steel

yeah... um... what exactly can one say about this movie?  hmmm.  i guess i'll start by admitting that yes, it is as bad as you think it is.  i don't exactly know what the makers of this movie were thinking, but they certainly weren't thinking of a good movie!  its kind of a shame, really, because the character portrayed in the movie is actually a really great one.  in the dc comic book, john henry irons is a normal everyday man who was so heartbroken by the death of superman (yes, the character's origin comes from that 90's comic book story line) that he felt compelled to try and pick up the mantle of superman himself to fight crime.  since he doesn't have any super powers, he builds for himself a steel suit and emblazons it with the familiar 'S' in honor of his fallen hero.  what we get in this movie instead is a character rewritten to remove all traces of superman (they must not have been able to get the rights for that one, huh?), and instead it becomes about a military man who comes home to find his city has been overrun with crime and feels the need to stand up against the bad guys.  oh, and i haven't even gotten to the best part: shaq!  for some reason someone thought it was a good idea to cast this guy in the lead role.  i'm sure he is an amazing basketball player, but he is considerably less skilled when it comes to emoting...  serving as his mentor is richard roundtree, an appearance complete with terrible 'shaft' puns and all!  with this movie coming out in 1997, its no wonder it took another three years for the superhero movie to recover!

chernobyl diaries

i am a sucker for found footage films.  those are the kind of movies that try to appear like they were filmed by the actual people in the movie, one of the first of these kinds of movies is 'blair witch project' and has recently become more popular through movies like 'cloverfield' and 'paranormal activity'.  in fact, the director of paranormal activity is the brains behind this movie as well, oren peli.  though he didnt direct it, he did write and produce it.  the story follows four college kids russia when they find themselves with an opportunity to sneak in, with a guide, to the abandoned city to do some urban exploring.  of course, things go terribly wrong and bad things happen- this is a horror movie, after all!  the style of the film is very much grounded in the found footage style, but whats kind of interesting is that as the film goes on it almost feels like that style isnt quite as important, and we seem to begin watching in other ways, its almost like the film is a found footage movie, but without the cameras.  the characters arent very interesting or fleshed out, but with these kind of movies it seems to be something that isnt necessary.  the definite highlight of the film is the amazing sets.  now, i'm sure that they didnt actually get permission to film in chernobyl, but the abandoned buildings and city certainly do feel real- there's no way they build those sets!  the build up in the middle of the film does a great job of capturing just how isolated and desolate the area is.  though i dont think the ending is very strong, the build up to it was certainly worth the ride!

ted

ugh.  i guess its self fulfilling prophecy, but i knew i wouldn't like it and, surprise surprise, i didn't.  i know it was huge when it came out, but i only just now have gotten around to seeing it.  i don't really care for seth macfarlane, to be honest, i've never liked 'family guy' or any of the other imitations that he came up with, so i guess i shouldn't be stunned to find that i don't care for his big screen work either.  the story is about a boy who wishes his teddy bear would come alive and be his best friend.  it comes true and they all live happily every after.  this movie takes that premise and asks 'what would that relationship look like twenty five years later?'  turns out that he never grew up and now he's in his mid thirties and still acting like a child, and having his teddy bear around hasn't helped issues at all.  its a rather interesting and fun starting point for a story, but it doesn't really go beyond that idea.  it basically plays out each and every generic trope that one would expect.  in fact, it kind of plays like a romantic comedy between the guy and his bear.  the girl, mila kunis, is merely there to be the obstacle between the two.  she becomes someone who is trying to tear them apart.  the whole movie is terribly predictable and is mostly just pop culture reference after pop culture reference (although, should that really come as a surprise to anyone who knows macfarlane's style?).  the movie is obsessed with the flash gordon movie from the eighties.  that not being a touchstone of my youth (to be honest, i've never even seen it), all the references to it were lost on me.  i'm sure people who love macfarlane's stuff will totally adore this movie, but it was certainly not for me!

riddick

i'm not a huge fan of this character, but i rather enjoyed this movie.  the first riddick movie, 'pitch black', was a rather generic sci fi b-movie.  it was ok, but nothing special.  the second attempt to bring the character to the big screen, 'the chronicles of riddick', was really bad overblown lameness.  but this one was kind of fun.
the movie has a strange structure to it, basically combining three movies into one.  the first movie is about riddick trying to overcome the deadly challenges of this desolate world he has found himself on; he faces the scary creatures of the planet and adapts to its inhospitable environment.  the first third of the movie plays like a silent film where vin diesel is training and fighting the killer creatures to survive.  the second third of the movie finds riddick confronting two sets of bounty hunters trying to get him.  this section plays like 'the predator', except we see it from the perspective of riddick, the creature being hunted.  i really liked this part of the movie and felt it was the strongest portion.  the last third plays more like a jailbreak movie where everyone is just trying to get off the planet and overcome the beasties that are attacking.  over all, for such a small picture, it does a great job with the special effects, making believable creatures and environments.  the whole mish-mash of the three movie styles in one kind of works, it allows the movie cliches to be glossed over.  sure, its predictable, but it doesnt linger long enough on any one trope to get stale.  to be honest, i would welcome another film in the riddick series if its as fun as this one!

here comes the boom

ok, i know full well that this is not a good movie.  i went in with the understanding that this is not the best film that cinema has to offer.  with that foreknowledge, i must say, i rather enjoyed it.  i've got a bit of a sweet spot in my heart for kevin james, being a larger man myself, i always find myself cheering on other larger guys no matter what.  well, this movie finds kevin james as a teacher trying to raise some money to keep the arts at his school.  now they have hit my sweet spot: i'm a teacher, a kevin james fan, and i have a degree in art.  im pretty sure that my opinion can be declared invalid at this point, and i know it.  the main plot of the film revolves around james' character making the decision to become an MMA fighter.  not being a sports fan, this was, to me, the part of the movie that i didnt care as much for.  for me, i could have just watched an entire movie about kevin james as a teacher and been all set!  the problem with the film is that it follows every single cliche about the underdog sports film as well as every cliche from any adam sandler produced comedy, and does very little else.  i know, but james is so likable that the fact that its bad just kind of melts away- and its got henry winkler!  there's no way i can stand up against that sort of charisma power!  over all, i know its not that great of a movie, its completely predictable and bland, but i rather enjoyed it none the less.  perhaps that makes me a bad movie critic, but i dont care.

watchmen: the motion comic

rightfully considered the greatest comic book ever written, this dvd set is the original comic book brought to life with limited animation.  purchased as a part of the watchman ultimate edition dvd set, this motion comic is a retelling of the original 12 part series.  what exactly is a 'motion comic' you ask?  well, its pretty simple really, the comic panels themselves are slightly animated while a narrator reads out the word balloons.  if its an image of a person standing there, the light on their face may change slightly, or if something is on fire the flames pulsate a bit.  its a little strange at first, but you quickly grow used to its limited movement.  its basically a visual audio book.  the most unusual part of this particular production is the choice that was made to have the same actor read all the parts- including the women!  the strangeness of it all quickly fades away because the story being told is so engrossing that none of it really matters.  the most amazing part was how quickly it passed by, the 12 episodes total almost five and a half hours!  many  people had a problem with the live action movie because it skimped out on the story and completely missed out on some of the themes, but this production misses out on nothing, considering it includes every single word of the original series!  despite the limited animation and only one voice talent taking on all the roles (which, to his credit, tom stechschulte does very well), it is a worthy adaptation of the seminal source material.

batman: the dark knight returns part 1

like every good comic book nerd, i've read the frank miller classic dark knight returns, but its been a while.  most of it had been forgotten, so it was with almost new eyes that i was able to watch this animated adaptation.  i dont remember much of the comic, which meant that most of the story was unfamiliar to me.  the basic premise is this: its been ten years since bruce wayne hung up the cowl, and since then crime has escalated.  no longer content to drink away his feelings of responsibility and justice, he decides to step up and deal with this new 'mutant' gang thats plaguing the city.  this first part of the story deals with bruce getting back into the cape, gaining a new sidekick, and confronting the mutant menace head on.  it also sets up nicely where the story is headed.
like with all of these dc comics animated movies, there is a learning curve to jumping on board.  the animation isnt always the greatest, but for a direct to dvd release, its as good as could be expected.  also, the vocal acting is a bit stilted and doesnt really flow well, but thats kind of what these things are like.  its like listening to shakespeare, it takes about 10 minutes of it sounding like a different language before you get your barrings and are able to be immersed into the world.  after about the first 15 minutes, the mediocre animation and stilted voices melt away and the story is able to take you away.  its a little weird to watch an animated batman and not hear the voice of kevin conroy coming out, but peter weller is an acceptable substitute for this aging bruce wayne.  i know this movie added some things to the original story, but almost all of it worked pretty well and blended in to give the story a little richer context.  almost all of it- the race scene at the beginning just did not feel like it belonged at all.  come on, gotham during the day time?!?  no one wants to see that!  overall though, a nice job, and now i look forward to part 2!

hunger games

i had been eagerly awaiting this movie to come out.  a couple years ago i read this book and found it to be very good- well told and action packed.  so when the film came out i was pretty excited to see it.  i didnt get the chance to see it in theaters, but i finally caught up with it and thought it was ok.  the story follows its main character, katniss, as she becomes a contestant in a bizarre game show where children must fight to the death, leaving only one left alive.  most of the actors do a great job, hitting the pathos and emotion needed in the roles, but a lot of the choices made by the director were baffling, and at times brought down the whole thing.  some of the design work, whether it was in the districts as they watched the games, or the city and its citizens was distracting and unnecessary- really?  all those ridiculous clothes and hairstyles?  too much!  but the real problem for me was the way the movie was shot.  there were very few establishing shots- a huge pet peeve of mine.  often through out the movie it was really difficult to know what was actually going on because either the camera was way too close, it was too shaky, or both.  a crucial moment in the film in understanding the relationship of the characters is shown in a flashback between katniss and her district partner, but its almost impossible to understand what is going on and why its important simply because the camera never shows a proper view of whats going on!  another important element is the emotional weight of the final moments of the game, but it is rushed and unexplained, making it impossible to care about or believe the decisions that katniss makes.  its frustrating because the source material was an automatic home run that, due to sloppy directing, only becomes a double, and thats only through sheer force of storytelling.
it looks like gary ross will not be directing the second one- which means that i'm not the only one who had a problem with this guy, huh?  well, hope they get the second one right at least!

taken 2

the first movie was ok, it owed its great success completely to that phenomenal trailer where liam neeson tells off the men who kidnapped his daughter.  that monologue was so fantastic that there was a lot of good will that this sequel played off of.  the only problem is that the good will is pretty well wasted.  this time neeson is in turkey on vacation with his daughter and ex-wife when the family of the kidnappers from the first movie decide they want revenge.  as one would expect, superman neeson does everything he can to get his family out alive.  the city of istanbul is beautiful, which gives the movie a cool backdrop, but the story and action itself is pretty bland.  the only thing that keeps this one out of the garbage bin is just how cool neeson is.  this is the role he was made for!  though i didn't really care for this movie, i would certainly watch a 'taken 3' if they made one- just to see neeson do his revenge thing!

skyfall

i'm not a huge james bond fan, i've only seen one or two of them from before daniel craig took on the role, so bare in mind i dont have much to go on.  even still, i would definitely say that this was the best of all the bond movies!  the story clipped along at a great pace, fast action that slowed down for the personal moments when needed.  we gained a lot of background about bond, more than any other bond movie i've ever seen.  the story starts as james bond is shot in the line of duty.  he's thought dead, but shows up a few months later and dives back in when m needs him to.  the story was good enough for what it is, a bond movie, but the thing that makes me love this film so much was the absolutely gorgeous cinematography.  this is one of the best looking movies i have ever seen in my life!  at times i forgot to even pay attention to the story because i was so drawn in my be amazing visuals!  the casino he visits in china, with candles lining the water, was breathtaking.  the action in the all glass floor of the chinese skyscraper was amazing- the interplay of the neon lights outside playing off the glass surfaces was a visual symphony.  the showdown at the old orphanage was a dirty fiery feast for the eyes.  at every moment i was taken in by the beauty of each shot, even if the action was grossly brutal.  you know, this could have been the worst movie in the world, but i was so blown away by how gorgeous it was that i wouldn't have even noticed!

ghost rider: spirit of vengeance

granted, the first one wasnt that good, but it wasnt as bad as it could have been.  it was a fairly straight forward superhero movie.  this one though?  quite different...  it doesnt waste any time with an origin story or anything like that, we are just told that johnny blaze made a deal with the devil and now, for some reason, is living in the former soviet union (at least i think thats where it takes place...).  he's got a score to settle and nothing is going to stop him!  this movie is rather crazy, although what else would you expect from the directors who made the 'crank' series?  the story doesnt make much sense, instead feeling like just a random collection of scenes for our hero to 'ghost ride' in to.  but we arent here for the story, are we?  its all about the vengeance, and this movie has a few really cool looking fight scenes.  the certainly got the flaming skeleton right- that thing was awesome!  they also got the attitude of ghost rider right: he doesnt care about being nice, he's there to get rid of the problem.  through the frenetic style and balls out violence, we get to see a rather cool interpretation of what this demon would actually be like.  when he's not the flaming head though, johnny blaze is absolutely terrible.  nicolas cage does his 'crazy guy' shtick here which does seem a bit overboard, even with the chaotic style.  i was very excited to see christopher lambert on screen again though, too bad he was completely underused.  all in all, this is exactly what it claims to be: an all out trashy 'B' movie!

john carter

everything you've heard about this one is true: this thing stinks!  the story follows john carter, a man who left the fighting in the civil war to go out west, as he miraculously transports to mars!  why?  well, never mind that, lets just get to the strange martians!  he meets up with some strange four armed green aliens and tries to learn their ways.  if the film would have stopped there and just dealt with the story of 'a stranger in a strange land' as he learns about them, it may have had a chance at being ok.  but no no no!  they go on to introduce two other races on mars that are feuding for control of the planet (which, by the way, doesn't really seem to have any impact on the green guys at all, one way or another).  these two races seem to be exactly the same as humans, except that they have have tattoos and wear red or blue to distinguish them from each other.  john carter, of course, is the 'chosen one' that all the prophecies are about, so he steps in as their leader and works with the green guys to get rid of the bad guys, which are the red ones.  or is that the blue ones?  does it really matter?  nope.  i kind of feel bad for the movie, its based on the old book 'a princess of mars', written in 1917 by edger rice burroughs (the guy who created tarzan).  its got a bunch of great ideas that were ahead of their time, but unfortunately it has been pillaged by every other author and film maker since, so any ideas that were creative and new back in 1917 are old and worn out by 2012.  sorry, i'm sure this was an interesting story with amazing ideas back then, but today it just seems cliche.  the effects look pretty good, but all of it is meaningless because of the overly complex and predictable storytelling.  i'm sure this would have been an amazing story to turn into a film back in the 1950's, but it just doesn't hold any interest today.

ides of march

this film is an exploration of one man's journey from naive wonder to hardened corruption.  the perfect showcase for someone being corrupt?  well, politics, of course!  the story follows ryan gosling's character, a political campaign specialist, as he works on getting clooney's character, an inspiring senator who seems like the real deal, to with the presidency.  along the way he makes a couple mistakes, finds out about what is really going on behind that veneer of change and hope, and realized what politics is actually about.  its a sad tale of innocence lost as he faces the reality if the political machine that uses you and spits you out like last week's garbage.  gosling tries to be an agent for change in a positive way at the beginning of the film, but we see him soon become everything he hates as the truth of who clooney is comes crashing down around him.  its and interesting film that shows the journey of gosling's fall from optimism.  by the end of the film we understand how these men, thirsty for power, become the monsters we know them to be.  though the film may be slight, it does carry a sadness that comes with the loss of innocence.

girl with the dragon tattoo

having never read the book i wasnt quite sure what to expect.  the film looks fantastic, but to be honest, it kind of felt like an R rated episode of a crime drama that shows nightly on cbs.  the story follows daniel craig's character as he investigates an old case of a girl gone missing.  the uncle of the missing girl wants to truth about this cold case figured out once and for all.  as he tries to get to the bottom of it, he enlists the aid of an emotionally broken down girl who is the best there is at finding stuff out.  the two of them work together to solve the case and grow closer to each other along the way.  kind of basic stuff with a pretty sorted and dirty underlying story about rape and abuse that comes to light as they begin to crack the case.  its an ok crime drama, but i dont exactly know what all the fuss is about.  i felt like the story of the girl never really tied in to the main drive of the story, which was craig's story.  it almost felt like it was two movies for the first half.  the ending (if this is viewed as a stand alone movie and not just the first part of a trilogy) was unnecessary and felt tacked on.  did we really need to see that last relationship beat between the two of them?  it felt like it was just put there as a way of letting us know that the story of these two characters would continue in the next film.  but as it is, i dont feel that this film gives me any reason or is a compelling enough story to bother with a sequel.

anonymous

i dont know all that much about shakespeare, i've read a few of his plays and watched a bunch of movies based on his work, but as for the man himself? i know very little.  it is with this relative ignorance that i come into this move.  it is a movie that puts forward a theory that the man we know as shakespeare didnt actually write any of the work that is attributed to him.  the film instead insists that it was actually a duke of oxford who wrote the highest regarded works in the english language.
the film itself is a bit of a mess, it jumps around from the present, to 1601, three years earlier, and then 40 years before that.  often times, the jumps are hardly even addressed, we are just expected to know what is going on.  its a jumbled mess for the first half hour or so, but after that the story falls in to place and is actually quite compelling.  there is a lot of interplay between the duke, the actors of the plays, and queen elizabeth.  the twists and turns along the way get a bit muddled due to some poor casting (so many of them look alike i had a hard time keeping them straight!) and a bunch of time jumps, the the main drive of the story remains fairly clear.  the most impressive part of the film, though, was the visceral quality of the imagery.  all of the scenes at the theatre were quite spectacular  the staging of the plays that were performed, the audiences responses, and the dark dingy reality of life at this time.  they do a great job of set and costume design, showing the reality of dirty fingernails, ink stained fingers, and poor dental hygiene.  the theory of who the real author of the shakespeare plays is an interesting one, but the visuals alone for the film make it worth watching!