restin_him Reviews

Star Trek (2009)

This is Star Trek People

[10/10 · 29 July 2009]

After years of telling people why I like Trek they can see a film that puts the original series into full light.

Star Trek follows the creation of the greatest crew to explore the far reaches of space. The opening scenes show us a dramatic and moving battle between the USS Kelvin and the time displaced ship Nerada. This battle introduces the villain Nero (Eric Bana) and shows us the birth of James Kirk. Jump ahead 25 years and we see Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto) take two different paths to Starfleet and the adventure to stop the vengeance filled Nero begin.

Lets start with the amazing story. The script perfectly captured the characters, drama, terror, and passion of the franchise. One scene at the beginning of the film was so moving I had tears in my eyes. Just the beginning reveals the quality of what is in store for old Trek fans and the new ones to come.

Star Trek does an amazing job of capturing everything that makes Star Trek brilliant. Being a crazed fan since childhood I tell you this film communicated all the qualities that make Star Trek great. While us Trekies get our fill the film does not turn off new fans and in fact shows them the charm and beauty of this franchise (if I had a buck for every non-Trek fan friend who has asked to borrow my DVDs). Gone are the things that weighed down the last three Trek series (techno babble, the need for a deep understanding of TOS and TNG, etc.).

The actors were brilliant perfectly capturing each character. I seriously felt like I was meeting old friends after years of their absence. Chris Pine was smart in not trying to imitate Shatner but was still able to show some of Shatners Kirk mannerisms. Quinto had a tough job in the film considering that Nimoy was also in the film. Even with this mirror image Quinto played Spock perfect. Nero was a fantastic villain providing us with a great excuse for a restart.

The special effects are beyond description. The sheer beauty of it all was to much to take in on the first showing. Lucas needs to take lessons from these guys.

If you have not seen this film you must. Heck, it is probably hitting dollar theaters soon so no excuses.

Babel (I) (2006)

Another cheap attempt at insight

[2/10 · 23 December 2008]

Babel is a film dedicated to communicating to us the importance of communication and how in todays world it can fail us. This film however does not follow in the foot steps of the tower of Babel but in the actual babbling of children.

The film develops four separate story lines that are easily connected even though there is a possible attempt to make us wonder at the connection.

We meet a married couple (Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett) traveling together through Morocco in an attempt to reconnect but failing at every turn. A young Shepard boy and his brother in Morocco who accidentally shoot at the bus the young couple is traveling in seriously injuring the wife. The couples Mexican nanny (Adriana Barraza) who takes the couples two children with her to Mexico for her sons wedding when the couple can not return do to the shooting. Finally we meet Chieko (Rinko Kikuchi), a deaf-mute Japanese school girl struggling with the suicide of her mom and a Dad she doesn't communicate well with.

This film suffers from the same thing that Crash did, so much going on and poorly done story telling. No character gets enough story time to make us actually care about them and in most cases they become annoying or give us no reason to sympathize with them. The characters are well acted but written as two dimensional figures portraying simple images. While each actor is very good they are never given enough screen time to take their character from the simple figure to a deep person.

The so called connections between each story is also supposed to be discovered by us slowly as the film goes on with Chieko's role being the final reveal. The problem is within the first 15 minutes or so we know exactly how the couple, Shepard boy, and nanny fit together and in the next ten can simply deduce Chieko's role. It is a juvenile line played out quickly and ends the movie before we have a chance to care (not that we have anything to care about).

It is also like Crash in that in its attempt to get its point across it hits us in the head with extremes instead of making us look at the true issues we each face. Alejandro González Iñárritu and Guillermo Arriaga wish for us to see different ways in which we fail at communication not just with language and strangers but in emotion with those close to us. The problem is we don't really care about these people and can see clearly where they fail. We face extremes and can walk away saying that I am glad I am not like that. The film makers could have served their goal better by clearly focusing on the family and how they may communicate well with others outside the family but can not convey simple things to those they are closest to. True it isn't as dramatic as they may want or as artsy but would have been a lot better then the confused and shallow story they gave us.

I also have to mention the use of disgusting and useless sexual content in this film, which is done exclusively by the underage characters. One of the Shepard boys spies on his older sister while she changes and then we are treated to a scene of him masturbating while thinking about it. Chieko struggles with sexuality which is normal for teens in her situation, but to drive the point home we get to see her flash her bare crotch to older boys, forces her dentist to grab her crotch during an exam, strips completely naked for a total strange and forces him to touch her breasts. The portion with the Shepard boy is useless and adds nothing to the story, but if it did it could have been handled in a more mature way. As for Chieko, while her actions are born from her pain the director preferred to treat us like idiots and show us everything instead of being creative with how they revealed these problems.

In all this film was not creative or insightful. In truth it is an exercise in cheap film making in an attempt to appear deep and forward thinking. There are better more intelligent ways to communicate everything this film desires to tell us but few in Hollywood are smart enough to do it.

Hancock (2008)

Fun but lost itself

[6/10 · 22 December 2008]

Hancock (Will Smith) is a superhero, but not your usual hero. We first meet Hancock passed out on a city bench being prodded by a kid to wake up and help the cops. Hancock wakes up, slaps a passing girl on the rear and grabs a bottle of whiskey before flying off to help the police.

This gives us a great introduction to this movie showing us what is in-store for us. Hancocks attempts at helping out the people of LA end up causing major damage due to Hancocks lack of tact and his supposed selfish motivations. As expected Hancock is hated by the city officials and most citizens because of his reckless actions. Eventually Hancock saves the life of Ray Embery (Jason Bateman) a PR man trying to use his skills to change the world and failing at it. Ray sees in Hancock a lonely person desiring to do what he thinks is right but finding hate instead of appreciation for his actions. To help Hancock turn public opinion Ray begins to guide Hancock in how to be a better hero.

This is a really creative film. It takes the hero film fad out there shows us what it could really look like in our world. The best part is every character is well done with one exception. Will Smith shows us a hero who is just like you and me hiding his confusion and hurt behind his actions and attitude. Bateman is a fun counter to Smith being honest about the stupidity of Hancock in a real caring way. The only person I felt was weak as a character was Charlize Theron as Mary Embery, Rays wife and a mystery for Hancock. I don't know if Theron can really be blamed for her character seeming off however.

In the story we get a great setup for seeing a cool growth in Hancock. Theron's character Mary kind of ruins that for us. We learn of a mystery to Hancocks origin and when all is revealed it cheapens a lot of the creative story telling done so far. Mary just doesn't fit into the story that was being created and it feels forced to create the drama around her, Hancock, and Ray that the movie makers obviously want.

While this is a major issue with the film it doesn't totally destroy it. The film is fun, witty, and has good action. Even with a big bump in the story Hancock is still a good film and makes some cool insights into the superhero type story.

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

A much better start to the franchise

[7/10 · 22 December 2008]

The incredible Hulk tells us the story of a scientist on the run named Bruce Banner (Edward Norton). We get glimpse of an experiment gone wrong and catch up with Banner in Brazil. Banner is looking for a cure for something and since we all know what the film is about it isn't much of a mystery. Through an accident at the soda factory Banner works at a drop of his blood makes it to the US in a bottle revealing his location to General Ross (William Hurt) who is hunting Banner. An elite group of soldiers is sent to Brazil led by General Ross and a special forces legend, Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth). As Banner is pinned down he transforms beating several special forces agents and Blonsky. After his escape Banner seeks out his lost love Betty Ross (Liv Tyler) to help him find a man who may be able to help him. As General Ross, who is also Betty's dad, closes in on Banner he convinces Blonsky to take part in several super solder experiments to help him fight the Hulk leading to the creation of another monster.

All in all this film is far better then Ang Lees 2003 train wreck the Hulk. The FX were brilliant and the Hulk looked great. The Hulk was very real looking and felt like a character not a cool addition to the film. The action was smooth and we got a good villain instead of hulked out dogs.

I thought Edward Norton was perfect as Banner both in his stature and quit desperation for a cure. It was really cool to see a skinny and weakly looking Banner turn into the huge and powerful Hulk. Tyler, Hurt, and the other actors also do a fantastic job of contributing to the story. Roth is great as an aging soldier presented with the chance to become everything he used to be and more. He provides a great glimpse into how power corrupts.

The script flowed well getting rid of the cheese the seeped out of Ang Lee's Hulk. It was funny in a realist way and still communicated what was happening. The only real issue with the story was how crammed everything felt. At times I wished I had seen more of Banners time alone and how it got him to where he was. I guess I also wished Norton had had the opportunity to really let us see Banners pain in being alone.

I must say there were a lot of tips to Hulk fans as well. The scenes that mirrored the old TV show, the use of the TV show theme, Lou Ferrigno included in a cameo and as the Hulks voice, the purple pants, Hulk in the rain with Betty. All of those things pushed my geek buttons which was a lot of fun.

The only problem this film really had was that it came out in the summer when we got Iron Man and The Dark Knight. I think that those two films helped to bury a very good story. Not that those films are evil it just may have not been the best idea to release this film in the same summer as those two.

The Good Shepherd (2006)

A historical car wreck

[4/10 · 8 December 2008]

The bay of Pigs Invasion is about to occur and we find ourselves following a veteran CIA agent named Edward Wilson (Matt Damon). As the invasion falls apart Edward finds himself in the midst of an investigation to discover why the plan failed. As he unravels a mystery surrounding a strange set of photos and a tape with potential clues we get glimpses into his past and the creation of the CIA during the Cold War.

Thus goes the star packed film directed by Robert De Niro who also has a role in the film as General Bill Sullivan. Other stars include Alec Baldwin, Angelina Jolie, William Hurt, a brief spot by Joe Pesci and an amazing and underused performance by Pushing Daisies star Lee Pace. The film was written by Eric Roth who it is clear cared little for anything historical in the film, but I will get to that later.

As for the actors they did a good job with the exception of Matt Damon. Matt Damon is a hit and miss actor in my mind playing stupid rolls and then amazing ones. In this film he is easy to shrug off in a situation that demands a standout performance. I think the problem is that while Damon is a good actor he is not good at changing who he is for a part. Actors like Johny Depp and Russell Crowe can completely disappear in a part where Damon can not. Many times I found my self watching Matt Damon act not a guy named Edward. This was very distracting, especially given the slow nature of the film and character.

Other characters were well acted but suffered from shallow writing. Edwards's wife Clover (Jolie) is never given enough time to show her struggles beyond being easy to get in the sack. Edwards's son Edward Jr. (Eddie Redmayne) is supposed to be the major tragedy in the film but is so poorly developed his crisis is useless.

De Niro is a very good actor but as a director he needs some practice. He allowed so many slow and drawn out moments that led to no where for the characters or plot. The quiet nature of Edward and the poor ability of Damon to fit the character made these moments even longer and more painful then helpful.

While these things were all flaws the one that bugged me the most was the gross historical errors in the film. While historical films need some freedom to tell a story a direct change in the historical facts is a disgusting irresponsible act on the part of the movie makers.

The entire film balances on the concept that the bay of Pigs failed because of a leak in the CIA and its general negligence as an agency to control it's information. This is horribly inaccurate and denies the real problems with the Bay of Pigs. Any quick study tells us that there was no leak and this makes the entire story in this film pointless and useless as a commentary on the subject matter.

Justice League: The New Frontier (2008 Video)

Very Good, but needed more

[7/10 · 28 November 2008]

I will start by telling people that this film is NOT for those of you who are not comic fans. I will also say that this film is not for people who are just fans of the DC animated universe (yes people the original GL and the current GL in the comics are not African American). Those who come at this film from outside those worlds will be very disappointed because this is about the original incarnation of the JLA set in the actual time in which the heroes would have formed the team.

With that out of the way on with the review.

I must say I was greatly excited about this film. I love the original story and how it perfectly showed us the creation of the current heroes we love.

The movie did a fantastic job of capturing the art style of the book and showing it in motion. The characters looked just like their original versions from the 50's and 60's comics making it a treat to my years of collection.

The voice acting was a mixed bag at times. Some characters were perfectly done and others were hit and miss at times. The greatest example of this is David Boreanaz as Hal Jordan/Green Lantern. At times he had the character down and then a line would slip in that you could tell he just read instead of acted. This was a problem because Hal Jordan/Green Lantern was the focus for most the story. Over looking his flaws the rest of the cast did a good job, especially Jeremy Sisto as Batman and Neil Patrick Harris as Flash.

The biggest flaw with the film is that it was to short. While the makers were faithful to the story some what the main reason it deviated and we missed out on some essentials was because of how short the film was. many of the things that would have helped the film bridge the gap between fans of the book and new comers were left out because there just wasn't time. We needed more of the story to help us grasp everything that was happening (unless you read the book) and we never got it.

While I liked this movie I suggest that DC and WB get rid of the time limitations and just make a quality movie. If they can do that they will bring in many more fans.

No Country for Old Men (2007)

Weakness comes in the lack of meaning

[3/10 · 28 November 2008]

No Country for Old Men is a sad indicator of films today. There are many great actors but they move around in a shallow story doing their best.

The story is supposed to follow a Texas man who comes across the remains of a drug deal gone bad. He soon finds two million in cash and in a series of poor choices ends up being hunted by a psychotic killer. An old sheriff is the lone law man who seems to understand what is happening making the final connections between the bloody drug deal, other murders, and the Texans running from town.

In all the actors did a good job which helps to elevate the gross flaws in this film. We get a rich and psychotic man, a lone Texan trying to survive, and on older sheriff seeking his dreams of what the past was. The problem comes that there is no depth to the story or to the characters beyond a few words and poorly written scenes.

The story shows us no meaning behind anything we see in the film. It is like watching a poorly done newscast. I see people and know of events but they are so distant from us the viewers. Why do I care about this man running from the killer? Who is he? What is his life like? What is this sheriffs desire for seeking the old times? Where is the wisdom he seems to have grounded in? What is the sheriffs desire in combating the evil he sees growing in the world he lives in? What is this killers hidden code? What is his role in this entire thing? These empty characters move around on the screen in bloody shot outs and fights giving us little to care about. No emotion is felt through out the film and when characters do die they are easily shrugged off as simple objects.

Beyond the character issues we have a poorly executed story. We know nothing of what is taking place beyond, man hunts man and kills others. Several "major" players are introduced to fill us in but their scenes fills nothing in and is to short to make us care about the story as a whole. We also meet smaller players who are supposed to give us insight into the story and other characters but once again their actions and involvement amounts to nothing.

This film points out how shallow the movie industry has become. No one cares about growth and story, they simply wish to see stuff move around, things to blow up, and people to get shot. With a few exceptions shallow stories like this and others will continue to dominate the theaters with wild applause while quality is ignored.

The Ballad of Jack and Rose (2005)

Romancing poor parenting and disturbed teens

[1/10 · 11 October 2008]

The Ballad of jack and Rose follows the story of an isolated father and daughter searching to define their relationship.

Jack is a father who has raised his daughter on a former hippie commune located on a small island. They have very little contact with anyone else except for an occasional friend or two. Jack discovers he is dieing and also comes to the realization that he and his daughter need aid in their current life, him because of his health and his daughter Rose in learning to deal with life with out him. Jack visits the main land and invites Kathleen and her two sons to live with them to aid in these things.

Roses quickly feels threatened by Kathleen and proceeds to behave in disturbing and unhealthy ways to show her protest. Rose makes a pass at Kathleen's oldest son who turns her down, she keeps a copperhead to use to scare Kathleen, fires a gun into Jack and Kathleen's room, and eventually loses her virginity to Kathleen's youngest son, just to name a few. Eventually Roses actions lead to her being assaulted by Kathleen's youngest son in front of Jack causing a fight between Jack and the boy in which Jack gets beat due to his poor health. Rose comes to defend jack pushing the boy out a window injuring him badly. Kathleen has enough and leaves Jack and Rose alone.

As Jack nears death he and Rose share a strange moment in which they have a sensual kiss prompting Jack to cry out for forgiveness. Jack soon dies but not before he makes Rose promise to live. Rose burns down their house and leaves for whatever.

This film is sad and horrible romancing for poor parenting and a disturbing girl. Jack is an obvious failure as a father preferring to be a friend or even flirt with his daughter instead of a parent. In fact Jack's actions are selfish and possessive preventing his daughter from growing into a health individual. His realization that Rose may have issues comes to little to late condemning her to a life of self seeking destruction as we see in the film.

The true sadness of this film is not in the place the writer obviously wants it to be but in the fact that the writer actually seems to think there is some sort of romantic quality to the horrid parenting of Jack which creates a disturbed teenager with no visible means of creating a healthy future for her.

I have been working with teens for nearly ten years now and I have seen how the selfishness of parents in attempts to keep their kids to themselves can create many problems for those teens. Jack is not a loving parent who has a unique relationship with his daughter, he is a man who's selfish desire to isolate himself and his daughter damages her as a person. I have seen it many times and Roses future is not something free or romantic but one in which she will be an easy target for exploitation thanks to her father.

This film is a how not to with regards to raising kids.

Crash (I) (2004)

A message that is easy to ignore

[1/10 · 4 October 2008]

Crash is a film that was supposed a great commentary on race relations in our country. This was stated as being a film that made us seriously look at who we were really like on the inside challenging our internal perceptions.

The story follows several characters through out a disturbing group of events all involving racially charged situations. We get everything from a racist perverted cop, a clean young self righteous cop, yuppie victims of a break in, a mixed race couple in which one is racist against the others race, and a few more. The actors do a very good job but fall victim to an overloaded film. It is hard to find time to care for may of these characters plights when there is no time to really get to know them. The best example is when there is an attempt to make us sympathize with the racist cop. We have seen several instances of his disgusting behavior and that is it when suddenly we get a sob story about his father. While this is not a bad concept it is meaningless in this film because we know nothing of this character except that he is a jerk and the sudden family story seems cheap and fake, especially when it is the one and only time we hear it or see this personal weakness. most the other stories follow suit making the film a series of cheap and emotionless shock spots.

This leads into the greatest flaw with this film. I have lived in many different places in the USA. Each has its own levels and different types of racism that appears at times. The one true constant however is the deep and subtle racism that effects each place. Individuals are not double faced but they are shadow minded not intending or even holding anything evil but allowing this shadow of image to impact them mildly. This shadowed racism is what infects most of America and when many are confronted on it they are shocked at what they were not even aware of.

Crash wished to confront people with its multiple stories. The failure comes in that each situation is over the top. Each story presents us with a situation which easily disgusts us and makes us see how clearly wrong the act is. As I listened to others after the movie had ended most were saying how they could never imagine being like the characters they had just seen. It is to easy for the average person to walk away from this film saying "Wow, I am so glad I am not like that" because the average person is not like that.

Crash needed to follow two specific people involved in a confrontation of the subtle issues each of us face not the extremes that shock us. The shock must come from the realization that I am just like this person who I have learned holds things they never knew.

Crash is a failure and cheap stylized social commentary. It is sad that so many hold this film as a great commentary on racism. If anything this film continues to allow people to ignore what they might be holding close and hidden.

The Dark Knight (2008)

This is what Batman is.

[9/10 · 11 September 2008]

The Dark Knight finds us in a new Gotham city. Gotham is no longer the city of despair but a city in which criminals are scared to work at night. Batman's campaign against crime in his beloved city is working, until a new player enters Gotham. In the middle of a heated election for district attorney Gotham receives a new type of criminal who is not motivated by money or power but by sheer desire for chaos.

This film is practically perfect in every way. The acting is amazing making every character worth my attention and feeling. Aron Eckhart gives us a fantastic Harvey Dent as the white knight of Gotham fighting to be the clean district attorney. Gary Oldman is a powerful James Gordan and creates a human grounding for the audience. Christian Bale gives us another tortured and driven Batman which is exactly what batman should be. Finally I have to say that Heath Ledger was brilliant as the Joker. I was both scared and entertained by the Joker which is what I have always felt from the character in the comics.

The action was both clean in the sense of blood and guts but still very painful. Each horrific act by the Joker hits you hard. This is part of the brilliance of the Nolan's story telling. I felt every punch and evil act and it made me react with out showing me cheap blood and stupid gore. My intelligence as a person wasn't insulted and my eyes weren't assaulted, it was brilliant. The brilliance is not in the action however but in what this movie shows us in the story.

TDK shows us a world in which our fears about evil and confusion about how to fight it are thrown in our faces. I find in this world we get scared to call evil evil which causes us to become weak when we are hit upside the head by it. In TDK evil is present it is true and good must fight to the bitter end to expose it and finally to stop it. What must good do to stop it however? What lines can good not cross and is that a weakness on the side of good? How TDK deals with these questions is fantastic. My one problem is that this film probably should have been rated R and not PG-13. With that aside this is a masterpiece of a film.

Newsies (1992)

A great musical and film for everyone

[7/10 · 30 August 2008]

The year is 1899 and world is controlled not by the TV or internet but by those who own newspapers. Our first glimpse is not of the rich and powerful but of the abandoned and poor newsboys, the children who distribute the papers on the street.

We quickly meet Jack Kelly (Christian Bale) a legend among the newsies and David Jacobs (David Moscow) a new comer to the newsies world. Kelly quickly teaches David and his little brother Les (Luke Edwards) the ropes of being a newsie in New York. The excitement is quickly extinguished when the owner of the World, Joseph Pulitzer (Robert Duvall) decides to increase his profits by charging the newsies more for their papers. Soon Kelly is leading a strike against incredible odds facing a political puppet controlled by the very people the newsies seek to defeat.

This movie is a fantastic musical with perfectly written and placed songs. Such tunes as King of New York, Carrying the Banner, and the World Will Know are instantly likable and fun to listen to. I find myself from time to time humming these tunes.

The choreography is not perfect but it is still good. It is fun to watch the songs and see how not only the songs but the dancing fits with the story.

The story is one that we do not see to often with clean language, a clean story, and normal flawed people becoming heroes for what matters most.

I recommend this film to anyone (who likes musicals) and their family.

Zoom (2006)

Good and bad at the same time

[4/10 · 19 August 2008]

I like the idea behind the movie Zoom. Zoom (Tim Allen) is a has been superhero who finds himself forcefully recruited into the organization he left many years ago. A group of young new heroes has also been recruited and it is Zooms responsibility along with Dr. Halloway (Courtney Cox) to prepare them to face an impending evil. After a reminder of the deaths of his own team Zoom bonds with the kids in time to save them from a forced experiment by the military man in charge (Rip Torn)to kick start their powers into high gear. Eventually the kids and Zoom are forced to face off against Zooms brother who was turned evil by the same experiment the military wishes to use on the kids.

This film has a lot of great elements. The kids are well written and actors did a good job. The idea that the greatest evil is created by a so called good guy experiment is a great idea. The story in essence is a great one as well. The big problem however is that most of this film was done poorly and included useless scenes that added nothing to the film.

Instead of focusing on showing us essential plot movement and important character development we get many cheap jokes along with poor romance. So many supposedly funny moments were forced and came from no where. It was sad to see so much of this especially when there were great moments that had a natural flow from the story.

I really wish the film had fallen into the hands of a different director and screen writer, we could have gotten a much better film.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008)

If only I hadn't read any of the books.

[5/10 · 18 June 2008]

In some ways I think film makers who create films based off of beloved books have a hard and thankless job. They must balance the creation of a film that anyone can like while still remaining faithful to the subject matter for the fans of the books. Adamson did this brilliantly in the first Narnia movie creating a rich and deep world faithful to the book while still bringing in those who never did read it. Unfortunately he missed the mark sorely with Prince Caspian.

I tried very hard to separate this film from the book but came up with the conclusion that one can not do that in cases like this. True, movies are never better then the book so you have to go in expecting changes, however this film is so far from the book that if the characters names were changed one would never know it was a Narnia based story. The film felt more like a story someone else wrote and simply pasted names and small scenes from Lewis's book to make it fit the mythos.

First things I like... Miraz was great! He was evil and developed in ways he wasn't in the book and I thought it was fantastic. I also liked how we got to know Miraz general Glozelle. That character showed a man who was on the wrong side but still had honor. He was worthy of what he receives at the end of the movie and was a great addition not included in the book.

Now on with the problems. One of the biggest was the dialog. Long gone is the intelligent flow of language and in its place is a modern interpretation of how people should talk to fit in with todays youth. The children and animals say "Shut up" while the dwarfs pipe up with "Ya gotta be kidding." It is clear that this script was not from the book and was from someone else's work not Lewis's.

Peter and Caspian are not the noble characters impacted by their experience and worthy of leading the Narnians. Peter starts off the film as a whining young man, a mere imitation of the young man we saw in the first film. Peter has little growth from that point never showing any consideration of growth. In fact by the end of the film there is no love for Peter or belief that he is a high King. Caspian is not much better. Caspian lacks humility and any true endearing quality until the end of the film when he admits he feels unworthy to lead (one of the few lines from the book). This moment comes far to late for us to believe there is anything genuine behind it.

The romance between Caspian and Susan is so forced it becomes painful at times. The entire love aspect adds nothing to the characters and merely adds grown factor to poor character development.

Attempts are made at creating drama over the four kids sudden disappearance from Narnia but there is no follow through. Several things have this half thought out feel to them making you wonder if the writers felt Lewis didn't know how to write about characters.

One of the biggest issues is that the lynch-pin for the entire Narnia series is missing for most of the film, Aslan. Aslan is never really referenced through out the first two thirds of the film. The Narnias never mention him or even recognize that he is the major influence for their entire nation. There is a hint at the situation from the book in which the children deal with the fact that only Lucy can see him but what Lewis used to show growth and a major issue of the children's growth in this story is blown over and turned into a three minute trek and dream sequence.

One of my biggest problems is when Lucy tells Peter that a possible reason that Aslan has not appeared is that he is seeing if they are worthy of him showing up. I was very angry at this statement because if there is one thing the first movie showed us and the books make clear it was that Aslan worked for those he cared for, not because of their deeds but because of who he is. Aslan was treated poorly and we lost all sight of the great lion who was loved as a great leader and king from the first film.

All in all I think this film suffers from some one else writing the story they think should have been done, not interpreting the story that was written.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

One very good movie

[8/10 · 26 August 2006]

No movie adaptation of a book is ever perfect. It is a fact of life. However there are times when the essence of a book is captured very well and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is one of those movies.

It is Harry Potters fourth year at the magical school of Hogwarts. This year things are a bit different as Hogwarts plays host to two other schools all of which will compete in the legendary Tri Wizard Tournament. Things do not go as planned and soon Harry finds himself competing in a dangerous contest facing dragons, enchanted mazes and much worse.

The Goblet of Fire is a very good addition to the Harry Potter franchise (we can all call it that now). It is great to see the actors mature as the films have and how things at Hogwarts have deepened as well.

The actors all do a great job with one exception, which I will talk about later. The scenes between Harry, Ron and Hermoine are all well done and you can see the chemistry between the kids. Add to this the amazing talents of the original adults and Brendan Gleeson fantastic job as Mad Eye Moody.

The story is well adapted from the book. Again it is not perfect but it isn't supposed to be. Perfect adaptations end up being maxi-series on TV. The writing was genuine however and the interaction between characters should great insight into the book and characters.

The FX are amazing and very well done. The blending between what was real and CGI has been refined well and these FX masters show their talents off well.

My only issue with this film is Michael Gambon, who has been playing Albus Dumbledore beginning with the third Potter film. He took the role after the death of Richard Harris who played Dumbledore in the first two films. In the first two films and in the books Dumbledore is a silent yet strong figure who has the mere presence of authority and respect. Richard Harris portrayed this perfectly in a silent yet refined way. He gave Dumbledore an air that every move action and word was carefully chosen with deep intellect while making the character as whimsical and off beat as in the book. Gambon lacks this skill in the most horrid ways. I am not bashing Gambon in anyway, he is an amazing character actor. Being a character actor however is his greatest flaw. He exaggerates, throws his arms, explodes his voice, looks as if he is on the verge of lost control, all of which Dumbledores character is not and does not. In so many scenes Dumbledore is more of a bumbling old man seeming to need more aid from a nurse than the wise and whimsical guide he is in the first films and books.

I look forward to the next Potter film but hope, with all respect to him, that Gambon will be replaced by a much more refined and controlled character.

Star Trek: Generations (1994)

A slight miss in the hand off.

[6/10 · 4 August 2006]

The original crew of the Enterprise is gone. Their time of adventure has ended and they are now passing the torch to a new crew. Well at least the cinema torch.

Generations is supposed to be the great connection between Star Trek and Star Trek TNG. We get a chance to see what Kirks fate in life was and his eventual return to help the new Capitan of the Enterprise. An amazing concept that creates a fun yet really flawed film.

First lets look at the good. FX are great and it is amazing to see the Enterprise D on the big screen. I was impressed with many visuals in this film especially a certain scene of crashing I won't mention so others won't get ruined by it.

That acting was very good as well. It is obvious that the crew of TNG know and love each other and just enjoy working together. Shatner and Stewart also have some great interactions that I found fun and enjoyable to watch.

To bad there are bads to this however.

Probably the greatest flaw to this film is that the plot feels only half thought out. We get introductions to so many extra things that are supposed to add depth (I assume) but never do. Data gets an emotion chip, Picards brother and nephew die, Kirk in the ribbon, and many more. This film seemed to have many good concepts running together causing the writers to make it hard to focus on one thing. To often I found myself wanting to get into situations deeper only to be left hanging.

My biggest gripe with this film is another plot issue and also something of a spoiler, so skip the next paragraph if you don't want it ruined...

Picard ends up in the ribbon with Kirk. By now we know that you basically live out your own personal heaven in the ribbon. It is supposed to be so perfect that it has driven one guy made and caused Guinan a lot of emotional stress. You figure this would be a very hard process of getting Picard and Kirk to leave. Yeah all of ten minutes to leave. Not only that but Guinan appears out of no where to push Picard out. How the heck is she here? We get a very short sad reason and picard gets up thinks about it and leaves his own personal heaven with little issue. Kirk takes more of the ten minutes to get out but hey, he is a lot older by now right.

I am done with my spoilers now. Again the issue comes to not enough depth in important areas in the plot.

Oh, as Trek fan I have one final problem. They destroyed my favorite Enterprise ina very lack luster way.

Enough nerd crying.

This film is alright, not a horrid mess. However this film is also lacking in important areas. THankfully it was followed up with First Contact.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

Holding judgment for now.

[21 July 2006]

I didn't put down a star vote yet cause I don't think it is fair to rate this film with out seeing the last movie, which comes out next year. The evil tease I know it is.

The first Pirates movie was amazing showing us Depp at some of his best and adventure in ways we forgot it could be. It would be very hard to follow that up and while watching this film I wondered, did they try to hard? This film starts with the apparently ruined wedding of Elizabeth and Will. We are never really told why it is not really happening, though it is an out door wedding and it is raining. While we observe Elizabeth on the ground apparently in grief some officers show up and arrest her and Will for helping Jack in the last film. They then convince Will to go to Jack so that they can collect jack and his strange compass.

Sounds like a good plot and things sound even more interesting when you learn that Jack owes Davey Jones (not from the Monkees) his soul for allowing Jack to capn the Black Pearl.

The acting was again amazing as were the FX in the film. The cast of soul captured pirates who serve Davey Jones look amazing and some what smelly. THe problem I found with this film, and I hope the next will fix, is that it was a lot like the first in plot but lacked the imagination and pace of the first.

I found my self watching many useless scenes in which nothing was served except to make the film well over two hours (the fight in the bar when we meet the now bum like Norrington served nothing for the film at all and was so boring). We do get to see many of the old characters in great light and hear many well written references to the first but they get lost among useless and drawn out film.

There were other plot tools I found some what dumb as well. The romantic triangle between Elizabeth, Jack, and Will was painful and did not seem honest to any of their characters (at least Elizabeths and Jacks).

This film did have many fun parts in it and was good and all but was not great or fantastic. I found myself wishing they had left out much of it and explained other smaller things (I got some being a history buff and all but found some others wondering about them), like who are the bad guys after Jacks compass, who is Davey Jones, w2here did the two funny British soldiers go (man I missed them).

Like I started off saying, this film may end up better when the last one is out and I can put lots of stuff together. I hope that next one does not drag however and allows us to return to the magic of the first Pirates movie.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

A fantastic image of what life is for us

[9/10 · 4 July 2006]

David (Haley Joel Osment) is a machine given to a mourning family who believes they have lost their only child. David is a special robot however, given the ability to imprint with pure unconditional love on any who choose to say the correct sequence of words. In her grief Davids "mother" (Frances O'Connor) says those words causing David to love her no matter what and seek only her love in return. Soon David is not alone as the families child as the son the family believed was lost recovers form a horrible illness. They soon find it hard to have both children as Davids pure innocence make him a target for cruelty. The decision is made to send David back to be destroyed. In a quick moment of compassion however Davids mother lets him go to find his own place in the world.

David finds himself in a strange and deadly world for machines. Driven by the story of the blue fairy who made Pinochio into a real boy David begins an incredible and touching journey that spans thousands of years.

So we have the incredible movie made by Steven Spielberg starring Haley Joel Osment and Jude Law.

Honestly this story was so moving to me. At times I found my self so hurt by the innocent desire of David. His one wish to merely be loved by his mother and his belief that being a real boy would solve this was very moving to me. I was reminded of the thousands of children who are orphaned and desire the same thing. Only to be loved by a family, yet never getting that one thing some of us take for granted.

The actors were so in tune with this story and the ideas behind it. THis made the film even more moving and made the FX (which are great) merely tools to tell us of this boys sad journey.

I will not spoil the ending for those who have not seen it but will give a warning. This is a scifi film from the patterns of Clarke and Asimov books. It is a film that you will either love or hate but deserves a chance.

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

Fun but that is about all

[5/10 · 2 July 2006]

I loved the first two Xmen films. They were done with deep thought and great detail. THis film lacks both of those things in my opinion.

We find the Xmen in a time of big change. Jean Grey is supposedly dead, causing Scott to fall into a deep depression and eventual leave his friends to morn for her at her final resting place. Jean isn't dead, has apparently killed Scott and is a little off. A private company has been able to create a mutant "cure" and is willing to help all mutants who want it. The government is more friendly but likes the idea of weapons based on this cure. Then Magneto is ticked about this entire cure thing and is forming a big army of miss placed mutants.

We soon learn some very interesting things. The company making the cure is holding a mutant child (named Leech)whose power eliminates the power of other mutants. They have been experimenting on the kid to get the stuff isolated. Jean has a split personality, the Jean we all know and an unstoppable all powerful side called Pheonix.

As the movie continues Jean losses control over Phoenix and she becomes the worlds most powerful mutant, sought after by Prof X and Magneto. She ends up killing Prof X (supposedly) and joining Magneto. Magneto gets his army together and they attack the company to kill the kid and Storm leads the Xmen to stop him.

That paragraph above was about as long as the movie was.

This film had no deep story and was not thought out very well.

Why is only Magneto upset that they are experimenting on this kid? Do the Xmen not care? Did the company adopt the kid? Is no one fighting to free the poor thing? How come Pheonix does nothing in the film except cause some damage for five minutes at most? Why is the most powerful, self absorbed, pleasure driven being around a stooge for Magneto? HOW THE HECK, does no one think of getting Leech near her to get rid of her powers? Home come Wolverine is the only one who can kill her? Why is the great mutant battle a bunch of guys just running at each other? You have a blockbuster budget and all they give is a dude who hugs ya and then gets like a porcupine? There were great ideas for possibly three great movies here. The Leech kid and saving him, Magneto makes an army of mutants, the Pheonix goes nuts and must be stopped. I think the makers of this film just thought it was all to cool to pick one and so made a very short (it is the shortest of the three) mixed up movie.

Again, it was entertaining but it wasn't as deep or well done as the others in any way shape or form.

Wait for it to come out on DVD, then see it.

Superman Returns (2006)

Back to the good stuff!

[9/10 · 2 July 2006]

Superm Returns is not just the title but the premise for this visually and emotionally well done film. It has been around 20 years since the Man of Steel has been to the big screen, taking a needed break after two box office flops. I am very pleased to say the time was well spent and creates, in my opinion, the best comic based movie to date.

On Earth astronomers discover what they believe are the remains of Krypton, the home of Superman. When he hears this Superman (Brandon Routh) is overcome with the desire to see if he really is the last survivor of the doomed planet. The film begins with his return from this trip finding a world five years old and moving on from the days of Superman.

Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) is free thanks to Superman not being there to testify at Lexs trial. Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has a child, is engaged to a man named Richard (James Marsden), and is about to receive the Pulitzer for her article "Why the World Doesn't need Superman".

Superman soon finds he is stuck in a world that he is once again unsure of where he fits. Is he capable of a normal existence or is he doomed to merely be the iconic untouchable hero? Emotions swing as he once again faces his one time love Lois and as he returns to the world he has given so much to save. Along with this Lex has another plan to gain power and control using Kryptonian technology to destroy the world as we know it creating it in Lex's image.

The special FX in this film are more then amazing. The CGI is seamless and not once did I find my self saying, "Wow, those effects are cool" because I merely followed it as a part of the film. The flying moments are so perfect and create a graceful Superman in flight which the others were not able to do (not their fault they didn't have the tech).

The acting was fantastic and I have to give immediate recognition to Brandon Routh for his great work. May biggest fear was that Routh would not follow the great job Reeves did in the first two Superman films. Routh did more then live up to it but created a continuing image of Superman. Spacey was fantastic at showing the frustrated brilliant arrogance of Lex. Lois Lane was given a lot of depth by Bosworth, who did a good job of showing Lanes strengths while also showing the hurt over Supermans sudden leaving.

Bryan Singer, Michael Dougherty,and Dan Harris created an amazing story that pulls at our emotions while never boring us or making the film weak. As soon as the film was over I wanted to see more and would have gone through another 2 and half hours of it.

Superman is once again the iconic hero of today.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

My dear lord how can this be!!!!

[1/10 · 17 May 2006]

I love Star Wars! The original three that is. I was so excited when I heard this film was coming out. My mind swam with the possibilities of what was to come, but I had to calm myself so that I didn't get my hopes to high. I didn't want to go in think this was to be the greatest thing ever and ruin it for myself. Luckily I didn't have to ruin it cause Lucas did a real good job of it himself.

We start off finding out that there are trade issues or some political blah blah blah and some group we have never heard of have created a road blo... I mean, space block preventing something from happening on this planet called Naboo. The child queen is upset cause no one listens to the problem (that happens when you are only 13, talk about teenage anxiety) and Jedi are sent in to sort the whole thing out.

Here we meet the stale and unresponsive Jedis. HOW CAN THIS BE? These guys are played by two fantastic actors (Liam Neeson and Ewen McGregor). How does Lucas get such bland and flat acting from these two great guys? Well anyways these Jedi are real dumb and get pinned in a room and have to fight off moronic battle droids (not really scary just real annoying and dumb) and end up on Naboo with a Jamacian alien (I don't understand either).

Here is the First major issue, Jar-Jar Binks. Every time he opens his mouth I wish to shot myself. he is a useless character who provides no comedy, no insight into what is happening and creates no feel of caring for his people from us. A useless tool used by Lucas to let us know he has made so much cash selling action figures he can create an all CGI character, WWWOOOOOOOWWW! The rest goes down hill from there. We get racial and prejudice slurs from the Jedi, moronic plot devices and stupid dialog from the writing, FX that are so easy to see through it makes me embarrassed for the FX guys. Lucas force feeds us useless things that we have no need of (why does Qui-Gon really have to explain the midiclorian thing?) and then gives us even more ridiculous stuff to remind us this is a prequel to the others, did you forget, PROBABLY NOT!! We meet R2-D2, what a coincidence that he happens to meet Luke and Leias mom and dad, C3PO, yet another strange coincidence but get this Anikin made him *barf*. Oh, and get this, Anikin apparently has the hots for the queen, I wonder if they will get married especially after all the cheap moments of the 10 year old hitting on Natalie Portman.

Lucas writing style has really gone down hill or he just doesn't care anymore. Watch A New Hope and then immediately watch this film and you will be surprised at how childish this one seems. I challenge ya to do it.

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)

Star Trek at some of its best

[10/10 · 17 May 2006]

This may be one of my favorite Star Trek movies of all time. It is a classic showing of what man struggles with and how he overcomes. It is also a beautiful way to end the run of an incredible group of characters.

This story mirrors modern events taking place in the 90's which some have come to criticize. However, I think it is a great tool for showing us ourselves, plus this movie is done so well it could stand with out history present.

We find the Klingon empire on the verge of extinction do to a their own militaristic government. The Federation is faced with an interesting situation, do we come to the aid of our greatest enemy or do we bring them to their knees? It is decided an olive branch will be extended by the hand of Kirk. Kirk is unhappy with this not just because of his history of battle with the Klingons but also because of the wound created not long ago by the murder of his son at the hands of a Klingon.

The struggles of the older crew in the world that is being created is genuine and honest. The crew of the Enterprise show that human struggle comes at all times and is fought the hardest in ourselves with our own ideals.

Great acting by all the cast and a fantastic direction create a real story. Incredible FX make for an exciting experience. All in all a great movie with an incredible story for anyone.

The Family Stone (2005)

Great acting Directing but bad story!

[3/10 · 16 May 2006]

First I want to say, every actor in this film was fantastic. I thought they did a great job and really portrayed their characters well (which was part of the problem with the film). It was also a very well done film. It looked good and had a great atmosphere.

The problem with this film is the story. We start this story off by learning that poor Meredith (Parker) is nervous to meet Everets (Mulroney) family. Immediately we see that this won't be easy thanks to Everets sister Amy (McAdams). Soon (like 5 minutes after meeting Meredith) we see that Everets family not only dislikes her but hates her. Eventually Everet even gives into hating the women he desires to marry. Eventually Meredith is so hurt she gets a room at an Inn and calls for her sister (Danes) to join her as moral support.

Quickly we side with the nervous and misunderstood Meredith and begin to hate the Stone family (with the exception of brother Ben played by Wilson). They are mean, spiteful, and all around disgusting to Meredith making you wish the boiler would blow in the house while she is at the inn. Add to this a horrid love affair between Everet and Merediths sister and you get pretty sickened by these people. However everything ends up OK with Meredith accepted and in love with Ben while her sister hooks up with Everet.

Personally this made me sick. To think that one can so quickly dismiss what was love (everet) and then have Meredith be OK with it. Add to this that Meredith spends the entire movie apologizing for stuff others have done and they NEVER apologize to her. She gets them all teary eyed with a beautiful gift and NO one at all says they were wrong, or sorry, or she was treated unfair (Amy does sniffle something at her but that is it).

One can not just treat people like filth and then whip it clean with a good laugh on the kitchen floor. All in all this movie showed a disgusting image of relationships and how one can be a horrid person with no consequences as long as you spill food and have a good laugh over it.

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

Bitter about the end!

[10/10 · 6 April 2006]

The final film for the NexGen crew and I think many people are bitter about it. Of course it may be the very fans that nitpick that have ruined the franchise.

I have been a huge fan of ST since I was a kid. I still have some collector items from my childhood and consider it one of the greatest franchises ever made. I think fans have ripped this movie unfairly however sighting "inconsitencies" as their hate for it when I really think it is the end of the franchise they hate and want to take it out on the final going.

The special effects are amazing first off. Any who say other wise have standards that are way to high. I will put this up against any Star Wars movie with no fear. It is also very exciting to see the Enterprise E really open up in the final battle. Add in the sweet looking Romulan ships and all is good.

This story is creative in that it challenges the most solid character in NexGen with what he could be. Watching Picard try to trust Shinzon at dinner, in conversations with Crusher, is interesting. In fact we want it to happen as well, Romulans rule, but get the inside track that it won't work. Later when Shinzon directly tells Picard that he is a mirror, it is moving to see Picard hang his head and later confide in Data his struggle. True this wasn't done to the deepest level it could but the anger of Shinzon and the winning strength of Picard play so well off of each other.

Datas final demise at the end of the film is what I think turns fans off most to this. They say it is useless and undramatic. How human don't you think? Data gives his life to preserve the lives of his friends. He does the one human action that makes us desire he could have developed more. That is what makes it so sad and moving. The fact that he had so much to grow into and has chosen to sacrifice himself for his friends, with a simple "Good Bye." Add the scene in which the other cast are remembering Data and Riker begins to tell of how he first met Data. A perfect farewell to a friend IMO.

All other nitpicks in my mind are childish. It is a film not a god blessed history book. Can we Star Trek fans enjoy Star Trek as entertainment and not as our bible?

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Bang, you thought it was all good didn't ya?

[2/10 · 5 April 2006]

When I first saw this movie I thought Lucas had made up for past mistakes on Ep I and II. After seeing it again, and a few more times, I can say that I feel he has made a movie worse then the others.

Again Lucas' focus on CG is disgusting. Nothing is real, and it feels that way. It is a fake screen and the actors are not interacting with any reality at all, and therefore seem to fall short of their abilities (for those who have them). Add to this the cheap make up for Palpatine after he fries himself with the lightning. Yoda still looks dumb as well.

Hayden Christensen has been a bad choice, IMO, since the beginning. He whines real well but he strikes no fear at all. Anakin goes from a whiny kid wanting to protect the Jedi who go to arrest Papetine, to a Sith in less then five minutes. When did this happen? Where is the growth and the motivation? We get one image of him fearing the death of Padme, but there is no connection between this and his loss of his mothers. He does not grow into doing anything to protect Padme. Anakin just suddenly says, "You know what, this Jedi thing sucks. Lets go dark." He then goes and slaughters children. What the heck happened here? Did I miss the actual third movie and this is three and a half? Vader was the complete bad guy. He struck fear into ya the moment he came onto the screen. He didn't make me chuckle when he fell to his knees in a cheap scream when he finds out his girl bit it. Show some real evil come on!!

Padme is reduced to a birthing machine making her death and naming of the kids useless. It has no feeling and makes you wish they would just take the kids and ditch the scene.

Yoda confuses the crap out of us when he tells Obi that he is talking to Qui-Gon. Wait, didn't he die? Can you please exp.... OK never mind. If you want to know what he is talking about please go purchase the official novel for a mere $40.

Jedi are apparently really stupid and weak according to this movie as well. The troopers are so sneaky and able to hide their little full helmet nods and the raising of their really bulky weapons and wipe out basically the entire Jedi order. These are not the Jedi we saw in the first movie that is for sure. They can protect my toilet for as good as they are.

Lots of bells and whistles for this film with no melody at all. I hope this is the end of all SW stuff cause Lucas is going no where fast with it.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Lucas how dare you!

[2/10 · 5 April 2006]

I am a huge fan of Star Wars. I enjoy the original three films a lot and think they are intelligently written adventures. This film is anything but that.

The dialog is so strained and poorly written I wonder when SW became a soap opera instead of a space opera.

The special effects are so heavy I am surprised anyone can swallow them. Lucas has become so focused on what he can do with computers he never thinks about if it will look authentic. To much green screen and not enough reality. I cringe every time I see a CG character because they are so clearly fake. Spend some of your millions on extras Lucas.

The plot is so miss focused. We are supposed to see the rise of a great evil. Instead I see the rise of one real whiny kid and a politician not a great evil (unless you consider politicians the great evil). Where is the evil power that threatens to crush all that is good.

Avoid this film, it is a good excuse to sell action figures and that is it.