Darth_Nebuchadnezzar Reviews

Superman Returns (2006)

Fun, action-packed superhero flick that has a lot of merit.

[8/10 · 28 June 2006]

With the release of "Superman Returns" in theaters, the question is inevitably asked, 'Is it the best comic book movie ever?'

As badly as I want to say 'yes', I really, -really- am finding comfort in the answer, "Batman Begins has TOUGH competition."

...That will at least answer your question of whether or not it's good.

::The Good::

-Brandon Routh is an excellent Clark Kent/ Superman -Kevin Spacey is an excellent Lex Luthor -Kate Bosworth actually makes for a good supporting lady, much better than Katie Holmes in "Batman Begins" -The effects are TOP-NOTCH, awesome action sequences and near seamless cuts of Superman himself. -Great cinematography. Certain shots try to achieve certain results, and achieve them, they do. -The music is STILL riveting and the Superman theme is timeless. God Bless You, JohnWilliams. -Great writing, believable and fluid character arcs. -There is, in fact, an ace Spider-Man 3 trailer before Superman takes flight...awesome.

::The Bad::

-The last 30 minutes seem to go nowhere, in terms of plot, except telling us that certain characters happens to be alive (oops, plot spoiler). -It's over.

::The Overview::

Is this the best comic book movie ever made? I truly think that is a matter of personal taste. Whether you like the dark, haunting grittiness of Batman or the uplifting, triumphant omnipotence of Superman, "Superman Returns" and "Batman Begins" are equals in their own rights. "Begins" lands a little smoother than "Superman" at the end of the film, but "Returns" features truly human characters, intense, heart-pounding situations and a bumbling Clark Kent as opposed to the smooth, night-stalking Bruce Wayne.

Your choice. Either way, yes, this is a damn good movie.

Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)

'Apocalypse' doesn't do everything wrong, but it certainly doesn't do everything right.

[6/10 · 30 September 2004]

Following the success of the 2002 adaptation from video game to film that was 'Resident Evil', comes its tantalizingly-trailered sequel, 'Resident Evil: Apocalypse'. I have to say, I was entranced by the trailer of this film. I seriously thought that this film had the potential to rise above 'Mortal Kombat' (1995) and 'Resident Evil' as the best cinematic event to spawn from a video game. 'Apocalypse' doesn't do everything wrong, but it certainly doesn't do everything right.

Let's start with a brief synopsis. Firstly, this film picks up literally days after the first drops us off. 'Apocalypse' opens with a rehashed explanation of what we learned about the two main characters in the original, Alice (Milla Jovovich) and Matt Addison (Eric Mabius). Again, we are told that this Umbrella Corporation is an international super-power and that Alice is (or more accurately was) the head of security in an underground research facility dubbed "The Hive", which harbored research and specimens pertaining to biological weaponry. After that, we are treated to the scientists who wheeled Addison away at the closure of 'Evil', opening the zombie-infested annals of "The Hive". Immediately before the audience 'knows' what happens (its pretty obvious and is given away in the final shots of the first 'RE') we transition into a militaristic evacuation of important personnel associated with Umbrella Corp. After a few assorted events that do (and simultaneously do not) move the plot line (a 'do not' being the lead-scientist asking how bad the situation is). After this, we are introduced to nearly a half-dozen other characters, including a renegade police officer (Sienna Guillory), the remaining members of an elite task force (Oded Fehr, Zack Ward), a VERY stereotypical Black man (Mike Epps) and a hulking creature (which, if you paid attention to the first 'RE', you would be aware of its appearance) that totes both a rocket-launcher and a hand-held chain gun named the "Nemesis".

As far as performances go, the aforementioned actors and actresses do well with the material that they are given. Guillory has Helen of Troy (not from the film 'Troy') on her resume, as Jovovich has Joan of Arc, Fehr has the mummy hunter, Ardeth Bay from the 'Mummy' series and Epps is credible in several comedies. There is no real emotion in the script, so the viewers really can't ask for any emotion from the actors (sadly true).

That is where 'Apocalypse' stumbles, and in many places, falls on it's face.

The plot is paper thin with nearly no real complications for the audience until the last ten minutes (which is a near-complete turn around from the original, which actually evoked SOME thought from the audience). It is basically unleash zombies on the city and shoot 'em up. The small sub-plots really vary from little to no relevance in the story whatsoever. It is pretty predictable that there is some kind of 'oh no, my friend was bitten and eventually, I'll have to kill him just before he bites me' situation, and the big action/set pieces are blatantly set up. The characters are thinner than the plot, with their arcs being straighter than a steel arrow. Alice begins the movie as an ass-kicking femme fatal, and finishes the film being...oh, you guessed it, an ass-kicking femme fatal. Jill Valentine (Guillory) is another one of these masculinely tough females, although sans Alice's super powers. The only real life that is brought to the script is through the epitome of black stereotypes, played by Mike Epps. It was sadly ironic, however that my favorite bit of 'Apocalypse' involved a reference to another video game franchise.

Again, 'RE: Apocalypse' is not completely bad. Although few, it has its moments. Mike Epps has his funny lines and his one encounter with the Nemesis brought laughs from the entire audience, which was something needed in the film. The Nemesis was done well a majority of the time (although there is a bit where the big oaf crashes through a wall and his head piece actually shifts visibly on the actor's shoulders) and makes a formidable villain for a good margin of the film (although his closure is a bit weak). Many of the action sequences had great potential...but the majority of those action scenes were fast-cut, much like 'AvP', so much so that it was very hard at moments to see exactly what was happening in the shot.

'Apocalypse' suffices much more as an action movie than it does as a horror film, and it struggles to keep interest, even for someone who has faithfully played the video games. I will be glad to admit, though...'Apocalypse' has the BIGGEST, most unexpected scare of 2004. I won't say when or where...but I am glad to have experienced it. 'Apocalypse' isn't exactly worth all eight dollars of your admission fee, but it doesn't make a bad Saturday afternoon matinee...6/10.

The Bourne Supremacy (2004)

No need to see 'Identity' after realizing 'Supremacy' of second...

[9/10 · 23 July 2004]

"The Bourne Supremacy" is an action packed thrill ride and spy flick all wrapped around a simple, confused, amnesia-stricken man trying to find his way in the world while dodging fellow assassins, CIA officials and his framed crimes...Now, I decided to give this film a hesitant 9/10 instead of an 8...here's why it received a 9...and why it was a hesitant 9.

Matt Damon reprises his role as the former-CIA-employed assassin, Jason Bourne. Bourne is still searching for justification to his thoughts and visions while still trying to cope with the realizations of what they might mean. Damon himself is very good as Bourne, a nice increase from his part in 'Identity', although he was good in that as well. There are moments when Bourne must rely on his primal instincts on the spot to find out just what he is going to do next and how he is going to stay that instrumental step ahead of his followers. In these moments, Damon really shines brightly as the deeply methodical and deadly Bourne. The rest of the cast does very well at keeping up with Damon's fast paced but disturbed performance. Most noteworthy is Simon Cox as Ward Abbot. The great thing about Cox's character is that you never really know whether or not he is trying to defend Bourne...trying to kill Bourne...or trying to defend Bourne in order to defend himself.

It is this kind of shenanegan that brings "Supremacy" its greatest triumph. Most of the events that occur within the timeline of the film are somewhat routine and have been done in other films to a certain extent, but the great characterization that follows the preferably-action-before-words Bourne and the intertwining, ever escalating plot keeps each event fresh and gives it that nice boost of energy and charisma that this movie really deserves. "Supremacy" is so good at keeping the audience in tact and allowing them to attempt to figure the events, the plot and the characters out before it is finally revealed to the audience that I did not lose interest in this film once during its entire duration...a whopping one hour and fifty-five minutes.

One thing that I really liked and enjoyed realizing was the shaky camera movements whenever Jason Bourne was in a shot. It represents just how unstable his life and mind have become, and especially how unstable Bourne is during this phase of his life. Bourne himself is not a borderline psychotic, but doesn't reserve himself from punching down a field officer if he has to. Bourne is deeply methodical and I really found it intriguing that he can pull himself away from his own delusions and memories to focus on the moment. It shows just how smart and cunning Jason Bourne is.

Another great thing is the pacing of this film. Even in its slow moments, "Supremacy" is wonderfully fast-paced. It is a very quickly-paced film, but the audience has no need to struggle in keeping up with it...masterful pacing to say the least. The action sequences are dazzlingly fast and work superbly well, although there is a fight scene that gets a little too caught up in its own momentum and the audience does lose track of exactly who has the knife, who just got poked in the eye...that sort of thing. In truth, however, that pace and uncertainty about it adds to the suspense of it all.

Now, for what is bad about "Supremacy", and I must say, there isn't much. The characters outside of Bourne and the three main supporters aren't exceptionally deep, and the audience has to rely on not much more than the actor's faces to keep them separated. Some of Bourne's visions are so fast that many of the audience members digging through popcorn bags will miss anything important shown in them...the visions are supposed to be fast, but lets keep the demographic in mind, here, shall we? As mentioned earlier...the fight scene that moves exceptionally quickly is hard to follow...yes, the winner is determined after a few moments so there is no reason to panic, but it still brings nostalgia of those old Godzilla films where the two monsters clashed so close to the screen that the viewer couldn't make out just what was going on.

All in all, "The Bourne Supremacy" is well worth viewing for a measly eight dollars. A nice step up from the original where the entire film is a giant chase and the audience gets a real sense of being paranoid and being on their toes. Again, 9/10.

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

Has its bad, good and great moments...

[8/10 · 15 July 2004]

The Matrix Revolutions was was the highest anticipated trilogy finale behind Return of the King...and by the time that Revolutions rolled around, people had grown disappointed of Reloaded while others cherished the philosophy embellished sequel...I personally am one of the latter. Here is why I enjoyed Revolutions, and why I rated Revolutions an 8/10.

Lets start with the acting...and a small but pertinent synopsis. Keanu Reeves reprises his role as Neo. Yes, Keanu Reeves is extraordinarily wooden for this role...but that is because he has to be. The character of Neo has lost everything by the time that the movie roles to a conclusion. Neo does not bear emotion after a certain loss during the course of the film, and the film concludes with Neo fighting himself. However, "himself" is represented by Hugo Weaving's Agent Smith. By the time that the two clash in arguably the greatest fight scene of 2003, Neo has lost everything and has no idea that it is simply his will pushing him forward. *small spoiler* Even that does not hold through to the end. While Neo has stripped himself of everything and every emotion, Agent Smith has grown exponentially more powerful and begins to show signs of anger, and even lust for more...something that his character lacked in the timespan of the first film or even the exposition of Smith in the second. Carrie Anne-Moss's Trinity, like Neo, has lost much faith in the war itself, but on the other hand, has gained so much faith for her significant other that she is willing to "give anything and everything for him". Carrie Anne-Moss is able to show that strong compassion for Neo without overkilling the role...this is a war mind you and its not wise to be on your knees telling your partner how much you care. Laurence Fishburne's Morpheus is again the strongest and again, my favorite character in the film...although this time, his dialogue is no longer riddled with philosophical jabber and he has now been reduced to one of three captains trying to make his way home before it faces an untimely destruction.

Now...speaking of which...we have the epic siege of Zion. A quarter million cephalopod-resembling machines are augering their way into the last free human domain...and what the audience is treated to is something that both blew us away...and at the same time, something that we expected with Reloaded's over-extended action scenes. What hurts the battle is that we lose touch with Neo and Trinity over the course of a quarter hour...which leaves the audience wondering two things when the story between the pair resumes (where are they and/or who cares). the battle does give us a little insight on some lesser elaborated characters...although not enough to make us like them or care for them. Captain Mifune and Kid are the two main battle-characters...but the female Zee and her rocket-wielding partner Charra are supporters. Some people may like this while others do not...the characters don't really matter during this battle...the battle matters.

Lets talk about the battle itself. It was mentioned in the first, set up in the second and shoved in our face for the finale. I saw Revolutions twice on opening day, once in an IMAX theater and I must say, there were moments when the battle scene in Revolutions made me forget that I was holding my breath...something that the war in Return of the King didn't manage to do. The siege of Zion quickly becomes an exposion of live-action (very little) and CGI (13 of the 17 minutes) action where the humanistic machines of combustion engines and machine guns square off against the machinistic modules of doom that bear dozens of tentacles and lasers to boot. In a nutshell...I say that Return of the King had the best battle sequence of 2003...but only because Revolutions broke us in for it. Seeing two-hundred and fifty thousand squirming and swarming Sentinels against the seventy human-gunned walking tanks is a sight to behold. Wow, wow, wow.

Now that the good things are aside (although I didn't make much mention to the final fight scene) lets talk about what hurts Revolutions the most. Its the poorly constructed script and the characterizations within them. Morpheus (as mentioned earlier) is no longer a philosophy-spouting genius but is simply a worried and frightened captain. Neo has somehow changed slightly from the falling action of Reloaded...he now knows the questions he needs to ask the Oracle, Trinity doesn't show the compassion that was felt in Reloaded...although her final scene did bring tears to my eyes, and the only character who we seem to know inside out from the last film and who has changed only because of what happened in the last film is the French Merovingian (who is my second favorite character). "The prodigal child returns...are you here for the bounty, Seraph?"...Agent Smith has the worst lines in the film when the excremental feces hits the fan for Neo, ("I was standing here, right here...I'm supposed to say something."...yeah, something with a little more substance.) and the Trainman thing was a horrible waste of time that doesn't really tie into the last film at all...and the script really doesn't help it there. The Oracle is the only character besides Merovingian who brings continuity to this flick in terms of the script.

As a trilogy, only Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are more epic in size and grandeur...as a pair of sequels...Reloaded and Revolutions are great but seem disconnected from the original somehow...as its own film...Revolutions deserves the 6.3 rating given to it by IMDb.com users...by I am judging it on how well its melds into and finishes this trilogy...which it does damn well. No one can be told what the Matrix trilogy is...they have to see it for themselves...and that is the only way to fully enjoy these three as a trilogy. It is the best seven hours you can spend watching science fiction.

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Two words, four syllables...wow.

[8/10 · 7 July 2004]

I have to admit, I'm somewhat of a Spider-man freak, and I also have to admit that, as much as I did like the original Spidey flick in 2002, I really thought that the visual effects were just disappointing. That was not enough to weigh down the entire film, however, and now, Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst and James Franco alongside Sam Raimi at the helm are back for Spider-Man 2. I went into this movie wanting to enjoy it. Wanting to eat it alive. When I left, I was positive that Raimi had delivered exactly what I wanted.

First off, Spider-Man 2 is much more than a simple comic-book-turned-action film...it is a real movie. The first entry had Peter Parker trying to deal with these newfound powers while at the same time combating the menacing Green Goblin. In this film, we have Peter Parker going through a complex of whether or not he really needs to be Spider-Man while also trying to reveal his love for Mary Jane, pay the bills in the crummy apartment that he lives in, try desperately to be on time for any job and make sure that does well in college...oh yeah, and there is a newly created baddie who goes by the name "Doc Ock" rummaging through the streets trying hard to finish his once prominent project surrounding nuclear fusion and four mechanical arms that are impervious to extreme heat or magnetism. There is just so much to work with in this film as opposed to the relatively two-dimensional plot of the first.

Spider-Man 2 doesn't rush the viewer into the Spidey-patented action. It eases the audience into this world where Peter Parker has become a real character with real problems (very faithful to the comics, if I may add). Peter Parker is experiencing a time when it feels like the world is crashing down around him. He feels that his love for Mary Jane and the relationship between them is waning and because of his split-responsibility as Spider-Man, he is late for everyone and everything that he needs to attend, including Mary Jane's starring role in a play. Meanwhile, through all of this stress, his Spidey powers begin to fail him and (I have to mention this) the audience is treated to one of the best scenes in the movie as Spidey is forced to take an elevator complete with the sarcasm of Hal Sparks from I Love the 80's.

Doc Ock is a great villain and is not as forced as the Green Goblin was in the last film. Everything about Spider-Man 2 is fluid and flows exceptionally well and I was really impressed to see how much better the villain works as a side story than as a major wedge in the main plot. I would applaud this with all six of my arms if I were Doc Ock, but I am not, so I will have to settle for a simple IMDb.com review.

9/10

Troy (2004)

Fun at times, clunky in others.

[7/10 · 24 June 2004]

I enjoyed this film...but I don't feel that it lived up to the hype that surrounded it. Brad Pitt as Achilles did hold some sort of 'god-like' majesty, but it wasn't enough to make me believe this movie. I thought when walking into Troy, that I was going to see some sort of period-epic...which it was, but it was also heavily centered around how god-like Achilles was. Like Roger Ebert, I think that the dialogue and the pacing was clunky and I really disliked the moments when entire battles would come to a near-complete halt just so the two representatives of either army could fight in a melodramatic romp around and at each other. (Once in Ajax vs Hector, again in Hector versus the cousin of Achilles). The characterization is somewhat bland, but there nonetheless. Achilles is the lone warrior who does not believe in his king...regardless of whether or not he believes that the king has control. The battle scenes aren't that wonderful either...and I was really amazed how 50,000 Greeks had an army tantamount to the size of the 250,000 orcs in Return of the King. Roger Ebert commented on how the battles take your mind off of the actual war, and more so on the effects themselves...he couldn't be more correct.

Through the bickering, I must say that what I enjoyed about this film was the incredible choreography in the one-on-one fight scenes. I was blown away by the magnificence of Hector vs Achilles and how gracefully the fight moved along. It was, in my opinion, one of the best "sword/javelin fights on screen", although I am completely unaware of how many of those there have been in the past. This isn't a bad film...but it is no Return of the King and no Spartacus.