Chchchch an ges!! (ala David Bowie)

I have decided that I don't like the current format of my reviews. I sat here and tried to think about what sets this blog apart from other movie review sites. I came up with A: it's a blog and B: it's me! But, that's not going to be good enough to make this puppy take off. Sure, I could add more reviews, but that's going to take time and it will grow eventually.

Initialy, I thought that by dividing each review by category (i.e. plot, action, visual, etc.) would give me a skeleton to work from; a structure to build around and keep my thoughts in order. Now, I think that the very frame I set out to use as a tool is confining and I don't often have much to say about a certain category. It's making the whole post dull and sluggish.

So, I'm going to try a freeform method and add a little bit more of a personal touch to my reviews. After all, I'm not Ebert or Greg Moody here. I don't need a clinical dissection of each movie and I'm not a scholor who's qualified to make judgements as to technique etc.

I will still enter a score and I'll try my best not to have spoilers. I think this new method of reviewing will leave me more freedom to really express how I felt about the movies.

So, hang on for a makeover!

The Ring Two (2005)

Director: Hideo Nakata
Format: DVD
DVD Features: standard audio and subtitle options
Starring: Naomi Watts, David Dorfman
Trailer

The Ring series is continued here in the U.S. by the director of both of the Japanese films (Ringu, Ringu 2). Although the first Ring movie stateside was directed by Gore Verbinski, it mirrored Ringu almost exactly. The Ring holds a special place in my heart (long story) and I was hoping that its sequel would be as creepy and intriguing as the first. The Ring Two is not a movie to walk into without having seen its predecessor, because there is no rehashing of the old storyline, no flashback scenes (except for a few clips from the deadly video), and picks up very nearly where it left off. The plot also relies heavily on references from the prequel.

Since we last left Rachel (Naomi Watts) and Aiden (David Dorfman), they have moved to a new town, a new job, and a new group of potential victims. Rachel has found work with the local newspaper and learns of a mysterious death in the neighborhood. After some minimal investigation, she finds the unmarked video tape and discovers that Samara is back to haunt her and her son. As with the last movie, Rachel has to follow clues to discover what the ghoulish undead girl wants. The Ring Two could have easily been just another string of victims with VCRs. Instead, it focuses more on Aiden’s character and Samara’s attempts to steal Rachel away from him. In that regard, it was nice to see a change. However, toward the middle of the film, the plot seems to lose some focus. Aiden is in the hospital and Rachel isn’t allowed to visit him because the authorities feel that he may be a victim of child abuse. She doesn’t seem more than momentarily upset by this and runs off to look for Samara’s original mother. When she finds the woman, the scene is anti-climactic. The Ring Two lacks the cohesion that the first movie had and doesn’t feature any spine-tingling moments that weren’t already spoiled by the trailer.

Plot: 2 stars

I always appreciate it when the sequel to a movie retains its original stars. Watts and Dorfman maintain their respective roles, Samara isn’t the same girl, but it’s not easy to tell and everyone else from the first movie didn’t make it to the sequel. Not being a big fan of child actors to begin with, I was especially tormented by David Dorfman. My enjoyment of the movie was hindered by a constant burning desire to slap him senseless or ring his neck (smart-ass little brat).

Cast: 3 stars

I don’t know that I’d say this movie has any action, per se. Most of the scary parts come when they’re expected, or are already spoiled by the trailer. The final confrontation between Rachel and Samara is what you might call “tense” and a bit creepy, but not really action.

Action: 2 stars

The bathtub scene, which is one that the trailer spoils, is perhaps the most visually complex effect in the film. The majority of the movie has a washed-out blue-grey tint and nothing really seems to stand out. At the same time, it works to set the gloomy atmosphere. A few shots of Samara are kind of cheesy looking, and I think that the filmmakers should have either put more effort into them, or left them out altogether.

Visual: 2 stars

I thought the tag line, “Fear Comes Full Circle” was clever, if a little corny. Once again, no memorable dialogue. There was a bit about Aiden addressing his mother as “Rachel”, rather than “Mommy”, but I couldn’t recap that situation without spoiling something.

Dialogue: 1 star

I was terribly disappointed with The Ring Two. Perhaps it is the change of directors that makes the difference, or maybe it’s that the plot isn’t so elastic as to fill two movies without becoming limp. It could have also been the lack of convincing makeup and effects, which didn’t induce the fear that the first one did. I added this one to my personal library, but only because it was on sale for $5.00. At least this video won’t kill you in seven days.

Alternate viewing choice: The Ring
IMDB site
Official site
Rotten Tomatoes Review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Director: Ron Howard
Format: DVD
DVD Features: Previews, tons of featurettes, interviews, PC puzzle game demo
Starring: Tom Hanks, Jean Reno, Audrey Tautou
Trailer

I avoided the theatrical release of this film mainly because the book had gotten so much hype. I also tend to avoid movies that star Tom Hanks and were made after 1990. However, I did read the novel and curiosity finally got the better of me. It’s always interesting to see how the adaptation will be. The producers/director did appear to solicit the input of Dan Brown, judging from the special features and I feel that the more the original creator has to do with the movie version of their work, the smoother the transition will be from text to screen. I was not altogether disappointed with the movie version of The Da Vinci Code. Except for a few minor details, the movie script followed the novel quite well.

Novelist and lecturer Robert Langdon (Hanks) is approached by the French authorities in connection with the death of Jacques Saunière, curator at the Louvre. Under the guise of consulting Landon’s deep understanding of historic symbols, Captain Fache (Jean Reno) brings him to the murder scene. It is when Agent Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) comes to his rescue that Langdon realizes he is actually wanted in connection to the crime. The deceased, who also happens to be Sophie’s grandfather, has left a trail of clues for the two of them to decipher. Before long, it is clear to Langdon that it isn’t Sauniere’s killer that he and Neveu are looking for, but something far more sacred – The Holy Grail. The two fugitives begin to follow the string of clues and decode the messages and riddles that unlock the secret of The Grail’s resting place. There are some, namely the religious sect Opus Dei, who would also like their hands on the sacred treasure, recognizing the threat it brings to the church. At every turn, Langdon and Neveu must fool not only the authorities, but dodge the attempts of another mysterious interested party to steal the secret. One of the issues that I had with the book, was that I was always one step ahead of the characters when it came to figuring out the next clue. Watching the movie made the situation worse, as I had already discovered each answer in the novel. The suspense wasn’t quite the same either, as it takes a much longer period of time for Langdon and Neveu to get to the next clue in the book. So, the compression of time needed to transfer the story onto film detracted from that aspect. The story on the whole is intriguing, especially considering that most of the clues in the story actually exist.

Plot: 4 stars

As mentioned earlier, I am not particularly fond of Tom Hanks. No matter which role he takes, there’s an air of arrogance about him that I find very unattractive. He didn’t convince me as Langdon. Audrey Tautou is a fantastic actress, especially when she plays French roles (Amelie). She wasn’t how I envisioned the character as I read the novel, but she fits snugly into the role. Jean Reno is also a great actor, in certain roles, but he wasn’t Fache to me. The role of Silas, the albino monk working for Opus Dei, was played by Paul Bettany. In the book, I remember Silas as being a large, hulking creature, terribly threatening in part due to his devout convictions. But, in the movie, Bettany is way too small and the only think that makes him frightening is the Latin he speaks. I also envisioned the character of Teabing differently. The novel gave me the impression that, aside from being crippled, Teabing was also of substantial weight. In the film, Ian McKellen portrays him and although his determination comes through, he is much frailer than I expected. On the whole, with the exception of Hanks, the acting was neat, clean and well executed.

Cast: 4 stars

As befitting a film of international treasure hunting and shadowy secret societies. The Da Vinci Code features a satisfying dose of action. The movie includes a brief gunfight, a car chase in reverse, and plenty brandishing of firearms. Though not quite up to par with 007 type of over-the-top pyrotechnics and such, this movie satisfied my RDA of action.

Action: 3 stars

Watching some of the extra features, I realize what a challenge it may have been to film in The Louvre. All of the artwork in those scenes is apparently the real deal. My biggest complaint is that the director felt it necessary to enhance some of the symbols and clues artificially, when they were blindingly obvious in the first place. Is it really so difficult to see that a six-pointed star is made up of an upward pointing triangle and a downward pointing triangle? The screen on which Teabing illustrates some of the finer points of DaVinci’s “The Last Supper” comes in handy, as well as the images showing Langdon’s recollection of Newton’s headstone. So, it while it may have served well to illustrate some scenes this way, it was overused in the majority of scenes.

Visual: 2 stars

Here, I present the winning quote from The Da Vinci Code, “As long as there has been a one true god, there has been killing in his name.” How true and apropos. There weren’t any vocal failings, aside from the fact that Langdon never seemed surprised or convinced of what he was saying.

Dialogue: 3 stars

All in all, I was satisfied with the movie version of The Da Vinci Code. There were very few diversions from the original story and I have to give points for “shot on location”. Most of the acting was well done and I found it difficult to tear myself from the screen, even after the third go round. I do recommend picking the DVD up from the rental shoppe, but I would hold off on adding it to my personal collection. The features on the disc are a bit disappointing. Plenty of interviews and behind the scenes excerpts, but they only seem to be advertising the film rather than explaining it.

Alternate viewing choice: Raiders of the Lost Ark
IMDB site

Official site

Rotten Tomatoes Review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

A Sound of Thunder (2005)

Director: Peter Hyams
Format: DVD
DVD Features:
Starring: Ben Kingsley, Edward Burns, Catherine McCormack
Trailer

When I think of my favorite genres of film, “Sci-Fi” isn’t often one that comes to mind. There are just too many, especially with the rise of CGI, that are poorly constructed and even more pathetically acted. I read sci-fi novels and enjoy them, but their movie counterparts are almost always a disaster. So, when Dad asked me to go to the movie store and pick up something “science fiction”, I cringed and prayed for any new release that was remotely tolerable. We’ve all already seen War of the Worlds (both versions), so I knew that wasn’t going to fly. During my last sweep of the shelves, however, I came across A Sound of Thunder.

The main theme of A Sound of Thunder is the basic “butterfly effect” scenario. One of the cardinal rules of time travel is never to change even the smallest detail in the past. If even a butterfly is harmed, the future may be affected exponentially. In the year twentysomethingorother, Charles Hatton (Kingsley) has turned the invention of time travel technology into a lucrative business. For an exurbanite fee, the adventurous and social elite can spend a moment hunting game in the prehistoric past. Because the ancient beasts are moments before the point of a natural death (unbeknownst to the paying hunters) the past isn’t affected. That’s only as long as the hunting party remains on the path and doesn’t leave anything behind or take anything home. Inevitably, something has to go wrong. After a failed hunting trip, the team of scientists at TimeCorp (or whatever it was called) start to notice that their timing is off. That’s before the waves of evolutionary change begin to hit. The leading man, Travis Ryer (Burns) seeks the help of scientist Sonia Rand (McCormack) to figure out how to beat the clock and fix the past before it’s too late for the human race. Yes, it’s a plot line that film makers never seem to tire of. The time ripples are an interesting twist, showing progressively the impacts of their altered past and giving the characters something to race against.

The only actor in A Sound of Thunder that I recognized was Ben Kingsley. He’s a veteran of the semi-indie circuit, seen in such films as Species, Lucky Number Slevin, and House of Sand and Fog. He’s a fair actor, but I don’t see him starring in any Hollywood blockbusters. Edward Burns isn’t bad either and I can see him moving up to a Matthew McConaughey type of role. With the exception of those two, the acting was on par with a Sci-Fi Channel made for TV movie.

There is plenty of action to behold in A Sound of Thunder. Most of it consists of running and shooting. It’s the kind of action one might find in Jurassic Park. The waves of time catching up didn’t seem as regular as Sonia Rand would have you believe, but then again, we’re talking about time distortion here. It actually gets the pulse pounding in a couple of scenes (namely the subway sequence).

At the beginning of the movie, there is a horribly awful blue-screen effect that made my hopes sag for what was to follow. One viewer even remarks (on IMBD) that the background in this scene is on a loop. Eeesh. I don’t know how you can get much worse than that. But the dino-critters are not bad CGI and the overgrown city was almost convincing. I really thought that the subway scene was fun.

How did I manage to rent two movies in a row that have titles completely unfit for their content? A Sound of Thunder? C’mon people! My favorite line from the movie is, “What’s the point of having money if you can’t spend it on things other people can’t afford?”

Unless you’re keen on The Sci-Fi Channel, I don’t recommend this film at all. Granted, it wasn’t as horrible as Catwoman or the American version of Godzilla, but I could have gone the rest of my life without watching this one. Think Evolution meets The Butterfly Effect.

Overall Rating: 2 stars
Hottie Rating: 0 stars

Alternate viewing choice: The Butterfly Effect
IMDB site
Official site
Rotten Tomatoes Review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

I’ll Sleep When I’m Dead (2003)

Director: Mike Hodges
Venue: DVD
Trailer

The only complaint that I have with Netflix is that, often times, a disc will wait in my cue for several weeks before its turn to be shipped off in the mail. By the time that I get it, I can’t remember why I wanted that particular movie. Sometimes I just cruise around their site and click on whatever catches my fancy at the time. Other times, I get an interest in a certain actor and will rent anything with their name on it (anything that doesn’t look like a chick-flick). When I’ll Sleep When I’m Dead appeared in my mailbox, I remembered who’s filmography it came from, but my concept of the film was a good deal different from the reality of it.

Will Graham (Clive Owen) has spent the last 3 years living a quiet life in the forest; quite a change from the life he led as a gangster in the city. He’s left that life behind – or so he thinks. When his employment as a lumberjack is cut short, he decides to return to the city and check in with his brother Davey (Jonathan Rhys Meyers). Little does he know, just the day before his arrival, his brother had met an untimely end. So, he sets out – with little help from his severely dysfunctional family – to discover the reason behind his brother’s death and punish whoever may be responsible. The focus of this film is not actually Davey, as one might initially perceive. Rather, I saw the point being more about Will and the change – or inability to change – in his life, or in anyone’s life. I respect the choice of the director to create Will’s past out of character interaction, rather than flashbacks. Flashbacks have always seemed like the easy way out to me. Refraining from depicting Will’s former life visually serves to anchor the plot on the here and now and helps to maintain the focus of the story.

Plot: 3 stars

As I mentioned earlier, sometimes I get a fancy for a certain actor and decide to shop their filmography. The actor, in this case, is Clive Owen. I had seen him in Gosford Park and Closer. My interest was peaked by his performance in Sin City. I still haven’t decided if I like him or not though. After all, he doesn’t play the friendliest of characters. But, it’s that voice and that calm, cool delivery I can’t escape. Jonathan Rhys Meyers offers up a solid performance as the younger brother, even if it is a short part (and is, incidentally, quite the hottie). The mother (actually, I couldn’t quite tell if she was mom or not) of the two brothers (Helen) is played by Charlotte Rampling. Her character is completely devoid of maternal warmth and bitterly icy. I haven’t figured out what her motivations as the movie closes are, but she was perhaps the most complex person in the film. Although I disliked Mickser, the father figure of the boys, it is due entirely to the script and not at all to Jamie Foreman’s performance. In fact, it might be considered a testimony to it. The more I consider it, the acting was wonderful, but the roles themselves didn’t grab my interest as much as they should have.

Acting: 3 stars

If I was to be shelving movies at a rental store, I would file I’ll Sleep…under “drama” rather than “action”. For a movie about a former gangster, there is very little action involved. In fact, the film moves at a very slow pace. People walk slowly, move slowly, talk slowly and the story takes its own sweet time. A relaxed pace is not always a negative quality in a movie. Many Akira Kurosawa films are epically long, and still earn the description “masterpiece”. However, if you’re trying to watch this with an Attention Deficit Disorder afflicted teenager and a fidgety father, it can be painful.

Action: 1 star

I’ll Sleep When I’m Dead is beautifully filmed. Each frame is delectable and easily imagined as a postcard. Be sure to pick up the widescreen version (which is always preferable) so that you can fully enjoy each shot. It is imagery that illustrates the bridge between Will’s mountain man life and his return to gangsta, which is pivotal to the story. Costume and set design, while not surreal, are appropriate to the time and characters.

Visual: 3 ½ stars

As mentioned earlier, it is the dialogue in the movie that serves to describe Will’s former character. And, as the transition is so very important to the plot, the dialogue plays a vital role. I have to wonder what the person who titled this film was smoking. “I’ll sleep when I’m dead” isn’t even a spoken line in the movie, let alone descriptive of its content. One line that is spoken, however, is “You think you've changed, do you? You haven't changed. Not really. People like us don't change. Not deep down.” And that, I think, is the summing up of the film. Part of the reason that I’ll Sleep..moves so leisurely is its lack of dialogue, and what little there is can be quite confusing.

Dialogue: 2 stars

I’ll Sleep ..is not a movie that will make it onto my “to buy” list or even my “will watch again” list. The director seems to be attempting some sort of existential artsy beyondness, but it doesn’t work the right way. There are a few elements missing that would have pulled the film together more and still left some of the more interesting questions intact. The cinematography is fantastic, but the other factors don’t quite measure up.

Alternate viewing choice: Violent Cop
IMDB site
Official site
Rotten Tomatoes Review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Sleepy Hollow (1999)

Director: Tim Burton
Venue: DVD
DVD Features: trailers, photo gallery, interviews, featurette, director commentary
Trailer

Let me start by stating the obvious (to some). I am a Tim Burton fan. He’s got a distinctive sense of style, a great sense of humor and that certain finesse that few directors can touch. So, my review of any film directed by Burton is going to be a little biased. Conversely, the few movies that have disappointed on the scale of his other works, might otherwise have been given a good review, when compared to any common film. With that said, let’s take a look at Sleepy Hollow.

Hopefully, many people are already familiar with the story of Sleepy Hollow. I personally recall seeing the Disney animated version several times as a child and Burton reportedly based his version on that one. This new version of Washington Irving’s classic tale adds much more depth to the character of Ichabod Crane (Depp). After causing trouble in New York with his newfangled ideas of scientific research and criminology, his “superiors” sentence him to investigate the mysterious decapitations occurring in the village of Sleepy Hollow. Once he arrives, he is told the story of The Headless Horseman and sets out to disprove the myth and catch the real killer. However, his investigations lead him right back around to the world of magic and fantasy.

Plot: 4 ½ stars

As far as I am concerned, Johnny Depp is among the most talented (not to mention best looking) actors in the world. He’s also one of the most under-appreciated, in my opinion, as he has yet to be presented with an Oscar. He and Burton have a successful history together and he played a fantastic Ichabod Crane. Depp plays the character as an awkward and eccentric detective with a shadowy and troubling past and does it all in a beautifully humorous fashion. On the other hand, the worst casting call in Sleepy Hollow is the role of Christopher Walken as The Headless Horseman. Why cast an actor known for his brilliant performances and famous delivery as a character with virtually no lines!? It’s a travesty to be sure. Christina Ricci, who plays Crane’s love interest Katrina, didn’t seem very invested in the role to me. It was as if she was constantly distracted. I think any other similarly compensated Hollywood actress could have filled the role without much of a noticeable difference. Michael Gough, who plays Notary Hardenbrook, does the finest job of any of the village elders in Sleepy Hollow. Although his role isn’t a very large one, he is totally convincing in it. Miranda Richardson, however, is completely awful as Kitrina’s evil stepmother. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that she was reading from cue-cards.

Acting: 4 stars

It should already be obvious that Sleepy Hollow doesn’t feature any car chases or gun fights. But, it does have severed heads! (Yay for severed heads!) It has horse/carriage chasing and even witchcraft, wooden stakes, and an undead soldier. What more could an audience want? Did I mention that there are severed heads?

Action: 3 stars

As with most of Tim Burton’s films, expect a fantastic wardrobe of black and white stripes and that special brand of creepiness that pervades the entire set. The town of Sleepy Hollow is wonderfully absorbing due in large part to the set designs, costumes, lighting, make-up and other random features integrated throughout. The minimal CGI is not quite up to par with more recent films, but well done on the scale of the late 90’s.

Visual: 4 ½ stars

My favorite quote related to this movie isn’t in the script. Another interview I was reading for the film quotes the director as saying, "I've always wanted to make a movie where one of the characters didn't have a head." What’s that you say? “Not fair, you have to pick a quote from the film,” you say? Fine then! I guess I’m just so pissed off that Christopher Walken doesn’t have any lines that I got distracted. The best string of dialogue that comes to mind is the scene in which Ichabod is huddled in bed following his encounter with the horseman. “But it was a horseman…(pause) headless! (faint)” The line doesn’t look like much on paper, but the way Depp delivers it is hilarious.

Dialogue: 3 stars

When I saw this movie in the theater, back in ’99, I didn’t think much of it. I had been so psyched up about Burton’s rendition of the tale, that I was actually a bit disappointed with it (especially the acting). Now that I’ve seen it a few times on DVD, it’s grown on me, but it’s still not one of my favorites.

Alternate viewing choice: Delicatessen
IMDB site
Official site was not found
Rotten Tomatoes Review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

The Mothman Prophecies (2002)

Director: Mark Pellington
Venue: DVD
DVD Features: music video
Trailer

The trailer for this movie gave me chills from beginning to end. Often, the teaser for a film will do that, whereas the actual movie makes somewhat less of an impact. This was not the case with The Mothman Prophecies. Not only did the trailer raise hairs on the back of my neck, but I got that feeling constantly throughout the feature as well. I should mention though, that I have not read the book of the same name and doing so may have given me a different perspective. (I encourage anyone who has read the novel to leave a comment about your experience as pertains to the cinematic version.)

According to the closing message, The Mothman Prophecies, is based around an actual phenomenon experienced globally. People have reported seeing visions of a winged humanoid (mothmen) prior to catastrophic or otherwise significant events. Such is the case with John Klein’s wife (Debra Messing), just before their car careens off the road. In the hospital, following the accident, Mary fills a notebook with sketches of the shadowy creature she glimpsed. Some years afterward, John (Richard Gere) gets into his car and suddenly finds himself in West Virginia, hundreds of miles away, with no recollection of the journey. A bizarre experience leads him to meet Connie Mills (Laura Linney), a local law enforcement officer. When she mentions her recent troubles with citizens seeing “visions”, Klein decides to stick around and investigate.

Plot: 4 stars

I don’t usually go in for movies starring Richard Gere. It’s not that he is a horrible actor, he just isn’t on my list of favorites. The actors in this movie, however, all do a stand-up job in their roles. Linney makes a great small-town cop, trying to be skeptical but open at the same time. Gere is mostly convincing as a grieving reporter trying to wrap his head around the supernatural. Some combination of the story line and the performances really makes The Mothman Prophecies tingle.

Acting: 3 stars

Most of the action in this movie is consolidated into the climax. This is where all of the explosions and car crashes take place. However, the audience is made to sweat in anticipation of that climax via plenty of tension and de ja vue sensations. The Mothman Prophecies isn’t suffering due to its lack of combat, gunfire or chase scenes. The pace of the film is on target with keeping the audience interested.

Action: 3 stars

It’s not necessary to have a high degree of CGI in Mothman, so very few of the visual effects are achieved this way. One neat thing to watch for is the use of light and arrangement of objects that suggest the Mothman shape. Some shots are more obvious than others. Aside from that fun little visual, the movie is fairly unremarkable as far as effects are concerned.

Visual: 3 stars

The most intense scene dialogue-wise is Klein’s phone conversation with Ingrid Cold. Although somewhat spoiled by the trailer, it’s still creepy. It was well put together and succeeded in generating suspense and chills. The rest of the movie is fairly “blah” as far as characters’ verbal interactions.

Dialogue: 3 stars

To wrap up, despite starring one of my least favorite actors, The Mothman Prophecies was a great experience to watch. I love movies that deal with eerie coincidence! So, I’ve marked it on my list of movies to buy, as long as a good deal comes along.

Alternate viewing choice: The Ring
IMDB site
Official site was not found
Rotten Tomatoes Review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Seabiscuit (2003)

Director: Gary Ross
Venue: DVD
DVD Features: commentaries, history, making of, photographs
Trailer

I had hesitated for quite some time before seeing Seabiscuit. For one thing, horse racing has never been an interest of mine. For another, I wasn’t sure that I could see Tobey Maguire as anyone other than Spiderman. Its amount of critical acclaim (it was nominated for 7 Academy Awards) didn’t convince me either. However, when my father rented this movie for one of his friends, I decided that I might give it a shot, if only for the fact that it was a movie I’d never seen (there aren’t many).

This movie is the story of a racehorse, Seabiscuit, and his jockey, Red Pollard (Maguire), who rise to the top of the racing world in depression era America. Because his parents lack the ability to provide for their many children, Red is left to live on a horse ranch at a young age. He grows up handling the horses and fist fighting for money. Seabiscuit is a bit small as racehorse standards go, but full of spirit and untapped potential. These two underdogs (Red is too tall for a jockey) become a team under the training of Tom Smith (Chris Cooper) and the ownership of Charles Howard (Jeff Bridges). All of these characters mourn some sort of loss in their lives and their concentration on training horse and rider become a focal point for them and eventually a way to heal. As cheesy as the basic plot outline sounds, Seabiscuit really pulls off an inspiring and absorbing story. It’s not one that has been overused and overproduced.

Plot: 3 stars

After about the first half hour or so, I stopped seeing Maguire as Peter Parker and started to realize him as Red Pollard. I really hope that when the Spiderman series is over, he can move on from the roll and not be forever typecast. Bridges is a seasoned actor and makes a convincing ex-automobile tycoon. Cooper’s character is suffering the loss of the open range and finds a place caring for the animals in the arena. He acts as a kind of sage in the story. However, it’s a role I frequently see him play and I wasn’t able to generate much sympathy for the character.

Acting: 3 ½ stars

Seabiscuit is surprisingly good on action. Although they lack the fiery explosions of car racing, the horse races get the adrenaline pumping and genuinely entice routing for the star players. There are a few fistfights, seeing as how Pollard’s beginnings, and one of his handicaps, evolve from that occupation. I didn’t feel that the story lagged too much in any one place, so the action was well paced throughout.

Action: 3 ½ stars

Visually, the set design and costuming are successful in creating a 1920’s atmosphere. Old cars are a significant part of the storyline and also add to the flavor of the times. However, during the racing scenes, it is a little bit too clear that Maguire isn’t really atop a horse. Although I understand the insurance risks of having a Hollywood actor actually race a horse, I have seen movies where the effect is achieved more seamlessly than it was here. The countryside where Seabiscuit was filmed is very appealing, but nothing about the cinematography says, “Wow!”

Visual: 3 stars

This movie was basically on par with what I expect from the genre as far as dialogue is concerned. I vaguely remember a line about not “throwing away a life”, but nothing so inspiring as to plant itself firmly in my memory.

Dialogue: 3 stars

Finally, Seabiscuit was far better than I expected. Enjoyment of the film is not contingent upon a love of horseracing, so let that not be cause for hesitation when considering it as a viewing option. Probably not something I would run out and purchase, but not a movie I regret spending my time on.

Alternate viewing choice: Million Dollar Baby
IMDB site
Official site
Rotten Tomatoes Review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Crank (2006)

Director: Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor
Venue: Theater
Trailer

I had decided on a whim to take my little brother and his girlfriend to see a movie. We were on the way home and I had the sudden urge to go to the theater. So, instead of checking my local listings, I just parked the car at an AMC and went to the box office. What I’d been hoping for, was to catch one of the new horror flicks just released. What I settled for was Crank.

If you happened to catch the preview for this film, you already know the plot line. Chev Chelios (Jason Statham) has been injected with a synthetic Asian poison. The drug will take over his system and slow his heart to a stop if he doesn’t keep the adrenaline pumping through his blood. Chelios contacts his doctor and his girlfriend and speeds off to find the gangsters who sentenced him to die.

Plot: 1 star

Statham first drew my attention through a series of British films (Snatch, Mean Machine and Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels). He went on to do The Transporter and its sequel. While he’s not really a bad actor, he typically only plays one type of character. But, it’s always a character with a sexy accent. His girlfriend Eve (Amy Smart) is the kind of ditzy blone stoner girl I generally hate in movies. However, for some reason I enjoyed her acting in Crank. The interaction between the two characters is cute and not overdone. All of the gangsters were terrible actors playing awfully sterotypical parts. Chev’s little gay friend (Efren Ramirez) is kind of amusing, but not terribly necessary to the story line.

Acting: 2 stars

Since Crank is one big adrenaline quest, it is packed with action. There are gun battles, fist fights, cars flipping over, chases and one final battle aboard a helicopter. Unfortunately, this is yet another example of Hollywood action choreography. The camera is always focused to tightly on the actors during the hand-to-hand sequences to show the full range of each punch, kick, or head-butt. What Americans are good at, generally speaking, are explosions and car stunts. The very last scene, in which Celios and his enemy Verona (Jose Pablo Cantillo) battle in the air smacks way too much of blue-screen cut-and-paste photography. In other words, it’s very obviously fake. For a movie that packs so much action, it wasn’t enough to get my adrenaline pumping.

Action: 2 stars

The visual effects in Crank, blue screen excluded, are interesting. Since Chev is doped up with poison, the perspective through his eyes is wavy and distorted. The scenes shown through the character’s eyes do a good job of conveying the disorientation that he is struggling with. A good deal of the film is alternately sped up and slowed down, which was an effect that worked well in some scenes, but not so well in others. The naked girls in the plastic bubbles were a nice touch.

Visual: 3 stars

The dialogue in Crank is fairly weak. There was no original style to any of the character’s lines. Most of the gangsters have very tired, stereotypical Latino accents and deliver lines that are just as tired and stereotypical. There is a lot of macho posturing and not much in the way of cool comebacks.

Dialogue: 1 star

To conclude, Crank was a movie that I much rather would have liked to have rented than have forked over the admission for three. It wouldn’t have been worth the cost of one ticket.

Alternate viewing choice: Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels
IMDB site
Official site
Rotten Tomatoes review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

News

I have just signed up for Netflix, which is wonderful, since you don't get charged late fees, but not as cool, because you don't get to see the DVD covers. However, what this means for YOU is that I will have access to a broader range of movies and unlimited rentals monthly. So, look for an upsurge in reviews coming.

Are there any movies that you'd like to see reviewed here? I've seen almost everything, so don't be shy people! I will gladly review movies by request. If I haven't seen it, I'll make it a point to rent it and post my opinion. (but, I refuse to watch White Chicks.)

Currently in my que, I have Domino, Man On Fire, The Hills Have Eyes, The Wicker Man, and a couple more.

Silent Hill (2006)

Director: Christophe Gans
Venue: DVD
DVD Features: making of and previews for other films
Trailer

This time, my review is “hot off the press”, as I just came downstairs from the home theater. I had to be a little bit clever to snag this feature from the video store. Because it was just released, everyone, it seems, decided to check it out this weekend. As I watched the movie, I realized that I have no category here for music or soundtrack. However, since I don’t expect to be commenting very often on the sound in films, I think I’ll just mention it in this first paragraph here. Silent Hill had a fantastic audio track. The score was appropriately eerie and just the kind of thing I plan to have playing at my Halloween party this year. I may have even caught some snippets of Portishead, which is great atmosphere music, not to mention one of my favorite bands.

If you’ve played any of the video games that this movie was based on, there’s a good chance that you already know much more about the plot than I could possibly tell you. Personally, I’ve played about an hour’s worth of the first game, but it was enough that I could identify the trailer before anyone else in the theater. There’s no mistaking the snowlike falling ash as any other town. The basic premise of the plot is that Rose (Radha Mitchell) has an adopted child named Sharon (Jodelle Ferland), who is prone to sleepwalking and drawing creepy pictures. Rose decides to take her daughter up to the ghost town Silent Hill, in hopes that whatever it is haunting her dreams will be put to sleep by the visit. The town was long ago vacated because of a horrible fire, which still burns in the coal underneath the ground. On the road into town, Rose looses control of her vehicle and knocks herself out on the steering wheel. When she comes to, Sharon is missing and she runs off to find her, discovering a clan of which hunters and a slew of gruesome horrors along the way. I like the plot of this movie. It’s original and somewhat off the beaten track of horror movies. Sure, the witch hunting has been done before, but there’s a bit of a twist to it.

Plot: 4 stars

The acting in Silent Hill, admittedly, could have been much better. Horror is a genre that never seems to be taken seriously as quality film in the circles of those who decide these things. Thus, it rarely attracts the higher quality actors to its casting call. There are some exceptions, of course, but Silent Hill isn’t one of them. The little girl in the movie, Jodelle, plays a dual role. There’s a good Sharon and her evil incarnation, Alessa. It may have been a better choice to have cast twins for the separate characters, because I detected evil in this child by the first scene. While she does a decent job of portraying a creepy devil child, I couldn’t buy the innocent routine at all. The police woman (Laurie Holden) wasn’t believable in the slightest and neither was the husband/father (Sean Bean). His concern for his wife and daughter seemed forced and transparent. The ringleader of the which hunters, Christabella (Alice Krige), was similarly weak.

Acting: 3 ½ stars

For the most part, there isn’t any combat in Silent Hill, just running. The one scene in which there is some physical struggle, involves Holden versus a gaggle of religious fanatics. As soon as her gun runs out of ammo, she’s completely useless. Cops are trained in hand-to-hand combat, right? If she had known that she would burn at the stake, maybe she would have given the fight a little more energy. Not such a big loss anyway.

Action: 1 star

The visual effects in the film reminded me a little of The Cell. Maybe it was the dual plane or the dreamlike quality of the set, but whoever dreamed this town up, did an excellent job of bringing it to life. Most of the visuals are made possible via CGI. While it is detectable, it’s well made enough so that it doesn’t detract from the enjoyment of the atmosphere. At the sound of air raid sirens, the town changes to a darker version of itself. Paint peels away and decay forms from the shadows. The “monsters” in Silent Hill were very creepy and glued my eyes to the screen, even while the rest of me remained huddled underneath a cozy blanket. Excellent other-worldly surroundings really pulled me in and I almost forgot that there was a civilized world beyond the city limits of Silent Hill.

Visual: 5 stars

My favorite line from the movie – “They always said this town was haunted. I think they were right.” Although it wasn’t the best film for dialogue, Silent Hill had one or two lines worth remembering. I didn’t roll my eyes at any point and think, “Whoever wrote this script should be shot.” There wasn’t really much in the way of introspective or meditative thought that went into the movie, but it wasn’t that kind of movie, really.

Dialogue: 3 stars

When that elusive paycheck is finally deposited in my bank account, Silent Hill is one of the first things on my shopping list. I believe that it could stand up to repeat viewings and might even reveal a few suprises the second time around. The DVD features fall terribly short of the mark, but just having the movie will make up for it. I really, really hate it when the DVD features do not include a trailer of the movie itself. If I were making DVDs, that would be the very first item to include. I had an initial fear that Silent Hill wouldn't live up to my expectations. I’d missed it in the theater and was terribly anxious to rent the home version. Usually, that means I’m going to be let down. Murphy’s Law, I suppose. But, it wasn’t such with Silent Hill.

Alternate viewing choice: The Cell
IMDB site
Official site
Rotten Tomatoes review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Evolution (2001)

Director: Ivan Reitman
Venue: DVD
DVD Features: audio, subtitles
Trailer

Ah, remember the hey-day of comedic alien action flicks? There was Men In Black, Mars Attacks, Starship Troopers and yes…Evolution. These days it seems to be all about remaking the classics, I, Robot (ok, not about aliens), War of the Worlds, Superman Returns (yes, he’s an alien). I say, let’s bring back the gun-totin’ wise-crackin’ green-blooded days of yore. What about a Ryan Reynolds and Linda Hamilton duo of everydayman fights the menace from Mars? You can’t tell me that Jeff Goldblum wouldn’t make a good astrophysicist trying to keep the military from vaporizing his specimens. Yes, I could conjure plot line after plot line on that topic, but that’s not what we’re here for, is it?

The alien invasion in Evolution arrives by way of meteor, carrying tiny spores of life. Dr. Block (Orlando Jones) and Ira Kane (David Duchovny) are two science teachers at a local community college. When they catch wind of the smoldering rock, they arrive on the scene and quickly collect samples. Back at the lab, they discover that the samples host a soup of single-celled organisms rapidly dividing and changing. In short order, the alien cells become flatworms and from that point, their “evolution” explodes. When our heroes trek back to the crash site, they see that, much to their chagrin, the military has taken over. What begins as a battle of legal rights to research studies, quickly grows into a battle for the human inhabitants of the city. Luckily, they’ve got Dr. Allison Reed (Julianne Moore) who crosses over from the military sector and Wayne Grey (Seann William Scott) a local wannabe fireman on their side. The plot is a good one. It stems initially, from Block’s and Ira’s hopes for fame, which is a departure from the usual fleet of flying saucers. The aliens don’t seem consciously bent on global conquest either. There are no spokes-creatures making demands or laser blasts from tripods. The creatures are seemingly interested only in adaptation and survival. I have to admit that I found myself sympathizing with the invaders.

Plot: 4 stars

Duchovny and Jones make a good comedy team. The movie also hosts a decent cast of established actors from Julianne Moore to Dan Aykroyd. The entire cast pulled together nicely and I can’t think of any glaring moments of loathing for any one character. It was easy to see Duchovny as an ex-military schoolteacher, who’s somewhat washed up. I could also see him befriending Dr. Block and humoring his lecherous after-school “tutoring”. I do think that Duchovney and Moore would have some sinfully ugly offspring though.

Acting: 3 ½ stars

Why is it that I enjoy a good mall thrashing so much? A movie always seems to gain points with me if there are shattering shop windows and screaming consumers scattered about. The first alien mutation to become tolerant to Earth’s atmosphere is a four-legged dragon-like creature. After witnessing it’s mucousey birth and subsequent liftoff, Ira and Block chase the beast to the local shopping complex. Once inside, our heroes smash open a sporting goods gun display and head off after their specimen and its shoplifter prey. It’s a fun scene with lots of ridiculous posing and manly postures. There are also massive detonations of napalm, if you’re into that sort of thing.

Action: 4 stars

Evolution is packed with CGI. At the time the movie was made, computer graphics hadn’t quite reached the point of glistening realism that they have today. Consequently, the visual effects aren’t that spectacular. But, since this is a comedy, and the audience isn’t expected to take anything seriously, it’s not such a crime that the monsters lack a certain polish. I think the ape creature – which was most likely a costume – was a neat design and the cave that becomes the creatures birthplace has a nicely creepy air, if somewhat Star Trekey (Old School, of course). My major gripe about the effects in this film is that none of the alien abominations seem very original at all. From flatworms, to slugs, to reptiles and then apes, all of the spawning creatures mimic Earth life much too closely.

Visual: 3 stars

At last some memorable, albeit not astounding, lines of dialogue from a film! In one scene, Ira is advising his friend not to hope for cooperation from the military. He alludes to some past experience with the government. Allow yourself, for a moment, to believe that he’s talking about The X-Files. The lamest moment of dialogue comes after the rescue of the shoplifter in the mall. I bet you can guess what she says from miles away. So not funny.

Dialogue: 3 ½ stars

I enjoyed Evolution quite a bit. If you asked my brother, he’d tell you that the movie went well with “the munchies”. The next time you want to go retro (read late 90’s to early 2000’s) with your movie choice, pick up Evolution and enjoy some relaxed laughs for a couple of hours.

Alternate viewing choice: Mars Attacks
IMDB site
Official site (none found)
Rotten Tomatoes review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

The New World (2005)

Director: Terrence Malick
Venue: DVD
DVD Features: making of
Trailer

I initially started this review with a long paragraph about what a great director Ridley Scott is and how upset I was that he let me down with The New World. However, after visiting the ever so helpful website IMDB, I discover that it wasn’t Ridley Scott, but Terrence Malick who’d done such a horrible impression of Ridley Scott’s directing style.

The New World is a retelling of the Pocahontas story. Only, unlike the Disney version, this movie follows the tale beyond her relationship with John Smith. The film opens with Smith’s (Colin Farrell) arrival on the shores of the lush, fertile land of the Eastern coast. His shipmates begin to build shelter while he explores the neighboring terrain. Soon, he is discovered by the natives and spends time with the tribe learning to communicate. His primary tutor is the Chief’s daughter, Pocahontas (Q’Orianka Kilcher), who he finds himself falling in love with. Eventually, her love for him leads her to be banished from her people and she comes to learn the ways of European life. But, this is no love story, as the trailer would lead you to believe. Smith gives up the settlement and the princess in exchange for his lust for adventure and goes off to explore another shore. Our heroine nearly looses her mind out of grief, but manages to cope with a new lifestyle. And so the story progresses, bringing Pocahontas overseas to the Old World. Despite the issues I had with the directing, the movie really does a good job of showing how strong of a character this woman was. Although it’s disjointed in some parts and seems terribly long, the story isn’t a bad at all.

Plot: 3 stars

All of the actors portraying Native Americans in The New World did excellent work. They really gave the sense of being closer to nature and wise in the ways of the land. It was nice to see that the culture wasn’t made a mockery of. Looking back on the movie, I think that Q’Orianka Kilcher did a fantastic job in her role as the princess of legend. It was only my dissatisfaction with some of the other elements that initially caused me to think her acting was poor. Unfortunately, I can’t say that I’m as pleased with Farrell or Bale. Since Farrell was my main motivation for renting the movie, my expectations were not remotely met.

Acting: 3 stars

Anytime there are settlers and natives in a movie, there is bound to be some conflict. It’s the reflection of a shameful history. The main action sequence is the native attack on the settlement, which, in true Scott fashion, is a bit disjointed and chaotic. It’s bloody and people get taken out left and right, on both sides. The battle is difficult to follow and not particularly well choreographed. There is also some in-fighting between the settlers, which, although probably historically accurate, was a bit unsettling (hee hee).

Action: 1 star

The landscape of The New World is lush and green and beautiful. The sets were realistic and the whole movie felt very true to the time period and circumstances involved with the story. The costumes are well done also. Thankfully, there wasn’t any CGI. Several scenes are filmed in the same dicey fashion as the action sequence and it makes for terrible flow within the story. If you’ve seen Ridley Scott’s The Thin Red Line, it’s a similar style, but not nearly as effectively accomplished.

Visual: 2 ½ stars

The dialogue in The New World was, for lack of a good descriptive metaphor, really lame. In several scenes there are voice-overs of the characters thoughts, which, in itself, isn’t a bad method of storytelling, but work poorly in the film. For one thing, it doesn’t make any sense to have Pocahontas think in English before she has a good understanding of it spoken. For another, the inner thoughts of the two lead male characters don’t seem to have any place in the story. I think of it almost as a way of cheating. Instead of giving insight to these men using their actions or their speech, the audience is just told what they’re thinking. I don’t think that there was consistency in the characters’ accents either.

Dialogue: 1 star

I was really disappointed with the film overall. I was disappointed with John Smith for being such a slime ball. I kept wondering if the movie would ever end. Unless you are a hard core Pocahontas enthusiast, steer clear of The New World and explore another shore.

Alternate viewing choice: Dead Man
IMDB site
Official site (I couldn't get this to load up)
Rotten Tomatoes review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Final Destination 3 (2006)

Director: James Wong
Venue: DVD
DVD Features: trailers, making of, "choose their fate" feature, animated short, documentary, extended scenes, commentary, DVD-ROM material
Trailer

Even though this is the third installment in the Final Destination series, it’s not terribly necessary to have seen the previous two. Some reference is made to the first movie, but none at all to the second. There are no repeat characters from any of the prior cast either. Expect a high school atmosphere with a decent dose of gore mixed in. It’s different from the average teen horror flick in that it’s not a “slasher” movie and doesn’t follow the usual “if you do drugs or have sex, you die” morality. The overlaying premise of all three movies is as follows: one person has a ghastly premonition. That person saves a group of people from a horrible disaster. Since Death has been cheated, each person who was initially saved is now a target for some subsequent twisted demise. Basically, it’s as if Death must catch up and even the score. Each survivor of the first accident must die in the order they were originally intended to. One of the plot devices that I find entertaining is the trail of “clues” that make it possible to determine how the next person will die.

In Final Destination 3, a group of senior high school students is enjoying their class party at an amusement park. Wendy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) our “clairvoyant” is taking pictures for the yearbook. If you haven’t figured out what the disaster is going to be yet, you don’t have long to wait before the suspense is relieved. After she saves a group of fellow students, she goes home and mourns the death of her boyfriend. It isn’t until she reviews the photographs from that dreadful night that she starts to notice a pattern. Her jock friend Kevin (Ryan Merriman) also tips her off to something he read online about Flight 180 (from the first movie). The pair join forces and try to save the lives of the remaining survivors. Naturally, it’s hard to make believers out of everyone. For a teenage horror film, Final Destination 3 is a refreshing departure from most of the standard movies in that genre. I like the idea of “Death” as the antagonist, rather than some scary dude in a mask. There is a satisfactory amount of blood and guts. And, as previously mentioned, I like trying to decipher the messages and figure out how the next person will meet their end.

Plot: 3 ½ stars

The acting in this movie is what you might expect. The cast is a group of (I suspect) twenty some-things posing as teenagers. Final Destination 3 isn’t going to be nominated for any academy awards, surely, and I’d be surprised to see any of the actors going on to a prosperous Hollywood career. Certainly, none of them will show up in Final Destination 4, if there is one. I have definitely seen worse acting though.

Acting: 2 stars

I was satisfied with the amount of action in this film. There aren’t any terribly long periods of monotony between the bloodshed and there is a palatable degree of suspense. Once again, don’t expect any car chases or kung fu.

Action: 2 ½ stars

The important visual effects in this movie, naturally, involve the deaths of each character. There isn’t any detectable CGI, and I think the film was better off without it. The gore and special effects are gruesome and realistic. I love spattering blood! Final Destination 3 doesn’t offer anything in the way of other-worldly atmosphere, but it wasn’t meant to. All in all, visually stunning it was not, but neither was it cheesy or fake.

Visual: 3 stars

Regarding the dialogue in the movie, I was pleasantly surprised. I expected a group of teenagers to produce dialogue that was trite, forced and obnoxious. There was only one scene that felt out of place.Wendy turns, at one point, to her younger sister for support. Apparently, she’s so very burdened with guilt over not being able to save her boyfriend’s life, that she needs comfort an understanding from her sibling. I believe the scene was meant to give the impression of drawing the two characters closer together, but it just doesn’t work. The entire movie wouldn’t have suffered at all had this scene been cut. It doesn’t really play through. And, although Wendy is supposedly a person who needs to feel in control, and that line is driven into the ground throughout the film, there is no evidence through the acting or any other part of the dialogue to make this trait believable.

Dialogue: 2 ½ stars

In my opinion, this third movie didn’t measure up to the previous two. Maybe it was the cast of characters, or the repitition of the plot, or just that the other two were better all around. I wouldn’t consider buying the DVD- although it has some interesting options and I might watch it one more time, but that would be final.

Alternate viewing choice: Final Destination 2
IMDB site
Official site
Rotten Tomatoes review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

Director: Gore Verbinski
Venue: Theater
Starring: Johnny Depp, Keira Knightly, Orlando Bloom
trailer

If you haven’t seen the prequel to this movie, go and rent it now. There are loads of jokes and plot devices that require having seen the first movie to appreciate. Eventually, I will review that one as well, but take my word for it now – it’s great! I only wish there were more pirate movies of this caliber to enjoy. Oh please, oh please, let part 3 come out soon! In the past, I have dreaded follow-ups to my favorite movies. Lately though, movies like Spiderman and Lord of the Rings have proven that the rest of the series can be just as good as their predecessors.

Dead Man’s Chest picks up very near to where we last left Capt. Jack Sparrow (Depp), Will Turner (Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann (Knightley). On the day of her wedding to Will, Swann is abducted from the altar and thrown in jail. The head of a powerful trading company has an interest in Jack Sparrow’s mysterious compass and knows that Will is the most likely person to be able to find it. So, Elizabeth will be pardoned if Turner can accomplish this task. Capt. Sparrow, meanwhile, is aboard the Black Pearl and has a quest of his own to fulfill. He needs the key to the Dead Man’s Chest, but his compass doesn’t seem to be leading him in the right direction anymore. The Dead Man in question is Davey Jones, an undead sailor with command over the Kraken, a feared and legendary tentacled beast. Swann has no intention of remaining in prison, however, and finds her way out to join the adventure. The plot is original, entertaining, and moves at a good pace.

Plot: 5 stars

All of the original characters from the first Pirates movie are back (with the original stars) along with a few interesting new ones. My favorites of the latter have got to be Tia Dalma (Naomie Harris), the voodoo priestess that helps our friends on their journey and the villain, Davey Jones. She could have worked on her accent a little more though. Depp, Bloom and Knightly are all wonderful in their parts. I have to say that I feel a twinge of jealousy over Kiera and her close proximity to the two leading men (not to mention her role in The Jacket), but I can’t honestly say that she’s a poor actress. Johnny Depp has always been one of my favorite actors, not just because he’s smokin’ hot, but also because he isn’t afraid to step out of Hollywood and take a few obscure roles here and there. In my humble opinion, he’s one of the most under-appreciated men in the business.

Acting: 5 stars

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest can boast to having loads of action. There isn’t a dull moment between the running, the fighting and the thrills. I would say that it is as well paced as the first film. Still, Yuen Woo Ping isn’t the action director, so I can’t possibly give a full star rating to anything less.

Action: 4 stars

This second film is as loaded, if not more so, with CGI as the first. All of the “bad guys” are varying abominations from the depths of the sea. One man has barnacles growing out of his face, while another has the head of a hermit crab. My favorite special effect is Davey Jones (Bill Nighy). His head is basically an octopus, but the undulating tentacles that make up his beard are mesmerizing. The Kraken is a well-created beast as well. Dead Man’s Chest manages to fill the screen with graphics that are obviously computer generated, and at the same time, fascinating and non-cheesy.

Visual: 4 ½ stars

The dialogue in this film is snappy and fun. Although not deep in levels of context, it’s entertaining. No favorite lines spring to mind, but it’s always fun to imitate pirate lingo.

Dialogue: 3 ½ stars

As soon as it’s feasible, I will be purchasing both the first and second films on DVD as well as a ticket to the next feature. I don’t claim to have heard any rumors regarding this movie’s follow-up, but the end is an obvious clue that we haven’t seen the end of the story.

Alternate viewing choice: Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
IMDB site
Official site (you’ll need to download the latest version of Flash)
Rotten Tomatoes review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

A Scanner Darkly (2006)

Director: Richard Linklater
Venue: Theater
Starring: Wynona Ryder, Keanu Reeves, Robert Downey, Jr., Woody Harrelson
Trailer

A Scanner Darkly, if you haven’t seen the trailers, is a movie that was filmed with real actors, and digitally animated over the footage. The technique has been used before in a movie called Waking Life and in a few investment firm commercials. Initially, it takes some getting used to, as the motion on the entire screen is very unusual. The movie was based on a book by a prominent science fiction author; Philip K. Dick. He also penned amazing novels like Blade Runner and Minority Report.

Bob Arctor(Keanu Reeves) is an under cover drug enforcement agent. He remains anonymous to his employers by way of a special suit that displays constantly shifting human images. Before going out into the field, he sheds the futuristic suit and shows his true face to the odd band of drug addicts that he’s infiltrated. It becomes clear very quickly that he is too caught up in his own, personal drug addiction, to operate much longer as an effective agent, let alone a functioning individual. The two hemispheres of his brain no longer have the synapses required to communicate with each other, which eventually leaves him with a bizarre dementia (a.k.a. perma-trip). If you’ve had enough experience with psychoactive substances, A Scanner Darkly might just give you a few unpleasant flashbacks. Although the film is set in the future, it isn’t so alien as to separate itself from the audience.

Plot: 4 stars

If Keanu Reeves hadn’t done Constantine, I might completely deplore him as an actor. Someone I do thoroughly detest is Wynona Ryder. Unfortunately, A Scanner Darkly features them both (shudder). It’s a good thing that the cast is of the “all-star” variety. Two prominent names that leap to mind are Robert Downey Jr. and Woody Harrelson. For a movie that only showed at the local art-houses, the script and the director packed enough credentials to draw the big money makers. That’s got to say something in and of itself. The group of people that Arctor has become involved with are all very, very believable drug users. If you’ve lived that lifestyle at one point or another, you probably know/knew guys just like these.

Acting: 4 ½ stars

A Scanner Darkly doesn’t have much in the way of action to speak of. There are a few moments of tension here and there, but nothing explosive.

Action: 1 star

What the movie lacks in action is made up for in visual effects. The entire film is basically one huge special effect. I like the direction that A Scanner Darkly and movies/commercials of its kind take in animation. The technique is still fairly new and unused, so it’s not as tiresome as a completely CGI film. It does, however, make me kind of queasy. For a drug movie, it’s just the perfect format.

Visual: 4 ½ stars

A Scanner Darkly is driven secondly by dialogue. Without it, Arctor’s failing grasp on sanity would not be nearly as apparent. The other characters wouldn’t be nearly as convincing either. And if it were a silent film, there would be hardly any way of following the plot. So, this movie’s dialogue is indispensable.

Dialogue: 4 ½ stars

The main reason why I won’t be rushing out to get A Scanner Darkly as soon as the DVD is released is that it left me in a miserable head-space.

Alternate viewing choice: Waking Life
IMDB site
Official site
Rotten Tomatoes review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Master and Commander (2003)

Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)
Director: Peter Weir
Venue: DVD
DVD Features: The Day After Tomorrow trailer, I, Robot “Inside Look” and Man On Fire trailer.
Trailer

After seeing the latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie, I was hankering for more sea-faring adventure. While not at all a pirate movie, Master and Commander was the first film that sprang to my nautical mind. So, off I ran to the video store and picked up two movies about trans-oceanographic exploring. (I’m not telling what the other one was just yet). I still want pirates. But, I’ll take seamen as a substitute (hee hee)

Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe) captains a large sailing ship under the directives of the British (?) Navy. The movie takes place during the war with Napoleon (1805) and Aubrey and his crew are to hunt down enemy ships. While sailing in mysterious waters, an enemy ship appears out of the fog and attacks. Not able to resist a good battle, Capt. Jack spends the rest of the movie pursuing the ghostly ship. There is a sub-plot regarding the relationship that the captain and his friend, the naturalist, have. The naturalist acts as a foil to Aubrey, but it’s a little transparent and doesn’t satisfy. The movies also features a handful of characters that the audience is meant to care about. However, I wasn’t able to feel any emotion or concern when the crew starts to drop off. This movie was based on a series of books by Patrick O’Brian. And, if I had more than just a passing interest in sailing, I might be tempted to pick them up. It’s almost always a good bet that a novel will be more entertaining than it’s adaptation and I get the sense that Master & Commander falls into that category.

Plot: 2 1/2 stars

All in all, the acting in this film was convincing. I could see Crowe as the fanatical captain and the rest of the crew met their roles well. Although I don’t generally enjoy child actors, the youngest member of the cast was tolerable. However, as I mentioned previously, I wasn’t able to muster up any real concern or attachment for anyone in the film. I would have been drawn more to the naturalist, if he hadn’t been such a prick. It could be that the foregoing is a fault of the script rather than the players involved. I spent a good deal of the movie playing “spot the hobbit”.

Acting: 3 stars

The action in Master and Commander is the one thing that drew me into the movie. There are cannon blasts, careening debris, sword-fights, floggings, and raging storms! I’m terrified of the sea (go figure) and so every hull breach and man-overboard made my toes curl. I can’t imagine what it must have been like “back in the day” when a ship full of men put their lives in the hands of a wooden sailing vessel and spent months away from solid ground. Well, actually, I can now. The action choreography during the sword fight left something to be desired. Why is it that American directors like to focus in close and make the combat confusing? I couldn’t tell which men were the good guys and which were bad. I couldn’t tell who was shot, stabbed or wounded until the final body count. Sure the cannon blasts were pulse-pounding, but certain scenes should have been less confusing. I realize that, in all actuality, a battle across two ships would be confusing. However, when making a film, there comes a time to set aside a little of that authenticity in the interest of your audience.

Action: 3 ½ stars

Master & Commander is visually wonderful. I was told that authentic sailing ships and true to period costuming were applied. Whether or not the scenes were actually filmed out at sea, it’s hard to determine. The visual appeal doesn’t lie in the use of color; most of the film is greyish blue with splashes of color dotted here and there. Where it lies, however, is in the set design and costuming. I can honestly write that some scenes almost made me seasick. That’s realistic.

Visual: 4 1/2 stars

Once again, I am disappointed by the lack of snappy dialogue. And while snappy dialogue doesn’t make a movie, it certainly adds an attractive element. I keep hoping for a film that leaves me either pondering several lines, or repeating them endlessly in my head. No such recognizable banter in Master and Commander. While the conversations between the naturalist and the commander intend to serve a specific purpose, they lack a certain follow-through. Aside from a few quips placed here and there, no actual substance appears to support the dialogue.

Dialogue: 3 stars

While this movie had action that drew me into the moment, I didn’t find that I was actually left with any lasting effect. I think Master and Commander would hold up to one repeat viewing, but that’s all. I won’t be purchasing the DVD. The features of the DVD suck drastically anyway. If you really, really like sea adventures and old-school boats, you might be able to get into this film. If not, I don’t think you’d cry over passing it up at the video store.

Alternate viewing choice: Pirates of the Caribbean (either one)
IMDB site
Official site
Rotten Tomatoes review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

The Matador (2005)

Director: Richard Shepard
Venue: DVD
DVD Features: making of, commentary, deleted scenes, radio program, trailers

Once again, I’ve been misled by another trailer. (I should start a list.) The trailer for The Matador never peaked my interest. I thought, “Oh great, yet another Pierce Brosnan spy/action flick.” However, the opportunity to see it came my way and we all know that Neko never passes up a free movie. I’m glad I gave it a chance, because it was not at all what I expected. Brosnan plays a hit man, employed by a certain mysterious party, but, he’s cracking up, losing it, and the wires in his head are getting crossed. Enter Greg Kinnear (i.e. comic relief)

The two characters meet in Mexico. Both are there for business, each of a different sort, of course. They share a few drinks, go to a bullfight, and become sort of awkward friends. They are definitely a mismatched pair. That’s where the comedy derives from. I expected the comedy in this to be cheesy at best, but I was once again surprised. The Matador manages a good blend of laughs and excitement. Julian Noble (Brosnan) begins to find that he can’t handle “the business” anymore, but he can’t get his employer to give him a vacation. So, he travels the world on a few more jobs until one goes awry. Now, he finds himself on the hit list and there’s only one person he can go to for help. Although, in most regards, the plot of this film isn’t terribly original, it’s pulled off very well. My only gripe is, “Couldn’t they have thought up a better title?”

Plot: 3 1/2 stars

Brosnan, of course is a fine actor. When I first saw Kinnear appear in the film, I rolled my eyes. I’ve never liked the characters Kinnear played in any film. I suppose that it’s not the man’s acting ability that I dislike, but the roles he chooses to play. So, I thought that his role in the Matador would be equally as irritating. While he does play somewhat similar to his previous roles, it somehow works well to juxtapoz Brosnan’s role. The supporting cast does a fine job as well, but these two men steal the show.

Acting: 5 stars

The Matador is as exciting as it is funny. Sure, there are no car chases, I don’t recall any explosions, and there certainly isn’t any Kung Fu. However, there is an element of danger, suspense, and anxiety. Whenever Julian shows up, tension is built from wondering what this man will do next and how he’s going to screw up. And then, on top of that, is Danny (Kinnear) going to go along with his hair-brained plans, or back out? There’s also the fact that Julian Noble is employed as a hit man and that’s exciting too.

Action: 2 ½ stars

The lack of international flavor that I experienced with Munich, was made up for with The Matador. Firstly, when the scene switches to a new country, a great, big, full-screen title announces the new venue. Sure, it sounds dopey, but it’s actually kinda cool. Secondly, when the title flashes, “MEXICO”, the sun is bright and tropical, the atmosphere is laid back, and the bartender speaks Spanish. It really feels like Mexico. When the title says, “RUSSIA”, the flavor of the scene changes completely. There are pictures of monuments and recognizable landmarks. The weather is appropriate, the costumes are appropriate and all the intangible essence of the place comes alive. The cinematography is superb and the sets are very well done.

Visual: 4 1/2 stars

Since most of the tension and comedy in the film stems from the dialogue, it would have been difficult to make the movie as entertaining without it. There aren’t any lines out of place or mismatched with the characters. However, I like to find catch phrases in movies that would make a good tattoo, neat to work into daily dialogue, or plaster on a t-shirt. There weren’t any in The Matador.

Dialogue: 3 ½ stars

To summarize, The Matador is a worthwhile movie experience. It wasn’t at all what I expected, and didn’t disappoint. Macey and Kinnear are a good match and the movie has all the elements for an entertaining evening in front of the DVD player. I’m not going to be purchasing the DVD however, because I don’t think the film has repeat viewing value.

Alternate viewing choice: The Man Who Wasn’t There
IMDB site
Official site
Rotten Tomatoes review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Munich (2005)

Director: Steven Spielberg
Venue: DVD
DVD Features: audio, subtitles, intro by Spielberg

The movie Munich was inspired by the terrorist abduction and massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics. It features actual television news coverage from the event. However, instead of focusing on the attack itself, the movie revolves around the subsequent activities of a team of agents assigned to hunt down the men responsible. It centers on the man chosen to lead these clandestine activities and the psychological effects the mission has on him.

Munich is heavily charged with political commentary that is as relevant now as it was in 1972. I imagine that is why Spielberg chose to release this movie when he did. I also think this director likes to make movies from time to time that remind the film making community that he’s still very Jewish. Not being much of a history buff, and not having been around in 1972, I wasn’t previously aware of the Olympic tragedy in Munich. My lack of knowledge, however, didn’t detract from my enjoyment of the film. The opening scenes give enough background of the event to prepare the audience for the rest of the movie and does so quickly and actively enough to hold its interest. The movie’s basis on true events also serves to generate more of a desire to focus on what’s happening between the various players involved.

Plot: 4 stars

I really enjoyed the way Munich showed how effected these men were by everything going on around them. I found the acting in the movie convincing. The decline of the main character’s state of mind is consistent and apparent. It seems believable for a man in his situation. The men on his team are made up of the usual assortment of specialists, like an episode of Mission Impossible or The A-Team. There is the explosives specialist, the testosterone junky, and the clean-up expert. In this regard, Munich lost points for originality.

Acting: 3 stars

As should be expected of any espionage drama, there are plenty of action sequences. Although there isn’t much in the way of hand-to-hand combat, the movie is loaded with explosions and gunplay. Munich fills the in-between moments with tension and suspense. All of these ingredients are well paced and there aren’t any dull or boring scenes.

Action: 4 stars

The only category in which this Spielberg feature seriously lacks, is atmosphere. Although a large majority of the story takes place on foreign soil, there isn’t much of an international feel. Whether it was a sunny day in Italy, a rainy night in Brussels, or an industrial compound in Lebanon, I still felt like I hadn’t left the Hollywood lot. It takes more than a backdrop of the Eiffel Tower to make Paris come alive. Likewise, it takes more than a few colorful explosions to impress me.

Visual: 2 stars

Avner (Eric Bana) and his team are charged with the task of assassinating the 11 Palesinian men behind the athlete’s deaths. All of them are Jewish and, consequently, Munich is peppered with dialogue illustrating the characters’ convictions and beliefs. There are several points in the film, during which, the men involved question whether or not what they’re doing is right or justified. However, even the conversations that required subtitles didn’t do much to convince me of the regional differences.

Dialogue: 3 ½ stars

In summary, Munich was a satisfying cinematic experience. I neglected to view any of the DVD’s special features, but I do know that an intro by the director is available as an option to preceed the film. If you are into international espionage, Munich is solid, but don’t expect any James Bond type romance. Rent this movie only if you’ve got 2 hours and 44 minutes of uninterrupted viewing time (it sounds longer than it feels). This is definitely a movie that you’ll regret not giving your full attention to.

Alternate viewing choice: Syriana
IMDB site
Official site
Rotten Tomatoes review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

The F List

Fay Grim

Fido

Final Destination 3

The Fountain

Excuse the Mess

I'm in the process of doing some maintainence. So, the next 26 posts or so will look like a retarded episode of Seseme Street. If you'd like to view the latest review, please use the links to the right.

The Z List

There aren't currently any reviews in this section.
In the meantime, here are some words that start with the letter "Z":

Zero
Zebu
zeroth
zoogenic
zither

The Y List

You Better Watch Out

The X List

There aren't currenly any movies in this section.
In the meantime, here are some words that begin with the letter "X":

Xanadu
xenia
xerus
xyloid
xiphoid

The W List

Wanted

The Weather Man

The V List

Van Helsing

The U List

Unbreakable

UnDead

The S List

A Scanner Darkly

A Sound of Thunder

Seabiscuit

Shutter

Silent Hill

Sleepy Hollow

A Soul Haunted By Painting

Spiderman 3

Stranger Than Fiction

The Strangers

Superman Returns

The T List

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

Turistas

The R List

Rawhead Rex

The Ring Two

Runaway Jury

Running Scared

The Q List

There are currently no reviews of movies that begin with the letter Q. In the meantime, here is a list of interesting words that begin with Q:

quadragesimal
quadrillion
quadroon
quahog
quant