zarrod Reviews

Jurassic Park (1993)

Spared no expense!

[10/10 · 13 June 2009]

The release of Steven Spielberg's 1993 blockbuster about a theme park overrun by dinosaurs, Jurassic Park, was surrounded by momentous amounts of hype. Previews and posters were everywhere. Parents were warned that the horror and carnage of the film might be too intense for young children. What most made an impression on me at the time, as a kid in kindergarten, was all the dinosaur merchandise. There were velociraptor sneakers, dilophosaurus backpacks, and triceratops t-shirts; even I had a lunch box featuring a tyrannosaur leering at a car a quarter of its size. As the ill-fated lawyer predicts in the film, Jurassic Park's merchandising alone was worth a fortune. It was a marketing phenomenon even before it was released. All of this buildup created high expectations. Audiences were promised creatures more stunning and realistic than anything they had ever seen before. Jurassic Park delivered, but not only in the special effects department. The film is an artistic and economic accomplishment. Most see the movie's special effects as its greatest legacy and indeed they had no equal at the time. The CGI still holds up well today against some of the more cartoonish creations in films as recent as Peter Jackson's King Kong (2005) and the Star Wars prequels (1999-2005). The first dinosaur seen in all its glory on screen is the massive brachiosaur, standing over 40 feet tall. It is one of the most memorable scenes in film history for its visual impact. From the towering sauropods to the agile raptors, the dinosaurs behave so naturally that they are more like animals than movie monsters (not that liberties weren't taken with science for dramatic purposes). Though none of it would have been accepted without the realistic reactions from the actors. Other than the screaming, the acting in Jurassic Park can best be summed up as subtle. Sam Neill turns in a soft-spoken performance as paleontologist Alan Grant. He has a down-to-earth quality that fits perfectly for a man who spends his life digging in the dirt, who is then thrust into an inconceivable situation and does what he must to get out of it. Laura Dern portrays Grant's girlfriend, Ellie Satler. The romance between them is not forced or overplayed. Both of them particularly stand out in the scenes of openmouthed awe when they encounter the creatures firsthand that they have spent years studying. When confronted with the brachiosaur, Grant just manages to stammer, "It's… it's a dinosaur," before collapsing to his knees in wonder. These reactions feel authentic and are quite impressive considering that the actors were reacting to CG dinosaurs that were not on set. They are the anchors that make the effects believable. Spielberg knows how to please an audience by making the compelling, but overly technical novel into a coherent adventure film that hits all the right dramatic notes, accompanied by a beautiful and majestic musical score. Audiences responded, making Jurassic Park the highest grossing film ever until the release of Titanic (1997). Of course, fiscal success does not make a film good art. These days, a filmmaker with plenty of money can just throw CG effects on the screen and the masses will still pay to see it for the spectacle. This attempt at imitation is one of the reasons blockbusters often lack the personal touch. Movies like Armageddon (1998), Underworld (2003), and Van Helsing (2004) can get away with having absolutely no substance beneath pretty pictures produced in postproduction. It seems to be an unfortunate side effect of Jurassic Park's digital innovation and subsequent success. I'm convinced that perfection is unattainable within film-making and Jurassic Park is certainly not flawless. For one, velociraptor was actually much smaller; the creature in the film more closely resembles a deinonychus. Also, I've been to San Jose and it is certainly not next to a beach and coastline as it is labeled in the movie. There are also a few sequences that seem formulaic by monster movie standards; however, time is taken to develop the characters so that the audience will actually care if a dinosaur eats them, unlike those nameless souls who are crushed in Godzilla (1954). Logical quibbles can be made over any movie, though, and if you're looking for realism, you can find it outside the realm of cinema. There is no reason I cannot recommend Jurassic Park unless the potential viewer really does not enjoy suspenseful, humorous, and fun adventure-thrillers with a hefty dose of dinosaurs.

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Where's the fun?

[3/10 · 13 June 2009]

One of the most thrilling trailers of the year had me pumped to see James Bond's 22nd official adventure, Quantum of Solace. It showcased brief shots of spectacular stunt sequences and beautifully expansive cinematography that was reminiscent of Casino Royale (2006), with its wide shots that clearly reveal the geography of a set piece or a scene. Still, the reinvented James Bond's first film was a little disappointing. It was not a bad movie but it didn't feel like a Bond picture because some of OO7's charm and wit were missing, replaced with a level of emotion never before shown by the unflappable MI6 agent. Daniel Craig and the action scenes were fine, but the classic Bond theme was omitted from the main score, and missing with it was Bond's smooth and nonchalant, yet gentlemanly, manner that made him unique among run and gun movie characters. However, original Bond musician Monty Norman's familiar composition over the end credits of Casino Royale instilled hope that James Bond would return. After all, this was supposed to be the beginning of the man's career on her majesty's secret service. Maybe he was still getting used to the role. Maybe he would come back as the Bond we knew and (usually) loved for over 45 years. Then again… maybe not. Quantum of Solace begins very shortly after Casino Royale left off with what could have been an exhilarating car chase set on a treacherous mountain road. Right away, though, there is an incomplete feel to the action. The director and editor have cut the action scenes extremely quickly so that the teasing glimpses we got in the trailer were basically the equivalent of the finished film. Some really epic shots are on the screen for barely half a second before cutting away, giving the scene a real-time feel, but missing too much of the action. Perhaps it is just morbid curiosity on my part but I want to see the car that drives off the road finish its plunge and roll to a stop as a mangled heap of metal giblets. It seems like a waste of all the effort the film crew put into making each shot. I want to get a better sense of what is going on than how quickly it is happening. Another problem with the action of this installment is that there is little to no buildup before an action scene. Things just happen suddenly, often with no warning at all. It startles the audience rather than building up the tension. Then, as quickly as it begins, the excitement is over. The car chase ends abruptly and the uninspiring title song, "Another Way To Die," begins. The plot, which is never a great concern in a Bond film, involves an evil member of "Quantum" who wants to steal water from the people of a parched desert. Bond begins investigating by killing several henchmen and blowing up some boats. Along the way the music is pretty lackluster and restrained. Subtlety has never been one of OO7's strong points and the music used to reflect that. Bond travels to several exotic locations and meets a couple of beautiful women, but with all the shooting going on there is barely any time for him to smile, let alone exercise his charisma. This movie lacks much of the fun and farce of previous Bond movies. Of course change is not necessarily a bad thing. Admittedly, after the absurdly over the top and gadget heavy Die Another Day (2002), it was a wise decision to take OO7 back to his roots. Neither of these reinventions is short of effort; both are fairly well made, solid action films. However, the movies, especially Quantum of Solace, are not so effective at capturing the feeling of delight the audience feels when Bond gets the girl, escapes from ridiculous death traps, outwits the villains, and makes sure they die in interesting ways, all while issuing cheesy one-liners buoyed up by slick tunes. The one "quantum of solace" I got from this picture is that some of the loose ends concerning the plot of Casino Royale were tied up and I can hope we are being set up for a more traditional OO7. Previous chapters of this saga have certainly missed the mark more than Quantum of Solace. In fact, imagining the time-honored Bond theme playing over the action and masking the dialogue almost makes this film feel at place in the longest running film series ever made.

Hitman (I) (2007)

It takes a certain kind of audience...

[6/10 · 13 June 2009]

Which suck more: videogames based on movies or movies based on videogames? Both are equally painful so I looked forward to Hit-man, another attempt to cash in on the success of two markets, like I look forward to getting garroted by a surprisingly conspicuous bald assassin. The movie is based on a series of video games in which the player takes control of the clone Agent 47, completes assassination after assassination, and gets rewarded for making it look like an accident and being stealthy. It did not differ greatly from my low expectations but Hollywood is smart enough to know that there are moviegoers who love this stuff. As the credits rolled and I sighed the contemptuous sigh of one who has lost hope in video game movies, my friend sitting next to me said, "It's a pretty good movie." As the film is made for gamers, it takes a specific audience to understand the source material. Having played, and even enjoyed, some of the games myself, I can understand where this film might disappoint or please fans of the games and it does a little of both. First, its level of violence and sex should be sufficient to sate the teenaged thirst. Sometimes studios worry about alienating too many potential viewers with an R-rating and make a movie for teenagers rated PG-13. These filmmakers were at least wise enough to know that if kids could find a way to play Mature-rated games, then they could easily find a way to see a movie intended for viewers 17 and older.

Hit-man the movie stars Timothy Olyphant as the hit-man, but the actor is just too soft to be Agent 47. I kept remembering him as the nerdy bad guy from Live Free Or Die Hard when he's supposed to be a cold-blooded killer. The guy in the games is more badass, ruthless, efficient, and emotionless, which are seen as positive qualities in the gaming world, where attempts at including well-developed and emotional characters are frequently laughed off the market. He does a lot more hand to hand combat and blows away civilians without batting an eye. In the movie he has been made 'too human' to be respected by fans of the games.

I don't remember the plot but I don't really care because I do remember that it wasn't worth remembering. There are a bunch of action scenes broken up by lame romance and scenes of a cop (Dougray Scott) trying to track the hit-man.

There is also a ludicrous scene of sword fighting that has nothing to with anything and appears to be thrown in to hold the audience's attention. I found it amusing but I think some people may have found it engaging, like my aforementioned friend. Anyone who has ever played a shooter against people all over the world via Xbox Live knows how many idiotic gamers roam the world, spewing racial epithets, tea bagging noobs, and saluting dreadful films with respect. These people will appreciate the clichéd, stoic, but principled character of the hit-man, the repetitive shootouts, and the unnecessary nudity by Olga Kurylenko (actually, most males can appreciate this). Yet, I cannot be too hard on the movie because it includes a scene in which Olyphant (I can't really call him 47) breaks through a window and lands next to some teens who are startled to see a bald man that resembles the computer generated character on the TV in front of them. This scene told me that the movie was not taking itself too seriously and neither was I, so at least we were on the same page.

King Kong (1933)

Proof that a film's greatness can change over time

[6/10 · 13 June 2009]

There are two types of classics: those that are timeless because of their strong acting, relatable characters, and enduring stories and those that people remember as being significant but are dated by unnatural performances, undeveloped characters, and pointless narratives. I put great movies like It's A Wonderful Life (1946), Casablanca (1942), and 12 Angry Men (1957) in the first category. They hold up against any movie made today. Unfortunately, after rewatching the original King Kong (1933), I have to put it in the latter group.

It is difficult to decide what standards I should use to evaluate King Kong. Should I consider the acting and special effects good because they met and surpassed the expectations of the time or should I evaluate it based on its entertainment value to me today? I think that this movie calls for a refinement of the term "classic." Just because a movie was once incredible does not mean it still is. On the other hand, this film was a remarkable achievement when it was released and it's easy to understand why audiences back then were blown away.

I'm not usually one to care about special effects but as they are so integral to King Kong, I feel I have to address how unrealistic they are by comparison with the best effects of today. The stop motion is rather obvious, jerky, and in desperate need of a motion blur. What is impressive are the miniature sets and blending of models with live action. Unfortunately, King Kong, the star of the picture, moves very unrealistically, particularly in his first few shots. He slides around like he barely has any weight, which of course, he doesn't, being a small puppet. Kong also has a silly, toothy grin that may have terrified audiences when apes were seen as less intelligent creatures but now only adds to his impractical appearance. The effects are not believable enough to make the viewer feel the characters are really in danger of being killed by dinosaurs and a giant gorilla and the characters are so uninteresting that I wouldn't care even if they were.

Another thing that doesn't help the film is the poor writing and character development. The human characters lack charisma and intelligence. Ann Darrow, famously played by Fay Wray, is sweet and beautiful but a bit of an airhead. The third point of the human-ape-human love triangle, Jack Driscoll, is a stiff. Everyone in the film delivers their lines like they are in an elementary school play, and while this theatrical, unrealistic method of acting may have been in style in the 30s, it carries no appeal when compared with films that have been released since.

Probably most important to me is that I've never liked the story. Fans claim that it symbolizes many things, from the slave trade to shallow views of relationships, but I don't believe director Merian C. Cooper set out to do anything more than create a fun monster flick. He certainly did not seem to have much sympathy for Kong, casting himself and his producer as the pilots who shoot the gorilla and saying, "we should kill the son of a bitch ourselves." In the original, there is not much sensitivity displayed towards the ape. He is more of a mindless beast that must be dealt with by the ultimately good humans. Remakes have attempted to retell the tale with a greater emotional impact, creating a sympathetic Kong, but this only worsens it, because everyone knows that the movie will end with the giant ape dead. Callous audiences of the early thirties may have rejoiced at seeing the gorilla toppled, but it is not what any audience who understands Kong would want. If King Kong is a tragedy then surely there should be a lesson behind it but there doesn't seem to be. According to the characters within the film, it is a "beauty and the beast" tale, only no one learns anything and the beast is pretty much just a beast. Perhaps it is meant to send a message to the ugly viewers like me, warning us not to mess with the attractive people or we will be machine gunned off of a tall building. Once again I ask myself if the movie should be evaluated based on how much I like it or how much I might have liked it in 1933? The only thing I can do is respect it for its ambition and technical innovation. I cannot really enjoy King Kong enough while watching it to recommend it for more than an enlightening look into film-making of the past or for laughs at its cheesiness.

Death Proof (2007)

Quentin Tarantino fails miserably at guiding my emotions

[1/10 · 6 November 2008]

I enjoyed this movie up until I realized that I was "supposed" to like the four women in the second group of painfully obnoxious and boring girls. I recently watched an interview in which Tarantino expresses his desire to suck the audience into the final car chase by making them really want to see Stuntman Mike caught.

Well if he wanted me to root for the protagonists, why did he make them so unlikable? And if he wanted me to root against the villain, why make him the most interesting and likable character in the film?

Don't think I'm sexist either. I didn't mind at all when the female character in "Kill Bill Volume 1" chopped all those guys to pieces simply because she was a sympathetic character. I would have sympathized more with the women in "Death Proof" had they never started talking... swearing constantly, proclaiming their hatred for men, and treating each other like crap. Also, I felt that since they were stupid enough to play 'Ship's Mast,' they deserved some consequences, especially Kim and Zoe, the two worst actors and characters of the bunch.

Not everything sucks, but unfortunately the good (the build up to a surprising massacre by head on collision and the first half of Kurt Russel's performance) occurs in the first half of the movie, and is completely forgotten after sitting through the malarkey of the second half. Luckily the music remains good throughout so you can just put on headphones, although that wouldn't save you from the incessant prattling of the real killers of the film, the female "heroines."

One of the worst things about the film is how long we need to sit and watch these girls talk and talk and talk about pointless garbage. In "Pulp Fiction," not only was the dialogue funny, but it was broken up by action which kept the tension just below the surface throughout the film. In this, the conversations are poorly written and there is no payoff whatsoever. I was hoping for the opposite outcome of what Tarantino had in mind... that the girl's blabbering would be put to an end by wonderfully bloody deaths, as happened with the first group of women.

Maybe that alone was enough to get me to sympathize with Stuntman Mike. His character change after the film's midpoint is another thing that bothered me. He is willing to break his bones driving head on into another car but cries like a wimp when he's nicked by a bullet? Supposedly this movie is "supposed to be bad" as it's in the Grindhouse style but the cheesiness and sound popping and film quality were no problem for me. Stylistically, this film is successful in replicating the cheap exploitation and of the 60s and 70s. I just had a reversed idea of who the film's hero should have been and mistakenly believed that this was a movie about a psychotic killer who uses his car as a weapon and not a series of drawn out chats, one series followed by a crash, the other followed by a chase that ended contrarily to my hopes.

This makes "Planet Terror" look like a good movie. In the words of Yahtzee Croshaw, "('Death Proof') is what it took to finally make me lower my standards and I hope it's proud of itself."

Repo! The Genetic Opera (2008)

A very cool modern opera that will surely be playing at midnight screenings as a cult classic for years to come

[9/10 · 20 September 2008]

This modern, actually futuristic, opera is unlike anything I've seen. Many of its qualities remind me of 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show,' a film that was never on my list of favorites. This is better simply because it's able to hold together a more plausible and serious story yet still present itself in the aesthetic of a psychedelic musical. It blends brutality with comedy and music very effectively, in fact, there were far more laughs in our theater than anything else. The interactions between the characters as they sing their parts make for great character development and story progression simultaneously. The character's themselves are all well performed, including Paris Hilton (what happens to her needs to be seen, not described). I'm not the type to like weird, cult films but this held my attention. It's definitely worth a viewing, and if you have time to immerse yourself, then it's definitely worth some good applause.

The Dark Knight (2008)

It's been said already but this is way overrated.

[5/10 · 11 September 2008]

Well, this film is the most overrated movie I can remember but that doesn't mean it sucks at all. It's well made, with great shots and good acting (at least by Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, and Heath Ledger). The action scenes are filmed more coherently than Batman Begins and that pencil trick was awesome.

Still, there are too many ridiculous scenes (like flying out of a window with a cable attached to a plane and cell phones turning into radar machines) and completely unnecessary plot lines. Do I really care if Commissioner Gordon plays dead for half the film and his wife gets mad at him or some Chinese guy is hording the criminal's cash? No. Give us more confrontation between the hero and villain. Lastly, the dark themes this film deals with are taken a little too seriously for a movie about a superhero of sorts. He wears a cape and a mask and fights crime as a symbol... don't try and get me emotionally involved in any THEME greater than that. Develop the characters and make me care about them. The animated "Batman and the Mask of the Phantasm" did a better job with that.

Whatev, i've rambled long enough. It's still a very enjoyable movie and if I see it again i'll probably like it more but there's no way this deserves all the praise it gets. I'd really give it a 6.5 out of ten but we can't do .5s and this definitely does not belong in the top movies of all time. Too bad because it might be worthy of a 7 or 8 had it not been hyped up like it was the gift of Zeus.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

A mildly entertaining adventure film, but not remotely 'Indiana Jones.'

[6/10 · 23 May 2008]

"Crystal Skull" is fun in parts, primarily in it's character development (while brief and somewhat flimsy), decent performances by Harrison Ford and Shia Labeouf, and even the cheesy references to the past films. It's action sequences make for a few neat gags and some suspense but the big problem is that the Indiana Jones feel is nowhere to be felt.

The new sidekick, Mac and his entire story are not at all intriguing and Professor Oxley is not much better. Marion is also way underdeveloped. By the time she is introduced, it seems that the only purpose all the characters is to move the plot forward. A plot which I knew was coming but was still very disappointed in. I blame George Lucas for his dreadful choice in "MacGuffin" or whatever as well as his insistence on relying on digital technology, even to display some prairie dogs. There was no bad guy development either. Cate Blanchett's character was much thinner than her accent. There was never a moment that raised the tension and energy level like in the other films, in fact, if there was even a climax, I totally missed it. The music also suffers because of this. I can't remember a time during the film in which it really peaks and gets the viewer excited. It just meanders along with the detached storyline. It felt like a rushed piece when I was done with it, and the fridge gag? Just awful. Maybe they couldn't do much with the lame story they had to shoot, but I think that the filmmakers forgot that Indiana Jones movies are about more than just intense adventure sequences.

Casino Royale (2006)

Overall... a disappointment.

[6/10 · 24 February 2007]

I was not one of the Bond fans who went into the movie with a poor attitude just because they switched actors. I was reserving judgment on Craig and actually had high hopes for the film. It started off pretty well and I was into it but by the second half I couldn't wait to get out of the theater; the plot just became really screwed up (Who the hell is Mr. White working for and what were his stakes?) and the girl became a bitch. In the end, it never really felt like a Bond movie. I know they were trying to reinvent him, but they should have taken out the bad and left the good instead of the opposite. Bond just isn't as slick as he used to be (except when he put the bomb on that guy, causing him to blow himself up). Also, where is the old Bond music? This new stuff is not noticeable and doesn't add anything to the movie. It wasn't Craig's performance that killed the movie, but a lack familiarity which we can always associate with James Bond.