Reviews

127 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Dune (2021)
10/10
Great World Building
28 October 2021
While I do think this movie drags a bit, it has some of the best sci-fi world building I can remember. It's all operatic (and borderline Shakespearean) stuff, and how well that plays with audiences will vary from person to person. I was totally wrapped up in it.

The visuals are stunning, the music works in service of the drama, and the characters are mostly well-written. This feels like it's building toward something monumental; because of that, I'm wholly invested and want to see what happens next. What better compliment can I give a movie of this sort?
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Solid Outing Despite Some Pacing Issues
16 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
This Halloween entry takes a few risks, and they mostly pay off. The idea that Haddonfield as a whole is sick of Myers and what he's done to their community is a good one, though the execution of the "mob mentality" trope isn't without its issues. Namely, the pacing in the middle of the movie sags a bit. Still, I really enjoyed pretty much everything else here. This is the most brutal Michael Myers has ever been, and the movie can be very unsettling. I also like that this trilogy seems to be working toward an answer about why Michael is so difficult to take down. Also, the flashbacks that tie to the 1978 original are fantastic (and these are more than simple nods).

Overall, I was satisfied with this follow-up and had a good time while watching it. If you like Halloween, ignore the negative noise and give it a shot. It might just surprise you.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
I love Trek. I love baseball. This episode is great.
3 June 2021
This episode is completely intended as a comedy, and it absolutely works. It's cheesy, yeah, but it's a whole lot of fun. Worf is comic gold here, too; once you watch it, you'll see what I mean.
16 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the Best Trek Episodes I've Ever Seen
31 May 2021
I'm currently making my way through DS9 for the first time, and I've really enjoyed the series as a whole. There are a lot of outstanding episodes, but this is at the top of my list.

To me, this has just about everything you'd want from a great Trek story-questions surrounding the nature of morality, an expertly written script, great acting, and some of the best character development in all of Trek lore.
34 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Aerial America (2010– )
9/10
Excellent Show
28 March 2021
This is a great show with breathtaking views of dramatic American landscapes. I also find the historical commentary to be insightful and well narrated.

On another note, I've seen a lot of people say that the show has a "liberal bias." Wrong. It's presenting history, and in doing so frequently describes injustices and how cultural views have shifted over time. If that's perceived as making the show "liberal," well... okay? That's an incorrect an inherently biased take in and of itself, but I digress.

Whatever your leanings, Aerial America is a fantastic viewing experience.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Deep Blue Sea 3 (2020 Video)
6/10
It's Surprisingly Good. Seriously.
25 January 2021
This isn't as flat out bonkers and fun as the original movie, but as far as sequels of this sort go it's actually good. Better than good, in fact. The story is a little slow at first, but once the shark destructions kicks in this movie really hits its stride. The effects are good, the acting is decent, and the action/gore/comedy/etc. is much, much better than I expected. If shows up on Netflix at some point, it's totally worth your two hours.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Raised by Wolves: The Beginning (2020)
Season 1, Episode 10
4/10
It Just Feels so Convoluted
20 October 2020
I'm not going to include spoilers here, but I'll just say this: the first 9 episodes of this show are very good. Seriously--it's some of the coolest sci-fi I've seen in a long time. The season finale, though, is really bad. It's so out of left field and abstract that I'm actually kind of mad that I spent time watching this to begin with.

A lot of people are going to crow about "not understanding science fiction" or being able to appreciate the symbolism. There's a bit of that happening here, sure, but this conclusion to season 1 is just way too half-baked and nonsensical.

Oh, and some of the CGI employed here is beyond atrocious. I was fairly shocked that HBO approved this one after how gorgeous the previous episodes are.

Maybe season two (assuming it happens) will redeem some of the stuff here, but, yeah... if you haven't started watching it yet, I wouldn't recommend.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Visually Magnificent, Narratively Deficient
27 June 2020
The imagery and atmosphere of this mini-series is jaw-dropping. Think Blade Runner meets Mandy meets Star Wars, and you'll have an idea (sort of) of what this is.

Beyond that, the plot is borderline nonsensical. It has to do with an AI manifesting as a weird demigod entity, and I'm sure there's some kind of commentary embedded in it that has to do with humanity's relationship to machines/religion/etc., but it's way too abstract.

Ultimately, this movie is best experienced as a visual feast, and that's about it. If you try to extract anything larger from it, you'll get caught up in an endless game of "maybe this is symbolism" that doesn't really go anywhere.

I'd love to see what this director could do with a well written script.
29 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Game of Thrones: The Long Night (2019)
Season 8, Episode 3
7/10
Great, But Not Perfect
29 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This was a great episode, and the tension that everyone involved was able to create was--in my opinion--right up there with some of the best episodes in the series. The battle scenes were mostly good, and the big surprise with Arya jumping out of nowhere to take out the Night King was something I did not see coming. With that said, here are my gripes with this latest offering (in no particular order):

1. The episode was too dark. Literally. It was difficult to tell what was happening in a lot of the scenes. I'm kind of surprised they didn't set this up to take place at the crack of down so the action would be more visible.

2. Let's hide everyone in the crypt even though we know that the Night King can raise the dead! Yeah. That didn't make a whole lot of sense.

3. Winter is coming... and it's over! Depending on how you feel about the fact that the Night King and white walkers are now gone after only one major battle, it's hard to deny that there was a lot of build up for the wrath of the undead in the series as a whole and it was over very, very quickly.

Again, I really liked the episode (a lot), and there were some notable character deaths, but it seemed a little weird to end it the way they did (though it's also hard to complain about the awesomeness of Arya and how she took care of business).
6 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Predator (2018)
4/10
It's A Bad Movie
6 April 2019
Like a lot of people, I'm a longtime fan of the Predator franchise. I went into this one with almost no expectations, but I did think that since Shane Black was a cast member of the original he'd be able to at least try and work toward recapturing the magic of that first outing so many years ago. Unfortunately, The Predator is an awkward mess. It feels like something the SyFy Channel would have come up with if they could have secured a large enough budget to cobble together a sequel to Predator 2. There are weird edits, dumb story beats, and just an overall sense that this thing somehow started to unravel during the production process. There are one or two interesting ideas that can be identified here and there, but overall this effort is a total misfire. I wish that weren't the case, but that's where we are. I'm hoping that some years down the road someone will pen a proper sequel that has Dutch return as a paranoid advisor to help deal with some looming Yautja threat. That'd be something worth watching.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Titan (2018)
3/10
A Promising Start Becomes a An Absolute Monstrosity
10 July 2018
What starts out as a decent (and actually kind of original) sci-fi offering descends into awfulness in the final act. I really can't remember a movie with so much promise at the start collapsing into such a terrible final effort. Instead of getting something compelling and genuinely interesting, what we end up with is a half-baked and utterly laughable end product that is infuriating because, again, it starts with so much promise. That's a swing-and-a-miss, Netflix. Maybe their next science fiction outing will be a little more focused and a little less... terrible.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Jurassic Park (1993)
10/10
So, What About That 3D Treatment?
14 April 2013
I was 11 years old when Jurassic Park was released. I vividly remember going to see it at my local theater. The place was packed; there had been a lot of buzz about the movie, and—being a preteen dino enthusiast— I begged my parents to take me one Saturday afternoon so I could see what everyone was talking about. When it was over, something profound had occurred. It was the first time I recall feeling an overwhelming sense of wonder at what I'd witnessed. Sure, Star Wars had blown me away as a child, and I absorbed all things Indiana Jones; but there was something about Jurassic Park that completely enveloped me. Much of this, I think, has to do with seeing it on the big screen. It wasn't only that, though; it was the seamless effects, the just-plausible- enough-to-be-believable story, and the intense action (too intense, perhaps, for some kids my age, but I ate it up with a spoon) that made it absolutely unforgettable. Thus my love of cinema was cemented forevermore.

When I learned that the movie was getting the 3D treatment I groaned. The movie wasn't designed for three dimensions, and there was absolutely no way that it would make for a convincing transfer (especially when compared to films like Avatar, which were specifically tailored for the medium). I managed to resist making too much of a snap judgment and ventured out to my local theater to see the thing (with an IMAX treatment, no less) because, hey—it's Jurassic freakin' Park.

Imagine my surprise when that long-lost sense of wonderment was instantly rekindled from the very first frame. When John Williams' thundering score kicked in, the outside world melted away and I was, for all intents and purposes, a kid again. But not only that; the movie lends itself nicely to 3D, with wayward tree limbs and cascading rainstorms feeling as if they were strategically placed knowing that the movie would one day be reborn in an even more tangible manner.

If this wasn't confirmation enough that the movie had seen a successful transition, all I had to do was glance at the youngsters sitting a few seats down from me. I'm guessing they'd never seen the film in any iteration, as their reactions—"ooohs" and "aaahs" in equal measure—were proof positive that this a picture perfect example of the magic of cinema. A side note: I could hardly restrain a snicker as they jolted (nearly) out of their seats when the stray velociraptor popped his head out from behind the control panel. I did the same thing when I was their age, and it's a virtual certainty that the experience—and the aforementioned sense of wonderment—will stick with them for a long, long time.

So, in case I haven't been clear, go see JP 3D. If you've never seen it, then… well… what are you waiting for? If you've seen it at least 500 times since its original release (like me), then trust me when I say that this new iteration is well worth the money. My hope is that the move will be re-released in another 20 years so the next generation of moviegoers can see what it's like to be transported to a world where the impossible really does exist.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Looper (2012)
7/10
It Doesn't Exactly Rewrite History
3 January 2013
Looper is a movie that's been on my radar for quite some time. It's about mafia-types who are involved in time travel for the sake of eliminating unwanted "garbage," and it features both the formidable Bruce Willis and Nightwing himself, Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Because I don't have quite as much free time as I used to, I had to skip this one in theaters. When it finally trickled down the DVD/Blu-ray format earlier this week, however, I was all over it.

This is the perfect example of a movie that quietly made its way into cinemas without having an overabundance of pomp and circumstance paving the way. I'd taken a fleeting interest in it upon reading about the movie's story line, but it wasn't until a multitude of friends took to Facebook in order to sing its unparalleled praises that I genuinely took interest. And, I have to say, though solidly crafted it is, I found the movie to be a bit of a letdown. Let me explain why.

With any time travel flick, one expects there to be plenty of mind- bending timelines that crisscross with one another (heck, they may even congeal into something indecipherable in the final moments, but the goal is to keep the audience playing the "prediction" game throughout). While Looper does this, I found it far too easy to foresee how things would play out (this was in stark contrast to 12 Monkeys, Willis' other time travel movie). To delve into the specifics of this would put me at risk of including spoilers in my review, so suffice it to say that, though well written, there was nothing Earth-shattering about our protagonists' concluding revelation. Another point of contention—and one that has been widely discussed, I believe—was the decision to drown JGL in make-up so as to make him resemble a young Willis. At times, it works, but more often than not I found it nearly impossible to not envision the actor with his true face. Would it have been better to simply allow JGL to be, well, himself, and to sparingly use CGI to fill in the awkward transition moments during his character's life? I don't know. Still, I can't ignore the fact that the make-up was more of a distraction than a boon.

Actually, I think Looper's greatest strength is its focus on the development of telekinesis as a part of the human genome in the not too distant future. Some of the film's best moments come as a result of this plot point, and I wish a little more focus on this would have been the order of the day.

Please don't misunderstand me. Looper is far better than the vast majority of drivel that Hollywood allows to make it past the stages of early drafting, and it makes for perfectly good viewing for anyone who enjoys sci-fi. Just don't expect it to rewrite history.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
He No Nuts... He Crazy!
29 December 2012
Believe it or not, some fanboys debate the superiority of Temple of Doom as opposed to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The consensus seems to be that, for all intents and purposes, Temple of Doom is the better picture. Hashing out which one is "better" is certainly a tricky proposition; after all, they contain many of the same elements—as noted in my previous rambling—and are the two Indy films that feature non- Biblical artifacts as MacGuffins.

Here's what I think: Temple of Doom is, in fact, a more solidly put together motion picture. On the flip side, I actually enjoy watching Kingdom of the Crystal Skull more than I do the former.

But let's focus on the movie in question. Temple of Doom is not Raiders of the Lost Ark. It's that simple. The story isn't as compelling, the romance is duller, and the adventure doesn't have the same sense of urgency that something like the Ark of the Covenant naturally generates. Though there's whip-crackin' aplenty, some of the more hammy scenes (again, this is pre-Crystal Skull) in the entire series rear their ugly faces in this second outing. For me, the worst of the worst is the "card playing" scene which involves, Indy, Willie, and Short Round. They've set up camp for the night in a jungle clearing, and while our protagonist and his sidekick are bickering over hidden cards and underhanded tactics, Willie is darting from one side of the set to the other, screaming her head off as a myriad of creatures converge on their location. It might draw a grin from the most ardent of Indy devotees, but it is, to be perfectly frank, an annoying scene.

Then there's the blood brain-washing. Dr. Jones is forced to consume some sort of black magic concoction that causes him to turn into a mindless Mol Ram follower. Amazingly, Short Round discovers that the spell can be broken if Indy is taunted with a white hot torch. Er… what?

Okay, so a lot of this movie doesn't make sense, and it doesn't have one-tenth the charm of its predecessor. But it's still vastly entertaining. Oh, and did I mention there's a cameo by Dan Aykroyd?
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
You Have Chosen... Wisely
29 December 2012
Talk about a return to form.

After the decidedly underwhelming (when compared to Raiders, that is) Temple of Doom, Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford managed to put together one of the greatest action-adventure movies to ever see the light of day. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade got everything right: it had the perfect comedic duo in Harrison Ford and Sean Connery; the action topped just about everything that had occurred in the previous two Indy films; the narrative returned its focus to the ultimate villain (Nazis) and once again had the fate of the world resting squarely on the shoulders of the rugged archaeologist who was the embodiment of all things good. Last Crusade helped solidify the notion that stellar sequels are, in fact, possible.

Just about everyone has seen this, so allow me to focus on specifics. The score is every bit as classic as it was the first time we heard it in Raiders, and the bits designed specifically for this offering are, all-in-all, equally as memorable. The "booby traps" are spectacular (especially the "devices of lethal cunning" that Dr. Jones must navigate during the final leg of his journey); the decision to begin the film with a flashback of Indy in his youth is a stroke of genius, and River Phoenix perfectly imitates Mr. Ford's most subtle mannerisms; and, of course, there's the previously mentioned presence of none other than the original James Bond himself.

Connery is, for lack of a better word, the perfect foil to Ford. Whereas Indy is often reckless and tends to dive into dangerous situations headfirst, Henry Jones Sr. is calm, collected, and every bit the logical sage one would imagine the father of Indiana Jones to be.

If there's any spot where Last Crusade falls short of Raiders it has to be in regards to its leading woman. Don't get me wrong: Elsa is a great double-crossing she-devil. But superior to Marion Ravenwood? Negative.

Next up is Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. That's right. The fridge is about to be nuked.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Henry Jones... Junior
29 December 2012
19 years. That's how long it was between Last Crusade and the 2008 release of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

The question, of course, is this: was it worth the wait?

It depends on your point of view. For me, the answer is—unequivocally —"yes."

While there are oodles of fanboys who would have you believe that Crystal Skull is nothing short of an atrocity against mankind, it's actually a pretty good movie. As stated in my previous Indiana Jones commentary, this is actually my third favorite of the series (again, I think Temple of Doom is slightly more well made, but I enjoy this entry more). Let me explain why.

It seems that Spielberg and Lucas were aware of the need for the franchise to return to its roots. I'm not trying to suggest that Last Crusade was, in any way, shape, or form, a departure from what Jones is all about. No, what I'm pointing to here is that Crystal Skull nicely reinserts the "homage" factor to the series. That is, it feels like this entry was designed to pay tribute to a very specific genre: 50′s era B-movies that were fueled by Cold War paranoia and apprehension about saucer men from Mars. Sure, this is a blatant departure from the 30′s/40′s serials that made Raiders such an appealing feature, but, given its roots, it makes sense for Crystal Skull (and the characters contained therein) to have evolved in such a historically accurate (and entertaining way).

Let me be clear, though: this doesn't mean that Dr. Jones' latest adventure approaches the heights of Raiders or Last Crusade. Not by a long shot. But, like Temple of Doom, it's immensely entertaining. Sure, the plot feels more episodic than it should, and the inclusion of action sequences that feature berserk monkeys and nuclear detonations is a bit over-the-top. Given the aforementioned historical context, though, would you have expected anything less?

What's that? You don't like seeing aliens in an Indy movie? Please allow me to point out they aren't aliens—they're inter-dimensional beings. And they're the perfect compliment to the obsession with pseudo-science (like telepathy) that were the trademarks of this particular time period.

So where does that leave us? I like to look at the Indiana Jones series as an EKG—it's had its fair share of ups and downs, but nothing has come close to approaching "rock bottom." Besides, if the pattern continues it means there's the possibility for one more epic entry.

If so, I'll be standing in line at the midnight release with a bag of popcorn in one hand and my fedora in another.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Inception (2010)
10/10
I Dreamed a Dream
29 December 2012
Back in 1999, I was a junior in high school, and a little movie called The Matrix was unleashed upon the world. I remember going to see it with a friend; we were both fairly oblivious regarding the nature of the plot, as well as the presence of the now famous stylized (and infinitely duplicated) action sequences. Leaving the theater, I had the distinct feeling that I'd seen something revolutionary—as ambiguous as that term may be—and that I had really only processed a fraction of what was taking place on screen. During the wee hours of this past morning— around 2:35 AM, to be exact—that feeling of having experienced something undeniably groundbreaking was finally replicated.

As a matter of fact, I'll go so far as to say that Inception surpasses The Matrix on nearly every level. It's that rare film which is simply unforgettable, thriving on superb acting, a brilliantly layered story, and mesmerizing choreography.

If you've seen the trailers—and who hasn't?—you might be a little confused as to what it's all about, so let me take a stab at cluing you in. Dom Cobb (DiCaprio) is an "extractor"—a person who's hired to create an artificial dreamworld (an oxymoron?) and steal people's secrets while they sleep. This, of course, is illegal, and for a variety of reasons Cobb has been globetrotting for some time to avoid capture. He's also an estranged father, and is believed to be guilty in the murder of his wife (who frequently shows up in each of the dream environments he constructs). Anyway, entering the human mind is apparently a fairly straightforward task, and it's all accomplished via a device that was originally developed for military training.

After a botched attempt to extract information from a wealthy businessman named Saito (Ken Watanabe), he's hired to perform what's known as an "inception." Essentially, it's the highly controversial notion that you can plant an idea in someone's mind to cause him/her to behave in a specific way. In this instance, Saito wants Cobb to convince the heir of an energy tycoon to break up his father's empire. This is in Saito's interest because it eliminates his only competition, thus allowing his corporation to exist as an unfettered monopoly. If Cobb is able to successfully do this, says Saito, he'll pull a few strings and Cobb will be able to return to his native America and once again be with this children.

I've obviously left out a lot of key details, but trust me when I say the plot—though admittedly complex—is wholly engaging and completely rewarding. As a number of critics have noted, Inception demands that its viewers' intellect is engaged full throttle as things progress, and I found that this was a natural consequence of being thrust into the story. In other words, it didn't seem like a "chore" to really think deeply about what was happening on screen; it was second nature. The film moves at a brisk pace, but it provides enough cues to remind you of certain narrative intricacies that might otherwise have dissolved into your own subconscious.

As you'd imagine, the setup is a veritable cornucopia of possibilities for action junkies. I found myself collecting my jaw from the theater floor as cityscapes folded in on themselves and modernistic dreamscapes crumbled because of protruding influences from the outside world. Of special note is a prolonged car chase sequence. It pushes the boundaries of time perception, and takes the notion of stacking one dream atop another to new levels. Let me elaborate briefly (and I'll try to do so without ruining any of the surprise that inevitably comes with such a thrilling tale).

Our protagonists—a team of "dream thieves," if you will—enter the dreams of their intended target. Once there, they're attacked by his subconscious, which has been trained to defend against just this sort of "break in." As they try to buy themselves time so that they can accomplish their goal, they enter a dream within that dream and find that they're now able to interact with their mark in an entirely new fashion. As the car chase continues in the original dream, though, they feel the physical effects in their new dream. When their driver takes a sharp turn, for instance, their gravity shifts in the new dream, and they're all thrown to one side of a room.

Yeah, I know. It sounds crazy complicated. It is. Trust me, though, when I say that it all makes complete sense within the context of the story, and you'll marvel at Nolan's ability to generate a plot that asks so much of its audience.

This, of course, is only the tip of the iceberg, and there are some excellently crafted subplots that tackle more universal issues (such as learning how to "let go" of lost loved ones, etc.). It's the sort of movie that warrants a seemingly infinite number of viewings, and you'll find yourself analyzing its idiosyncrasies for decades to come.

I'll close by saying Inception is not only the best film I've seen thus far in 2010, it's one of the best I've ever seen, and has rightfully earned a spot on my Top 10 list. This is a moment in cinematic history that shouldn't be missed.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
It Has Lou Ferrigno
29 December 2012
Quite honestly, there's not a whole lot to say about I Love You, Man other than it's funny. Really funny. Even though (to the best of my knowledge) Apatow had nothing to do with the production of this film, it's representative of his usual humor–the pseudo "true" behavior of the idiosyncratic, nerdy, 20-to-30 something male. If you enjoyed the likes of Forgetting Sarah Marshall or Knocked Up, this will likely be right up your alley, even though it's admittedly less complex (in terms of the interactions depicted by the relationships featured in the movie) than the latter of the two flicks just mentioned.

The plot of I Love You, Man, as just indicated, is easily accessible (and, at times, easily predictable). You, as the viewer, know that at some point there will be a conflict between the developing "bromance" between the characters of Peter and Sydney, and you also know that, ultimately, it will be resolved in some way, shape, or form. As with most Hollywood story lines, you can sense the ensuing equilibrium that our protagonist must achieve in order to maintain a peaceful existence.

When I reference all of this, it's certainly not to bash I Love You, Man. Quite the contrary. Director John Hamburg is keenly aware of the clichés present here, and makes a decision that a lot of movie-makers just don't seem to have the gumption (or ability) to. He opts to include them only as bare necessities and let the humor take center stage.

And the humor is fairly non-stop from start to finish. There's a real sense of authenticity to I Love You, Man, and the quirky inclusions of things like projectile-vomiting, bass-slapping in Sydney's man-cave, and a dog that looks uncannily like Anwar Sadat is the sort of comedy that you'd expect from the cast included here (and, of course, it works extraordinarily well). This is one of those movie-going experiences–like Liam Neeson's latest effort, Taken–where, when referencing the trailers, "what you see" is literally "what you get". If you're in the mood for a movie that's laid back and consistently hilarious from beginning to end, you can't do much better than I Love You, Man.

Oh yeah–did I mention that it also has Lou Ferrigno?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A Comedy of Errors
29 December 2012
Matt Damon has proved himself to be one of the most versatile actors working today. From a super-spy with amnesia in the Bourne trilogy to a rookie con-man in the Ocean's films, he's constantly reinventing himself. Teaming up once again with director Steven Soderbergh, in The Informant! Damon takes on a role that finds him treading somewhat familiar territory. It's clear from the beginning that he's channeling the naivety of Linus Caldwell (his part in the continuing exploits of one Danny Ocean), and that's a very welcome thing. Damon and Soderbergh work well together, and the dry humor the two typically generate pervades just about every frame of this sprawling comedy.

What's so interesting about The Informant!—as is the case with any number of features based on "real life events"—is just how bizarre the proceedings actually are. The plot follows Mark Whitacre, a major player with a company called ADM (they do a lot of nifty stuff with corn products). He's a biochemist who's started dabbling in the business side of things, and, after discovering what goes on behind the scenes, eventually decides to put an end to an illegal price fixing scheme.

For all his seemingly—and I emphasize "seemingly"—noble intentions, Mark has a real problem with lying. As things unfold, it's clear that he's not telling the FBI everything they need to know in order to fully prosecute the executives at ADM. A multitude of dirty secrets begin to emerge as the agents work with Mark, and they eventually learn of his own involvement with embezzlements, kickbacks, etc.

This all has the makings of a first rate flick, right? I thought so too. The trouble with The Informant!, though, is that it loses most of its steam when the comedic moments start to run dry. Earlier in this review I labeled the film as "sprawling"; this may seem too extreme given its 108 minute runtime, but watching the movie is a frustrating experience because any progress it makes is almost immediately undercut by a story that begins to probe the legalities of the situation a little too thoroughly.

On top of this, it should never have been billed (or developed) as a full-fledged comedy.

That's not to say that the humor that's present doesn't work. It often does, and I give all the credit in the world to Mr. Damon for injecting what would've been an otherwise only mildly amusing character with a very peculiar brand of drollery. This, coupled with his seemingly inane observations about everything he sees, makes the character of Mark someone we want to know and learn more about. The "funnies" are really ramped up when Whitacre begins collecting video evidence that will be used in court against ADM: he's constantly describing everything he sees for the hidden microphone the FBI has strapped to him, and at one point he even nonchalantly opens his briefcase during a meeting—where price fixing is center stage—so he can adjust a malfunctioning tape recorder.

Despite this, the movie stumbles (as mentioned earlier) when it gets caught up in all of the legal red tape that comprises the real life story. This information would certainly need to be included to maintain accuracy, but, again, it begins to drag once the comedy dies down. Actually, this is almost offset by a brief glimmer of something deeper than mere greed that propels Mark. He's asked why he continually lies to everyone he encounters. His thoughts are spoken aloud, and he says simply, "I don't know." There's a moment of quiet reflection here that adds an interesting dimension to his character that didn't previously exist, but it's never mined on any deeper level. Had the screenwriters working on The Informant! decided to probe his psychological underpinnings in a little more depth—maybe in a way that more proportionally balanced out the rise and fall of the comedic moments— this could've hit several notes that engage the audience on a more meaningful level.

As it stands, though, The Informant! is a mildly entertaining—though ultimately passable—comedy about a very specific set of underhanded dealings in corporate America. There's something more rewarding lurking just below the surface, but, for one reason or another, it never breaks free.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Invictus (2009)
7/10
I Think He Wants Us to Win the World Cup
29 December 2012
Over the past few weeks, the world has seen the release of two very well made sports movies. First we received The Blind Side, and now Invictus, the latest from Clint Eastwood. The 79 year old actor—whose best known for his roles as grizzled lawmen—has certainly proved his ability as a filmmaker during his twilight years, and Invictus is no exception. Thankfully, he doesn't seem to be slowing down one iota.

Invictus tells the story of Nelson Mandela (Freeman), the former President of South Africa and the man credited with unifying a country riddled with racism and turmoil in the wake of apartheid. Given Mandela's astonishing achievements, one would think the movie would be laden with dramatic flashbacks that clearly highlight the struggle he suffered as a prisoner for 27 years. Eastwood, it seems, has decided to take a different approach to telling this story.

The catalyst for this particular tale is rugby; a sport that many Americans know nothing about (admittedly, I knew little about the game going into the theater, but I did feel as if I had a better grasp of the sport as a whole when I walked out). This could easily be viewed in a negative way, as the bulk of the third act is focused solely on the rugby World Cup match that took place in 1995. Eastwood clearly revels in the brutality of the sport, as it nicely symbolizes the struggle the country was going through at that time. When teams lock arms and spar over field position, it's clear just how painful the process is, and this adds even more depth to the same issues that—unlikely as it is— District 9 grappled with only a few months earlier.

Matt Damon plays Francois Pienaar, captain of the South African rugby team. This is a role that seems well-suited to Damon, whose solemn determination is exactly what Mandela needed as a face for the symbolic triumph over prejudice that he saw embodied in the competition. The acting honors, however, clearly go to Freeman. If there's anyone who was destined to play Mandela, it's him—Freeman's mastery of the man's mannerisms, accent, and general presence is astounding. There aren't really any scenes that call for the emotional outbursts typically needed to garner an Oscar nod, but I have a feeling the sheer power of the movie as a whole will land Freeman a much deserved nomination.

That's the thing about Invictus–at its core, it seems to be nothing more than an inspirational sports film, but there are many other issues rippling just beneath the surface. One could nitpick about the decision to film this "documentary style," with only limited (extremely limited) glimpses into Mandela's past, and I'd have to agree that it leaves a little bit of a hole in an otherwise absorbing movie. The message it sends to audiences, though, is what makes the final product so effective. And that, of course, is that athletics play a very important role in any society: they act as the ultimate unifying medium. Themes of bias and discrimination generate a lot tension, but when the final match is underway, everyone puts their differences aside (and inadvertently comes to the realization that we're all one and the same).

As far as motivational sports films go, you could do a lot worse, and the patient directorial eye of Eastwood will cause you to linger on every frame. I wouldn't say the movie is unforgettable, but it is a welcome pick-me-up that takes an optimistic stance on the nature of mankind.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The International (I) (2009)
3/10
Internationally Unappealing
29 December 2012
The International stars Clive Owen as Louis Salinger, an Interpol agent with a blemished service record. After a colleague is murdered in an attempt to investigate a powerful bank's role in the sale of illegal arms, Salinger embarks on a crusade to expose everyone involved. Naomi Watts is in this too (as an NYC District Attorney), but mostly she cries, looks longingly at her Blackberry, and stands in the way of moving cars.

There's a lot of other stuff involved in the plot, but trying to hash it all out is a headache that's not worth the payoff. Fairly obscure characters are referenced as if we should instantly know who they are, and there's a lot of discussion regardinginternational legal policy, the indestructible banking system and how we're all reliant on it, and how the only way to implement any real change is to act outside the law. While some of this may be true (and thought-provoking in its own right), the way it's presented is numbingly boring, and it's done by way of tidbits of dialogue that aren't explored or revisited with any depth. As the plot hurls us from one exotic location to the other, we're left trying to "connect the dots," scrambling to remember who said what when and why it was important. In that sense, The International suffers a fate that many thrillers steeped in international politics/intrigue seem to fall victim to—an unnecessarily convoluted plot that feels like a cliché and isn't interesting.

Aside from a prolonged shootout at the Guggenheim—which, I might add, provides ample opportunity for us to revel in the satisfaction of watching pretentious piece after pretentious piece of modern art (in the form of glass panels with images being projected on them) get totally anniahlated—there's not much here to warrant a rental. Some may suggest that there is a theme of redemption working as an undercurrent in The International, but who cares? There's almost no characterization, so we don't have anything invested in any of the players. And it's so tedious that by the time you've reached the startlingly blunt climax you won't want to waste a second pondering the film's messages, whether they're personal, global, or present at all.

When there are other well-made political thrillers out there—such as State of Play, which should be making its way to DVD/Blu-ray in the very near future—I'm not sure why anyone would devote a movie night to The International. I can say, however, that the previews reminded me that I need to pick up Close Encounters of the Third Kind in hi-def ASAP.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Insomnia (2002)
9/10
Sleep Will be the Last Thing on Your Mind
29 December 2012
Christopher Nolan wasn't always directing caped crusaders and dreamworld desperadoes. Once upon a time (nine years ago to be exact) he was at the helm of a criminally underrated crime thriller by the name of Insomnia.

Starring Al Pacino as a L.A. detective who travels to a remote Alaskan town to help identify the killer of a teen, this is one of Pacino's most recently truly great performances (a shame, I know). Hilary Swank and Robin Williams co-star as an up-and-coming local policewoman and deranged author (respectively), and both do a superb job of keeping pace with the venerable titan of Tinseltown.

What's particularly effective here is the excellent use of setting. In Nightmute (sounds inviting, huh?), because of its far-northern location, the sun doesn't set for long periods of time. This causes Detective Dormer (Pacino) to eventually start falling apart at the seams, as the sun seems to penetrate every effort he makes to lose himself in restful slumber. This naturally ties into a specific subtext that reveals much about Dormer's personality and tainted past as a detective, and it's very refreshing to see the usual them of darkness giving way to light flipped on its head.

The problem with writing a review of Insomnia is that I can't detail too much about what unfolds (in terms of plot) without ruining some of the major twists that lend genuine weight to the story as it ambles along some truly dark and disturbing corridors. Don't let the analogy fool you, though; there's nothing slow about the pacing, and it's wholly engrossing from start to finish. The sense of impending slumber is imminent, though, and this heightens the tension in the third act when "truth" starts to become a relative term for our exhausted protagonist.

Insomnia isn't nearly as stylish as Nolan's most recent offerings, but it's certainly ably directed and its tale is spun with maximum efficiency. If, for one reason or another, this gem that originally shone almost a decade ago has eluded your radar, be sure to check it out.

As for myself, it's time to get a little shut-eye.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Iron Man 2 (2010)
8/10
Solid
29 December 2012
Iron Man 2 is not The Dark Knight. And it shouldn't be.

For my money, I can't think of a movie that better embodies the term "popcorn flick." Like its predecessor, this one is all about fun. There are rock 'em sock 'em explosions aplenty, as well as some slickly filmed fight sequences that are quite memorable (but, honestly, aren't earth-shattering when compared to any number of other uber-energetic comic book films of the last decade). Don't be fooled, though; this sequel to the 2008 hit actually builds on the mythos of Tony Stark in some welcome ways.

Front and center in this particular feature is "the past"—that is, it's very much focused on Howard Stark (Tony's father) and his vision of a futuristic society that thrives on the energy derived from his Arc Reactor. There are also some other juicy tidbits we learn about Stark Sr., not the smallest of which has a little something to do with rewriting the periodic table. Also thrown into the mix is a physicist who worked with Howard back in the day. He's a disgruntled Russian who feels he's been slighted because—among other things—of Tony's success. He's got a son of his own named Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), and he's determined to avenge his father's legacy at all costs. Yes, the plot is driven by a stereotypical variation on the revenge story we're all familiar with, but, given the already superficial nature of the film (which, let's be honest, we all expected), it works well.

Iron Man 2, quite simply, does everything a competent sequel should. In this case, it further highlights the flaws of its protagonist, and it builds on the comedy/action pairing that made the original film so successful. It even ties in new characters—such as Nick Fury and Natasha Romanoff—who are fairly interesting in their own right while settting itself up for a third film that will (hopefully) continue the trend.

Despite all its upward momentum, Iron Man 2 does falter from time to time. As is the case with many-a-movie, our hero solves seemingly impossible "puzzles" in record time (here, we're talking about scientific enigmas that can only be deciphered with the use of improvised proton accelerators). This directly correlates with a looming sense of danger—developed by a specific plot element that I won't ruin here—that's established early in the film, and, because of this ridiculously absurd "quick fix," said surprisingly tangible sense of dread is undercut in an extraordinarily premature manner.

But, again, what did you expect? This is Iron Man 2, not the philosophical diatribe of a makeup wearing psychopath. As tired as I am of this clichéd phrase, it still applies: "It is what it is." Because of that, there should be zero complaints.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The Alternate History of WWII
29 December 2012
Quentin Tarantino. Love him or hate him, there's no denying the man is an auteur who has changed modern filmmaking. His films ooze a peculiar flair that, more often that not, is reminiscent of the "style over substance" breed of movies from yesteryear. Tarantino has a dark sense of humor that tends to balance out his absurdly complex (though sometimes serious) plots, and, thankfully, he's got an eye for characterization that tends to save his movies from oblivion.

Though I enjoyed his recent Death Proof, it was somewhat underwhelming when viewed in the context of his other goliath, game-changing offerings (though that was the whole point, I still felt there was more that could've been done–and Death Proof is one instance where I think he let his "too cool for school" dialogue get away from him). But I digress; we're here to talk about Inglourious Basterds, a movie that's had a lot of buzz surrounding it ever since it went into pre-production.

Basterds is unlike anything Tarantino has ever tackled, yet it's strikingly similar to what I consider two of his greatest films–Kill Bill (Vols. 1 & 2). It explores the familiar theme of revenge, has the same "Chapter" scene dividers, and even recycles much of the same music for its soundtrack. Some might view this as lazy filmmaking, but I think it's a sign that Tarantino is starting to mature as a director. Like all noteworthy filmmakers with certain stylistic hallmarks, he seems to have found his rhythm, as it were, and has crafted a movie that's more emotionally resonant than any of his previous offerings.

The opening scene, for example, is simultaneously understated and absorbing. It features Tarantino's trademark dialogue—as do virtually all other scenes—and it gives all of the players involved a chance to fully flesh out their characters. To avoid spoilers I won't go into detail, but suffice it to say that it'll have your heart thumping; it's also immediately evident that Tarantino has become a master of wringing every drop of emotion from his actors and actresses.

Then, in the very next breath, we're thrust into the realm of Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) and his squad of Jewish-American soldiers known as "The Basterds." Their mission is simple: to brutally murder Nazis and spread fear throughout the Third Reich. Forget what you know about the history behind World War II—though there is apparently a kernel of truth as to what inspired the plot, Inglourious Basterds is, on the whole, a completely fictitious endeavor. While this has upset some critics, it is, in many ways, a credit to Tarantino as a writer, as this decision causes us to remain on our toes throughout the entire 153 minute runtime (because, of course, we have absolutely no idea how the events in the film will unfold).

But I digress. Let's return to our previous topic—that regarding the violence found in Inglorious Basterds. As you'd imagine, Tarantino allows Raine and company to accomplish their assigned mission by forcing us to watch the most gruesome of occurrences (such as captured German soldiers being scalped, knifed, and beaten to death with a baseball bat). While the subject matter automatically calls for an undisclosed amount of violence, there are times—as with his other films—where it's obvious that Tarantino is indulging his own insatiable desire to douse the screen with blood. The question, then, is this: Is all of that gory violence a bad thing?

Essentially, Tarantino has used the backdrop of World War II to create a combination revenge flick/dark comedy—but Inglourious Basterds is so much more. What makes this stand out from his other movies is the fact that it's often deeply serious—much more so than I would've imagined, in fact. Many critics have found the movie disrespectful because of the liberties it takes with history and its comic nature. I take some contention with this assessment. Based on the emotion present here (and the care with which its so skillfully woven into what would otherwise be a blood and guts revenge story), it's clear that a fair degree of "respect" was front and center on the director's mind as he worked on this uncharacteristically affecting piece. Really, Basterds is a sort of non-comedy that knows how to keep its very adult themes serious without being so serious that they're steeped in an inaccessible gloom that makes viewers feel cold and detached from the things happening on- screen.

My only problem with the movie has to do with the shift in tone found at the ending (I'm talking the end-end…the very end). Based on the level of maturity found throughout the bulk of the movie, it felt just a little too out of place—just a little too whimsical, perhaps—and it seems to undermine an especially powerful scene that appears only moments before.

On the whole, though, Inglourious Basterds is superb. It's got that certain Tarantino flair, and, if you can handle the gore, you'll see a smartly written movie that's both entertaining and emotionally gripping.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
More of the Same?
29 December 2012
I'll be honest; though I greatly enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies upon their release, they never really enveloped me in quite the same way that the original Star Wars or, say, Back to the Future trilogies did. When the announcement came that The Hobbit would also be receiving the Jackson treatment, I was excited for one specific reason: I absolutely loved the book. It's a relatively brief experience, one in which I presumed the now well-known director would be able to spin into one helluva knock-out return to Middle-earth. Imagine my shock when I learned that the book would not be made into a single film. In fact, it wouldn't even be split into two; instead, three was the magic number. Because of this, my excitement about The Hobbit quickly waned, as it seemed that I was in for an unnecessarily prolonged cash-grab that had the potential to (very) quickly outstay its welcome.

Thankfully, The Hobbit isn't nearly as tedious as it could have been. From time to time, the feeling that things are being stretched a little thin is tangible, but, for the most part, it's a stirring, gripping adventure. The movie also does a nice job of connecting itself to its predecessors (or should I say forebearers?), and the introduction of the principal players is both whimsical and wrought with a sense of impending danger—something that adds needed weight to stakes that we, as an audience, know will ultimately be resolved (this, I think, is the primary curse of prequel feature films).

Any other criticisms that I have come in the form of many of the movie's more intense moments and how they're worked out. My memory is hazy regarding the film's source material, but many pages were clearly taken out of the LotR playbook when it seems "all hope is lost," and though this sort of reminiscence will certainly bring a smile to the faces of fans, it would have been nice to see the movie do something a little more aggressive to try and separate itself from the original series.

It's clear, however, that Jackson still loves Middle-earth and its inhabitants, and it's a virtual certainty that the remaining films will be welcome excursions. Here's hoping that part two of this particular adventure will be both tightly wrought and surprising in equal measure.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed