The Day the Earth Stood Still Some of you know that I have been waiting with bated breath for months now, which is not good for the lungs, but what can you do?
As everyone should know, this is a remake of the MAJOR classic 1951 film of the same name starring Michael Rennie, Patricia Neal and Sam Jaffe. I consider the original to be one of the five best sci fi movies ever made (as do most critics), and a group of “experts” voted it one of ten sci fi movies that should never be remade. Oops. I admit to a little trepidation on this one, despite my anticipation, because I love the old one so much. I’ve seen it hundreds of times. But I thought hey, how bad can it be? I knew Keanu Reeves was starring in it, which seemed a good thing, as well as Jennifer Connelly (Very easy to look at and more than makes up for Reeves’ famous lack of acting ability), as well as John Cleese reprising Sam Jaffe’s wonderful Professor Barnhardt (who was barely disguised as Albert Einstein). The little boy is, unfortunately, miscast. Jaden Smith plays Bobby (now Jacob) Benson, and he is the wrong kid, partly because the role was rewritten and did not work.
A brief synopsis: An alien spacecraft lands in Central Park. It is a huge sphere, with roiling lights and cloud things inside. The military cordons off the area, someone (thing) comes out and is instantly shot. Go figure. He (it) is taken into custody and patched up. Kathy Bates as a credible Sec Def interviews him in the hospital and asks what he wants. (One of the many jobs a good sec def must be adept at). He wants to address the world leaders at the United Nations. Right away, we see a flaw in the writers plan. No serious alien would have anything to do with the UN. Or Ted Turner, for that matter. Bates tells him no, that he is U.S. property and the other countries of the world will not even know he exists. He is troubled by this and decides to leave. As the representative of a group of intra-galactic cultures, he is all-powerful and pretty much walks out, leaving ruin and mayhem behind him. Now Jennifer Connelly ( a member of a hastily built team of scientists put together to meet the challenge) must go and find him because she feels in her heart he is good. He did, after all, tell the Sec Def that he came to save the earth.
There are chase scenes and thrilling rescues and enough close-calls for an entire season of European soccer. In the end, the big climax . . . . well let’s save that for later.
SPOILER ALERT If you don’t want to know the ending, stop reading and go to “Continue Here.”
It turns out the writer-director could not help adding a touch of PC environmentalism to the plot. Okay, he made it the central aspect of the plot. The alien tells Connelly that he is here to save the earth—by destroying the human race, which is destroying the earth. I have a problem or two with the premise. But only because it’s silly. An alien comes to earth with an announcement. (In the original it is a warning) He is here to tell us we are all about to die. Who would bother to make that announcement? There are not a lot of planets in the universe that have the right ingredients, in the right combinations, to support sentient life, and they can’t afford to lose this one. Us they can lose. First of all, why bother to tell us? Keep in mind, this guy represents a galactic milieu whose technology is so advanced, it is indistinguishable from magic. They have been studying us for generations and have come to the conclusion that we are unsaveable and have to be destroyed.
One: all that time of watching us, and all that wisdom and technology, and all they can think of to do is kill us all? (was that too many alls?) Not help? Not warn us first, like they did in the original?
Two: no sentient species, alien or otherwise, which is advanced enough to belong to a galactic civilization would ever choose an environment over another sentient species. Period. They would A, leave us alone, B, offer some kind of aid to help get us through our crisis, or C, enslave and exploit us, but they would never just kill us all in favor of an empty planet.
So the entire premise, altered from the original, (in which we are warned that our violence cannot be tolerated now that we have discovered spaceflight and nuclear weapons) lost me early on. It’ll play well in blue states though.
Gort is not as cool either. The big robot policeman in the original is a bio-nanotech construct in the new one. It dissolves into Nano-bugs designed to reduce the planet to a lifeless hulk which they can then reseed with samples they’ve collected in those cool spheres. The bugs are released and start the process. But then Klaatu (the alien, remember “Gort, Klaatu, Barada, Nikto”?) sees a nice moment between mother and child and decides we have another side to us, so he stops the bio-cleansing, sacrificing himself in the process. Aliens are always learning important lessons from us poor humans.
But nothing is resolved. Nothing is really learned by any of the characters. And the movie just sort of ends at that point.
Continue here It is a flashy, glossy, Hollywood movie. Don’t get me wrong, Nita and I both liked it. There are some problems, like any movie, but nothing insurmountable. The fact that it left us both wanting more by the end, and was largely unresolved, did not discourage us. The effects were great, there were some very cool ideas, and the characters were believable if sketchy. We give it a qualified recommendation. It’s is a fun movie if you don’t go in expecting more than it has to offer. Keanu Reeves plays a stoic alien very well. No big movement, no expression, just bland curiosity and occasional confusion. It is rated PG-13. There is no profanity, sex, nudity or even gore. And Klaatu revives anyone he kills. In the end, it was disappointing, but I can’t say I was surprised. The original is just too good a movie to remake.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Movie Review Appaloosa
Appaloosa A new western. The genre simply will not die, and I for one, am delighted. This one is based on the Novel of the same name, and stars, is directed by, and was co-written for the screen by, Ed Harris. We love Ed Harris. It also stars Rene Zellweger, Vigo Mortensen, Jeremy Irons and Lance Henriksen and a host of other excellent character actors.
It takes place in the 1880’s in the New Mexico Territory. Right away that makes it worth watching. I love the geology and landscape of New Mexico. The story is a classic western tale. Two men, beginning to age, are long-time partners, making a living as temporary lawmen, cleaning up towns where the law is far away. Ed Harris is Virgil Cole, the leader, and Vigo Mortensen is Everett Hitch, his faithful, more-than-competent side-kick.
They are hired to clean-up a town being besieged by Jeremy Irons, an ambitious rancher who has murdered the marshal and his two deputies. Rene Zellweger arrives, a recent widow, and muddies the water.
At first, I thought it was going to be just a rip-off of Lonesome Dove, with the two iconic lawmen, one wound too tight and the other too loose, but the relationship, despite a few obvious similarities to Gus And Call, is complicated and has nuances of its own.
The characters are wonderful, complex, and full of pathos. (You like that word? I heard it on a Peter Paul and Mary album) The drama is excellent; with good pacing and suspense. The action is great, although it cannot be described as an action movie. It is in the same vein as The Unforgiving.
Cole, the hard-nosed, unbending, fearless lawman, has seen it all and knows he is better than the rest. Everett is more easy-going, understanding, and better educated. His character seems to me to be the most interesting. But he is clearly a follower, content to let Cole lead, despite his own superior skills. Vigo Mortensen, as Everett, is great. I loved the character. The story is complicated. The scenery is magical. The sets and costumes are authentic. Little things make the difference. The Indians they encounter are Chiricahua, which is correct for that part of the world, and they are from the San Carlos tribe, which is accurate as well. The San Carlos were some of the last to surrender to a reservation, and were raiding that part of the world at the time the story takes place. I like accuracy.
This is a superior movie. Not perfect, but well worth seeing. It has strong language, nudity, and fairly graphic violence, and is rated R. Nita would like it without the cussing and naked Rene.
It takes place in the 1880’s in the New Mexico Territory. Right away that makes it worth watching. I love the geology and landscape of New Mexico. The story is a classic western tale. Two men, beginning to age, are long-time partners, making a living as temporary lawmen, cleaning up towns where the law is far away. Ed Harris is Virgil Cole, the leader, and Vigo Mortensen is Everett Hitch, his faithful, more-than-competent side-kick.
They are hired to clean-up a town being besieged by Jeremy Irons, an ambitious rancher who has murdered the marshal and his two deputies. Rene Zellweger arrives, a recent widow, and muddies the water.
At first, I thought it was going to be just a rip-off of Lonesome Dove, with the two iconic lawmen, one wound too tight and the other too loose, but the relationship, despite a few obvious similarities to Gus And Call, is complicated and has nuances of its own.
The characters are wonderful, complex, and full of pathos. (You like that word? I heard it on a Peter Paul and Mary album) The drama is excellent; with good pacing and suspense. The action is great, although it cannot be described as an action movie. It is in the same vein as The Unforgiving.
Cole, the hard-nosed, unbending, fearless lawman, has seen it all and knows he is better than the rest. Everett is more easy-going, understanding, and better educated. His character seems to me to be the most interesting. But he is clearly a follower, content to let Cole lead, despite his own superior skills. Vigo Mortensen, as Everett, is great. I loved the character. The story is complicated. The scenery is magical. The sets and costumes are authentic. Little things make the difference. The Indians they encounter are Chiricahua, which is correct for that part of the world, and they are from the San Carlos tribe, which is accurate as well. The San Carlos were some of the last to surrender to a reservation, and were raiding that part of the world at the time the story takes place. I like accuracy.
This is a superior movie. Not perfect, but well worth seeing. It has strong language, nudity, and fairly graphic violence, and is rated R. Nita would like it without the cussing and naked Rene.
Movie Review Quarantine
Quarantine I’m sure you’ve seen the previews. A disparate group of people are quarantined inside an apartment building after fire and police respond to a 911 call. A two-person news team is following the fire department that night and are caught inside as well. The authorities are not telling them anything, but something is killing the people inside. A scene from the trailer has already become iconic—a woman lying on the floor in front of a night vision video camera, terrified, her eyes glowing, crawling in the pitch dark. Suddenly she is being dragged back into the shadows by an unseen force, screaming as she vanishes. That scene made me go see the move, despite knowing it would be terrible. Besides, the evil thing might be Zombies, right?
Surprise! It isn’t a terrible movie. It is inventive, scary, suspenseful, violent, gory and very well written. The entire movie—every frame—is seen from the vantage point of the news camera, similar to Cloverfield but still manages to bring a different look and perspective to the movie. We know what the people trapped in the building know, which is very little, as they try to find out what is happening, why the government has locked them inside without telling them anything, and as they figure out how to survive. Slowly clues begin to emerge and connect, but we never do (which means they never do) find out exactly what is happening—other than people being killed and ripped to pieces, or shot if they try to escape.
It doesn’t have the holes most of these kinds of features are subject to, mostly because they give us so little information. But the people inside are believable, human, terrified, and behave in ways that come across as genuine, valid responses to something fundamentally beyond their experience or even imagination. It isn’t a Zombie move. It is much more sinister because it is much closer to the realm of reality.
Everyone in it does a first rate job of acting. There are no big names in it.
I recommend it if you are a true aficionado, otherwise stay away. It’s good, but it’s in-your-face violence and terror. It is rated R and deservedly so.
Surprise! It isn’t a terrible movie. It is inventive, scary, suspenseful, violent, gory and very well written. The entire movie—every frame—is seen from the vantage point of the news camera, similar to Cloverfield but still manages to bring a different look and perspective to the movie. We know what the people trapped in the building know, which is very little, as they try to find out what is happening, why the government has locked them inside without telling them anything, and as they figure out how to survive. Slowly clues begin to emerge and connect, but we never do (which means they never do) find out exactly what is happening—other than people being killed and ripped to pieces, or shot if they try to escape.
It doesn’t have the holes most of these kinds of features are subject to, mostly because they give us so little information. But the people inside are believable, human, terrified, and behave in ways that come across as genuine, valid responses to something fundamentally beyond their experience or even imagination. It isn’t a Zombie move. It is much more sinister because it is much closer to the realm of reality.
Everyone in it does a first rate job of acting. There are no big names in it.
I recommend it if you are a true aficionado, otherwise stay away. It’s good, but it’s in-your-face violence and terror. It is rated R and deservedly so.
Movie Review Max Payne
Max Payne This is the latest in what is becoming its own sub-genre; the underground comic movie. Mainstream comics have become, as we all know by now, huge money makers when done well, and there seems to be a niche consistent enough for these (usually darker) undergrounds to find an audience as well. I’m not sure what an underground comic is. The mainstream comics are DC and Marvel, by and large, so maybe underground is anything not DC or Marvel. They also usually have a more adult-oriented theme, are longer and darker, and the artwork is often better—or maybe just the printing.
At any rate, Max Payne is a good example of the film noir look the undergrounds seem to prefer.
The story revolves around a burnt-out DEA agent (Mark Wahlberg) whose wife and infant son were murdered, and one of the three perps is still out there. He chances into some kind of bizarre cabal, the members of which all wear a stylized tattoo of wings. The wings represent the Valkyrie, denizens of Norse mythology whose task it was to sweep the honored dead (anyone who died in battle) from the field and fly them to Valhalla. People are dying. Valkyries are involved, but no one is certain if they are real or hallucinations. Payne’s murdered family is connected. As he gets closer to the truth, he discovers a huge conspiracy behind the corporation his wife used to work for. And blah, blah, blah.
The movie has a look and a feel to it. In every scene it is either snowing or raining. It is cold and dreary with snow piled up everywhere. I don’t know why. It was filmed in color, but it looked as if they muted the colors to give it a dour look.
Wahlberg is good. He has turned into a decent, consistent actor. Beau Bridges turns in a fine piece of work as Payne’s fathers old partner, now head of security for the same corporation. Needless to say, our anti-hero gets to the bottom of things, makes extreme decisions and saves the day, sort of. His wife and child are still dead.
But he has a new girl, Mila Kunis, who, in one feature role, manages to put a bullet right between the eyes of her That 70’s Show character, Jackie. Mila has grown up. It’s fun to listen to her speak her native tongue in the movie (she is Russian) and know she isn’t doing it phonetically.
It’s a pretty good movie if you like the genre. I don’t recommend it to the grown-up middle-agers who are in the mood for a date movie. PG-13. Barely. Nita would have hated it.
At any rate, Max Payne is a good example of the film noir look the undergrounds seem to prefer.
The story revolves around a burnt-out DEA agent (Mark Wahlberg) whose wife and infant son were murdered, and one of the three perps is still out there. He chances into some kind of bizarre cabal, the members of which all wear a stylized tattoo of wings. The wings represent the Valkyrie, denizens of Norse mythology whose task it was to sweep the honored dead (anyone who died in battle) from the field and fly them to Valhalla. People are dying. Valkyries are involved, but no one is certain if they are real or hallucinations. Payne’s murdered family is connected. As he gets closer to the truth, he discovers a huge conspiracy behind the corporation his wife used to work for. And blah, blah, blah.
The movie has a look and a feel to it. In every scene it is either snowing or raining. It is cold and dreary with snow piled up everywhere. I don’t know why. It was filmed in color, but it looked as if they muted the colors to give it a dour look.
Wahlberg is good. He has turned into a decent, consistent actor. Beau Bridges turns in a fine piece of work as Payne’s fathers old partner, now head of security for the same corporation. Needless to say, our anti-hero gets to the bottom of things, makes extreme decisions and saves the day, sort of. His wife and child are still dead.
But he has a new girl, Mila Kunis, who, in one feature role, manages to put a bullet right between the eyes of her That 70’s Show character, Jackie. Mila has grown up. It’s fun to listen to her speak her native tongue in the movie (she is Russian) and know she isn’t doing it phonetically.
It’s a pretty good movie if you like the genre. I don’t recommend it to the grown-up middle-agers who are in the mood for a date movie. PG-13. Barely. Nita would have hated it.
Movie Review Eagle Eye
Eagle Eye An action cyber-thriller which takes place the “day after tomorrow”. It is a technical fantasy. The stars are Shia LaBeouf (from Transformers) and Michelle Monaghan (Made of Honor and Gone Baby Gone). They are two seemingly random people, living their lives, total strangers, when they both receive phone calls from a mysterious woman which throws them together and into a series of harrowing escapades as they try to figure out who the woman is, how she is doing these impossible and bizarre things to them and what she wants. It is centered around a hi-tech anti-terrorism scenario.
The action is nonstop, the tension is set to ‘high’ and never lets up. The special effects are great, inventive and high quality.
The basic premise, and the god-like technical expertise of the mysterious woman, are sheer fantasy.
The problem with trying to write a review for a movie like this, is anything I say about the plot will give too much away. The story is convoluted, clever, and basically unbelievable, but lots of fun. It does require the traditional and willing suspension of disbelief. We are required to believe that a terrestrial agency is capable of simultaneously controlling and manipulating every electronic and digital device on the planet. It paints a very spooky picture and you may leave with a profound sense of paranoia.
Ultimately, it is a cautionary tale, warning us that humans need to be careful when creating artificial intelligence. This is by no means the first movie to warn us about that. Remember The Corbin Project? But not to worry. It occurred to me, while sitting in the darkened theater, that humans will never build computers or robots smarter that we are. The reason? We’re not smart enough.
Billy Bob Thornton is great as the FBI agent. It is rated PG-13. It’s pretty good, but not great. If you’re looking for a thriller and non-stop action, and don’t mind some gaping holes and sci-fi gimmicks, this is a good date movie. Nita would like it, but she’d have screamed a dozen times and feinted twice, so I’m glad I didn’t take her.
The action is nonstop, the tension is set to ‘high’ and never lets up. The special effects are great, inventive and high quality.
The basic premise, and the god-like technical expertise of the mysterious woman, are sheer fantasy.
The problem with trying to write a review for a movie like this, is anything I say about the plot will give too much away. The story is convoluted, clever, and basically unbelievable, but lots of fun. It does require the traditional and willing suspension of disbelief. We are required to believe that a terrestrial agency is capable of simultaneously controlling and manipulating every electronic and digital device on the planet. It paints a very spooky picture and you may leave with a profound sense of paranoia.
Ultimately, it is a cautionary tale, warning us that humans need to be careful when creating artificial intelligence. This is by no means the first movie to warn us about that. Remember The Corbin Project? But not to worry. It occurred to me, while sitting in the darkened theater, that humans will never build computers or robots smarter that we are. The reason? We’re not smart enough.
Billy Bob Thornton is great as the FBI agent. It is rated PG-13. It’s pretty good, but not great. If you’re looking for a thriller and non-stop action, and don’t mind some gaping holes and sci-fi gimmicks, this is a good date movie. Nita would like it, but she’d have screamed a dozen times and feinted twice, so I’m glad I didn’t take her.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Movie Review: Burn After Reading
Burn After Reading: This is the new feature by the always risky and always brilliant Cohen Brothers, who brought us Fargo, Oh Brother! Where Art Thou, No Country for Old Men (based on a novel by Cormac McCarthy), and my favorite, Raising Arizona, among others. We have certain expectations from Joel and Ethan, which include sparkling and occasionally bizarre dialogue, more twists than a barber poll, and an ending that might have nothing to do with the rest of the story. My kind of movie.
The plot centers around a series of unfortunate and unconnected events which placed sensitive CIA information in the hands of a pair of ne’r-do-wells, both of whom work at a local health club. (Brad Pit and Frances McDormand.) John Malkovich lost the CD during a career meltdown. His wife is having an affair with George Clooney, former US Marshall, now indeterminate Homeland Security agent, who then meets McDormand and starts diddling her as well. McDormand hatches a plot to blackmail the CIA guy so she can pay for twelve females worth of plastic surgery and “remake” herself. In the meantime . . . .
I hold the Cohen brothers to a high standard. Based on that standard, this movie is superior to 90% of the offerings from Hollyweird. Based on their other movies, this one falls a bit short. I think they all just wanted to have some fun. As far as I can tell, the movie is primarily a vehicle for Pitt and Clooney to be silly. Which they do quite well on screen, but even better when talking politics. I have no specific beef, other than Malcovich’s characters penchant for spewing spittle with the F word, which he does constantly. I was just hoping for more.
If you like the Cohen boys, you’ll like this one. It’s not for everybody. Nita would have walked out two minutes in. It just wasn’t memorable. Rated R.
The plot centers around a series of unfortunate and unconnected events which placed sensitive CIA information in the hands of a pair of ne’r-do-wells, both of whom work at a local health club. (Brad Pit and Frances McDormand.) John Malkovich lost the CD during a career meltdown. His wife is having an affair with George Clooney, former US Marshall, now indeterminate Homeland Security agent, who then meets McDormand and starts diddling her as well. McDormand hatches a plot to blackmail the CIA guy so she can pay for twelve females worth of plastic surgery and “remake” herself. In the meantime . . . .
I hold the Cohen brothers to a high standard. Based on that standard, this movie is superior to 90% of the offerings from Hollyweird. Based on their other movies, this one falls a bit short. I think they all just wanted to have some fun. As far as I can tell, the movie is primarily a vehicle for Pitt and Clooney to be silly. Which they do quite well on screen, but even better when talking politics. I have no specific beef, other than Malcovich’s characters penchant for spewing spittle with the F word, which he does constantly. I was just hoping for more.
If you like the Cohen boys, you’ll like this one. It’s not for everybody. Nita would have walked out two minutes in. It just wasn’t memorable. Rated R.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Two Good Movies in a row on Sci Fi
An interesting thing happened last night. (Saturday June 8 2008). Something very rare—unique, in fact. I was watching the Sci Fi channel, as I try to do every Saturday night, because that’s when they show their new “Premier” Sci Fi movie of the week. One has to be a special kind of person to put up with that kind of abuse week after week. I can’t imagine their viewer numbers are very high—less than a thousand I would guess. And that’s because the movies, each made by and/or for the Sci Fi Channel, are the worst movies in the history of television. Every time I think they have reached a new low, they surprise and impress me with something so derivative, so poorly written, acted and directed, and with special effects that are nothing short of an embarrassment in this day and age, that I am forced to reevaluate my definition of crap. (Re: Sturgeon’s Law—“Ninety percent of everything is crap”). There have been a few exceptions, which have risen to barely tolerable, and even one that I quite liked, called, unfortunately, Sasquatch Mountain. It starred Rance Howard, Ron Howard's dad, Lance Henriksen (from one of the Alien movies along with Alien Vs Predator, and who starred in a pretty good TV series the name of which escapes me right now) Michael Worth (who also wrote the screen play) and Craig Wasson the guy who gets framed in Body Double, along with Cerina Vincent, whom I’ve never heard of but is hot and can actually act a little.
But last night, I saw TWO (2) good movies in a row on the Sci Fi Channel. The first was RISE: Blood Hunter (I know, who comes up with these titles? And even more worrisome, to whom are they directed?) It starred Lucy Liu, which seemed to be a major dip in her career, but at least she can act and is cute and stuff. It also had that bald guy who starred in The Shield, a cable cop series that I never watched but which garnered some acclaim. The reason this one was good is because it was coherent. Now, when one watches the Sci Fi channel, one has to redefine the term “good” to fit the source. In this case good is a sliding scale which tops out somewhere around “barely acceptable” by any rational standard. I won’t go into the plot. Suffice it to say it was a vampire movie with what some deluded soul imagined was a twist.
The other movie I had seen before, and liked well enough to sit through again. It was a British feature called Dog Soldiers, (not to be confused with the movie Last of the Dogmen which was a good movie and starred Tom Berenger). Dog Soldiers concerns a squad of Brit soldiers on a training mission to the Highlands of Scotland, which almost instantly goes bad. They run across another group (at least what remains of the camp) with one survivor, a Special Ops, hard-nosed Captain who is badly wounded and terrified. They are being hunted by something and lose two men before they eventually make it to a cottage in the middle of a remote forest, where they meet a young woman who knows a little about what’s going on, and where they become besieged by werewolves. And blah,blah,blah. Pretty well written, acted and directed. A genre-centric story to be sure, but believable, given the premise.
Two in one night. Unbelievable. Actually, I’m watching the Sci Fi Channel right now (my wife’s out of town) and I don’t even know what the movie is. Most Sci Fi movies use the same locations, actors, writers and sets. Both of these good ones did not. Hm-m-m-m-m.
But last night, I saw TWO (2) good movies in a row on the Sci Fi Channel. The first was RISE: Blood Hunter (I know, who comes up with these titles? And even more worrisome, to whom are they directed?) It starred Lucy Liu, which seemed to be a major dip in her career, but at least she can act and is cute and stuff. It also had that bald guy who starred in The Shield, a cable cop series that I never watched but which garnered some acclaim. The reason this one was good is because it was coherent. Now, when one watches the Sci Fi channel, one has to redefine the term “good” to fit the source. In this case good is a sliding scale which tops out somewhere around “barely acceptable” by any rational standard. I won’t go into the plot. Suffice it to say it was a vampire movie with what some deluded soul imagined was a twist.
The other movie I had seen before, and liked well enough to sit through again. It was a British feature called Dog Soldiers, (not to be confused with the movie Last of the Dogmen which was a good movie and starred Tom Berenger). Dog Soldiers concerns a squad of Brit soldiers on a training mission to the Highlands of Scotland, which almost instantly goes bad. They run across another group (at least what remains of the camp) with one survivor, a Special Ops, hard-nosed Captain who is badly wounded and terrified. They are being hunted by something and lose two men before they eventually make it to a cottage in the middle of a remote forest, where they meet a young woman who knows a little about what’s going on, and where they become besieged by werewolves. And blah,blah,blah. Pretty well written, acted and directed. A genre-centric story to be sure, but believable, given the premise.
Two in one night. Unbelievable. Actually, I’m watching the Sci Fi Channel right now (my wife’s out of town) and I don’t even know what the movie is. Most Sci Fi movies use the same locations, actors, writers and sets. Both of these good ones did not. Hm-m-m-m-m.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Iron Man
Iron Man At last! After all the waiting, the hype, the hopeful faithfulness of all true believers, the latest installment from Marvel Studios has arrived. Iron Man was always one of my favorite comics for two reasons; one, I loved the character of Tony Stark—the Über-genius billionaire man-about-town with no conscience, who produces the world’s most effective and destructive weapons systems, and two; the person he becomes inside the suit he designs—the man who champions the downtrodden and helpless, those caught in the grips of war and destitution, of unchecked crime and wanton violence.
The movie pays very careful attention to the story of how Stark becomes Iron Man, and, in my opinion, does as good or better job at being true to the spirit of the comic than any other attempt thus far. Robert Downey Jr. is well-cast as Tony Stark, the brilliant, wise-cracking, amoral designer behind Stark industries (and, now that I am old enough to notice, an obvious nod to Howard Hughes). Gwyneth Paltrow plays Pepper Potts, the efficient, dedicated, beautiful personal secretary to Stark, who is willing to sacrifice her career and even life to maintain her loyalty to him. (Gwyneth is looking fabulous in this role—those freckles slay me) And Jeff Bridges Plays Obadiah Stane (Get it? Stain?), the back-stabbing friend and business partner to Stark, who is selling weapons and munitions to terrorists under the table. Bridges plays a surprisingly effective villain. He is very believable. Lastly, Terrance Howard plays the Air Force Colonel who is the governments liaison to Stark Industries. All of these characters are from the original comics.
Stark, while demonstrating his newest weapons system, is injured and kidnapped by terrorists, who coerce him into building the new Jericho rocket for them. Instead he builds the Mark I Iron Man suit and destroys the bad guys. Woo hoo! He escapes, is rescued, and returns a changed man, keeping up the spoiled, playboy appearance, while designing and building the most effective weapons platform in history—IRON MAN! Da-da . . . da da dum, dadadadadadada da-dum-dum!
But wait! Obadiah has gotten hold of the original suit (now ruined) and the original drawings, and is making a suit of his own—bigger, badder, more powerful. Can Stark defeat his nemesis, Iron Monger? Will Pepper finally convince her boss that he is in love with her? And who’s going to repair the big hole in the roof of Stark’s bachelor pad?
Oh yeah, while all this is going on, Tony has developed a miniature version of a fusion reactor in order to power a thingy in his chest. It seems that when the bad guys got him, his wounds included some shrapnel in the chest. A few pieces had to be left in—too close to the heart—and an electro-magnet implanted in his chest is keeping the steel from migrating to his heart and killing him. So that solves his energy problem. The suit is awesome. There is a scene where his robotic helpers are putting him into it for the first time, that is one of the coolest sequences I have ever seen. Great special effects. The story is coherent, the technology is actually possible—several sources are saying it is all doable in the next 20 years or so—and the action is edge-of-the-seat.
Nita went and loved it. I had to restrain her several times, and remind her to be quiet, but she was pretty well-behaved for the most part. Newell and Grah both give it an enthusiastic thumbs up, and Mason, my 10 year old nephew, endorses it without reservation.
It is rated PG-13. Nothing overtly objectionable (other than Stark’s lifestyle) but there is a very brief fore-play-a-boing-boing scene. Everyone has some clothes on, and it really is brief, if enthusiastic. No cussing, no gore, lots of wonderfully antiseptic violence and mayhem, all directed at bad guys who clearly have it coming. This is definitely one I want to own.
The movie pays very careful attention to the story of how Stark becomes Iron Man, and, in my opinion, does as good or better job at being true to the spirit of the comic than any other attempt thus far. Robert Downey Jr. is well-cast as Tony Stark, the brilliant, wise-cracking, amoral designer behind Stark industries (and, now that I am old enough to notice, an obvious nod to Howard Hughes). Gwyneth Paltrow plays Pepper Potts, the efficient, dedicated, beautiful personal secretary to Stark, who is willing to sacrifice her career and even life to maintain her loyalty to him. (Gwyneth is looking fabulous in this role—those freckles slay me) And Jeff Bridges Plays Obadiah Stane (Get it? Stain?), the back-stabbing friend and business partner to Stark, who is selling weapons and munitions to terrorists under the table. Bridges plays a surprisingly effective villain. He is very believable. Lastly, Terrance Howard plays the Air Force Colonel who is the governments liaison to Stark Industries. All of these characters are from the original comics.
Stark, while demonstrating his newest weapons system, is injured and kidnapped by terrorists, who coerce him into building the new Jericho rocket for them. Instead he builds the Mark I Iron Man suit and destroys the bad guys. Woo hoo! He escapes, is rescued, and returns a changed man, keeping up the spoiled, playboy appearance, while designing and building the most effective weapons platform in history—IRON MAN! Da-da . . . da da dum, dadadadadadada da-dum-dum!
But wait! Obadiah has gotten hold of the original suit (now ruined) and the original drawings, and is making a suit of his own—bigger, badder, more powerful. Can Stark defeat his nemesis, Iron Monger? Will Pepper finally convince her boss that he is in love with her? And who’s going to repair the big hole in the roof of Stark’s bachelor pad?
Oh yeah, while all this is going on, Tony has developed a miniature version of a fusion reactor in order to power a thingy in his chest. It seems that when the bad guys got him, his wounds included some shrapnel in the chest. A few pieces had to be left in—too close to the heart—and an electro-magnet implanted in his chest is keeping the steel from migrating to his heart and killing him. So that solves his energy problem. The suit is awesome. There is a scene where his robotic helpers are putting him into it for the first time, that is one of the coolest sequences I have ever seen. Great special effects. The story is coherent, the technology is actually possible—several sources are saying it is all doable in the next 20 years or so—and the action is edge-of-the-seat.
Nita went and loved it. I had to restrain her several times, and remind her to be quiet, but she was pretty well-behaved for the most part. Newell and Grah both give it an enthusiastic thumbs up, and Mason, my 10 year old nephew, endorses it without reservation.
It is rated PG-13. Nothing overtly objectionable (other than Stark’s lifestyle) but there is a very brief fore-play-a-boing-boing scene. Everyone has some clothes on, and it really is brief, if enthusiastic. No cussing, no gore, lots of wonderfully antiseptic violence and mayhem, all directed at bad guys who clearly have it coming. This is definitely one I want to own.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed I have been anxiously awaiting this documentary for some time now, and in the spirit of full-disclosure, admit that I knew which side of the argument I would be on going into the theater. Ben Stein was the driving force behind the project. He is an attorney, professor, economist and former speech writer for Nixon and Ford, but we all know him by the famous words “Buehler? Buehler?” And the “Clear Eyes” commercials.
Mr. Stein had been concerned for some time about the spirit of Politically Correct bias in the science community, which censors the discussion of certain topics with the rabid ferocity of the Spanish Inquisition. Why—he wanted to know—are so many ‘scientists’ so unwilling to give any credence at all to the idea of Intelligent Design? Is it just a crackpot red herring, espoused by fringe elements of the pseudo sciences? Or is something else going on? He traveled all over the world to interview people on both sides of the argument and the result is a compelling, fascinating review of the situation, which turns out to be far more severe and troubling than I ever suspected.
Ben is the most congenial, unassuming and non-threatening human being in existence, which is what got him into a lot of doors. But a lot were closed in his face as well, and all from one side of the isle, as it were.
The film starts out with images of Nazi Germany and the Berlin Wall, the infamous legacy of that conflict. A very well-presented history of Darwinism is offered, not at all slanted, then called into question by interviewees who each had impeccable credentials and careers until they dared mention Intelligent Design, at which point they lost their jobs. Fired. Let go. These were not people from the Right Wing Fringe of Fundamentalist Wacko’s (like me), but liberal, multiple PhD movers and shakers. And they didn’t espouse ID, they just mentioned it in a presentation, or approved a peer-reviewed paper for publication that mentioned it. And were fired for daring to step outside the safe harbor of orthodoxy. You know, like Charles Darwin did in the 1850’s.
He traces Planned Parenthood to the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century, said movement being one of the legacies of Darwinism. He looks into the historical record of Hitler and his Social Democrats (Nazis) being fervently committed to Darwinism, explaining that Hitler’s war (WWII) was fundamentally a product of trying to affect human evolution to match the Third Reich’s vision of genetic ascendancy. It is made clear that this in no way is meant to paint Darwin or his theories into the Nazi nightmare with a very broad brush. Only that Darwinian Evolution can be logically extrapolated into areas beyond morality and ethics—like eugenics (the selective breeding and culling of human beings) because of evolutions intrinsic devaluation of the human species.
The scientists he talks to make it clear on one side of the “wall” that any discussion of Intelligent Design is merely a poorly disguised attempt at bringing Creationism back to the table, while those on the other side of the “wall” insist nothing could be further from the truth. He talked to atheists who acknowledged the short comings of Darwinism, and saw ID as a way to expand the discussion, open other avenues of inquiry. They all stated categorically that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with Creationism. Creationism, for those of us who might be a little fuzzy, insists on a literal interpretation of the Bible and tries to find scientific evidence of those events in the creation story. Intelligent Design, is much different. New research into and greater understanding of things like the cell, neurology, etc., are all leading molecular biologists to admit that the structural and bio-chemical complexity of the cell, make it impossible for randomly occurring mutations to be the sole explanation for the existence of life. Darwin, in 1850, thought the cell was a simple, straightforward organism, with a nucleus and some proteins. Now we know it’s far more complex than anything ever made by man. Including photo-copy machines.
In one sequence Stein asks some guy to explain how life began and the guy went off on the accepted script of orthodox evolution. But when Ben pressed him and asked, “yeah, but how did that stuff that wasn’t alive, suddenly become alive? The guy said “one theory is that these complex molecules rode piggy-back on crystals. Once again, “Yeah, but how did it become alive?”
And the guy got angry, or frustrated, and said “I just told you! Piggy-back on crystals!”
And that’s what passes for a Darwinian Evolution apologist?
The only people who got angry and strident and impatient were the ones having to defend Darwin. It was as if (Actually, not as if—it was) they resented having to defend a theory. That they would not tolerate questioning anything about it. The relationship between the attitudes and behavior of many of these scientists, and Nazi fascism was disturbing. It is very similar to what is happening with “Climate Change” (the current PC term for Global Warming). Science has allowed itself to be politicized. And in some sense at least, to become a religion. For too many in the scientific community, evolution (an idea to which I subscribe, with a few caveats—as most of you know) has become a cult, which cannot be scrutinized or criticized at all, by anyone. (Which reminds me of something Tom Cruise said . . .)
The film was immensely watchable, fast paced, well edited, and to my mind, very even-handed given the subject and the admitted bias. Stein is not a proponent of replacing evolution with Intelligent Design. I don’t think any of the people he talked to were either. They all want a dialogue, a discussion, an ongoing debate—like science is supposed to be. I dare say most people in the field feel that way—in fact Stein said that a lot of the people he spoke to would admit to problems, weaknesses and gaps in the theory of evolution, but would not say so on camera. They did say they wished the whole thing was more open to debate without losing one’s job.
Near the end, he somehow corners the infamous Richard Dawkins, the really, really smart moron who wrote The God Delusion into admitting that Intelligent Design (in the form of Pan Spermia) is a possibility. It just can’t be God. I’m not sure why—he had trouble answering that one.
But even Pan Spermia (the idea that life was seeded on earth from somewhere else, possibly by highly advanced aliens) doesn’t answer the most important question, which is; how did those highly-advanced aliens come into existence? Did they evolve form a single-celled organism? And if so, how did that organism go from not-alive to alive? It’s a good question and it is never going away. Darwin can’t answer it, Dawkins can’t answer it—nobody can answer it. Evolution is as meaningless as a stack of turtles without an answer to that one.
Rated PG. Remember, it’s a documentary. Not only do I give it my highest recommendation, I am pleading with you to go see it. Take your kids. If you are a die-hard Darwinian and will never change, go see it. If you are a snake-handling Pentecostal fundamentalist, go see it. We all need to know that the debate is legitimate.
Mr. Stein had been concerned for some time about the spirit of Politically Correct bias in the science community, which censors the discussion of certain topics with the rabid ferocity of the Spanish Inquisition. Why—he wanted to know—are so many ‘scientists’ so unwilling to give any credence at all to the idea of Intelligent Design? Is it just a crackpot red herring, espoused by fringe elements of the pseudo sciences? Or is something else going on? He traveled all over the world to interview people on both sides of the argument and the result is a compelling, fascinating review of the situation, which turns out to be far more severe and troubling than I ever suspected.
Ben is the most congenial, unassuming and non-threatening human being in existence, which is what got him into a lot of doors. But a lot were closed in his face as well, and all from one side of the isle, as it were.
The film starts out with images of Nazi Germany and the Berlin Wall, the infamous legacy of that conflict. A very well-presented history of Darwinism is offered, not at all slanted, then called into question by interviewees who each had impeccable credentials and careers until they dared mention Intelligent Design, at which point they lost their jobs. Fired. Let go. These were not people from the Right Wing Fringe of Fundamentalist Wacko’s (like me), but liberal, multiple PhD movers and shakers. And they didn’t espouse ID, they just mentioned it in a presentation, or approved a peer-reviewed paper for publication that mentioned it. And were fired for daring to step outside the safe harbor of orthodoxy. You know, like Charles Darwin did in the 1850’s.
He traces Planned Parenthood to the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century, said movement being one of the legacies of Darwinism. He looks into the historical record of Hitler and his Social Democrats (Nazis) being fervently committed to Darwinism, explaining that Hitler’s war (WWII) was fundamentally a product of trying to affect human evolution to match the Third Reich’s vision of genetic ascendancy. It is made clear that this in no way is meant to paint Darwin or his theories into the Nazi nightmare with a very broad brush. Only that Darwinian Evolution can be logically extrapolated into areas beyond morality and ethics—like eugenics (the selective breeding and culling of human beings) because of evolutions intrinsic devaluation of the human species.
The scientists he talks to make it clear on one side of the “wall” that any discussion of Intelligent Design is merely a poorly disguised attempt at bringing Creationism back to the table, while those on the other side of the “wall” insist nothing could be further from the truth. He talked to atheists who acknowledged the short comings of Darwinism, and saw ID as a way to expand the discussion, open other avenues of inquiry. They all stated categorically that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with Creationism. Creationism, for those of us who might be a little fuzzy, insists on a literal interpretation of the Bible and tries to find scientific evidence of those events in the creation story. Intelligent Design, is much different. New research into and greater understanding of things like the cell, neurology, etc., are all leading molecular biologists to admit that the structural and bio-chemical complexity of the cell, make it impossible for randomly occurring mutations to be the sole explanation for the existence of life. Darwin, in 1850, thought the cell was a simple, straightforward organism, with a nucleus and some proteins. Now we know it’s far more complex than anything ever made by man. Including photo-copy machines.
In one sequence Stein asks some guy to explain how life began and the guy went off on the accepted script of orthodox evolution. But when Ben pressed him and asked, “yeah, but how did that stuff that wasn’t alive, suddenly become alive? The guy said “one theory is that these complex molecules rode piggy-back on crystals. Once again, “Yeah, but how did it become alive?”
And the guy got angry, or frustrated, and said “I just told you! Piggy-back on crystals!”
And that’s what passes for a Darwinian Evolution apologist?
The only people who got angry and strident and impatient were the ones having to defend Darwin. It was as if (Actually, not as if—it was) they resented having to defend a theory. That they would not tolerate questioning anything about it. The relationship between the attitudes and behavior of many of these scientists, and Nazi fascism was disturbing. It is very similar to what is happening with “Climate Change” (the current PC term for Global Warming). Science has allowed itself to be politicized. And in some sense at least, to become a religion. For too many in the scientific community, evolution (an idea to which I subscribe, with a few caveats—as most of you know) has become a cult, which cannot be scrutinized or criticized at all, by anyone. (Which reminds me of something Tom Cruise said . . .)
The film was immensely watchable, fast paced, well edited, and to my mind, very even-handed given the subject and the admitted bias. Stein is not a proponent of replacing evolution with Intelligent Design. I don’t think any of the people he talked to were either. They all want a dialogue, a discussion, an ongoing debate—like science is supposed to be. I dare say most people in the field feel that way—in fact Stein said that a lot of the people he spoke to would admit to problems, weaknesses and gaps in the theory of evolution, but would not say so on camera. They did say they wished the whole thing was more open to debate without losing one’s job.
Near the end, he somehow corners the infamous Richard Dawkins, the really, really smart moron who wrote The God Delusion into admitting that Intelligent Design (in the form of Pan Spermia) is a possibility. It just can’t be God. I’m not sure why—he had trouble answering that one.
But even Pan Spermia (the idea that life was seeded on earth from somewhere else, possibly by highly advanced aliens) doesn’t answer the most important question, which is; how did those highly-advanced aliens come into existence? Did they evolve form a single-celled organism? And if so, how did that organism go from not-alive to alive? It’s a good question and it is never going away. Darwin can’t answer it, Dawkins can’t answer it—nobody can answer it. Evolution is as meaningless as a stack of turtles without an answer to that one.
Rated PG. Remember, it’s a documentary. Not only do I give it my highest recommendation, I am pleading with you to go see it. Take your kids. If you are a die-hard Darwinian and will never change, go see it. If you are a snake-handling Pentecostal fundamentalist, go see it. We all need to know that the debate is legitimate.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Forbidden Kingdom
The Forbidden Kingdom Okay, this is another of those kind-of-American-made (or paid for) Chinese-mythical-Kung-Fu-movies. Like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Hero, and others. Jackie Chan and Jet Li are the principals and this is the first time they have worked together. I was enthusiastic to see it and I’m glad I did. The story seems to be another in an unending supply of amazing tales of heroes and immortals from Chinese Mythology. But this one doesn’t quite live up to the promise—and genius—of some of the others. Having said that, I enjoyed it, over all. It has all the action any martial arts fanatic could want, the story is beautiful in that exotic, Asian way, and the stunts and special effects are . . . acceptable. I’m not sure where the weaknesses are, but they are there. The copy I saw had some editing problems, and I thought the acting wasn’t up to snuff. A lack of chemistry might have been a cause as well. There is no profanity, no sex or skin, and no gore. It is however, pretty much wall to wall fighting—albeit very stylized fighting. And a little flying. It is rated PG-13. Die-hard fans of the genre will like it, (a few people clapped when it was over) as well as people who aren’t really paying attention. (you know, high school kids.) If you are Gloria, or Howie, or Larry, or Terri, I don’t recommend it. Although . . . the mood Terri’s in lately, she might surprise me.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Movie Review of Doomsday
Doomsday Occasionally, not often, a moment arrives that is so defining, so transcendent, that one realizes a new artistic paradigm has arrived, something has occurred that will change everything . . . . this was not one of those moments.
This movie is another post-apocalyptic sci-fi—horror flick. Everybody thinks they can do a better job with this genre, or they’ve found a new angle, and the genre always makes a little profit so they get financing. This one is so derivative it’s pathetic. It stars Rhona Mitra, as the one-woman special forces killing machine, as well as mildly easy to look at, Bob Hoskins as the completely superfluous chief of police—or whatever they’re called in England, and other people I’ve seen whose names I don’t know and am too indifferent to click back and find.
The Plot. Think Road Warrior meets Resident Evil meets Twenty-Eight Days Later. Only nowhere near as good as any of those—and this in a genre where “good” is a relative term at best. A new super-virus called the Reaper Virus, erupts in Glasgow Scotland, and begins to spread uncontrollably. They try to stop it, but finally, in desperation and terrified they are failing, build a new Hadrian’s Wall and lock the infected in with the healthy to let nature take its course. Triage writ large. Go forward 25 years (to 2035) and satellite imagining has revealed survivors at just the same moment a new outbreak is discovered in London. What timing! I can’t bear anymore. We’ve already seen every scene from then on in other movies. Scotland was nice though, and there is a certain logic to putting the crazy, cannibalistic, make-up wearing, chain swinging, and weird-hair-doo packing survivors in that particular country, because they would save so much time and money on special effects, make-up and costumes.
The story is stupid. The writing is vapid, the acting is obviously acting and Malcolm McDonald plays yet another seedy role in a career ruined by his starring role in A Clockwork Orange. Just goes to show you, never dance with the devil. Every move made in the entire movie is irrational, illogical, and worst of all, unnecessary. Good special effects and lots of scenes with cool fighting and action—none of which make any sense at all—and then it ends by sort of petering out while setting us up for a sequel, which will be like being in remission and having the disease come back again. It is Über-gory, and violent. Why is it that survivors in movies like this are always crazy, psychotic murdering cannibals? The writer should have made them zombies; then all the nonsense would have had some kind of bizarre rationale. But these losers weren’t even sick—they were immune to the virus (thus their survival). This flick brings up so many questions I haven’t the time, space, or inclination to even ask them. Okay, just one example. At one point our heroes are running from bad guys, out in the country. A local takes them to an old bunker. They are told the tunnel is a short cut through the mountain. The bunker turns out to be a massive fallout shelter, obviously government designed, built and stocked. It has everything someone would need to thrive in a post-nuclear war world. So, it’s been there the whole time, lots of people know about it because they use it regularly as a kind of underground railroad, but it is still pristine, after 25 years of anarchistic mayhem where resources are so scarce the populace has resorted to institution cannibalism. Nobody has explored it, rifled it, looted it or is living in it. And when the good guys return to it, everything they need is right there—even an inventory list hanging on a wall out in the open. One of the containers has a brand new Bentley in it. The local girl asks “what does it do?”, even though she has seen all kinds of Road-Warrior inspired vehicles running around everywhere all through the movie. I mean, it’s beyond belief.
It is rated R for ridiculous. Blood, prurient exploitation, gore (including decapitations and squishing bodies under heavy things) nudity (very brief), usual British potty language, and an incomprehensible story-line. It will make a profit because there are several million teenagers out there with fake ID’s who will see anything that might have a boob or entrails in it. But I’m not like them—my ID isn’t fake.
This movie is another post-apocalyptic sci-fi—horror flick. Everybody thinks they can do a better job with this genre, or they’ve found a new angle, and the genre always makes a little profit so they get financing. This one is so derivative it’s pathetic. It stars Rhona Mitra, as the one-woman special forces killing machine, as well as mildly easy to look at, Bob Hoskins as the completely superfluous chief of police—or whatever they’re called in England, and other people I’ve seen whose names I don’t know and am too indifferent to click back and find.
The Plot. Think Road Warrior meets Resident Evil meets Twenty-Eight Days Later. Only nowhere near as good as any of those—and this in a genre where “good” is a relative term at best. A new super-virus called the Reaper Virus, erupts in Glasgow Scotland, and begins to spread uncontrollably. They try to stop it, but finally, in desperation and terrified they are failing, build a new Hadrian’s Wall and lock the infected in with the healthy to let nature take its course. Triage writ large. Go forward 25 years (to 2035) and satellite imagining has revealed survivors at just the same moment a new outbreak is discovered in London. What timing! I can’t bear anymore. We’ve already seen every scene from then on in other movies. Scotland was nice though, and there is a certain logic to putting the crazy, cannibalistic, make-up wearing, chain swinging, and weird-hair-doo packing survivors in that particular country, because they would save so much time and money on special effects, make-up and costumes.
The story is stupid. The writing is vapid, the acting is obviously acting and Malcolm McDonald plays yet another seedy role in a career ruined by his starring role in A Clockwork Orange. Just goes to show you, never dance with the devil. Every move made in the entire movie is irrational, illogical, and worst of all, unnecessary. Good special effects and lots of scenes with cool fighting and action—none of which make any sense at all—and then it ends by sort of petering out while setting us up for a sequel, which will be like being in remission and having the disease come back again. It is Über-gory, and violent. Why is it that survivors in movies like this are always crazy, psychotic murdering cannibals? The writer should have made them zombies; then all the nonsense would have had some kind of bizarre rationale. But these losers weren’t even sick—they were immune to the virus (thus their survival). This flick brings up so many questions I haven’t the time, space, or inclination to even ask them. Okay, just one example. At one point our heroes are running from bad guys, out in the country. A local takes them to an old bunker. They are told the tunnel is a short cut through the mountain. The bunker turns out to be a massive fallout shelter, obviously government designed, built and stocked. It has everything someone would need to thrive in a post-nuclear war world. So, it’s been there the whole time, lots of people know about it because they use it regularly as a kind of underground railroad, but it is still pristine, after 25 years of anarchistic mayhem where resources are so scarce the populace has resorted to institution cannibalism. Nobody has explored it, rifled it, looted it or is living in it. And when the good guys return to it, everything they need is right there—even an inventory list hanging on a wall out in the open. One of the containers has a brand new Bentley in it. The local girl asks “what does it do?”, even though she has seen all kinds of Road-Warrior inspired vehicles running around everywhere all through the movie. I mean, it’s beyond belief.
It is rated R for ridiculous. Blood, prurient exploitation, gore (including decapitations and squishing bodies under heavy things) nudity (very brief), usual British potty language, and an incomprehensible story-line. It will make a profit because there are several million teenagers out there with fake ID’s who will see anything that might have a boob or entrails in it. But I’m not like them—my ID isn’t fake.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Movie Review: Untraceable
Untraceable This one’s an FBI suspense thriller in the vein of Silence of the Lambs and Seven. This one is as brutal as either of those, but not quite up to their “quality”, if that is the appropriate word. It stars Diane Lane as an FBI cyber specialist, catching predators and hackers by being better with computers than they are. I went to this one for two reasons. One—it looked pretty good in the trailers, and two—Diane Lane is my number one favorite world-class gorgeous actress. Be still my heart.
I liked this one. It isn’t perfect, but the suspense is good, keeps you guessing, and there is a lot of super high-tech babble that might have been genuine or might not—I have no idea. There were a few times I thought they were making the bad guy omniscient. He hacked into everything-cell phones, On Star, FBI computers, etc.
The crime in this semi-cerebral thriller is diabolical. Someone is abducting people and torturing them while streaming the live video to the web. Here’s the clincher: the more people who log on to watch, the faster whatever is being done to the victims kills them. Which makes millions of us accessories to first degree murder. Nice touch, eh? The killers skills are a little too mad to be believable, and his ability to plot, plan, and execute (get it?) is Olympian, but it still manages to entertain in that sick, self-loathing kind of way. And you get to watch Diane Lane work her craft and be beautiful and stuff. Who needs a plot?
It’s rated R, for adult content and language. Nita would have loved the suspense and mystery and hated the crime and stuff. It was okay. They tried to make Lane look like a regular forty-something single mom but it’s impossible. She way too hot.
I liked this one. It isn’t perfect, but the suspense is good, keeps you guessing, and there is a lot of super high-tech babble that might have been genuine or might not—I have no idea. There were a few times I thought they were making the bad guy omniscient. He hacked into everything-cell phones, On Star, FBI computers, etc.
The crime in this semi-cerebral thriller is diabolical. Someone is abducting people and torturing them while streaming the live video to the web. Here’s the clincher: the more people who log on to watch, the faster whatever is being done to the victims kills them. Which makes millions of us accessories to first degree murder. Nice touch, eh? The killers skills are a little too mad to be believable, and his ability to plot, plan, and execute (get it?) is Olympian, but it still manages to entertain in that sick, self-loathing kind of way. And you get to watch Diane Lane work her craft and be beautiful and stuff. Who needs a plot?
It’s rated R, for adult content and language. Nita would have loved the suspense and mystery and hated the crime and stuff. It was okay. They tried to make Lane look like a regular forty-something single mom but it’s impossible. She way too hot.
Movie Review: Sweeny Todd
Sweeny Todd: Demon Barber of Fleet Street Well, it took a while but I finally managed to see this one. I had several reasons for wanting to. First, Nita and I had seen the stage production years ago in Cedar City. Second, it stars Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter, both of whom I respect as actors (although not necessarily any other way) and finally, it’s a Tim Burton movie and I think he’s the best insane writer-director out there.
In case you are unfamiliar with the story line, a word or two will be necessary. A London Barber has a wonderful life—beautiful wife, new baby daughter, when a powerful judge (Alan Rickman) has him arrested in order to put the wife back on the market. As it were. The Barber escapes from prison after 15 years, comes home and is told his wife is dead and his daughter is the ward of the judge. He’s quite insane by now, obsessed with revenge, and changes his name to Sweeny Todd, colludes with Mrs. Lovett (Carter) who owns an uninspired (and unsanitary) meat pie shop.
Todd starts killing men he believes had anything to do with anything, and Lovett makes meat pies out of the cadavers. The plot thickens, Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat) makes a nice cameo as the Spaniard, meat pie stock goes way up, a twist or two, tragedy, the end.
Did I mention it’s a musical? Stephen Sondheim, the genius. The music is not as approachable as some of his others, which makes sense since the story is far more macabre than his others. Depp and Carter, neither singers, make up for lack of training with amazing emotional range. I like musicals, but I know many, perhaps most, people do not. Your loss. Camelot is my favorite.
I found this movie to be a disturbing, uneven version of the Broadway hit. It is brooding, dark, brilliant and bloody with the kind of graphic, gory detail only Burton is capable of. Very dark humor here and there as well.
If you are a serious aficionado, I highly recommend this movie. If not, I can’t recommend it. Hopefully you know which you are.
It’s rated R for weird, blood and gore, cockroaches and being a serious buzz-kill.
In case you are unfamiliar with the story line, a word or two will be necessary. A London Barber has a wonderful life—beautiful wife, new baby daughter, when a powerful judge (Alan Rickman) has him arrested in order to put the wife back on the market. As it were. The Barber escapes from prison after 15 years, comes home and is told his wife is dead and his daughter is the ward of the judge. He’s quite insane by now, obsessed with revenge, and changes his name to Sweeny Todd, colludes with Mrs. Lovett (Carter) who owns an uninspired (and unsanitary) meat pie shop.
Todd starts killing men he believes had anything to do with anything, and Lovett makes meat pies out of the cadavers. The plot thickens, Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat) makes a nice cameo as the Spaniard, meat pie stock goes way up, a twist or two, tragedy, the end.
Did I mention it’s a musical? Stephen Sondheim, the genius. The music is not as approachable as some of his others, which makes sense since the story is far more macabre than his others. Depp and Carter, neither singers, make up for lack of training with amazing emotional range. I like musicals, but I know many, perhaps most, people do not. Your loss. Camelot is my favorite.
I found this movie to be a disturbing, uneven version of the Broadway hit. It is brooding, dark, brilliant and bloody with the kind of graphic, gory detail only Burton is capable of. Very dark humor here and there as well.
If you are a serious aficionado, I highly recommend this movie. If not, I can’t recommend it. Hopefully you know which you are.
It’s rated R for weird, blood and gore, cockroaches and being a serious buzz-kill.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Movie Review: Cloverfield
Cloverfield At last! The long-awaited and much-anticipated new sci-fi-monster-action-thriller is here. This movie has been under a secrecy lid that would have made Lubyanka proud. Nobody knew anything about it except for the tantalizingly brief glimpses of something in the trailer. Cloverfield is the government code word for the “incident”. This movie is awesome—way better than most of the critics are claiming. They’re all idiots anyway. It is a breakthrough, it raises the bar, breaks the mold.
Picture this: Rob is moving to Japan—big promotion—and his friends are having a party for him. One of the guys, Hud, is tagged to videotape the whole thing, getting testimonials from everybody. The party is noisy, but we the audience manage to hear a few big thumps in the background. Then a big jolt. Earthquake. The lights go out, then come back on. And everything is being seen through the lens of this amateur videographer. They go up to the roof to see if they can see anything. Suddenly there is a huge explosion somewhere uptown. Pieces of debris come flying over and in. People are screaming . . . the guy with the camera is screaming. They run down the stairs, image jumping everywhere, making you dizzy. Out on the street people are screaming, running. Another explosion, and something comes flying towards you, hits the street, bounces and crushes a few cars. When it stops you discover it’s the head of lady liberty—as in the statue of. Panic, mayhem. Building are collapsing, there is a sound booming through the air you would not want to hear twice in your life time.
New York is under attack.
All the actors are no names—never seen any of them before. They do a great job. The entire movie is shot with a video camera as Hud, Rob, Lilly and Marlena try to stay alive, then go back into the city to rescue Robs girlfriend. He received a brief call—she is in her building and she can’t move. In the meantime something is destroying the city. The army arrives and is ineffective against this nightmare creature (which we haven’t even seen yet) but they manage to begin a mandatory evacuation and protect the civilians as they flee.
That’s all for the plot. This flick rocks the house. The tension level is a nine on the Richter scale. It starts out with no credits. Instead we are told it is an eyes only account of the “incident” called the Cloverfield event. Hud never stopped filming and it is the best record the government has. It is so inventive, so well done, that you totally forget it’s not real. Even the monster, when we finally see it, doesn’t break our concentration because by now we have totally bought into the whole documentary thing. And no one knows what the thing is, or where it came from or what it wants. It is the anti-Godzilla movie. Usually some bright scientist gives us a running explanation as to what is happening and why—think Matthew Broderick in Godzilla—but not this time. (Don’t get me wrong, I love Godzilla.) The camera follows the twenty-something’s with commentary by Hud—a dim bulb—all the while. Bombs exploding, guns firing, tanks shooting round after round, jets screaming overhead, and helicopters shuttering through the canyons of the city—all getting their asses kicked. The point of view never changes, we only see what Hud sees, and the lens.
Okay, enough. Did you see The Blair Witch Project? This one has the same intensity, the same immediacy. Except it’s way better. This movie is a masterpiece, but not a lot of people are going to see it that way, so be forewarned. It is straightforward, head banging terror. Which comes not from gore or sudden noises, or hideous acts of cruelty by demented, demonic mutants, but from the fear of not knowing what’s going on. Never. Total ignorance in the midst of indescribable and impossible chaos. It’s not our terror—it’s their terror. It ends the same way it started, following the survivors until they stop moving. It is not the movie we see in the trailer. It is more complex, more subtle, more human. It is brutally realistic. It has no ending . . . the tape just stops and we finally hear music as the credits begin to roll. Awesome!
It is rated PG-13 but don’t take little kids. It’s a good date movie if your partner is a total freak. There is a little cussing, a little blood, a really big monster like nothing you’ve ever seen, and lots of dog sized-crab-shrimp-scuttley little manic biters. They fall off the thing like barnacles from a Teflon ship hull.
The CGI is incredible. Newell and I saw it at the Rave, in the Town Center and they have new DPL projectors. The picture and sound are so superior it hurts. Cloverfield is a keeper.
Picture this: Rob is moving to Japan—big promotion—and his friends are having a party for him. One of the guys, Hud, is tagged to videotape the whole thing, getting testimonials from everybody. The party is noisy, but we the audience manage to hear a few big thumps in the background. Then a big jolt. Earthquake. The lights go out, then come back on. And everything is being seen through the lens of this amateur videographer. They go up to the roof to see if they can see anything. Suddenly there is a huge explosion somewhere uptown. Pieces of debris come flying over and in. People are screaming . . . the guy with the camera is screaming. They run down the stairs, image jumping everywhere, making you dizzy. Out on the street people are screaming, running. Another explosion, and something comes flying towards you, hits the street, bounces and crushes a few cars. When it stops you discover it’s the head of lady liberty—as in the statue of. Panic, mayhem. Building are collapsing, there is a sound booming through the air you would not want to hear twice in your life time.
New York is under attack.
All the actors are no names—never seen any of them before. They do a great job. The entire movie is shot with a video camera as Hud, Rob, Lilly and Marlena try to stay alive, then go back into the city to rescue Robs girlfriend. He received a brief call—she is in her building and she can’t move. In the meantime something is destroying the city. The army arrives and is ineffective against this nightmare creature (which we haven’t even seen yet) but they manage to begin a mandatory evacuation and protect the civilians as they flee.
That’s all for the plot. This flick rocks the house. The tension level is a nine on the Richter scale. It starts out with no credits. Instead we are told it is an eyes only account of the “incident” called the Cloverfield event. Hud never stopped filming and it is the best record the government has. It is so inventive, so well done, that you totally forget it’s not real. Even the monster, when we finally see it, doesn’t break our concentration because by now we have totally bought into the whole documentary thing. And no one knows what the thing is, or where it came from or what it wants. It is the anti-Godzilla movie. Usually some bright scientist gives us a running explanation as to what is happening and why—think Matthew Broderick in Godzilla—but not this time. (Don’t get me wrong, I love Godzilla.) The camera follows the twenty-something’s with commentary by Hud—a dim bulb—all the while. Bombs exploding, guns firing, tanks shooting round after round, jets screaming overhead, and helicopters shuttering through the canyons of the city—all getting their asses kicked. The point of view never changes, we only see what Hud sees, and the lens.
Okay, enough. Did you see The Blair Witch Project? This one has the same intensity, the same immediacy. Except it’s way better. This movie is a masterpiece, but not a lot of people are going to see it that way, so be forewarned. It is straightforward, head banging terror. Which comes not from gore or sudden noises, or hideous acts of cruelty by demented, demonic mutants, but from the fear of not knowing what’s going on. Never. Total ignorance in the midst of indescribable and impossible chaos. It’s not our terror—it’s their terror. It ends the same way it started, following the survivors until they stop moving. It is not the movie we see in the trailer. It is more complex, more subtle, more human. It is brutally realistic. It has no ending . . . the tape just stops and we finally hear music as the credits begin to roll. Awesome!
It is rated PG-13 but don’t take little kids. It’s a good date movie if your partner is a total freak. There is a little cussing, a little blood, a really big monster like nothing you’ve ever seen, and lots of dog sized-crab-shrimp-scuttley little manic biters. They fall off the thing like barnacles from a Teflon ship hull.
The CGI is incredible. Newell and I saw it at the Rave, in the Town Center and they have new DPL projectors. The picture and sound are so superior it hurts. Cloverfield is a keeper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)