The classic Jackson Browne song finally makes it to the big screen. No, just seeing if you are paying attention.
"Stay" is a psychothriller with a twist: it tells you upfront there will be a twist. A psychiatrist sees a troubled patient who announces the time and date when he will off himself. The shrink then tries to figure the guy out before it’s too late.
The twist I mentioned – this is not a spoiler as the movie telegraphs it – is not a pull the rug out twist, as in "Sixth Sense," "Usual Suspects" or "Memento," but a device to hold your attention while it tells you a good story and "Stay" is a good story. If you like a movie where you have no idea what will happen next, "Stay" will do the trick for you.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Serenity - October 2005
I had high hopes for "Serenity," a movie based on a short-lived TV series called "Firefly." I enjoy watching "Firefly" and a big screen version of a favorite TV series is every sci-fi geek’s ultimate dream, especially those of us who had our spirits crushed by "Star Trek The Motion Picture." I’m happy to report that "Serenity" is faithful to the series and is a great adventure flick in its own right.
"Serenity" opened almost a month ago and is starting to drift to discount theaters, but if you are an adventure fan I highly recommend finding "Serenity." You don’t need to be familiar with "Firefly" to enjoy it, although it wouldn’t hurt, especially in the dozen or so scenes where the geeks around you are cheering and you’re not sure why.
[2009: Where to start? How about with the puns? "I highly recommend finding Serenity." That's bad enough. My original draft implored you to find Serenity now. Even I have pun restraint some days.
Taken as a whole, the 14 episodes of "Firefly" and the movie "Serenity" are quite a package. Every aficionado that I've talked to agrees that two of the episodes would be on the list of the best TV episodes of all time, but no one agrees which episodes, which should tell you about the quality of all the episodes and how each one touches people differently. Oh, pretty much everyone agrees that the last episode is fantastic. Don't make faces.
As I said, "Serenity" is a great action movie all by itself, but the ability to create visual images that a low-budget TV show couldn't packs an extra punch for those familiar with "Firefly." The amazing Joss Whedon, who created the series and wrote & directed the movie, was able to capture the magic of the series and move the story forward with the movie quite effectively.
I could go on forever about how wonderful "Firefly" and "Serenity" are, but I think you've gotten the point. If you are a sci-fi, adventure or western fan, they are must-sees for you. If nothing else, you have to see the scene where Summer Glau's character, River, kicks a bad guy in the back of the head while standing in front, facing away from him, and they didn't use special effects to make it happen. Really.]
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - November 2005
Each of the Harry Potter novels has been different from the one before, as have the movies based on those novels. In essence, as the Harry Potter saga moves forward, it breaks new ground. "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" (henceforth: GoF) boldly breaks that new ground relative to the previous stories and reinvents the way the Harry Potter stories are told.
GoF discards many, many story threads from the novel. You won’t miss them. What remains is only that which moves the main story forward. Gone are Harry’s muggle relatives, displays of magic for no reason, quidditch matches, and several side characters (Bye, Dobby, we’ll miss you! Not). What is left is an eye-popping, jaw dropping, nail biting, chill inducing thrill ride that doesn’t slow done at all for its 144-minute running time.
Most importantly, GoF maintains the dark tone of the novel. Harry and the others find themselves in mortal danger several times and we believe it. He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named shows up in two forms and is spooky in both. Harry, Ron and Hermione appear not as the leader and his entourage, but as bickering teenagers, each with their own agendas.
In short, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" is a worthy successor to the first three movies and sets the bar pretty high for "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," scheduled to be released in Summer, 2007. I can’t wait.
[2009: July 2007 came soon enough. "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" was also excellent, as was this month's "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." The novels are better, but the movies have all been pretty good.]
GoF discards many, many story threads from the novel. You won’t miss them. What remains is only that which moves the main story forward. Gone are Harry’s muggle relatives, displays of magic for no reason, quidditch matches, and several side characters (Bye, Dobby, we’ll miss you! Not). What is left is an eye-popping, jaw dropping, nail biting, chill inducing thrill ride that doesn’t slow done at all for its 144-minute running time.
Most importantly, GoF maintains the dark tone of the novel. Harry and the others find themselves in mortal danger several times and we believe it. He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named shows up in two forms and is spooky in both. Harry, Ron and Hermione appear not as the leader and his entourage, but as bickering teenagers, each with their own agendas.
In short, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" is a worthy successor to the first three movies and sets the bar pretty high for "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," scheduled to be released in Summer, 2007. I can’t wait.
[2009: July 2007 came soon enough. "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" was also excellent, as was this month's "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." The novels are better, but the movies have all been pretty good.]
The Pink Panther - Febuary 2006
This movie really didn’t need to be made. The original Pink Panther movies were made in the 1960s and early 1970s, a time of completely different sensibilities for the world in general and movies in particular. The 2006 version just seemed silly and naïve.
Slapstick is a classic visual art form but it loses something in the modern world. Buster Keaton and the Three Stooges are timeless, as is Peter Seller’s Inspector Clouseau; Steve Martin’s is forgettable. Even if they had cast someone a generation younger than Steve Martin, it’s still hard to buy into a slapstick movie with computer generated effects.
[2009: I hear they made a sequel to this dog. I skipped it and I hope enough other people skipped it that no one bothers to make a third one.]
Slapstick is a classic visual art form but it loses something in the modern world. Buster Keaton and the Three Stooges are timeless, as is Peter Seller’s Inspector Clouseau; Steve Martin’s is forgettable. Even if they had cast someone a generation younger than Steve Martin, it’s still hard to buy into a slapstick movie with computer generated effects.
[2009: I hear they made a sequel to this dog. I skipped it and I hope enough other people skipped it that no one bothers to make a third one.]
Final Destination 3 - Febuary 2006
You’d think a movie with the word 'Final' in the title wouldn’t be allowed to have a single sequel, much less two. However, when Tinseltown finds success in something original and innovative, it just can’t resist trying to leverage that success by repeating and diluting it. Hence I found myself sitting through the second sequel of a movie with the word 'Final' in the title.
To recap, "Final Destination" found a young person having a premonition of a disaster and saving himself and a handful of others from the catastrophe. An unseen and apparently cheated Death then started recapturing the survivors one by one. In FD, Death was very creative and had quite the sense of humor, witness the use of John Denver music playing in the background at every death scene. Same plot for FD2, although Death wasn’t quite as creative or lyrical, but the movie had a comely heroine, so I was on board. However, while Death in FD was akin to Rube Goldberg, in FD3 he’s more like Tony Montana. There is no humor whatsoever in this incarnation.
FD3 also had a comely heroine, so I was ready to give it a pass even though it had more gore and less fun than its predecessors. That was until the last scene. FD3 doesn’t end, it just stops. We’ve all seen movies that use abrupt endings to imply more peril or an unexpected conclusion, but for that to work, it has to be set up. FD3 starts one last catastrophe involving the three who cheated death and just ends. No clue of how we’re supposed to think it ends or anything. Comely heroine or not, I insist my movies end appropriately. Therefore, I recommend you skip "Final Destination 3." Maybe this one will actually be final.
[2009: I saw a poster for "Final Destination 3D" the other day. How lame can a studio get? That's a rhetorical question. I'll be skipping that sequel.
The comely heroine from "Final Destination" was Ali Larter, who came to prominence in "Heroes." For me, FD was her follow-up to "Drive Me Crazy," so I was all aquiver to see her in FD.
The comely heroine from "Final Destination 2" was A.J. Cook, who is now seen in "Criminal Minds." In FD2, they dyed Cook's blond hair black and it, in combination with her pale blue eyes, made for a stunning look on the big screen, so much so that I feel disappointed when I see her as a blond on "Criminal Minds."
The comely heroine from "Final Destination 3" was Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who came close to being an "It" girl a few years ago but didn't quite reach critical mass. She was notable in "Sky High," "Death Proof," and "Die Hard with a Vengeance," but nothing yet to propel her to paparazzic heights.]
To recap, "Final Destination" found a young person having a premonition of a disaster and saving himself and a handful of others from the catastrophe. An unseen and apparently cheated Death then started recapturing the survivors one by one. In FD, Death was very creative and had quite the sense of humor, witness the use of John Denver music playing in the background at every death scene. Same plot for FD2, although Death wasn’t quite as creative or lyrical, but the movie had a comely heroine, so I was on board. However, while Death in FD was akin to Rube Goldberg, in FD3 he’s more like Tony Montana. There is no humor whatsoever in this incarnation.
FD3 also had a comely heroine, so I was ready to give it a pass even though it had more gore and less fun than its predecessors. That was until the last scene. FD3 doesn’t end, it just stops. We’ve all seen movies that use abrupt endings to imply more peril or an unexpected conclusion, but for that to work, it has to be set up. FD3 starts one last catastrophe involving the three who cheated death and just ends. No clue of how we’re supposed to think it ends or anything. Comely heroine or not, I insist my movies end appropriately. Therefore, I recommend you skip "Final Destination 3." Maybe this one will actually be final.
[2009: I saw a poster for "Final Destination 3D" the other day. How lame can a studio get? That's a rhetorical question. I'll be skipping that sequel.
The comely heroine from "Final Destination" was Ali Larter, who came to prominence in "Heroes." For me, FD was her follow-up to "Drive Me Crazy," so I was all aquiver to see her in FD.
The comely heroine from "Final Destination 2" was A.J. Cook, who is now seen in "Criminal Minds." In FD2, they dyed Cook's blond hair black and it, in combination with her pale blue eyes, made for a stunning look on the big screen, so much so that I feel disappointed when I see her as a blond on "Criminal Minds."
The comely heroine from "Final Destination 3" was Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who came close to being an "It" girl a few years ago but didn't quite reach critical mass. She was notable in "Sky High," "Death Proof," and "Die Hard with a Vengeance," but nothing yet to propel her to paparazzic heights.]
Firewall - Febuary 2006
I kept thinking the full title of this movie was "Managed Firewall" for some reason, but I don’t know why. "Firewall" is a generic aging action hero movie, with aging action hero actor Harrison Ford. It breaks no new ground and gives us no new, compelling reason to watch. In fact, if you saw "Hostage" last year, you’ve seen "Firewall." There were also several scenes that were exactly like scenes in Ford's "Air Force One." I don’t know if that was intentional or not but it sure was distracting. If you’re looking for a generic thriller, "Firewall" is about average, and that’s not all bad these days.
Now, if only I can get the title "Managed Firewall" out of my head.
[2009: If you worked with Onvoy's Professional Services products in 2006, that Managed Firewall quip might have been funny, but it seems kind of lame to me now. The movie does too. I don't know why I wasn't a little more savage with the review. My recollections of "Firewall" today are that it wasn't very good.]
Now, if only I can get the title "Managed Firewall" out of my head.
[2009: If you worked with Onvoy's Professional Services products in 2006, that Managed Firewall quip might have been funny, but it seems kind of lame to me now. The movie does too. I don't know why I wasn't a little more savage with the review. My recollections of "Firewall" today are that it wasn't very good.]
Hoodwinked! - Febuary 2006
I felt a little baited and switched when watching "Hoodwinked!" It’s an animated spoof on the Little Red Riding Hood story, turned into a police procedural. Think of it as "CSI: Enchanted Forest." I saw commercials for it during "Lost," so I thought it might have some content for adults. Nope, it’s a movie aimed squarely at teens and tweens. That’s not to say my inner child didn’t find numerous fun things in "Hoodwinked!" but the grown-up in me grew weary of the musical numbers and overly goofy resolution.
Lucky Number Slevin - April 2006
First off, "Lucky Number Slevin" is a lousy title for a really good movie. Josh Hartnett plays a guy who is mistaken for a deadbeat gambler and told to pay up or else. It’s a classic Hitchcockian mistaken identity plot device but the story twists halfway through to become more of a hardboiled mystery story. In fact, I guessed the ending before the movie revealed it because I recently read a mystery novel with a similar plot.
The first time I saw it, I thought the dialogue was a bit mannered and the reveal of the twist was too self-congratulatory, but then I spent the next two days thinking about all the details of story and the characters. When a movie stays with you for two days, that’s something. Someone—a David Mamet fan, no doubt—put a lot of thought into "Lucky Number Slevin." It’s violent and bloody, but the dialogue is crisp and the plot is complex but not dense. It’s also full of interesting visual details having nothing to do with the plot. It’s too bad "Lucky Number Slevin" didn’t get a better title.
The first time I saw it, I thought the dialogue was a bit mannered and the reveal of the twist was too self-congratulatory, but then I spent the next two days thinking about all the details of story and the characters. When a movie stays with you for two days, that’s something. Someone—a David Mamet fan, no doubt—put a lot of thought into "Lucky Number Slevin." It’s violent and bloody, but the dialogue is crisp and the plot is complex but not dense. It’s also full of interesting visual details having nothing to do with the plot. It’s too bad "Lucky Number Slevin" didn’t get a better title.
Thank You for Smoking - April 2006
The odds-on favorite for the Most Hyped Movie of the Year award, but it’s still a savagely funny rip not just on tobacco but on human nature.
She’s the Man - April 2006
OK, we’ve all seen dozens of variations on the themes of women pretending to be men and men pretending to be women, so I was pleasantly surprised that "She’s the Man" was quite entertaining. That was due in large part to the charms of Amanda Bynes. She gamely attacked the lead role, making with the silly and being a buffoon but not an idiot. Bynes has great physical comedy chops and is the single reason to see this movie.
"She’s the Man" is about a high school girl whose soccer team is disbanded who then goes to school in the next town over dressed as a boy. He/she makes friends, almost gets caught several times, falls in love and (perhaps) wins the big game. Since soccer, excuse me, futball, is such a big part of the plot, I think the title should have been "Genderbend It Like Beckham." All of it, as trite and clichéd as it sounds on paper, works when Amanda Bynes goes to it.
[2009: I have since acquired a DVD copy. I have to fast-forward through some parts but I still enjoy “She’s the Man” quite a bit. I could say pretty much the same thing about Bynes' movie "What a Girl Wants."]
"She’s the Man" is about a high school girl whose soccer team is disbanded who then goes to school in the next town over dressed as a boy. He/she makes friends, almost gets caught several times, falls in love and (perhaps) wins the big game. Since soccer, excuse me, futball, is such a big part of the plot, I think the title should have been "Genderbend It Like Beckham." All of it, as trite and clichéd as it sounds on paper, works when Amanda Bynes goes to it.
[2009: I have since acquired a DVD copy. I have to fast-forward through some parts but I still enjoy “She’s the Man” quite a bit. I could say pretty much the same thing about Bynes' movie "What a Girl Wants."]
Failure to Launch - April 2006
First things first: I can’t stand Sarah Jessica Parker. I’ve never cared for Matthew McConaughey. Nonetheless, I liked them both in "Failure to Launch." I enjoyed the movie but I never fully bought McConaughey as a 35-year-old babehound who lives with his parents. He’s the kind of guy who moves out while in high school. In any event, I enjoyed the chemistry, the chaos and Zooey Deschanel as the manic-depressive roommate who thought "To Kill a Mockingbird" was a how-to manual for bird control.
[2009: I stole the “kind of guy who moves out while in high school” line from Richard Roeper and I still feel bad about it. Sorry Richard. Three years later, I still can’t stand Sarah Jessica Parker but my impression of the movie still pretty positive, so I think I may watch the movie again sometime.]
[2009: I stole the “kind of guy who moves out while in high school” line from Richard Roeper and I still feel bad about it. Sorry Richard. Three years later, I still can’t stand Sarah Jessica Parker but my impression of the movie still pretty positive, so I think I may watch the movie again sometime.]
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
The Taking of Pelham 123
Open for only a couple of weeks, "The Taking of Pelham 123" is already leaving first-run theaters. That's too bad, as it's a decent flick. Not perfect by my impossibly high standards but a decent entertainment product.
The plot is easy to describe: a gang of bad guys hijacks a subway train and holds the passengers for a large ransom.
Denzel Washington is superb as the dispatcher who is forced to act as a go-between. John Travolta is a decade too old for his character and phoned in a few eccentricities, but what can you do? James Gandolfini played a character that didn't make me think of Tony Soprano, so that's good.
"The Taking of Pelham 123" has good drama, good suspense and a good story. I recommend it as a rental if you can't see it at the theaters while it's still out.
If I had to say something bad about it, and you know I do, it has to do with director Tony Scott's style. Lately he's been making movies with a super saturated color palette and a lot of steady-cam shots. The palette is hard to describe in print, but looks gritty and highlights warm colors. At one point, there was a bit of a chase scene that reminded me of "Deja Vu," no pun intended, also directed by Scott and starring Denzel, using the same saturated palette and steady-cam moves, and that pulled me away from the movie enough to remember that he used the same palette and steady-cam in "Man on Fire," also with Denzel. Its not the style I'd pick put I'm not the one making the movies.
The plot is easy to describe: a gang of bad guys hijacks a subway train and holds the passengers for a large ransom.
Denzel Washington is superb as the dispatcher who is forced to act as a go-between. John Travolta is a decade too old for his character and phoned in a few eccentricities, but what can you do? James Gandolfini played a character that didn't make me think of Tony Soprano, so that's good.
"The Taking of Pelham 123" has good drama, good suspense and a good story. I recommend it as a rental if you can't see it at the theaters while it's still out.
If I had to say something bad about it, and you know I do, it has to do with director Tony Scott's style. Lately he's been making movies with a super saturated color palette and a lot of steady-cam shots. The palette is hard to describe in print, but looks gritty and highlights warm colors. At one point, there was a bit of a chase scene that reminded me of "Deja Vu," no pun intended, also directed by Scott and starring Denzel, using the same saturated palette and steady-cam moves, and that pulled me away from the movie enough to remember that he used the same palette and steady-cam in "Man on Fire," also with Denzel. Its not the style I'd pick put I'm not the one making the movies.
I Love You, Beth Cooper
"I Love You, Beth Cooper" is going to suck. How do I know?
First, let me give you the context. "I Love You, Beth Cooper" opens in two weeks, it's rated PG-13 and it stars Hayden Panettiere. I've yet to see a preview or a commercial, but I'd bet it follows the basic "Boy meets girl, boy can't get girl, boy does something heroic and ends up with the girl" formula.
Why is it going to suck?
Hayden is one of the current "It" girls. She's hot, she's recognizable and she's hot. You know how you make money with a Hayden Panettiere movie? You put her picture on some posters and start the projectors. As long as you don't overspend while making the movie, you're guaranteed a hit, at least enough to generate a healthy profit on opening weekend. The whole idea of making movies is to get asses in seats and Hayden will get plenty of teenage boys' asses in seats just because she's hot.
Why is it going to suck?
I just read an interview with Hayden Panettiere pushing the movie where she's talking about her "nude scene." Nude scene? In a PG-13 movie? Starring an "It" girl? "It" girls never take their clothes off in a movie, only former "It" girls do. There is not going to be a nude scene in "I Love You, Beth Cooper." A teaser scene to be sure, maybe topless from the back or something equally tame, but no real nude scene.
Why is it going to suck?
If Hayden is talking about her nude scene, it can only be because they want to generate more interest among teenage boys, who normally would be lining up to see this kind of movie but won't if it sucks. Teasing a nude scene that isn't there will get some asses in seats but is not a sustainable strategy unless all you want is a good opening weekend, but if all you are going to get is a good opening weekend because you know there won't be any repeat business, we can conclude that "I Love You, Beth Cooper" is going to suck.
First, let me give you the context. "I Love You, Beth Cooper" opens in two weeks, it's rated PG-13 and it stars Hayden Panettiere. I've yet to see a preview or a commercial, but I'd bet it follows the basic "Boy meets girl, boy can't get girl, boy does something heroic and ends up with the girl" formula.
Why is it going to suck?
Hayden is one of the current "It" girls. She's hot, she's recognizable and she's hot. You know how you make money with a Hayden Panettiere movie? You put her picture on some posters and start the projectors. As long as you don't overspend while making the movie, you're guaranteed a hit, at least enough to generate a healthy profit on opening weekend. The whole idea of making movies is to get asses in seats and Hayden will get plenty of teenage boys' asses in seats just because she's hot.
Why is it going to suck?
I just read an interview with Hayden Panettiere pushing the movie where she's talking about her "nude scene." Nude scene? In a PG-13 movie? Starring an "It" girl? "It" girls never take their clothes off in a movie, only former "It" girls do. There is not going to be a nude scene in "I Love You, Beth Cooper." A teaser scene to be sure, maybe topless from the back or something equally tame, but no real nude scene.
Why is it going to suck?
If Hayden is talking about her nude scene, it can only be because they want to generate more interest among teenage boys, who normally would be lining up to see this kind of movie but won't if it sucks. Teasing a nude scene that isn't there will get some asses in seats but is not a sustainable strategy unless all you want is a good opening weekend, but if all you are going to get is a good opening weekend because you know there won't be any repeat business, we can conclude that "I Love You, Beth Cooper" is going to suck.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Catching Up
It’s not easy for a slacker like me to update my blog very often. It takes things called work and effort and these are strange concepts for me. Here is a list of some of the movies I’ve seen since the last entry along with a quick recommendation or wave-off.
“New in Town”
Despite being set in New Ulm, a town rife with comic potential, “New in Town” was just an ordinary fish-out-of-water flick. Skip it unless your standards are low or your alcohol level is high.
“Taken”
By all rights, this movie should have sucked but it didn’t. The charismatic Liam Neeson played one of those off-the-shelf invincible ex-spy hero types that saves the day. It should have been trite and predictable but it worked. Even the scrumptious 25-year-old uber-hottie Maggie Grace playing a 17-year-old teenybopper worked. Good mojo with this flick.
“Inkheart”
I’m not going to say anything about “Inkheart” other than to tell you to skip it. Leave it gathering dust in the video store. Please.
“Bride Wars”
What do you get when you get when you put Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson in a wedding disaster movie? You get a great looking mess. “Bride Wars” is about average for the wedding movie genre but hardly anything to seek out.
“Push”
Think of “Push” as “Heroes” on steroids. The characters are all people with special abilities. There’s blood and explosions, intrigue and double-dealing. It’s not great but it’s worth a look if you like that kind of movie.
“Confessions of a Shopaholic”
Another one to leave gathering dust. It’s about a woman who, no surprise, spends a lot of money she doesn’t have. Over the course of the movie, she learns her lessons and lands a millionaire. Isla Fischer plays the shopaholic and she’s just not up to playing a lead role yet. She was great as a supporting player in “Definitely, Maybe,” but not here.
“He's Just Not That Into You”
A somewhat smaller, slightly less comic American version of “Love, Actually.”
“The International”
I so wanted to like “The International” but it sucked. The commercials make it look like Feds being squeezed by a big international conspiracy but it’s just about Feds going after an arms dealer. Yawn. It especially lost me when there was a 10-minute shoot ‘em up sequence in the Guggenheim museum in New York. In a good movie that would be genius. In this movie, it’s sacrilege.
“Race to Witch Mountain”
Guilty pleasure.
“Knowing”
This one deserves a longer post sometime. I was expecting a sci-fi thriller but it was really a sci-fi ponderer, in the best tradition of “The Twilight Zone.” It’s a great movie but I was so disappointed that it wasn’t the thriller from the commercials that I didn’t enjoy myself until it was over and I realized I just witnessed greatness. But I really wanted a thriller that day.
“Monsters vs Aliens”
A perfectly good light-hearted romp, exactly what was promised by the commercials.
“Duplicity”
I so wanted to hate this movie because I can’t stand Julia Roberts but I really liked it. It’s a twisty-turny long con flick with a great story and good performances. Most importantly, given what I’m sure was the temptation to make the movie end with a classic Julia Roberts 100-watt smile moment, the ending was true to the movie and wonderful it was. Oh, you ask, why go to a movie I wanted to hate? I’m a man of sometimes perverse contradictions. Go with it. Which brings us to…
“Hannah Montana”
Another guilty pleasure. It’s not all that good but it reveled in its not goodness and that made it fun.
“Earth”
A Disneyfied Discovery Channel nature show on the big screen narrated by James Earl Jones. All the hype; none of the depth.
“Wolverine”
It had its moments but overall was a disappointment. The backstory of Wolverine wasn’t exactly demanding to be told. Worse yet, the most interesting characters were the mercenary mutants introduced at the beginning and we didn’t see them again after the first 15 minutes (Ryan Reynolds in full wisecracking mode with a supersonic sword. Heaven). Plus, if I never again see Wolverine unleash the claws and flex, it’ll be too soon.
“Star Trek”
Saw it twice; I think two’s my limit. I liked young Spock more and young Kirk less the second time around. It’s a decent yarn but the more I think about it, the less I like them messing with my 36-year history with the Star Trek universe.
“State of Play”
A pretty good political thriller but it ran out of steam near the end.
“Ghosts of Girlfriends Past”
A modern take on “A Christmas Carol” with an inveterate womanizer as Scrooge? How could this movie be any good? Well, it was. A little campy but entertaining throughout.
“17 Again”
A perfectly serviceable variation on the “Big” formula.
“Angels and Demons”
A movie that didn’t need to be made, at least not with someone the caliber of Tom Hanks in the lead and Brian Grazer producing. The story was weak, the characters were bland and it just made no sense. Please skip it.
“Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian”
As with many sequels, I was prepared for this one to suck but it didn’t. They jettisoned elements we didn’t need, like the son, ex-wife and many of the characters from the original, then threw us into a new adventure at a new museum. And who could resist former Chanhassen resident Amy Adams as Amelia Earhart?
“The Hangover”
A little raunchy but a lot funny.
“New in Town”
Despite being set in New Ulm, a town rife with comic potential, “New in Town” was just an ordinary fish-out-of-water flick. Skip it unless your standards are low or your alcohol level is high.
“Taken”
By all rights, this movie should have sucked but it didn’t. The charismatic Liam Neeson played one of those off-the-shelf invincible ex-spy hero types that saves the day. It should have been trite and predictable but it worked. Even the scrumptious 25-year-old uber-hottie Maggie Grace playing a 17-year-old teenybopper worked. Good mojo with this flick.
“Inkheart”
I’m not going to say anything about “Inkheart” other than to tell you to skip it. Leave it gathering dust in the video store. Please.
“Bride Wars”
What do you get when you get when you put Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson in a wedding disaster movie? You get a great looking mess. “Bride Wars” is about average for the wedding movie genre but hardly anything to seek out.
“Push”
Think of “Push” as “Heroes” on steroids. The characters are all people with special abilities. There’s blood and explosions, intrigue and double-dealing. It’s not great but it’s worth a look if you like that kind of movie.
“Confessions of a Shopaholic”
Another one to leave gathering dust. It’s about a woman who, no surprise, spends a lot of money she doesn’t have. Over the course of the movie, she learns her lessons and lands a millionaire. Isla Fischer plays the shopaholic and she’s just not up to playing a lead role yet. She was great as a supporting player in “Definitely, Maybe,” but not here.
“He's Just Not That Into You”
A somewhat smaller, slightly less comic American version of “Love, Actually.”
“The International”
I so wanted to like “The International” but it sucked. The commercials make it look like Feds being squeezed by a big international conspiracy but it’s just about Feds going after an arms dealer. Yawn. It especially lost me when there was a 10-minute shoot ‘em up sequence in the Guggenheim museum in New York. In a good movie that would be genius. In this movie, it’s sacrilege.
“Race to Witch Mountain”
Guilty pleasure.
“Knowing”
This one deserves a longer post sometime. I was expecting a sci-fi thriller but it was really a sci-fi ponderer, in the best tradition of “The Twilight Zone.” It’s a great movie but I was so disappointed that it wasn’t the thriller from the commercials that I didn’t enjoy myself until it was over and I realized I just witnessed greatness. But I really wanted a thriller that day.
“Monsters vs Aliens”
A perfectly good light-hearted romp, exactly what was promised by the commercials.
“Duplicity”
I so wanted to hate this movie because I can’t stand Julia Roberts but I really liked it. It’s a twisty-turny long con flick with a great story and good performances. Most importantly, given what I’m sure was the temptation to make the movie end with a classic Julia Roberts 100-watt smile moment, the ending was true to the movie and wonderful it was. Oh, you ask, why go to a movie I wanted to hate? I’m a man of sometimes perverse contradictions. Go with it. Which brings us to…
“Hannah Montana”
Another guilty pleasure. It’s not all that good but it reveled in its not goodness and that made it fun.
“Earth”
A Disneyfied Discovery Channel nature show on the big screen narrated by James Earl Jones. All the hype; none of the depth.
“Wolverine”
It had its moments but overall was a disappointment. The backstory of Wolverine wasn’t exactly demanding to be told. Worse yet, the most interesting characters were the mercenary mutants introduced at the beginning and we didn’t see them again after the first 15 minutes (Ryan Reynolds in full wisecracking mode with a supersonic sword. Heaven). Plus, if I never again see Wolverine unleash the claws and flex, it’ll be too soon.
“Star Trek”
Saw it twice; I think two’s my limit. I liked young Spock more and young Kirk less the second time around. It’s a decent yarn but the more I think about it, the less I like them messing with my 36-year history with the Star Trek universe.
“State of Play”
A pretty good political thriller but it ran out of steam near the end.
“Ghosts of Girlfriends Past”
A modern take on “A Christmas Carol” with an inveterate womanizer as Scrooge? How could this movie be any good? Well, it was. A little campy but entertaining throughout.
“17 Again”
A perfectly serviceable variation on the “Big” formula.
“Angels and Demons”
A movie that didn’t need to be made, at least not with someone the caliber of Tom Hanks in the lead and Brian Grazer producing. The story was weak, the characters were bland and it just made no sense. Please skip it.
“Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian”
As with many sequels, I was prepared for this one to suck but it didn’t. They jettisoned elements we didn’t need, like the son, ex-wife and many of the characters from the original, then threw us into a new adventure at a new museum. And who could resist former Chanhassen resident Amy Adams as Amelia Earhart?
“The Hangover”
A little raunchy but a lot funny.
Terminator: Salvation
In 1984, James Cameron reinvented the prey thriller with the adrenaline draining "Terminator." In 1991, Cameron introduced us to the world of computer generated graphics done right with "Terminator 2: Judgment Day." On July 3, 2003, the day after "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" hit the screens, I was in the audience. To paraphrase the queen of England, "We were not amused."
T3 was your basic escape from the bogeyman thriller and not a very good one at that. There were explosions, chases and more explosions. Everything was predictable and it was hardly an involving story. It was quite obvious that James Cameron was not involved with the production of T3. It was a most ordinary movie.
Fast forward to 2009. Having tried terribly to surpress the memories of T3, I decided to skip "Terminator: Salvation" until Alan K recommended it, saying it was a good movie in its own right and head & shoulders above T3. On the weight of that recommendation, I went to see it.
Kudos to Alan for the recommendation. "Terminator: Salvation" is a good standalone movie and a worthy follow up to the first two. This story morphed into the post-apocalyptic genre, which is always iffy, but it worked pretty well. The story made sense, the tension was maintained throughout, and it didn't get bogged down in technobable or nonsense. It might be appropriate to say the movie delivered on what the commercials promised.
A couple of notes, though. While Christian Bale was perfectly cast as the adult John Connor, his appropriately taciturn character reminded me of his wooden delivery in "The Dark Knight." It seemed odd that he essentially played the same guy in the two very different movies. Some of the motorcycle chase scenes were also too reminiscent of "The Dark Knight."
One of the minor characters in "Terminator: Salvation" was played by Moon Bloodgood, who in addition to being fairly hot also has the distinction of having a 13-letter name using only one vowel six times. Know anyone else with that distinction?
T3 was your basic escape from the bogeyman thriller and not a very good one at that. There were explosions, chases and more explosions. Everything was predictable and it was hardly an involving story. It was quite obvious that James Cameron was not involved with the production of T3. It was a most ordinary movie.
Fast forward to 2009. Having tried terribly to surpress the memories of T3, I decided to skip "Terminator: Salvation" until Alan K recommended it, saying it was a good movie in its own right and head & shoulders above T3. On the weight of that recommendation, I went to see it.
Kudos to Alan for the recommendation. "Terminator: Salvation" is a good standalone movie and a worthy follow up to the first two. This story morphed into the post-apocalyptic genre, which is always iffy, but it worked pretty well. The story made sense, the tension was maintained throughout, and it didn't get bogged down in technobable or nonsense. It might be appropriate to say the movie delivered on what the commercials promised.
A couple of notes, though. While Christian Bale was perfectly cast as the adult John Connor, his appropriately taciturn character reminded me of his wooden delivery in "The Dark Knight." It seemed odd that he essentially played the same guy in the two very different movies. Some of the motorcycle chase scenes were also too reminiscent of "The Dark Knight."
One of the minor characters in "Terminator: Salvation" was played by Moon Bloodgood, who in addition to being fairly hot also has the distinction of having a 13-letter name using only one vowel six times. Know anyone else with that distinction?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)