keitharan Reviews

Free State of Jones (2016)

Great story, good acting, worth seeing

[7/10 · 28 June 2016]

I enjoyed the movie and would have rated it an 8 but for some pacing issues, including how they awkwardly managed the flash forward scenes to the sub-plot with Newton Knight's descendant.

I'm not a history buff, but also not opposed to learn about compelling stories, and this was one. Who knew that there was this sub-war going on in the middle of the Civil War, or about this Lincoln-esque southern guy willing to fight the good fight? Knight was an inspiring guy who somehow saw forest through the trees and had courage to do right in a world with wrong going on all around him.

The acting was quite good. I particularly enjoyed fresh faces like Mahershala Ali (Moses) and Gugu-Mbatha Raw (Rachel). The script was not full of period clichés or overly polish, things I appreciated in a movie like Tombstone, but could have been a distraction in Free State which fortunately kept it real.

Matthew McConaughey was excellent in the lead as the gritty Newton Knight. Not as gritty as his brother Rooster, but the grit suits him. Very believable. But this is not a movie that shines due to his good looks, rather from his good acting.

Some of the more critical reviews made comment about FSoJ as "hopelessly adrift", "trips over its own themes as it stumbles aimlessly," "is confusing", and "It's not that the story itself is hard to follow, but Gary Ross' script and direction fail to make clear key personal relationships in the film, and throughout its 2 ¼ hours, it makes the audience wonder where the story is going and whether this movie has much of a point at all."

Wow! All I can tell you is that I did not know the story, and there were some moments where it fumbles, but I kept up with it just fine. For me the movie's strengths far outweighed its weaknesses. Definitely not an average or sub-par movie — the subject matter alone puts it ahead of so many other films.

At times I questioned the casting on some of the supporting roles, but that may be Hollywood conditioning thing, and on reflection this cast probably showed what people were like back in that day.

After the movie I read up on the Davis Knight story. He was the great grandson who was embattled in a miscegenation trial in 1940s Mississippi. He was 1/8 African American, looked white (in the movie) and married a white woman; a crime back in the day in Mississippi. Have to wonder why they didn't prosecute the white wife. Hmm.

It goes to show you how much times have changed: now days in Mississippi Batman can marry Superman, dogs can marry cats, and democrats can marry republicans. You won't see any of that in Raqqa. It's a crazy mixed up world folks.

To sum things up, it's not a perfect movie, and there were some issues making it hard to track at times, but a fascinating sub-plot to the real Civil War, it kept my interest, and the acting was good. Any movie that has me reading up on its story after the film has got to be worth seeing.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)

Ascending The Reviews

[8/10 · 10 February 2015]

I almost did not see Jupiter Ascending, and it would have been a shame to miss it on the big screen.

Negative reviews had me convinced it was a movie with a good premise, great CG, but otherwise suffering from an insufferable script and poor character development, and did not meet the litmus test as compared to other sci-fi films.

But, a last minute gut call got me to the theater. Despite the reviews, it was an intriguing premise, Mila Kunis is equal parts cool and hot, and some IMDb reviewers noted that that some movies are worth seeing just for the special effects.

They were right about the special effects - very cool, and I saw it in 2D. Am not a fan of 3D, but Jupiter Ascending may be the first movie I return to see in 3D.

As for the script, was it the best? No. But, not nearly as vacuous as some have said. It good enough not to be a distraction.

Character development was far better than just the two principals (Kunis as Jupiter, Tatum as Caine). Not a lot of time was devoted to other character development, but they did a decent job with the time they did spend. Redmayne as the chief antagonist was far better than most gave credit.

All said, this movie was worth my time, and if they produced a sequel I would see it.

Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)

Oscar -worthy... an 11 year old with an old soul; powerful movie, powerful performance

[8/10 · 29 June 2012]

I saw BoSW at Sundance 2012, at Park City's Egyptian Theatre for the last showing (Sunday afternoon) of the Festival. The night before BoSW won the "Best of Fest" award, and people were practically fighting for the last handful of reserved seats - too many VIPs who think they're descended from Moses.

Given that buzz, and that my take on recent Sundance winners is not terribly impressive, I did not expect much from BoSW, anticipating mediocrity. I was wrong.

BoSW is dramatic,powerful and moving. The plot was anything but formulaic. Plenty of substance, leaning a bit to the environmental/social 'causey.

Fresh faces, and totally engaging. The 9 year old lead, Qz, was spectacular, charismatic in every way and carried the movie like, well, like a 12 year old (:

I recently saw Moonrise Kingdom - another great movie. BoSW is that much more dramatic, with more depth, and just a shining example of how powerful movies can be from script to score, to performance and plot. Beautiful and brilliant, yet gritty in every good way.

If indies are not your thing, and unconventional stories don't call to you, then maybe BoSW isn't for you (but you might want to do a soul-check...to see if you have one). On the other hand, if you're up for a truly special moving-going experience, then BoSW is one not to miss - even if the best you can do is DVD. I really hope that it doesn't get over looked by the Academy, because it is so very Oscar-worthy.

Home Improvement: Birds of a Feather Flock to Taylor (1992) Season 1, Episode 20

"You don't have to understand a woman. All you have to do, is love her."

[10/10 · 3 August 2010]

"You don't have to understand a woman. All you have to do, is love her." - Eddie Phillips as played by Ernest Borgnine - actual dialog from script is below

That's the memorable quote from this episode "Birds of a Feather Flock to Taylor," #1.20. You might find it on the web as attributed to the Wilson character who's renown for his quotes, but this one is attributable to the Eddie Phillips character played by Ernest Borgnine - who to date - 8/3/10- is 93 years old and still active with 4 projects currently under production.

The other guest star on this episode is the great Jack Elam as Hick Peterson. One of the greatest character actors in American history, Elam passed away in 2003.

Jack Elam and Ernest Borgnine, that alone is worth a vote of 10.

From the show:

Eddie: -- after his wife died]-- I was married to Tildy for 45 years, and the woman drove me absolutely crazy. She had these ugly little porcelain cats that she loved to line up on a window sill. Every day for 45 years, I used to take those cats off the window sill and put them in a cupboard. And every day for 45 years, she'd take the cats out of the cupboard and put them back on the window sill.

Tim: Where are they now?

Eddie: On a window sill.

Tim: You didn't throw them out?

Eddie: What for? ...pause... You don't have to understand a woman. All you have to do, is love her.

Taken (I) (2008)

you will feel as though you've been "taken"...wait for free cable

[4/10 · 7 February 2009]

Ouch!

An hour gone by since leaving the theater and I am still recovering from the painful, excruciating 93 minute experience called TAKEN; A film so weak, and terrible from plot to script, to flow, to acting, that I cannot bear to hash over the detail. If you are debating on whether to see it, or if you should trust the high IMDb score, help yourselves and trust me: wait for it to appear on free cable.

TAKEN lacks depth at all levels, and it pains me to slam it like this. Honestly, I am torn. Liam Neeson is one of my favorite actors and I'd like to give any movie he is in props just for having him in it. But I can't do it for Taken. The only reason I did not walk out of the theater is that I believed - hoped, there was a good reason for an actor of Neeson's depth, and resume of riches, to contract for such drivel.

But there is something bigger here than my opinion of this movie: the high IMDb score noted above.

I read several of the very favorable reviews and found them suspiciously lopsided, and written with unnatural professionalism. All I can think is either: a) I just don't get this movie and something is wrong with me; or b) IMDb has been corrupted by a vast Hollywood conspiracy.

Here's my theory: the economic recession has turned the porn industry flaccid, leaving a great swath of affordable real estate in the San Fernando Valley, and leagues of unemployed writers willing to "work for food", in this case: sign a non-disclosure agreement and write fraudulent reviews to falsely inflate IMDb scores and deceive moviegoers, driving them to see films, rent DVDs etc, all for the benefit of those along the money chain.

Unlike some of the other mediocre reviews, I cannot even give high marks for the action or fight choreography. Yes there's lots of it. But it's so over-the-top, with Neeson going virtually unscratched after dodging a thousand bullets and countless mano-a-mano encounters, it is just silly.

So, Mr. Neeson, please forgive me, and please get busy on Rob Roy: the Golden Years.

Redbelt (2008)

Red Belt deserves a Yellow Belt

[6/10 · 15 May 2008]

Advertising an all-star cast, the trailer for Red Belt, and two generous reviews from otherwise reliable TV sources, inspired hope in me that Red Belt might reset the bar for martial arts action films, marking an end to the Bruce Lee era, exiting that dragon and entering a new era of fight realism adjoined to excellence in cinema. I believe David Mamet wanted to make such a movie in Red Belt, and failed.

Key themes in Red Belt, and the overriding moral dilemma confronted by the lead character, simply did not amount to much. They present a character, Mike Terry, self-defense instructor, man with profound conviction to his principles, place him in a silly, laughable, and totally unbelievable situation, and gets worse from here.

There are few fight scenes in Red Belt, and this was okay by me because the goal, I thought, was to make a real movie, unlike film fodder from Charles Norris et al,where plots are the meek excuse for flashy, over-choreographed fight action at every street corner, and good guys always prevail.

Sadly, problems for Red Belt begin at the plot, which was not terribly engaging or inspiring, and riddled with more holes than gay porn. Some plot development was just plain silly, and other story lines, like the idea that professional fighters in the violent cage of MMA, would sign onto a fight card and willingly subject themselves to a severe physical handicap - an arm tied down to the waist,and face a fighter sans handicap, or that a state regulatory agency would give the stamp of approval to such an event, is absurd, if not downright boneheaded. The whole idea of pitting unequals against each other, is contrary to the essence of MMA, where men bring their very best against that of other men. How Mamet lost sight of this is beyond me.

Besides the plot's fatal flaws, the fight scenes are sabotaged by poor camera angles, and less than thrilling technique. No disrespect to the fight choreographers, Rico Chiapparelli and John Machado, both of whom could beat me down with a mild case of halitosis,the fight scenes in Red Belt could have been more dynamic and still manage to capture realism. Even the two fight scenes critical to the plot, were dull. MMA and BJJ enthusiasts will be disappointed.

A few twists of the camera lens, an omoplata here, a gogoplata there, could not have rescued Red Belt from its flawed plot, but would have made a difference to appreciating the fight aspect of the film. And, for BJJ & MMA fans, who I gather make up a noteworthy fraction of Red Belt's audience, more dynamic fight action would have shaken some focus off the insufferable plot,and offered something worthwhile to jabber upon. At this end, the trick that Mamet missed was to achieve interesting, exciting fight action, and unfortunately,as fight action goes, Red Belt taps to a submission in the first round,via guillotine choke.

I am a fan of Chiwetel Ejiofor (Mike Terry, lead character), and I would not have gone to Red Belt had he, or an actor of his caliber not starred in the movie. In this role I found myself liking him, but feeling relatively neutral about it. This I am sure is due to the plot issues, and unimpressive script. It is not bad writing, nor is it good, and I expected better from a Mamet film. And Ejiofor, should he want to go down the path of action star,deserves a better vehicle.

The tag line for Red Belt, "There is always a way out. You just have to find it," is a hokey rip from BJJ academies. It is cheesy to build a script upon cliché. They also abuse the axiomatic wit that martial artists say about the colored belt system, that belts are symbolic and, "just hold up your pants" - a poor choice to embrace twice, and canned lines of this ilk are no help to an already struggling script.

Red Belt did have an all-star cast including cameos by notable MMA/BJJ enthusiasts from the acting world, and all-stars from the MMA world. But,no outstanding performances, not even Ejiofor.

I need to be fair and note that I was expecting the MMA guys to be awkward and stiff under the lens, but they were not half-bad, and exceeding my expectations. I enjoyed seeing familiar faces, like Frank 'TTs' Trigg who showed up in a couple scenes, but no lines despite showing crossover talent at other venues. Randy Couture was surprisingly good. Not great, but good. And I'm not just saying that to spare myself a beating from a man who is arguably the biggest bad-ass to ever pummel the planet.

I would be remiss not to say that I did not hear one mention of the Gracie family in Red Belt. There is something just wrong about that. The movie, at its end, was all about paying homage and honor to a grand master, and dismissing the Gracie name is the equivalent to not mentioning Bruce Lee in a documentary about martial arts movies. I suspect personal rivalries are behind this decision.

Time to ring the bell on the final round: - MMA & BJJ fans will be disappointed by the fight scenes. - Fight movie fans will be disappointed that the movie is shy on fight action. -General movie fans will be unimpressed by the script,and aghast at the plot. -Star power could not rescue this movie.

Borrowing on the tag line, for Red Belt there may have been a way out (from the curse of sub-par martial arts movies), but they did not find it.

Unanimous Decision: Red Belt deserves a Yellow Belt.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)

Expectation Matchstick

[7/10 · 8 July 2007]

Just back from the theater and thought, "FFRSS... exactly as I could have hoped for." The greatest film ever: of course not. Shakespearean caliber performances: of course not. So, you ask, "how did it meet my expectations?"

For starters, my expectations were real, their backbone being the first FF. If you saw that, you could not possibly expect this second installment to offer much more. Nothing groundbreaking, nothing astounding. Just a playful, escapist, superhero action movie based semi-faithfully on its roots as a playful, escapist, superhero comic book. And cool CGI as the trailer unveiled. Armed with this as a backdrop to what FFRSS might bring to the table, I'd say it exceeded my expectations, a little. In part because the characters are familiar, and despite an absence of striking depth, they have genuine likability.

This is not to say FFRSS is an outstanding movie. Nor is there a noteworthy flaw. The plot is neither three-dimensional, nor totally lacking. The script is weak, but with some funny/cutesy one-liners that seemed to come off universally well with the crowd at my theater. The acting was mediocre, but counter-balanced by the likable characters, an ounce affection for the comic book roots, and a pinch of latitude for the genre.

And, considering this genre, and the expectation standard established by the first FF, it seems bizarre that so many folk have inked reviews on IMDb which parse and pick at this movie as though it was billed as an Oscar contender. And comparing it to action hero gems like Spiderman, or Pirates, etc. I mean, really, how could anyone stand in line at the box office with that sort of expectation? Yet, they do.

And one guy...Sa'ar Vardi([e-mail]), from Israel...had the matzoh balls to pick at every actor from every angle, even stating that "Jessica Alba isn't even that pretty any more." Good God and OYE VEY...what is wrong with you dude (dudess). Do I hear a cat fight, or have you switched teams? I'd wager that even when she is invisible, Alba has more sugar on the eye than you.

What should you expect? Well, let's see.

This movie is about 4 comic book characters, one who turns into a flying matchstick, one who becomes invisible, one who turns into plastic elastic, and one who is a rock (made of sponge). That's the expectorant you should toss in one pocket before reaching into the other. The Silver Surfer character was cool, and the special effects a little more interesting than the previous FF.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

If you have not read the book...not as easy to follow as the first 3, not as much depth to plot, not recommended as a first glimpse in Harry Potter line

[6/10 · 25 November 2005]

A fan of the other HP movies, I am glad to have seen GoF on the big screen, even though for me it was not up to par with the first three. With cast and characters now cemented as familiar old friends, it was nice to visit them once again, and to see they have grown comfortably in acting skill.

As a young adult, Ms Hermione Granger has blossomed from cute kid to beautiful young woman with sex appeal, though I feel a bit of a perv for pointing that out since I am considerably older. But the fact is that adding the dimension of young adulthood to all of the characters helps us more ripened folk stay attracted to the movie series, though one has to wonder if the next HP movie to follow will be the last for this soon to be over-the-pubescent-hill group of actors.

Special effects in HP4 are possibly better in some respects than the first movies. Sadly, the spell that wore off on me is the plot which did not have the depth as the previous movies. This was an adventurous action romp unraveling the dreams(nightmares) of Harry as they entwined with ongoings at Hogwarts. Nothing wrong with that, however, the mystery element in the other HP movies offered more intrigue to keep my interest. The others had twists and curves and a moderately challenging mystery to solve. HP4 carried on more like an action/chase scene. One comment I've heard is that this movie was darker, and short on whimsy compared with the previous HP films. I didn't see that. Plenty of worthy whimsy in HP4 if you ask me, some a bit more sophisticated than the previous films.

I did not read this book, nor any of the HP books (I can just imagine sitting at a coffee shop, at my well-seasoned age, whipping out a Harry Potter book), and this movie lost me at times, but not because it was too complex. It just seemed to have holes that only someone who had read the book could instinctively fill in.

All-in-all a good movie worth seeing if you're a fan of the others, but not recommended to the uninitiated as a first foire in Harry Potter genre.

Lord of War (2005)

Lord of War (LOW)...Passes the Pee Test

[9/10 · 22 September 2005]

The Spent Shell:

A compelling and thought provoking film, surprisingly different from what one might expect by its name, or from Nicholas Cage. LOW is Cage's best acting in years, a role well suited to him, with a superb supporting cast. More importantly, beyond fine acting, is a movie with a solid core: a strong script, commanding cinematography, and a great story of moral and social significance.

Not reading other reviews or even a storyline, I took a chance on LOW, expecting an action thriller. I was wrong. LOW is based on real life events, and is better painted a docu-drama that contains action and suspense. But its heart is the story, and this is never overshadowed by Hollywood antics.

While it may not sound like your beyond the pale, morally objectionable subject, this eye-opening exposé of the illicit gun running trade makes a personal connection at every level of human life, including yours in the theater seat. Not a moment passes where some deeper conflict is not underway, from personal moral choices to big socio-political issues concerning the greater good of humanity. That's a pretty fat range which could be easily mishandled, but is carried off masterfully in LOW.

After watching LOW I read some IMDb reviews that said, "preachy" and "didn't need to be spelled-out." I simply disagree. For me these things were delivered comfortably within the context of the movie, mostly as questions juxtaposed by opposing points of view. For me this was helpful, and nothing felt shoveled down my throat.

Woven throughout was the question, "does a gun runner have any moral obligation or connection to how the guns are ultimately used." Asked many times, and answered with various layers of rational, it is best handled in a scene between Cage's character "Uri Orlov", and his wife, "Ava Fontaine" played provocatively by Bridget Moynahan, who says, "Because it's wrong."

If anything, I would have liked to see stronger development between Uri and Ava. Not because Moynahan is a classic over-30 beauty, but because the relationship was interesting and had chemistry, and made for an engaging sub-plot. Of course the movie would have been longer. Okay by me.

Note: "A Bullet's Life", is the opening introduction to LOW, depicting journey of a bullet from gun powder to its deadly result, and this small gem of a moment could easily stands on its own as a great movie short— albeit short even for a short.

In the end LOW definitely passed the Pee test, and is well worth seeing in the theater, or for sure with your undivided attention when it comes out on DVD. And you are asking, "what is that Pee test." It's the test for a movie based on a medium Diet-Coke. How long you are willing to hold out, or better said, in?

Red Eye (2005)

not outstanding, but worthy of a big Screen view

[8/10 · 27 August 2005]

In any other summer I would give this movie a solid 7, but after the "Summer of Duds, Red Eye gets an extra wink from my sore red eyes. Fresh, but not overly familiar faces, Rachael McAdams, Cilian Murphy, and Brian Cox, deliver solid performances on mediocre material.

Red Eye is not a thriller on par with the likes of Silence of the Lambs, but is well worth a drive to see it on the big screen. Fifteen more minutes of screen time could have been devoted to deepening the the plot and character development, but these things are forgivable because all of the other ingredients were there to make this an enjoyable movie.

March of the Penguins (2005)

Possibly more punch per penguin as an IMAX?... flaws in script, concept, soundtrack - better candidate as PBS special, but weak by those standards, okay for a matinée

[6/10 · 28 July 2005]

Wanting to be more generous than my reluctant 6 star vote because I am glad to see documentaries find their way to the big screen, I am sad to say that March of the Penguins, like the very birds themselves, did not fly. It might have had more punch per penguin as an IMAX, but in the theater it fell flat. But FYI, my date thought the penguins were cute and that was enough to forgive any other flaws in the movie.

Not being bound by that tug on my heartstrings, I found penguin mating/migration to be a less than impressive justification for an $8 theater ticket, and at best is matinée worthy. The script was weak, though I did enjoy the familiar narration by the always likable voice of Morgan Freeman. And this script was full of inappropriate humanimations in which human traits are superimposed on animals. The soundtrack was over-the-top, after all, this is a documentary about penguins, not a romance feature film.

Two curious things: penguins spend most of their time above ground walking fully erect with human-like bipedal motion; with virtually no natural defenses against predators, even the likes of a seagull, Penguins present possibly the greatest challenge to the evolutionary tenet of survival of the fittest.

If you love furry animals, you will probably like this film no matter what anybody says. If you catch a matinée, with restrained expectations you will likely waddle out not too dissatisfied.

Lastly, this film will not keep the interest of little kids who will go stir crazy and annoy the adults around them.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)

get a magazine

[6/10 · 15 July 2005]

My date picked this movie. When we left the theater I said to her, "from now on I'll pick the movies." She said, "that's probably a good idea."

Mr. & Mrs. Smith was supposed to be a campy, action packed, big-star studded War of The Roses on steroids sort of film. I guess it was a lot of those things. It just didn't work. It was campy, but in a disingenuous sort of way because Jolie and Pitt come across as if they are really just playing themselves, giving us a wink and nod that this is a movie made primarily so we can get a good look at them. It was action packed, but in an absurd sort of way. It had big stars, but the bigger the star does not mean the better the actor. And it was sort of like the War of The Roses on steroids, but Brad and Angelina are not Michael and Kathleen. This script was amateur compared with Roses, and the plot was just too flimsy.

Usually a weak script and plot are enough for me to dislike about a movie, but my least favorite thing about M&M Smith is that entirety is so strongly anchored to the looks of Pitt and Jolie. OKAY, WE GET IT, THEY ARE GOOD LOOKING, but this is not porn, and movies can't get by on looks alone.

Off the screen Pitt does seem like a nice guy who is humble and means well, and that's worthy of respect. And he is handsome, pretty...insert whatever good looking adjective you like. But he is a mediocre actor. I have yet to see him take on a role that called for substantial acting talent. He is safe relying on looks, but I'd like to see how he fares taking on a little risk. Maybe he has the potential, but the way I see it he has not developed that potential, nor a range, and most definitely not in this movie.

The same is true of Jolie, except she adds the unpleasant dimension of shamelessly reminding you in every scene that she is a very pretty, sexy...insert whatever good looking adjective you like. She doesn't do this by getting into the role as an actor, trusting that her looks will shine brighter if she allows a little humility to guide them. Instead she delivers these arrogant "everybody's looking at me" smirks. That's fine for the hot looking woman sitting in the bar who likes that kind of superficial attention--can't even tell you how many times it's gotten my attention, but that's not what I'm looking for when I see a movie. But I guess a lot of people are. You will see Brad Pitt in a badly fitting pair of boxers, and Angelina exercise her ego, and this was an annoyance to me, and my date.

In my opinion you are better off staring at a magazine cover for 90 minutes. It would be a cheaper way to get your fix of two attractive people, and you would not be nearly as disappointed when you put it down.

One last note: this movie was fairly violent, lots of language, and sexual innuendo. It's not for young kids

War of the Worlds (2005)

could have been a great movie...not even Tom Cruise's son, fueled with the power of his father's love for Katie Holmes, could have survived

[5/10 · 15 July 2005]

(Spoilers looming, you can read this, but heed the warnings when you get there)

War of the Worlds could have been a great movie. It should have been a great movie. It could have been a good movie. It should have been a good movie. It could have been an okay movie. It should have been an okay movie. It was a bad movie.

This said, let me introduce a few positives: Special effects were good, and great. Tom Cruise was solid. Casting was good. The acting was good. As a courtesy to the future of the world, Dakota Fanning should donate DNA samples to every family in America that wants to raise children. The world would be a better, cuter place.

Why is it a bad movie? It is bad because it fell completely apart about 2/3 of the way through, ending in a cheap cliché. Bad because Steven Spielberg lost sight that HG Wells wrote the novel 108 years ago, and I'm not even sure the end would have worked then, or in the 1953 version of the film. Bad for having special effects that were modern marvels, but a plot stuck in the dark ages. This is a shameful mess-o-Spielberg (and I am a fan).

What went wrong? Two words...Spielberg, Steven.

He seemed to get confused somewhere along the way. He should never have released this film, and instead pre-screened it to a bigger test audience, then called the actors back for a re-shoot of the last 1/3 of the movie, even if it meant delaying the release a year or two. He can afford it. War of the Worlds attempted to superimpose its 108 year storyline onto a modern world, and present it to a modern era of film goers. It failed.

Could it have worked? Yes. But the best special effects in the world can't make up for a weak plot. Modern audiences are monumentally more sophisticated when it comes to the movie going experience. They have the reasonable expectation that a plot should be dynamic, unfolding in an intelligible and logical way. This plot was stuck in 1898. The basic premise was sound...Aliens invade the earth, attack and eat the humans, they battle it out, and ultimately the humans win. That's an almost universal truth with the exception of Jerry Springer guests, whom I fear are aliens winning the battle of ignorance.

This plot was in desperate need of tweaking to meet modern needs. There were even a couple annoying sink holes in the beginning of the movie, but tolerable among the balance of action and special effects. And now, the spoilers...DON'T READ IF YOU WANT TO SEE THIS MOVIE (which despite my condemning review, might be worth your time just for the special effects, and for Dakota Fanning).

'da Spoilers...

Early on, the world is under attack and Tom Cruise is "borrowing" a car from the mechanic shop. All the other cars on the earth are not running, but this car is fixed within minutes after the attack. The mechanic (continuing to work while the world is under attack), is telling Cruise not to take the car because it will anger the owner, all the while people are running around in a panic being chased by giant tripods, tripoding around zapping people, yet this guy is totally oblivious and exclusively concerned about what the owner will think.... an extremely weak scene which should have been spotted and revamped.

From that poorly constructed scene War Of The Worlds becomes one long chase scene, Cruise and kids running from safe spot to safe spot, narrowly escaping a gruesome alien death all along the way. Then Cruise's son runs up to the top of a hill to watch a big battle between the army and aliens. The aliens win with a blast of atomic proportion. NOTHING, not even Tom Cruise's son, fueled by the power of his father's love for Katie Holmes, could have survived that blast.

Fast forward to the end of the movie, Tom drops his daughter off with her mother whose upscale brownstone neighborhood was miraculously spared, and out from nowhere comes the son, not even a limp - except for the one in plot.

Cruise and Fanning seek shelter underground with Tim Robbins. Something feels off in this scene. Soon after Cruise's character kills an alien tripod, and suddenly all the aliens are dying -- under attack from birds . Huh? Then it's over. Huh?

Then the screen fills with an image of the night sky, full of stars, and Morgan Freeman is heard narrating that the aliens were killed by microbial organisms. This leap to the end might have worked in 1898, and possibly 1953, but it doesn't work today. They needed to unfold that ending in the context of the movie. This, and letting the son die, would have made this movie a solid 7, and worth seeing.

Should you see it?

If you absolutely have to see some cool special effects, mostly in the first half of the movie, then you should see it because chances are they will not be as impressive on TV as they are on a big screen.

If you like seeing Dakota Fanning's toothless smile, you should see it, though her character in Man On Fire had far more depth.

If you like the idea of seeing Steven Spielberg make a flop, then see it.

If your name is Katie Holmes and your boyfriend is threatening to make you convert to a new a religion, then you should probably see it.

Cinderella Man (2005)

not just a good movie, a must see for teenagers

[9/10 · 15 July 2005]

Not that Cinderella Man needs any more positive reviews, there is a noteworthy observation I wanted to share: while Cinderella Man is the Jim Braddock story, it an equally worthy presentation of the Depression era, and the great struggles that faced Americans only 75 years ago. This is a movie which represents how art can make a dignified and powerful connection to its audience, and communicate something more than just a personal saga, a great love, fast action, or a confusing canvas with paint splattered on it. This movie would do commendable service as a screening film in high-school auditoriums for all kids, especially young boys. A compelling story, action, excellent acting and the excellent script will keep their attention, and exposure to an era of hardship and hard work will make for a lesson well learned to a young generation in which dignity, character, and values seem otherwise lost.

Batman Begins (2005)

reviews have been great, but...

[9/10 · 15 July 2005]

The reviews have been great, but even the best of the previous Batman movies fell short for me, and there was no way I would go see this one. But what can I say, some friends were going, and I'm a sucker for peer pressure. It's a great movie! They should remake all the other ones, stick with Nolan as the Director, Goyer for the story, Bale as Batman, and Katie Holmes as the sophisticated love interest. Liam Neeson was excellent as Ducard, and the entire ensemble had solid chemistry. Unfortunately they will need a new villain because that is a Batman requirement. Possibly Tom Cruise as the Joker could work. Okay, just kidding, poking a little fun at the Tom and Katie love fest. This is the road the Batman films should have been on from the beginning - much truer to the temperament of the comic book, with a well thought-out plot and a worthy script.

Fantastic Four (I) (2005)

Exceeded my low expectations, walked out pleasantly surprised

[7/10 · 15 July 2005]

Hmm, should I see this film or not?

After reading some IMDb reviews, and low user rating of 6.1, I figured FanFour was just another summer '05 dud... probably not a limp strip of emulsion the likes of Daredevil, just the latest weak link in the recent flaccid chain of Hollywood efforts. One more film dumbed down and numbed up just enough to get parents to fork over $20 to their kids, waiting on its real payday in the video market. One reviewer put it squarely between Daredevil and Spiderman. So, I decided NOT to see FanFour.

Then I had a really bad day at work and decided a little escapism, even if it was mediocre, was in order. My choice was between the less than bewitching Bewitched, and not-so-Fantastic Four. FanFour began at a more convenient time, clinching the deal.

As it turns out, I guess I am a bit more forgiving than the the average IMDb user. I enjoyed it. Yes, FanFour is between Daredevil and Spiderman, but notably closer to Spiderman. Spidey, XMen & X2, these are classics, as is the recent Batman Begins. These movies give the genre credibility, and share some common threads: all have adult appeal; all make the best of special effects; all did not lose sight of the fact that those effects needed to be built around a movie, not the other way around. (for you producers / directors out there who seem lost sight of this, movies are cinematic stories built first around a plot, carried off by a script. Remember this and you might live to film another day )

FanFour had likable characters, reasonably well developed, though not the depth of Toby Maguire as Spiderman, or Christian Bale in Batman Begins. Then again, you've got four superheros, so just imagine the competition for face time on the widescreen. When it comes to character development, the FanFour do approach those other DNA mutants, the X Men. FanFour superpowers are in the same genetic phylum, but it's hard to beat the superstar cast of X Men, with super cool, yet deeply flawed personalities like Jackman's Wolverine. Nonetheless, FanFour hold their own.

The plot is standard predictable fare, a tried and true formula that will only fail if you fill it full of holes, or carry it out with a bad script, or bad acting. But FanFour had a decent script, trying a bit too hard for that Schwarzeneggarian one-liner, but only at a couple moments by Michael Chiklis' character "Ben Grimm, AKA the Thing." And this is a minor footnote, fully forgivable because Chiklis is a fine actor and makes the Thing a completely endearing character, especially at one moment when he gives a look with his eyes, much like Puss & Boots in Shrek 2, and you just want to give the big boulder a hug. Borrowing "Clobberin' time", from previous incarnations of the Fantastic Four, brought cheers from my theater audience, and some one-liners were worthy, working well as a counterbalance within the playfully antagonistic relationship between The Thing and Chris Evans', The Human Torch, AKA Johnny Storm. This sort of plot/character development , much like that between XMen's Wolverine and Cyclops, adds depth and brought an enjoyable dimension to FanFour.

As Johnny Storm, Evans is playfully devilish. A thrill-seeking adrenaline junkie, terribly likable and charismatic, and the human link between the characters in the movie and the world at large, including the audience inside the theater. No doubt all the young girls have noted his superhero sex appeal, unless they find themselves attracted to The Thing due to an Elektra complex and a daddy who looks like a large pinkish turd.

Jessica Alba as the Invisible Woman does a fine job, and there is a great strip scene that you will see, but you won't see, if you see what I mean. And it's no stretch to enjoy Ioan Gruffudd as Reed Richards, rubber man / scientific genius leader of the Fan Four. He's given the job of a dry scientist, strong of mind, weak on emotion, and he does it well. But his warm looks and gentle persona draw you to him, and this works well to build tension throughout the movie as you wonder if a spark will be ignited between his character and Jessica Storm.

One last note about Julian McMahon as the villainous Doom. This guy gives me the creeps as the shallow, morally challenged doctor on Nip/Tuck, and that quality translates well to the big screen. A good bad guy is a good thing.

This was a good movie, though it could have benefited from a little refining of the script, and about 15 more minutes of movie, the extra time devoted to character & plot development. While I was hesitant to walk into the theater before the movie, I walked out pleasantly surprised. If they do a sequel I am interested enough to see how they will develop the characters, including a love interest for the Thing, and for me that says it all.