Change Your Image
rookie-8
Reviews
The Dark Knight (2008)
Just.............amazing
This is cinema at its best. Just an astounding piece of work really, something that rivals the likes of Lord of the Rings that was able to combine wonderful action with an incredible plot. What this movie has, however, that perhaps no other "serious" action movie has ever had is just top, top, top quality acting. I am not going to include any spoilers in this review because I honestly believe this is a movie that one must see to appreciate. Don't wait for someone to tell you all of the neat little tid bits, all the fascinating subplots. Go and watch it unfold on your own. What I will say is this, however. I believe that Christian Bale is one of the finest actors out there today, and the interesting layers he brought to Batman Begins last time was a joy to watch. He played the brooding Bruce Wayne and the "cover" Bruce Wayne, billionaire playboy, with the same sense of passion. He moved in and out of each with perfect timing, and here he does the same thing. It never lets you forget who is behind the mask, and that a man, with real dreams and passions and problems, exists there, not some hocus pocus superhero that has no connection to reality. Bale makes it easy to believe that THIS Batman, HIS Batman could easily spring from the inner circle, the upper cust of the establishment if only the right set of circumstances were to come along. And then we have the Joker. Heath Ledger is brilliant in this, absolutely, positively brilliant. Going into this movie I thought that some of the talk about Ledger and a possible Oscar nomination could be attributed to his death and the natural reaction that comes from such tragedy. Ledger was a SUPERIOR actor, able to play a wide variety of roles, and an Oscar nomination for his last role would be fitting for someone that certainly would have stamped his name at the top of the nomination list many, many, many years. However, anyone who watches this performance and doesn't appreciate the stupendous job this young man did is just blinded by the notion that such lofty praise can only be afforded to a different sort of movie. Ledger fits it all into this role. He can be utterly amusing and funny, playing up his demented "jokster" role to a tee. But Ledger and director Chris Roth never, ever let you forget what a vile, villainous human being he is. The Joker perpetrates some of the most reprehensible crimes imaginable, and his complete disregard for sense of morality or compassion is actually unnerving at times. Whereas Jack Nicholson made his Joker so funny and quirky, one couldn't help but enjoy and maybe even privately root for him to succeed, you can't help but despise this Joker, even if he makes you laugh a few times with his mannerism. Also, while Nichlson's Joker was always laughing and joking, constantly making light of dark situations, this Joker is simply deranged. He doesn't laugh uncontrollably. He takes great joy out of watching others suffer and, because he obviously doesn't care much for his own life, the closer he comes to death the more heinous he becomes. The action scenes are marvelous to watch and some of the chase scenes are actually intense. But this movie would be done a great disservice if it were ever simply referred to as a major summer "action" movie or thriller. This is simply a high-intensity drama that should be nominated for Oscars beyond the one that Ledger should win for his portrayal. I will see this movie again as quickly as I possibly can.
The Producers (2005)
Movie good, Broderick bad, very, very bad
I would have given the movie higher marks if it wasn't for Broderick in this film. I don't know how his act plays on the stage, maybe it translates better, but on film he was uttely putrid. I mean, I spent the entire movie marveling at how bad, how fake he was. In contrast to Gene Wilder's PERFECT rendition of Leo Bloom, Broderick looks like someone in his first day of acting class. He ruined the entire movie for me. Nathan Lane is good as Max. It is a rip off of Zero Mastel, but he does a decent job of adding a little of his own personality to it, and if you are gonna do a good rip off job, might as well be Zero. I love Will Farrel so his Franz Liebkin is funny enough. Overall, it is an entertaining movie, but not as good as the original, and since most of the musical numbers are performed by non-professional singers (Farrel, Broderick, Thurman) the numbers are a little flat. It could have been much better, but it certainly isn't a bad time.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Fantastic
I'm not going to bore you with what Star Wars has meant to me and all that bull*t. The fact is that the first two episodes in the prequels have been lack luster attempts, almost as if, with each one Lucas was feeling his way, trying to regain his footing. TPM played a lot like a Star Wars text book with some cool actions scenes. While it was enjoyable (how could ANY Star Wars movie not be enjoyable) it just seemed like characters were introduced and thrown away for no particular reason. AOTC was better but still lacked some of the elements that would have made it a classic. Anankin was too whiny and too much like a petulant teenager to every really warm up to and Padme (Natalie Portman) was so bad acting wise she jump roped from amazingly wooden to overacting one on one. This is what the other movies should have been.
Lucas is able to make you feel for the characters and, despite poor dialog and stillsome shoddy acting, create connections between characters you begin to care about. The action is incredible and the technology has come so far that now, even the CGI characters are looking real. The details on Yoda and General Grevious are amazing and you forget, from time to time, that they are CGI. I loved this movie, if only because it may, in fact, resemble a movie more than any of the others. Each SW movie has been a swashbuckling tale that hinges around action, adventure, and light, comedic moments. You care about the characters but you never truly believe that they are in any real danger. ROTS is completely different. Not only do you believe the characters are in danger, you know they are and that there is no turning back. No matter what, you know that Padme is going to die, you know that Yoda is going to lose in his struggle with the Emperor, you know that Obi Wan and Yoda and the others will be forced into seclusion and you know, beyond a doubt, that Anakin will become Darth Vader. Perhaps that is the shocking part of ROTS. Most SW fans absolutely love Darth Vader. As a kid, I actually wanted him to beat Luke every time in ROTJ. It never even occurred to me that Vader could be beaten. But in this movie, you DON'T want Anakin to become Vader. You feel true remorse for the young Jedi, so afraid to lose the ones he loves, so twisted by the lies of the Emperor and so hell bent on being the greatest Jedi ever that he abandons all that is good in him to become Vader. Even the moment in the end when the mask is finally put on and Vader as we know him comes to life, even that feels hollow. One of the reasons why is because Lucas does a wonderful job of connecting Obi Wan and Anakin together in this film. You can feel and see the love they have for one another and the older/younger brother relationship they have developed. This is the relationship Lucas should have established for us in AOTC. There, the two Jedi seemed to have an extremely combative relationship where you could easily see the eventual battle coming. In ROTS, that relationship seems so genuine it hurts when it crumbles away to nothing. I would have liked more than half a movie to see that relationship blossom. Maybe then having ripped away, as it most assuredly had to be, wouldn't have seemed so quick. Also, in ROTS, you see, for the first time, characters or righteousness killed by the power and force of the Dark Side. Even the death of Qui Gon in TPM didn't seem as disturbing as the destruction of Mace Windu and the execution of the Jedi in this one. This is a very dark movie, but one of the beauties of it remains the way it subways into the original trilogy. Seeing Leia taken to Alderon and, at the end, seeing Luke, cradled by his aunt, looking over the Tatooine horizon as John William's classic score booms in the background is breathtaking. Some may say that this SW redeems the other two but I say it actually leaves you wanting more from the other two. It almost seems as if Lucas really didn't feel comfortable with this back story until ROTS. I would like to see him go back an re-do the other two movies. I would like to see him develop the emotions between characters in those movies the way he did in this one. I would have liked the rest of this trilogy to have been as engaging as this one was. Are there problems? Sure. The middle is a little long winded, Anakin's turning to the Dark Side seems a little rushed and quick. It seems a little strange that a boy so committed to the Jedi way and the Republic would turn so quickly. There are consistency problems as well, ones that only the most SW geekish amongst us would notice. In ROTJ Leia speaks of remembering her mother when she was very little. But Padme dies in child birth, so how could that be. R2-D2 knows Obi Wan very well and goes on each adventure with him and Anakin during the trilogy, yet in ANH R2 looks scared of Obi Wan who, in turn, does not seem to remember the little droid. Also, the fact that Yoda cannot see that Palpatine is the Sith Lord always seemed to me to be strange. But these are small, and no one should let any of that interfere with the movie. Th Revenge of the Sith may, in fact, be the best of the six. The original trilogy still holds a very special place in my heart, but one would be hard pressed to show that Lucas has ever done any better by his 6 part masterpiece.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Best one of the lot
I don't know what to say about this film. I don't know where to begin. I don't know what to focus on, think on, obsess on first, as I have never seen a film so complete, so nearly perfect, that it almost calls for no words at all. I usually have a lot to say, thinking, and sometimes rightfully so, that the better a piece of art the more one should dissect it. Make no mistake, this is a piece of art. The whole trilogy, all three movies, are breathtaking pieces of creativity at its highest. It is what Aristotle considered "high art" and it makes no apology for making its audience think, while giving them enough visual effects to just astonish a a dumbfounded movie theatre. While all three pieces are art, this last film is the Mona Lisa of the group. I adored Fellowship, loved Twin Towers but found some of the magic gone, and have been changed by Return of the King. This movie tried to do so many things, which usually makes for a choppy, chaotic movie going experience. Movies that attempt too much usually in the end resemble politicians trying to be everything to everyone. By the end no one wants anything to do with them. Consider this the exception to the rule. It tries to be a character driven drama, which is succeeds in doing. It tries to be an action packed, visual effects masterpiece, which it succeeds in doing. And finally, it attempts to interject enough humor and lighthearted attitude to keep the audience from become enveloped in a dark cloud of its own, which it also succeeds in doing. Oh yes, and one more thing: it attempts the greatest challenge of them all, how to turn a literary classic, of such utter complexity that no one else has ever attempted it, into a classic piece of film, while staying true to the books themselves, and in this the film succeeds beyond my wildest dreams. The struggle in this last film is so desperate, the drain so apparent on all the warriors faces, that even those of us who know the end by heart still grimace as our heros face peril after peril. And our characters connect with each of us, completely. We feel for each one. We know each ones strengths and weakness's, and we fear that one or two may, in the end, not make it. I can imagine what it must be like to fall in love with these movies having never read the books, having never fallen in love with the world Tolkien created on page. To not know what is going to happen, who is going to live and who is going to die, must be a nerve racking experience in this film. One I envy in some ways, though the love of the books is far greater and more fullfilling then anything experienced in the theatre. No, this film keeps the book to heart, and respects the author, the true imagination behind the world we see on the screen. So many films today, taken from extrodinary novels, try too hard to distance themselves from the writer and their vision. Each one inevitably fails miserably. But this film, and all three in fact, stay as close as possible to the novel that one would suspect Tolkien is smiling to himself somewhere right now. I could write another 1000 words on the acting in this film, which should eventually be recognized, and the direction of such complex movies that require so many story lines to blend seamlessly, but that almost takes away from the beauty of this film. You see, at the end of this movie you don't feel as if you have watched a story, a fictional tale involving fake characters. Instead, you feel attached. You feel one with the people who have sweat and suffered in the screen above. There are no actors to congratulate because these are real people, living real adventures, adventures we have the privilege to ease drop on. I am sad these films are over, sadder then I have ever been before. I will eventually own these movies, and eventually, on a rainy or snowy day, I will watch all three in succession. But I will never again have the pleasure to experience these movies for the first time. I will never again be able to feel that pit in my stomach as moments are revealed and characters become heros. I will never again feel the way I do tonight, and that makes me sad. But for all of you who have not seen this movie yet, those feelings await you.
Seabiscuit (2003)
Wonderful
Some of the criticism I have heard directed at this movie centers around a couple of issues; not as good as the movie, too long, should have been better, mixing of documentary style with film does not work. Well, for me that is what made this movie as close to perfect as I have seen in a long time. Now granted, surrounded by the bloated, stinking, yellow teeth competition this summer has had to offer, Seabuiscuit may seem better then it is just because it tries to entertain. The rest of the movies out there this year seem to be almost laughing at you for 2 hours for spending your money. But I contend that even in a year where film after film raised the level cinema as we know it, this movie would be right up there with them. First, the length. By my last check, which was last night, I spend now almost $10 to see a movie and subsequently pay Julia Roberts $20 million per film to play the same, flighty, annoyingly stupid person she appears to be in real life. Money well spent. So if I am going to spend that kind of money, I want it to be worth it. Seabuscuit is worth it. The first 45 minutes is horse free, which seems strange considering the movie is based on the animal. However, without that setup the movie would never work. You have to care about these characters, hope that they win, hope that they make it out of the hell they are currently under, and root for them the entire time you are staring at the screen. You have to see them go through the hard times so that when the good times come, you are happy for them. The greatest failure a movie can make is to create characters no one cares about, or cast Kevin Costner. Either one is death. Its not as good as the book. Well, I have not read the book, but I am sure this is true. Books are ALWAYS better because a writer has an almost infinite amount of space to work with. As far as Laura Hillenbrand, author of Seabiscuit, she had 448 pages to work with to tell the WHOLE story. A movie cannot do that. They have to stay true to the tone or message of the book rather then to every detail of it. In this case, the message stays true to heart. Three men, beaten, battered, almost destroyed, find a horse with similar life qualities and together they come alive again. They become a part of society again, and as they become uplifted by this beaten animal, so too does the rest of a tired country, if only for a moment. The message is not lost. The intermingling of documentary style film with the cinematic movie. I personally loved this. I thought it was somewhat unneccessary during the War Admiral, Seabiscuit match race but even there it was done nicely and still recovered quick enough to account for one of the truly touching moments of the film. Besides that, I LOVE David McCollough, who narrates this film. He is not only one of my favorite historians, he is also one of my favorite narrators. His voice just makes you take things seriously. And being a history geek, the ken Burns like interludes are wonderful for adding to the atmosphere of the picture. I loved it.
So, for me, this film worked on every level. The acting is incredible all the way around, and Oscars should be handed out to either MGuire or Bridges who are incredible. Cooper is great as well, playing a horse lover who has a knack for helping the less then perfect animals. To me, this is everything movies should be. Beautiful to look at, beautiful to listen to, and just a pleasure to watch. I hope Hollywood takes a cue from this movie and makes more like them. Movies that uplift, that inject a sense of pleasure in ones heart and make you feel like you $10 were well spent. Few films over the last several years have evoked that type of emotion.
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
Not Empire caliber sequel, but very good
I think the hardest thing to do in the entertainment field is to make a good, fresh sequel off of a great, fresh original movie. The Matrix, while not being completely original as far as story, was fresh, exciting, and gave people sights and sounds that no one had ever seen before. To come back to that and recreate the magic is very hard.
The Matrix Reloaded comes close to recapturing that magic. It is a visual feastival that leaves everyone breathless after several wonderful actions sequences. There are some things that don't work, some things that don't make a whole hell of a lot of sense, but overall a great sequel to a fantastic original.
What didn't work? Well, lets run some things down.
Spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!!
First, the scene in Zion, which includes the most uncomfortable sex scene between Neo and Trinity ever. It seems to waver between wanting to be a soft core love scene and a artfully done romantic sequence. The Zion dance scene is strange and hard to watch. It basically is a rave with thousands of people dressed like Buddhist monks, a far cry from the leather clad heroes they are in the Matrix
Second, the whole scene with Merovingian, or really the whole story line with him and his program/lover. Just an unnecessary scene with a lot of philisophical talk of choice that seems to just drone on and on and on. And also, the fact that they made this character French, which has its own implications but is grating on the ears as one tries to understand the dialogue, is not needed. Just very strange dialogue, and a character that is not needed at all. After leaving the theatre I felt almost like I did after leaving Phantom Menace with Jar Jar in there. Why do that to a perfectly great movie?
Third, the conversation with the Arcithect is just far too confusing. I do not mind high dialogue, or philisophical conversations, which is fine for this action movie with a mind, but with such a pivotal part of the movie, really the crux of what the rest of the series will be about, on the line the dialogue should be coherent. The audience should ne able to follow it completely and I don't think most of them could. Actually, it might be a wondeful ploy by the directors since I know I will be going back to see the movie to get my facts about that conversation straight and a lot of other people will as well. Its not the only reason to see it again but it sure is a close one.
Fourth, the destruction of Zion at the end. Ok, Zion has been destroyed I guess. What happened? How many survived? Why isn't anyone else seemingly upset about this? I mean we have Link, whose girlfriend/wife is still in Zion when he left, and yet when hearing of the news there is no mention as to whether or not any of the crews loved ones survived. Needed a little more then that.
What worked?
The fight scenes. I know people became upset because the last movie left off where Neo seemingly no longer needed to get his Crouching Tiger on with every agent in the Matrix. Why fight someone when you can just jump into them and destroy them? But I rather like the action sequences and really, if he wasn't fighting them, what exactly would the action sequence be? Neo, jumping into agent after agent and just destroying them? Not fun. Plus, in the beginning,he goesd to punch an agent and is blocked, which prompts him to say " Updates?" and continue on fighting. I just simply chose to let that line explain away the fact that kung fu fighting was still needed. The machines had adapted to his powers, some of them, and he could not simply destroy them the way he had before.
The relationship between the characters. Neo and Morpheus seem to be in a very strange place. Morpheus is still the leader, but really it is what Neo says that goes. The oracle wants to talk to him and no one else, when there is a problem Neo takes control, ordering people where they need to be to survive. Yet Neo still bows to Morpheus and his wishes.
The love between Neo and Trinity is a little too intense, seemingly rapped up in hot sex and fear of death. But it is well done and is vital to the ending where N eo chooses to save Trinity rather then Zion.
The chase scene. What a ride. Best chase scene I have ever seen. Actually words cannot express how wonderful this scene is done. They have wonderful visual effects with wonderful fast actions moves. CGI and the live action is blended very well. It is worth the price of admission to see this scene.
So there are some things that work, some that don't but overall it is a wild ride that needs to be seen. I will be going back to see it again, and from what I have heard people have actually enjoyed it more the second time around, with the expectations a little diminished. On a scale of 1-10, I would give it and 8.5.
X2 (2003)
Not bad, not great.
Ok, I have to admit I am not a huge comic book fan or a fan of the Marvel genre. It's not that I don't like them or the idea behind them but I just, as a kid, or as an adult, ever got into them, so I think that may have a big influence on people for this movie. I know that, being a HUGE Star Wars fan I can enjoy the new movies more then people who were just casual fans. But anyway, heres what I think. The things I liked: Special effects are awsome once again. The beginning sequence with Nightcrawler is great, the way he appears and dissappears is amazing. The scene with Pyro, where he takes on the entire Colorado PD, the scene where the school is overrun and you see the different kids power. That stuff is awsome.
The things I didn't like: The movie dragged. This is not as exciting as the first. It is long and drawn out. I understand that directors always are looking to make MORE then an action film, but in the end isn't that what we want? A film filled with fights, explosions, and strange creatures doing strange things? This movie has bits and pieces of that but doesn't reall focus on it too much. And the characters are old, I don't like them. The only new character intorduced in this film is Nightcrawler who has one good scene where you get to see what he is made of, and then that is it. I dislike Storm, Cyclops, Jean Grey, and Charles Xavier. They are boring characters with boring powers. Cyclops is hardly in this movie at all, which is good, and Xavier plays basically Jean Luc in a wheel chair this whole movie, getting into a psychological battle that puts the cat to sleep wih some Sixth Sense looking mutant. Wolverine, as usual, is the lynchpin of the movie and he carries it throughout. But even the bad guys. Last time around there was Toad, with his long tongue, and the lion looking guy, whose name escapes me. Now? Magnito and Mystique, who is hot as all hell, but in the end the idea of a shape shifter as her power is not that appealing. No new villians except for Special Forces General Striker? All these Xmen charaters and we only get Nightcrawler whose action is over within the forst 10 minutes? What a joke. And this Rogue character? Does she have any point in the comics cause she sure as hell doesn't in these movies. All these Xmen charaters and we get a girl with a horribly infectious rash to focus on. I don't CARE about her or whether or not she can ever touch anyone. I hope she doesn't. And the girl who plays her? Take a step back Heather Graham there might be a worse actress on the face of the earth then you. I cannot stand that ROGUE character and it is as if they HAVE to try and put things in the movie to make her interesting. Take her out and put in a charater with some really cool powers, that can do something interesting besides spread some sort of weird disease. And that also goes for Jean Grey. My God could there be a more useless character. SPOILER!!!!!!!! Figured I would put that in there about Grey, but she supposedly dies in the end, something I hope sticks but I know will not in the end. She'll be back, somehow, and the movie will be the worse for the wear for it. She is annoying, her powers amazingly uninteresting considering another character in the movie, Xavier, has the same power, and her love affair with Cyclops and Wolverine is stupid. Is the movie horrible? No, but it is just another high budget, high octane Hollywood movie that is big on hype and low on results. Here is to hoping that this is not a prelude to things to come for this summer. Last summer was a such a good one for movies, and the year before so bad, that hopefully this year marks its own terroritory with Martix and Hulk and the others coming out. But X2 is not the banner movie of the year so far.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Where to start........How about AWESOME
I love the books. Call me a geek, a loser, a freak, its been done before.(mostly by my mother) I love the world Tolkien created, that wonderous place called Middle Earth, and I love the characters that he sprung from its soil. I love everything about it. So when Jackson was making and then releasing FOTR I was excited, nervous, and a little apprehensive. How could anyone, even with Lucas graphics behind him every step of the way, how could anyone capture that magic the books cast upon most of us who read them? How could anyone do them justice? Well, Jackson did, and Two Towers comes close to eclipsing FOTR as a whole. First, it is darker, as the book is. There is more action, more fighting, more tense pressure put on by impending doom. Second, there is more comedy. These characters that seemed so distincted are now alive, real, human in this movie, where their love and their fears and their hates all come out in full view. Finally, there is Gollum. I have never seen such a character. You have to remind yourself that he is computer animated for one thing, but then the depth of the character, the depth of the emotions shown in its face, the eyes, the forhead, the body language, it is all just astounding. I could have watched Gollum all day and night. The charcater is so very interesting you do not mind being taken away from the action to seem him as he guides Frodo and Sam closer and closer to Mordor. Jackson does, as in the first one, take some liberties with the novels, not living up to every chapter in them, but the detail is so precise, the important moments so well done, the intensity raised to such a high level, that even the most ardent LOTR fans will not scowl at such changes.
Go see this movie. Go see it once, twice, three times if necessary. It is great cinema, it is great escapism, but most of all it is a great story that finally comes to life. And now, we wait for the Return of the King. Is anyone else excited?
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Where to start........How about AWESOME
I love the books. Call me a geek, a loser, a freak, its been done before.(mostly by my mother) I love the world Tolkien created, that wonderous place called Middle Earth, and I love the characters that he sprung from its soil. I love everything about it. So when Jackson was making and then releasing FOTR I was excited, nervous, and a little apprehensive. How could anyone, even with Lucas graphics behind him every step of the way, how could anyone capture that magic the books cast upon most of us who read them? How could anyone do them justice? Well, Jackson did, and Two Towers comes close to eclipsing FOTR as a whole. First, it is darker, as the book is. There is more action, more fighting, more tense pressure put on by impending doom. Second, there is more comedy. These characters that seemed so distincted are now alive, real, human in this movie, where their love and their fears and their hates all come out in full view. Finally, there is Gollum. I have never seen such a character. You have to remind yourself that he is computer animated for one thing, but then the depth of the character, the depth of the emotions shown in its face, the eyes, the forhead, the body language, it is all just astounding. I could have watched Gollum all day and night. The charcater is so very interesting you do not mind being taken away from the action to seem him as he guides Frodo and Sam closer and closer to Mordor. Jackson does, as in the first one, take some liberties with the novels, not living up to every chapter in them, but the detail is so precise, the important moments so well done, the intensity raised to such a high level, that even the most ardent LOTR fans will not scowl at such changes.
Go see this movie. Go see it once, twice, three times if necessary. It is great cinema, it is great escapism, but most of all it is a great story that finally comes to life. And now, we wait for the Return of the King. Is anyone else excited?
Gone with the Wind (1939)
Just an astounding masterpiece that should be cherished by all generations
I am 24 years of age and I can say that, for the first time in my life, last night, I saw GWTW. Thats right, I had never, ever seen the movie before, not even bits and pieces of it. Oh sure I saw Rhet sweep Scarlett off her feet and up the stairs, but that was about it. I had never seen one of the greatest American classics ever produced, not even a part of it.
And would you believe I saw it alone? I have been asked by noit so few a girfriend to watch this movie, romantic and sweepingly epic as it is, but have always declined. Why? Well because I find, in my own point of view, that older romantic movies, just as older horror movies, are just not as effective on me today as they most undoubtedly were on people of that era. So I stayed away from this movie, believing that the hype and over-zelous love for this film would find me far too expectant of it and, thus, far more dissappointed then I should be. I was, however, very much wrong.
I don't believe I will give, in any way, a general review of this film. Anyone reading this now knows of the story or has worshipped at its cinematic feet for years. Besides, a text book review, a dateline chronicle of this splendid film would not do it justice. As with great pieces of literature, the beauty lies not in the details but in the emotions garnered from the experience, and GWTW evokes such earth shattering emotions.
You may scoff at my assertion that a movie could render upon me such strong emotions, but I feel that anytime an event takes place which alters the types of things that please you, that motivate you, that entertain or touch you in some way, well to me that is and shall always be earth shattering. I remember watching, as a child, JAWS and realizing that I could watch this story for years and years without ever tiring of it. It started a life long fascination with the sea and sharks which has never subsided. I remember being in 7th grade and reading for the first time a book that was a joy to read, a book that was an event at night rather then a burden. After reading, for my class, Lord of the Flies, I continued on, reading Lord of the Rings, and on and on and on after that to the point I find myself now where no night of mine is truly complete until I read a bit. I remember all of these things, and many more that have meant so much to me, and I can easily say that GWTW was one of those watershed moments for me.
I want to visit Tara, I want become kismit friends with Rhet Butler, I want to find people in this world who loath Ashley as much as I do, who love and respect Melanie as much as I do, and who lust after, for some reason and not just physically, Scarlett as I find myself doing now. I want to see the old South as it was, with all of its splendor and horror, in slavery, put out upon the curb everyday for all to see. I want to see what the Civil War really looked like and I want to stand, jaw dropped and with a sense of dread, as men from both sides talk of short wars and little bloodshed.
Mostly however I want to live the life that Gone with the Wind lays out. I want that life to be my life, if only for a moment, if only as a whisper in the ear of time. This movie made me believe in love, in that unquenchable love that passes all understanding, and made me afraid of it's trappings. I feel, even now, for Rhet Butler, so many years of wasting his love on someone incapable of returning it. I pity now Scarlett, left sobbing on the bottom steps of her gigantic home, loving the man she had just driven away with every pore of her being. I feel for them all as if I had known them myself, greavied with them in moments of lose, and celebrated in moments of triumph.
This movie made me feel good, fullfilled, and satisfied completely at the end, so much so that I went to bed as writer, director, and actor, finishing a story I had just watch unfold. Sending Scarlett off to fight for Rhet, leaving Ashely behind to wallow in his own well deserved misery. I watched in my mind as Mammie grew older and more gentle as the years went on and Tara became smaller, yet more open and loving in its old age.
I saw all this in my miond only because, as a great novel does, a great poem does, a great prose does, this movie left us all wanting more. Wanting it so much that we would stay awake at night, creating a larger, even grander world then the one we had been allowed to peer into. We needed to create more because 4 hours and 20 some odd years was not enough for us. It was but a taste, one so good we needed to raid the rest.
And so will it go. New movies will evoke new emotions and new characters will make me laugh and cry and groan from disapproval, but GWTW will live on in my memory. With other films, they will pass in the halls of my thoughts only when I see them on TV or hear of them from friends, but GWTW will visit those halls from time to time without any pre-announced engagement. It will come in to brighten my day, to promise of something better, and to focus me on the beauties of life and all it has to offer. It is why we stare at the Mona Lisa, listen to Beethoven and Mozart, read Dickens and Shakespeare, and in the end, why we watch GWTW. For it gives us a sense of relief or purpose the likes of whcih nothing else does. For that, for last night, I am grateful for that story.
The Ring (2002)
Very Scary, Worth Seeing, but too many questions unanswered
This movie is scary, there is no denying that. Gore verbinski does a great job of giving the audience a little of everything you could want from a scary/horror movie; dark, dank settings, creepy kids, a gloomy storyline, plenty of "jump" moments, and an overall plot that keeps you guessing. The characters do a good job not overacting, which is so often the norm in movies like this, and Naomi Watts is an absolute treat to watch on the screen not only because of her absolutely breathtaking beauty but also because of her obvious talent. There is no all looks and no talent, or as I like to call it Julia Roberts syndrom here. The girl can act. So if you are looking for a recommendation it is simple; GO AND SEE IT!!!!! It will creep you out, at least a little bit, and around Halloween time, as we all parade around to haunted house after haunted house, isn't that what it is all about?
But for those of you who did see it, doesn't the movie lose a bit by leaving so many questions unanswered? When I say questions I mean questions about plot holes which, after a night of thinking on it, there seem to be a plethera of. SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!
First, why does it seem that the video tape is, on one hand a documented recording of Samara's memory, and at other times it appears it is fortelling the future for the characters? At one point, upon leaving a building, Watt's character walks under a ladder and remembers the ladder from the video. Fortelling the future. But why does the video do nothing of the sort for the rest of movie? Wouldn't it have been better if it were simply a recorded memory?
Second, why is the father still alive? He obviously knows of the tape, has even seen it, knows what it can do, knows what his daughter does through the tape, and we know that Samara hated her father. So why does he live until he takes his own life? Why not go after him? Why not kill him?
Third, this is less of a plot hole then just an absolutely assinine thing, but why, when she goes up to the horse and it freaks out does she continue to stay near it/try and calm it down? Wouldn't you get the sense after, I don't know, the second full body convulsion the horse has that maybe you are not a horse person? Maybe you would walk away at that point but Watt's character keeps going as if some magic combination of "Shhsh" and "calm down boy" would put the horse into a deep sleep. Yes, we get it, the horses hated Samara because she hated them and killed them so they can sense her presence. We don't need a completely insane moment to prove it.
Fourth, why wouldn't Watts have picked up on the fact that the doctor asks Samara on the tape if she still wants to hurt people? How could she just gloss over that? It was pretty clear, doctor on the other side of a glass sheet, first bad indicator right there, asking a very creepy looking girl whether she wanted to hurt her mother anymore and very creepy girl answering no but she can't help it. Boy, not something I would soon forget. You would think that would have been a clue that the girl was just a bit off and that maybe it wasn't just about a mean old man making her live in a barn all the time.
Fifth, why does the father hit her? He doesn't try and kill her, she isn't taking evidence that could lead to some sort of harmful event for him, and she recovers pretty easily from it just to watch him kill himself. Why hit her? He was just pissed she used the VCR without asking? He decided it was either that or put off killing himself and heat up some coffee? Doesn't make much sense.
Sixth, if the kid, who gets all huffy when he finds out his parents helped out the girl, knew that Samara was evil and should not be helped or aided in any way, why not tell his mom? Why does he just sit back, draw some horrible painting, the kid has no talent, and make it seem as if the girl is a nice little ghost who comes to visit him? Why not have the " oh by the way, that girl that comes to me and shows me things, you know the girl who said she is gonna kill you, well she is pretty damn evil so be careful and for Goidsakes don't help her" conversation? That never crossed the kids mind?
Seventh, what is the point of finding out, so late in the game, that the guy, the random VCR geek guy, is in fact the father of the kid? Why are we told this in the middle of the movie? Why is this information so shocking that it requires a sudden, poignant moment of it's own in the MIDDLE of the movie? Does anyone really believe that people would have left thinking "Boy that was good, but I really wish they would have saved who the kids father was until right in the middle of the flick. That would have made it an Oscar contender."
Finally, what the hell good does it do the creepy evil girl to have been released from her well? Instead of killing people through the TV she now comes out of the TV and kills people. Wow, big freakin Wow. She still has to wait I guess, she still has to go through the tape, and she still, I assume, has to wait 7 days or she would have killed the guy that same day as when she was released. And in the end Watts and the kid beat the system by making copies and showing it to people. So thats all you have to do I guess, make a copy and sho it to someone else and your off. So why is thise so damn bad? Tell that person to make a copy, the next person the same, and on and on and on until poor little creepy evil girl can't kill anyone cause their all making copies. Of course she would have a huge comeback when VCR's are all replaced by DVDs and no one can make a copy anymore, but until then she is kinda up the creek. And this after doing so much to get herself freed from the well, she still has to live/kill by the same rules. Kinda kills the whole plot at the end, doesn't it.
But funny thing is I still recommend this movie. Go see it and don't think till you get out of the theatre. Then you can rip it to shreads of the course of a few days.
Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)
Yeah Baby, the critics are wrong again
I went into this movie expecting to find it lacking in some way. From what I had heard through the grap vine, which is the critics bylines, the funniest parts of the movie happened in the first few moments of the film and after that it became, to quote Austin himself, "ouch baby, very ouch." I heard that Austin was in it too much, that the new character of Goldmember was curiously unfunny, and that the movie was comprised of mostly re-hashed old jokes. But now, having seen the movie, I realize what the critics, in their own eloquent manner, were trying to tell all of us would- be Austin viewers; that they are MORONS!!!! First, anyone remember a critic who LOVED the first or second Powers movies? Anyone? Please, I can't hear you so you might have to stand up. No one? Well, can't say that I do either, so does it come as any truly cosmic suprise that the critics again are decidedly cool to down right deep frozen towards the newest installment? It reminds me of earlier this year when critic after critic talked of the ol Star Wars movies as prized American treasures and spoke of how the new movies were but dim shadows of the old brilliance of the early films. Yet, go back and read the reviews of the old Star Wars movies. Glowing would not be the first word to stream across your mind. The same thing with Austin. The majority of critics complaining that Powers has lost his mojo are the same fellas and fellets that couldn't see the mojo in the first place. So what I need to do now, for all of you fellow Austin lovers who have been scared to heavens by the reviews is, as Dr. Evil says, to "throw you a freakin bone here." Goldmember is great, and not just the character. The cameos are funny, but the brilliance of the film comes from the addition of the new character, Goldmember, and the expansion of mini-me role in the film. It is quite clear to me, having listened to the audience reaction, that these movies have become much more about Dr. Evil and mini-me then anyone else, but the interaction that the characters have with one another are fantastic. Are old jokes re-hashed here, absolutely, that has been one of the charms of the other two. But there are plenty of new and innovative gags that had the audience I watched it with on the floor. The musical interludes are riotous, and there are certain scenes that will have you almost falling out of your chair. Is this one as good as the second? In my opinion no, I have never laughed as hard at a movie as I did at the second Austin Powers, but it is, very much up to par with the first and has several scenes that rival the second for those can't stop laughing moments. Micheal Caine is perfect as the suave Nigel Powers, Austins dad, as Caine, while not being given hysterical material to work with, uses what he is given to the best of his talents and ends up giving, in my opinion, some of the more memorable lines in the film. Beyonce Knowles, yet another singer turned actress, does a remarkably good job here, displeeling any rumors that she was giving Heather Graham a run for her money as the worst actress in an Austin to film to date. Knowles is beautiful, strong, sassy, and 1970's ghettos all at the same time and there are no scenes she takes part in where you get that "boy, she just seems lost" sense. Myers, well, Myers is Myers and if ou have not been convinced that his comedy is genius yet, combining slap-stick with gross out with intelligent humor, then you just are not capable of liking this film. Myers is just Myers, and his new character Goldmember is terrific. Finally, however, is mini-me, whose name escapes me right now. Mini-me has perhaps some of the funniest moments of the entire film, and the concept of having him be a mute has been one of the best comic choices to date. Mini-me is funny because he is small, but also because the little guy is just damn funny. The faces, the sounds, the humping, they are all incorporated into this wonderful little character that is truly allowed to take off in this film. The fight between Austin and mini-me is sure to have you gasping for air. The only problem I had with this film was the end, which I felt was a bit forced and not as creative as the other two endings had been, but with Myers creative genius at work, if there is a fifth, I am sure that the problems created at the end are easily fixed. This movie is funny, witty, and just plain enjoyable. If you love Austin Powers then run, don't walk, run to see this movie (I wonder if anyone has actually ever run to see a movie after reading something like that?) and if you want to enjoy yourself, check the critics reviews at the door.
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
See it, See it now
Let me start this off by saying that yes, I am a Star Wars geek. I loove the movies, love the characters, love the places and planets that occupy Lucas's mind and are then projected onto screen for the rest of us to enjoy. I own ALL of the other Star Wars movies, yes even Phantom, and have the dubious distinction of being one of only 4 people in the world who have not lambasted Phantom for 2 years now, and the only one without the last name of Lucas. Now, when I say geek I do not mean someone who comes to the movies dressed as Darth Maul or someone who refuses to see Lord of the Rings or Matrix becomes it disrupts the force. I am just a geek, not a loser. Getting that out of the way, onto the movie.
****I don't know how to do this without spoilers so if you don't want to know ANYTHING, and I do advise that, then turn away now. I will try and keep them at a minimum but I am also not going to hold back.*****
THINGS NOT SO GREAT:
The Love Story: It drags. Yes, it is important and yes all of us should have been, or should very well be ready for this story. It is important. I mean we need to see how a hotty like Amidala could ever hook up with Darth Vader, right? I mean was she the only female in the world who bought the "I fell down and it just kinda went in there, and then I tried to get it out...."? No, I think not. So we need to see them talking about politics and family and love and dreams and blah, blah, blah. Yes, it is needed but it is tedious. For anyone who argues that the problem with this movie is character development is off his or her rocker. This movie develops, and then some.
CGI: There is just too much of it. There just wasn't enough "REAL" people to go around. I think that Lucas and his cohorts have become so adepth with the computers that they have forgotten that one of the beauties of the first trilogy was all the people running around in funny costumes. Maybe the next one will have a bit less of the computer and a bit more latex.
THINGS I LOVED:
YODA: I am not even going to go there. Even if you think you want to know about Yoda in this flick you really don't. Just, WOW!!!!!!
Obi-Wan: Its his movie. He gets less screen time overall then Anakin, but this is his movie. He is calm, cool, collected, kick ass, and funny all at the same time. Unlike Qui-Gon, who was good in the first, Obi-Wan has a humor, a temper, and some stubborness to him. He doesn't take certain things too serious, and other things he gets all riled up about. And his interaction with Anakin, very good, and much more interesting then his own interaction with Qui-Gon. Ewan Mcgregor is one of the best in any of the Star Wars films.
Anakin: For some reason he is being slaughtered in the press, as is everything else about the movie, and it isn't fair. he is not the most likeable character in the world because he isn't suppose to be. I mean, remember, this dude eventually throws on a all Black suit, starts hoping around the galaxy killing Jedi, tries to turn his own son to the drak-side, cuts off his hand when he doesn't come around quick enough, and also sends his own daughter up for execution. No, not likeable at all. But Anakin is likeable enough in this movie to root for, he shows a wide range of emotions, makes you believe that he could kick some interstellar ass, and also has a very tender side. He does a very good job of being annoying yet innocent at the same time and it is easy for us to see his eventual path to the dark-side and who is going to take him there.
Count Dooku: Yes, yes, yes. This guy is classy, he seems and acts like a Jedi, yet he has turned. He is powerful, he is bad ass, but never, ever losing his composure. He is a wonderful villian and even though he is introduced in the middle of the movie, kind of out of no where as a matter of fact, he is terrific.
The Jedi: They are all there and you get to see them in action. Mace Windu and the others kicks some butt and the light sabers are swinging this way and that. For every Star Wars geek out there, you are going to love this.
IN THE END:
This movie is not perfect, as no movie is perfect, and certainly as no Star Wars movie has been perfect. What every Star Wars fan should except is that these movies, in this trilogy, are vastly different then the other ones. This has politics and vast worlds, while the others are simply the fight to restore order, mostly taking place on desolate planets that offer nothing but despair. Though I would have preferred less CGI, the images are breath taking, unlike even the first one which saw only 3 planets. This movie is wonderful, where it ranks I do not know, but I do know I will be back to see it again, I will be back to cheer for the Jedi, and I will be back in two year when the next one comes out. Don't listen to the critics. Remember, many of them hated the first trilogy as well, how you like those? Go and have fun, root for Obi-Wan, Padme and the rest, and at the end take a deep breath. You will need it.
PS. Jar Jar is non existent in this one.
Spider-Man (2002)
Terrific
After last summer, in which more movies left you with an empty, almost annoyingly apathetic feeling when you left the theatre, it is wonderful to leave feeling good again. Feeling as if the now $9 it takes to get in and see one of these event movies is worth while. Spiderman works for me because of one simple fact, a fact I had had great reservations about before entering this film, and that fact was; Tobey McGuire.
I have always been a fan of Tobeys work, I loved Wonder Boys, found some nice things to like in Cider House Rules, and have always found McGuire to be refreshingly real. He never tries to do too much, he just is in the moment and in a day where it seems everyone is just over acting every single scene they are in his minimal effort performances have always been good. But, this is suppose to be a kick ass, bust them up action movie where the real fun comes from watching this dorky kid becone a superhero with super-human powers. Could McGuire pull it off? The answer is............YES!!!!!!!
Like Keanu Reeves did in the Matrix and Micheal Keaton did in Batman, McGuire is able to make you think that, yes, he can kick your butt all over Metropolis and still be back home in time for dinner. McGuire does a wonderful job of conveying both an innocent young man and a superhero who knows it is his duty to protect those less gifted then he. He makes you feel sorry for him, makes you laugh with and at him, and makes you believe in him in the scenes where he is saving the world, or New York at least. The star of the movie truly is just that and if you didn't know who Tobey McGuire was before this, you will after.
The supporting cast can ver well be where the difference between a great movie and a so, so movie lie and in this case the supporting cast does a wonderful job. Defoe has gotten some criticism as the Green Goblin from press and some fan reactions alike, but at the end of the day Defoe carries the Goblin and perfroms brilliantly. He is mean, psychotic, but also funny and witty, bringing that great strength of all great superhero villians to life, and that is charm. He is funny while being evil and while we have no pretenses whom we want to see win the battle in the end, Defoe's Green Goblin is a witty villian who doesn't just bring death, but death with a punch line. Kirstin Dunst is wonderful at playing what she truly is, that radiant gilr next store, who looks like the type of girl every one of use would have fallen in love with in High School. She is strong when she needs to be and vulnerable enough for Spiderman to need to rescue her when she needs to be. And at the end of the day she is just flat out likeable. Maybe this won't win her an academy award, but you want her survive, you want her and Peter Parker to get together, you want her to get everything in her life worked out and succeed despite the odds. You like her and in this dayand age, when some actors play parts to the point where you wish for an atomic bomb to wipe everyone out at the end of the film, this oe presents us with characters we actually like.
But for my money, the real gold star goes to Sam Raimi. I have always loved Evil Dead and Army of Darkness, so I am a bit biased, but he does an absolutely wonderful job of bringing a very difficult movie the the screen. Think about it, Spiderman doesn't fly, doesn't drive a car, but what he does do is swoop from building to building using his webs. That could present a serious problem for most, on how to create these movements without making everyone in the theatre sick, but Raimi seamlessly intertwines the speacial effects and the live action scenes.
A wonderful movie, a wonderful job, and well worth the $9. Hopefully, as oppsed to last summer, this is a sign of things to come. Now all we have to hope for is a Star Destroyer falls on Jar Jar Binks and the world will be moving forward again.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Amazing, Amazing, Amazing
Amazing!!!!!!!!! That is my first reaction to this movie. My second, when I had time to think about it a little, take in everything I had seen, and really analyze the context of the movie was AMAZING!!!!!!! If you don't like the story, or never cared for the story and especially hated those obsessed morons who always talked about it, then this movie is not for you. It is a 3 hour movie and it is not a Hollywood type, in your face for 2 hours, half the world blows up experience. If that is what you are looking for, and I enjoy that as much as the next man, then you had better go somewhere else. This movie is remarkable, and if you love fantasy, far away places with strange and mystical creatures and amazing adventures, then this, in fact, is the movie for you to see.If you are scared off by the running time, let me just say that as with many great movies, Braveheart and the Godfather, the time flys by. If you are avid fan of the books, as I am, then you may be scared off by the fact that Tolkiens masterpieces can never truly come to life, except in the minds eye. Well, I agree, yet this movie fits and stays to the book as well as any movie ever has. The effects are amazing, the acting tremendous, the fight scenes astounding, just flat out great. Don't be scared off, go see this movie. I will be, again.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Amazing, Amazing, Amazing
Amazing!!!!!!!!! That is my first reaction to this movie. My second, when I had time to think about it a little, take in everything I had seen, and really analyze the context of the movie was AMAZING!!!!!!! If you don't like the story, or never cared for the story and especially hated those obsessed morons who always talked about it, then this movie is not for you. It is a 3 hour movie and it is not a Hollywood type, in your face for 2 hours, half the world blows up experience. If that is what you are looking for, and I enjoy that as much as the next man, then you had better go somewhere else. This movie is remarkable, and if you love fantasy, far away places with strange and mystical creatures and amazing adventures, then this, in fact, is the movie for you to see.If you are scared off by the running time, let me just say that as with many great movies, Braveheart and the Godfather, the time flys by. If you are avid fan of the books, as I am, then you may be scared off by the fact that Tolkiens masterpieces can never truly come to life, except in the minds eye. Well, I agree, yet this movie fits and stays to the book as well as any movie ever has. The effects are amazing, the acting tremendous, the fight scenes astounding, just flat out great. Don't be scared off, go see this movie. I will be, again.
Ocean's Eleven (2001)
Fun, Fun, Fun
If you went into this flick believing it would be Oscar caliber writing, directing, acting, then maybe you should have waited a few more weeks to see something else. But, if you went into the theatre looking to watch cool Hollywood stars put on a cool movie where each and every one of them gets at least 1 or two memorable scenes/lines, then you exited the theatre with a big ol' smile on your face. Oceans 11 is fun, right from the very beginning when Danny Ocean is asked what he would do if he were released from prison right on through to the end. Clooney plays Danny Ocean as the straight up cool guy, the undisputed leader of the pack, who you yourself would follow into this caper just because the guy LOOKS like he knows what he is doing. Pitt is equally cool, suave, and kinda plays his character of Rusty as the old sage, even though he is obviously very young. You almost get the sense that while Clooney's character is the ring leader, the best thief/con-man, may in fact be Pitt and there is never, ever a moment where you feel like Pitt is in danger of losing anything.
Matt Damon does a good job as the youthful thief new to the big score (see the seventh gunslinger in the Magnificent Seven for a reference) and is given some good moments, especially with Barnie Mac. Cheadle, I thought, did a wonderful job as the British born, cockny accented thief, but the strange accent and the strange words used made it hard most of the time to pick out exactly what he was saying. Affleck and Cann are VERY funny as feuding brothers and have some of the funniest moments in the movie and rival only Carl Reiner as a movie stealer. Reiner is GREAT as the old Saul and brings is wonderful to watch on the screen.
Now, my only contention with this movie comes in the form of Julia Roberts. I understand she is in this movie because she is a huge star and she wants to come hang out with all these cool guys in Vegas. She seems like a very nice woman, even though she can come across as a little fake, but can anyone tell me they believe she really is a great actress? I mean, come on, she plays the SAME character, herself, in every movie, and in every movie it gets older and older. Now, I understand in this movie you are not looking for Lady McBeth, but can anyone really tell me she looks AMAZING? Lets face it, this role is designed for one thing, the glamourous, gorgeous woman who takes your breath away. Julia is a really cute soccer mom, not Grace Kelly re-born. The introductory scene of her coming down the steps? It looked like she was having a hard time walking in her shoes. All I could imagine was a Catherine Zeta-Jones or even a Michele Phiefer, graceful, glamourous woman who would take the audiences breath away walking down those stairs and, in the end, Julia just comes up FAR short. She doesn't ruin this movie by any means, but I guess I just have a hard time seeing the obsession with her.
But that being said, this is a fun movie. It never seems to sit still for too long, it blends all of the stars together nicely so you don't have that somewhat nagging feeling like, oh I wish so and so would have had a scene together. To me, this will forever be a modern version os The Sting. Is it laugh out loud funny? At points yes, but not all the way through. Is it tense and suspenseful? Yes, at certain times, but not all the way through? Is it cool and fun and well shot, well directed, and well acted? Absolutely, throughout the whole thing. Leave your mind and your cynicism at the door and enjoy just simply being entertained for a few hours.
Zoolander (2001)
Leave your brain at the door and get ready to laugh
This film is fun. It is just what many of us, who still seem to be a little meloncholy since Sept. 11, need right now. Stiller, as usual, is great and plays the amazingly stupid Derek Zoolander to perfection. The reason this movie works is because it is soooooooooooo stupid. It makes no attempt to be anything but ridiculous. Many people will hate this movie and I think it will get a cult following of mainly Gen Xer's like myself, but if you just except how inane it is suppose to be I think everyone will enjoy it. I remember when the first Austin Powers came out how stupid everyone thought it was and then it began to catch on around college campuses and high schools and now look at it. I believe Zoolander may very well have the same fate.
Planet of the Apes (2001)
Better than Mediocre
What can I say, yet another disappointment, though not as acute as many of the other movies this summer. This is a watchable movie and as far as the big movies of the summer, it is the best of the bunch. However, it is still very much a movie that misses its mark. The main problem is the fact that this movie does not have a lot of action in it. It is a movie that is primed for action, a movie that from the beginning of it promises action, and never ever delivers. All of the make-up, all of the ape like movements are all layed to waste as the movie tries, I believe, to be too much of a social satire as opposed to a good old action flick. The acting is good, and all of the "ape" actors are superb as they look, act, and even move like apes. Roth is wonderful as the evil villian of the movie, Duncan is perfect as the ever imposing general who carries out all of Roths biddings, and Carter is brilliant as the human rights activist who helps the Humans as much as she can. Walhberg is good, but not great, yet he is never really able to explode in the role. Yes, I understand that an ape, no matter what size, is stronger than a human but hey, this is a movie. Lets have at least one scene where Mark kicks the sh*t out of one of the apes. You never get the sense that Walhberg is truly anything more than the others besides the will to challenge the apes, but it seems everyone joins in that effort all too easily. He isn't stronger, or seemingly smarter than the rest, who seem surprisingly intelligent for a beaten and battered species who are constantly denegraded. Despite that Walhberg does do a good job of putting his part over. As I said, the main problem is the lack of action. Burton missed the boat on this one, and while it is serviceable and with what is out there now I would recommend it to most people, it could have been so much better. I love Burtons movies and he has rarely dissapointed me, but I do believe he should have gone another way with this film, or at least picked a way to go. See this movie, it is worth it for the make-up and the acting, but if you want to see a truly wonderful movie rent the original.That movie knew what it wanted to be and never strayed. This one is just a little too confused about its direction. Oh, by the way, the twist ending is pretty cool, and will I believe spark a debate amoung those you go with.
Planet of the Apes (2001)
Better than Mediocre
What can I say, yet another disappointment, though not as acute as many of the other movies this summer. This is a watchable movie and as far as the big movies of the summer, it is the best of the bunch. However, it is still very much a movie that misses its mark. The main problem is the fact that this movie does not have a lot of action in it. It is a movie that is primed for action, a movie that from the beginning of it promises action, and never ever delivers. All of the make-up, all of the ape like movements are all layed to waste as the movie tries, I believe, to be too much of a social satire as opposed to a good old action flick. The acting is good, and all of the "ape" actors are superb as they look, act, and even move like apes. Roth is wonderful as the evil villian of the movie, Duncan is perfect as the ever imposing general who carries out all of Roths biddings, and Carter is brilliant as the human rights activist who helps the Humans as much as she can. Walhberg is good, but not great, yet he is never really able to explode in the role. Yes, I understand that an ape, no matter what size, is stronger than a human but hey, this is a movie. Lets have at least one scene where Mark kicks the sh*t out of one of the apes. You never get the sense that Walhberg is truly anything more than the others besides the will to challenge the apes, but it seems everyone joins in that effort all too easily. He isn't stronger, or seemingly smarter than the rest, who seem surprisingly intelligent for a beaten and battered species who are constantly denegraded. Despite that Walhberg does do a good job of putting his part over. As I said, the main problem is the lack of action. Burton missed the boat on this one, and while it is serviceable and with what is out there now I would recommend it to most people, it could have been so much better. I love Burtons movies and he has rarely dissapointed me, but I do believe he should have gone another way with this film, or at least picked a way to go. See this movie, it is worth it for the make-up and the acting, but if you want to see a truly wonderful movie rent the original.That movie knew what it wanted to be and never strayed. This one is just a little too confused about its direction. Oh, by the way, the twist ending is pretty cool, and will I believe spark a debate amoung those you go with.
The Score (2001)
When will the studios ever learn
Let me say this first and foremost; I enjoyed THE SCORE as much as I have enjoyed any movie this year and when compared to such atrocity's as PEARL HARBOR and TOMB RAIDER this movie is Oscar caliber. Now, I'm no saying it will win anything, it is way too enjoyable and pleasing a movie for the Academy to ever recognize it, but it is a movie that automatically raises the bar for movies this year.
De Niro is good as the ultra-professional thief who knows everything there is to know about burglary and has every cool little gadget there is to have. Brando is ever billiant as the backer of the big heist, Max, who, though dosen't have a lot of leeway to develop his character, is still a thrill to watch. The ability to still look like your not acting, that everything is new and fresh, is something that must be admired. The true star of this film, though, is Ed Norton. I have been a fan of Nortons now ever since Primal Fear and have been dissappointed that even though many of his movies have become cult classics, Fight Club and Ameican History X, he has seemingly never really showed up on Hollywoods radar screen. Simply put Norton is the best at what he does. He can be the dorky guy next door, the murderous villian, or the cool thief as he so brilliantly plays in THE SCORE. Norton is the center of attraction every time he is on the screen and some how seems to completely overshadow both De Niro and Brando when he is paired with either one of them. Though this performance may not land Norton an Academy Award it will hopefully secure his first major hit.
But, to get to my original point, why oh why do studios decide to give away EVERY LITTLE PLOT TWIST IN THE TRAILER? This movie's twist ending is completely give away by the trailers and though I won't give it away here, anyone who watches the trailer will more than likely figure it out. Why does this continue to happen? Why do movie studios sabotage their own projects? I knew exactly what was going to happen at the end and I am so dissappointed that I did. The Score is a wonderful movie and most definetely worth the price of admissions, but something has got to be done about these trailers. I mean, with a movie starring Brando, De Niro, and Ed Norton did they really believe that they couldn't just run a vague yet interesting and drum up some interest. I hope that in a year when movie like Pearl Harbor and Fast and Furious can make $100 million + then the Score will hopefully be a big block buster.
Moulin Rouge! (2001)
WOW!!!! People Got Paid for this?
This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen. No, granted, my favorite genre of film is not the abstract form of cinema this movie is created around. Yet, for the life of me I do not understand how ANYONE could like this movie. Exactly who is this movie geared towards? Children? Definetely not. I made the mistake, with this being a PG-13 movie, of bringing my 13 year old cousin to see this and it was, well, quite racy. While no one undressed there are several racy references, a scene where an orgasim is faked, an entire sequence, dance sequence that is, where 90% of the shots focus on the womens panties, and a whole lot of croch grabbing. Not something for the family.
Is it for the older generation? Not likely. The opening sequence has Nirvana's "Entertain Us" sung by the Moulin Rouge faithful and the entire film is filled with songs most peoples grandmothers and grandfathers would not know or would not like. Plus, some wonderful songs, like "All You Need Is Love", an historic song by a historic group, was used as filler, and killed by two adequate singers who tried to sing the song in an old style musical format. HORRIBLE!!!!!!
Is it for the younger generation? Well, from some of the posts I guess this is the group going. However, this younger generation may have a few who want to see a Pseudo-musical, since real musicals actually have original music, and some may want to seem artisticly adept by saying they like this film, but most young people, my generation that is,will more than likely stay away. The editing of this movie is horrible, the way it tries to combine the innocence of most of the older musicals with some modern sexuality gets to be confusing and disgusting, the editing is terrible as the style of the film changes drastically right in the middle, and the acting is horrible. Did anyone believe that Nicole Kidman would choose Ewan MGregor after the way he sniveled and whined throughout the film? It is preposterous and so badly done no wonder musicals are no longer made. DON'T ENCOURAGE THESE PEOPLE!!!!!! STAY HOME AND SAVE YOUR MONEY!!!!!! The more money this movie makes the more movies like this will be made. Hollywood already makes 6 bad movies for every one good one. Lets try and make sure that the bad ones at least stay away from bad singing as well.
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Ending, subject make this movie awful....
I must admit that upon leaving the theatre I had what you might call an ok feeling about this movie. Like so many people I ran the gammot of emotions with this movie; very excited about its release and then very skeptical after the awful reviews it received even before opening night. Going on Saturday my expectations were low and by that time I do not think it was going to take much for those expectations to be if not passed then at least met. Upon further reflection, however, I realized how good this movie could have been and how much of a disgrace it ended up being. The only reason to see this movie on the big screen is the 40 minute battle scene that actually depicts the attack on Pearl Harbor(remember the movie is over 3 hrs long) The effects are breathtaking and the depiction of this horror is actually very well done. Unfortunately that is about all that is done well. Now, leaving the film what disturbed me the most was the end. I will not give anything away but EVERYTHING after the attack on Pearl Harbor is tedious, predictable, and sometimes down right laughable. Alec Baldwin, who supposedly steals the movie according to some critcs, is amazingly bad for such a small role. His lines are all cliched to the max and his mannerism's'are prototypical old-school army man. Affleck is ok and gets the most out of a bad script, delivering some not so funny lines in a funny way and not so poignant lines with surprising feeling. Voight as FDR is great and Akroyd, though not in it much, is a pleasure to watch. Besides that the rest of the acting is extremely poor. Hartnett gives an amazingly un-emotional performance and even though the script gave few chances for any character development Hartnett, for a supposedly budding star and heart-throb, is overshadowed by anyone on screen with him. Blanchet, as the love torn nurse, is only watchable during the battle scene when she does a good job of mixing the horror of the moment with the need to stay calm to help injured service men. Though gorgeous onscreen, and she has the look of an old style movie star in this film, Blanchet does not convince the audience of any true emotion during the film. FYI Michael Bay, if you have casted an actress who cannot cry when asked to, use age old methods to draw out the tears. Too many times, in moments when Blanchets character should be distraught, she remains dry eyed, while pretending to sob.
As I said, at first the major problem I had with this flick was the ending, which is about as bad an endig as you can get, and I do mean the entire hour of film after the attack. After having a day to think about it however, I realized what a disgrace this movie was and how Bay and Bruck used a horrible moment in American history to make an overly-hyped, big booming action flick that will make money. Granted nothing may ever reach the accuracy of Saving Private Ryan or even Platoon, yet this movie really makes no attempt to relate the seriousness of the moment. This was Armageddon and The Rock, with the same effects, the same "one or two men can take on an army" concept, and an emphasis on horribly cliched moments and phrases. This movie could have been a wondeful depiction of that terrible day in 1941, could have brought the horrors of war, and espacially naval and air combat, home, and could have still done most of this while including a less time consuming, non-sensical love triangle. You may say, "why do we need the horrors of war brought home once again, whats the matter with a more light-hearted movie." You may have a point, but when dealing with REAL events it seems to me that the people who died must be honored, and honoring them means getting what ACTUALLY happened right. The fact that Bay and Bruck made little attempt to get all the details right is horrible. At least Titanic, another movie I am not in love with, made a good attempt to get history right and in the end focused the movie away from the Leo, Kate love fest and on he carnage that ensued. This movie fails not only as a product, that is a run of the mill movie, but also fails horribly as a cinematic repesentation of history. Veterans, who were honored, and righfully so, by the power of Ryan should be insulted by the almost insignificant role there horrible day plays in this film. Only 40 minutes devoted to Pearl Harbor in a movie named Pearl Harbor(that runs 3 hours)? An almost anxious jump away from the action back to the love-story? This not only fails as a movie, at least a $150 million movie, but also insults what many of our grandfathers and even grandmothers went through. For that, and that alone, stay away from this movie.
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Ending, subject make this movie awful....
I must admit that upon leaving the theatre I had what you might call an ok feeling about this movie. Like so many people I ran the gammot of emotions with this movie; very excited about its release and then very skeptical after the awful reviews it received even before opening night. Going on Saturday my expectations were low and by that time I do not think it was going to take much for those expectations to be if not passed then at least met. Upon further reflection, however, I realized how good this movie could have been and how much of a disgrace it ended up being. The only reason to see this movie on the big screen is the 40 minute battle scene that actually depicts the attack on Pearl Harbor(remember the movie is over 3 hrs long) The effects are breathtaking and the depiction of this horror is actually very well done. Unfortunately that is about all that is done well. Now, leaving the film what disturbed me the most was the end. I will not give anything away but EVERYTHING after the attack on Pearl Harbor is tedious, predictable, and sometimes down right laughable. Alec Baldwin, who supposedly steals the movie according to some critcs, is amazingly bad for such a small role. His lines are all cliched to the max and his mannerism's'are prototypical old-school army man. Affleck is ok and gets the most out of a bad script, delivering some not so funny lines in a funny way and not so poignant lines with surprising feeling. Voight as FDR is great and Akroyd, though not in it much, is a pleasure to watch. Besides that the rest of the acting is extremely poor. Hartnett gives an amazingly un-emotional performance and even though the script gave few chances for any character development Hartnett, for a supposedly budding star and heart-throb, is overshadowed by anyone on screen with him. Blanchet, as the love torn nurse, is only watchable during the battle scene when she does a good job of mixing the horror of the moment with the need to stay calm to help injured service men. Though gorgeous onscreen, and she has the look of an old style movie star in this film, Blanchet does not convince the audience of any true emotion during the film. FYI Michael Bay, if you have casted an actress who cannot cry when asked to, use age old methods to draw out the tears. Too many times, in moments when Blanchets character should be distraught, she remains dry eyed, while pretending to sob.
As I said, at first the major problem I had with this flick was the ending, which is about as bad an endig as you can get, and I do mean the entire hour of film after the attack. After having a day to think about it however, I realized what a disgrace this movie was and how Bay and Bruck used a horrible moment in American history to make an overly-hyped, big booming action flick that will make money. Granted nothing may ever reach the accuracy of Saving Private Ryan or even Platoon, yet this movie really makes no attempt to relate the seriousness of the moment. This was Armageddon and The Rock, with the same effects, the same "one or two men can take on an army" concept, and an emphasis on horribly cliched moments and phrases. This movie could have been a wondeful depiction of that terrible day in 1941, could have brought the horrors of war, and espacially naval and air combat, home, and could have still done most of this while including a less time consuming, non-sensical love triangle. You may say, "why do we need the horrors of war brought home once again, whats the matter with a more light-hearted movie." You may have a point, but when dealing with REAL events it seems to me that the people who died must be honored, and honoring them means getting what ACTUALLY happened right. The fact that Bay and Bruck made little attempt to get all the details right is horrible. At least Titanic, another movie I am not in love with, made a good attempt to get history right and in the end focused the movie away from the Leo, Kate love fest and on he carnage that ensued. This movie fails not only as a product, that is a run of the mill movie, but also fails horribly as a cinematic repesentation of history. Veterans, who were honored, and righfully so, by the power of Ryan should be insulted by the almost insignificant role there horrible day plays in this film. Only 40 minutes devoted to Pearl Harbor in a movie named Pearl Harbor(that runs 3 hours)? An almost anxious jump away from the action back to the love-story? This not only fails as a movie, at least a $150 million movie, but also insults what many of our grandfathers and even grandmothers went through. For that, and that alone, stay away from this movie.
Dogma (1999)
GOOD BUT NOT GREAT
I love Kevin Smith. I love his wacky brand of humor, I love the way he uses a camera, and I love the way he writes. I even love, as I guess some of you do not, his role as Silent Bob who is always teamed with the rude,crude, and in your face Jay. Dogma has a lot of traditional Kevin Smith humor in it, has some very good acting, but overall the movie tries too hard to send a message that really is not all that original or mind numbing. I have read a lot of people on this board who have said Dogma is a great movie which provides food for thought. I beg to differ. Honestly, if you are going to go in the opposite direction of the Catholic Church, or maybe even any religion, you do what Kevin Smith did. Make God a woman, make Jesus black, stress the fact that no religion has it right, and make every one in heaven a little more human (ie fallible) and you have a very predictable script. This was not earth shattering philosophy here and you could go into any college coffee shop and hear about two dozens students debating that very same thing. The plot and the humor was wonderful, but Smith tried to do too much in the realm of explaining religion, the after life, and God's intentions for us all. Almost every scene, even the ones that should have just been left for humor, had a monologue to explain some religious conotation.
Chris Rock was used almost solely to explain to us that Jesus was black, that he hated people doing bad things in his name (what a mind blower) and that the bible was politically incorrect. The moments of levity really came from three sources; Jay and Silent Bob, who were wonderfully funny and perfectly out of place in the movie, which I am sure was Smiths intention, Affleck and Damon who were great as Angels, and Alan Rickman as the head Angel, who played the part with humor and also power where you could believe he actually could kick some butt.
The movie isn't all that bad. When Dogma is at its best it is simply trying to make the audience laugh instead of beating them over the head with predictable philosophy. It is entertaining, Damon and Affleck do a wonderful job, and it will leave you a bit dissappointed but not disgusted by any means. As for the controversy, there really is none in my mind. I consider myself to be a pretty religious person, a Christian not a Catholic, and I did not come away insulted at all. Even the Jesus Buddy in the begining I thought was hysterical and not blasphemous. I could even see the powers that be, watching from a top some great planet in the universe, getting a big old kick out of a lot that is done in this. The way I figure it, if your beliefs are so shallow that a movie made by a man who has done such films as "Mallrats" and "Chasing Amy" threatens your entire religion, maybe it is time for you to find a different one.