Reel Rave!
Aug 21, 2008
REVIEW: You Don't Mess With The Zohan
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
Consider this for a moment: Is 'The Zohan' really a wannabe superhero of some kind? Maybe he's some kind of an Israeli science experiment gone wrong? 'The Zohan' (played by Adam Sandler), is part Plastic Man (kicking people like that must require lots of flexibility), part Aqua Man ('The Zohan' can swim, this he can do), part Ron Jeremy (you know what I mean).
Although Sandler's latest flick was a bit lame, it was good enough for a few laughs and even worth a lesson or two in tolerating people of different cultures. But come on, this is Adam Sandler we're talking about here. You're not going to watch this movie for any ethical or moral lessons. You (or some of you at least), are going to watch it because you know his movies are fairly predictable and you're sure to get a laugh or two, especially when his buddies appear and play quirky/strange/odd/stupid roles.
The Zohan is funny (and slightly different from his previous roles), but really not funny enough to be worth the expense of watching it on the big screen. Wait till it comes out on DVD, or tape, and rent it.
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
Consider this for a moment: Is 'The Zohan' really a wannabe superhero of some kind? Maybe he's some kind of an Israeli science experiment gone wrong? 'The Zohan' (played by Adam Sandler), is part Plastic Man (kicking people like that must require lots of flexibility), part Aqua Man ('The Zohan' can swim, this he can do), part Ron Jeremy (you know what I mean).
Although Sandler's latest flick was a bit lame, it was good enough for a few laughs and even worth a lesson or two in tolerating people of different cultures. But come on, this is Adam Sandler we're talking about here. You're not going to watch this movie for any ethical or moral lessons. You (or some of you at least), are going to watch it because you know his movies are fairly predictable and you're sure to get a laugh or two, especially when his buddies appear and play quirky/strange/odd/stupid roles.
The Zohan is funny (and slightly different from his previous roles), but really not funny enough to be worth the expense of watching it on the big screen. Wait till it comes out on DVD, or tape, and rent it.
Labels: Adam Sandler, movies, review, You Don't Mess With The Zohan
Aug 9, 2008
REVIEW: The Mummy 3
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
Extremely disappointing. A complete and utter letdown. A damn shame, really.
The latest installment in the Mummy series is best left undiscovered, untouched and most importantly, unviewed. In cassette, DVD, or whatever physical form available, it should lay undisturbed on the shelves of video stores world-wide, or, as an insignificant and unimportant torrent file on some obscure torrent tracker in cyberspace. Yes, The Mummy 3 was that bad. Perphaps it would be more fitting to bury the movie in an unknown tomb of a unknown mummy, somewhere in Egypt, or on The Moon (if possible).
Firstly, there can be no Mummy movie without Rachel Weisz. Apparently, Weisz had issues with the script and backed out (Cinema Blend). Good for her! The Mummy movies, up until now, have been awesome and for Weisz, at that time, to back out, she must've have some pretty valid concerns about the script.
Secondly, I fail to understand why the folks behind The Mummy 3 couldn't find anything Egypt-related for the third film. Why China? Were they 'in' with the Beijing Olympics committee or something? Was there some secret consipiracy going on to promote China? Back to Egypt I say! Back! Back! Surely there must've been some Egyptian artifact, ruler, curse, or legend that could've been the basis for this movie (maybe they got their idea from Lucas?).
Thirdly, 'Alex O'Connell,' the 'O'Connell's' onscreen son, looks as old as 'Rick O'Connell.' Ol' 'Rick' doesn't even look that old, he looks pretty much the same age from his previous films. The only exception, I think, is when he tries his hand, or neck, at fly fishing and complains about how retired he is. What a whiner.
Fourthly, 'Rick's' grown-up son 'Alex.' Been there, done that. Remember Indiana Jones 4?
Fifthly, Maria Bello's performance as 'Evelyn Carnahan-O'Connell' was like a cold fish and nowhere near as warm and friendly as Rachel Weisz. To be fair, Bello had a difficult task ahead of her when she signed up for that role. Switching a familiar actor with another in a sequel is not the best thing to do. Not when audiences have grown accustomed to the original actor (actress). Also, it doesn't help things that Weisz is a cutie and Bello isn't much of one in comparison.
Let's hope that this installment of The Mummy is lost to the history books forever. Failing that, if they ever dare do a fourth Mummy, I'm hoping that Weisz will reprise her role, 'Alex' will be totally forgotten and that we go back to Egypt.
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
Extremely disappointing. A complete and utter letdown. A damn shame, really.
The latest installment in the Mummy series is best left undiscovered, untouched and most importantly, unviewed. In cassette, DVD, or whatever physical form available, it should lay undisturbed on the shelves of video stores world-wide, or, as an insignificant and unimportant torrent file on some obscure torrent tracker in cyberspace. Yes, The Mummy 3 was that bad. Perphaps it would be more fitting to bury the movie in an unknown tomb of a unknown mummy, somewhere in Egypt, or on The Moon (if possible).
Firstly, there can be no Mummy movie without Rachel Weisz. Apparently, Weisz had issues with the script and backed out (Cinema Blend). Good for her! The Mummy movies, up until now, have been awesome and for Weisz, at that time, to back out, she must've have some pretty valid concerns about the script.
Secondly, I fail to understand why the folks behind The Mummy 3 couldn't find anything Egypt-related for the third film. Why China? Were they 'in' with the Beijing Olympics committee or something? Was there some secret consipiracy going on to promote China? Back to Egypt I say! Back! Back! Surely there must've been some Egyptian artifact, ruler, curse, or legend that could've been the basis for this movie (maybe they got their idea from Lucas?).
Thirdly, 'Alex O'Connell,' the 'O'Connell's' onscreen son, looks as old as 'Rick O'Connell.' Ol' 'Rick' doesn't even look that old, he looks pretty much the same age from his previous films. The only exception, I think, is when he tries his hand, or neck, at fly fishing and complains about how retired he is. What a whiner.
Fourthly, 'Rick's' grown-up son 'Alex.' Been there, done that. Remember Indiana Jones 4?
Fifthly, Maria Bello's performance as 'Evelyn Carnahan-O'Connell' was like a cold fish and nowhere near as warm and friendly as Rachel Weisz. To be fair, Bello had a difficult task ahead of her when she signed up for that role. Switching a familiar actor with another in a sequel is not the best thing to do. Not when audiences have grown accustomed to the original actor (actress). Also, it doesn't help things that Weisz is a cutie and Bello isn't much of one in comparison.
Let's hope that this installment of The Mummy is lost to the history books forever. Failing that, if they ever dare do a fourth Mummy, I'm hoping that Weisz will reprise her role, 'Alex' will be totally forgotten and that we go back to Egypt.
Labels: Brendan Fraser, Cinema Blend, cutie, Maria Bello, Rachel Weisz, review, The Mummy, Wikipedia
Jul 31, 2008
REVIEW: The Dark Knight
(Move poster image from Wikipedia)
I’ve heard folks complain about sequels before. Some of them worry that the sequel won’t be as good as the first movie. Those folks (and you know who you are), would’ve have been dead wrong about The Dark Knight. In fact, it was even better than Batman Begins (IMHO).
Once again Christian Bale owns the role of The Batman. Forget Val Kilmer (Batman Forever) and George Clooney (Batman & Robin). Although, Michael Keaton (Batman and Batman Returns directed by Tim Burton) did the job quite well. Still, comparing the old series with the new, the former are like kiddie versions with the latter being the proper grown-up stuff.
And what about Heath Ledger, huh? The man owned the role of The Joker. Jack Nicholson, eat your heart out. Maybe you can play The Joker at a kindergarden party or something. Comparing the two Jokers is like comparing apples and oranges, or chalk and cheese, if you prefer. Ledger wins hands down.
However, despite his amazing performance as a dark, mentally deranged, scary-ass-type sicko, that alone (I think) is not worthy enough of an Best Actor award (no, I’m not hating, Ledger’s body of work doesn’t appear to be that vast, nor that deep). Instead, maybe the ‘powers that be’ will award him the ‘Best Supporting Actor‘ award posthumously.
Good riddance, I say, to Katie Holmes and a quick hello-and-goodbye to Maggie Gyllenhaal. Gyllenhaal should’ve played the role of Rachel Dawes from the get-go. She looks a lot more mature and graceful on the screen in comparison to Holmes. Sorry, but after her connection with Tom Cruise and his whole Scientology business (which he has a right to choose), I’m not interested in seeing much of her on the big screen. Tom, however, is another issue. I’d still watch a movie with him in it.
No big departure in acting from Morgan Freeman (always solid), Michael Caine (who, because of his accent, I think plays a better Alfred Pennyworth than Michael Gough from the earlier Batman movies) and Gary Oldman. Aaron Eckhart’s performance first as ‘The White Knight’ of Gotham and then as the revenge seeking ‘Two-Face’ was believable and contrasted well in some cases with ‘The Dark Knight’.
The movie could’ve done without the cameo by Cillian Murphy (Scarecrow). It did nothing. Nada. I’m not sure what Nolan & Co. where thinking of when they decided to put him back in there. Also, the scene where the kiddies are shooting at the cars with their make believe guns. Uh-uh. That was dumb and cheesy. Why would you want to put something like that in the middle of an action-type scene, what are you doing, trying to lighten up the mood or something?
The old Batman movies had an okay and somewhat exciting ‘theme’ music (for lack of a better word) to them. The Nolan movies flip them the bird and have a much darker, sinister sound which is way cooler than the old stuff (wonder if I can get it as ring tone on my mobile?)
If you're a fan of The Bat, run, don't walk to the cinema. If you've seen it already, go see it again! Yes, it's that good.
(Move poster image from Wikipedia)
I’ve heard folks complain about sequels before. Some of them worry that the sequel won’t be as good as the first movie. Those folks (and you know who you are), would’ve have been dead wrong about The Dark Knight. In fact, it was even better than Batman Begins (IMHO).
Once again Christian Bale owns the role of The Batman. Forget Val Kilmer (Batman Forever) and George Clooney (Batman & Robin). Although, Michael Keaton (Batman and Batman Returns directed by Tim Burton) did the job quite well. Still, comparing the old series with the new, the former are like kiddie versions with the latter being the proper grown-up stuff.
And what about Heath Ledger, huh? The man owned the role of The Joker. Jack Nicholson, eat your heart out. Maybe you can play The Joker at a kindergarden party or something. Comparing the two Jokers is like comparing apples and oranges, or chalk and cheese, if you prefer. Ledger wins hands down.
However, despite his amazing performance as a dark, mentally deranged, scary-ass-type sicko, that alone (I think) is not worthy enough of an Best Actor award (no, I’m not hating, Ledger’s body of work doesn’t appear to be that vast, nor that deep). Instead, maybe the ‘powers that be’ will award him the ‘Best Supporting Actor‘ award posthumously.
Good riddance, I say, to Katie Holmes and a quick hello-and-goodbye to Maggie Gyllenhaal. Gyllenhaal should’ve played the role of Rachel Dawes from the get-go. She looks a lot more mature and graceful on the screen in comparison to Holmes. Sorry, but after her connection with Tom Cruise and his whole Scientology business (which he has a right to choose), I’m not interested in seeing much of her on the big screen. Tom, however, is another issue. I’d still watch a movie with him in it.
No big departure in acting from Morgan Freeman (always solid), Michael Caine (who, because of his accent, I think plays a better Alfred Pennyworth than Michael Gough from the earlier Batman movies) and Gary Oldman. Aaron Eckhart’s performance first as ‘The White Knight’ of Gotham and then as the revenge seeking ‘Two-Face’ was believable and contrasted well in some cases with ‘The Dark Knight’.
The movie could’ve done without the cameo by Cillian Murphy (Scarecrow). It did nothing. Nada. I’m not sure what Nolan & Co. where thinking of when they decided to put him back in there. Also, the scene where the kiddies are shooting at the cars with their make believe guns. Uh-uh. That was dumb and cheesy. Why would you want to put something like that in the middle of an action-type scene, what are you doing, trying to lighten up the mood or something?
The old Batman movies had an okay and somewhat exciting ‘theme’ music (for lack of a better word) to them. The Nolan movies flip them the bird and have a much darker, sinister sound which is way cooler than the old stuff (wonder if I can get it as ring tone on my mobile?)
If you're a fan of The Bat, run, don't walk to the cinema. If you've seen it already, go see it again! Yes, it's that good.
Labels: Batman, Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, film, movies, review, The Dark Knight
Jul 11, 2008
REVIEW: College Road Trip
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
Even though I sorta-kinda-slightly enjoyed it, I figured Martin Lawrence couldn't sink any lower after doing Wild Hogs. Boy was I ever wrong. This from the man who cracked me up on the small screen in 'Martin' (anyone remember that show?) and who, alongside Will Smith, kicked butt, ran amok and wreaked havoc in Bad Boys and Bad Boys 2 on the big screen (there's talk of a BB3).
Forget Raven-Symoné's annoying role as college-bound-all-grown-up-now daughter 'Melanie Porter' and Kym Whitley's so-so performance as 'Mama Porter'. College Road Trip was a new low for Lawrence. How low? Any lower and he would've found himself in China (just in time for the Olympics).
However, two things saved his bacon. First, this is a Disney movie. As such, I shouldn't have been suprised that it turned out to be a cheesy, sappy, boring, lame-duck, irritatingly stupid, family-type movie. The second was 'Albert.' Throwing a pig in there and having it make an ass (asses, pigs, it's a regular barnyard) of overbearing-over-protective-daddy 'Chief James Porter' (Martin Lawrence) was cheesy and desperate, but it scored a few points with me.
The tagline for the film is: "They just can't get there fast enough" (where's there, the bathroom?) Instead, it should've been: "This movie can't finish fast enough."
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
Even though I sorta-kinda-slightly enjoyed it, I figured Martin Lawrence couldn't sink any lower after doing Wild Hogs. Boy was I ever wrong. This from the man who cracked me up on the small screen in 'Martin' (anyone remember that show?) and who, alongside Will Smith, kicked butt, ran amok and wreaked havoc in Bad Boys and Bad Boys 2 on the big screen (there's talk of a BB3).
Forget Raven-Symoné's annoying role as college-bound-all-grown-up-now daughter 'Melanie Porter' and Kym Whitley's so-so performance as 'Mama Porter'. College Road Trip was a new low for Lawrence. How low? Any lower and he would've found himself in China (just in time for the Olympics).
However, two things saved his bacon. First, this is a Disney movie. As such, I shouldn't have been suprised that it turned out to be a cheesy, sappy, boring, lame-duck, irritatingly stupid, family-type movie. The second was 'Albert.' Throwing a pig in there and having it make an ass (asses, pigs, it's a regular barnyard) of overbearing-over-protective-daddy 'Chief James Porter' (Martin Lawrence) was cheesy and desperate, but it scored a few points with me.
The tagline for the film is: "They just can't get there fast enough" (where's there, the bathroom?) Instead, it should've been: "This movie can't finish fast enough."
Labels: College Road Trip, Martin Lawrence, review
Jul 10, 2008
REVIEW: Batman: Gotham Knight
(Image from Wikipedia)
Note: The following review was submitted by Marc Gibson.
Holy anime Batman!
If you like Batman and you like anime, then Batman: Gotham Knight should be right up you alley, street, thoroughfare, whatever.
B:GK is the first time, EVER, that one of the most enduring comic book characters of all time has be touched by Japanese animation [for the newborns, also known as anime].
It was figured by the powers-that-be that casting the Shadow of the Bat with a new anime light would be a sure sell, plus it would be an excellent way of collecting the pocket change of Bat-fans and anime-junkies ahead of The Dark Knight.
For me, Batman: Gotham Knight did not meet my expectations. Don't get me wrong, the idea that anime could capture the essence of Batman wasn't a bad one. The execution of that idea, however, comes crazily close to making a joker out of B:GK.
The story [or more accurately six interconnecting stories] fills in the gaps between Batman Returns and the upcoming Dark Knight. While I will not spill the beans on the story for each of the segments, I will say that the various animation styles used for each [while interesting] ended up segmenting the tale more than I found desirable. One segment 'Field Test' had Bruce Wayne looking more pubescent than playboy-ish. Another segment [you'll see which one] gives a glimpse of the Batmobile from a different time.
Don't get me wrong, each of the anime styles featured brought something different to the film, but the uniqueness of each style kept a disjointed feel constantly apparent. Imagine a Batman comic cobbled together with artwork from Jim Lee, Stan Lee, and Alex Ross, or a puzzle done by an enthusiastic three year-old.
Batman: Gotham Knight did mark Kevin Conroy's first return to voicing what is perhaps his defining role as Bruce Wayne/Batman. While Conroy's voice-acting brought a sense of the familiar to B:GK it did not fit as well as it might have if the film did not skip through several different anime styles.
A couple of the segments, 'Crossfire' and 'Deadshot', do capture the essence of Batman quite well IMHO, easily making them my favourites, while the lead-in segment 'Have I got a Story for You' does an excellent job of showing how the Bat becomes an urban legend.
Hiccups aside, Batman: Gotham Knight does a decent job of bridging the gap from Batman Returns in terms of the progress of Batman as a character, and his battle against the darkness of Gotham. I wouldn't advise anyone who is following that same progression to skip this anthology film before watching Dark Knight.
(Image from Wikipedia)
Note: The following review was submitted by Marc Gibson.
Holy anime Batman!
If you like Batman and you like anime, then Batman: Gotham Knight should be right up you alley, street, thoroughfare, whatever.
B:GK is the first time, EVER, that one of the most enduring comic book characters of all time has be touched by Japanese animation [for the newborns, also known as anime].
It was figured by the powers-that-be that casting the Shadow of the Bat with a new anime light would be a sure sell, plus it would be an excellent way of collecting the pocket change of Bat-fans and anime-junkies ahead of The Dark Knight.
For me, Batman: Gotham Knight did not meet my expectations. Don't get me wrong, the idea that anime could capture the essence of Batman wasn't a bad one. The execution of that idea, however, comes crazily close to making a joker out of B:GK.
The story [or more accurately six interconnecting stories] fills in the gaps between Batman Returns and the upcoming Dark Knight. While I will not spill the beans on the story for each of the segments, I will say that the various animation styles used for each [while interesting] ended up segmenting the tale more than I found desirable. One segment 'Field Test' had Bruce Wayne looking more pubescent than playboy-ish. Another segment [you'll see which one] gives a glimpse of the Batmobile from a different time.
Don't get me wrong, each of the anime styles featured brought something different to the film, but the uniqueness of each style kept a disjointed feel constantly apparent. Imagine a Batman comic cobbled together with artwork from Jim Lee, Stan Lee, and Alex Ross, or a puzzle done by an enthusiastic three year-old.
Batman: Gotham Knight did mark Kevin Conroy's first return to voicing what is perhaps his defining role as Bruce Wayne/Batman. While Conroy's voice-acting brought a sense of the familiar to B:GK it did not fit as well as it might have if the film did not skip through several different anime styles.
A couple of the segments, 'Crossfire' and 'Deadshot', do capture the essence of Batman quite well IMHO, easily making them my favourites, while the lead-in segment 'Have I got a Story for You' does an excellent job of showing how the Bat becomes an urban legend.
Hiccups aside, Batman: Gotham Knight does a decent job of bridging the gap from Batman Returns in terms of the progress of Batman as a character, and his battle against the darkness of Gotham. I wouldn't advise anyone who is following that same progression to skip this anthology film before watching Dark Knight.
Labels: anime, Batman, comics, Gotham Knight, Marc Gibson, review
Jul 4, 2008
REVIEW: Hancock
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
Note: The following review was submitted by Marc Gibson.
In my opinion Will Smith's extended record of hits and misses continues with his latest flick Hancock. With a wash of superhero/comic themed movies coming out in recent years [and Hancock being one of four scheduled for release this summer alone] many of you might be thinking to take a pass on Hancock. My advice; don't.
I found Hancock made up for Smith last film, the huge miss 'I am Legend' with this tale about an apathetic 'last of his kind' uberman struggling to find his place and to accept his purpose among humanity.
Hancock has more substance than would be normally expected for a summer blockbuster without taking itself too seriously. Although Hancock doesn't come anywhere close to the new standard set by box office monster 'Iron Man' for comic book/superhero themed flicks, I think that Hancock easily outdid the other Marvel release 'Incredible Hulk'.
Hancock has just about everything that one could want in an enjoyable movie, and the ladies can look forward to some shots of a half naked Smith [sorry guys Charlize Theron doesn't go anywhere near T&A].
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
Note: The following review was submitted by Marc Gibson.
In my opinion Will Smith's extended record of hits and misses continues with his latest flick Hancock. With a wash of superhero/comic themed movies coming out in recent years [and Hancock being one of four scheduled for release this summer alone] many of you might be thinking to take a pass on Hancock. My advice; don't.
I found Hancock made up for Smith last film, the huge miss 'I am Legend' with this tale about an apathetic 'last of his kind' uberman struggling to find his place and to accept his purpose among humanity.
Hancock has more substance than would be normally expected for a summer blockbuster without taking itself too seriously. Although Hancock doesn't come anywhere close to the new standard set by box office monster 'Iron Man' for comic book/superhero themed flicks, I think that Hancock easily outdid the other Marvel release 'Incredible Hulk'.
Hancock has just about everything that one could want in an enjoyable movie, and the ladies can look forward to some shots of a half naked Smith [sorry guys Charlize Theron doesn't go anywhere near T&A].
Labels: Hancock, Marc Gibson, review, Will Smith
Jun 15, 2008
REVIEW: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
Before watching the fourth Indy film, I wanted to reacquaint myself with the previous movies. After all, Indy's last appearance on the big screen was way back in '89. After watching almost half an hour of 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' a few weeks ago, I gave up. As much as I like all of the Indy films, there is a definite amount of predictability in all of them and the thought of sitting through it all back-to-back (or even spaced out over a few days) was a bit to much.
I don't think that Crystal Skull was any better than the first three. In fact, Indy, to me, seemed a bit 'toned' down in this one. One of the most interesting scenes involved him surviving a nuke explosion by hiding in a refrigirator and battling a soldier while surrounded by man-eating ants. The fact that they introduced his son 'Mutt(???),' played by Shia LaBeouf, as well as the reintroduction of 'Marion,' stole more of Indy's thunder (even if those characters were central to the film).
That aside, it was nice to see some familiar bits. Prof. Indy teaching in his predominantly female-filled class (remember the bit from 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' with all the girls staring at him and one chick in particular that wrote LOVE YOU on her eye-lids and Indy's response when she saw her blink? LOL!). Indy's distaste of snakes was also shown as he was forced to use one as a rope.
While Sean Connery did not return, his presence was felt. Early in the movie Indy mentions that his dad had passed and looks at a picture of him on his desk. Beyond that, there was a Skulls scene which was very similar to a scene with Connery in 'The Hunt for Red October.' Also, Karen Allen reprising her role as 'Marion,' Indy's sweetie from the first movie (and the best IMHO). That was a good move. It would've been nice to see 'Dr. Marcus Brody' (unfortunately Denholm Elliot passed away in '92) and 'Sallah' (John Rhys-Davies). Both of them were in 'Raiders' and 'Last Crusade.'
The bit with the map and line as they travelled from one point to another was nice, as well as The Ark putting in an appearance. Apparently, it was destroyed in some scuffle in the warehouse at the beginning of Skulls (I seemed to have missed this scene). I had thought that The Ark would be central in this film since they re-visted the cavernous government warehouse. Instead, viewers had to make do with the Alien theme (yawn). One scene where Indy & Co. were in a cave and looking at paintings on a wall reminded me of Stargate (Alien civilizations coming to Earth to teach/train people). Best of all, I think, in the familiar-things-department was Indy's fear of snakes which was obvious in Crystal Skulls.
As was the case with 'Temple of Doom' where Indy et al., jumped out of a plane in an inflatable life raft and landed on a snow-covered hill (without injury of death), Crystal Skull was not to be outdone in terms of ridiculous scenes. Indy, in between Marion and Mutt, shot off a missle-launcher and took out some huge forest-munching machine which exploded and sent a chunk of debri straight through Indy's truck (almost slicing it in half) without so much as it exploding and hurting Indy and crew, or breaking down on the side of the road.
Suspension of disbelief, folks.
But where to from here? Hopefully this will be the last film in the series. I was worried for a moment near the end. Indy's hat blew into the church and Mutt reached for it only to have it taken away (and rightly so!) by Indy. I'm hoping this is a sign that there won't be anymore movies (especially with Indy's son).
I gave Indy and the Skulls a 'C+'.
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
Before watching the fourth Indy film, I wanted to reacquaint myself with the previous movies. After all, Indy's last appearance on the big screen was way back in '89. After watching almost half an hour of 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' a few weeks ago, I gave up. As much as I like all of the Indy films, there is a definite amount of predictability in all of them and the thought of sitting through it all back-to-back (or even spaced out over a few days) was a bit to much.
I don't think that Crystal Skull was any better than the first three. In fact, Indy, to me, seemed a bit 'toned' down in this one. One of the most interesting scenes involved him surviving a nuke explosion by hiding in a refrigirator and battling a soldier while surrounded by man-eating ants. The fact that they introduced his son 'Mutt(???),' played by Shia LaBeouf, as well as the reintroduction of 'Marion,' stole more of Indy's thunder (even if those characters were central to the film).
That aside, it was nice to see some familiar bits. Prof. Indy teaching in his predominantly female-filled class (remember the bit from 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' with all the girls staring at him and one chick in particular that wrote LOVE YOU on her eye-lids and Indy's response when she saw her blink? LOL!). Indy's distaste of snakes was also shown as he was forced to use one as a rope.
While Sean Connery did not return, his presence was felt. Early in the movie Indy mentions that his dad had passed and looks at a picture of him on his desk. Beyond that, there was a Skulls scene which was very similar to a scene with Connery in 'The Hunt for Red October.' Also, Karen Allen reprising her role as 'Marion,' Indy's sweetie from the first movie (and the best IMHO). That was a good move. It would've been nice to see 'Dr. Marcus Brody' (unfortunately Denholm Elliot passed away in '92) and 'Sallah' (John Rhys-Davies). Both of them were in 'Raiders' and 'Last Crusade.'
The bit with the map and line as they travelled from one point to another was nice, as well as The Ark putting in an appearance. Apparently, it was destroyed in some scuffle in the warehouse at the beginning of Skulls (I seemed to have missed this scene). I had thought that The Ark would be central in this film since they re-visted the cavernous government warehouse. Instead, viewers had to make do with the Alien theme (yawn). One scene where Indy & Co. were in a cave and looking at paintings on a wall reminded me of Stargate (Alien civilizations coming to Earth to teach/train people). Best of all, I think, in the familiar-things-department was Indy's fear of snakes which was obvious in Crystal Skulls.
As was the case with 'Temple of Doom' where Indy et al., jumped out of a plane in an inflatable life raft and landed on a snow-covered hill (without injury of death), Crystal Skull was not to be outdone in terms of ridiculous scenes. Indy, in between Marion and Mutt, shot off a missle-launcher and took out some huge forest-munching machine which exploded and sent a chunk of debri straight through Indy's truck (almost slicing it in half) without so much as it exploding and hurting Indy and crew, or breaking down on the side of the road.
Suspension of disbelief, folks.
But where to from here? Hopefully this will be the last film in the series. I was worried for a moment near the end. Indy's hat blew into the church and Mutt reached for it only to have it taken away (and rightly so!) by Indy. I'm hoping this is a sign that there won't be anymore movies (especially with Indy's son).
I gave Indy and the Skulls a 'C+'.
Labels: Harrison Ford, Indiana Jones, Karen Allen, review, Shia LaBeouf
Jun 2, 2008
REVIEW: 21
(Move poster image from Wikipedia)
It wasn't my fault. It was Jim Morrison and The Doors that made me do it. I wasn't planning on seeing this movie. I'd just about heard and had enough of the MIT Blackjack team and their shenanigans. Then I saw a trailer for 21, and I heard it. The song playing in the background was, I thought, The Doors singing 'Break On Through (To the Other Side).' After hearing a bit of that and watching the trailer, I was all in. The sad thing is, I never heard the song during, or at the end of, the movie.
'Cole Williams' (Laurence Fishburne) was kick/bad ass, as well as 'Micky Rosa' (Kevin Spacey). As for 'Ben Campbell' (Sturgess) and 'Jill Taylor (Bosworth), well, these two didn't strike me as anything fancy, or oustanding. 'Choi' (Yoo) was funny, 'Kianna' (Lapira) was not. 'Fisher' (Jacob Pitts) may as well have not been there, as he was pretty annoying, but necessary. Special mention goes out to 'Miles Connoly' (Gad) and 'Cam' (Golzari). Their characters should get a movie of their own!
I saw this movie yesterday and I've already forgotten most of it. Please, Hollywood, no more gambling-and-beating-the-house-type movies.
I gave this film a 'C'.
(Move poster image from Wikipedia)
It wasn't my fault. It was Jim Morrison and The Doors that made me do it. I wasn't planning on seeing this movie. I'd just about heard and had enough of the MIT Blackjack team and their shenanigans. Then I saw a trailer for 21, and I heard it. The song playing in the background was, I thought, The Doors singing 'Break On Through (To the Other Side).' After hearing a bit of that and watching the trailer, I was all in. The sad thing is, I never heard the song during, or at the end of, the movie.
'Cole Williams' (Laurence Fishburne) was kick/bad ass, as well as 'Micky Rosa' (Kevin Spacey). As for 'Ben Campbell' (Sturgess) and 'Jill Taylor (Bosworth), well, these two didn't strike me as anything fancy, or oustanding. 'Choi' (Yoo) was funny, 'Kianna' (Lapira) was not. 'Fisher' (Jacob Pitts) may as well have not been there, as he was pretty annoying, but necessary. Special mention goes out to 'Miles Connoly' (Gad) and 'Cam' (Golzari). Their characters should get a movie of their own!
I saw this movie yesterday and I've already forgotten most of it. Please, Hollywood, no more gambling-and-beating-the-house-type movies.
I gave this film a 'C'.
Labels: 21, Jim Sturgess, Kate Bosworth, Kevin Spacey, Laurence Fishburne, review
May 8, 2008
REVIEW: Iron Man
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
Note: The following review was submitted by Marc Gibson.
Shell-head seconds anybody?
Movie Review by Marc Gibson
So a buddy of mine requested that I review Iron Man, I wonder if he knows what he's in for?
Iron Man is a movie that I have been waiting to see for the last six months at least and was spoiled for me because of two factors. Crappy seats that would have been more at home in a medieval torture chamber, and the fact that the curtains closed before that much talked about after-credits scene. Sigh.
Now on to our feature presentation. I can honestly say that Iron Man did not disappoint. Others reviews have called Iron Man 'better than the first Spider-man'. True. It has been said that Robert Downey Jr. is Tony Stark. Again true.
Old Shell-head outdid Spidey's first flick with a better [IMHO] comic-to-screen translation. Spider-man was plagued by a number of changes that were created to aid the translation [anyone remember that little issues about changing mechanical web-shooters to organic], and odd casting choices [Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane-Watson, really?] and costume picks that are still questionable to this day.
Iron Man had none of these issues. Using Afghanistan as a main plot point differed from the comic book origin but was seamlessly done while giving the movie a poignant scene of reality. The entire cast performed smartly and in the case of Gwyneth Paltrow, with just enough sass. The cast was overshadowed [not complaining!] by RDJ easily making the role of Stark his with a movie dominating performance [Tom Cruise my ass!]. The Mark II armour especially looked like it stepped straight off the pages of the comics to look unbelievably cool and tantalisingly real.
The dialogue throughout remains for me one of the best in any contemporary comic book movie. Although RDJ dominated the screen time I didn't get tired of him because of his smooth delivery of the snappy and witty well-written dialogue. Somebody get that man an Oscar.
In short, this movie should make even comic book fanboys [and girls] happy, being one of the first comic book movies that rightly and honestly deserves a sequel. The well directed action [Jon Favreau take a bow] and RDJ-led acting is a joy to watch for anybody, even those who have never put the words 'Iron Man' and 'comic book' together in the same sentence. Just get better seats. And if they close the curtains before that after-credits scene demand your money back.
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
Note: The following review was submitted by Marc Gibson.
Shell-head seconds anybody?
Movie Review by Marc Gibson
So a buddy of mine requested that I review Iron Man, I wonder if he knows what he's in for?
Iron Man is a movie that I have been waiting to see for the last six months at least and was spoiled for me because of two factors. Crappy seats that would have been more at home in a medieval torture chamber, and the fact that the curtains closed before that much talked about after-credits scene. Sigh.
Now on to our feature presentation. I can honestly say that Iron Man did not disappoint. Others reviews have called Iron Man 'better than the first Spider-man'. True. It has been said that Robert Downey Jr. is Tony Stark. Again true.
Old Shell-head outdid Spidey's first flick with a better [IMHO] comic-to-screen translation. Spider-man was plagued by a number of changes that were created to aid the translation [anyone remember that little issues about changing mechanical web-shooters to organic], and odd casting choices [Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane-Watson, really?] and costume picks that are still questionable to this day.
Iron Man had none of these issues. Using Afghanistan as a main plot point differed from the comic book origin but was seamlessly done while giving the movie a poignant scene of reality. The entire cast performed smartly and in the case of Gwyneth Paltrow, with just enough sass. The cast was overshadowed [not complaining!] by RDJ easily making the role of Stark his with a movie dominating performance [Tom Cruise my ass!]. The Mark II armour especially looked like it stepped straight off the pages of the comics to look unbelievably cool and tantalisingly real.
The dialogue throughout remains for me one of the best in any contemporary comic book movie. Although RDJ dominated the screen time I didn't get tired of him because of his smooth delivery of the snappy and witty well-written dialogue. Somebody get that man an Oscar.
In short, this movie should make even comic book fanboys [and girls] happy, being one of the first comic book movies that rightly and honestly deserves a sequel. The well directed action [Jon Favreau take a bow] and RDJ-led acting is a joy to watch for anybody, even those who have never put the words 'Iron Man' and 'comic book' together in the same sentence. Just get better seats. And if they close the curtains before that after-credits scene demand your money back.
Labels: Iron Man, Marc Gibson, review, Robert Downey Jr.
May 5, 2008
REVIEW: Shutter
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
Note: The following review was submitted by Aguin.
Shutter.
Synopsis:
A newly wed young couple move from America to Japan only to find them selves on the receiving end of a haunting. The ghost is usually caught in photos, giving the movie its name.
The story starts off idyllically as most horrors do but once the protagonists reach Japan things start to jump. The wife (Rachael Taylor) begins to investigate their "spoiled" photos after some one points out that they are spirit photographs. It is her belief that the car accident she and her husband (Joshua Jackson) were in is the cause of this haunting. She tries to involve her husband in the investigation but after a great scene with a local medium he refuses to dig any further. Undaunted, she continues to keep looking and through the length of the movie she uncovers an unexpected tale of loss, shame and unrequited love.
The visual effects of the film are as good as any movie out there but the most significant difference in this tale is that the spine tingling parts of the film come from simply good story telling and not over the top special effects. The downside was that ghost was inconsistent in its hauntings, scaring one person to suicide then outright murdering another, plus one wonders why it waited so long to extract its revenge. The plot was also somewhat predictable but entertaining none the less, the film's climax.
Over all the movie was an enjoyably good scare that won't keep you up at night wondering if you'll be next.
I give it 3 out of 5 stars.
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
Note: The following review was submitted by Aguin.
Shutter.
Synopsis:
A newly wed young couple move from America to Japan only to find them selves on the receiving end of a haunting. The ghost is usually caught in photos, giving the movie its name.
The story starts off idyllically as most horrors do but once the protagonists reach Japan things start to jump. The wife (Rachael Taylor) begins to investigate their "spoiled" photos after some one points out that they are spirit photographs. It is her belief that the car accident she and her husband (Joshua Jackson) were in is the cause of this haunting. She tries to involve her husband in the investigation but after a great scene with a local medium he refuses to dig any further. Undaunted, she continues to keep looking and through the length of the movie she uncovers an unexpected tale of loss, shame and unrequited love.
The visual effects of the film are as good as any movie out there but the most significant difference in this tale is that the spine tingling parts of the film come from simply good story telling and not over the top special effects. The downside was that ghost was inconsistent in its hauntings, scaring one person to suicide then outright murdering another, plus one wonders why it waited so long to extract its revenge. The plot was also somewhat predictable but entertaining none the less, the film's climax.
Over all the movie was an enjoyably good scare that won't keep you up at night wondering if you'll be next.
I give it 3 out of 5 stars.
Labels: Aguin, horror, Joshua Jackson, Rachael Taylor, review, Shutter
Apr 27, 2008
REVIEW: The Darjeeling Limited
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
In a hurry? No worries, I'll be brief: If you're a fan of Wes Anderson and you liked Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (I've yet to see Bottle Rocket), you'll probably like The Darjeeling Limited as well.
As is common in most Anderson films, this one comes complete with several dysfunctional characters, impermissible love and complex relationships. The human condition (almost) on the screen for your consideration, entertainment and maybe even, enjoyment.
A word of caution: The Darjeeling Limited is not a comedy, even with the presence of Owen Wilson. In fact, many of Anderson's films (to date), are not comedies. Instead, what he presents us with are movies that may be described as being 'serious' comedies, or comedy/drama, or drama/comedy, or an odd way of looking at ordinary lives (with a pinch of comedy thrown in to make it watchable).
In his latest film, Anderson introduces us to three brothers who travel across India. The trio have lost touch with each other since their father's funeral. Wilson's character (a somewhat annoying, know-it-all, big brother type who loves to make agreements) gets everyone together on a train, The Darjeeling Limited, for a bonding and spiritual trip (there is also another reason which is alluded to as the film progresses).
Even though a good portion of the film takes place on a train, viewers need not resort to the Discovery Channel, or National Geographic for a glimpse of India. It begins with an almost care-chase like scene featuring Bill Murray ('The Businessman'), trapped like a caged animal in the backseat of a taxi. The driver, an Indian gentleman wearing a turban on his head and a zen-like apperance on his face, skillfully and calmly pilots his high-speed craft through narrow, crowd, motor vehicle and cow-filled streets while Murray hangs on for dear life.
The taxi scene, for me, is one of the most enjoyable ones. I visited India years ago and what I saw on the screen was familiar. Narrow, crowded streets, insane driving and the occasional cow in the road. Eventually, the taxi screeches to a halt at the train station and we see Murray running to catch his train (The Darjeeling Limited which has already begun to pull alway).
While running, he is overtaken by Peter (Brody) who successfully manages to climb aboard and looks back at Murray who has given up the chase and is left behind on the platform. Unfortunately, the significance of Murray's character is lost on me. Maybe it was just a cameo, like the Old Man played by Kumar Pallana (who is a regular in a number of Anderson's films).
There are other memorable scenes as well. Jack's (Schwartzman) brief and complicated encounters with Rita (Amara Karan, a definite cutie!), a.k.a 'sweet lime,' the blatantly un-Indian Indian, and the silly shenanigans involving the three brothers and Rita's apparent boyfriend (Waris Ahluwalia), The Chief Steward of the train, and a rigid disciplinarian if ever there was one. Also, the visits to the market and to the temple(s) by the brothers offer one or two light moments in contrast to the tragic river and subsequent village scenes (however, from that point on, the brothers appear to be closer to each other).
In the end, the brothers find what I think they are looking for: peace, answers, each other, family, trust, friendship and closure. We see them exit our lives in much the same way Peter entered: via The Darjeeling Limited. However, as they run for the train, they physically (and emotionally) toss their (father's) baggage so that they can jump aboard before the train pulls away forever.
I gave this film a 'B'.
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
In a hurry? No worries, I'll be brief: If you're a fan of Wes Anderson and you liked Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (I've yet to see Bottle Rocket), you'll probably like The Darjeeling Limited as well.
As is common in most Anderson films, this one comes complete with several dysfunctional characters, impermissible love and complex relationships. The human condition (almost) on the screen for your consideration, entertainment and maybe even, enjoyment.
A word of caution: The Darjeeling Limited is not a comedy, even with the presence of Owen Wilson. In fact, many of Anderson's films (to date), are not comedies. Instead, what he presents us with are movies that may be described as being 'serious' comedies, or comedy/drama, or drama/comedy, or an odd way of looking at ordinary lives (with a pinch of comedy thrown in to make it watchable).
In his latest film, Anderson introduces us to three brothers who travel across India. The trio have lost touch with each other since their father's funeral. Wilson's character (a somewhat annoying, know-it-all, big brother type who loves to make agreements) gets everyone together on a train, The Darjeeling Limited, for a bonding and spiritual trip (there is also another reason which is alluded to as the film progresses).
Even though a good portion of the film takes place on a train, viewers need not resort to the Discovery Channel, or National Geographic for a glimpse of India. It begins with an almost care-chase like scene featuring Bill Murray ('The Businessman'), trapped like a caged animal in the backseat of a taxi. The driver, an Indian gentleman wearing a turban on his head and a zen-like apperance on his face, skillfully and calmly pilots his high-speed craft through narrow, crowd, motor vehicle and cow-filled streets while Murray hangs on for dear life.
The taxi scene, for me, is one of the most enjoyable ones. I visited India years ago and what I saw on the screen was familiar. Narrow, crowded streets, insane driving and the occasional cow in the road. Eventually, the taxi screeches to a halt at the train station and we see Murray running to catch his train (The Darjeeling Limited which has already begun to pull alway).
While running, he is overtaken by Peter (Brody) who successfully manages to climb aboard and looks back at Murray who has given up the chase and is left behind on the platform. Unfortunately, the significance of Murray's character is lost on me. Maybe it was just a cameo, like the Old Man played by Kumar Pallana (who is a regular in a number of Anderson's films).
There are other memorable scenes as well. Jack's (Schwartzman) brief and complicated encounters with Rita (Amara Karan, a definite cutie!), a.k.a 'sweet lime,' the blatantly un-Indian Indian, and the silly shenanigans involving the three brothers and Rita's apparent boyfriend (Waris Ahluwalia), The Chief Steward of the train, and a rigid disciplinarian if ever there was one. Also, the visits to the market and to the temple(s) by the brothers offer one or two light moments in contrast to the tragic river and subsequent village scenes (however, from that point on, the brothers appear to be closer to each other).
In the end, the brothers find what I think they are looking for: peace, answers, each other, family, trust, friendship and closure. We see them exit our lives in much the same way Peter entered: via The Darjeeling Limited. However, as they run for the train, they physically (and emotionally) toss their (father's) baggage so that they can jump aboard before the train pulls away forever.
I gave this film a 'B'.
Labels: Adrien Brody, comedy, drama, India, Jason Schwartzman, Owen Wilson, review, The Darjeeling Limited, Wes Anderson
Mar 20, 2008
REVIEW: Jumper
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
I think it's safe to say that most of us have either heard of the plot, or seen the actual movie by now. So we'll skip ahead. But before we do so, please have a quick look at the 'suspension of disbelief' article on Wikipedia.
Moving on, I find it difficult (sometimes) to suspend my disbelief when I watch a movie. This was especially true while watching Jumper and I'll explain why in the following sections.
When Rice (Christensen) performs his 'jumps' there's usually a disruption that follows when he 'lands' (the library, the hospital, or the swimming pool). Even while jumping around in Griffin's lair, or Millie's apartment, there's some disruption. Yet when he jumps around in his upscale apartment, it's clean and smooth. Jumping from the bank into his crummy apartment with tons of money, you could see the disruption, his room looked like it would fall apart, but it eventually shifted back to its pre-jump state. This also happened when he finished talking to the guy in the jail cell, he ran at him and jumped 'through' the wall and it looked as though it would crumble, but it reverted back. So why didn't this happen when he jumped into the hospital with his father?
We know that Griffin (Bell) wants to kill Roland (Jackson). His comments to Rice prove this, however, his actions do not. When Roland hitches a ride through the wormhole and into the lair, Griffin and Rice know he's coming, but instead of greeting him with a shotgun during those fleeting moments when he's stumbling around and dazed, our two 'heroes' slither away and hide. Why? If you want to kill the guy so badly, stop dicking around, just shoot him with a gun (doesn't need to be point blank) and get on with it. One potential problem with this is that it may close the door on a sequel with Jackson, but that doesn't rule out Rice's mother, a Paladin herself, she was left alive.
After the eventual scuffle between Rice and Roland, the former deposits the latter in a Grand Canyon type place. Yet another missed opportunity to 'off' Roland. This doesn't make sense. Roland is a cold-blooded killer (did you notice the knife work on the jumper in the jungle scene?), Roland killed Rice's dad. Rice was upset about this and jumped right into a hospital begging for help, Roland threatens Millie and is rescued by Rice, yet when the opportunity to exact revenge presents itself a short while later, Rice takes the high moral road and chooses to leave Roland alone to develop his rock climbing skills. As I said earlier, maybe it's because they want to bring Jackson's character back in a sequel.
There may be a few more problems or issues with the film, but the ones above are what bothered me the most.
As for the actors themselves, there was nothing fantastic about Christensen's acting. At best, it was average as I never got a strong or solid vibe from his character. Jackson, as always, was good. You pretty much know what you're going to get when you see a movie with him in it (lots of anger, shouting, bad attitude, killing and action). Jamie Bell's character was solid. Not wishy-washy or anything like that, the guy knew what he wanted and acted accordingly. Rachel Bilson was great, she played her character well. In particular, her facial expressions were easy to follow and understand. Diane Lane and Michael Rooker didn't occupy that much screen time, so there isn't much that I can say for either of them (except that Rooker's character won't be appearing in any sequels anytime soon!)
Despite all of the above, Jumper was an okay movie. It wasn't great (like Rambo 4), nor was it a waste of time (like 10KBC). I think lots of people will like the film for its recognizable cast, some the scenes (joyriding in the car and jumping here and there) and the generally interesting story. If you're that type, then I recommend watching it. It's a simple movie to watch. However, if you're looking for something beyond that, then you may end up being largely unmoved and disappointed. In conclusion, I give it 4 out of 10. Better luck next time(?)
Review roundup:
'Talk about disappointing. Director Doug Liman exuded style and cool in Swingers, Go and The Bourne Identity. He lost his way in the star bloat of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and now his mojo is buried in this amped-up sci-fi chase flick. It took three screenwriters to turn Steven Gould's novel into an unholy mess. Hayden Christensen, the kiss of death in movies since giving us the nightmare wimp version of Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars prequels, does a lot of posing as David Rice, called Rice Bowl by the bullies of his neighborhood in Ann Arbor, Michigan.' -- Rolling Stone
'I found this movie to be extremely frustrating. It was such a good idea and certainly had some awesome parts to it. If they changed some things around and removed a character or two, it could have been fantastic.' -- The Movie Blog
'An erratic action pic with little coherence and lackluster special effects. Featuring uninvolving characters and loose narrative, Jumper is an erratic action pic with little coherence and lackluster special effects.' -- Rotten Tomatoes
'Jumper is based on a series of teen sci-fi novels by Stephen Gould (think a streetwise Harry Potter with wormholes instead of wands) and it shows. This is no adult movie but a mutliplex-friendly adventure full of raging hormones, CGI effects and an impertinent decision to set up a sequel long before the final reel is even in sight.' -- Channel 4 Film
'It’s impossible for outsiders to know who deserves most of the blame for this dud — its director, Doug Liman, its three screenwriters, its multiple producers or the various studio executives who might have done far too much meddling or not nearly enough.' -- New York Times
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
I think it's safe to say that most of us have either heard of the plot, or seen the actual movie by now. So we'll skip ahead. But before we do so, please have a quick look at the 'suspension of disbelief' article on Wikipedia.
Moving on, I find it difficult (sometimes) to suspend my disbelief when I watch a movie. This was especially true while watching Jumper and I'll explain why in the following sections.
When Rice (Christensen) performs his 'jumps' there's usually a disruption that follows when he 'lands' (the library, the hospital, or the swimming pool). Even while jumping around in Griffin's lair, or Millie's apartment, there's some disruption. Yet when he jumps around in his upscale apartment, it's clean and smooth. Jumping from the bank into his crummy apartment with tons of money, you could see the disruption, his room looked like it would fall apart, but it eventually shifted back to its pre-jump state. This also happened when he finished talking to the guy in the jail cell, he ran at him and jumped 'through' the wall and it looked as though it would crumble, but it reverted back. So why didn't this happen when he jumped into the hospital with his father?
We know that Griffin (Bell) wants to kill Roland (Jackson). His comments to Rice prove this, however, his actions do not. When Roland hitches a ride through the wormhole and into the lair, Griffin and Rice know he's coming, but instead of greeting him with a shotgun during those fleeting moments when he's stumbling around and dazed, our two 'heroes' slither away and hide. Why? If you want to kill the guy so badly, stop dicking around, just shoot him with a gun (doesn't need to be point blank) and get on with it. One potential problem with this is that it may close the door on a sequel with Jackson, but that doesn't rule out Rice's mother, a Paladin herself, she was left alive.
After the eventual scuffle between Rice and Roland, the former deposits the latter in a Grand Canyon type place. Yet another missed opportunity to 'off' Roland. This doesn't make sense. Roland is a cold-blooded killer (did you notice the knife work on the jumper in the jungle scene?), Roland killed Rice's dad. Rice was upset about this and jumped right into a hospital begging for help, Roland threatens Millie and is rescued by Rice, yet when the opportunity to exact revenge presents itself a short while later, Rice takes the high moral road and chooses to leave Roland alone to develop his rock climbing skills. As I said earlier, maybe it's because they want to bring Jackson's character back in a sequel.
There may be a few more problems or issues with the film, but the ones above are what bothered me the most.
As for the actors themselves, there was nothing fantastic about Christensen's acting. At best, it was average as I never got a strong or solid vibe from his character. Jackson, as always, was good. You pretty much know what you're going to get when you see a movie with him in it (lots of anger, shouting, bad attitude, killing and action). Jamie Bell's character was solid. Not wishy-washy or anything like that, the guy knew what he wanted and acted accordingly. Rachel Bilson was great, she played her character well. In particular, her facial expressions were easy to follow and understand. Diane Lane and Michael Rooker didn't occupy that much screen time, so there isn't much that I can say for either of them (except that Rooker's character won't be appearing in any sequels anytime soon!)
Despite all of the above, Jumper was an okay movie. It wasn't great (like Rambo 4), nor was it a waste of time (like 10KBC). I think lots of people will like the film for its recognizable cast, some the scenes (joyriding in the car and jumping here and there) and the generally interesting story. If you're that type, then I recommend watching it. It's a simple movie to watch. However, if you're looking for something beyond that, then you may end up being largely unmoved and disappointed. In conclusion, I give it 4 out of 10. Better luck next time(?)
Review roundup:
'Talk about disappointing. Director Doug Liman exuded style and cool in Swingers, Go and The Bourne Identity. He lost his way in the star bloat of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and now his mojo is buried in this amped-up sci-fi chase flick. It took three screenwriters to turn Steven Gould's novel into an unholy mess. Hayden Christensen, the kiss of death in movies since giving us the nightmare wimp version of Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars prequels, does a lot of posing as David Rice, called Rice Bowl by the bullies of his neighborhood in Ann Arbor, Michigan.' -- Rolling Stone
'I found this movie to be extremely frustrating. It was such a good idea and certainly had some awesome parts to it. If they changed some things around and removed a character or two, it could have been fantastic.' -- The Movie Blog
'An erratic action pic with little coherence and lackluster special effects. Featuring uninvolving characters and loose narrative, Jumper is an erratic action pic with little coherence and lackluster special effects.' -- Rotten Tomatoes
'Jumper is based on a series of teen sci-fi novels by Stephen Gould (think a streetwise Harry Potter with wormholes instead of wands) and it shows. This is no adult movie but a mutliplex-friendly adventure full of raging hormones, CGI effects and an impertinent decision to set up a sequel long before the final reel is even in sight.' -- Channel 4 Film
'It’s impossible for outsiders to know who deserves most of the blame for this dud — its director, Doug Liman, its three screenwriters, its multiple producers or the various studio executives who might have done far too much meddling or not nearly enough.' -- New York Times
Labels: Diane Lane, Hayden Christensen, Jamie Bell, Jumper, Michael Rooker, Rachel Bilson, review, Samuel L. Jackson
Mar 17, 2008
REVIEW: 10,000 B.C.
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
The part I liked best about 10,000 was the ending (i.e., when the movie ended, not how it ended). Seriously. When it ended, I felt good. Good like when you're leaving the dentist after a long session, or when you've just graduated from college, or when you've reached the summit of a mountain. It's such a relief that it's over, you almost can't believe you made it. You feel like crying, you're so happy. 'No more,' you shout, as you shake your fists at the sky. That's how I felt. In light of that, I'd like to suggest a new Oscar category: 'Best End of Movie,' a category for movies that you're so relieved or happy to see the tail end of. 10KBC, you've got my nomination. Congrats!
Besides the end of the movie itself, the visuals, like the wooly mammoths and the tiger, were worth watching as was the cutie Camilla Belle. The rest of the movie was shallow and weak. Shallow like a tiny puddle of water after a light drizzle, or weak like an overweight elephant on extremely thin ice. And what's with the hair on these people? Dreadlocks? Where they supposed to be the predecessors of the modern day Rastafari movment, or had they never heard of shampoo and scissors? Come on, Mr. Emmerich, some of your cavemen even sported decent shaves and nice teeth.
This then brings us to the subject of 'suspension of disbelief.' 10KBC is a fine example of this as Wikipedia explains:
"Suspension of disbelief is also supposed to be essential for the enjoyment of many movies and TV shows involving complex stunts, special effects, and seemingly "unrealistic" plots, characterizations, etc. The theory professes to explain why action movie fans are willing to accept the idea that the good guy can get away with shooting guns in public places, or never running out of ammunition, or that cars will explode with a well-placed shot to the gas tank."
Imagine if this movie were a stripper. She'd look attractive and be entertaining to watch. However, she's not the kind of girl you'd want to take home to your folks, or even spend time with discussing politics, religion or the weather. She was meant to be on the stage for entertainment, nothing more, nothing less. As such, I give 10KBC a 3 out of 10 (with apologies to all the ladies out there who strip for a living, or for whatever reasons they may have).
Previous posts on 10,000 B.C.:
STUFF: 10,000 B.C. (Part 3)
STUFF: 10,000 B.C. (Part 2)
STUFF: 10,000 B.C.
WAITING TO SEE: 10,000 BC
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
The part I liked best about 10,000 was the ending (i.e., when the movie ended, not how it ended). Seriously. When it ended, I felt good. Good like when you're leaving the dentist after a long session, or when you've just graduated from college, or when you've reached the summit of a mountain. It's such a relief that it's over, you almost can't believe you made it. You feel like crying, you're so happy. 'No more,' you shout, as you shake your fists at the sky. That's how I felt. In light of that, I'd like to suggest a new Oscar category: 'Best End of Movie,' a category for movies that you're so relieved or happy to see the tail end of. 10KBC, you've got my nomination. Congrats!
Besides the end of the movie itself, the visuals, like the wooly mammoths and the tiger, were worth watching as was the cutie Camilla Belle. The rest of the movie was shallow and weak. Shallow like a tiny puddle of water after a light drizzle, or weak like an overweight elephant on extremely thin ice. And what's with the hair on these people? Dreadlocks? Where they supposed to be the predecessors of the modern day Rastafari movment, or had they never heard of shampoo and scissors? Come on, Mr. Emmerich, some of your cavemen even sported decent shaves and nice teeth.
This then brings us to the subject of 'suspension of disbelief.' 10KBC is a fine example of this as Wikipedia explains:
"Suspension of disbelief is also supposed to be essential for the enjoyment of many movies and TV shows involving complex stunts, special effects, and seemingly "unrealistic" plots, characterizations, etc. The theory professes to explain why action movie fans are willing to accept the idea that the good guy can get away with shooting guns in public places, or never running out of ammunition, or that cars will explode with a well-placed shot to the gas tank."
Imagine if this movie were a stripper. She'd look attractive and be entertaining to watch. However, she's not the kind of girl you'd want to take home to your folks, or even spend time with discussing politics, religion or the weather. She was meant to be on the stage for entertainment, nothing more, nothing less. As such, I give 10KBC a 3 out of 10 (with apologies to all the ladies out there who strip for a living, or for whatever reasons they may have).
Previous posts on 10,000 B.C.:
STUFF: 10,000 B.C. (Part 3)
STUFF: 10,000 B.C. (Part 2)
STUFF: 10,000 B.C.
WAITING TO SEE: 10,000 BC
Labels: 10000 BC, Camilla Belle, cavemen, review, Roland Emmerich
Feb 23, 2008
REVIEW: Rambo
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
Finally. After waiting for almost an eternity (and having never seen the previous Rambo movies), I saw Rambo 4 tonight at the Drive-in and I have this to say:
Rambo. Kicked. Ass.
Plain and simple. No other action movie (that I can recall at the time of this post), comes close. Your favourite action movie couldn't touch Rambo 4, not even with a ten-foot pole and an extension ladder!
IMHO, this movie is the best action movie of the year, bar none. Rambo 4 grabs the action genre by the collar, takes it outback, kicks it in the nuts (twice!) and leaves it there for the trash people to collect.
Gratuitous violence, gun play, blood, explosions, dismemberment and killing made this action movie feel more real and in your face than any other action movie that I've seen in a long time. This is not a movie for the faint of heart, kiddies, or your first date. You have been warned. I give it 5 out of 10.
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
Finally. After waiting for almost an eternity (and having never seen the previous Rambo movies), I saw Rambo 4 tonight at the Drive-in and I have this to say:
Rambo. Kicked. Ass.
Plain and simple. No other action movie (that I can recall at the time of this post), comes close. Your favourite action movie couldn't touch Rambo 4, not even with a ten-foot pole and an extension ladder!
IMHO, this movie is the best action movie of the year, bar none. Rambo 4 grabs the action genre by the collar, takes it outback, kicks it in the nuts (twice!) and leaves it there for the trash people to collect.
Gratuitous violence, gun play, blood, explosions, dismemberment and killing made this action movie feel more real and in your face than any other action movie that I've seen in a long time. This is not a movie for the faint of heart, kiddies, or your first date. You have been warned. I give it 5 out of 10.
Labels: Rambo, Rambo 4, review, Sylvester Stallone
