faults, pretty much unconditionally as this yarn is unravelled to many comedic, honest, and true moments.
The film gives the viewers a cursory look into the world of wine-tasting, and all the nuances that go into it. This springboards into using wine as a metaphor for life, a scene that Virginia Madsen nails as Mya when she and Miles discuss how they developed their passion for wine. Sandra Oh is also good as Stephanie, a cool chick that Jack is immediately attracted to, and Jack experiences a whirlwind romance within that week that almost defies belief, but it's so much fun, it's easy to overlook otherwise.
Giamatti is the emotional anchor for the film, and he gives us an all-too-flawed human character who's emotionally adrift, but wants desperately to find solid ground again and set down some roots and be considered someone worthwhile, which gets some play in his quest to become a published author.
A solid film, and one worth looking out for if you're in the mood for strong characterizations and some good comedic bits that buoy the film throughout this particularly life-affirming week between Jack and Miles.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
Alexander
I suggest the alternate title to "Alexander" be "Welcome to Master Over-acting Thespian Theatre".
OMG, I thought I was forewarned as to the suckitude that is this movie, but I was wrong. Yes, I stayed for all 3 hours, probably the minimal optimist in me playing a dastardly trick on me.
The film does do such a poor job in setting up the crew of supporting characters that nothing that happens towards the last hour resonates at all because they are just there to make Alexander's life miserable, but the viewer has no idea why they should care about the supporting characters, or their motivation besides the superficial one.
The accents are all over the place, Colin Farrell tries to flatten out his Irish accent, but it just comes off sounding Irish, but stilted. Angelina Jolie does more of a strange slavic/Russian type of accent that's so out of place, it's like she's from a different movie and stumbled onto the "Alexander" set by accident. I have no idea what Rosario Dawson was going for with that accent she attempted to sound exotic and eastern.
The early battle scenes are pretty chaotic and nutty against a dusty backdrop, and the even nuttier battle scenes in the last hour in the woods is just bizarre and even more baffling in some respects.
The acting is so over-the-top and gag-inducing, the movie is overwrought, and overly long. The story is presented with little in terms of flow, and there is a flashback is so oddly placed, the structure of the narrative gets undermined. Since the supporting characters aren't developed all that well, the drive of such grand ambition by Alexander never gives the endeavor of conquering eastward the world any real true worth, it gets reduced to a "well, because he can" affirmation of his worth as a king.
Unless you need the sleep, stay away from this movie.
I give it 1.5 stars, or a grade of D+.
OMG, I thought I was forewarned as to the suckitude that is this movie, but I was wrong. Yes, I stayed for all 3 hours, probably the minimal optimist in me playing a dastardly trick on me.
The film does do such a poor job in setting up the crew of supporting characters that nothing that happens towards the last hour resonates at all because they are just there to make Alexander's life miserable, but the viewer has no idea why they should care about the supporting characters, or their motivation besides the superficial one.
The accents are all over the place, Colin Farrell tries to flatten out his Irish accent, but it just comes off sounding Irish, but stilted. Angelina Jolie does more of a strange slavic/Russian type of accent that's so out of place, it's like she's from a different movie and stumbled onto the "Alexander" set by accident. I have no idea what Rosario Dawson was going for with that accent she attempted to sound exotic and eastern.
The early battle scenes are pretty chaotic and nutty against a dusty backdrop, and the even nuttier battle scenes in the last hour in the woods is just bizarre and even more baffling in some respects.
The acting is so over-the-top and gag-inducing, the movie is overwrought, and overly long. The story is presented with little in terms of flow, and there is a flashback is so oddly placed, the structure of the narrative gets undermined. Since the supporting characters aren't developed all that well, the drive of such grand ambition by Alexander never gives the endeavor of conquering eastward the world any real true worth, it gets reduced to a "well, because he can" affirmation of his worth as a king.
Unless you need the sleep, stay away from this movie.
I give it 1.5 stars, or a grade of D+.
Alfie
I almost forgot I had seen this film a few weeks ago, but it didn't leave much of an impression of me, save Sienna Miller (probably the only reason I considered checking it out). Alfie is a self-involved, shallow character, and the circumstances that unfold to make him a more mature person who thinks less of his needs and more of others never really rang true. Then again, most films where the main character breaks the 4th wall seldom produce a convincing character that seems capable of true, lasting change and personal growth as the film draws to an end.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
National Treasure
Simply put, this movie is a star vehicle for Nicolas Cage where the star's cinematic charisma carries the film for most of the movie, and it either sinks or swims on the said charisma and watchability factor.
That being said, if you want a film heavy on plot, short on character development, and treats it like a treasure hunt of major proportions, I think you'll enjoy this film, as did most of the audience in attendance at the viewing I took in this afternoon.
Early on, the funny quips and exasperative bits seemed a little forced by the sidekick character, Riley, but as the plot unravels, Riley's comments get funnier, and the movie becomes a nice, tidy, amusement park ride. Does Cage sleep-walk through this role, yes, a little bit, and his chemistry with his on-screen dad, Jon Voigt, was okay. Diana Krueger isn't a good actress, but she's mighty easy on the eyes. Throw in some heist-like sequences, some big booms (after all, this is a Jerry Bruckheimer production), plenty of chase scenes, and the hope that there will be a payoff of mammouth proportions, you get a crowd-pleaser of a movie.
So, yes, it's somewhat movie-by-the-numbers, but as a genre piece, I still would recommend it for anyone looking for 2 hours of good escapist fare.
I give it 3 stars or a grade of B for knowing what it is, and staying true to its scope.
That being said, if you want a film heavy on plot, short on character development, and treats it like a treasure hunt of major proportions, I think you'll enjoy this film, as did most of the audience in attendance at the viewing I took in this afternoon.
Early on, the funny quips and exasperative bits seemed a little forced by the sidekick character, Riley, but as the plot unravels, Riley's comments get funnier, and the movie becomes a nice, tidy, amusement park ride. Does Cage sleep-walk through this role, yes, a little bit, and his chemistry with his on-screen dad, Jon Voigt, was okay. Diana Krueger isn't a good actress, but she's mighty easy on the eyes. Throw in some heist-like sequences, some big booms (after all, this is a Jerry Bruckheimer production), plenty of chase scenes, and the hope that there will be a payoff of mammouth proportions, you get a crowd-pleaser of a movie.
So, yes, it's somewhat movie-by-the-numbers, but as a genre piece, I still would recommend it for anyone looking for 2 hours of good escapist fare.
I give it 3 stars or a grade of B for knowing what it is, and staying true to its scope.
After The Sunset
There was no juice, no pizazz, to the film, it's directed rather lazily, and the cat-n-mouse games between Brosnan's and Harrelson's characters didn't really engage me fully as a viewer. Similar in theme, "The Thomas Crown Affair" was a much more entertaining film than "After the Sunset".
I never really bought into the chemistry between the Brosnan and Hayek characters, and the female Jamaican cop character was a caricature as well.
Sure, there are some fun bits here and there (male bonding between thief and FBI agent), but they don't add up to a satisfying macro storyline.
I give it 2.5 stars or a grade of C+.
I never really bought into the chemistry between the Brosnan and Hayek characters, and the female Jamaican cop character was a caricature as well.
Sure, there are some fun bits here and there (male bonding between thief and FBI agent), but they don't add up to a satisfying macro storyline.
I give it 2.5 stars or a grade of C+.
The Polar Express
I was very interested to see it due to the combination of using motion-capture and textured CGI for rendering the entire film, as it offers the director an enormous amount of freedom in utilizing the actor's acting for each role in the film, and placing it into the film from any camera angle possible.
Well, I came away from this "exercise" mildly bored from the film. There are a lot of "Cool, look what we can do with this technology!" scenes that really don't add to the meat of the story for the film, but just feel like padding out a story that didn't need to be 90 minutes long, or even 60 minutes long.
What sort of bothered me about this new motion-capture/CGI technique is that the eyes for the characters just don't look or move "right", they just have that doll-like sparkle to them, not a more realistic feel to them, and it distracted me to no end.
The other thing I wasn't crazy about was Tom Hanks' voices for multiple characters because his voice is too distinctive at parts, and it destroys the illusion of different characters, different voices.
I'd suggest ratcheting down your expectations if you plan on seeing this "experiment" of a film.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
Well, I came away from this "exercise" mildly bored from the film. There are a lot of "Cool, look what we can do with this technology!" scenes that really don't add to the meat of the story for the film, but just feel like padding out a story that didn't need to be 90 minutes long, or even 60 minutes long.
What sort of bothered me about this new motion-capture/CGI technique is that the eyes for the characters just don't look or move "right", they just have that doll-like sparkle to them, not a more realistic feel to them, and it distracted me to no end.
The other thing I wasn't crazy about was Tom Hanks' voices for multiple characters because his voice is too distinctive at parts, and it destroys the illusion of different characters, different voices.
I'd suggest ratcheting down your expectations if you plan on seeing this "experiment" of a film.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
The Incredibles
I think the first hour of the film stumbles a bit, more along the lines of "is there a good payoff for this detour?" and then when you get there, there isn't a truly interesting payoff for that arc, especially when the big bad is pretty much telegraphed, and the villainous actions just compels the retired heroes into protective mode for their family members. But, the 2nd hour offers much more in terms of super-powers on display and it's fun to watch because it's full-tilt action and spectacle. I think there's about 10 minutes that could have been pruned from this film and still have the core story be just as fun to watch.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Finding Neverland
Tonight I caught a sneak peak showing of "Finding Neverland", a film inspired by the story of how James Barrie came to befriend a widow with 4 boys, and how that friendship provided the inspiration for Barrie to write "Peter Pan," a play/story that has enthralled the young and old alike for a century now.
Johnny Depp is very good in his role as Barrie (though his accent sounded more Irish than Scottish, and Barrie was born a Scot, but moved to London, so why he sounded Irish, I have no idea, maybe Scots in 1904 sounded Irish, but it's just a minor quibble). Kate Winslet is also up to the task as Sylvia Llewelyn Davies, the widow with 4 boys. The Llewelyn Davies boys are good, but the boy (Freddie Highmore) playing Peter was really good in capturing the complexity of childhood and having to deal with his father's early demise from a child's perspective where the world appears to be a fair place to live, but events conspire to take away that worldview in the blink of an eye.
I normally don't tear up at movies, but there is something about how this film builds up the relationships, confronts the age of innocence and the question of just when does it end, and adulthood begin. There's a subtle moment in the film that captures that transition, and you can't help but get teary-eyed as Barrie does what he knows best to stave off adulthood trappings as best he can for the boys (and perhaps himself as well) by writing the play, but it's a losing battle in some respects, but in others, his enduring play gives the audience a chance to recapture that innocent time where all things are possible and magic is part and parcel with that special place in one's heart, Neverland, where the best of everything is waiting for each one of us regardless of the events of adulthood that work to erode that child-like perspective in all of us.
By the end of the film, not a dry eye in the house, and each tear and sniffle was earned by a worthy screenplay, solid direction, and very good acting performances all around. The film draws on the emotional power of finding a way to access your own personal Neverland in order to deal with what life has in store for you.
I give it 3.75 stars, or a grade of A-.
Johnny Depp is very good in his role as Barrie (though his accent sounded more Irish than Scottish, and Barrie was born a Scot, but moved to London, so why he sounded Irish, I have no idea, maybe Scots in 1904 sounded Irish, but it's just a minor quibble). Kate Winslet is also up to the task as Sylvia Llewelyn Davies, the widow with 4 boys. The Llewelyn Davies boys are good, but the boy (Freddie Highmore) playing Peter was really good in capturing the complexity of childhood and having to deal with his father's early demise from a child's perspective where the world appears to be a fair place to live, but events conspire to take away that worldview in the blink of an eye.
I normally don't tear up at movies, but there is something about how this film builds up the relationships, confronts the age of innocence and the question of just when does it end, and adulthood begin. There's a subtle moment in the film that captures that transition, and you can't help but get teary-eyed as Barrie does what he knows best to stave off adulthood trappings as best he can for the boys (and perhaps himself as well) by writing the play, but it's a losing battle in some respects, but in others, his enduring play gives the audience a chance to recapture that innocent time where all things are possible and magic is part and parcel with that special place in one's heart, Neverland, where the best of everything is waiting for each one of us regardless of the events of adulthood that work to erode that child-like perspective in all of us.
By the end of the film, not a dry eye in the house, and each tear and sniffle was earned by a worthy screenplay, solid direction, and very good acting performances all around. The film draws on the emotional power of finding a way to access your own personal Neverland in order to deal with what life has in store for you.
I give it 3.75 stars, or a grade of A-.
Ray
I didn't have a lot of baggage (knowledge of Ray Charles' personal life) when I saw this film, so for me, what unfolded before my eyes was an engaging look at the early decades of Ray Charles. The film did its best to balance out his musical talent, his business acument, and his battle with a heroin addiction upon reflection of his life and times.
I enjoyed how the inspiration of many of Ray's hits was depicted in a string of vignettes, though if life were only that simple: have a life crisis, and get a hit single from the experience, then more people would have hits on a continuous basis.
Jamie Foxx WAS Ray Charles, he simply melted into the person that was Ray, and his performance went beyond impersonation, but rather went deeper into channeling Ray's spirit in this cinematic effort put his life's story on film.
I knew I was getting invested in the film when I started to sit up in my seat, as Ray's career takes off, the darker side of his heroin addiction threatened to take it all away. There is no way a 150 minute film can cover the entire life of Ray Charles, but the glimpse into Ray's formative is enough for an entertaining and somber look into what personal demons drove this talented blind musician to conquer many musical genres, fusing different genres and creating new ones, and brought together people of all races with the power of his songs, even if it meant taking a stand in Georgia in the 1960s.
I am happy to say my audience applauded when the end credits started rolling.
I give this film 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+. Jamie Foxx gets an A for his performance.
I enjoyed how the inspiration of many of Ray's hits was depicted in a string of vignettes, though if life were only that simple: have a life crisis, and get a hit single from the experience, then more people would have hits on a continuous basis.
Jamie Foxx WAS Ray Charles, he simply melted into the person that was Ray, and his performance went beyond impersonation, but rather went deeper into channeling Ray's spirit in this cinematic effort put his life's story on film.
I knew I was getting invested in the film when I started to sit up in my seat, as Ray's career takes off, the darker side of his heroin addiction threatened to take it all away. There is no way a 150 minute film can cover the entire life of Ray Charles, but the glimpse into Ray's formative is enough for an entertaining and somber look into what personal demons drove this talented blind musician to conquer many musical genres, fusing different genres and creating new ones, and brought together people of all races with the power of his songs, even if it meant taking a stand in Georgia in the 1960s.
I am happy to say my audience applauded when the end credits started rolling.
I give this film 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+. Jamie Foxx gets an A for his performance.
Saw
Horrible movie, don't waste your time on it, if you are on the fence to see it. The 3rd act is so bad, it's laughably bad, and bewildering. I feel bad for most of the cast in this movie, I'd be embarrassed if I were Cary Elwes, his acting was so over the top and horribly inconsistent. Danny Glover needs to find a new agent if he's being reduced to do movies like this.
I give it 1 star, or a grade of D.
I give it 1 star, or a grade of D.
I Heart Huckabees
I had a good time watching this film. The dinner scene with Steve's sponsor family almost killed me. The dialogue was entertaining, the physical humor, while sparse, hits the mark more times than not. The ideas between the "warring" factions produced some unintended side-effects for the unsuspecting disciples. The performances never grated on my nerves, which can happen with off-beat films.
Mark Wahlberg's character started out so off the wall, but by the end, he was probably the most honest character in terms of outlook, and won me over.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Mark Wahlberg's character started out so off the wall, but by the end, he was probably the most honest character in terms of outlook, and won me over.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
The Grudge
I ended up laughing more than I should have, but some of the extended stuff just didn't make any sense, and left me going "WTF?"
As others have noted, minimal character intros or development hampered this movie (why should I care about these people who visit this house from hell?).
The mood was good in spots, but the film never has enough story to elevates itself out of its genre. The 3rd act is confusing as hell in an obtuse way, an unproductive manner.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
As others have noted, minimal character intros or development hampered this movie (why should I care about these people who visit this house from hell?).
The mood was good in spots, but the film never has enough story to elevates itself out of its genre. The 3rd act is confusing as hell in an obtuse way, an unproductive manner.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
Friday Night Lights
Finally got a chance to see this film, and I was glad I didn't read the book, or any plot details, because I got hooked into what would develop for this high school football team given the setbacks it faced, and how luck plays a part in the game of life, not just in football.
How fleeting is the moment in time to create lasting high school sport memories? The film captures that aspect very well, and in spite of giving one's all in that moment, life lessons, large and small, are imparted with the speed of a blitzing linebacker meeting a running back in the backfield.
A common criticism of the film is the lack of character development, but I think the team development was emphasized more, while also addressing the different types of self-doubt and issues from these high school football players. For its running time, I think the film was cut down to basics to focus on 4 main players and how their home life shaped their play on the field.
I recommend it for fans of sports films, and especially football films.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
How fleeting is the moment in time to create lasting high school sport memories? The film captures that aspect very well, and in spite of giving one's all in that moment, life lessons, large and small, are imparted with the speed of a blitzing linebacker meeting a running back in the backfield.
A common criticism of the film is the lack of character development, but I think the team development was emphasized more, while also addressing the different types of self-doubt and issues from these high school football players. For its running time, I think the film was cut down to basics to focus on 4 main players and how their home life shaped their play on the field.
I recommend it for fans of sports films, and especially football films.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Team America
I felt a little self-conscious because a bunch of kids were sitting in the row behind me, and they were all in that 10-12 year old range, and while the puppet-sex scenes were funny, hearing the kids snicker at the same scenes and repeating the lines right after they heard them as kids do for cussing dialogue, and then have them subjected to Gary proving his trustworthiness at the end made watching the film not as fun for me.
Overall, not a great movie, thinly veiled metaphors, and overdone ham-fisted attempts at lambasting their targets (outspoken Hollywood actors, etc) overstayed its welcome.
I'll give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
Overall, not a great movie, thinly veiled metaphors, and overdone ham-fisted attempts at lambasting their targets (outspoken Hollywood actors, etc) overstayed its welcome.
I'll give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
The Forgotten
I'm not sure what the film thought it wanted to be, so I think the first half is better than the second half. The film leaves too many questions unanswered for my curiosity, so I am not as high on it as I could have been given the setup.
Julianne Moore is good, but, goodness, she does a lot of physical running in this movie, and that made it feel like just filler to pad out the film, while shortchanging the viewer on the last act of the film.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
Julianne Moore is good, but, goodness, she does a lot of physical running in this movie, and that made it feel like just filler to pad out the film, while shortchanging the viewer on the last act of the film.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
Shaun of the Dead
Very solid zombie movie, with plenty of laughs to go around. For the most part, you're laughing with the main characters, not at them, so that's a big positive going for this movie. If you're into zombie movies, I think you'll really enjoy it.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Wimbledon
"Wimbledon" is pretty as fluffy as you imagine it would be just based on the ads and trailers for the film. But the 2 leads (Kirsten Dunst and Paul Bettany) have good chemistry in this whirlwind romance in a fortnight at Wimbledon.
Predictable, probably. Sappy, yes. Watchable, yup. Just don't expect more out of it than what has been advertised.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
Predictable, probably. Sappy, yes. Watchable, yup. Just don't expect more out of it than what has been advertised.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
I think I need to see this film again because I wasn't feeling the love for this film. I admit to be a little tired from the work week, so a few parts had me snoozing, plus the washed out cinematography got bland for me after a while.
Now, the set design/visuals were pretty good, but the story never grabbed me, and the characters never got inside my head, so the resolution from the last act just didn't really do much for me.
I'm going to hold off on an overall ranking until I see it again on in a not-so-tired state. But at this time, I give the visuals a solid B+, while the story gets a C from me.
Okay, thought about it:
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
Now, the set design/visuals were pretty good, but the story never grabbed me, and the characters never got inside my head, so the resolution from the last act just didn't really do much for me.
I'm going to hold off on an overall ranking until I see it again on in a not-so-tired state. But at this time, I give the visuals a solid B+, while the story gets a C from me.
Okay, thought about it:
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
Open Waters
Given the setup of how this scenario could happen (2 people being stuck in the middle of the ocean and left behind by their deep water diving boat tour), I wasn't all that impressed with how this film unravelled itself, though the predictable finger-pointing between the boyfriend and girlfriend as to how they got themselves into this predicament did lend itself to some amusing verbal jabs. Perhaps I needed some dramamine before viewing this film too.
Anyhow, I recommend as a rental at best.
I give it 2 stars or a grade of C.
Anyhow, I recommend as a rental at best.
I give it 2 stars or a grade of C.
Priness Diaries 2
Okay, I'll step up on the plate give a quick review of this followup to 2001's "The Princess Diaries".
I liked this film mainly for the characters, and their interaction with each other, plus there are many "throwaway" bits that made me laugh and contribute to the overall tone of the film. Many of the smaller roles produce good laughs (the maids, and the royal court "yeller") throughout the movie.
While not the most original of plots, I found the characters being more earnest and real enough to feel their pain and joy, director Gary Marshall finds a way for the audience to gain a foothold with the characters, and creates empathy for them.
Anne Hathaway has nice screen presence, and a nice comedic flair that seldom fails to amuse me. Julie Andrews and Hector Elizondo are good, but conflicted in their supporting roles due to the plotline, and a few characters from the first film also make their way to this followup.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
I liked this film mainly for the characters, and their interaction with each other, plus there are many "throwaway" bits that made me laugh and contribute to the overall tone of the film. Many of the smaller roles produce good laughs (the maids, and the royal court "yeller") throughout the movie.
While not the most original of plots, I found the characters being more earnest and real enough to feel their pain and joy, director Gary Marshall finds a way for the audience to gain a foothold with the characters, and creates empathy for them.
Anne Hathaway has nice screen presence, and a nice comedic flair that seldom fails to amuse me. Julie Andrews and Hector Elizondo are good, but conflicted in their supporting roles due to the plotline, and a few characters from the first film also make their way to this followup.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Garden State
Garnering very positive word of mouth, I was apprehensive about "Garden State", would it deliver the goods?
I'm happy to say that amidst all the very funny scenes and cutaways (Braff was obviously paying attention while working on his TV show, Scrubs), there is enough dramatic meat in Zach's character's (Andrew Largeman) story as a guy in his mid-20s returning home to bury his mother, and what coming home means to his outlook on life based on his past.
Natalie Portman's role of Sam is not underwritten and Braff's script gives Portman plenty of room to provide us with a very quirky, but real character whose flaws actually solidify her value to Largeman in his short time home.
It's worth seeking out a nearby theater and seeing this film with an audience, the gags are very funny, and the film is poignant in speaking towards that mid-20's period of confusion that many of us (older) can identify with and look back on with genuine reflection.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
I'm happy to say that amidst all the very funny scenes and cutaways (Braff was obviously paying attention while working on his TV show, Scrubs), there is enough dramatic meat in Zach's character's (Andrew Largeman) story as a guy in his mid-20s returning home to bury his mother, and what coming home means to his outlook on life based on his past.
Natalie Portman's role of Sam is not underwritten and Braff's script gives Portman plenty of room to provide us with a very quirky, but real character whose flaws actually solidify her value to Largeman in his short time home.
It's worth seeking out a nearby theater and seeing this film with an audience, the gags are very funny, and the film is poignant in speaking towards that mid-20's period of confusion that many of us (older) can identify with and look back on with genuine reflection.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
Aliens vs. Predator
Whew, a cash grab of non-monumental proportions.
Didn't care who lived or died, didn't care for the back history of predators, aliens, and humans tied together. For most of the last 2/3 of the film, folks are just running and gunning for their lives. Ho-hum.
I give it 1 star, or a grade of D.
Didn't care who lived or died, didn't care for the back history of predators, aliens, and humans tied together. For most of the last 2/3 of the film, folks are just running and gunning for their lives. Ho-hum.
I give it 1 star, or a grade of D.
Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle
Comedies aspire to make the viewers laugh, and on that criteria, this film did not let me down. Some of the scenes were very LOL funny, while others were amusing, though there are a few detours that seemed to be channeling the Coen brothers in strangeness, but thankfully those scenes are few and far between. I also felt the middle dragged just a bit, but overall, a fun time.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
Collteral
You know, people die in this movie, but I couldn't help but laugh with some of the situations in which the humor came shining through the dark of night in L.A.
There's a lot to like about this film, and the direction appeared effortless (in that I never thought the camerawork got in the way of telling the story or never missed the inner turmoil/conflict that Max has as he is coerced into driving Vincent around for a night of contract killings).
Both Cruise and Fox do a fine job needling each other and chipping away at each other's exteriors in the span of their starcrossed night together.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
There's a lot to like about this film, and the direction appeared effortless (in that I never thought the camerawork got in the way of telling the story or never missed the inner turmoil/conflict that Max has as he is coerced into driving Vincent around for a night of contract killings).
Both Cruise and Fox do a fine job needling each other and chipping away at each other's exteriors in the span of their starcrossed night together.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
The Manchurian Candidate
I liked the original more, and the remake is probably 15 minutes too long, but the performances are overall pretty good. The re-imagined ending was too predictable to a fault.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
The Village
M. Night meets the Blair Witch...blindfolded. Overall, a bloated film that could easily been pared down by an hour, which sadly means that there's not a lot of meat on the bones of this film. This is the second M. Night film in a row that has failed to impress me. One of these days M. Night will make a conventional, but thought-provoking film with plenty of emotional content. This film wasn't it.
I'll give it 1.75 stars, or a grade of C-.
I'll give it 1.75 stars, or a grade of C-.
The Bourne Supremacy
I think I liked this followup from the initial entry into the Jason Bourne film franchise. The film plowed through its plot nicely, and the action scenes got a bit too chaotic to really enjoy any of it (perhaps that was the point). There were plenty of twists and turns, plus the usual cat-n-mouse games on display. I did think that the film missed on the inner workings of Bourne's state of mind, so there is less of a connection to him from an audience point of view.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Catwoman
I thought I was prepared for the suckitude that this movie would wrought, but I so wrong in that assessment.
Holy mother of Murgatroyd, this movie was rancid. It was so bad that I didn't even mind the 2 babies who cried throughout the movie.
I give it 1/2 star, or a grade of D-.
Holy mother of Murgatroyd, this movie was rancid. It was so bad that I didn't even mind the 2 babies who cried throughout the movie.
I give it 1/2 star, or a grade of D-.
I, Robot
Where to start? The film over-reached, and the payoff is pretty poor.
The setup in the 1st act was so-so, and the 2nd act had one of the most uninteresting fast-moving action sequences in recent cinematic history for me. The 3rd act was entertaining from a visual effects perspective, but it was never quite integrated well enough to get me to suspend my disbelief.
The Susan Calvin I remember from reading Asimov's Robot stories and novels would have been much more cold and clinical, and Bridget Moynahan was not up to the task. Hell, Bridget got hotter as the movie progressed, and that should have never happened. Will Smith has very little to work with, and it shows scene after scene.
Of course, I groaned as I saw Akiva Goldsman's name scroll up in the end credits. I should have known.
I give it 2 stars or a grade of C (I'm being kind).
The setup in the 1st act was so-so, and the 2nd act had one of the most uninteresting fast-moving action sequences in recent cinematic history for me. The 3rd act was entertaining from a visual effects perspective, but it was never quite integrated well enough to get me to suspend my disbelief.
The Susan Calvin I remember from reading Asimov's Robot stories and novels would have been much more cold and clinical, and Bridget Moynahan was not up to the task. Hell, Bridget got hotter as the movie progressed, and that should have never happened. Will Smith has very little to work with, and it shows scene after scene.
Of course, I groaned as I saw Akiva Goldsman's name scroll up in the end credits. I should have known.
I give it 2 stars or a grade of C (I'm being kind).
Napolean Dynamite
I have no idea how to review this film. It got quite a few uncomfortable laughs out of me, and it was just so bizarre and pitiful at times, you just wonder how these characters function from minute to minute, much less from scene to scene. Having a lead character whose mouth is pretty much agape all the time, while looking down in most scenes was just stressful and uninvolving. Napolean is pretty crabby, and a dorkish personality, and there's no pretense to make him all that sympathetic, which was refreshing. Oddly enough, it made him more 3-dimensional, though his personality is flat and oddly harsh at times.
The strange friendship between Napolean and Pedro has to be one of the most low energy friendships ever captured on film. Napoleon's courtship of Deb also qualifies as one low-ebb connection, so odd, indeed. Napolean's brother and his uncle also provide some awfully strange subplots.
Did I laugh during this film? Yes. I just can't tell if I was laughing at the film, or with the film.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
The strange friendship between Napolean and Pedro has to be one of the most low energy friendships ever captured on film. Napoleon's courtship of Deb also qualifies as one low-ebb connection, so odd, indeed. Napolean's brother and his uncle also provide some awfully strange subplots.
Did I laugh during this film? Yes. I just can't tell if I was laughing at the film, or with the film.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
Anchorman
I had reservations going into this film, and the first 10-15 minutes of the film was uninspired and dull, but then it takes off during the "Yazz Flute" scene and gets kicked it into another gear, and produced a lot of laughs for me throughout the rest of the movie.
Don't go in expecting a tightly plotted comedy, and you won't be let down. I literally was slapping my knee and laughing heartily at many of the scenes in this movie. Will Ferrell's Ron the achorman could have easily been a dullard and uninteresting, but Ferrell's antic keep the laughs coming during Ron's stressful times, and adds just enough character growth to be sympathetic in the end. The Brick character (an insanely stupid weatherman) should have been one-note and lackluster in concept, but he just got funnier and funnier as the movie progressed. There is an interesting homage to West Side story in the movie, and it proved to be very amusing (though a bit graphic as it played out).
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Don't go in expecting a tightly plotted comedy, and you won't be let down. I literally was slapping my knee and laughing heartily at many of the scenes in this movie. Will Ferrell's Ron the achorman could have easily been a dullard and uninteresting, but Ferrell's antic keep the laughs coming during Ron's stressful times, and adds just enough character growth to be sympathetic in the end. The Brick character (an insanely stupid weatherman) should have been one-note and lackluster in concept, but he just got funnier and funnier as the movie progressed. There is an interesting homage to West Side story in the movie, and it proved to be very amusing (though a bit graphic as it played out).
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
King Arthur
This film suffered from inadequate setup, an uninvolving first act, that sprung into a second act that was slow moving, but got a bit better, and finally when we get to the 3rd act, the action is ramped up, but if you never get too attached to the characters, you don't get invested in the outcome as much either.
I'm not sure I've ever seen an action sequence like I did in the middle of the film. While it was cool, it was also clumsily staged and conveyed to the audience. As a viewer, I got a little lost in the action in terms of spacing for the conflict.
The last battle scene in the 3rd act reminded me of The Knights of the Roundtable teaming up with the Smurfs to ward off the Saxons to gain a foothold in Britain.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
I'm not sure I've ever seen an action sequence like I did in the middle of the film. While it was cool, it was also clumsily staged and conveyed to the audience. As a viewer, I got a little lost in the action in terms of spacing for the conflict.
The last battle scene in the 3rd act reminded me of The Knights of the Roundtable teaming up with the Smurfs to ward off the Saxons to gain a foothold in Britain.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Spider-Man 2
Just got back from the midnight showing of Spider-Man 2. It was great to attend it with such an attentive crowd who was totally into this film.
Delving deeper into the sacrifice and psyche of Spider-Man and Peter Parker, the film shows us that the life of a super-hero isn't all that glamourous, but the call to duty and responsibility can't be ignored, regardless of personal ambition and desire.
I had some quibbles with the CGI, it reminded me of the Burly Brawl quality from The Matrix Reloaded when Spidey and Doc Ock were fighting each other, but it was still great to see some amazing comic book fights brought to life on the big screen with such ferocity and speed and power.
There are aspects of this film that call to mind Superman II, and the parallels of how Peter Parker tries to balance his Spider-Man persona and his Peter Parker persona. This film earns the emotional payoff in the 3rd act, and leaves the audience wanting more.
What more could you want in a sequel?
I give it 4 stars, or a grade of A.
Delving deeper into the sacrifice and psyche of Spider-Man and Peter Parker, the film shows us that the life of a super-hero isn't all that glamourous, but the call to duty and responsibility can't be ignored, regardless of personal ambition and desire.
I had some quibbles with the CGI, it reminded me of the Burly Brawl quality from The Matrix Reloaded when Spidey and Doc Ock were fighting each other, but it was still great to see some amazing comic book fights brought to life on the big screen with such ferocity and speed and power.
There are aspects of this film that call to mind Superman II, and the parallels of how Peter Parker tries to balance his Spider-Man persona and his Peter Parker persona. This film earns the emotional payoff in the 3rd act, and leaves the audience wanting more.
What more could you want in a sequel?
I give it 4 stars, or a grade of A.
White Chicks
Say what you will, yup, it's a lewd, crude, send-up of FBI agents (who are brothers, and black) going undercover as rich, white girls to get themselves out of an assignment that goes wrong.
There were points in this film that made me laugh so hard that I was sitting up and leaning forward. The audience appears to have a good time with the film as well. I felt the foot pounding in the seating from the audience as they laughed at the funny scenes. The physical comedy is very entertaining.
The plot is pretty simple, and linear, but getting from the start to the finish was a fun ride that doesn't quite over-stay its welcome.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
There were points in this film that made me laugh so hard that I was sitting up and leaning forward. The audience appears to have a good time with the film as well. I felt the foot pounding in the seating from the audience as they laughed at the funny scenes. The physical comedy is very entertaining.
The plot is pretty simple, and linear, but getting from the start to the finish was a fun ride that doesn't quite over-stay its welcome.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
The Stepford Wives
I felt like a Stepford viewer. Why couldn't I just leave the theater as this movie was unfolding before my very eyes? For me, the movie was completely lackluster. There was no juice to it at all. Couple that with a mismatched explanation of the inner-workings of the town of Stepford that would have better served a Scooby-Doo movie, even the logic the film tried to imply simply doesn't add up, so this was a missed opportunity, and it felt like a story that went from A to C, without having a foundation of A to B and then B to C to support it.
I give it 1.5 stars, or a grade of D+.
I give it 1.5 stars, or a grade of D+.
Dodgeball
I think the movie could have been funnier, and for me the highlight was the training sequence for the Average Joes. I think one-note bad guys get dull really quick, and Ben Stiller's character over-stayed his welcome by over 45 minutes. The celebrity walk-ons were well placed and effective for the storypoint being conveyed.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
The Terminal
I think the film is about how one man, trapped in a terminal due to circumstances beyond his control, can affect many lives around him while the world catches up to set things right. It how the little things in life culminate and make for bigger life-turning moments. Tom Hanks' character, Viktor, is a metaphor for a terminal in that through him, he allows others to make connections that allow them to get from point A to point B (good or bad).
The film opens a bit slowly as Viktor gets acclimated to his new surroundings, but the 2nd act is very entertaining as it shows his resourcefullness to adapt and operate in this strange new "economy" that resides inside a terminal. The 3rd act does its best to tie up the loose ends, some are tied up well, some are left loose.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
The film opens a bit slowly as Viktor gets acclimated to his new surroundings, but the 2nd act is very entertaining as it shows his resourcefullness to adapt and operate in this strange new "economy" that resides inside a terminal. The 3rd act does its best to tie up the loose ends, some are tied up well, some are left loose.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
Garfield
I liked the opening 20-30 minutes of the movie. The animators of Garfield did a pretty fun job of bringing Garfied to the big screen as a CGI-character. I laughed a lot at the cat-related humor (cat aficionados will like the movie more than non-cat aficionados). The use of Bill Murray's voice as Garfield worked for me. The singing numbers also made use of Murray's penchant for lounge singing. The dancing sequences were funny to me.
The humans in the film have pretty thankless roles, and are pretty much the props that propel the paper-thin plot forward. Don't expect much from Breckin Myer or Jennifer Love Hewitt, they are just part of the scenery, for the most part. But the interplay between John and Garfield did garner some laughs from me from time to time.
Once the "plot" gets going, it gets a bit too "serious" and the fun factor seems to dry up quick. The ending can't quite elevate the film from being kiddie fare, but I've seen less funnier comedies, so it wasn't all bad.
I give it 2 stars or a grade of C.
The humans in the film have pretty thankless roles, and are pretty much the props that propel the paper-thin plot forward. Don't expect much from Breckin Myer or Jennifer Love Hewitt, they are just part of the scenery, for the most part. But the interplay between John and Garfield did garner some laughs from me from time to time.
Once the "plot" gets going, it gets a bit too "serious" and the fun factor seems to dry up quick. The ending can't quite elevate the film from being kiddie fare, but I've seen less funnier comedies, so it wasn't all bad.
I give it 2 stars or a grade of C.
Saved
Instead of a special effects extravanganza, this film is all about characters starting in one place and ending up in a more tolerant place. Definitely a nice change of pace from the summer "blockbusters" which short-change the focus on characters for spectacle.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
Chronicles of Riddick
I think Riddick was the problem with the film because his character is just too two-dimensional, and the quips don't quite flow well enough for me to really "get" Riddick.
The sets, and the effects were nice eye candy, I liked the designs of the ships and locales on different planets.
The pacing of the plot left a bit to be desired, it's just too haphazardly done in many spots.
I didn't quite get really into the Necromonger (the antagonists) either. Perhaps not enough menace in such a conquering force of the galaxy. Of course, for me, the problems of conquering any lands is that pre-occupation is the bigger headache than the actual conquering. Oh well.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
The sets, and the effects were nice eye candy, I liked the designs of the ships and locales on different planets.
The pacing of the plot left a bit to be desired, it's just too haphazardly done in many spots.
I didn't quite get really into the Necromonger (the antagonists) either. Perhaps not enough menace in such a conquering force of the galaxy. Of course, for me, the problems of conquering any lands is that pre-occupation is the bigger headache than the actual conquering. Oh well.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)