This movie is polarizing reviewers. Artistic masterpiece versus incredible waste of time. I've been waiting for the movie for months, maybe a year even. And now, having sat through two and a half hours of it? I think it's better to invest a few hours into reading the graphic novel before watching the movie.

The translation from page to film is pretty accurate but there's too much context and subtext missing. I'd even suggest that having a good idea of how/why Watchmen is important in the history of comics and superheroes is necessary for full enjoyment. Don't get me wrong, I think the movie is well made and Zach Snyder did an amazing job, but I'm beginning to believe Alan Moore when he says that his work is unfilmmable.

I was worried for my fellow movie-goers who hadn't read the book. I was sure they would think the movie was terrible. Even as a superfan, I thought the pace dragged a little (but was pleased with how much wasn't cut) and the tone was too one-note. I think people are going to go into the movie thinking it's a superhero flick and halfway through, will realize that they're getting nothing of the sort. There's entertainment here, but nothing like Iron Man or The Dark Knight Returns. In comparison to the latter, I'd much prefer to re-watch Watchmen over and over though, because there's more you could unearth with multiple viewings, unlike Batman, who tries to give a nod to symbolism and meaning but is really just vapid in comparison.

In sum, the film version of Watchmen functions better as a visual companion to the book and doesn't necessarily work very well as a standalone piece. Don't watch it unless you've read it, that's what I'm saying.

Update: I take it all back. Watchmen is in (financial) trouble! Go watch it immediately. Then watch it again.

Labels: B, Movies

The movie opens with a quote from Socrates, "The unexamined life is not worth living." That sets the stage for an hour and a half of watching/listening to big thinkers talk about big things. The film is technically about philosophy and could serve as that but it struck me more as an experiment in movie making. Similar to Richard Linklater's "Waking Life," the entire running time is taken up by various people walking/sitting and talking to the camera. But unlike Waking Life, the topics and charisma of (some of) the speakers didn't put me to sleep.

There's a lot to think about when coming out of the movie, but because of the rapid pace, you kind of lose the ideas that germinate while watching it. Thus, I took out my iPhone and started taking notes. Midway into the movie, an old lady leaned over and said that it was very distracting. Initially chastened, I put the phone away. Then I thought about it some more and decided that I should be able to take notes on my phone if I wanted to. I assumed she was bothered by the light so I dimmed the screen down to the minimum and continued note taking.

Some of the topics mused over and talked about: the moral obligation to not just avoid harming others, but also to help. From behind her rose-tinted glasses, one woman talked about how in our search for meaning, we need to have anxiety about our actions and decisions. There was someone noting the difference between religious evangelism ("be like me so I can love you properly") versus the ideal of cosmopolitian love ("be who you are and I'll love you as I love myself"). There was a discussion about being handicapped, whether it be physical or mental, and how that undermines and alters the idea of Rousseau's social contract.

The two most charismatic talkers of the group were Cornel West and Slavoj Zizek (the subject of the filmmaker's first movie). Zizek stood around in a landfill talking about ecology as the new religion, and how more alienation from the environment would be better for us. Mr. West used his particular brand of bebop charm to talk about how philosophizing is learning to die.

These are just some of things that came up in the movie, of course. Every utterance is probably worth discussion and while it's certainly interesting, I can definitely understand some people getting tired and falling asleep. Pump in some caffeine and stay awake!

Labels: B, Movies

I have quite a bit to say about this movie. So hang around for the ride or eject now. First off, it's well known that I'll take a seat in front of any rom-com, if only to "spoil my love life." Having had my eye on the progression of the movie's title from Sex and the City catchphrase, to book, and now to movie, I was prepared for anything. Well, one of my first friend reviews about the film came from my sister, who literally hopped and skipped out of the move in glee when she saw it last week. Then Lilly gave the movie a favorable review in her wonderfully entertaining post. So I was ready for a winner and that's what I got... sort of.

First, I was thoroughly entertained throughout, even if there were plenty of times/lines when I had to suspend disbelief more than normal. It didn't hurt that two of my top five (Scarlett Johansson and Jennifer Connelly) were prominently featured. To sum the whole movie up, I'd say it was like "Harry Met Sally" plus "Love, Actually," two movies I loved and absolutely hated, respectively. Maybe it was just the simple cut-scene interviews that reminded me of "Harry Met Sally," and just the multiple interconnected characters that were like "Love, Actually," but I couldn't shake the comparisons. To be sure, HJNTIY isn't nearly as intelligent or well formed as "Harry Met Sally," the seminal film in romantic comedy history. In fact, maybe we can blame it for all the crappy romantic comedies that have come afterwards. It was so good that it ruined 90% of the copycats that followed.

All that aside, I thought HJNTIY was really well made. Not from a cinematic standpoint necessarily but from a "we reverse engineered every romantic comedy over the past few years, spliced everything together into easily recognizable bite sized chunks/stereotypes, and then blended it all together with a dash of new ideas." It was a romantic comedy smoothie and while it wouldn't win any awards for originality, I think the movie did a good job of integrating the various storylines together (except for the Drew Barrymore one) and justified the long running time.

Plus, on top of all that, it provided some excellent food for thought, as it brought up a potpourri of romantic situations that are just dying to be dissected and reflected upon. All in all, I liked the movie. But then there's a dark side to that.

I kind of hated the happy ending. I know, I know, happy endings are a pre-req for this type of thing. But as Lilly pointed out, that wasn't the message of the book. According to an Amazon review, the book is meant "for the twentysomething career women who have been dating for a while, [and aims to share] the empowering message that a woman deserves a man who truly loves her and not one that she must constantly make excuses for." That would have been a fine message, and I'm not sure that's what we got when the credits rolled. What I heard was the more traditional "love (should) conquer all" tune playing and I didn't like it one bit. I prefer my happy endings with some bite I guess. Or at least a twist. Or at least earned.

We watched the movie with two guys and two girls. The two of us guys liked the movie infinitely more than the girls. In fact, my friend sitting next to me could barely force herself through the whole thing. Afterwards, as we stood in the recently rainy streets of San Francisco, I heard the girls' take about how demeaning and cookie cutter crazy the movie made women seem. They objected to the way all the female characters were depicted as being detail obsessed and unhinged from reality. I said that it was a natural progression of our post-Sex and the City view on how a group of girlfriends are. They said that it was an insult to compare the way these characters interacted to how Carrie, Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte were. I can concede that point, I guess, since Sex and the City is a hundred times cleverer and ten times more nuanced than anything HJNTIY had to offer.

While I could take an equal stance on the merits and failures of "He's Just Not That Into You," I think the movie exceeded my expectations and there were numerous moments when it made me think about my past relationships and the relationships of people I know. There could probably be a fun game trying to figure out which combination of the characters (and couple situations) everyone most related to. And isn't a relatable romantic comedy already a success?

For the record, this is potentially a terrible movie to watch with your significant other. I imagine thousands of couple fights broke out on Valentine's Day when this movie came out. Whew! Too many of the situations hit too close to home and that's just a mess all around, unless you have a picture perfect relationship and you can just hug each other and say "Oh I'm so glad we're in a perfect relationship honey!" But that probably didn't happen, did it?

Bonus: I stumbled across this page that offers up the essentials (and story structure) for writing a romantic comedy. It's fascinating and I can't wait to see how it matches up to romantic comedies I've seen. Step four, for example, states: "At about page 50, they kiss, have sex, or say 'I love you' for the first time." How did they come up with page 50? Inteeeeresting.

Labels: B, Movies

Well, I like me some Clint Eastwood but his much buzzed about performance isn't exactly different than anything else he's done over the past few years. Everyone likes a crotchety old guy who is handy with the steel, if you know what I mean, (earn your keep). So the movie was better than I expected but there's one nagging little thing. It's a movie about anti-racism but it throws racist remarks around all day long. And it's kind of funny. I mean, I even learned a few new terms. "Zipperhead" for example. Never heard that one and I'm not quite sure what the etymology is.

Halfway through, after realizing that many of the laughs in the movie (and there were quite a few) were generated by Clint calling people things like spook, slanty, mick, and mispronouncing ethnic names, the PC light bulb in my head flared for a bit. In the context of the movie, the overt racism was fine. Clint is a good hearted hero, even if he uses disturbing slurs and makes side comments all day long about how Asian his neighborhood's getting. He's a character and a caricature. But in real life, would you sit around as grandpa swore up and down and called people names to their faces? Hopefully not.

But I guess we let a lot of things slide when people are old (well, sort of). It's kind of funny to hear intolerant and ignorant old people mouth off, as proved by crowd reaction to the movie. The question is: should we let it slide? I mean, Miley Cyrus gets roasted for making slant eyes in a picture. Could everyone in the picture just have been joking? Are people being overly sensitive? Or should she be more aware because she's younger, has Asian fans, and is hypothetically more accountable for her actions? Was she being racist? Personally I'd have slapped myself if I was the Asian guy in the photo, the one semi-validating them simply by being an accessory. "Oh but there's an Asian there and he's okay with it!..." But who knows what the true context of the photo was.

There's always an available excuse for why people say/do racist things; unless it's over the top and obvious but racism these days is not usually overt. You have to draw your own line somewhere. Letting shit slide for age, ignorance, or context. It's a slippery slope isn't it? Choose or lose.

Related but unrelated, an old article about "Stuff White People Like" I've been meaning to share.

Labels: B, Movies

Love Amy Adams, like Philip Seymour Hoffman, and kind of respect Meryl Streep. All three prejudices were handy since Doubt was pretty run of the mill as a serious actors' vehicle (adapted from the stage) and had all the things you look for in a decent indie flick. Some ideas to mull over, good dialogue, and a sense that you didn't waste your time or money. I expected just a bit more but in the end walked out satisfied if a bit confused. Everything at the end came quickly and the concluding revelations didn't click for me until a few minutes after the credits rolled. Not a bad way to use up an afternoon though, overall.

One thing that I have to discuss is the nasal drip coming from Mrs. Miller's nose as she cried and gave a passionate speech. While I'm all for realistic portrayals of anger and such, having stuff dripping out of Viola Davis' (strangely nominated for a Golden Globe) nose and settling on her upper lip was a bit much for me. Seriously, wipe that stuff off, it's distracting and disgusting on a thirty foot screen.

Labels: B, Movies

This is the sort of movie you'd best Wikipedia beforehand to get the background story. Without much knowledge or perspective on Nixon (save his disastrous debates versus JFK), I needed to figure out who he was and why this interview was so important. Turns out, Nixon as played by Frank Langella is adorable, statesman-like, and oh so presidential. Like Lilly said, "We gotta stop watching sympathetic movies about Republican presidents!"

Overall, the movie was pretty good, with a smart script, a decent pace, and a sense that this is really really important. However, without my background research I'm pretty sure I would have been left wondering what the big deal was. The "chess match" that Frost and Nixon engage in isn't portrayed well and Nixon's motivation for admitting his role in Watergate didn't really come organically from within the movie. I wanted to see/understand why Nixon decided to apologize to America but the film doesn't provide that answer. Certainly the film version of Frost wasn't capable of pushing him over the edge.

Two actors/actresses kept bugging me because I couldn't remember where they were from. Matthew Macfadyen plays Frost's producer and was Mr. Darcy in the Keira Knightley version. And Rebecca Hall was Vicky in Vicky Cristina Barcelona. There, now you won't be annoyed trying to figure out who they are the whole time.

Labels: B, Movies

I recently watched Thirteen Days, a movie about the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Thirteen Days also features actors playing well known politicians. The difference here, of course, is that there's hardly a laugh to be found in Thirteen Days. This movie is played strictly for laughs. I found myself entertained throughout, and even if the whole thing is a bit over the top as a caricature, it does capture something about how we feel about Dubya.

I actually left the theater impressed by Bushy Junior's career trajectory. I mean, if this was your friend, a total drifter and fuck up who then pulled his act together enough to (a) own a baseball team (b) become the governor and then (c) win the presidency, you'd be patting him on the back regardless of his politics. It's true, George W. might be a real American hero!

Labels: B, Movies

I was pretty psyched to watch this movie. Aside from having an awesome title, it seemed like it might be the teen answer to "Before Sunrise." I kept my expectations low however and that was probably wise. There's no denying that the title is still amazing and that Michael Cera and Kat Dennings as Nick and Norah are fabulous, but the movie just could have been so much more.

It was cute. It had some good lines. It had a happy ending -- that's giving nothing away. But overall there just wasn't a sense that this was a magical night. It was hard to build up a consistent sense of connection and relationship when Nick and Norah kept getting jerked around from one set piece to another. There was a little too much obvious over the top humor (along with random quirky cameos) and not enough screen time spent on just Nick and Norah. I wanted to the movie to be about them, instead, it often tilted away to focus on the antics of the side characters.

One thing that bothers me (in movies) of late is how the dorky shy guy will magically be approached by the girl of his dreams. Then he keeps on rejecting her or keeping her at a distance for no apparent reason. And then she just keeps throwing herself at him. That just doesn't seem realistic to me. I mean, fine, if it happened to me once I'd take it all back. That's not a challenge Cupid, just a hint. Overall the movie was definitely a good time but it had the potential to be so much more. I'm definitely going to check out the book though.

"Kat Dennings has an odd, arresting beauty: sleepy blue-green eyes, porcelain-pale oval face -- and lips so red and juicy they look like the prototype for the wax ones little girls used to wear at Halloween. Along with the slight space between her perfect teeth, the effect is sexy and slightly comic."
-New York Times-

Labels: B, Movies

This definitely isn't as palatable as Fight Club, Chuck Palahniuk's other adapted work. I'm gonna say that you either love or hate this movie. I, of course, just mostly liked it. Any emotion too strong either way is way beyond my means apparently.

Everything in the movie is sort of absurd, the smaltzy gets a bit heavy, and the tone swings wildly between depressing and hilarious, but I found myself entertained every step of the way. Which is much better than anything something like Burn After Reading had to offer.

Sam Rockwell is creepy and attractive at the same time, which is pretty hard to pull off if you think about it. His big sidekick Brad William Henke is sort of Seth Rogen's cinematic older brother, back when Seth Rogen was actually funny -- like for a second. As for Kelly Macdonald, some people might cringe over her acting skills but I really dig her weird monotone-ish, perpetually hurt, delivery and find her very capable. But like my friend said after watching the movie, "She's like Kate Winslet. But not."

I think I'm going to go read the book now. Then again, maybe I should pass on that. It might be too much for my virgin eyes/ears. Fox Searchlight had novel promotional swag for the movie, which caused a brief Internet blip a few months back. Additionally, I love The Christian Science Monitor's terse review of the film, which speaks volumes -- a plot point concerning Jesus' foreskin might have turned them off -- plus the reviewer dismisses Fight Club. Blasphemy.

Labels: B, Movies

As the obvious direct descendent of Johnny 5, Wall-E is definitely pretty charming. I mean, I was worried that this movie would completely suck since Pixar is definitely in need of some hits (although maybe not since critics and awards loved their last few films, but I generally yawned through Cars and Ratatouille). People were telling me Wall-E was a must see. Well, I must saw it and I was a tad underwhelmed.

Technologically, Pixar is amazing as usual. The idea of using robots is genius because everyone loves robots, everyone -- except those people on Battlestar Galactica I guess. Plus the storyline involves overbearing morals about greed, gluttony, and garbage. Instant winner.

So the first half of the movie with no dialogue was dope as hell. Where it all bogged down for me was the second half when the focus turned bit too far away from Wall-E and it becames a tad too action adventure orientated. The pacing switch was too much and I kind of lost interest. It's definitely a "just go see it."

I feel like I need to shout out *batteries not included. Just because.

Labels: B, Movies

Man this movie came in hyped for me. All week long people have been asking me what I thought of it. I had to meekly reply, "I haven't watched it (yet)!" My geek cred was in serious dispute. People everywhere loved this thing and I was hoping to be swept away by Christopher Nolan's vision.

Then again, seeing as I didn't enjoy Batman Begins that much, I had to be skeptical. Keeping my expectations in check, I finally got to watch it tonight. What do I think? Well, it's certainly got a ton of good things going for it. The plot was complex and yet tied together well. The Joker kept me on the edge of my seat and he struck just the perfect anarchy reigns tone. Overall it's a semi-must see and definitely one of the finer comic book films.

Of course, there were also excruciating horrible lines and moments. None worse than the little boy at the end screaming "Batman!" Seriously, if you've seen this movie already, wasn't that incredibly jarring? We walked out of the theatre making fun of this little boy's voice and Batman's guttural mumble. Let me expand on that. Do you think anyone would take Batman seriously if he talked through clenched teeth all the time and pitched his voice so damn low for no apparent reason?

I really want to give this thing an A just because they really did craft an intriguing tale and I can see that they tried to put some intelligence and heart into the film. However, it was just a bit too long, a tad cheesy, and the hilarious voices just kick it down a notch. Sorry.

Labels: B, Movies

In short, this is a film about immigration and the travails being in this country but always under the threat of deportation. The first half of this movie set up an interesting situation, wonderful dynamics, and allowed the charisma of its stars to shine through. While I kept thinking this movie was a little too conveniently simple, it did seem to have something fresh and interesting.

By the second half of the movie though, everything devolved into (semi-)stereotypical Hollywood endings and felt like it moved like molasses after constant action in the first hour. The strength of the acting makes the thing a slight recommend but overall I was inclined to be disappointed even without having any prior opinion of the film.

Labels: B, Movies

I've been avoiding movies for about a month in an effort to concentrate on writing. Plus most of the films I wanted to watch were only hop worthy. Seven plus hours in a theater later and I'm basically caught up with everything the summer has presented so far. First we watched the Incredible Hulk, which was arguably better than Ang Lee's version although I much prefer his daring stylistic choices to this one. I'd actually rate this sub-par if not for the fact that I'm now a proud Marvel stockholder and need it to do well. But even with that in mind it's annoying to see Edward Norton whine and run his way around as Bruce Banner all day long. The whole thing just seemed uneven. And Liz Tyler is awful. Simply awful.

We caught the last thirty minutes of Kung Fu Panda, Indiana Jones, and Prince Caspian in-between the other full showings. Of them all, Kung Fu Panda was probably the best. Yeah, you heard me right. Indy seemed to be way too regurgitated and Caspian suffered from most of the same problems as the first one. Oh well. After discovering that Sex and the City was not playing after eight o'clock -- mind boggling for a rated R movie -- we watched Iron Man again.

By the time that was over it was midnight and Get Smart was premiering so we thought, "Why not?" Best decision of the day. If you had to port Michael from The Office into a big screen movie, this was pretty much it. Steve Carell has cornered the market on incompetent but lovable losers. Also, I've been watching Anne Hathaway's earlier work (Princes Diaries, Ella Enchanted) and I've decided I like her. The entire movie itself was silly but filled with some great lines and hilarious scenes. So after my semi-six pack of movies, I'm all caught up and now I'm ready for a summer of actually good movies to come out.

Bonus: If you're a fan of The Office, you have to watch SNL's Japanese version.

Labels: B, C, Movies

Wong Kar Wai's films are moody, atmospheric, and romantic and I'll readily pay up to watch anything he does. Yes, the title for this particular movie is laughable but after you watch the movie, it seems less silly -- sort of.

This is Wong's English-language debut and it boasts Norah Jones, Jude Law, Rachel Weisz, and Natalie Portman. All the performances are terrific and I really like Natalie's blonde-fro look. Norah Jones doesn't have too much to do despite being the main character but that's alright because she plays the part of observer quite well.

The cinematography is beautiful as expected however there's definitely something missing. I felt like In the Mood and 2046 had a lot more story and meaning. My Blueberry Nights has neither. There's a sort of lesson in there about dealing with life, love, and loss but it's more heard than seen and the film doesn't really leave you with any lasting impact past the visuals. There's still enough bright spots here though to warrant a big screen watching.

Labels: B, Movies

Man, isn't Saffron Burrows the coolest name? Of course, I thought "Saffron Burrows" was a male before I saw this movie but I think I had the name confused with authors Jonathan Saffron Foer (Everything Is Illuminated) and Augusten Burroughs (Running With Scissors). More confusingly, we couldn't place her previous film work until we finally looked her up and realized she played Andromache -- Hector's wife -- in Troy. Her distinctive cheeks and facial features rang a bell but we couldn't place her for the life of us.

This is pretty much a run of the mill heist movie supposedly based on a true story. British accents make everything twice as watchable though, so in all, it's not a bad way to use two hours of your life.

Jason Statham is clearly the English version of Bruce Willis and he does his usual charismatic tough guy thing. Is it time to anoint him as a A-List movie star? I mean, at this point he's carried more hit movies than most A-Listers even if all of his roles are exactly the same.

Labels: B, Movies

For some reason, the movie wasn't as good as I wanted it to be. It might be my lack of historical background, it might be my super high expectations, or maybe I just need to read the book first.

I mean, the art style and animation is quite catchy but the movie itself seemed to drag. And I can't pinpoint why because the pacing of the scenes were (mostly) excellent and the movie covered the major plot points well. But something big was missing. I was really hoping I'd love this movie. Oh well.

I wonder what Maus would be like as a movie.

Labels: B, Movies

Is Daniel Day-Lewis capable of delivering a bad performance? With a win this time around, it'll be an Oscar hat trick for Day-Lewis. And that doesn't include awesome performances in Last of the Mohicans, In the Name of the Father, etc. Any film Day-Lewis chooses to do is usually a quality flick. There Will Be Blood is engrossing but also nothing like what I expected.

The trailer definitely hypes up the action aspects of the film and draws a picture of warring factions when in truth, it's really just about the inner demons of one man. Everything is supremely well done -- directing, cinematography, acting, writing -- but I can imagine how the impact of the film would have been far less if not experienced in an immersive movie theatre environment. If this type of movie is your cup of tea, go, don't rent.

Check out Wikipedia after you've seen the movie to answer the big question you've probably got spinning through your mind. Sure helped settled my mind.

Labels: B, Movies

It must suck to be Philip Seymour Hoffman and resigned to taking supporting actor roles (until recently) knowing that but for a twist of genetics, you could be a huge movie star. Hoffman's acting chops were finally revealed to the world in Capote but since then he's been a little quiet eh? He steals every scene he's in during this movie and I'm psyched to see him paired with Laura Linney in "The Savages" -- one of the few films left on my must-see list from 2007.

The script for Charlie Wilson's glitters of course because it's by Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The American President, The West Wing) and most of the acting is spot on; I'm starting to love that Amy Adams. However, the whole movie was a bit light in explaining character's motivations and seemed to leave out too much historical background for the layman. Then again, why blame someone else for my lack of world history knowledge?

Most importantly, Lilly subletted her house to one of the actresses in the movie. She plays a prominent role but you'll have to ask Lilly who exactly it was.

Labels: B, Movies

Into the Wild
Christopher McCandless graduated from college, gave away his savings, and set off to traipse around the United States in an attempt to escape consumerism and become one with nature. Inspired by Henry David Thoreau and Jack London, he also subsequently joined them as RIP two years after he disappeared.

You could look at the whole thing as a touching tale of a young man finding himself or as a spoiled kid who died because of his arrogance. I lean toward the latter despite the movie heavily promoting the inspiring version. While the film has been getting all sorts of great reviews, I felt it was a bit dry and hardly revelationary -- or insightful. Good cinematography though.

The Golden Compass
Fine, I only watched the back half of the movie (the better half so I'm told) but if the entire thing is anything like what I experienced, it's no great adventure flick. In fact, the entire film seems stilted and aside from the very cool snow bears, there wasn't much we hadn't seen before in either Lord of the Rings or Chronicles of Narnia -- neither of which I was in love with in the first place. While this first movie will undoubtedly extend into a franchise, I can't see it measuring up as a classic.

I'm halfway through the book too (and have been for months) but I can't seem to commit to that magic either, although the series is always touted as a classic. I guess I'll give the book another go when I can. The movie? I'll pass.

Enchanted
Would you believe that out of all these movies, Enchanted was the best one? I mocked somebody at work for printing out preview passes to watch this; turns out he was just ahead of the curve. Walking out after the magic of "The End," I just felt happy inside. Happily ever after as it were. The film mocks Disney's classic stories but in a really funny way. The mix of animation and live action is done really well and it's refreshing to see the Disney princess tale given a new spin. Seriously, it's good.

Check out this NY Times story, "The Line Between Homage and Parody," for an interesting behind the scenes.

Labels: B, C, D, Movies

"Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?"

Do yourself a favor, pony up the extra bucks and go watch this in the theatre, with dorky 3D glasses on. There's no better way to experience this movie. While reviews said that this was more of a visual experience, I found the plot to be much deeper than in something like 300, which was just fight fight fight.

In fact, I'd almost say I like this better than 300 because there was hardly a moment when I wasn't entertained. Beowulf clearly proves himself to be the hero among heroes. Of course, the movie differs from the classic (it's the oldest surviving epic poem in the English language) by quite a lot so don't expect a history lesson; just an awesome guts and glory movie.

The CGI is impressive as well. While it's not pure CGI, but rather photorealistic animation, most of the shots are pretty amazing. Then again, the characters also tend to move in some unnatural ways. It's sort of like watching a video game's cut-scenes, but for two hours.

I wonder when this technology will get good enough to start using it for everything. It can already make Ray Winstone -- whoever that is -- look just like Russell Crowe apparently. I swore it was Russell as Beowulf...

Labels: B, Movies

Where has Claire Danes' career gone post-MSCL? It's hard to name a signature movie for her yet she's been in a ton of stuff. She's on my list of actresses that I enjoy watching but at this point, I'm starting to think it's just because I liked her from MSCL.

I mean, she hasn't really done anything I'd consider a classic or even semi-good. Well, now Danes plays the human incarnation of the evening star fallen from heaven but for some reason, her eyebrows were singed away. It's a bit discomforting. I kind of wish she'd stop shying away from being a redhead again since with her pale skin, it's her best look.

Stardust is being recommended as a "Princess Bride" clone and in that sense, it's spot on. While it isn't going to achieve classic status, the story and plot move along quickly enough to be thoroughly enrapturing for its two-hour running time. There are a ton of name actors/actresses in this movie and that alone justifies the "star" in the title. It's a throw back to the fantasy films of the 80s and the song for the ending credits pays homage -- hilariously -- to that fact.

Labels: B, Movies

Talk about a much hyped movie. I was pretty excited to watch Transformers but was prepared to be underwhelmed. Then I started getting emails, texts, and blog comments about how great it was. It boggled the mind. How good could this movie be? Well, we finally watched it on Friday night (after waiting in a long ass line) and the verdict? It's good. Like, pretty good.

Michael Bay knows how to make an entertaining movie. All the gripes I had with the way they designed the robots melted away once we saw the first few scenes. Throw explosions, cars, robots, and hot girls (omg, Megan Fox -- soon to be Megan Austin Green) together and Bay knows what to do with them. Sure, it was like watching Armageddon, The Rock, and Gone in 60 Seconds mashed together but hey, who cares?

There's plenty to nit-pick about the movie -- and some horrible lines and a weird cheezy sense of humor -- but I'll leave it all alone because at the end of the day, there are plenty of "this is so cool" moments to justify the long running time. Transformers, just watch it.

Labels: B, Movies

FF4: Rise of the Silver Surfer
I'm a sucker for comic book movies and it's rare to find one that's even halfway worth recommending. Well, if you thought FF4 was bad, this one's better! I liked the original FF4 to be honest. It was breezy, entertaining, and compared relatively, quite excellent. It keeps the melodrama low, the action somewhat believeable, and has likable characters (and actors). The Spiderman franchise pales in comparison. The Fantastic Four are twice as fun. Squared. This sequel is actually really good and the epitome of breezy summer flick. Not that this needs saying, but Jessica Alba is ridiculous and actually pulls her weight in this film, more or less.

Ocean's 13
Will this series ever die? Sticking to the same formula as the first one, Ocean's ends (once again) with open endedness and the possibility for a sequel. Does anyone even want to watch Ocean's 14 -- or god forbid, 15? While 13 is better than 12, it's too similar to 11 to warrant any true excitement. We know they're going to win, we know there's going to be some twists, even Pitt and Clooney are getting boring. And this time out there's no Julia or Catherine (although Ellen Barkin works as a nice substitute). I know people love this series but honestly, should we really be supporting it anymore? They're robbing a bank all right, by taking ten dollars out of every movie watcher's pocket.

Pirates 3
I watched this movie in bits and pieces as I movie hopped. From what I could tell, it's long, convoluted, and better than the second. The first one is the only one in the series that's actually stellar but the second and third one will do. It's hard to say why this franchise is so fun but it is and it's not even worth commenting on. You either like it or you don't. It's silly, it's melodramatic, Johnny Depp is getting overrated (as Captain Jack) but they throw enough characters at you that you just kind of follow along for three plus hours. I like it. Ahoy matey?

Labels: B, C, Movies

Keri Russell is criminally underused in the movie industry. When they killed her off in MI:3 after a few minutes, what was the point? Everyone knows she was on the Mickey Mouse Club with Britney/ Christina/ Justin right? She's got crazy skills! Plus she had her own hit show (which lost steam after the Pink Power Ranger left, but still).

The most unbelievable part of this movie was that nobody saw Felicity's beauty? Please. Only in Hollywood would such a beautiful (meant in all senses of the word) person slip through the cracks in a small town atmosphere. In real life, she would have been the starlet of the town, headed to Hollywood (to be an aspiring actress but in reality a waitress) or American Idol, and came back after getting knocked up.

Oh right, the movie is quite good too. Not what I expected at all, and smaltzy at times, but well done. The saddest thing is about writer/director/actress Adrienne Shelley. Man. She was really good in the movie too, pulling off a very successful Zach Braff trifecta -- wait, Braff never pulled it off successfully, whoops.

Labels: B, Movies

I watched this movie in the most beautiful movie theatre I've ever been in. They played opera before the showing, the popcorn was perfect, and the stage/theatre was just amazing. La Paloma Theatre in Encinitas, San Diego. Check it out.

I thought the movie was pretty good too. A bit slow but every time the pace slacked, the monster would arrive. That's the best part about the movie; they didn't skimp on showing the (very obviously) CGI monster. I thought the movie was hilarious as a satire but my film companions just thought it was so-so. I liked it; although I'm not sure I'd have the patience to watch it again. But I'd return to the theatre!
-Ripe Tomatoes-

Labels: B, Movies

I didn't realize the Fountainhead movie was adapted to the screen by Ayn Rand herself. She only did it on the condition that "not one word be changed." Typical, right?

The movie isn't half bad actually. Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal are about what you'd expect as the main characters, and due to the style of the movie, all the dialogue (essentially ripped straight from the book) sounds somewhat natural. I don't think this movie could be made today because they'd dress it up for no reason; it's too idea/dialogue heavy; and current acting methods would make the movie overly campy.

Apparently, nobody liked it when it was released (in 1949, six years after the book was published), but to be honest, as a huge fan of the book, I wasn't disappointed in the movie. Sure, Cooper's dramatic monologue had the most uneven delivery I've ever heard but I can look past that.

I'm curious what a non-Randian would think of the movie. Would any of the philosophies get passed on? Or would it just put people to sleep?

This also makes me even more curious about the upcoming movie version of Atlas Shrugged -- starring Angelina Jolie (and maybe Brad Pitt) of all people. Not who I envisioned as Dagny Taggart but that's the least of my worries about how Rand's seminal work will translate to the screen.
-Ripe Tomatoes-

Labels: B, Movies