x3: the last stand

not very often do i say something like this, but in this situation its true: this movie has too much action. what?!? crazy talk, i know. but true. the first xmen movie was good, too much origin and set up, but what do you expect from a first movie? the second one, on the other hand, was excellent, it followed through on all the potential laid out in the first one. each of those movies had some really great ideas and conflicts that were fleshed out very well. when charles and magneto confronted each other you could really understand the different opinions and the weight of what needed to be done. there was action, but it was all to serve the story and its characters.
the problem with this third movie is that the action feels like it happens so that there can be action in it. the story line is interesting, but it never bothers to dig deeper and try to understand the characters and the choices they make. we never really feel the impact of the events because we havent taken any time to understand what the characters are thinking or feeling.
also, this movie is just plain too crowded! there are far too many characters to really give them enough time to tell there story. there are a couple times where a character dies and its almost hard to care because we dont have any connection with them in this movie. we are introduced to several new ones this time around, but we are not given much time to spend with them and care about what they are going through. oh, and what ever happened to nightcrawler?!? there is enough story here to fill three or four movies, but instead they jam pack it all in and only cover the highlights. the development in the story of mystiques relationship with magneto alone could have been an interesting movie. the relationship and decisions made between rogue and iceman could have been a movie. angel's relationship with his father and what comes of it could have been a movie. like i said, there could have been three or four movies made out of all the parts of this one, but instead all we get are the clift notes version of each.
dont get me wrong though, its definitely worth seeing: the story was good, the action was done well, i just wish i had more time with the characters along the way.

blade trilogy

for some reason i cant remember i decided to watch the blade trilogy. i did it a bit out of order though, i started with the second one, then third, and finally the first one. i like the series, so it was kind of cool to watch them all with in the same same day or two. here are a few of my thoughts:
Blade- when i first saw this in college i remember thinking how awesome this movie was and how amazing the action was! its strange what a few years can do to your perspective... this is one of those movies that falls victim to the matrix 'shift' i wrote about last post. the action was fast paced and exciting, except after the matrix it seems generic and a little lame. the 'blood bath' club scene at the beginning, which i have always looked back at as one of the coolest scenes in any vampire movie, even looks cheesy. the bad guy, deacon frost (stephen dorff) comes off as a total puff. i still enjoyed the movie, but it is not nearly as good as i always thought it was. oh well.

Blade II- the first time i saw this was in the theater. i fell asleep (granted i saw it on a weeknight at 11:00pm after a long day of work). it wasnt until it came out on video that i gave it another look. and wow, im glad i did! this is, in my opinion, the best of the three by far!!! the whole attitude and atmosphere of the first one was different- this was an action horror movie, not just an action movie. the unreal setting (which many people dont like) allows the film to go darker and deeper into the vampire culture. and those new creaures with their jaw-fangs still freak me out!!! the effects are better, the action is very exaggerated and over the top, but in a way that is believable within the films unreal context. the aspect of blade having to team up with the vampires and form a group of mercenaries on the hunt gives it a kind of uneasy 'seven samurai' feel to it. also, the way the bad guy effects are done, they are very off handed and little attention is paid to them- which makes them more believable and almost scarier. the director went on to do 'hellboy' which is one of my favorites! i just really loved rewatching this film. to be honest, i watched this one twice in a row, once just watching, and the second time with the director commentary, and i look forward to watching it again soon to hear the other commentary on the disk! i must say, if you havent seen blade II you are really missing out!
Blade Trinity- crap. i really wanted to like this one, its got ryan reynolds in it, whom i still totally love from 'two guys and a girl' as berg, and its got the hottest chick on earth: jessica biel. so, its got a lot going for it, but for some reason it just plain sucks. this is the 'batman and robin' of the blade series. i dont know what went wrong, maybe it was the first time director (who actually wrote all three films), or maybe it was the complete change of direction from action to action/comedy that brought it down. i dont know. one of its problems is that its on about the same level as 'alien vs. predator'. nothing creative, nothing inspired. i mean, the movie starts out with guys in space suits finding a hidden mystery in an ancient pyramid- how cheesy and generic can you get?!? all that being said, i would actually love to see a 'nightstalkers' movie with reynolds and biel. that would be cool. just dont let this guy direct it...

shifts

though out the past there have been huge shifts and changes in the movie business. these changes altar our perspective on the films we see. something can come up in a particular movie and every movie after it is no longer the same. i guess it would be like different eras in film. for example: when 'jaws' came around, the business changed. suddenly there were movies that could become "blockbusters". there have been other such important changes in the past. here are a couple more, in my life, that i noticed:
jurassic park- every movie that came before it was now outdated, and every movie after had to reach a certain bar of special effects.
matrix- every action movie before suddenly looked boring and simple. no longer were we interested in segal/van damme style action. action films reached a new standard.
its like you can watch a movie and notice 'oh, this is pre-matrix, im sure it was cool then, but now it looks cheesy'. for example- mortal combat had some cool action in it (i thought so at least), but now the action is laughable.

zathura

i wanted to like this one, so im sure i am a bit bias, but i actually liked it more than i thought i would. i am a fan of chris van allsburg, the writer. when i was in elementary school he came to the local book store to read a book to everyone and i was able to go and meet him. it was really cool. his books are actually one of the reasons that i gained an interest in art, and eventually went to college for art.
he wrote the books that jumanji and polar express are based on, as well as the basis for the is movie (which is a sequel of sorts to jumanji). i havent seen jumanji in a very long time, but i remember liking it a bit, and i havent yet seen polar express, but i really thought zathura was very good! the directing, by jon favrou, was really great. the pace allowed the story to move and keep our interest. also, the mood of the film was very playful and upbeat. even when these horrible things were happening it was obvious that nothing was going to happen to the boys, and instead you could just go along for the ride! i think it got unfairly categoried as 'just' a family film (which typically means that twentysomethings wont really care for it) but i thought it was alot of fun, and certainly not just for kids. it has that same sort of appeal that 'elf' has (oddly enough, also directed by favrou).

red eye

i figured id give this one a shot this weekend. i know john carpenter is often hit-or-miss (and typically a miss), but with all the positive responses when it first came out, i thought i should try it out. i enjoyed it more than i thought i would. it not necessarily scary, nor does it try to be, it just accepts itself as a fairly straight ahead thriller. the twists and turns are minimal, but thats not a bad thing. there were, as with all these kinds of movies, a few points of impossibility and plot elements that just dont add up, but the chemistry of the the two leads, the spunky pace, and the fluffy popcorn feel of the movie allows one to dismiss a lot of the problems and instead just sit back and see how this one plays out.

da vinci code

i just went to go see the da vinci code. it was pretty good. actually, it did a good job of cleaning up a lot of the sloppy structural plot problems of the book. i found the book was a bit to much 'all over the place', while the movie stays focused better. much of the book i had forgotten, so it was a bit nice to have some of the revelations and twists be new again for me.
the story is well told, there is some nice moments of suspense throughout, and the best part is definitely ian mckellen! he plays an eccentric billionaire (always handy to have one of those around to save the day whenever the story gets written into a corner...) with a charming obsession with england, and a razor sharp sense of humor. i would have actually preferred to just watch him for two hours... tom hanks does a decent job, but i have one question: did he have a cold through out the whole filming or something?!? i dont know, maybe its supposed to be a different voice for the role, but it just sounds like he has a stuffy nose throughout the whole movie!
here's my main problem with the film (i guess the book too): they keep saying that this priory of sion must hide this secret that, if revealed 'will destroy the church'. but throughout the movie the priory of scion is shown as the enemy of the church. if that's the case, then why wouldn't they want to reveal it? if you have a chance to destroy an enemy, why not use it?
also, how would this information destroy the church? oooooh, jesus was married! so? that still doesn't effect the fact that he's the son of God. ooooh, mary magdalene was supposed to be the head of the church! so? this would really only tick off the catholics because of that whole pope thing.
i guess the big problem to me is this: with in the contest of the story, the claims it makes and claims as true, it doesn't make any sense. let me explain: according to the 'facts' of the story, they claim that jesus was not the son of God, but just a normal man who Constantine decided to make into a god. ok. if that's the basic idea being presented then why do we care about the rest? why would these secret societies be so obsessed with the story of jesus and his lineage if they see him as just a normal guy? why aren't there secret societies obsessed about the lineage of gary the mailman? he's just a normal guy like they claim jesus is, so why do they care? by making it such an important thing they are contradicting themselves.
when it comes down to it, 'national treasure' was a better movie.

ace ventura

even after all these years, this one still makes me pee my pants laughing! (though, honestly, the second one is funnier...)

bubble

this movie got a lot of press a little bit ago because of its unconventional release. the movie was available at the theater, on dvd, and on pay-per-view all on the same week. it is the first in a line of experimental films that will see if this is actually a viable business model for films. i dont know if it was successful or anything, i just know that i saw the movie last weekend.
my reaction to the film: wow. i dont know what it is about the film, its not like there is anything in particular that stands out or anything, but its been almost a week and it still haunts me. the story is very simple. ridiculously simple, actually. its about a young guy and an older woman who work together in a factory in the midwest. then a new woman starts working at the factory. and thats pretty much it. (well, there is a little bit more, but i dont want to ruin anything for you.) the mood of the film though, is amazing. its poorly lit, its messy, its awkward. just like real life. it hardly has the feeling of a movie, it feels more like a day in the life of these people as they go about their usual daily events. some parts are slow, sometimes the characters dont have anything interesting to say, and things dont always work out well. but its done in such convincing way that it gets to the hardest thing to do in cinema: it tells the truth.

devils rejects

this one sucked hard.

inside man

i was quite pleasantly surprised. i was looking forward to this movie ever since i first saw that jodie foster was in it. (i will go see anything she is in. im not entirely sure why i have such blind faith in her, but i do) i am always a sucker for a good hiest movie, and from the previews this one looked to fit the bill.
the actors in it were really good. denzel actually had a part that bordered on comedy. he had a lot of great lines and funny responses to situations. clive owen was perfect as the calm cool and collected theif. the twists and turns were perfectly executed, some we knew were coming and that was ok, but the really big ones i thought were totally unexpected! the ending was very satisfying. the biggest problem i find with this type of movie, though, is the unsettling fact that we are suppossed to rooting for the bad guys to pull it off. it just seems wierd to hope they steal and dont get caught.
oh, and jodie foster is spot-on in her role (one that we dont see from her very often either)
my one quelm with the movie is this: spike lee (he directed it) cant leave a popcorn movie alone. he has to give it a message so that its 'meaningful'. he does that in this one, except really poorly. its obvious he wanted to add in some statement about culture, so he tacks on this terrible scene about one of the children in the movie playing a video game and clive own sees the game and complains about how 'video games are so violent and are corrupting the youth'. it was totally out of place and actually weakened the impact of a later scene.

a history of violence

i just watched this movie tonight with the guys. i knew the story a little bit going in, but i wasnt sure at all how it would play out, it is david kronenberg after all. i had heard some friends who had seen it in the theater talk about how horrible it was, but on the other hand there were so many critics who raved about it. i figured i should give it a try and see what i thought. it starts out fairly simply, a standard story about a man and his family. some of the stuff with the son is pretty cheesy (and who ever it was that played him: may he never work again), but so many of the shots and angles are strange and off putting that it always feels like something else is going on behind the scenes. one of the most interesting parts of the film is the sparse/non-existent soundtrack. there is very little music, which adds even more to the off center feel of the movie. ed harris and william hurt were pitch perfect in their roles, and viggo does a good job of portraying a character who might have more going on than he is willing to share. i was pleasantly surprised.

v for vendetta

over the weekend i want and saw this with my friend matt. i had been looking forward to this movie for a while now. its based on a comic book of the same name and is written by alan moore. i have not read much of moores stuff, but what i have read has been amazing- thus my excitement for the film. moore has always written good stuff, but they often mess up with translating it to screen. well, i guess its more like one hit and one miss (i dont mean box office wise, because they both missed, i mean by how i liked them). the hit was 'from hell'. there are many who say its terrible, but i rather enjoyed it. and really, jonny depp can do no wrong. the big miss was 'the league of extraordinary gentlemen. a great book, but an overblown mess of a movie. sorry, even sean connery cant save that load of crap.
anyway, v for vendetta was totally amazing! the visuals were great, and the storyline was very well done, i was drawn in very quickly into the stories and lives of the people involved. some of the twists and turns through out the story caught me by surprise because i wasnt thinking about what would happen next, i was too busy in the moment with the characters. the themes and topics that are tackled are handled well and incourage a thoughtful consideration by the audience. you really have to decide if the masked man is a hero, or a terrorist.
i was very impressed with the film, even though we got there 5 minutes after it started, and it had no sound for the last 10 minutes! (dont worry, i got a free pass out of the deal...)

poolhall junkies

i recently watched poolhall junkies and have decided i want to be a hustler. my friends in michigan have been singing of its praises for years now, but i had been a little slow in jumping on the boat. the movie is really cool though, so now i understand the obsessions of my friends. its about a guy who is a super good pool hustler. he missed out on his opportunity to go pro, so he has been trying to give it up, but is slowly drawn back into the game. the cast is amazing- its got chazz paliminari as the angry pool mentor, chris walken as the cool boss/backer, rick shroder as the hired talent, and even that guy who plays lex on smallville as the main character's little brother.
the movie is a fast paced ride as the main character tries to return to the game and prove to his old mentor that he can make it. there are a lot of twists and turns, some really cool trick shots, and some great cons. the ending is just plain brilliant!
another fun part of the movie for me was the fact that it was filmed in salt lake city, so a bunch of the places they filmed in and around i was able to recognize! a few times i had to rewind the movie because i was too busy going 'oh! ive been there! thats right by the coffee shop i used to work in!'

movies movies movies

ive bought alot of new movies lately (again). most of which i have never even seen. this whole blind buy thing is actually new to me. heres what ive gotten: wallace and gromit: curse of the ware-rabbit, highway man, the upside of anger, and one other one i cant think of right now. anyway, i hope to watch them soon. ill keep you posted on my opinions.

ps. i dont know what that picture has to do with anything, but its the first image that came up in google images when i typed in my post title 'movies movies movies'. strange...

my own set of movie rules

a while ago i posted about a humorous list of rules by preston stergus for how to make a successful movie. at the time i said i should come up with my own rules for sucessful movie making. i figure its about time to start. i will add rules periodically as i think of them. but for now, here we go:


rule #392: old women swearing is always funny.
rule #128: any car in a crash has to explode.
rule #443: bad guys must attack one at a time.
rule #211: one hit will kill a bad guy, but one hit will only make the good guy stronger.

more to come...