Change Your Image
goodm0urning
Reviews
Superman Returns (2006)
Superman Returns: my review (spoiler free!).
About the worst I can say about this film is that I wasn't completely, utterly blown away by it. It didn't totally skyrocket above my expectations. That said, it is definitely a worthy followup to Richard Donner's original, and a very good film in its own right.
The new cast did a good job of filling the shoes of their predecessors. I'll take a moment to discuss the most scrutinized casting choice: Brandon Routh, a few awkward moments aside, assumes the role much as Christopher Reeve did. Rather than attempt to be larger than life and behave like an icon, he prefers to play it with more humanity and personality. He never comes across as a "comic book" character. Reeve has owned the role for 28 years at this point; no other actor has been able to earn it up to this point. But Routh put in his dues and he deserves it. He is Superman now. Consider the torch passed.
Kate Bosworth plays Lois Lane much as you'd expect. She's tough as nails, a career woman, and is more than just a damsel in distress, but motherhood does add an interesting new dynamic to the character. James Mardsen is good as her live-in boyfriend/fiancée/whatever, and doesn't ever cover his eyes up. Oddly enough, the only original cast members I really found myself missing were Jackie Cooper (Perry White) and Marc McClure (Jimmy Olsen). Their roles are the only ones I felt weren't recast well. The new Perry White was flat and uninteresting, and the new Jimmy Olsen is the Jar Jar Binks of this film. Hopefully they iron out the wrinkles in their performances by the time the inevitable sequel comes around.
I was a little apprehensive when I read that Bryan Singer was going to be very faithful to Richard Donner's original vision, since it would be very easy for the project to descend into rehash. But rather than use Donner's film as a template to plug his own actors and lines into, Singer instead fashions his own film with a unique tone, albeit with frequent nods to the original. It's hardly a copy of the 1978 film, but it never misses an opportunity to throw in a few classic chestnuts for the fans. Also, look for Jack Larson and Noell Neil (Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane from the '50s television series, respectively) in small roles. To further tie this film in with the original, John Williams' original music cues are arranged into the score for great effect, and the opening credits are a modernized version of the classic sequence.
The special effects in this film are incredible. There are some action scenes where Routh's performance is mixed with a CGI Superman, but the animation is impeccable enough that it's occasionally genuinely difficult to distinguish between the two. And this isn't Spider-Man. The artists didn't have the luxury of a hero who wears a full body suit and a full-face mask. They had to convincingly recreate Routh's face, hair, and expressions, and they do an admirable job. This is the absolute peak of Hollywood's current computer imagery capabilities.
I won't say much about the plot. Luthor's scheme echoes the original Superman film: destroy old land (and the people on it), build new land over it. But that's where the similarities end. This time around, the real estate aspects of the evil plan are almost inconsequential. The focus is placed squarely on Luthor's revenge against Superman, and Kevin Spacey plays the part very well. He plays it a little less silly and a lot more dark and vicious than Gene Hackman did, but there are still a few moments of humor when the villains are around. The casting choice of Parker Posey as Luthor's female sidekick has gotten some attention, but it's not a big deal. Her character is basically a stand-in for the role Valerie Perrine originally played.
Much of the plot is Superman and Lois coming to terms with lost love, but it isn't as nauseating as certain journalists seem to be playing it off as. Early reports of the film being a "chick flick" are exaggerated to the point of idiocy. (Of course, Singer deserves some of the blame for this, since he originally made the "chick flick" remark in jest during an interview.) And, as anybody who has read the press summary of the film knows, Lois Lane has a child, whose parentage may be more than it seems.
All in all, I'm not sure I'd say it beats Donner's film. But it certainly beats any other screen version of Superman to date. I can't wait to see it in IMAX with the 3D scenes.
I, Robot (2004)
Nice little movie about robots going on an insane rampage.
My first thought when watching this film was, "Wow, Alex Proyas discovered that there is an entire spectrum of colors outside of red and black!"
Beyond that, I thought it was a fine film. As part of a new generation of intelligent sci-fi (spurred by films like The Matrix and Minority Report), it does well. As an action movie, it succeeds with flying colors (and lots of them). Will Smith is a hit-or-miss sort of an actor, but he (and his Danzig-esque pecs) did well this time. The others did a competent job as well.
In a nutshell, the story is this: Will Smith is a cop in the near future, who's paranoid about robots (and who could blame him? they're scary-ass-scary). They're being mass-produced, and are as common as any home appliance. After a prominent scientist apparently commits suicide, Smith's character suspects something has gone awry with the programming of a new line of robots about to be released on the market. The catch is, the problem must be far more complicated than one machine simply going haywire, since all robots adhere to the three laws of robotics (outlined by Isaac Asimov, and you'll hear them several times throughout the film).
The special effects, particularly the CG characters, were excellently done. The robot characters were seamlessly animated and had a sense of real physical weight, and there was never a sense of fakeness when they interacted with a flesh-and-blood actor (Alex Proyas owes a huge debt in this respect to Peter Jackson and George Lucas). The musical score by Marco Beltrami was workmanlike... adequate, but nothing especially memorable.
One aspect of the film that I did find gripeworthy was that, despite the intelligence of the subject matter, it stuck hard and fast to the 120 minute action film formula. For most of the way through, it was unnoticeable, but maybe 3/4 of the way through the seams began to show. When predictability ensues during a fast-paced thriller, the director is doing something wrong. Thankfully, it's only a minor flaw in this case.
All in all, a fine film. Likely the best the summer season has to offer. 3.5/4 stars.
Pink Flamingos (1972)
Not disturbing or ironic in any way... just crap.
In technical respects, this film is total amateur night. I've seen freshman film students handle a camera and a razor blade far better than this. Content-wise, Waters clearly tries to push the envelope as far as it will go, but to what purpose? Like the awful The Last House On The Left, the way Pink Flamingos tests the censors has very little impact or meaning in the post-A Clockwork Orange era. Incidentally, Orange not only pushed the envelope further and did it earlier, but it also did so to espouse a powerful message--Flamingos has no such message. As a result, this ineffective piece of shock cinema is both completely empty and devoid of any sort of entertainment whatsoever.
Zero out of four stars. It's pure crap. Avoid it.
The Sixth Sense (1999)
Poorly-made fluff
Since I'm sure anyone who hasn't seen the film yet (and hasn't had it spoiled for them) has already been subjected to numerous accolades for Director M. Night Shyamalan, I'll get right to the point of my review: no, Sixth Sense is not a good movie. It is a mass of poorly-joined, generally pointless fluff, punctuated by a hilariously-contrived and completely predictable "twist." This is unfortunate, because due to the weakness of the material surrounding it, the entire production sinks or swims on the strength of that one plot twist.
Ergo, A. If you figure it out before it happens, B. If somebody spoils it for you, or C. You're not surprised by anything in movies, then the film is absolutely worthless.
Shyamalan does get bonus points for creating a creepy-as-hell atmosphere--but creepy atmosphere doesn't make a good movie. The Sixth Sense lacks quality character development, decent performances (Bruce Willis is flat, as is Haley Joel Osment), and a plot that is involving, or at least coherent. In place of these key factors is merely a series of unrelated events, each of which inevitably--and predictably--ends in a telegraphed "boo!" moment, complete with an atonal stab of music and a jumpy edit. Fine for the Scream crowd, but I look for a little more intelligence in my horror movies.
A Fish Called Wanda (1988)
The funniest movie I've ever seen in my life.
This is the ultimate comedy. Take the gut-busting absurdist humor of classic Monty Python, create it with some sort-of-real life situations, throw in a handful of very capable leading actors (including former Python members John Cleese and Michael Palin), and you get A Fish Called Wanda. I can't even begin to describe it... it begins with a jewel heist, followed by a double cross, and some of the funniest romantic entanglement scenes every committed to film. See it now.
Double Jeopardy (1999)
A complete flop of a thriller.
This film had me rolling my eyes within the first five minutes. It's impossibly contrived, melodramatic, and just plain boring.
Ashley Judd's character is wrongfully imprisoned for the killing of her own husband (who changes his name, moves across the country, and enjoys the comforts of a sizable fortune). Out on parole, she discovers that, having already been tried for the murder, the 5th Amendment will allow her to execute him without legal consequence. A reasonably intriguing premise for a film that has a lot of potential for discussing the ethical dilemma of revenge... unfortunately, that opportunity is wasted for the sake of cheap soap opera drama and stupid plot twists. Only the most naive in the audience will be able to stomach any of it.
To attempt to find a positive thing to say about this trainwreck of a film is difficult. The best aspect you'll find is probably Ashley Judd, who does the best she can with a character of little intelligence and no development, surrounded by equally imbecilic supporting characters, in absolutely inane situations that require a superhuman suspension of disbelief to swallow. The worst part is that the film seems to think highly of its own intelligence. If it were intended as a parody, it may have at least had some comedic substance. Alas, all the comedy is unintentional.
This may possibly be the worst film I have ever seen.
Wild Things (1998)
God, what horrible tripe...
Characters with no character. Surprise twists with no surprise. A thriller with no thrills. Hell, this movie even has "erotic drama" that is neither erotic nor dramatic... it's just dull. Lifeless. I felt stupider (or is that less stupid?) after seeing this film.
The best feature "Wild Things" has going for it is surely the marketing campaign. With names like Matt Dillon, Denise Richards, and Neve Campbell on the marquee (along with the promise of the bodies attached to those names), this film is at least sure to draw in the Baywatch viewership... but if you're anybody else, I would suggest strongly that you do not see it. Unless you have a jones for some softcore porn (which is essentially what this brainless waste of time amounts to), this film is a must-avoid.
House of Sand and Fog (2003)
Connelly and Kingsley amaze
House Of Sand and Fog... wow. This is easily the best film to come out of 2003 (that I've seen, of course, but I doubt any of the 2003 films I haven't seen can top it). Ben Kingsley is a former Iranian Colonel who has immigrated to America with his wife and two kids. He works multiple blue-collar jobs during the day and wears formal attire amongst company, in order to maintain a facade of familial stature--particularly so his daughter can marry into a well-to-do family. Jennifer Connelly is a woman who was recently evicted, due to a paperwork error, from the house her recently-deceased father built. Kingsley's character buys the house in an auction with the intent to fix it up and sell it for a profit. Connelly's character, by contrast, is now wrongfully homeless, and tension escalates wildly when she becomes involved with an overzealous police officer.
There are many similarities between this film and Requiem For A Dream, including Jennifer Connelly, who seems to be making a career of playing tragic characters. The director, Vadim Perelman, uses several slick editing techniques that could be deemed Aronofsky-esque, and while they're very striking, he's conservative enough in their usage so that the style doesn't overwhelm the substance. There's even a scene where Jennifer Connelly steps out onto a Coney Island-esque pier for a moment of reflective thought, which appears very similar to a scene in Requiem.
With names like Kingsley and Connelly on the marquee, you can expect nothing less than top-notch lead performances. However, there is a small casting flaw among the supporting characters--namely Ron Eldard, who closely resembles a terrifying combination of Mark Wahlberg and Pauly Shore (in both visual appearance and acting performance). Thankfully, his character is utilized only as much as he needs to be, and his somewhat flat performance doesn't drag the rest of the film down. He plays his part as the tragic events unspool, and the majority of the screen time is given to the two virtuosic lead actors, who are fully in their element.
Speaking of the word "tragic," this film is one of the best-executed tragedies I've ever seen. Better than the afore-mentioned Requiem For a Dream, hell, better than some of the Shakespearean tragedies. The house is a heavily-sought object for both sides of the conflict, and neither one can be considered in the wrong--the house was wrongfully repossessed from Connelly's character, while Kingsley's character rightfully purchased it. One of this film's best strength is that both sides are represented evenhandedly, and nobody involved in the conflict can really be viewed as "the bad one."
The watchful viewer will notice heavy foreshadowing, from the beginning of the film onward, to indicate that things aren't headed in a sun-kissed happy direction. This is the latest film to portray the American dream when it goes horribly, horribly wrong. And on that note, folks of the socially conservative mentality may want to stay away--they might have a difficult time feeling sympathy for Connelly's character, who does many things in her desperate state to complicate her own situation. Rush Limbaugh would have a field day decrying her for her weaknesses.
Today is my father's birthday, so I went with my parents to see this movie. If I hadn't gone with them, I definitely would have gone to see it myself anyway, but I digress. The most difficult part of watching it with them (its momentary sexual situation notwithstanding) was once the end credits rolled, when I was trying to digest what I had just seen--while, at the same time, attempting to explain to them that not all movies are supposed to have happy endings, and why a movie without a happy ending can still be considered "good." There's the perfect summary for this film: it's good--actually, excellent--and it's not happy at all.
One last word of warning: as you walk out of the theater after this movie, you'll feel as if you've been punched in the stomach.
I use a scale of zero stars (being the worst) to four stars (being the best) when I rate films, and this one is definitely four stars. Not without minor flaws (or rather, a singular flaw), but nevertheless amazing.
Crossroads (1986)
Steve Vai is incredible!
This film could be compared to a Bruce Lee film: light on plot, heavy on mind-boggling action. Except in this place, martial arts isn't the game--despite the presence of karate kid Ralph Macchio--it's guitar playing.
On the subject of The Karate Kid, this film parallels its plot very closely. A down-on-his-luck white kid (Ralph Macchio) hooks up with a grizzled old guru (Joe Seneca) to learn the deeper secrets of their craft--in this film, it's Delta-style blues guitar. And like the Karate Kid, there's a final showdown with a rival master, who in this case happens to be none other than guitar great Steve Vai.
Though "Crossroads" isn't anywhere near the same league in terms of plot, execution, etc., the guitar duel at the end rivals the likes of "Shine" in terms of sheer musical spectacle. It's a treat to watch Vai and Macchio (who does a damn good job of miming to parts prerecorded by Vai himself and Ry Cooder) trading licks and methodically attempt to outdo one another.
For non-musicians, this film has little to offer. However, for fans of virtuosic guitar playing, this film is worth at least a rental, for the duel sequence if nothing else.
The Last Samurai (2003)
Awe-Inspiring
To cut to the chase, there is one very noticeable flaw in this film. There is a scene when a single teardrop falls from the corner of a little boy's eye... the wrong corner. Teardrops always fall from the inside corner, and this tear fell from the outside corner. Absolutely unforgivable, the biggest flaw of the film.
With that out of the way, here's the good stuff: Seemingly paradoxically, director Edward Zwick (he of the acclaimed civil war film "Glory") successfully melds an epic scope of panoramic battle sequences and lush settings with a character-driven storyline that is deeply affecting, yet charged with energy. This is like Dances With Wolves, minus the crap, plus some absolutely amazing (yet realistic and never fantastical) battle sequences that are picturesque and intense, without resorting to the dancelike choreography and CGI/wire effects that are popular nowadays.
Of course, the biggest question concerns Tom Cruise. The epitome of the phrase "star actor," there is sufficient cause to doubt his ability to assume a character-driven role... but there is no need to worry. Cruise has delivered a knockout punch of a performance, perhaps the best of his career--only overshadowed by the virtuosic job done by his co-star, Ken Watanabe, who seems to have stepped into the role straight out of one of Kurosawa's film (compare Watanabe's work as Samurai leader Katsumoto with any of Toshiro Mifune's roles to see what I mean).
To sum it up... if you haven't seen it, then what the hell are you waiting for?
From Russia with Love (1963)
The Best of Bond.
What can be said for the best entry of a series that now boasts over twenty feature films? As far as Bond flicks go, this one offers the most finely-tuned mixture of story, action, villains, and wit. It avoids the silliness that would plague later films, it's the least formulaic, and for his second turn in the role of James Bond, Sean Connery puts forth his definitive portrayal of the character.
The plot introduces SPECTRE leader Blofeld as the chief villain (whose face would go unseen for this film as well as for several afterward), who has devised a plan to allow his enemies to obtain a secret Russian decoding device--then steal it from them. A refreshing change from the more common comic book plot, which usually involves a megalomaniac bent on world domination.
With a story that is engaging and rewarding to those who pay close attention, and action that is high on tension and low on absurdity, From Russia With Love represents the best that the Bond series has to offer.
Hung fan kui (1995)
Jackie In Top Form
It's a crying shame that many Americans have had their first taste of Jackie Chan via films like Rush Hour and Shanghai Knights. Rumble In The Bronx is an excellent example of what he can do when he takes center stage, without a second player to distract the audience and swallow up screen time. Jackie Chan is all about mind-boggling action sequences and insane stunts (with no stuntman!), which this film is absolutely packed with. While not as funny as some of Chan's other entries, like Twin Dragons and Legend Of The Drunken Master, Bronx is thoroughly entertaining and one of his best films. The action simply can't be topped, and anybody even remotely interested in kung fu flicks will be thrilled.