Any of you who have read my reviews in the past know that I tend to whine and complain about movie trailers.
According to Warner Brothers, Matrix Reloaded had a scaled down promotional run, instead choosing to use the Animatrix shorts and a new game along with word of mouth to get people into theatre seats. Well, I guess I'm a member of the group that was supposed to do some word of mouth because every television show I watch had at least one MR trailer on before its completion.
Like most fans of the first movie (did anyone NOT enjoy the first movie?), I was anticipating this one probably more than any other before. It was a big pair of shoes to fill and, in the end, probably too big.
When I think movie trilogy the original Star Wars (IV - VI) come to mind, followed closely by Lord of the Rings, and (sigh) Harry Potter and those other half of the ongoing Star Wars trilogy. Going in I wondered how Matrix would stack up against these on a whole but I fully expected Matrix Reloaded to create movie magic as the first one did. I believed it would, truly.
In the end, I was disappointed. MR does have some cool scenes, and enough new ideas and twists to satisfy, but one of the things that was to make this film so groundbreaking was its digital effects. I read a few months ago from someone who had been treated to a taste of the film by the Wachowski Bros. that the final two Matrix movies were going to have digital effects so real that people really would not be able to tell what was "real" (ie filmed with live actors) and what was not. I remember the almost exact quote being, "Matrix Reloaded has digital effects that will make Star Wars Attack of the Clones look like a cartoon."
I'm sorry to say, that at many points during MR (far too many), I was able to clearly see which scenes were digital effects. There were some that really were flawless, or so fast moving that the eye wasn't able to notice it, but on many fight scenes (especially Keanu vs. an army of…clones basically), there were many shots that were so clearly digital with a fake Reeves. I wasn't trying to see these things, I really wasn't, but here is a quick list of what pulled me out of my fun movie experience in those and a few other scenes:
- Digital Keanu's face was shaped differently and looked just a little too "clean". The color was too uniform or something, but that was the first thing I noticed as the fight was unfolding on certain shots that required digital effects to ever make it to the big screen.
- Digital Keanu's body had a really thin waist. He wore a large flowing overcoat, but when it came to rest against his body you could clearly see that it wasn't the live actor.
- His movements became just a little bit "odd". Not a huge problem if that had been the only thing. I'm not talking as odd as the horrible Spiderman rooftop digital scenes, but still not right.
So now I'm sure I sound like a big geeky whiner, but I was surprised by this bothering me.
Overall the movie is well done otherwise. There are many more slow moving plot development points over the first movie, and frankly I think they slipped in a bit too much of it, but that might just be my MTV Generation side talking. They needed to do something like this to expand the story into a trilogy, but at times it was a little reminiscent of the developing love scenes from Attack of the Clones. You just want to say, "Okay, I get it, can we move the story forward now?"
The final thirty minutes of the film are strong, and setup excitement and anticipation for the final installment for the trilogy. And that appears to be really what the Wachowski. Bros. were going for. Matrix 1 can hold its own against any great movies ever made, but MR appears to be more a member of a trilogy than a real movie (hope that came out clearer than I think it did). Whereas many who saw all three of the original Star Wars series cite Empire Strikes Back as the best of the three, and I enjoyed The Two Towers a bit more than The Fellowship of the Ring as far as the Lord of the Rings trilogy goes. I find it a bit hard to believe people would select MR over Matrix.
Given all that I still say that MR is an absolute must see movie. I think you could get by without it when you see Matrix Revolutions, but you're going to want to have seen it before you go November 5th. And believe me, you're going to go. I get the feeling the Wachowski Bros. are going to make a kick ass finale. I just hope I'm right. And I hope they have time to disguise slower moving digital effects better.
My rating: 7/10 …it's actually 7.267777/10, so let's round that up to 7.5
This was one of those films where the trailer on television is helpful to potential paying customers in that it seemed to be designed to
help people save their money and avoid seeing the movie. It basically stated that something below the surface of the Earth is going to end humanity and then it goes
on to show action shot after action shot with dialogue explaining that the Earth's core is unstable and that the only way to save the planet is
to nuke the core. Wait a second, what was that?
Anyhow, I wasn't going to see the movie except for that opening statement about something below the surface of
the Earth threatens humanity. I'm currently working on a book that involves the interior of the planet that I'm calling Beneath. I have this
mostly irrational fear that any of my really good story ideas that I've had end up getting released as a movie while I'm working on them. It's only happened a few times, and only on
projects that I left dormant for many years, but nonetheless it's my greatest fear when writing.
So even though The Core didn't seem to have too much in common with what I was doing I wanted to see it to make sure, and so here's a little review:
I have no problem with the first minute of the film.
It's even a little entertaining. After that it gets dicey.
The second action scene in the film, however, is completely hilarious (something I'm
fairly certain the filmmakers weren't hoping to achieve). Picture The Birds on crack and you'll get an idea of what happened. I can't
pinpoint why it was so bad, but it was. I was laughing while characters on screen ran in terror. Maybe I'm just a bad guy.
From there on in the film's good scenes and talented actors face an unstoppable onslaught of ridiculous and predictable set-ups and knockdowns. Think of the bad as the U.S. military and the
good as the Iraqi Army. Yes, it was that one-sided.
The trailer for the movie mentions Armageddon, and I can see why they did. When this movie comes out on video I
would dare anyone to first watch Armageddon and then The Core. I haven't seen a formula this religiously adhered to since the A-Team went off the air. It's the same
freakin' movie (except not as good)! In both movies the U.S. must come to aid of the entire world by using weapons of mass destruction to save us all (oh no, I just had an Independence Day flashback. Ow, it hurts). All I've got to say is thank god
the Iraqis didn't have to save us or we'd be in real trouble, what with their almost complete absence of WMD on hand.
I usually don't like giving away too much about a movie's plot but I really don't think I'm taking much away from a potential viewer of this film when I tell you the main difference
between Armageddon and The Core. In The Core, the U.S. is worried that other nations were developing WMD in the form of seismic weaponry that could cause untraceable earthquakes anywhere in the world.
The U.S. decided that they had to make their own version of this weapon so that if it was ever used against them they could use it to destroy all other nations. It turns out that their testing
of this weapon stops the Earth's core from spinning. I'm no science guy, but I bet this movie is hilarious to anyone that knows anything about the interior of the Earth. In Armageddon it was
the fault of the universe that the world was going to end, but in this film the U.S. gets to be the Earth's destroyer (which they try to keep secret from the world) and saviour. Outside of that change this
movie was Armageddon below the surface.
This movie is bad, but I still didn't mind the performances of Tucci, Delroy Lindo, and Eckhart. Swank was okay, but she has one scene in which she has to cry over the loss of someone and it was
absolutely horrible. I felt like I'd been forcibly sent back in time to watch a high school play in the old gymnasium as punishment for every bad deed I've ever committed.
It turns out that The Core has nothing to do with what I'm writing -- whew. While I'm relieved, I did have to endure this film. It really was work.
I went and saw this movie. It's about a mother and daughter who live in a house with a room. But the room is special, with strong walls and stuff. And bad men want to get
them out of the room to hurt them.
That about sums up what I thought Panic Room would be like. I took notice that Jodie Foster was in it (she seems to be very
picky about which movies she does these days), but I didn't think it would be worth seeing. Then I noticed the "...from the director of Fight Club.." in the trailer and it changed my mind.
I admit that a trailer actually got me to go see a movie even if it was only because it pointed out that the director had made one of my favorite movies. Not to mention Se7en,
and The Game, the latter of which is an underated film in my opinion.
Seeing the movie for David Fincher turned out to be a good call. I would say that the year or so it took to film this movie was well spent considering
the fantastic and creative shots used throughout. Directors like Guy Ritchie and David Fincher always try unconventional approaches to filming a scene and
they always seem to come out looking brilliant.
The acting was superb, with each actor putting in amazing performances. Even the brief scene with Paul Schulze
was memorable. Not to mention that there is something inherently cool these days when a movie with fewer acting credits than a Baker's dozen.
The Panic Room is a well made thriller, and Fincher and crew don't disappoint.
Resident Evil, the movie, is based on Capcom's Resident Evil, the game, originally for the PlayStation game console.
The Resident Evil (or Biohazard) franchise has had a number of games released across various gaming platforms including a re-release of the original on the Nintendo Game Cube last week.
Director Paul Anderson somehow managed to make a movie that felt almost identical to playing a game. High energy music boomed at just the right points, there was lots of shooting of bad ass zombies, and even a "boss" monster that many games have near their completion that need to be killed before the player can win.
But being similar to a computer game is not all its cracked up to be.
It means the story is thin enough to make star Milla Javovich look like an out and out porker.
It also means if you stopped watching after ten minutes and then continued the movie again a week later you wouldn't feel out of whack with a return to some decent mindless action.
It also means it will be a buggy affair.
Yes, the movie has the same shoddy-because-it-was-rushed-to-market feel as 99% of games that get released to the unsuspecting public. For example, I spotted the boom mike near the top of frames so often that I began to think it was a deliberate attempt to remind me I was watching a B-Movie trying to fit in with the real movie group. Then there was the shader flap on the camera. For the first 1/2 of the movie, any below waist shot meant this flap was clearly visible. I don't normally notice things like this so either a) most movies are better made with a sober boom operator and cameraman, or b) the movie was dull enough to have me searching for something more in each shot. Either way that can't be thought of us a good thing. Unfortunately Anderson overlooked the fact that once a movie is released it can't be patched early and often like all computer games out there.
Resident Evil is a "popcorn movie" if I ever saw one. Go to laugh at how bad the bad parts are, go for a few cool action scenes, but be warned that if you go you've wasted your money seeing it in theatres.
My rating: 5/10 (half of that is for three cool action sequences)
I hate movie trailers. I could drone on and on about why that is the case, but basically it is because I don't like knowing anything about a movie before I see it, and I hate when some marketing "whiz"
thinks he can either trick me into seeing it, or try to guess what type of material would get me to go see it in theatres. I finally saw Hollow Man
last month, and it was only because it was free. I never even got around to seeing What Lies Beneath, and in both cases it was because
I was sledge hammered with movie trailers for each of these; in theatres, on television and on the radio. I couldn't escape the constant barrage of promotional material for those two movies, and as a result
I lost all interest in ever seeing them.
In fact, the only trailers in the last two to three years that seemed to get me interested without giving too much away was the Pearl Harbor trailer (the music with the highlights of the movie was quite good,
but I guess the trailer couldn't ruin a story based on a well known historical event) and the "breathing" trailer for Star Wars II.
What's my point? Well, my point
is that after seeing the initial trailer for We Were Soldiers I was sure that I would never set eyes on what looked to be a thinly veiled U.S.A-rah-rah type story.
They chose all of the worst lines of the film, and with no context but each other they made a sickening quagmire of cheese and pathetic looking propaganda. However, when the second trailer
recently started appearing on television (the film was already damned in my mind so there was no harm in seeing more trailers for it), they showed mostly action sequences that made it
look like it was actually a war movie and not a dairy-fest. That, combined with a decent review at Salon.com,
convinced me to give the movie a chance. I must say that I am glad I did.
We Were Soldiers is an excellent story based on true events at the start of the Viet Nam war in which Lt. Col. Harold Moore's Air Cavalry were ordered into a situation that pitted their 400 against about 2000
Viet Namiese soldiers. When movies are based on true stories, and are told well, they can be extremely powerful, and We Were Soldiers is definitely that. A fair amount of the story involves
the strategies employed by both Col. Moore and the leader of the Viet Namiese soldiers. Almost non-existent these days, the film shows war in a gritty and realistic fashion from both sides of the battle, although
the story primarily focuses on the Americans. In addition to intense battle scenes and shows of bravery and sacrifice, We Were Soldiers also gives a glimpse of what it is like for
the families of soldiers, and how heart-wrenching it can be.
I could go on and on about this movie, but I won't. Instead I'll sum it up like this: It's an excellent war movie in almost all areas including acting, the drama, the action, and obviously the direction which was so fantastic that it almost felt
like I was in the heat of battle with those soldiers. It's not completely free of the cheese, but there was only one scene that looked like something out of Saturday Night Live (involving Barry Pepper's photo journalist
character).
I saw Black Hawk Down in theatres, and I can confidentally say that this is a better all around movie. If you enjoy war movies at all, you should see We Were Soldiers
as soon as possible.
The protagonist is Lt. Thomas W. Hart, portrayed wonderfully by Colin Farrell. I have somehow managed to miss all of his previous performances, but I've been looking
forward to two of his upcoming films, Minority Report and Phone Booth,
without having known anything about Farrell.
I really enjoyed the way in which each of the main characters were introduced. Realism aside, I found myself eagerly waiting the next interesting character development almost
as much as the actual plot developments. With some interesting characters, its no surprise that the film itself was about what it takes to be a man of character.
There were plenty of story elements that will have cynical viewers balking, but I found no real problems in accepting them. For example,
the American POWs are given control of their camp to manage the day to day details, and rank is considered just as important for the prisoners as it was before getting captured. I'm not sure
if this was common, or even if it was actually used at all, but keeping the prisoners busy with the day to day operations of their camp under the guidance of the Germans would seem
to keep them focused on other things besides, say, escape or other harmful pursuits. At least I expect that that is the theory behind it, a theory that is blown out of the water by the movie where every
bit of freedom is exploited to the utmost.
I was happy to see that the movie attempts to deal with something I've often wondered about in the past: The similarities between the Nazis and the Allies with regards to
racism. It seems that the majority of people can never entirely trust anyone that looks or acts differently than them, and one of the key elements of the film
is the racism towards African American soldiers by their fellow Americans in World War II.
At times the movie suffers from poor pacing, and it was surprising to see that it was based on a novel and not just a short story because it seemed a little thin on story. The acting was decent, and World War II
buffs will probably reap some excitement from Hart's War, but some might be just plain bored by it.
I distinctly remember being about eighteen, and thinking that life couldn't be much better. Living at home meant a part-time job provided enough disposable income that
almost anything was possible. Weekends away from home, cds, expensive electronics, concerts, and much more were within my reach. I was fortunate, I was (mostly) happy,
and I completely took it for granted despite numerous warnings from my father that life would not always be so sweet. Don't you hate when your parents are right?
My taste in movies has changed a lot in the decade-plus since then. Great movies are still great movies, but there are many recent films that I like that I am sure would have
been wasted on me as a teenager, and vice-a-versa (I seem to have outgrown T&A movies, somehow, someway).
Orange County isn't just a mindless numb-fest that would appeal only to teenagers, but unfortunately it isn't too far off from that. The story centers around a high school
senior (Colin Hanks) in his quest to become a writer the only way he knows how: Attend Stanford University and be taught by a writer (played by Kevin Kline)
whose talent he worships. Hanks has a few memorable moments, but for the most part he seemed to over-act almost every scene.
Outside of Hanks' onscreen mother Catherine O'Hara, the characters in Orange County are bland, and in some cases almost completely unnecessary.
Even the talented Jack Black came out flat with only a few good scenes.
When compared to his other movies, it seemed like Black was kept on a short leash in Orange County.
There are a lot of big names in the movie, and some with decent performances, but Orange County is almost lifeless on the whole. If I was seventeen I think
I might have enjoyed it, but unfortunately my wish to remain a teenager forever was ignored.
I did an excellent job of almost completely avoiding the trailers for this movie (did I mention I despise movie trailers these days?) and went in knowing next to
nothing about the movie beyond what actors were in it, and that it was the made by the same core people who were behind Bottle Rocket (1996).
The Royal Tenenbaums starts out at a snail's pace. Fifteen minutes in and I was still worried that it was going to be a long two hours of extended close up shots on actors, and extended pauses.
Thankfully, either the pace grew on me or improved, because from that point on I thoroughly enjoyed almost every moment of this film. All, and I mean all, of the acting
performances were excellent, including even Kumar Pallana, who has been each of the three movies from Anderson and Wilson. Or maybe I just like
the little guy because of the ease with which he can make me laugh.
The most surprising thing about The Tenenbaums comes near the end, when an unexpected emotional connection with the characters becomes apparent. Through
many funny moments, well-timed and brilliant lines, and eccentric and interesting characters, the movie somehow managed to make me forget I was sitting in a theatre at all.
The chemistry of the film is near perfect. People who don't share the same sense of humour as Anderson and Wilson might not get much out of it (Gene Hackman's character is not one to mince words or consider feelings, and a few cultural taboos are the
fodder for some of the funniest moments in the movie), but for me it was a pleasure to behold.
I hadn't read the story, but when I first saw the trailer on television a few weeks ago I immediately thought I knew
what was going to happen. As it turns out I was almost right, but if you see the trailer you most likely would reach the
same conclusion.
After beginning in a painful display of how the future
will see an increase in convenience technologies (think The Clapper and you're almost there),
the start of the action came as a welcome relief.
D'Onofrio was good in the role of Major Hathaway, and Sinese puts in another solid starring performance as a
confused protagonist, but I thought Mekhi Phifer stole what there was of the
show in his supporting role. Nothing in particular I could put my finger on, but he did a good job as a cool and likeable character.
Beyond that, the only other plus for this movie were a few of the gadgets and the set design/choice of locations. It seems that Miramax would have been wise to stick to the original plan of having Impostor
as part of a trilogy instead of a feature length piece. There were a few plot holes that I was able to fill in with a bit of guess work and consideration, and
overall I had the feeling that I would have gotten more out the story on paper.
I enjoy even an average science fiction more than a good movie from another genre, and Impostor really is average.
A Beautiful Mind is based on the life of paranoid schizophrenic mathematician John Forbes Nash Jr. It's essentially a story about how troubling
the disease is both for the individual, and those around them, as well as how hard it is to live with a serious mental illness.
I'm not a Russell Crowe groupie or anything, however I thought his lead performance as John Nash was absolutely amazing. I haven't paid much attention to the Oscar buzz yet,
but I'd be surprised if he isn't nominated for best actor. Paul Bettany was also impressive in the supporting
role of Charles, Nash's "roommate" in college.
The movie begins to feel a bit long at around the 2 hour mark, and Ron Howard doesn't give the audience much credit at a few points in the movie; driving home
some messages in a painfully slow manner. However, that is a minor complaint in what was otherwise a very good movie. I went in not knowing that it was based on
a true story, or that it was about a schizophrenic, so when each sign of possible mental illness appeared I continued to attribute them to outside forces (i.e. Russians)
working against the hero code breaker. So it came as quite a shock when Howard finally showed that Crowe was seeing things the other trusted characters were not.
