Bill's Movie Reviews

The Adventures of Tintin (2011)

2012-01-25T12:51:00.001-06:00

With the introduction of Netflix into our house, I feel it's time to get back on the the horse I abandoned nearly 4 years ago - the posting of movie reviews. I'll be working on posting more reviews in this space because 1) the Internet gives me an undeserved-by-merit platform for airing my views that I can't pass up, and 2) I want to get back in the habit of writing stuff instead of just reading it. I need to stretch my language skills a bit more.

So, onward to The Adventures of Tintin.
I confess to not being a huge fan of Hergé's comics in the sense that I've never sought them out. I stumbled across them every now and then and skimmed them over. So I wasn't entirely enthusiastic about going to see this movie, but it was what the kids wanted to see so off we went (with the in-laws) to see it in 3D.
The general plot revolves around Tintin (voiced by Jamie Bell) getting involuntarily involved in a plot to recover treasure from a sunken ship. The main villain of the piece, Ivan Sakharine (voiced by Daniel Craig), has set about collecting lost clues (one of which Tintin unknowingly obtains) and even kidnapping drunkard Captain Haddock (voiced by Andy Serkis) in his efforts to find the lost wreck.
The action, in this Mediterranean hopping caper, is fast and furious. It is every bit as improbable as the comic book action, which means it is pretty much right in character for Tintin. Being an animated feature, the 3D effect is quite good compared to live action films in which the 3D effects are added to 2D film.
On the topic of the animation, I confess that the first scenes are a big jarring. The movie starts in a public town market with the view focused low. We see bodies moving, gloves, shoes. The fingers are a bit chubby and stubby, reminding us this is animated, though the action is quite smooth. Then you see your first face and are hit with the full realization of the what animation style is in use. I still find it odd to look at faces done with computer graphics, particularly when they try to incorporate depth and other realistic facial features (Captain Haddock's eyes kind of get me and I swear Tintin looks like he was modeled on Ewan McGregor). I still prefer more old school methods of animation in this regard, at least. Still, the technology has improved a lot since The Polar Express (2004). The motion was a lot smoother and realistic (barring the stylistic action sequences), so I have great hope for the future in this field of movie making.
The Adventures of Tintin, on the backside of the camera, is loaded with talent including Steven Spielberg as director (his first animated feature direction credit), Steven Moffat (well known by BBC Wales fans for Sherlock and Doctor Who) and Edgar Wright (known for Scott Pilgrim vs the World and Shaun of the Dead) involved in writing the screenplay, and Peter Jackson as producer. They do not disappoint. Tintin is a thoroughly enjoyable movie.

Grade: B+

Iron Man (2008)

2008-08-11T12:23:00.002-05:00

The first in a series of Marvel Comics's-led adaptations of their own works, Iron Man kicked off the summer superhero blockbuster season with an unqualified success and set the bar very high with the quality of its adaptation.
Iron Man tells the origin tale of the two-toned, armored hero, holding true to the main gist of the original story from the 1960s (set in Vietnam) but updating the specifics to match current events. In the story, Tony Stark (played brilliantly by Robert Downey, Jr.) is a gifted inventor running the family corporation, a corporation substantially built upon military-contract arms manufacturing. When he finds himself the victim of his own weaponry, in the hands of insurgents in Afghanistan, he comes face to face with the legacy of his corporation's line of work. He resolves to change things, but to do so he must first escape his captors and stay alive despite critical injuries he has received. His solution: a suit of powered armor.
Upon his return to the US, Tony Stark radically changes his corporation's direction, much to the dismay of his right-hand man at Stark International, Obadiah Stane (played by Jeff Bridges), and major stockholders. After dropping such a bombshell, Stark largely secludes himself to work on his powered armor, devising a few prototypes, and developing the suit as a tool to make the world a better place.
Downey's portrayal of Tony Stark, based in part on the original comics but also influenced by the later version of Iron Man found in The Ultimates, is like watching the comic character step off the pages. From his womanizing, devil-may-care attitude, to his earnest change of heart and driving genius, Downey doesn't make any missteps in his characterization. It is such a pleasure to watch an actor of his talents, particularly in a men-in-tights movie (even if technically, the tights are made of steel).
Iron Man marks a departure from the previous line of Marvel Comics movies in that Marvel Comics had retained a lot of creative control rather than just farmed the movie rights out. And I believe it shows in the quality of the story, characterizations, and in the relatively seemless fit with traditional Iron Man lore. The story is updated but keeps true to the main core. Traditional characters are in place, including Pepper Pots (played by Gwyneth Paltrow), who is pulled from among the earliest days of the Iron Man stories, even before there was a devoted Iron Man comic. And, if I don't miss my guess, there are bits in the movie that seem to be laying the groundwork for the appearance of an old Iron Man nemesis, the Mandarin, in a potential sequel. If they can keep up this level of quality in the future, I have no qualms with yelling out the old slogan, "Make mine Marvel!"

Grade: A

The Dark Knight (2008)

2008-07-28T23:23:00.002-05:00

The second outing of Batman since the reinvention of the franchise has set the movie-going public into a frenzy. I have never seen a cinema quite so packed on a Tuesday night. But does The Dark Knight deliver?
Yes it does.
Christian Bale seems to have comfortably assumed the Bruce Wayne role, effortlessly shifting from the playboy put-on to action hero. Michael Caine's Alfred skewers with his cutting wit. Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent rides the razor's edge of driven (or maniacal) public servant. And one hopes that Katie Holmes is kicking her husband's ass for interfering with her career and letting her part go to Maggie Gyllenhaal, who does a fine job, by the way.
And then there's the Heath Ledger. The central villain of the piece, the Joker never completely steals the show, which makes this movie a better balanced outing than the Tim Burton version. In fact, he comes across just creepy and tentative at first when we really get to see him dealing with Gotham's underworld. But as the scene unfolds, and the crazy keeps unrolling, the Joker becomes genuinely and brilliantly disturbing. Warped to the core, the Joker brings chaos while the Batman tries to determine his place in Gotham now that his pressure on the gangs have caused them to let a sadistic genie out of the bottle.
The action dark and brutal. The psychological space the movie inhabits matches the action, punch by punch, gunshot by gunshot, as Gotham spirals downward. The body count is substantial and Batman pulls few punches. If I were to find fault with this movie, I would point most to two things: the voice Christian Bale affects as Batman is a hoarse, guttural whisper that sounds so labored that I wish they had come up with some other way for Bruce to disguise his voice in public, and the Batmobile action sequences push the gritty and dark envelope with a bit of cheese. The rest of the movie is an experience to enjoy even while gleefully shuddering at the Joker's explanations for his facial scars...
Grade: A-

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

2008-07-18T15:09:00.000-05:00

In the much balleyhooed return of Indiana Jones to the silver screen, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, we find an older Dr. Jones (Harrison Ford) in the late 1950s, many years after his experiences in the previous three movies. Despite the passing of a good 20+ years, Jones still has a knack for getting into difficult situations from which he must then fight or desperately scramble his way out. Instead of Nazis or Thugees, this time it's Soviet agents under the direction of Doctor Spalko (Cate Blanchett). Both Jones and Spalko are dealing with the same thing, the possibly demented ramblings of one of Jones's colleagues and how they relate to a mystical crystal skull found in ancient Peruvian ruins.
This movie marks the return of Marion Williams, nee Ravenwood (Karen Allen) to Jones's life, but also the introduction of her son Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf) as a rebelious greaser. While I can applaud the return of Marion, I don't think the same chemistry is really there. She still tough as nails, but I don't think there's enough screen time focusing on the two of them (aside from fast-running action sequences) to re-develop the relationship in a way that would be satisfying.
Ultimately, I found the movie to be fairly disappointing. There were a LOT of action sequences that had to fit into the movie because, for some reason, these movies all have to top the last one rather than just be different from the last one. As a result, I felt the rest of the movie kind of rushed. I would even go so far as to compare Crystal Skull's investigative storyline elements to be reminiscent of Dan Brown's novels, too rushed from clue to clue and too patly solved by the main characters.
Plus, the action was along the lines of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade more than Raiders of the Lost Ark, and that means it tripped my "AW, c'mon" reaction more often than I would have liked. I remember that a lot of people criticized the non-stop nature of the action in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and I think they had a point. But it's not like the movies got significantly better on that issue from that point, just even more over the top and without the really different plot driving the story.
Letter Grade: C+

Kung Fu Panda (2008)

2008-07-18T15:07:00.000-05:00

Kung Fu Panda appears to be a light romp of a kidflick at first glance. I wasn't particularly keen on going to see it, frankly. But a particular opportunity presented itself (went with another family to a drive-in movie and saw this as a double-feature with Indiana Jones - an overall fantastic experience for those nostaligic for family drive-in outings) so I went. I was not only not disappointed, I was impressed.
Chock full of star-power led by Jack Black and Dustin Hoffman, Kung Fu Panda is a story of an unabashed kung fu fanboy shlub of a panda thrust into a very precarious situation. A long-time fan of the martial arts and its practitioners, Po (Jack Black) gets selected as the mythical Dragon Warrior by old and possibly nutty Master Oogway. Everyone, of course, assumes this is a mistake except Master Oogway. The main instructor, Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman), is resigned to begin the training but also resolves to drive Po away with the challenge. Complicating matters, a great criminal, Tai Lung, escapes captivity bent on stealing the monastery's great secret scrolls and increasing his power. Po, as the Dragon Warrior, must somehow bear the responsibility of confronting and defeating Tai Lung, after becoming trained, and without making enemies of the monastery's other, more accomplished, students.
As the movie progresses, Po worries that he never will fit in, either in his previous life as a noodle restauraneur or as a martial artist. Nevertheless, he perseveres with good-natured stubbornness of a doofuss determined to see his fate through. Master Shifu, in turn, is confounded by this perseverence and the challenge of whipping Po into shape to resolve the problems left by his own past history that threaten them all.
Ultimately, the movie explores topics ranging from how to motivate someone to exceed your and their own expectations, winning the respect of your peers, and the secret to... well... secrets. It does all of this with a fairly predictable kind of anthropomorphic and martial arts humor that, nevertheless, manages to be consistently entertaining.
Letter Grade: B+

The History Boys (2006)

2007-06-07T17:44:00.001-05:00

Set in Northern England in the early 1980s, The History Boys is an adaptation of a play by Alan Bennett about 8 bright young men, recently finished with their A-levels, getting ready for their entrance exams and interviews to get into Oxford or Cambridge. Their headmaster, obsessed with the chance of getting such a large group of his school's students into the most prestigious universities in the UK, hires a young new teacher as an additional coach, touching off a struggle between differing philosophies of education personified by Irwin, the new teacher (played by Stephen Campbell Moore) and his slick bag of tricks and Hector, the eccentric, poetry-spouting English master (played brilliantly by Richard Griffiths, whom most will probably recognize as Vernon Dursley) as well as the personal loyalties of the students.
Watching the movie does feel rather like watching a play. The use of language is much more akin to the play format than the cinema format, but given the setting and subject matter, it works pretty well. It's not often that you get immersed in this sort of language in a movie... usually adaptations of plays. Go figure.
The performances are excellent all the way around, including the young men, many of whom are relative newcomers. Richard Griffiths, in particular, stands out for his performance.
Letter Grade: A-

Miami Vice (2006)

2007-05-24T03:33:00.000-05:00

Miami Vice, the movie, is a silver screen take on THE iconic TV show of the 1980s. Starring Colin Farrell as Crocket and Jamie Foxx as Tubbs, and directed by Michael Mann (the man behind the original show), the styles and situations have been updated to be contemporary. And that's most of what we see. The movie is visually arresting with dark, shadowy colors enhancing the mood. Like the TV show, it's far more style than substance, so in that sense, it's a successful translation from TV to movie.
The story takes us to the world of major drug trafficking (no big surprise there) where a large inter-agency operation by the Feds has been compromised by some informant in one of the many departments involved (FBI, Homeland Security, BATF, DEA, etc). When things go sour in Miami, the Feds turn to an agency that has not been involved: Miami-Dade Vice. Crockett and Tubbs go undercover and out of the country to make the deal. Things complicate from there.
For the most part, the material isn't original, we've seen much of it before. There's just not that much substance. The love interest isn't particularly plausible. The Colombian drug lords are fairly stereotypical. On the other hand, the acting is pretty decent. The music fits the tone of the movie. The action is generally simple and straightforward and serves the story (rather than the other way around as in most summer blockbusters).
So, not a spectacular film, but definitely watchable.
Letter grade: C+

For Your Consideration (2006)

2007-05-23T09:40:00.000-05:00

Sporting a massive ensemble cast, For Your Consideration, Christopher Guest's latest exploration of quirky people, is about the filming and promotion of a movie (Home for Purim) that suddenly finds itself abuzz with rumors of Oscar nomination. Specifically, rumors start to sprout up that a cast member is a likely Oscar contender based on observations of the film's production, and then the rumors begin to shift from one cast member to another. First it's Marilyn Hack (Catherine O'Hara), then Victor Allen Miller (Harry Shearer) and Callie Webb (Parker Posey). And suddenly ambition and jealousy infect the set.
Coupled with the rumors is the celebrity what-passes-for-journalism that begins to plague the picture in all its vacuous glory (played up particularly bombastically by Fred Willard) and studio interference (the movie is "too Jewish"), the poison infects everybody, particularly the actors.
I wouldn't call it Guest's best work, though it is certainly entertaining. They story isn't as tight as either A Mighty Wind or Best in Show. It's structured more around glimpses of forces and events going on around the movie production and actors, all drawn into a web. The performances are all excellent with actors brilliantly cast in their roles from washed up actors and addled producers to snarky journalists and weasely agents.
Overall, the movie is good enough to rate a B+.

Beerfest (2006)

2007-05-21T17:59:00.000-05:00

Beerfest is a titanically stupid movie, and that's part of its charm. It makes no bones about appealing to our higher brain functions, it simply goes for the laughs. And it delivers plenty of oddball and off-color, decidedly adult laughs.
The premise is, two brothers, played by Paul Soter and Erik Stolhanske, are to take their grandfather's ashes to Oktoberfest where they will follow a family tradition and return them to their home. What they find is a clandestine drinking competition called Beerfest and a fight over their family legacy, the recipe to Germany's greatest beer. Trounced and thrown out, the brothers vow to prepare for the next year by recruiting a band of beer athletes and conducting intensive training to reclaim the family name.
The humor is pretty lowbrow in general and bizarre. It's hard not to laugh at the outrageously silly things these actors are making themselves say, and with straight faces. Guest appearances by Donald Sutherland, Jurgen Prochnow, and Cloris Leachman provide additional spice to this truly strange comedy.
It's definitely not for the kids, in much the same way vintage teen giggle movies are not for kids and a lot of so-called adults will find the humor too juvenile, but nuts to them. It's fine way to spend about 2 hours chuckling at silliness.
Letter grade: B

Spiderman 2 (2004)

2007-05-09T20:51:00.000-05:00

OK, so this movie is a little older. I'm on a superhero movie kick right now.

Spiderman 2 takes a good movie franchise start and runs with it, adding another layer of excellence to the pile. Sam Raimi is on a roll, capturing the characters in the Spiderman saga and their emotional states, particularly as Spiderman grapples with the conflicting responsibilities he feels: to being a hero, being a student, being a friend, being a son-nephew, and being a possible boy friend. And Alfred Molina is absolutely fantastic as the villain of the piece, Doctor Octopus. The menace he projects is more passionate than that posed by the Green Goblin, which was primarily creepy (and also well done).
Tobey Maquire turns in another excellent performance as the wallcrawler, capturing that hint of geekiness that Spiderman has always retained despite being an ass kicking superhero, and even James Franco strengthens his character as Peter's friend/Spiderman's enemy Harry Osborne. And JK Simmons is always a hoot as J. Jonah Jameson.
We'll have to see if Spiderman 3 comes close to this one. Early reviews suggest it won't be, but even if it isn't as good, we've still got the first 2 of the three.
Grade: A-

Superman Returns (2006)

2007-05-09T20:25:00.000-05:00

Superman Returns brought us the, well, the return of Superman to the silver screen for the first time in just about 20 years. Granted, after Superman III and Superman IV, we were all looking for a break (hint: they sucked). But with the resurgence of 'men in tights' movies, it was a very welcome addition.
This version of the Superman epic has the Man of Steel returning to Earth after an extended absence mourning over the remains of Krypton and trying to pick up the pieces of his disjointed life. In the biggest blow of all, Lois Lane has moved on (and has a kid), resentful of Superman's sudden departure. His return makes a huge splash world-wide as he reasserts himself as Earth's primary disaster prevention program. Meanwhile, he also tries to figure out his place in Lois's life, even to the point of kind of worming his way in ways you wouldn't expect out of the big blue Boy Scout.
I think Brandon Routh acquits himself well as Superman, though is perhaps a bit too... mopey. The villain in the piece, Lex Luthor, is played very well by Kevin Spacey as a grouchy genius, constantly looking down on his underlings.
The movie is paced out well and takes the time to highlight the awesome respect and love Superman receives from the people who look up to him. We also get to see a certain amount of vulnerability as Superman needs the help of people around him. Director Bryan Singer, for the most part, proves he's got a good head for superhero pics.
Grade: B+

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

2007-05-09T20:11:00.000-05:00

X-Men: The Last Stand marks the 3rd installment in the X-men series and, if we are lucky, it will be the last... at least by that director. I can't say it was an awful movie, because it wasn't. Some scenes, particularly Juggernaut's chasing of Kitty and a few scenes involving Wolverine, were nicely done. Unfortunately, too much talent not belonging to Hugh Jackman is wasted. They could have done a lot more with Phoenix's lack of impulse control than they did... but they didn't. They could have played up the pain being felt by Cyclops in a meaningful way... but they didn't. Heck, a dispute between James Marsden and the director, Brett Ratner, reportedly got him killed off. And that's just sad since Cyclops is the original X-man and is a real standout character in the original Dark Phoenix saga.
Ultimately, this movie fails to deliver to the same degree that the previous two installments delivered. I think that has a lot to do with the director, in this case. Bryan Singer seems to have more flair superhero movies than Ratner.
Grade: C+

The Omen (2006)

2007-05-08T09:32:00.000-05:00

The Omen is a remake of the original movie from 1976, and I have to say that it was pretty much inevitable. How could any studio see the date 6/6/06 looming on the calendar and not want to remake this movie?
Unfortunately, they really should have resisted. The movie isn't bad, but it is one of the least essential remakes of a movie I have ever seen. It follows the original movie largely scene by scene without a lot of reinterpretation to make it worthwhile. The movie is reasonably competently acted by Julia Stiles and Liev Schreiber and has some fine performances from supporting actors. But it only achieves the level of intensity of the original in two or three scenes in the whole picture. The scene where Damien flips out while being taken to the church is one that is noticeably weaker in the remade version.
Plot-wise, the story is about an American diplomat (Schreiber) who agrees to a baby switch at the hospital because he has been told that, due to complications, his own son didn't survive the birth and this other baby has lost his mother. As the lad grows and the diplomat rises in rank due to a bizarre accident, weird things start to happen. The nanny hangs herself in front of a gaggle of people at a birthday party, a priest shows up saying that the kid really has a jackal for a mother, and a photographer starts noticing odd things in the pictures he takes around the diplomat. The diplomat's wife (Stiles) starts to feel that her son is actually evil, and the diplomat comes to some disturbing revelations.
I can't help but feel that the movie-watching public would have been far better served if the movie had been substantially re-envisioned by taking a completely different point of view or if the whole project had been scrapped in favor of a rerelease of the original Omen trilogy into theaters for a special anti-christ movie fest on 6/6/06.
Grade: C+
Grade for the original: B+

Planet of the Apes (1968)

2007-03-27T12:36:00.000-05:00

I recently bought a copy of the original Planet of the Apes on DVD and the satirical look at humanity is just about as fresh as ever, particularly considering the religious right's war on science.
The look and special effects of the movie may be somewhat dated (the 2001 version by Tim Burton has much more real looking make up and costuming) and it's a little distracting to see how little the mouths move as the apes are talking, but the story is just as enjoyable and compelling as it ever was, as are the little twists of story and direction that make the movie watching experience so much fun.
The story starts as a crew of astronauts, led by George Taylor (Charleton Heston), land on a planet's wasteland and begin to explore their brave new world. At first heartened by the discovery of a primative human culture, they are shocked to learn that the world's masters are anthropomorphized apes who hunt humans for sport. Taylor is captured and, while his throat heals from an injury, learns a little about the society. Gorillas are violent soldiers, chimps are pacifist technicians and scholars, and orangutans are priests/leaders. He attracts the curiosity of one chimp animal psychologist, Zira (Kim Hunter) , due to his displays of intelligence and they begin to form a bond both intellectual and emotional.
When Taylor is sufficiently healed and reveals that he can, in fact, speak intelligently, he becomes an object of fear as well as study. There are some particularly nice scenes with Dr. Zaius, a powerful orangutan, and debates about the nature of man and truth. In the end, both Dr. Zaius and Taylor prove something of their points because it becomes clear that Dr. Zaius has some fear of humanity and is covering up the truth, yet it also becomes clear that there are reasons why the cover-up exists as it does.
Some of the dialogue might come across as being a bit hackneyed in this cynical day in age and I doubt Heston really believed in the things he said (being a conservative in a pro-counterculture movie), but he still acts with conviction. Kudos for being such a professional.

I love the movie and give it an A-.

The Illusionist

2007-03-26T20:50:00.000-05:00

The Illusionist is a tale of mystery, minor political intrigue, and romance set in turn-of-the-century Vienna, Austria-Hungarian Empire. Inspector Uhl, played by Paul Giamatti narrates the story of the stage magician Eisenheim, played by Ed Norton, and his conflict with the Austrian crown prince and illicit love of a duchess.
The illusionist is the son of a carpenter who, as a youth, loves far above his station. When the duchess is taken away from him, he travels the world, learning the secrets of stage magic. He returns to a Vienna stage and, in a twist of fate, is reacquainted with the duchess, now betrothed to the crown prince. Their secret meetings bring in the involvement of the police as the illusionist's performances seem to become increasingly seditious against the prince.
The movie is visually stunning with scene composition and color. The acting is excellent and the story keeps you guessing. Is the illusionist directly challenging the prince? Is the inspector in the prince's pocket or will he pursue a murderer beyond his reach? Will the illusionist and duchess be able to escape the prince's reach? As the plot runs, each of these questions comes up and it takes a while to figure out whether or not they're actually answered.

The movie was well reviewed by critics and received a well-deserved Oscar nomination.
Letter grade: A

The Da Vinci Code

2007-03-26T20:36:00.000-05:00

I'll come right out and say I'm not that big a fan of Dan Brown's book. The writing is fairly pedestrian and it all struck me as a light-reading version of Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. But, when translated to celluloid, The Da Vinci Code works better as a movie than it does as a book. The scenes that seemed too facile in the book, such as the argument between Langdon and Teabing (played by Tom Hanks and Sir Ian McKellen, respectively) about Teabing's Holy Grail theories, are given more life and credibility by well-directed and skillful actors.
Brown's book, in many ways, reads like a novelization of a movie more than a full-blown novel so it's not surprising that the story works a bit better as a movie than it does as a book. The pacing and action are pretty good, though I think the story rushes to a bit of a conclusion and could stand a little slowing down to give it gravity.
Letter grade: B

Good Night, and Good Luck

2006-12-07T10:46:00.000-06:00

Good Night, and Good Luck is the story of how Edward R. Murrow and Fred Friendly (played by David Strathairn and George Clooney, respectively) agonize over and finally decide to take on Senator Joe McCarthy and his reign of paranoia on Capitol Hill. The acting, pacing, shooting, and direction of the movie are all top notch. Strathairn plays the roll of chain-smoking Murrow excellently as he performs powder-puff profile interviews to pay the bills so that he can provide what he considers to be worthwhile and important news coverage.
While we know the general outcome of the story, as we see the costs mount with threats of loyalty oaths, witch hunts against colleagues with radical pasts (or even spouses with radical pasts), lost sponsors, and threats to air time, there is some real dramatic tension in the air. It all makes one lament the state of today's media and its tendencies to latch on to unimportant distractions (like Britney Spears's lack of underwear) and roll over on important issues (like illegal wiretaps).
I give the movie an A for making me feel great that there have been people in this country who stand up for their principles in the face of personal attacks and slander.

Casino Royale (2006)

2006-12-03T23:15:00.000-06:00

Not to be confused with the spy spoof version, the current version of Casino Royale is serious Bond, far more serious than any of the Bond movies of the last several years. Gone are most quips, gone is the suave patrician unflappability, gone are most bizarre gadgets (much to the disappointment of John Cleese who wanted to continue on as 'R' as I understand).
But hello new Bond with a military-SAS demeanor, determined seriousness, and emotional depth.
Despite early nay-sayers' ire about Daniel Craig being picked as the new Bond, the actor does an excellent job. His Bond has a cruel, cold outer shell but one that can be pierced. He's a tough as nails spy, sharp at assessing people and situations, but also hides the vulnerabilities he has behind a wall of tough bravado.
The plot is a little convoluted but what isn't in today's world of spies and terrorists? There's no villain seeking world domination, just sinister men trying to make a buck while funding terrorist movements and guerillas.
I thoroughly enjoyed Casino Royale. It's far and away the best Bond movie in many years. I'd even consider saying it's the best Bond since Goldfinger. And that's a damn long time.

I give this movie an A.

Jarhead

2006-05-03T15:40:00.000-05:00

Jarhead is based on a book by Anthony Swofford (the main character) and his experiences as a Marine leading up to and including Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Swofford, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, is a Marine legacy. His father, uncle, and grandfather all served so that's what he does. But he's very ambivalent about it until getting into a sniper school finally gives him some direction.
Then Iraq invades Kuwait and the movie gives us a view of life for soldiers during Desert Shield. The hydration drills, chemical/bio suits, incredible boredom, and fracturing relationships with girlfriends and wives back home) all take their toll. This seems especially acute among the Marines whose training gears them toward being killing machines, not garrison troops. As a result, all of the men are on edge.
Once the Coalition invasion actually starts up, the confusion and unreality of the environment doesn't get any better. It becomes clear the Iraqis have no stomach for fighting as Swofford's unit find burned out vehicles littering the retreat path back to Iraq, all destroyed by Coalition air power. The net effect after being bored in the desert for 6 months, taking experimental drugs to stave of chemical weapons, and then being exposed to burning oil wells is a short, four day campaign with no real baptism of fire to validate the experience.
I have not read Swofford's book so I can't really speak for the accuracy of the movie's adaptation, but it was still a fairly interesting look at the relationships and psychologies of the men we sent over for Gulf War I. I was definitely impressed with the acting. Gyllenhaal seems absolutely fearless in his choice of roles and is definitely a name worth watching.
Overall, I give the movie a B+.

King Kong (2005)

2006-05-03T15:37:00.000-05:00

Peter Jackson's version of the venerable classic follows the original movie reasonably closely, including the nasty giant bug scene after the men are shaken off the fallen tree. The special effects and other movie trappings are, of course, much more complex, realistic, and spectacular, but that's to be expected given the 72 years of movie technology development.
Kong is portrayed with much more emotion in this version, but I think also his relationship with Vaudeville actress Ann Darrow (played by Naomi Watts... who is a little older than me but sure doesn't look it) is also played up with a lot more emotion on her part as well. A considerable amount of anthropomorphism is done with Kong, but I think that helps heighten the emotional appeal of the movie.
There are a few action scenes that start to trip the "aw, c'mon" reflex (particularly Ann's escape from Kong with the help of Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody)) but overall the movie is a pretty fun romp.
I believe the end of the movie, which parallels the original again, is done a bit more ironically than the original. When Carl Denham (Jack Black in the 2005 version) says that "Beauty killed the beast", you get the impression that he believes it, sure. But you also had the impression that was an unironic statement in the 1933 version. I think the way the movie unfolds in the 2005 version indicates that this is, indeed, a very ironic statement.
Overall, I give King Kong an A-.

The Island

2006-05-03T15:29:00.000-05:00

As it turns out, The Island is a remake of a movie that once appeared on Mystery Science Theater 3000, The Clonus Horror. A lot of people thought that boded poorly for the quality of this movie. Well, they had a point, but that's getting ahead of myself. In The Island, humanity is limited to a tightly controlled environment due to some form of environmental contamination on the surface. Survivors are occasionally still found but most people go about their daily lives with their caloric intake and health tightly monitored. Everyone also participates in a lottery to go to the Island, the last uncontaminated place on earth, for the rest of their days. But for the most part, life is reasonably OK if somewhat dreary.
Enter our protagonist, Lincoln Six Echo (Ewan McGregor). He's vaguely dissatisfied, has dreams of an outside world, and is a bit of a maverick. He manages to actually get out of the environment to learn that the surface isn't contaminated at all and that people who go to the Island are actually harvested for body parts. The whole complex and everyone in it are part of an insurance-type firm that grows replacement body parts for the rich and powerful people who can afford them.
Lincoln Six Echo grabs a friend, Jordan Two Delta (Scarlett Johansson) and makes a break for it shortly before she too is hauled off to the Island. With the help of a friend of Lincoln Six Echo's, one of the technicians from the outside, they learn exactly who and what they are. And they end up on the run to avoid the company's hired goons and recruit the help of their "owners" who were fed a line that their replacement parts were grown humanely (and mindlessly).
The acting by McGregor and Johansson, and by other cast members, is quite decent and the story isn't a bad one. Where this movie starts to break down is in the action sequences. They become kind of repetitive and silly and, ultimately, dispensible.
Overall, I give the movie a C. Good actors doing a good job with a decent story idea, but with supporting action that just doesn't cut it.

Sin City

2006-02-09T03:08:00.000-06:00

I didn't get a chance to see Sin City on the big screen, but DVDs can sure fill the gaps. Checked it out from the library and watched it on our television (so I didn't get the whole, cinematic effect).
I have to say that the photography is visually arresting. The monochromes, sepias, and special highlight colors scattered about really make for a stunning watching experience.
It's kind of too bad that the rest of the movie doesn't quite live up to its looks. I found the pacing of the movie to be a bit uneven. There were times I just wished they'd hurry things along a little more.
The stories and characters wouldn't fit in anywhere but a dark comic story, including the use of voice overs. But since this is a comic book movie, that's to be expected. There are several characters completely and utterly over the top, in both good and bad ways. Much of the nudity we see sprinkled throughout the movie is gratuitous.
As far as performances, Bruce Willis does well but the real standout performance is from Mickey Rourke. He's lamost unrecognizable in the character he plays. Hell, he is unrecognizable.
If I were grading this on just visuals, I'd give it an A. But I'm not, I'm covering the whole movie. So I'll have to settle for a solid B instead.

Serenity

2005-12-22T16:18:00.000-06:00

Sadly, I missed Serenity on the big screen just like I missed Firefly on television. Fortunately, the miracle of DVD technology has enabled me to catch up. Firefly really was a fantastic show, too good to be on Fox apparently, but there you have it.
The movie Serenity take up not long after the show leaves off. The same characters are around with the exception of Inara and Shepherd Book, both of whom have left the Serenity though not without retaining some contact with the ship (and do appear in the movie). We learn a lot more about the particulars behind young River's ordeal at the hands of the Alliance as they pick up the pace in their search for their wayward experiment. Specifically, a skilled and ruthless Alliance operative gets on their tail as River's outbursts of violence grow in intensity. Pushed to the wall, Mal and the crew decide to get to the bottom of River's problems once and for all and uncover a very powerful secret.
The characters are the same as in the TV show and played just as well as ever though a couple of them still remain enigmatic. Humor is sprinkled about, though the general subject matter, as the movie rolls on, is more grim and the characters more under strain and stress. The level of work and artistry that went into the TV show is well matched in the movie, and the transition is virtually seemless (though I'd say there is evidence of a bigger budget in the movie, and that's not a bad thing).
Viewers who haven't seen the TV show might have a little trouble figuring out all of the characters at first, but the movie does stand on its own reasonably well.
My grade for this movie is an A.

The Aviator

2005-12-22T16:17:00.000-06:00

As one of the most highly acclaimed movies of any year, The Aviator has a heck of a reputation to live up to. It does so admirably. The life of Howard Hughes is a very interesting topic to cover, not the least because he was such a quirky personality, but also because he was such an economic force in the airline industry and, though not part of the time covered by the movie, the Las Vegas gaming industry.
This movie features Leo DiCaprio at his best, portraying the obsessive-compulsive Hughes with a lot of intensity, particularly when his personality goes through a severe breakdown that sends him into a seclusion broken only by the need to testify in front of the Senate. There are other excellent performances by Alan Alda and, especially, Cate Blanchett as Kate Hepburn (the Oscar is well deserved). Again, I marvel that the Oscar didn't go to Martin Scorsese (if any man deserves life-time achievement, it's him) but at least he lost to another excellent director in Clint Eastwood.
As far as the direct subject matter goes, The Aviator focuses on Hughes's life between his making of Hell's Angels, a WWI aviation movie, in the 1920s through his 1947 test flight of the "Spruce Goose" (a nickname he didn't like). They portray his relationships with Kate Hepburn and Ava Gardner, his building of TWA and breaking Pan Am's monopoly on international passenger flights, and his love of experimental aircraft, including a near fatal crash of an prototypical recon airplane. And of course, they also show us the private Hughes with his dubious mental health.
I give the movie an A.

Alexander

2005-12-22T16:15:00.000-06:00

Alexander is Oliver Stone's epic biopic about Alexander of Macedon, better known as Alexander the Great. It stars Colin Farrell as Alexander, hair significantly bleached, as we trace his life from youth horse-riding prodigy to driven conquerer of Persia and other places east. Val Kilmer and Angelina Jolie play his parents, the loutish Philip and poisonous Olympias.
The story the movie portrays is framed by an elderly Ptolemy, one of Alexander's generals, played by Anthony Hopkins. He is dictating the story of Alexander to a scribe and interjects summaries of things that happen off screen as we jump about through Alexander's life. While this does allow Stone's screenplay to cover larger stretches of Alexander's life, it leaves the movie feeling disjointed. We don't even cover Alexander's first steps as a conquerer, putting down rebellion in Greece and then taking Asia Minor and Egypt. We go right into his big showdown battle with the Persians. While that certainly is a seminal event in the young conqueror's life, we don't build to it at all. It's just there.
From that point, the movie alternatively races and drags with very uneven pacing and a lot of scenery-chewing acting. I just don't think Stone was working at his best during this movie.
There are some things that are pursued in this movie that I think are good choices to cover: his homosexual love for Hephaistion, his grumbling army as they are called upon to conquer and conquer and conquer (all the way to India) without getting a chance to go home, his odd choice of marriage to Roxane rather than a more important Persian princess. The trouble is, none of this seems all that well executed (except maybe for the near mutiny of his army). In the end, I was pretty disappointed with the movie even though it's clear that a number of the actors in it clearly worked their asses off, notibly Colin Farrell, who seems to have kept a low profile (in movie roles) for most of the year.
I give the movie a C-.

Ocean's 12

2005-11-28T17:24:00.000-06:00

Ocean's 12 is the sequel to the 2001 version of Ocean's 11. In this outing, the team is back but this time it's under pressure from Benedict to return the money stolen from the casinos... with interest. It seems that someone in the know has ratted out the team and now they have to scramble to make up the money they've spent and make some more. Unfortunately, big jobs are hard to come by.
Eventually, they discover the identity of the man who ratted them out, a formidable burglar known as the Night Fox. It seem the Night Fox got his nose out of joint because his mentor, another notoriously good burglar, praised Ocean's job over the Fox's. So, the Night Fox proposes a contest to see who pull of the best job, with the pay off of Benedict in the balance.
Unfortunately, the plot never really gets any more realistic from there (as if it were realistic before this point). Complications include a wave of arrests of Ocean's team and the investigations of a highly competent Europol detective (Catherine Zeta-Jones), a woman from team-member Rusty Ryan's (Brad Pitt) past.
While reasonably fun to watch if you switch off your brain, there's too much that just kind of makes you say "Aw, c'mon."
I'll give this movie a C.

Ocean's 11 (2001)

2005-11-28T17:23:00.000-06:00

The 2001 remake of Ocean's 11 is a better crafted movie in general than the 1960 version. The plot hangs together better. The characters are better written and balanced into an ensemble rather than a Rat-Packer star vehicle. The plan isn't really any more realistic, but it is far more complex and interesting to watch. Overall, the 2001 version is a better movie on most counts... unless you're just a big Rat Pack fan. Which is OK.
Ocean's 11 2001 has Danny Ocean (George Clooney) as a long-time criminal, into burglaries rather than violent crime, fresh out of jail. He assembles a team of fellow professionals (rather than army buddies) for a complex heist at 3 Las Vegas casinos, all run by same ruthless man, Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia). Here, the main plot complication is Ocean's ex-wife (Julia Roberts) who happens to have become Benedict's girlfriend and might be able to blow the lid off the whole operation.
One interesting aspect of this movie compared to the first is that Las Vegas, between 1960 and 2001, has become corporate and much cleaner in general. Gone is the edge of the mob and guys skimming the till. It has been replaced by full-blown spectacle, powered by gobs and gobs of cash.
Overall, I give the movie a B.

Ocean's 11 (1960)

2005-11-28T17:22:00.000-06:00

The original version of Ocean's 11, from 1960, stars the Rat Pack as a bunch of old army buddies (airborne specifically) who have hit upon a plan to rob 5 casinos of a load of money led by Danny Ocean (Frank Sinatra). The plan itself is fairly simple, go in and rob the places in a blackout at the ringing in of the New Year. The real trick comes in keeping the plan and the identities of the team secret as well as sneak the money out. The main plot complication comes when the casinos (remember that at this time the casinos and hotels on the strip were all run by mobsters) hire an experienced thief, with ties to one of Ocean's team, to get the money back.
The movie isn't a particularly spectacular example of a well-crafted plot or exceptional acting. Most of the actors don't seem to be playing roles in particular, those that actually have well-defined roles rather than just guys walking around in suits. The movie's charm comes from the interactions of the Rat Packers, particularly Dean Martin and Sammy Davis, Jr., with the environment around them. You get an impression of the dangerous glitz of Las Vegas at its taboo heights.
I'd give the movie a C+.

Scotland, PA

2005-11-02T09:47:00.000-06:00

Scotland, PA is the story of MacBeth told in the setting of a 1970s small town burger joint. While capturing the slide into guilty madness of both of the MacBeths, the movie is also played up with a lot of humor, particularly with McDuff as played by Christopher Walken, the witches who are revisioned as hippies including Andy Dick, and a foul-mouthed Pat McBeth played by Maura Tierney.

I give it an A.

One Hour Photo

2005-11-02T09:42:00.000-06:00

One Hour Photo stars Robin Williams at his creepy best as a lonely photo processor at a mall department store, obsessed for years with a young family who has pictures processed there. There are some very nice scenes dealing with his awkward over-familiarity with the family.
Given good writing, there's very little that Robin Williams can't do as a character actor. He's very impressive.
I’d give it a B+.

Breaker Morant

2005-11-02T09:29:00.000-06:00

Breaker Morant stars Edward Woodward and Bryan Brown as Australian soldiers up for court martial during the Boer War. They and another junior officer are essentially being scapegoated by the General Staff as the war winds down to mollify German supporters of the Boers. It’s based on a true story that originally appeared as a play. Their counsel is inexperienced in defending in a court, he's a solicitor and not a barrister, yet puts up a passionate and unexpectedly strong defense. I’ve watched it several times and I have to say that it’s one of the best courtroom dramas I’ve ever seen.
After watching this movie and Gallipoli, you'll wonder why the Australians have any fondness of the British at all...
I give it an A-.

Love Actually

2005-10-19T11:41:00.000-05:00

Love Actually is very much a fun movie. Basically, the film explores different sorts of love between people: bonding between father and son, between siblings, pangs of love/lust between husband, wife, and the 'other woman', unrequited love, first love, thwarted love, rebounding love, and growing love between colleagues at work. Trying to trace just how every group of people followed through the movie is related to each other is also kind of fun. The funniest moments, for me, come between the *ahem* stand-ins and the widowed father and stepson.
On the DVD, check out the deleted scenes. For many movies these tend to be well-deserved cuts. I think they're much more interesting for this movie. The movie gets an A from me.

Hotel Rwanda

2005-10-19T11:37:00.000-05:00

Hotel Rwanda is the story of Paul Rusesabagina's heroic effort to save more than 1200 refugees in the hotel he managed as Rwanda imploded in genocidal violence in 1994. Don Cheadle does a brilliant job portraying Rusesabagina, a Hutu, as he walks a thin line as he has to deal with the Rwandan army and the Hutu extremist militia Interahamwe while trying to protect the mostly Tutsi refugees (including his own wife, played by Sophie Okonedo) whose lives aren't worth a plug nickel to the Hutu militia and his hotel's, the Mille Colline, dignity.
The horror of the 3 month-long orgy of genocidal violence that left nearly a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus dead is brought home in several of the movie's sequences, particularly Rusesabagina's decision to tell his wife to jump with the kids off the hotel roof rather than suffer the machetes of the militia and the disturbing drive down the river road. The movie also highlights the nearly total inaction of the UN and western democracies as, at first, Rusesabagina optimistically hopes for rescue only to have his hopes dashed.
Hotel Rwanda has been compared to Schindler's List in its moral power as well as in the development of the principal character. While Rusesabagina always intended to save someone, his family, while Oskar Schindler mainly wanted to make a buck, both were prompted by the increasing madness around them to save as many people as they could because it was morally right to do so, even at their own risk (particularly acute in Rusesabagina's case since the Hutu militia was specifically targetting moderate Hutus as well as Tutsis). Hotel Rwanda doesn't take as close a look at the evils of the men carrying out the genocide as Schindler's List does, but then Hotel Rwanda is also 70 minutes shorter and so doesn't have the time to spend on it.

Overall, it's a powerful, disturbing, and emotional movie with excellent acting by Cheadle and Okonedo. I give the movie an A.

Scooby Doo

2005-10-17T11:43:00.000-05:00

Bringing Scooby Doo from the cartoon to the silver screen seemed to me like a very bad idea and I fully expected it to be bad. In fact, I checked this out from the library to see if it really was as bad as everyone says it is. Well, it's bad, but I've seen worse. I was actually able to stomach this one all the way through, something I can't say for Batman and Robin (wherein AH-nold's acting is a bright spot in the movie in the role of Mr. Freeze) or Starsky and Hutch (which was just plain awkward rather than amusing).
The movie manages to capture some of the humor and feel of the original cartoons with Matthew Lillard doing a very impressive Shaggy impersonation. But much of the humor is kind of stilted and the movie breaks the convention (at least in the original cartoons) of the spooky stuff being verifiably unreal in the end. Among the funniest scenes are the true stories of what the gang has gone on to do since the acrimonious break up of the team and they ended up in the extras as deleted scenes.
I think the hands-down funniest moment is the Scrappy-Doo flashback.

Overall, I wouldn't give Scooby Doo a failing grade since it was watchable. I would, however, give it a D+ and probably hold it back for another year until it masters the material.

The Statement

2005-10-17T11:42:00.000-05:00

The Statement stars Michael Caine as a French Nazi-collaborator responsible for turning in a bunch of Jews for execution when he was a member of a Vichy unit. He's pursued by the authorities, some shadowy group of assassins, and his own partly-suppressed guilt. The judge and military officer pursuing him have to contend with the Catholic Church that protects him as they try to bring him to justice before the assassins get him.
I found this to be a pretty interesting movie. A good diversion of a political/fugitive chase movie with a decent story and solid acting. A good solid B+.

Ladder 49

2005-10-17T11:39:00.000-05:00

I n Ladder 49, Joaquin Phoenix stars as Jack Morrison, a firefighter trapped in a fire after the floor he's on collapses as he saves another man. As he lies injured and his comrades work to rescue him, his life as a firefighter unfolds as a series of flashbacks from his days as a rookie to 10-year veteran and family man. We see episodes of rookie hazing, his first fire, rescuing a couple of people, as well as the death of one good friend and the maiming of another.

As I was watching the movie, I couldn't help but feel how uncerebral the movie really is. While looking at the life of this firefighter, we never explore very deeply why he has followed the career path he has followed. We are just sort of shown what that path is, none the wiser about why. We hardly get into his or anybody else's heads. He mopes about the death of a friend, he clashes with his wife (woodenly played by Jacinda Barrett) but only barely since she barely shows any real strain of being married to someone who runs into buildings that other people are desperate to run out of.

There are decent performances by Phoenix and John Travolta and a few other actors, but they don't really carry the movie very far. The ending, unsurprisingly considering this comes after the 9/11 atrocity, is sort of a paean for firefighters everywhere and one of the few scenes with any significant emotional impact.

If you want to see a better movie about firefighters, even if it does revolve around a strange arson/murder plot, rent Backdraft. The action scenes are more spectacular, the texture of the movie's background is richer, and you even get into the firefighters' heads more in that movie than this one.

I will add that, fortuantely, the scene where the characters react to the 9/11 atrocity is cut and left as an extra on the DVD. The sentiments expressed in that scene are handled far more ham-handedly than in the ending of the movie. And I think the editors were well advised to steer clear of explicit references to that event.

Overall, I can't give the movie a rating higher than C+.

The Thomas Crown Affair

2005-10-14T14:26:00.000-05:00

The Thomas Crown Affair, 1999 version, stars Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo. Smug rich guy who always wins meets and romances brash insurance investigator while working class cops bumble through the investigation of an art theft. Got tired of seeing the smug rich guy win. Wanted to take up arms in the class war to smash the machinery of capitalism.
I give the movie a D.

The Italian Job (1969)

2005-10-14T14:23:00.000-05:00

The Italian Job stars Michael Caine. One of those movies that really is the epitome of the 1960s art and style, or at least encapsulates it. With stylish mafia, James Bond style carousing with the ladies, Cooper Minis, and a caper in Italy, it captures and distills the feel of 1960s cinema pretty well. The movie is significantly different from the 2003 remake starring Mark Wahlberg so don't watch it with any expectations of seeing the same general plot.
The 1969 version is a fun movie, overall. Caine's character, Charlie Croker, gets onto a well-planned job in Torino, Italy, involving $4 million in gold. Croker recruits the help of an imprisoned British gang boss (played by Noel Coward) for the resources to pull it off. Trouble is the mafia don't like Brits trying to pull off big jobs under their own noses in Italy.
The main point of similarity between the 1969 version and the 2003 version (which is also a fun movie to watch) is a chase involving Cooper Minis and driving them in the most unusual places (sewers, cathedral steps, on top of buildings, etc). The car chase is certainly innovative and highly entertaining.
I give the movie a B+.

Comic Book: the Movie

2005-10-14T14:13:00.000-05:00

Comic Book: the Movie is directed by and stars Mark Hamill. This is something of a light mockumentary about how comic book fandom and the Hollywood movie industry meet. Hamill plays a comic book shop owner hired to act as an advisor for a studio making a movie based on his primary comic love: Commander Courage. They have given him a crew to document the announcement of the movie at that year's ComicCon in San Diego.
The movie is low budget but pretty fascinating. One of the more interesting aspects of it is that there are segments of the movie that are largely improv as they just walk about ComicCon, totally in character. It's a little less plain goofy than This is Spinal Tap but much of the humor is in the same vein and works quite well. I give the movie a B+.

The Passion of the Christ

2005-10-12T16:43:00.000-05:00

Time to tackle a real controversial one: The Passion of the Christ

I'll preface this by saying that I'm an unbeliever, not very fond of religion in general, but love controversy and movies. So even though the subject matter isn't going to reach me like it will reach people who have faith, I don't see that as a prerequisite for evaluating this movie.

The Passion of course deals with the death of Jesus Christ, executed by the Romans nearly 2000 years ago. Being a passion story, it focuses on the suffering he went through including beatings, scourgings, crucifixion, and at least one stabbing. It definitely brings the subject matter home for the viewer to think about.

And I did like it. It was full of powerful emotion and some very nice visual touches. The Satan-character who floats through the crowd as Jesus hauls the cross through the streets of Jerusalem, the darkness in the garden when Jesus gets nicked by the temple guards, the flashes of sympathy you see in people's faces as they make eye contact with Mary as she witnesses her son's ordeal. All handled very nicely and with a great deal of emotional gravity. I have to hand it to Mel Gibson on the level of being able to tug at the viewer's emotions.

The movie is certainly not for the faint-hearted. I'm pretty jaded about movie violence in general. I wasn't particularly disturbed by the opening to Saving Private Ryan because I thought it was about time that we had an American-made WWII movie that didn't pull many punches on the awesome carnage inflicted by modern weaponry. I just sat back and enjoyed the ride. Well, the scourging scene in The Passion looked so realistic that I flinched, probably more than I've ever flinched at movie violence before.

As I prefaced, I'm no believer but it was hard not to identify with the characters since you become such a close witness of their experiences. One scene particularly struck me, probably because I'm a parent of small children. When Jesus first stumbles while dragging the implement of his own execution (how nice of the Romans to add such insult to injury), Mary flashes back to an event (totally artistic license, but that's fair game) in which a small-child Jesus stumbles and she runs to help him. That one really drove home to me that, regardless of why some individual is being tortured and executed, thoughout any period in history, he or she was once some mother's child. Again, it's that darn Mel Gibson hitting an emotional nerve and I was pulled right in.

Overall, I'd give the movie a strong B+. The only elements pulling it down are, I think, a little slow pacing at points and too much reliance on all of us already knowing the story. While there are flashbacks to the last couple days to help fill in gaps in knowledge and show how prophecies are being realized, I would have liked a little more insight into the motives of the forces calling for Jesus's blood to help explain why he went from being met with palms fronds one week to being crucified the next.
A fine film, worth seeing once, I doubt many people will have the endurance to view it more than once.

Mean Girls

2005-10-12T16:39:00.000-05:00

I've seen this movie compared with Heathers with good reason. Both involve the main character and her relationship with the school's super-elite clique of backstabbing girls. Heathers takes a dark humorous, almost apocalyptic, look at the topic while Mean Girls takes a milder, more mundane approach. As a result, Heathers is more edgy and Mean Girls is a little more forgiving of the various transgressions characters make. Mean Girls also paints with a broader brush, implicating many more people in the activities and imitation of the core clique than Heathers.

That said, I laughed fairly often during Mean Girls, but not always at the main story. The supporting characters, including Tim Meadows as the principal Mr. Duvall and a supremely confident, rapping math geek named Kevin Gnapoor, are highly amusing without detracting from the main focus of the film. Some elements of the main story are predictable, but there are enough original ideas and humor sprinkled throughout the movie to keep my interest going.

I don’t think the movie is quite as uproariously funny as Heathers, but it's reasonably solid and worth the time spent watching it (checked out for free at the library, so the only cost to me was time). I'd give it a B.

Bubba Ho-tep

2005-10-12T16:36:00.000-05:00

What would it be like to be Elvis hiding out in an old folks home, particularly when there's a horrible conspiracy going on? Bubba Ho-tep takes one tab at answering that question. I thought the pacing was kind of draggy but the interplay between Ossie Davis and Bruce Campbell as deranged (or at least partly deranged) old geezers was fantastic.
Overall, I'd give the movie a B.

Team America: World Police

2005-10-12T16:33:00.000-05:00

I checked out Team America: World Police on DVD. I thought most of it was stupid. The satiric elements were mostly juvenile. Sure, there were several moments that got a chuckle out of me, but I can't rate the movie very highly. I think the best moments were the puppet sex (which was pretty original in its pornographic style) and Kim Jong Il singing about being lonely.
Personally, I think Parker and Stone are really only ON in their movies when it turns into a musical. I thought the only really tolerable parts of the South Park movie were the brilliant songs. The rest paled by comparison to the TV show.

But I digress. My grade for Team America is a C+.

Ned Kelly

2005-10-12T16:29:00.000-05:00

Ned Kelly is a bio-pic about Australia's most famous outlaw starring Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom. For a brief time in the last quarter of the 19th century, the Queen's authority was challenged by a band of 4 Irish descendents to the point that they had international news coverage and the largest bounty ever put on anybody's heads. But to the commoners of Australia, they were folk heroes (and remain so to this day).
The movie focuses on Ned's life after a brief run-in with the penal system as he tries to raise his family's fortunes. Unfortunately, in a case of police power unjustly applied, he and his brother and two friends end up on the lam. The coppers, of course, harshly lean on anyone who knows Ned and his status as folk hero is cemented.
I thought the portrayals of the characters were pretty good, although I think some scenes get played up a little too cheesily and over the top. Overall, Ledger and Bloom play their characters well, as does Geoffrey Rush, their greatest nemesis. I think the love interest is a bit superfluous as presented and they should have either done more with it or dispensed with it completely.
The extras on the DVD (including a brief bit on a version of the story starring a relatively young Mick Jagger) help explain the appeal of Ned Kelly and his place in Austrailan culture and I find that a nice touch.
Overall, I give the movie a solid B.

Kinsey

2005-10-12T16:26:00.000-05:00

Kinsey is a bio-pic about Alfred Kinsey, controversial researcher in human sexual behavior. It focuses mostly on his adult life but with a few earlier elements that shed light on his relationship with his father and his own early repressed sexuality. The acting is top notch with Liam Neeson playing Kinsey very passionately as a dedicated if somewhat naïve scientist who has found his purpose in life, Laura Linney playing Kinsey's wife, and John Lithgow in a delightful turn as Kinsey's father.

The subject matter of the movie is very frank so if you're at all squeamish about people discussing sex casually or seeing a little nudity, then this movie isn't for you. But then again, it's the very prevalence of that squeamishness and a whole lot of ignorance about sexuality in the first half of the 20th Century that contributed to Kinsey's passion to explore human sexuality.

Anyway, I digress. The movie takes a historical figure who is both demonized and lionized in today's society and shows him in a very human light, covering both the good and the bad. And let's just say, if he actually gave his lectures on sexuality as they portray them in the movie, I can't imagine ever falling asleep in class.

I give the movie an A- because there were a few elements that I found myself wanting to learn more about, like more on his relationship with his kids.

Titus

2005-10-10T17:00:00.000-05:00

Adapted from the play Titus Andronicus by some minor playright named Bill Shakespeare. Titus stars Anthony Hopkins as the Roman general title character. He brings hostages back from a successful campaign, ordering the eldest son of the defeated queen sacrificed. He then turns down the emperor's crown in favor of the last ruler's eldest, venal son Saturninus. The new emperor turns on loyal Titus over a spiteful demand for Titus's daughter (whom has already been betrothed to Saturninus's far nicer brother) and plots with the Goth queen Tamora (Jessica Lange) in her quest for revenge for her slain son. The body (and body part) count is high as the feud heats up until it is finally resolved over a nice dinner.
The visuals are both stark and stunning. The general décor is a sort of modern desolation. For those of you who like watching movie adaptations of Old Bill's works, it's quite entertaining and arresting. I'll give it an A- because it just isn't quite as compelling a play as some of his others (like MacBeth or Hamlet).

Velvet Goldmine

2005-10-10T16:58:00.000-05:00

Velvet Goldmine takes a fictive look at 1970s glam rock and the sexual ambiguity of the musicians but really seems to boil down to one man's reminiscences of his own experience with the glam rock scene. Christian Bale, as Arthur Stuart, is a journalist tasked with writing a story about the onstage hoax murder of Brian Slade (played by Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), an event he witnessed at close quarters, on the tenth anniversary of the event. The hoax was Slade's way out of an onstage persona into which he felt cornered. The movie looks at Slade's history, his relationship with Iggy Popesque Curt Wild (played by Ewan McGregor), and, perhaps more strongly, at Stuart's own relationship with the musicians and the world they inhabited.

I thought it dragged a little about 3/4 of the way in but thought it was an otherwise decent movie. I'd give it a B-.

Into the Blue

2005-10-10T16:54:00.000-05:00

I went to see Into the Blue based on surprisingly good reviews in the paper (and I had little else to do after a 12 hour shift on a business trip). Treasure hunting in the Caribbean goes awry when the divers discover a crashed plane loaded with cocaine. There are a few predictable moments, particularly from the brash dipstick lawyer friend (played by Scott Caan), but also plenty of unexpected turns to keep the movie from feeling like a stale action-adventure story. The film is beautifully shot and has Jessica Alba in a swimsuit... a lot.

I'm tempted to give it an A for that last part alone, but I'll take a cold shower and give it a strong B+.

40 Year Old Virgin

2005-10-10T14:12:00.001-05:00

40 Year Old Virgin is definitely not a movie to take your kids to because of salty language, but also a hysterical film. I don't think I've laughed this loudly in a movie theater since Ghostbusters. The 40 year old virgin, played sympathetically by Steve Carell, inadvertently outs himself at a poker game with co-workers and they immediately embark on a program to get their reluctant friend laid. Very strange and funny things ensue from there including a trip to the salon for a chest waxing, a date with a woman who has a relationship with her showerhead, and a big old box of porn.

I definitely give this movie an A.

Wallace and Gromit and the Curse of the Were-Rabbit

2005-10-10T13:53:00.000-05:00

I'm a Wallace and Gromit fan from way back. Actually, I guess I'm also an Aardman fan dating back to when I saw Creature Comforts at an animation festival. Anyway, let's just say I'm a big fan.

I had been anticipating the release of this movie for years, ever since I first noticed it and bought up 50,000 shares on Hollywood Stock Exchange. I was a little worried that the slightly oddball subject of the movie might detract from it, after all, it's not often you see movies about cruelty-free lagomorph removal. But I needn't have worried.

Curse of the Were-Rabbit is delightfully funny. Special standout scenes and characters include the flying dogfight, the antics of the neighborhood rector, what Gromit does when he first gets a close-up view of the were-rabbit on a dark country road, and Wallace's decoy. Notice how I'm trying to avoid blatant spoilers here.

I think the movie actually gets off to a slow start but it's not long before it builds up steam in a properly hysterical way. There are plenty of wonderful jokes the just pop out at you in the visuals, something Nick Park proven pretty adept at in the past.

I give the movie an A-.

Why Movie Reviews?

2005-10-10T13:48:00.000-05:00

I don't know really. I guess I just watch a lot of movies and am really opinionated. So why not hold forth on movies that I watch?