Wes's Movie Hut

JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH -3D

2008-07-11T19:52:00.009-04:00

JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH -3D

This is one of those movies that I would normally have passed on, but I wanted to see if there is anything new in the 3D front of movie technology. I should have passed. Not to waste time on trying to point out the good points of this movie (I'm sure there must be some), I’ll get right to the point and give the best word I can think of to describe this film …. BORING!

When I say boring, I mean it was 92 minutes of me sitting in the theater evaluating CGI and 3D. The story line and plot are really so stupid ... and the acting ... well, it’s Brendon Fraser folks, you don’t get Richard III here ya know.

So we start out with our leading character (I refuse to call him a hero), looking like he’s playing the grown up ENCINO MAN character (if he can play anything else, I’d be surprised), losing his job (yawn) because his work at the university isn’t being fruitful. Mr. stereo typed absent minded professor Fraser now inherits his nephew, Sean, played adequately by Josh Hutcherson, for a 10 day stint while Sean’s mother goes who knows (cares) where. Sean’s father was our leading character’s brother who, oh my gosh!! … disappeared a few years back doing his scientific exploration which just so happens to be the same line of work our leading character is in!! Holy Script Writers, Batman! Who could of thought up such a plot line!!!

This is too painful to go into any great detail. Let’s just say events lead the duo to fly to Iceland (yeah, right and they make a point of telling us that Sean just happens to have his passport with him) and there they pick up the female interest and the trio find this hole in the earth and in a VERY short time, and a lot of 3D special effects, most of which aren’t even original, and end up deep inside the earth. The say they are at the center of the earth, but no way they could have made it that fast even if they were flying F-22s! Not to mention that they even say they only have a couple of energy bars for food.

They putz around down there, finding stuff including the remains of the missing brother/father (now what are the chances of that!), which I find strange since in the beginning of the film we see him falling into a pit of magma. Well, that’s show biz. Eventually they get out by implausible means and are now rich and famous. This story follows the 1959 version of the story, which starred James Mason and Pat Boone and and very loosely followed the Jules Verne original story. At least the 1959 version had a good plot, good characters, and the special effects were new to the viewers. This one had stolen material from everywhere including a mining car ride from Indiana Jones, and a T-Rex chase scene (T-Rex, why is it always a T-Rex?) from tons of other films. Why can't they use a triceratops or something? Of course there is the minor "love interest" between Fraser and the female character (Anita Briem) which makes zero sense especially since I could care less about either of these characters. The end.

That WAS painful. After looking at the credits I understand a lot of what is going on because Brendan Fraser is also the executive producer.

Now I can spend a few minutes on the 3D aspect of the film. Living in Orlando, I have had the opportunity to see the 3D shows that they have at the Disney and Universal theme parks to compare to this movie. My vote … there is nothing new here in this movie. There are some cute things they do that will give you a laugh, and a few startles, but nothing worth the extra $2 you have to pay for the 3D glasses you have to get to watch the film. I had some problems in the beginning that I attributed to my mega brain trying to adjust to the new environment. But, after a while, I noticed that one’s brain couldn’t keep up with the 3D effects when the subjects move quickly; it all tended to blur. This became annoying and distracting for me. I will say that the 3D stuff was fun … the only redeeming part of this movie, but still, nothing really new here. The other bad thing was I had trouble hearing the dialog because the sound effects and music were so loud that it overpowered the speech.

I remember when I saw HOUSE OF WAX (Vincent Price, 1953), the first 3D movie made by a major studio (Warner Bros.). That film had some great stuff in it. I remember, as will anyone else who ever saw the film in 3D, the man with the paddle ball hitting the ball so it came right out at the viewer; and there was the scene in the morgue when a corpse sits up in the foreground of a dark scene and scares the daylights out of everyone. Now those were new effects and this film reuses the same stuff, in some cases, to good affect. To me, in order to make 3D really work, you need some new material. It’s all been done before in dozens of other 3D films.

After all that, I’ll say if you can’t see this move in 3D, DON’T GO! It’s the kind of movie you would go to when you are trying to hide from someone and won’t care if you don’t really pay attention to the story. If you can see it in 3D take into account that it will cost you an extra $2 to see it and don’t expect anything but a cutesy little movie showing off some 3D. I warned you. On my ever so humble rating scale, I can’t give it more than a 4 out of 10. Why does it always have to be a T-Rex?

WALL-E

2008-06-27T19:58:00.024-04:00

WALL-E
WALL-E is PIXARs latest (9th) feature film and takes place in the year 2700, long after the Earth has been vacated by the human race. Wall-E (which stands for ‘Waste Allocation Load Lifter - Earth-Class’) is one of the robots left on Earth to clean up the mess left by all the “un–green” people. (Don’t get me started on that topic!!) Whether all the other robots have totally broken down or someone just didn’t turn WALL-E off is not explained, but who cares, it’s not important. WALL-E is more human than robotic, he collects knick-knacks he finds as he continues his clean up and displays a child’s curiosity as to what it is all about. You find yourself relating to him instantly. He especially loves watching his VCR tape of HELLO DOLLY, which he seems totally enthralled with. WALL-E has a single friend on Earth, a small cockroach that is also his companion.

One day, a probe visits Earth from “out there” and WALL-E is introduced to EVE (Extra-terrestrial Vegetation Evaluator), a probe robot and with that the story really begins. Our hero finds himself in love with this new entity and tries his best, in ways we can all relate to, to get her to notice him. I won’t go into any more details; I don’t want to spoil it for you.

Finally, here is a movie that I can unreservedly say is good for the whole family. The story line is a simple one and was actually conceived before TOY STORY. This is a sweet tale of love and adventure, one that anyone of any age can relate to and enjoy. The story is smooth and well thought out. There are no scary parts for the little ones and not even a hint of improper language (from what dialog there is, since our robot stars say very little). The story is full of excitement and humor aimed at everyone.

The CGI effects are by far the best I have seen yet. PIXAR has always held the top of that category, but they have exceeded themselves with this one. It is just amazing how you can have such rich character development with these animated characters without the need of dialog. It is wonderful and refreshing.

WALL-E is directed by Andrew Stanton who also directed FINDING NEMO and A BUGS LIFE. He also did the screenplay for WALL-E as well as FINDING NEMO, MONSTERS INC., A BUGS LIFE, TOY STORY and TOY STORY 2, so you know what to expect if you have seen those other films. On another subject, I see that he and PIXAR are also starting on Edgar Rice Burroughs, JOHN CARTER OF MARS. But, we’ll have to wait until 2012 for that one! I loved those stories when I was younger.

The bottom line here is that WALL-E is by far the best, most entertaining film I’ve seen in a long time. It is one of those rare gems that you can see over and over again and still enjoy it. With no hesitation, this one gets a 10 out of 10 on my humble rating scale. Go see it!

PS: The short animated feature, also done by PIXAR, before the WALL-E main feature is also very good and very clever.

THE INCREDIBLE HULK

2008-06-10T08:11:00.013-04:00

THE INCREDIBLE HULK

I originally wasn’t going to waste my time or money on this film because it looked like just another boring CGI video game type film. But, I was gifted with free tickets to see a pre-release of the film, so, since the price was right I went.

There are two groups of people who will go to this film. The first and larger of the two is the Hulk/Superhero/comic book crowd. The second are those folks who are just going to see a movie who might like action/adventure/special effects and the like. So, this review will try to address both groups and I’ll use pluses and minuses so you can judge for yourself.

THE STORY: After the MARVEL Logo and during the opening credits in the background, the story is shown of how the Hulk became the Hulk. Those who know the story will be glad to know that it is not rehashed yet again since it is not really important to the story anyway. This is a plus for Hulk fans since they know this part in gory detail, I’m sure, and this is a plus for those who are not Hulk fans because is gives the story of what happened with just enough detail to establish the plot.

The actual story opens with our hero, Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) living in secret in Brazil, searching for a cure to his affliction. He is in hiding because he knows the evil government of the good old U.S. of A. is after him to be able to develop new bio-weapons from his blood that carries his condition. At the same time he is taking anger management training in order to control his “episodes” of becoming the Hulk (he converts when he gets too angry or emotional). But alas, the evil General Thaddeus “Thunderbolt” Ross (William Hurt), U.S. Army run amok, finds out our hero’s location and sends in a team to retrieve him under the command of Captain Emil Blonsky, a power hungry soldier who is the antithesis of our hero,. This is where the running begins … there is so much running in this movie I almost wanted to yell out “Run, Forest, Run!” The running is a definite minus for everyone.

Next our hero, now more desperate than ever to find his cure, returns home to try to retrieve necessary data on the experiment that caused his problem. There he is reunited with the love of his life Betty Ross (Liv Tyler), not to be confused with Betsy Ross of US flag fame, who just happens to be the daughter of head bad guy General Ross (surprise, surprise). There they rekindle their “whatever it was” relationship which is climaxed when “Daddy” finds Bruce again and sets Blonsky, who has been genetically altered, after him again … there is a lot more running here.

Now the scene switches to “New York, New York, that wonderful town”, where Bruce and Betty hook up with a scientist who has been anonymously working with Bruce on a cure. But, unbeknownst to our comic book heroes, but not to us, “Daddy” knows where they are and sends the more genetically altered Blonsky to get him yet again. You’d think they’d learn that the script is fixed! Blonsky gets to be transformed into an anti-Hulk and there is a long, too long fight scene between the two that contains way too much running. That’s the story without much in the way of spoilers.

The Pluses and Minuses: Now here is my take on what I saw. The first thing the stuck out in my mind was the movie soundtrack music, or title music, that was played during the opening credits and background story. It was TERRIBLE! Those of you who know me, know I love movie music. I have a large collection of movie soundtracks and themes and even have a Movie Music Game I developed. Let me tell you that this was the most uninspiring collection of non-representative music I’ve heard in ages. Enough said; big minus for me there.

On the same subject, about ½ ways through the movie, the music score playing in the background sounded like it was being played on an old vinyl record on a turntable being turned by hand. It was so awful that it was distracting. It wasn’t a problem with the film because the dialog seemed to be in syc. Where are the quality control people? I hope all the releases don’t have this problem. Another big minus here.

Character development; what character development? There was some development on the part of the Bruce Banner character and I don’t like William Hurt anyway, so he was a typical bad guy. But, I didn’t give a hoot what happened to any of them. There was no sincerity and no wanted to cheer other than that the film was finally over. Overall the acting was sub-par. Yet another minus here.

The CGI (computer graphics), I must admit, were better than I expected, but by no means more than adequate. The biggest problem with the CGI I had was in the direction. The scenes and movement of the characters was much too fast to follow, which left me asking “What is happening? What just happened?” to the point that the plot disappeared. This was more so in the final battle scenes … enough is enough, overkill (no pun intended), but I suppose they were playing toward the video game crowd so they can sell the new Hulk video game soon to be released. I hate it when everyone is motivated by money. So the CGI would be pluses for the video crowd, but minuses for the plot/story crowd.

The story line and plot had nothing at all new. It’s the same old story hashed out yet again with different effects and a few different plot threads. The whole story has 3 stories that are all the same … look for cure, get found out, transform into the Hulk, have fight, run away. The only difference with each being is that each fight is a little longer and more violent than the previous one. And for originality, there is a scene in the film where the Hulk and Betty are on a cliff in the Smokies … this scene immediately reminded me of scenes in the original KING KONG with Fay Wray even to the point that the scene looked like it was almost black and white. Like I said, there is nothing original here, just more minuses for me.

I must say there were a few good funny lines in the story that were really good, but just not enough to put it up there with IRON MAN, for instance. Also, there were several cameos in the movie which were great. To me, these were the only high points of the movie.

The Bottom Line: So my overall rating of this movie would be 6 out of 10, which is an average of the two groups, on my magic movie rating scale. This rating should be considered higher if you are a Hulk fan and lower if you are not, but for me, I stick with my opinion stated in the first paragraph. I’m glad I didn’t have to pay for this one!

Yes, there will be another one!

THE CRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN

2008-05-17T10:39:00.014-04:00

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA:
PRINCE CASPIAN

PRINCE CASPIAN is the latest of this summers big releases. This is the second movie in the Narnia series based on the C. S. Lewis stories in THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA. I should point out to those of you who are not familiar with THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA that it consists of really seven separate stories. The first movie, THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE, was based on the second story in the series. It was released in 2005 and won 1 Oscar and was nominated for two others. PRINCE CASPIAN, based on the 4th story in the series stars the same four main characters from the first movie, Georgie Henley as Lucy Pevensie, Skandar Keynes as Edmund Pevensie, William Moseley as Peter Pevensie and Anna Popplewell as Susan Pevensie.

PRINCE CASPIAN wastes no time with recaps or character building. It assumes you are already familiar with the story line and characters from the first film. With that out of the way, the story wastes no time in getting started. The story is age old, a young prince is going to be overthrown by the evil pretender to the throne and flees for his life to find a way to get back his throne and overthrow the evil usurper. Our young heroes are summoned back to Narnia, which in Narnia years is 1300 years since they were last there, but only one year in their time scale. They are the Kings and Queens of Old.

That’s all I’ll mention of the plot and story line. I don’t want to spoil it for everyone.

The movie is well done, like the first; I’d even say it was done better. The makeup and special effects are wonderful. There are a ton of different characters both human and non-human, but I have to say that the mice have the best lines!

The movie is directed by Andrew Adamson, who also directed THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE, SHERK and SHREK 2. Adamson was also a writer in both Narnia films and SHREK 2 and SHREK THE THIRD. After you have seen this film, you will notice that there is a slight resemblance between Reepicheep the mouse in PRINCE CASPIAN and Puss ‘n Boots in SHREK. That is no accident as Adamson has stated that he developed the character of Puss from the Reepicheep character in Narnia, except for a few subtle differences. Interesting trivia.

The movie runs 146 minutes, the first movie ran 145, and the time flies. There are just a few spots where the story drags a bit, but other than that it’s pretty non-stop.

The CGI characters are all wonderful. Computer animation has come a long way. I did have some problems with the centaurs though. The centaurs in the Harry Potter films are 100% CGI, if I remember correctly. The centaurs in Narnia are actors with CGI added for the hind sections. This is quite a feat to do and it is done very well for the most part, but still, there are a lot of scenes where the centaurs are always facing directly to the audience to hide their hind sides. I found that obvious and a bit annoying. But, I’m far too critical here, I’m sure. I also wish that the centaurs had a bigger role in the dialog. There are lots of centaurs, but very few lines for them. I see them as far too important characters to be left out.

The other thing that bothered me was the acting of the William Moseley (Peter Pevensie). He just didn’t do it for me. He came off as to strained and phony, but, hey, I’m a critic, right? But, that is made up for with the mice. I just love what they did to the cat!

But, despite it all, I found PRINCE CASPIAN a well done, exciting and entertaining film. For non-Narnia fans, I’d give it an 8 out of 10 since you don’t know what it’s all about. For Narnia fans, I’ll give it a 9 out of 10. If you’re a fan or not, read the books!!

IRON MAN

2008-05-02T13:42:00.012-04:00

IRON MAN

Ok, the first of the summer “blockbusters” is out, IRON MAN, in the latest version of Marvel Comics takes over Hollywood. IRON MAN is based on the Marvel Comics super hero and I must say plays true to the true super-hero philosophy. Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) is a wealthy brainchild industrialist/scientist/protégé like his father before him. He owns Stark Industries, which is a huge corporation that builds military weapons. The cast also includes Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) as the #2 in the corporation, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) as Stark’s assistant, and a host of well cast bad guys.

The movie starts right off with our hero being captured by insurgents in Afghanistan who insist that he build them a copy of a new weapon he has developed. Then the film goes back to what led to the present situation. With that done, we come back to the present situation, Stark’s escape from the insurgents by building the Iron Man prototype (not giving anything away here, it’s in the previews!) and return to the good old USA.

Once home, Stark has had a change of heart in what direction his corporation, and his life, has been going in and wants to make changes, but the board of directors (those always nasty unscrupulous people) want to lock him out. So, he spends his spare time building and perfecting his Iron Man suit, since he has nothing else to do.

There are great sequences during the building and testing of the suit where Stark’s only friends are his computer and all the robotic helpers with which Stark carries on constant conversations with a lot of great shtick. Stark’s first venture into the real world is a great sequence and makes you want more.

This movie is fun, with more than ample special effects that are very well done, a lot of sight gags, a lot of great dialog, and a lot of great cars. The cast, as mentioned before is well cast and Downey is a perfect fit for the part of Stark. Other good supporting cast include Shaun Toub as Yinsen (the assistant during his capture) and Faran Tahir as Raza (the bald bad guy). The only character I didn’t like was Col. Jim Rhodes (Terrence Howard), who was supposed to be Stark’s friend, but his character was never developed or relationship really established. To me he just seemed to get in the way.

I have to mention that I do not recall a single profanity is this movie and the “romance” was limited to one brief scene only to develop part of Stark’s personality and playboy image at the time. That’s refreshing.

I certainly won’t say that this is the blockbuster of the summer … we still have the new Batman movie, Wall-E, Indiana Jones, Journey to The Center of the Earth, to mention just a few, yet to come. But, I will say this is a fun movie and great entertainment. I am torn between giving this a 9 or a 10, but my humble rating system says I’ll give it a 10. By the way, I just LOVED the ending!!! I’m sure there will be sequels.

2008-04-20T21:15:00.015-04:00

THE FORBIDDEN KINGDOM was described by one critic as “Kung Fu lite”. This is a martial arts, tongue in cheek, don’t expect anything surprising, old time formula flick that is just good entertainment, especially if you are a fan of Jackie Chan or Jet Li who both star in it.

The story centers around a kung fu obsessed teen (played by Michael Angarano) from Boston (of all places) who seems like any other teen nerd type that the movies portray as the stereo-type nowadays. He has a “friend” who is an old, old pawn shop owner who keeps him in stock with kung fu movies and articles of interest. In the back of the pawn shop, he finds an ancient staff. Well, not to tell too much, there are the “bad teens” who show up and threaten our hero who mystically gets transported through the “gate of no gate” (just a dumb plot device to get the kid where the action is) where he gets mentored by an always drunk Jackie Chan who can still best an army of bad guys while totally in the bag! What a guy! The plot is that our young hero must return the staff to the Monkey King who has been turned to stone for 500 years. Along the way they add the silent monk (Jet Li) and Sparrow (Yefei Liu) to the party.

There is nothing special about the plot of THE FORBIDDEN KINGDOM and even the title doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the story … so who cares. Just bring on Jackie and Jet and have some fun. And that’s what the movie does. There is plenty of screen time for both Chan and Li. The martial arts scenes are what the martial arts movie buffs want and I don’t think they will be disappointed. I especially liked the arch villain the Jade Warlord (Collin Chou) who I thought made a great bad guy. All that mascara reminded me of Ming the Merciless.

I think the costumes and sets were wonderful and very well done as was the matt work for most of the scenes. The photography was good to the point of distracting, especially the scenes filmed in China. I found the whole film a pleasure for the eyes to behold. I did have some trouble understanding parts of the dialog from Li and Chan, which annoyed me a bit. But, if you’ve seen these guys before, you’re used to it.

Still, this is just another kung fu movie, nothing new here except it has both Jackie Chan and Jet Li. Despite the Karate Kid story line and the very predicable plot, I found this very entertaining. And that is what I go to the movies for, to be entertained. And it was a real pleasure to see Jet Li smile and even laugh in a film. Now that’s entertainment!!

I’ll give it an 8 out of 10 on my ever so humble Monkey King movie scale. You the man!

EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED

2008-04-19T10:59:00.008-04:00

EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED is a semi-documentary film by Ben Stein (see links at bottom) that takes us on a journey around the globe where he interviews scientists, educators and philosophers that are being persecuted in a modern day witch hunt because they believe in intelligent design and dare to speak out against Darwinism. These learned people of education are being fired, ridiculed and ostracized for merely challenging Darwin’s theory; proposing that life on this planet could be a part of some intelligent design and not random chance. And you though the Scopes trial was over!

The movie has many topics that are covered and interviews with people from both sides of the street. Sure, there is a controversy involved with these two theories and there has been for decades … even centuries. There are hundreds of web sites out there each screaming the “evidence” to prove their point. I mean, this battle is so intense that people’s careers and lives are ruined by their beliefs. To me this is the main travesty that is exposed by this film. The loss of freedom and suppression of thought.

This points out to me is what I have seen my whole life. Some call it “the old boys school”, some say it’s elitism, there are dozens of names, but is IS out there and I, for one, have seen it first hand my entire life. It is good to see someone speak out about it for a change.

I can remember in High School English class. We were studying poetry. The teacher gave a student a failing grade because that person dared to interpret a poem differently than the teacher’s interpretation. I was glad to see that it didn’t stop there. The student complained and escalated the problem and after a battle with the powers that be, the teacher was forced to back down and acknowledge that there can be more than one interpretation.

This is one of the stories this movie is telling, except the “powers that be” here are more powerful and the mountain is harder to climb. We have the group with the power telling everyone what to believe. There is no debate and anyone who opposes their view is ostracized, fired, blacklisted and on and on. In this particular battle, I have also seen first hand, as have we all, the deteriorating of the conservative point of view, not because of proof or the evidence tells us the conclusion, but because others say it’s the way it should be and the rest of us must tow the party line.

This brings me to another point. This movie points out that theses scientists pushing Darwinism shouldn’t even be called scientists since they do not follow the scientific method which all scientific research must adhere to. For those who forget what the Scientific Method is, here is the definition from Wikapedia:

“Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”

If you listen to what is said in the film, none of those against the theory of intelligent design have any proof. It is all based on conjecture and consensus. Science is not based on consensus, but on facts otherwise it is not science, but, in fact, conjecture. After all, Darwinism is a THEORY, not a fact. Even Darwin admitted that the fossil record did not support his theory and so don't its supporters. But yet, they teach and talk about it as if it were fact. Yes, those opposed to intelligent design have a theory, too. That is why both sides should be allowed to express their theories or we will be thrust back into scientific dark ages. I better get off the subject at this point, this is supposed to be a movie review!

I won’t go into the interviews with British biologist Richard Dawkins, or others. I won’t get into the some of the opinions on how life was brought here by aliens in UFO’s or tie-ins with the Holocaust and other atrocities. You will have to see it for yourself.

I found this movie well done and thought provoking. It shows that there are a lot of learned people out there that are just plain “stupid”... but, we already know that! Sure, my mind was made up on what I believed even before I saw this film and nothing could have changed what I know to be right. But, no matter which side you are on, I suggest you see it. There is so much information given and the discussions are so compelling that I will probably see it again. I feel this is a must see for everyone. I have to give this a 10 on my humble movie rating scale.

If you want to debate any of the content of this review or the topics of the film, feel free to add comments.

"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty" I COR 1:27

More on Ben Stein

Personal website: http://www.benstein.com/

Or for lazy people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein

VANTAGE POINT

2008-03-09T14:04:00.011-04:00

VANTAGE POINT

Forgive me for making this a short review, but if I say too much about this movie I might spoil the plot and you wouldn’t want that, now would you?

Thomas Barnes and Kent Taylor are two Secret Service agents assigned to protect President Ashton at a landmark summit on the global war on terror. Agent Barnes is recovering since he took a bullet for President Ashton six-months earlier and they make it clear that we don’t know if he is up to the challenge of protecting the President. The setting is the teeming Plaza Mayor, or central square, in Salamanca, Spain where crowds and dignitaries have gathered for the event. The time is high noon. President Ashton arrives at the plaza and is escorted to the stage by the Secret Service. After an opening address by the Mayor of the City, the President is shot twice. Chaos and panic ensue and escalates when bombs begin to explode outside and then inside the plaza. This is all seen from Barnes point of view.

Then a curious thing happens. The story rewinds about 15 minutes or so and the same story is told from a different person’s “vantage point”. This happens 5 times during the film, each time you are given more clues to what has happened and you can correct your wrong guesses from the previous perspective. The final segment provides you with the entire truth and the completion of the story.

This is not a new technique for movies. The most famous, and by far the best use of this method was Akira Kurosawa’s Rashômon (1950), a great film.

The film has a good cast, but I found Forest Witaker a bit out of place in the film and most of the time when I saw Dennis Quaid, he reminded me of Harrison Ford when he played those same kind of roles in the Tom Clancey stories and the like … that same scowl. But, maybe that’s what people on government payrolls are supposed to look like.

Although a lot of movies “critics” haven’t had too much good to say about this movie, I’ll remind you of my philosophy of what a good movie is. A good movie to me is one that either entertains you, makes you think or stretches your imagination. This movie is one that makes you think … you try to put the pieces together as to who done the dirty deed, then why and how are the “good guys” going to stop them. Sure this movie has it's problems and is far from perfect. But, it kept me thinking and trying to guess the plot until the end. Some parts I figured out ahead of time, others surprised me. I’ll give this an 8 out of 10 on my humble movie rating scale.

THE BUCKET LIST

2008-01-28T11:38:00.000-05:00

First off let me state that I have never been a Jack Nicholson fan. I’ve tolerated him in most movies and, to me at least, his acting seems to be stereo-typed where he always plays the same type character roles. So, having seen him once, you’ve seen him in everything (my opinion). On the other hand, I’ve always liked Morgan Freeman, ever since watching him with my kids when he was on The Electric Company. (Now that dates me!). So, I went into THE BUCKET LIST with mixed feelings, but the premise was enough to make me want to go.

The story is about two men, from totally different ends of life, society and perspective, who are forced to room together in a hospital cancer ward for a very long period of time while. Edward Cole, played by Jack Nicholson, is a billionaire self-made executive and Carter Chambers, played by Morgan Freeman, is a working class mechanic who never attained his real desire to be a history teacher how keeps sharp by knowing all the answers to all the Jeopardy questions ever written. Both are suffering with terminal cancer. This is the only thing they have in common. They eventually become friends and come up with a “Bucket List” of things they want to do before they “kick the bucket”.

The list contains such items (that are supposed to ring your heart and mind with the wonders of the human spirit – right!) as skydiving, racing in a Mustang 350 GT, getting a tattoo, visit the Taj Mahal, the Pyramids, Rome, Africa, laugh until you cry, see something majestic (whatever that really means), help a complete stranger for the good … you get the picture.

So, our two “heroes” set off to fulfill the list mainly due to Edward’s unlimited funds and desire to go out with a bang. This is what I see as the “typical” stereo-typed Nicholson role. It is who he plays all the time (granted, I haven’t see all his films), but it’s what I have come to expect from his roles. Carter decides to go with him and as they strut off around the world, they become the best of friends.

At this point, and very early on in the film I might add, is where I start to feel uncomfortable. Here is Carter, married for 46+ years, a devoted husband, father and grandfather, deciding to ignore his family, especially his wife who pleads for him not to go, and doing the most selfish act in his life. It doesn’t make sense to me and it is out of character for the Carter we learn about to this point. Now a lot of “new agers” will say, “What’s wrong with him doing all the things he always wanted to do but never had the chance to?” to which I would reply, and what about his wife’s dreams that she will never have fulfilled? (Believe me, folks, this is my very, very short answer!)

This movie was directed by Rob “Meathead” Reiner, who I believe wanted this film to be a comedy based on the adventures of these two guys as they run around the world doing their bucket list, having funny adventures, a few laughs and then, realizing who they are, come to grips with the real meaning of life. But, mainly, this was to be a comedy. I respect Rob and he has done a lot of really great stuff in the past, but, I think with this one he misses the bucket. There are some really funny moments with Edward and Carter seeing the world, but nothing that wasn’t done before or even unexpected. It just didn’t have what it needed to tell the story. I fear it was the writing and directing more than the acting.

I found the acting generally good, with Jack playing the Jack role and Morgan playing … well, the Morgan role, if you get my drift here. There is nothing too new here. At this point I will give Jack a plus-up. Yes, me, giving Jack Nicholson a plus-up. I liked the sincerity that he played in the end on the film … how he changed. I found this very convincing and well done, much to my surprise. I felt that I could identify with both the Edward Cole's that he played in the film. But, alas, it was too little, too late.

I’ll have to give this a 7 out of 10 on my humble rating scale. Don’t blame me, the cat made me do it!

WINDWALKER (1980)

2008-01-22T10:15:00.001-05:00

WINDWALKER (1980)

In the winter of 1797, illness has forced a band of Cheyenne to migrate to the south, leaving behind those who were too weak or sick to travel. The aging warrior, Windwalker (Trevor Howard), is ill and dying. His family, which consists of his son Smiling Wolf (Nick Ramus), Smiling Wolf’s wife and three children, stay with him after the band leaves. While laying in bed, he tells his grandchildren about his life as a young brave, his marriage to his beautiful Tashina, the blessing of having twins born and the pain of having Tashina die young and one of his children stolen by Crow warriors, the enemy of the Cheyenne.

After Windwalker dies, his family starts their journey to the south, unaware that a Crow war party is stalking them. But the Great Spirit awakens Windwalker for a final mission to complete his life’s journey.

This is a wonderful story and well written and well narrated by Nick Ramus and is told as we would have believed it was told around Indian campfires. This is an American Indian story. There are no white men and no white man influence anywhere in the story. The photography is beautiful. Again, a small regret that the best cinematography equipment wasn’t available for this movie. The shots could have been spectacular. But, some of the shots are still pretty awesome. The scenes of Nick Ramus majestically riding his white war horse are scenes that will always come to my mind whenever I think of American Indian warriors. That horse is beautiful.

It wasn’t hard to fit Trevor Howard into the role of an Indian here. I would have preferred a Native American to play the part, but the distraction of the very English Howard was only minor. If you didn’t know who Trevor Howard was, you wouldn’t have noticed. All the other actors are excellent in their roles and it doesn’t take long to get swept up in the story. The film is fascinating as the story unfolds and has a totally satisfying conclusion, which is more than I can say for most films. The dialog that Windwalker has with the Great Spirit during the film is a nice way to express what is going on in his mind as he tries to figure out what is happening around him and the confusion he is having because he knows he should be dead but isn’t. There are a lot of nice touches in this film.

Needless to say, this is one of my favorite films. Well worth the time to see. I rate this a 9 out of 10 on my modest rating scale.

CLOVERFIELD

2008-01-20T20:50:00.000-05:00

Well, folks, I never intended on seeing this movie, even though I'm a sucker for SCI-FI/Monster movies. But, I had recommendations from more than one person who saw it and though it was great. So, I went for it.

CLOVERFIELD is about a group of young people in New York City who are having a farewell party for one of them who is relocating to Japan (how appropriate for Godzilla fans) for a new employment opportunity, and are caught in an attack by a giant Godzilla sized monster-thingy that attacks the city. The entire movie is a replay of the video tape that is being shot starting before the party and continuing through all the events encountered by these folks while the attack is going on. When I say this is a video replay, it is just that. The camera is jerked around, dropped, poorly aimed, etc all for effect.

The movie starts out telling you that this is a video stored in military archives regarding events surrounding what is labeled as Code Name: CLOVERFIELD by the military, hence the name of the film. The original title was 1/18/2008, which was the release date of the film. Now that that part is out of the way, the next 20 plus minutes of this film concerns the personal videos of the people as they get ready for the party and certain inter-personal relationships between people in the film. I found this long and drawn out, I didn't like the people, their attitudes, their drunkeness and obsession with who is sleeping with who. I really didn't care. I found myself trying to stay focused on the movie instead of wondering what I would cook for dinner that night.

When the attack eventually comes, we are as much in the dark (no pun intended since this happens in the middle of the night) as those in the video are about what is happening. This, of course, was the intent and design of the film. We see destruction and panic and people die and people loot stores and all those statements on society that are supposed to make us shake our heads. At this point, I have to mention the controversy that recently arose with some people saying that the film exploits 911. All I can say to this is, I see why they would say this, with the falling buildings and dust and debris reminding us of what the Twin Towers looked like as they fell, but that is what falling buildings and debris look like in a big city, DUH, and I wish these people would just go away and get a life. There is zero exploitation here. It was filmed in New York City because it has so many recognizable buildings and landmarks that are easily recognized by the audience. That's it. Nothing more.

The rest of the movie concerns a subset of our little group of potential munchkins trying to get out of Manhattan. As their little group gets smaller and smaller, they encounter the military, which conveniently tell our group that they don't know what they are fighting, but it is winning. (I couldn't help but wonder how they got M-1 tanks into downtown Manhattan so quick!) We never really get to see more than a few parts of this monster until the end ... let's just say it's different. Also, it spawns all kinds of little ones that remind me of the creatures in the film PITCH BLACK that, of course, like to eat people. Golly Sgt. Carter ... surprise, surprise!

At one crucial point, our lead character gets a cell phone call from his estranged girlfriend/lover/whatever she was, who is trapped and injured in her apartment. Our little band of braveniks run off to try to save her. Of course we know what direction she is in, now, don't we! At this point I especially love one of the girls in our group running around in her high heels though the streets and rubble and never having a problem or complaining about them. She eventually takes then off while climbing a staircase to the apartment building. Good for her!

They find our poor little helpless girl, with a metal concrete support rod, which is still in the concrete, protruding through her shoulder and a good two feet beyond. But, our heroes manage to lift her out and 10 minutes later she is running down the street with no assistance even though she must have lost half the blood in her body.

I won't continue with my criticism of, if you haven't figured it out by now, a pretty poor movie. I will admit there were some situations that generated suspense and the CGI was very good. I can't compare this to other monster movies, because this isn't really a monster movie. The end is pathetic, even though I wasn't surprised how it ended, and I am left with a lot of unanswered questions, like: Where did the monster come from; the movie tells us, who cares? What happened to him ... er, it? Why is it that a creature that is 40 or 50 stories tall, can see one little person on the ground and eat just him? I want to know what the camera and battery used by these folks in the film was. It recorded, used its light, and used night vision mode for at least 6 hours without a recharge!! "I just gotta get me one of those!"

I was personally disappointed in this movie. It didn't hold my interest except for in a few spots, and even though the CGI effects were quite good, I still couldn't wait for it to be over. I can't give it more that a 5 out of 10.

MAN HUNT (1941)

2008-01-17T10:30:00.000-05:00

MAN HUNT is a movie I hadn’t seen until recently. I thought I had seen most of the popular pre-war and WWII propaganda films, but somehow I had missed this one; surprisingly, since it has a good cast of Walter Pidgeon, Joan Bennett and George Sanders, with supporting cast of John Carradine and Roddy McDowell, and directed by Fritz Lang to boot.

The story is about a British big game hunter, Captain Alan Thorndike, played by Walter Pidgeon, for who regular hunting is no longer a challenge, so he challenges himself to a "sporting stalk" of Adolf Hitler during the summer of 1939. Sneaking into Bertesgarten, Hitler’s retreat, Thorndike manages to get Hitler in his rifle sites. He pulls the trigger and click; nothing happens. The "sport" was merely in seeing if he could do it. But, as Thorndike starts to crawl away, he pauses and thinks for a few moments, and then crawls back to where he first took the “shot”. He now puts a bullet in the chamber. Is he really going to shoot, or is this just another ego trip for him? As he takes aim, a sentry jumps him, the gun goes off and he is captured.

Thorndike is brought before the Gestapo, I assume, commander, effectively played by George Sanders, where he is beaten as they try to extract a confession and then try to get him to sign a paper stating the he was working for the British Government. When he refuses to sign, on moral grounds yet, they try to kill him by making his death look like an accident and then they can blame the British anyway. But, our hero escapes and manages to get back to England where he is pursued by Sanders and other German spies which he tries to elude with the help of a “lady of the evening”, Joan Bennett, who just happens to get involved.

The plot is very good and very believable with not even the smallest details overlooked and has a lot of suspense with twists and turns. You never know who is a German agent in England in 1939! The actors play their parts well and the direction is what you would expect from the caliber of Fritz Lang. There is a little bit of “My Fair Lady” in the story line in the scenes with lower class Bennett and upper class Pidgeon showing the extremes of the social chain in England. These scenes are a sidelight to the main plot, but are wonderfully shot and directed. And Pidgeon is just so naive ... is that a statement on the snobbery of the upper class or something else?

I will say, however, I was VERY disappointed in the ending, finale, conclusion or whatever you want to call the part of the film that is after the plot is concluded; the last 5 minutes. It seemed like an after thought, like it was just thrown in or the original was removed and replaced with this. You’ll know what I mean when you see the film.

I would have given this an 8 out of 10 except for the ending which forces me to give it only 7 out of 10. But, over-all, this is a very good film taking in consideration it was filmed in 1940 and release in 1941. By the way, the film is in black and white even though some of these attachments are color.

The Beast With 5 Fingers

2008-01-08T09:35:00.000-05:00

Now here’s one that you may or may not have seen. THE BEAST WITH 5 FINGERS is a typical late ‘40s, let’s play the audience horror movie that only has one good thing to recommend it; and that is Peter Lorre.

The story concerns a crippled pianist, played by Victor Francen, living in an Italian village who dies and leaves his estate to his caretaker nurse, played by Andrea King. The locals in the town believe that evil has taken over the villa after several murders are committed and it is believed that the severed hand from the pianist’s corpse the grandfather of Thing in the Addams family) is responsible for the deaths. The story now turns in to a supernatural who-done-it with an array of possible suspects including, the nurse (King), the nurse’s fiancé (Robert Alda), the only two blood relatives of the deceased, the secretary of the pianist (Peter Lorre), and of course, the hand. Rounding out the cast is the inevitable police Commissario (J. Carrol Naish), who must try to make sense out of all this in the Miss Marple/Poirot style and is pretty good in the support role.

The movie starts out poorly acted and is very slow for at least the first half of the film. Alda provides one of the most boring performances I’ve ever seen with a total lack of emotion. The film shows its low budget, poor script writing and lack of scene continuity and scene jumping that I found irritating to say the least.

What makes this movie (fill in your own words here … good, almost good, great, tolerable, etc) is the performance by Peter Lorre when he faces the “beast”. It is a masterful performance, the stuff that Peter Lorre is known for. It's too bad it's only about 15 minutes of the film. I won’t go into details, because I don’t want to spoil the story if you haven’t seen it. Unfortunately, to get to this performance, you have to go through the “not so good” parts of the movie, because the story line and set-up for his performance are necessary. There are some good special effects in the film, also. I say “good” meaning for 1946. The performance of Victor Francen should also be noted. His portrayal of a formally famed, now paralyzed pianist with his anger and obsessions is well done and makes the film work (if you think the film works); and this performance sets up the believability of the "beast".

So again, this is worth seeing if you want to see a small portion of “Peter Lorre 101”, or just have some fun around the tube watching some nonsense vintage ‘40’s horror flick. I just gotta hand it to them, I rate it a 7 out of 10.

Footsteps In The Dark

2007-12-31T22:44:00.000-05:00

I promised I’d start reviewing some old and classic films. Here is my first shot at it. For my first review of an oldies flick, I was going to do one of the dozens of great, campy SciFi B-movies from the ‘50s. But, I suddenly got the urge to do this seldom seen oldie instead.

FOOTSTEPS IN THE DARK (1941) is a classy comedy/mystery movie starring Errol Flynn, Brenda Marshal, Ralph Bellamy and Alan Hale. This movie is an out of the norm role for Flynn who we are all used to seeing as the swashbuckling hero in such classics as ROBIN HOOD, THE DAWN PATROL, THE SEA HAWK, and on and on. In this one, Flynn plays a high society executive, who has a secret hobby of writing murder mysteries and hanging out with the police attempting to solve cases. To do his investigations, he finds reasons so stay out late at night and sneaks in though the window while his wife (Brenda Marshal) is asleep, then lying about the time he came home. All at once, his book becomes popular, he gets involved in a murder case and his wife gets suspicious. You can guess the fun that follows.

The story is fun, has a good who-done-it to solve and the secondary plot line of how Flynn tries going to stay out of trouble keeps the interest up. It’s all great fun and Flynn does a surprisingly good job in the roll without swords and guns to back him up. Besides, it looks like he’s really having fun.

Alan Hale as the police chief adds to the spice. I just don’t think of a good Errol Flynn film without Alan Hale being in it; well, not many, anyway. (Yes, I'm a Alan Hale fan) All in all, this is a good 96 minutes of entertainment. I caught it on TCM (Turner Classic Movies). It’s also available to buy; or come over and watch it at my house!

I was toying with whether or not I should rate these, but since it's "my opinion" here (as the disclaimers states), why not. I give this a 7 out of 10.

The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep

2007-12-27T20:38:00.000-05:00

OK, I finally went to a new movie. There was quite a bit to choose from, but after the process of eliminating seeing this one because I don't like who is in it, and that one because it doesn't sound like it's worth spending the money on, and that one because it's to violent or too much bad language, I decided on seeing THE WATER HORSE: LEGEND OF THE DEEP. Good choice, Wes.

First let me say that the movie should just be titled THE WATER HORSE and leave it at that. These sub-titled extensions tend to be misleading and can turn one off to going to see the movie. In this case, it adds nothing to the story ... it actually left me wondering why they put it there. If you find out, let me know. LEGEND OF THE DEEP - phooey!!

Now to the story. I'll tell you up front I thought this film was very good. It had a good plot, good characters and good special effects. There wasn't any bad language (how nice is that!) and it's not too scary for small kids.

The story centers around an old man in present times telling a couple of tourists a story about the now famous fake picture of the Lock Ness Monster. The story goes back to 1942 Scotland and the situation there during WWII. Our hero, Angus MacMorrow (played by Alex Etel) is a young boy of about 12 or 13, living near the lake in northern Scotland with his mother and the hired help. They are rather well off, since they own a small estate (I assume they own it). Angus has a great fear of water and loves and misses his father dearly, who has been away in the Royal Navy for over a year.

Angus discovers a large strange "rock" by the lake and brings it home. Needless to say it hatches and our story begins. Angus calls it "Crusoe" after Robinson Crusoe, a book in his father's workshop. I don't feel that I'm spoiling anything here since this all happens very early in the story. But, at the same time Angus starts his "adventure", two things happen that change everyone's life. First, the Army sends an artillery company to bivouac on the estate to establish anti-submarine defenses around the Lock (which leads to the open sea), and a new hire, Lewis Mowbray (played by Ben Chaplin)is hired as a new handyman and moves into Angus's father's workshop which was Angus's sanctuary and where he is keeping his new "pet'. This is all traumatic to Angus who has to hide the "pet" from his mother, who refuses to let him have any kind of pet, and solicits the aid of his sister and later Lewis, to keep the secret.

I won't go into more plot details. I'll let you learn them for yourself. Suffice it to say there are adult situations and inferences that are done so well, that the adults watching have a good adult story and the kids will have their story unburdened with adult stuff. There are a lot of laughs and a lot of tense moments. A well written story.

I found this movie very entertaining with something for everyone, the kids, the adults, the criers and the laughers. The story was well written and well acted. The actors are not well know actors and, for this guy at least, made it all that more enjoyable and believable. I have to throw in one warning, though. Everyone talks with a Scottish brogue, so be prepared!

I have to throw in a special well done for the photography. The shots were stunning of the Lock and the mountains of the area (even though it was shot in New Zealand). I know it's early to say anything, but this deserves an award for it's beautiful photography.

The special effects were good, but once Crusoe grows up, the CGI looks too much like CGI as opposed to the scenes when it was a small thing where it was a lot better in appearance.

After all is said, I feel this deserves a 8 out of 10 from this humble reviewer.

Apologies

2007-12-27T20:34:00.000-05:00

Sorry I've been away and not keeping up with this. But, for those who know me, it's been a very busy fall. Besides that I haven't seen many movies. I promise to be more attentive in the future. I'm not going to limit this sit to just new movies, but I'll start reviewing oldies and classics and even some B SciFi stuff from the 50's. So keep tuned.

Wild Hogs

2007-09-18T14:41:00.001-04:00

A good description of this might be Brando’s “The Wild One” meets The Three Stooges during mid-life crisis. This story is about four suburban middle-aged middle class bikers, who call themselves the “Wild Hogs”, deciding to get away from it all and take a road trip from Cincinnati to the Pacific. Taking their bikes, the "Wild Hogs", Doug (Tim Allen), Woody (John Travolta), Bobby (Martin Lawrence) and Dudley (William H. Macy), putz up the road and eventually stop in New Mexico for a drink in a biker bar that belongs to the "Del Fuegos", a mean biker gang like the kind that give mean biker gangs that kind of reputation (a nice way of saying stereotyped). The leader of the gang, Jack (Ray Liotta), steals Dudley’s bike. Woody takes matters into his own hands and steals it back which starts a predictable chain of events.
Even though the plot is predictable, there are still a lot of fun parts to make this a pretty good flick, probably more so for bikers who see a lot more of the humor in these characters than non-bikers. My only complaint is that I feel that John Travolta was strained in this roll and seemed to be over-acting to me, while the others seemed to be taking it all in stride. There was also a lot of use of the “s” word (why they do this is beyond me. It adds nothing to the story at all, especially in a Disney film), but other than that there wasn’t anything offensive in it. I especially liked the scenes during the end credits. This is a no-surprises comedy that I rate as 7 out of 10.

The Farmer Astronaut

2007-09-18T14:39:00.000-04:00

This is a story about dreams and fulfilling them. Charles Farmer is a former Air Force astronaut wannabe, astrophysicist and engineer (not stated, but implied by his talents), who left the Air Force in order to save the family ranch after his father’s death. But, his dream of going into space has never died to the point of obsession. He lives and breaths outer space. He has indoctrinated his entire family into his dream and they are all part of it. He has even built a real rocket, based on an Atlas rocket and built out of spares and scrap, in his barn, that he intends to use to shoot himself into space. The locals in the town all laugh behind his back. They just think he is a bit of a kook and don’t really take him seriously. The down side to all of this is that he has gone into debt, big time, and has not told anyone (his wife especially) about it, and they are about to foreclose on the family ranch. On top of that, government has been made aware of his rocket when he inquired about the large quantity of fuel he wanted to purchase for his launch, and in this post 9/11 world they have put the FBI to watch his every move, and the FAA tries to slow roll him so that the bank can foreclose before his launch date. Charlie feels his dream slipping away and throws caution to the wind and decides to launch using a less than perfect fuel source.

Like I said, this is a movie about dreams. It is a good family movie with nothing offensive in it at all. The performances are good with Billy Bob Thornton as our dreamer, Virginia Madsen as his “too good to believe in supporting all this” wife, a small part by Bruce Dern (he’s getting old) and an uncredited roll by Bruce Willis. The problems I had with it are it is a bit slow moving. Some people like this pace, but I needed it to move a bit faster. There were also numerous flaws, both technical and non-technical that tended to bother me, but it is still a good story with some life implications thrown in. All things considered, I give it a 7 out of 10 rating.

Shooter

2007-09-16T09:32:00.000-04:00

It was another rental weekend. I wouldn't have rented this one except it came with a recommendation, so I gave it a try.

Shooter is another "one man hero against the system" story in the Rambo vain. Our hero, Bob Lee Swagger, played by Mark Wahlberg (what is this obsession on three word names?) is an ex-marine sniper, and obviously, the best in the business (gee, I'm surprised). The story opens with our hero and his observer showing there stuff in an operation in Ethiopia, where his observer gets killed and he is abandoned by the "good guys". Next scene is 3 years later at his mountain home living with his beer fetching dawg, now retired Swagger is approached by retired Col. Isaac Johnson (Danny Glover) and his troop who convince Swagger that there will be an attempt on the life of the president by a sniper a a one mile range and only he can help them stop this before it happens. I mean, come on guys, this has fall guy written all over it! But, for the sake of a story, our hero falls for it and agrees to help.

Of course it is a set-up; of course they try to kill our hero; of course he gets wounded; of course he gets away; and of course our hero wants to uncover the plot and seek revenge. Standard plot mechanics, nothing new or original here. And because of his "super-hero" abilities, you know he will succeed showing off all his skills and waving the American flag all the way. If that's what you are looking for in this movie, you won't be disappointed, because that's what it is. A few original plot twists in the end and a lot of stupid moves on the part of our hero leaving you asking at the end of the movie "Why would he do that?", and then you realize that it is the excuse to have the action scenes, because if he "did the right things" (knowing what our hero knows all along, but they don't let us know until the end) there wouldn't be a story. So much for super-heroes.

On the positive side, Mark Wahlberg puts in a good performance and plays our hero straight and true. There is a decent supporting cast except I find Danny Glover unbelievable in his roll of a top guy, it just doesn't come off for me. I did like the small part veteran actor Ned Beatty played as Senator Meachum. He played the true arrogance of a man in his position.

So, if you want to see a Rambo style action film, this is it. If you want to see a plot twister that makes you think, you'd probably do better elsewhere. This movie is rated R. It has a bit of bad language, no sex other than Kate Mara in her underwear, no romance (other than maybe implied), and some blood, mostly due to the long range "head shots" that the sniper makes (this is the way they tell the audience that it's a kill). I was also disturbed by the sound quality. I had a lot of trouble understanding what was being said in a lot of instances and had to turn on the subtitles, but that might just be my audio setup. I give this movie a 7 out of 10.

Casino Royale

2007-08-19T14:28:00.000-04:00

There wasn't anything I wanted to see in the theaters this weekend that I had to see, so I rented Casino Royale, the latest James Bond movie released last year staring Daniel Craig as the latest Bond figure. The reason I didn't see it in the theaters was my predetermination that this was just another JB film with all the gadgets and nonsense that has turned me off to these films since the Timothy Dalton days. I was just tired of the same old thing. The few I did see was because John Cleese played Q.

My idea of a good James Bond movie was like From Russia With Love, my all time favorite Bond film because the plot was believable and the gadgets were believable. Goldfinger was good, but they went steadily downhill after that. But, I guess my taste in movies matured also.

The first thing that was noticed about the film was "where is the James Bond Theme music?" But, after all, it was a new Bond and this was really supposed to be the initial episode in James' career, but still I was pleasantly surprised at Casino Royale. It tried to stay true to the Ian Flemming story and got back to the basics of a good spy story without the need for all the extra gadgets. There was more action in this film without the gadgets than most films had with them. I especially liked the chase scene in the beginning of the movie that was all done on foot and totally believable except that no one could have that much energy!! But, it was great! Daniel Criag makes a good Bond, a little stiff for a Bond, but, after all, this was an immature Bond: Bond, The Early days!

I also liked the fun the writers had with the little "flash-aheads" and jokes pertaining to future Bond events, like the Aston Martin DB5 and an obvious joke to Moneypenny. The overall story was well written and the plot kept you guessing, even when you knew the outcome, you still had to figure out who, how and why. I don't want to give away any of the plot. Enjoyit yourself. This one is worth seeing a second time. I give it a 8 out of 10.

The Bourne Ultimatum

2007-08-05T14:53:00.001-04:00

The Bourne Ultimatum is the third in the Bourne series of movies written by Robert Ludlum. I saw the first movie in the series, The Bourne Identity, but was not impressed. Therefore, I didn't bother with the second movie in the series, The Bourne Supremacy.

This third entry doesn't need the other two to make any sense. Ultimatum stands quite nicely alone. The only knowledge you need to know is that our hero has had a memory loss. All the rest is supplied in the movie.

Matt Damon reprises his part as Jason Bourne, the good guy who was made to do bad things by other good guys who are really bad guys, you know, the standard anti-government-agency-exceed-your-authority making you the bad guy plot. Nothing terribly new in the plot lines except in it's execution and timing, which make this a non-stop action film with plenty of story to keep you interested and plenty of action to back it up.

Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) is being hunted by the people who made him what he is. He has only one objective, that is to go back to the beginning and find out the who, what and whys of who he was and is. He starts in Moscow, then Paris, London, Madrid and then to Tangier and New York City as he picks up clues and tries to stay one step ahead of the bad guys, er, good guys, aah, good guys who are actually bad guys ... you know what I mean. The tricks and maneuvers are first rate and more on the believable side than a Bond movie. The action is pretty much non-stop up there on a par with a Die Hard movie, only believable, like I said. But, like I have mentioned before, the jerky camera movement during all the action scenes I find very annoying, and there is plenty of jerky movement here. They call it "artistic", I say, "who needs it!"

Ultimatum is a decent movie with no profanities (that I recall) and no sex, but plenty of violence, but no bloody. The supporting cast is good with you routing for the "good" guys and wanting the "bad" guys to get there due. There is plenty in the story that is predictable and a few "gotchas" that take you by surprise. A decent 2 hours entertainment if you like this sort of thing. I give it an 8 out of 10.

Lady In The Water

2007-07-20T11:53:00.000-04:00

Lady In The Water is the latest film written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan who also did The Sixth Sense (great movie, I are this a 10!), The Village (so-so movie, rate a 6)), Signs (I didn't see), and Unbreakable (not too bad movie, rate a 7).

I didn't know what to expect with this movie, I had no preconceptions other than it was something of a fantasy.

Cleveland Heep is an apartment superintendent who one night rescues what he thinks is a young woman, named Story, from the pool at the apartment complex. He discovers that she is actually a bedtime story character who is trying to get back to her home. Cleveland, who knows nothing of this bedtime story, manages to piece together what is needed to try to help Story to get home. He involves all his tenants in trying to figure out what has to be done in order for Story to get home.

I was pleasantly surprised at this movie. It was not only a fantasy, but also a puzzle in the Hitchcock fashion, maybe The Never Ending Story, or like a game of Clue where you have to figure out who is needed to do what to come up with the right ending.

No one really stands out much in the acting. Paul Giamatti is good as Cleveland. Bryce Dallas Howard is OK as Story, it's not a very strong part anyway, but I have a little trouble adjusting to Opie having a daughter (she looks very much like her father). The rest of the characters just play supporting rolls.

All in all, I enjoyed the movie, but the "bad guy" being worked over by the "good guys" at the end of the movie ruined it for me. Still, I give it a 7 out of 10.

Apocalypto

2007-07-17T13:27:00.001-04:00

I have to confess, I gave in to all the nasty media pressure and did not go to see this movie in the theaters when it was out. I should have known that this was all sour grapes provided by a jealous industry that puts down anyone who doesn't play their game or are new comers (I have first hand experience there).

The media said that this was overly violent and extremely bloody. To a point, they were right. But, what they didn't say is that this was a good story, great photography and well acted. What more do you need for entertainment?

The story revolves around a small tribe of South American Indians who are attacked and captured by the, now in decline, Mayan Indians who intend on using the men for human sacrifices. The story is centered on Jaguar Paw, who is captured along with his family and whose focus is on getting back to save his wife and child who he managed to hide during the attack.

This film has humor, pathos, yes it is violent, yes it is bloody, but, not unnecessarily so. Certainly not near as bad as some of the horror flicks of late. The story quickly endears the viewer to the subject tribe and it's people. The bad guys are real BAD GUYS and there are no grey areas. I found the ending very satisfying.

If you can stand a little violence, this movie is a good rental. I give it 8 out of 10.

Children of Men

2007-07-16T15:25:00.000-04:00

This is another movie I waited to see on DVD, but after seeing it I almost wish I never bothered. This is a future story of the world in 2027 in total disarray due to war and terrorism, which have ravaged the world to the point that the UK is the only viable country left. Consequently, they have a huge immigration problem and have camps and golags for illegal immigrants. But, the biggest problem is that there have been no new births in over 18 years. No one knows why.

Our hero, Theo (Clive Owen), a former activist, agrees to transport a miraculously pregnant woman to a sanctuary at sea where scientists may be able to help save the future on mankind. The plot is slow, dull and I had to turn on the sub-titles in order to understand a lot of what they were saying. The film also has an almost non-ending which leaves you saying ... "so what? ... is that all?"

I should have known this would be bad because the film company was called Hit and Run Films!! I give it 3 out of 10. Miss it if you can.

Letters From Iwo Jima

2007-07-16T15:16:00.000-04:00

I've started to review films I see on DVD also, since I am reluctant to pay the outrageous prices at the box office for something I am not sure is worth it.

My first film is Letters From Iwo Jima. This is a fine film, directed by Clint Eastwood. It's the story of the Japanese soldiers preparing for and then engaging the American invasion of Iwo Jima during WWII. This movie is largely based on facts taken from letters of soldiers stationed there and a few survivors. This story tells of the great divide within the Japanese military as a whole as well as the differences between the officer and common ranks. It shows the futility of war and the sides of war we just don't want to admit are there. Nicely photographed and well acted by the Japanese cast. All spoken in Japanese with subtitles. I rate it 8 out of 10.

Live Free or Die Hard

2007-07-09T20:27:00.000-04:00

Ok, so my son came for a visit from Colordo Springs and we saw some movies. Today we saw the latest in the Die Hard series, LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD. My background with the Die Hard movies is mixed. I thought the Original Die Hard (1988) was a great movie except for the tremendous amount of bad language and too much gore. The cast was good (Alan Rickman always plays such a good bad-guy) and the plot was well thought out. The next two entries (Die Hard 2 - 1990 and Die Hard With A Vengeance - 1995) were just copies of the same formula with way to much foul language for me. Like all the Die Hards, this is crammed with Special effects, some of which are pretty poor by todays standards.

In case you haven't guessed, I hate all the bad language used in films. It distracts from the story and usually has no reason for being other than to get an R rating (I don't do R rated any more either). I was very pleased to see they rated this one PG-13 and I only remember hearing one profanity (although I'm sure there were others), this was certainly nice to hear, or not to hear, depending on how you look at it.

This entry has the same action formula (John McClain survives all, gets well beaten up, knocks off the bad guys one at a time, etc, etc). But, this time he has Justin long as a co-star playing a computer geek and the pair come off very well together. The plot, though totally unbelievable (as they usually are), was still fun even though predictable. Even so, I found this another good 2+ hours of entertainment. So, if you're a die hard Bruce Willis fan (pun intended) you'll like this one. I rate it 7 out of 10.

Transformers

2007-07-07T12:57:00.000-04:00

I broke out of my movie boycott slump, since there wasn't anything much out there I thought worthy of my hard earned money, and saw the TRANSFORMERS. I must admit I have never been a Transformers "groupie", never read the comics and never watched the cartoons. I just knew enough to have a general knowledge of what it was about. So, no preconceptions on my part.

I must admit that I was very impressed with the translation from a cartoon to the "big screen". The special effects were superb, especially Optimus Prime who they did an awesome job on special effects with. The story was not bogged down with unnecessary plot or boring conversations which made it pure entertainment. It was 2 1/2 hours of pretty much non-stop action, a plot that made sense and just the right amount of comedy to make it real entertainment, which is so hard to find nowadays, IMHO.

The only negative I have is my usual pet peeve about te jerky camera action in the action scenes with the special effects. I'm convinced that this is done to cover up flaws or just make the SPX cheaper to do since the viewer really can't tell what is happening. This really dives me crazy. But, the almighty dollar dives the film industry probably more than the rest of the corporate world, so I have to live with it. But, I'll rate this as 8 out of 10. Go see it if you want to just get away from it all and have a good time.

Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End

2007-05-27T17:02:00.000-04:00

Just got back from the latest Cap'n Jack movie. First I have to say, I loved the first one and thought the second one was pretty poor. This one, in my opinion falls in between the first two, but leans more toward the "wait for the rental" side.

Another long movie at 2 hours and 33 minutes, the special effects are up to standard, although there were some that were pretty poor by todays standards. The plot is long and drawn out and at times plain old boring. Don't get me wrong, there were quite a few good laughs, but some were predictable ... which I guess takes away from the humor.

I had real trouble understanding the dialog Naomie Harris presented with her heavy Caribbean accent, and Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley added nothing new. On the other hand, best actor should go to Geoffrey Rush for a wonderful job as Barbossa and best supporting actor should go to the monkey! As usual, they left the door open for more of these, but I won't be going unless they can find the formula they had with "The Curse of the Black Pearl". I give it a 7 out of 10.

Shrek the Third

2007-05-19T15:00:00.000-04:00

Saw this one today. It was ok ... not very long and bogged down with too much philosophical dialog. The jokes were all aimed at people from our generation, so kids won't get most of the jokes. Some good moments ... not as good as the last one ... rate it 6 out of 10.

Spiderman 3

2007-05-19T14:49:00.001-04:00

Saw this the first day out. I was pleased with the way the plot moved, it was a good story, well written. It's a bit long at 140 minutes, but the time flies. Special effects are good, as expected. I only find 3 flaws with the movie (personal opinions here). The first is Kirsten Dunst, sorry, I don't like her, she isn't a good actress, her character is shallow and flawed, and for the life of me I don't know what our hero sees in her. Second, the special effects in the initial fight scene with James Franco; everything moves so fast you can't make out what is happening most of the time. This was remedied in the rest of the movie. Lastly, I'm quite tired of seeing Spiderman's outfit getting ripped to shreds all the time, it never happened in the comic book! When does he have time to make new ones? Kirsten sure isn't going to make him one ... I can see it now! "Spidey honey, make your own damn costume!"

I'd still give it a 98out of 10.

2007-05-17T10:16:00.000-04:00

Well, here we are. Let's talk about movies. As you can see from the list below, I have a fair sized collection. I wouldn't say I'm a fanatic, but I do enjoy a well done movie and even some not well done movies. For instance, I love the Science Fiction B- movies from the '50's with all that paranoia and low budget special effects. I could have been another Elvira or, as we had in the Boston area back then, FEEP on Fantasmic Features (he was the same guy of played Major Mudd for those who remember). The movies in the past 30 years, I feel, are geared to the corruption of us all for the sake of making a buck. Not too much good in the movies in the 70's through 90's. They are starting to get back to some good "family" entertainment now, but they are still few and far between.