Review: “Grizzly Man” and “Hotel Rwanda”

So, DISHnetwork has been kind enough to give us free movie weekends on Showtime and Starz! recently, therefore our DVR has been busy recording stuff.? We caught up with a few movies from awhile back yesterday:

Grizzly Man was about Timothy Treadwell, a self-proclaimed “bear savior” who spent 13 summers in Alaska “protecting” the bears there.? He took over 100 hours of video footage, some of which is in this 3 hour documentary.? The rest of the movie involves interviews with Timothy’s friends and relatives.? You see, Timothy was mauled by a bear up in Alaska…and, honestly, watching himself on the recordings just shows how nuts he really was…and I say “nuts” in the “clinically insane” sort of way.?? I mean, he had no scientific background…he just went up there and spent the summer living with bears…with no knowledge of their lives and how they’re wild animals…? While you have to admire his dedication to the cause, you also have to realize that he treated grizzly bears like people…he would follow them around and talk to them and pet them…and he would also talk to foxes and tell them how much he loves them.? Each animal got a different name.? This guy was crazy.? Overall, it was a pretty good movie, but started to feel pretty long toward the end…

Hotel Rwanda, on the other hand, was a really good movie. ? It centers on the true story of a man in Rwanda that took in refugees during the murder of about 1,000,000 Tutsi people by the Hutu (well, both sides had heavy losses).? As Wikipedia tells us, the really sad thing is how little anyone did to intervene.? There are many scenes where the UN has “peacekeepers” down there, yet they can’t fire and can’t protect anyone…? Don Cheadle’s character saved over 1,200 people by putting them in the hotel he manages, keeping their presence a secret for a long time, then helping to get them out of the country.? The only downside is that the movie gets kinda confusing, not knowing which side is who and what exactly is going on…? I recommend looking up a little info on the Rwandan genocide before watching, just so you have a little basis of what’s going on…? Supposedly, the movie is pretty accurate, from a historical point of view…which is that much more depressing…

So yeah, a few movies to check out…w00t to lazy Saturdays…

Review: Silent Hill

So, Josh had me go see “Silent Hill” with him today, a movie based on a popular video game series that first premiered in 1999. If you click through to the Wikipedia description, and go through the various links to each game, you’ll see that some games follow one plot line, and others go in different directions. You’ll also find that each game has a variety of endings…

…such is this movie (i.e. a bunch of parts thrown together). It starts out with a mother, Rose, who finds that her daughter is having nightmares about some place called Silent Hill… She does Google searches to find this place, seeing that it’s a ghost town in West Virginia. Therefore, as any smart mother does (insert sarcasm here…), she decides to take her daughter there… After Rose wrecks the car on the way there, she wakes up to find her daughter missing and ashes falling. After this point, Rose slowly descends into the mystery surrounding Silent Hill and, consequently, hell…

The effects, overall, are pretty good and the story relatively captivating…but only because you think “what the hell?!” throughout and hope that it gets figured out in the end…and while many parts do get resolved, it still leaves you wanting…something… More information? Resolution? A big “hey! You’ve been ‘had’!” from the filmmakers? Who knows…

Regardless, as a scary movie, it doesn’t do so well…at least, I wasn’t scared…although the gory parts made me wriggle in my seat a bit… There weren’t any “jumpy” parts, at least. And while it was an interesting story, unfortunately, it just didn’t make much sense…

…and if you look through the video game information on Wikipedia, you’ll likely see why… It seems that the movie tried taking parts out of each game, and incorporated those elements/scenes effectively (and a few reviewers who have played the game think that the movie evokes the emotion that the game does really well)…but something got lost in translation. I just would have liked to see something a bit more…cohesive…I guess…

Yeah, I guess I’m not really recommending this… It was okay if you like video games and if you liked the series, but as someone who’s never played the game(s), it just didn’t make much sense… I’d wait for the rental…

Review: V for Vendetta

Brooke, Josh and I saw “V for Vendetta” today…and yes, it was a damned fine movie… It’s based on a graphic novel from the 80s that follows a man codenamed “V” who fights against a totalitarian government set in not-so-distant future England after a war had taken place, leaving the people vulnerable to take-over and control by “Big Brother”-esque leaders. V executes terrorist actions to overthrow the government while trying to get the civilian population to not be so constricted by fear, uttering such prophetic words like: “The people should not be afraid of their government; the government should be afraid of their people.”

The movie, produced by the Wachowski Brothers (of “The Matrix” fame, of course…) is quite well done. It’s a very different movie with some of the same themes. The effects are top-notch, as expected, yet nothing that says the Wachowskis were going for a Matrix re-do; “V” is a completely different movie while still keeping some of the good aspects of the original “Matrix” film.

The especially cool part about the movie is that, while there’s some action (not non-stop, mind you…), the movie is basically one big “The Patriot Act is Bad” statement, having a very clear message to those who watch.

Hopefully, viewers not only keep their eyes and ears open to this excellent film, but also keep their minds open to the ideas it puts forth. Well worth listening to…

Review: Ultraviolet

So yeah, I went and saw Ultraviolet today, a movie that wasn’t screened for critics in advance. Normally when this happens, it’s because the movie companies hope you’ll go see the movie without hearing what the critics had to say (since they didn’t have time to write a review). Well, here are a few reviews off of Rotten Tomatoes on this movie:

“Great action… but unfortunately, the characters had to open their mouths. That’s when Ultraviolet becomes ultra vapid.”

— Staci Layne Wilson, ABOUT.COM

Ultraviolet will be studied with great interest in the future – not for its quality or its artistic merit, but rather to discover how a turd like this was made.”

— Kevin Carr, 7M PICTURES

…and overall, it’s all true. The movie was pretty bad…like…B-movie on Sci Fi channel on a Saturday night… The acting was terrible, the effects were dumb, and the story made no sense… But the thing that really got me about this movie: their police cars were Buicks. Seriously. They are in the future…where we use 2004 Buicks as police cars. They have anti-gravity belts. And they ride elevators.

I just don’t get it. Regardless, terrible movie. Don’t go see it. Not that you were going to, anyway…

Review: Underworld Evolution

Josh and I went and saw “Underworld: Evolution” yesterday, the sequel to the aptly titled “Underworld.” Basically, Kate Beckensale plays a vampire who is caught up in various levels of intrigue concerning a war between the vampires and Lycans (werewolves…) for many centuries. If anything, she proves that she can not only act in silly romantic comedies, but also in action movies wearing tight leather jumpsuits.

Overall, the movie wasn’t terrible, but I can understand where many critics find faults. Primarily, the story was relatively difficult to follow. There were lots of characters mentioned and referred to, and the movie picked up right where the previous one left off…so if you haven’t seen the original in awhile, it’d be good to see it again before watching this. They do a good job of using flashbacks, etc. to show you what happened in the earlier one, but there’s still enough left out that I was confused for much of the movie.

The effects themselves were pretty good, but could have been better. I mean, with a budget of only $48 million, they did a good job stretching the money as far as possible. Some of the man-to-werewolf conversion scenes were still kinda hokey, but no more so than in the first one. The acting was pretty good…but the action scenes could have been a bit better. I mean, when they happened, they were good…but there weren’t that many spread throughout the movie. Really, the last 20 min of the flick is where all the action was…and it was well-done…but more would have been welcome. I guess you can only have so many werewolves in your movie for $48 million… 😛

Anyway, not a terrible movie…not my favorite by any means, but if you liked the first one, you’d probably like this one…maybe even more so…

Review: The Producers

So, Kristen, Brooke and I went and saw “The Producers” on Saturday… Personally, I thought it was a damned fine flick (if you like musicals…). The movie was well-done overall, with excellent acting, great casting (Will Ferrell did surprisingly well…of course, Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane had some experience in the roles), and an enticing plot line. There were quite a few laugh-out-loud funny points, which was also kinda surprising; many musicals are amusing, but this one had some classic Mel Brooks humor tossed along with it.

The key here is: you’ll love it if you like musicals. If you don’t like musicals, then you’ll probably find it funny, yet not the “end all” of movies you’ve seen this year. Personally, I like them…kinda takes me back to high school when I played in the pit orchestras for them (6 of them, if I remember right…). The only real complaint I had with the movie was some of the cinematography that didn’t translate well from stage to screen. More specifically, whenever Broderick would sing (most times…not every time), the camera would zoom in on him from chest to head. This just seemed kinda hokey to me, when if you’re watching a stage version of the production, you see his entire body. It didn’t really matter that much overall, but it got kinda cheesy after awhile.

Anyway, good movie and well worth seeing. Even if you don’t like musicals, you can probably appreciate another Mel Brooks creation (although, if you didn’t know, it’s not only a re-make of the musical, but a re-make of the original movie from 1968). Honestly, it’s quite impressive that Brooks not only wrote the screenplay and story, but also the music and lyrics to the songs. Overall, a good movie and a welcome change from your typical box office fare.

Review: Rumor Has It

So, Brooke and I went to see “Rumor Has It” last night… Overall, it was a decent movie, but I’m not really sure if I liked it or not. I mean, it’s kinda hard to classify. It wasn’t a romantic comedy really, since the plot didn’t center on a romantic attraction (it was as much a “romantic comedy” as “The Graduate“…obviously…). It wasn’t a drama, obviously…but it wasn’t really a comedy either, since it didn’t have that many laugh-out-loud moments.

The acting overall was excellent; the casting worked out surprisingly well, especially as in the case of Shirley MacLaine. The story itself was rather intriguing, but I kinda wish I’d seen “The Graduate” a bit more recently…I’d recommend you see it before watching this “sequel.” One key moment toward the end that I didn’t care for was where Jennifer Aniston and Kevin Costner have there “this-is-the-moral-of-the-story” moment and such…felt like a classic ending of “Full House” where the music plays and you say “ooohhhh…that’s the point of the movie” …

Overall, it was a decent movie, but perhaps not worth spending $8 to see in the theater. It has its amusing moments and the acting was good. The story was relatively enticing. And yet…I dunno…something about it…just could have been a bit better…

Review: The Chronicles of Narnia – LWW

Brooke and I got to go see “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe” last night (finally). We took it upon ourselves to read the book last week in preparation; it took a good 1.5 hrs to read the entire book by C.S. Lewis. The movie, you may notice, is 2 hrs and 20 min long. Most of that extra time, it seems, come from a). sweeping landscape scenes of Narnia (which, I’m sure, many fans of the book have been waiting to see on the big screen for a long time, much like “LotR”), and b). the climactic battle scene at the end that took up something like 7 pages in the book (i.e. 5 min of reading). Both of these extensions were pretty well-warranted and generally added to the effect of the movie.

The movie was decently acted, although it took me awhile to get used to the kids playing the main characters and, generally, I thought they could have been a bit better…yet weren’t too terrible for no-name actors from Britain (well, “no-name” to us in the U.S.A…). The effects, while impressive, definitely had a few moments where there was some obvious computer animation going on. In “LotR,” we were seeing beasts and creatures that no one had seen before, so you could get away with some obvious computer animation here and there…but in “Narnia,” I know what a lion, cheetah, rhino, etc. looks like…and, for the most part, they were all done really well. There were a few scenes, however, where the children were walking or talking with Aslan (the lion) and, well, it looked like a kid in front of a green screen with a fake-looking lion next to him/her. I mean, granted, making a computer-generated lion look real is hard, and to their credit, the film-makers did a good job, but I think it could have been better…or not placed characters together in certain shots as they did…who knows… And, I dunno, but Liam Neeson’s voice as Aslan somehow didn’t seem to fit…wasn’t quite deep enough…on the other hand, I’ve never heard a lion talk, so what do I know?

Now, I also had some people tell me how accurate the movie was…saying it was really close to the book… Well, to an extent, I guess it is…but Brooke and I, both having read the book last week, noticed more than a few points where the movie diverged from the book. For example, to our knowledge, there’s no Mr. Fox in the book (certainly not an important character, as in the movie). Also, the kids/Beavers weren’t chased like the wolves like that from the Beaver’s house, etc…let alone the whole frozen river shenanigans… I’m just saying that the movie was 2.25 hrs long and had a few things added that weren’t really important to the story (otherwise, C.S. Lewis would have written it that way)…so why add them in there? On the other hand, C.S. Lewis’ purpose for writing the book was quite a bit different than the film company’s purpose for filming it…sadly…

Many people/critics were comparing this movie to “Lord of the Rings” since it contains an element of fantasy, has a huge computer-generated battle scene, etc. In my opinion, “LotR” is still the better movie and is more impressive, but mainly because it’s over 12 hours long and took a lot more to get it done…with crazy effects that paved the way for movies like “Narnia” to be made in the first place. I guess if you want to experience a shorter version of “LotR,” I guess “Narnia” is a good substitute…but the story, acting and effects (overall) are better in “LotR”…

So yeah, overall, it was a great movie and certainly worth seeing. The battle scene at the end was very impressive and fun to watch and the effects, generally, were pretty cool. The movie was a tad long and had some stuff added that really didn’t need to be in there, but they didn’t make sweeping changes to the book (like having Aslan be a genetically-engineered super lion…), so that’s always good. I think that “King Kong” was still a better movie, as far as this season’s blockbusters go, but then again, it’s about 1 hour longer than “Narnia”…so you have to be willing to sit there… In summary, it’s a good movie, even if you’ve read the book, or maybe even if you haven’t.

Review: King Kong

So, first off, if you’re sitting there reading this and haven’t seen “King Kong” yet, get up off your ass and go see it ’cause it’s one of the best movies of the past few years and seeing it on TV won’t do it justice…

Now, on with it then… I was a little worried about this movie for a few reasons. First of all, I really liked “Lord of the Rings” and wasn’t sure how Peter Jackson would do with a different movie entirely. Secondly, on TV, the previews looked impressive, but the digital effects looked slightly fake… Finally, the movie’s 3 hours long. That’s a long time to sit through a movie. And what could Jackson possibly fill up the movie with when the original, which he was basing his story on, was closer to half that?

Well, my fears were shortly laid to rest. This movie was incredible in every way. The effects looked awesome on the big screen; only the scene where the crew was chased by dinosaurs was relatively fake looking, but it still worked. Actually, it was crazy how real Kong looked in all the close-ups between him and Naomi Watts (and there were a ton). Also, it was definitely a long movie, but it still felt generally right. There were a few points early on where there was some character development that I didn’t feel was necessary (between crew members…most of which ended up dying…), but I dealt with it. And Jackson certainly stayed true to the original. There were quite a few scenes where I thought, “Hey! That’s exactly how they did it in the original…but damn, that looks better…”

The movie really brought out emotion throughout. The scene with the giant insects made me cringe throughout…the fight between Kong and the three T-rex’s was exciting, and the whole last 30 min spent with Watts and Kong was extremely sad…knowing what has to happen in the end, that is.

So yeah, basically, “King Kong” was just about perfect. How often can you say that about a remake? The movie had top-notch acting and dialogue, it had funny parts, it had exciting parts…and the ending was really sad… There was foreshadowing and even some social commentary thrown in. A damn fine flick that you all have to see.

Spend the $7 for a ticket and 3 hours at the movies. It’s well worth it.

Review: Aeon Flux

So I went and saw “Aeon Flux” yesterday… The Wehrenberg Theater chain ran a deal yesterday that gave you a free movie ticket if you brought 3 cans of food for donation, so I saw the movie on the cheap…

Anyway, I didn’t think it was that terrible. I mean, it wasn’t a particularly awesome movie, but there are certainly worse movies out there (…”Battlefield Earth?”). I think I would consider it to be most like a somewhat little-known movie called “Equilibrium,” starring Christian Bale. It was a decent movie with a good story and a few decent actors…but mostly bad actors. The fight scenes weren’t quite as impressive as I would have liked to see, but were passable nonetheless.

So it goes with “Aeon Flux.” Charlize Theron was good and her fight scenes were well-choreographed…but could have been better. The effects were good, but not awesome. The story itself was relatively creative, yet somewhat confusing (it all became more understandable late in the movie). On the other hand, the movie was interesting and held my attention throughout and the ending wasn’t entirely unbelievable. It even had an amount of social commentary involved, which is always welcome. Personally, I’ve never seen the original anime series that appeared on MTV in the early 1990s (which, I’m told, was equally confusing), but the movie was still entertaining.

So yeah, overall, the movie could have been better…but it sure as heck could have been a lot worse… If you go see it, don’t expect anything awesome; just buy some soda and popcorn, sit back, and let your mind stay open. If you expect an Oscar winner, you’ll be disappointed.