Change Your Image
mrbill-18
Reviews
The Last Airbender (2010)
Looking forward to sequels. . .REALLY!
(no spoilers here)
It seems our society in general has become one where it is fashionable to bash people, and the harder the bashing, the better. Shyamalan seems to be particularly targeted for bashing. But regardless, here are my thoughts.
Shyamalan's "The Last Airbender" is a visual and audible feast for the eyes. Visually, for both the excellent but not dominating settings and for the balletic, mesmerizing movements (a la Tai Chi) of the characters, and I mean the main characters and ensembles of "background" characters. Whomever the choreographer was, my kudos to him/her.
It is an audible feast for, not surprisingly, the appropriate and sensuous score by James Newton Howard, who collaborates on all of Shyamalan's movies. (My favorite soundtrack -- I don't have this one yet -- is his score to "The Village".) The inclusion of ethnic (?) gongs and drums are woven beautifully into the wonderful score.
Now the movie. I thought the cast was excellent -- I'm not buying into the whole "racist" talk, considering this to be more about the popular Shyamalan criticisms than anything else. The main character, Aang, is particularly well cast.
The problem, as I see it, is one that plagues any first movie of a proposed series that must present a great deal of information to bring the movie goer up to speed with the story. When a movie has to cover a great deal of ground -- in this case several hours of original animated stories from the popular Nickelodeon series -- of necessity some character development and story telling suffers. (This was also true of the first "Harry Potter" movie, IMO.)
Some have commented about the "modern" idiomatic English of the movie. Well, the Nickelodeon TV show was that way. I do not know whether Nickelodeon had any input in this area, perhaps influencing Shyamalan to retain a linguistic style that is more appealing to Nickelodeon's audience, or if Shyamalan just wished to honor the original. It was a bit annoying at first, but acceptable. (NOTE: Shyamalan's movies all are set in contemporary times, so contemporary speech is M. Night's usual fare, except for the isolated people in "The Village.")
Summary: a great story, well-told, and especially given the huge amount of story line to cover. Great cast and music and settings that add to, but do not detract from, the movie.
See it. I for one am looking forward to the next installment.
The Book of Eli (2010)
Good cast, nice look & feel, let down by poor script and editing
I won't mince words. Denzel is a great actor, and the supporting cast is quite good, with special kudos to "That 70s Show" actress Mila Kunis who demonstrates fine talent in a dramatic role. The look and feel of the film works on a visual level appropriate to a post-apocalyptic story.
But the script? It's a combination of
"Pale Rider" -- unkillable hero
"Star Wars" -- the force (Christianity, here) that can be used for both good (Denzel's goal) or evil (Gary Oldman's desired use), and
"Unforgiven" -- an old fashioned gunfight with the little guy against a whole lot of bad guys, coupled in this case with graphic slicing and dicing by our hero (Denzel) using a machete.
Denzel does a variety of movie roles, and he always does them well. But his selection of movie roles is not always the best. This one is on a par with "Man on Fire" where lots of action and killing attempt to make up for a weak, albeit emotionally charged, plot. "Eli" lacks the emotional involvement of "Fire" and ups the ante in terms of violence and gore.
Then there's a "surprise" at the end involving Denzel's character, a surprise that is no such thing, but when you think back about the movie, it just couldn't be.
The basis of the plot is that Eli (Denzel) has the only copy of "The Book" left in the world -- the all time most published book in the world -- and Oldman wants it for his own corrupt purposes while Denzel wants to save it for the good of mankind. Their paths cross and "it ain't pretty."
Other annoying "factual" or logic issues include Denzel walking "west" for over 30 years to get to the west coast(?!). From where? Beijing? At one point he shows up with a bow and arrows, and doesn't retrieve his arrows after disposing of a couple of bad guys. . .where was he keeping his arrows? All he had was a backpack?
To summarize, the editing leaves in fighting, gore and violence, and leaves out character development and logic. The story is lame, lame, lame: saving the world by preserving the only copy of the King James Bible. . .If this review doesn't make sense, it's because it mimics the movie too closely!
See it, if you must, for the talent of the actors, but otherwise it's three thumbs down for the story from a post-apocalyptic three-thumbed critic.
P.S. -- If you want to see a terrific post-apocalyptic movie, don't miss "The Road."
Hope and Glory (1987)
A dud from unpredictable Boorman
Don't bother with this movie. From a talented but wildly inconsistent Boorman and a good cast comes a poorly written, directed, acted, unrealistic, predictable and sappy movie. No matter what bad things happen to this middle class family in a London suburb at the start of WWII, they always come out smiling and happy.
To be honest, there are hints at some depth to the story, but they never come to fruition: a teenage daughter's coming of age and related escapades; an unhappy marriage; etc. If you're interested in some fluff about WWII England and don't want realism in any form, you might enjoy this slice of life from the view of a young boy. Otherwise, don't bother.
A History of Violence (2005)
Poor Screenplay and Directing Undermine Decent Story
Although I have not read the graphic novel on which it was based, the dialog in "A History of Violence" sounds like it was lifted directly from the story's source. (Was this screenplay writer really nominated for an Academy Award?) William Hurt almost saves the movie, but his role is too small and too late to have much effect.
Although Mortensen is also good in his role, such as it is, his relationship with his wife (including gratuitous sex scenes), played by Maria Bello, and the "loving family" scenario set in backwater Indiana story are completely unbelievable. Everything looks and feels "set up" from the beginning. The dialog, already mentioned, had me laughing out loud it was so poorly written.
A real disappointment almost in its entirety.
Alien (1979)
Director's Cut improves on an already superb film.
I must say that I'm generally a bit wary when I see ads for "director's cut" or "uncut" versions of films, as this assumes the original was not as good as it could have been, which is not always the case; e.g., the various versions of "Close Encounters."
Anyway, without viewing the "original" just prior to seeing a preview of the Director's Cut of Alien on Friday, Oct.24, 2003, I would have to say that the Director's Cut improves on an already fine original movie. The changes are subtle and not major in the least. For example, there is less of "mother" the semi-clone of "HAL" from 2001 A Space Odyssey. This is a good idea as computer technology in 1979, the original release date, was. ..well, it wasn't. And, of course, CGI wasn't an option for the special effects, either.
The result is, what seems to me, a much "tighter" movie that flows better than the original. The actors, action, soundtrack, and visuals are absolutely stunning, and seeing this movie on the big screen had a tremendous impact on myself and my fellow theatre-goers.
And then there are the zillions of kids who weren't around in 1979 who should see this, too.
Three thumbs up. . .go and have a rollicking good time (again).
Dreamcatcher (2003)
A Hopeless Mess (2/10)
Kasdan, who directs and co-wrote the screenplay, either needs to learn how to edit to make a tight, coherent story, or quit writing altogether, despite prior successes in sci-fi 20 years ago. The ONLY redeeming factor is the cinematography of the beautiful snow-scapes. The story, direction, motives driving the characters and stories, etc., are all a hopeless mess. Don't bother. (2/10)
Hart's War (2002)
A contrived mess.
Evidently the writer wanted to explore every possible relationship in a prisoner of war movie, and the result is a befuddled mess that does not involve the viewer in the characters. When so many relationships and characters are involved the result will, and is, disappointing. Add to that an incomprehensible ending and, well, a big disappointment is the result despite a fine cast and generally good idea of exploring race relations in a prisoner of war camp.
Cats & Dogs (2001)
If have pets and love 'em, then you'll probably enjoy this film.
O.K., much of it is silly, but if you have pets like I do (7 cats, 1 dog, etc.), then you'll probably get a kick out of the movie.
It relies on a cute puppy, an evil cat, and lots of (too much?) action. Technically, it's great to see the animal mouths look "real" when they talk, not a great accomplishment these days, but nonetheless appreciated. Though many of the animals are mechanical (animatronics?), there are still plenty of good old warm-blooded cats and dogs to melt your heart.
Sure, this is not going to win any academy awards, but it's great to see a film with some truly funny moments that doesn't rely on foul language or bathroom humor. You can take your kids to it without reservation, and enjoy it yourself. Hey, kinda like Disney movies!
Cool Runnings (1993)
Not very funny or entertaining. . .
Good story and subject for a comedy, but totally misses the mark. So obvious it hurts, as in conflict between "rebellious" rich kid and his dad, weak man and "bully", bob sled teams from other countries are rude and mean to the fun-loving Jamaicans, etc. John Candy, in one of his last roles, looks and acts tired. There is no creativity in the script or story, and the acting is weak and characterizations too stereo typical. If you're age 10 or younger, you might enjoy it, else don't bother.
Vertical Limit (2000)
Good cast BUT very mediocre directing, screenplay, and photography.
Rates 2 of 5 stars. Some thrilling moments, but there was so little real mountain climbing skills exhibited it made me. . .well, you get the picture. If you knew nothing about mountain climbing, and saw this picture, you would get the impression that a heliocopter could fly you to 21,000 ft on K2 then it would take you only 5 hours to reach the summit, which, in reality, is not done by too many people even today. Other inconsistencies are that the climbers in the movie are freezing yet rarely wear their goggles, and they leave parkas unzipped, etc. Add in the local Pakistani military leader who appears both sharp and incredibly stupid, with some trumped up excuse for hauling nitro glycerin up a mountain. . .This is dumb, dumb, dumb. Don't bother seeing it in the theatre, wait to rent it, as long as you don't have "high" expectations.