Category: review

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.

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.

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.

GO SEE THIS MOVIE!!!

“We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.”
— Edward R. Murrow

…now, I’ll continue… “Good Night, And Good Luck” is a movie co-written and directed by George Clooney…and it’s good… For those who don’t know, it’s a movie about Edward R. Murrow and his work at CBS News in the 1950s fighting against the McCarthy hearings (and Senator McCarthy himself).

Here are a few “oddities” about it:

1). The “villain” (McCarthy) plays himself in the movie, only appearing in TV spots where he was filmed in the 1950s.

2). The movie is filmed in black and white, which really helps since all the newsreels from the 50s are also in black and white…

3). There isn’t much of a soundtrack… There’s some music (jazz…) here and there, but not a lot…

Anyway, the movie is really good, but the reasons that it’s good aren’t necessarily due to strong filmmaking and acting (which are all top-notch, in their own right). The movie is good because of its relevance. It brings up two very good points about today’s world and recent events:

In the movie, the government employs fear tactics to enact laws, etc. that impinge upon our Constitutional rights…in the very same way that the Patriot Act does it today. The movie is generally an allegory to what is happening as we speak in Congress, where we’re giving up our rights because of fear.

Murrow has some problems with the “higher ups” at CBS and ends up making various statements incriminating the American public as only caring about entertainment rather than news, and we see this today as well (to an extent). For example, we are much more likely to turn on “The Tonight Show” rather than “Nightline”…we’d rather watch something funny or dramatic instead of learn more about the plight of women in Africa, or the people losing their jobs as their work is moved overseas. This is the fault of not only the American public, but also the TV networks for allowing this to take place.

So yeah, overally, a really good movie that you all should see at least once. If it isn’t playing where you live (i.e. Kirksville), drive to Columbia or St. Louis/Kansas City. Just see it. It is completely relevant to today’s world without saying anything specific about it. A very timely and well-done movie. Go see it. Right now.

So we saw “Wallace & Gromit and the Curse of the Were-Rabbit” last night, and overall, it was pretty good. I haven’t really seen many Wallace and Gromit flicks (I can only remember one, and it probably wasn’t all the way through…), but I did see “Chicken Run” a few years ago and thought it was alright.

The story itself was entertaining and somewhat fun to watch. I got pretty bored for the first half of the movie, honestly, but the last half really picked up as you figured more stuff out about “the origin of the were-rabbit,” etc… Generally, the humor was rather cute-sy, as opposed to “laugh out loud” hilarious. There were certainly some amusing parts, but the only “laugh out loud” stuff was toward the very end.

The cool stuff was really in the production of the film. I mean, the whole thing (well…save a little CGI…but very little…) was claymation…including things like liquids. It’s crazy that they poured tea…and it was done with clay…and it looked really good. The impressive part is that you really get lost in the story and don’t notice the claymation; it’s like you’re watching any old cartoon or Pixar flick, but with clay textures.

So anyway, the movie was certainly alright and worth seeing, but perhaps worth waiting until it comes out on video…although, I think it’s on the way out of theaters, anyway… The movie is generally amusing and, if anything, a triumph of clay animation. Kids will surely find it entertaining and get into the story more than adults, but it’s still worth a look for us “big kids”…

So, I got to see “Doom” tonight…and no, it wasn’t all that terrible. Of course, I was expecting the movie to be one of the worst I’ve seen all year, so anything better than “terrible” is relatively good.

Overall, the flick was pretty slow in the beginning…some kinda jumpy moments persisted throughout, but there wasn’t as much action as I’d hope early on. Anyway, everything picked up in the second half, so that was helpful.

A few other points… The acting was mostly terrible, but that was to be expected. The special effects were pretty good, overall. There were a few real plusses to the movie: a). there were a few surprising twists and turns toward the end, and b). the “first-person shooter” camera style (as in, you watch the action through the eyes of the protagonist) only happened one time and not for the entire movie (which I was afraid of).

So yeah, in the end, it’s worth seeing, especially if you’re a video game fan. The scenes, etc. seemed to be right out of “Doom III,” which was refreshing. I don’t think I’ll be buying the DVD, but it was still a decent movie…certainly a lot better than I expected going in…

So, traditionally, I hate math. Always have. I still don’t know all my multiplication tables and I’m getting a Ph.D. in a physical science… I do, however, like to hear about the crazy math stuff that can be applied. For example, I liked “A Beautiful Mind” and I regularly watch “Numb3rs” on Fridays…but I hated “Pi” (mainly because it was as boring as almost every Stanley Kubrick movie ever made…yes, I fell asleep in “The Shining”…deal with it…).

Therefore, “Proof” looked good, but I wasn’t sure how I was going to like it since it centers around mathematicians. Basically, Gweneth Paltrow plays Anthony Hopkins daughter and Jake Gyllenhaal plays Hopkins’ student… Hopkins is a brilliant mathematician and Paltrow follows in his shoes…but Hopkins has slipped into insanity. The primary question of the movie is whether Paltrow is or is not affected like her father. It is frequently mentioned that mathematicians do their best work before the age of 23 (i.e. really young), so if you’re older than that, is it worth trying anymore? If you’re affected by a mental illness like your father, do you still try to make a life for yourself? Or do you just give up?

I’m doing my best not to mention much about the plot, since it’s better not knowing much about it when you see it. Similarly to “A Beautiful Mind,” there are occasions when you think you know what’s going on, but you definitely don’t…the flashbacks work to the story’s advantage such that they switch back and forth and you don’t necessarily know if it’s really happening, or if it’s in Paltrow’s imagination…

Two things that really struck me:

1). The movie is based on a play by David Auburn. Auburn also wrote the screenplay for the movie, so his “vision” for the play largely got translated over to the movie. There were a lot of flashbacks interwoven, so I’m rather curious how the heck he would have made that work in an on-stage situation…in movies, it’s pretty easy, but on a stage? Not so much…

2). Because it is based on a play, it only has 4 main characters: Hopkins, Paltrow, Gyllenhaal, and Hope Davis (Paltrow’s sister in the movie). If I remember right, there were only one or two other speaking parts throughout, so almost all the lines were between those four characters…and they all did excellent jobs. You could tell that a lot of work went in to pushing the emotion from the characters to the audience, much as you would do in a theatrical (i.e. a play) situation.

So, overall, it’s a good movie. You don’t have to see it in theaters (since it’s not exactly on “wide-release”), but it’s well worth renting sometime when it comes out. Paltrow may get another Oscar nomination for this one…

So I saw “Serenity” yesterday. Overall, I thought it was a pretty good movie. I was bored only a few stray times through the movie, usually at the sappy romantic (few and far between) or moral (more frequent…) moments where discussion ensues…

The movie takes up where the show, “Firefly,” left off. One important thing to note: I’ve seen only a few episodes of the series and yet you really didn’t need any of the series to watch the movie…it helps, for sure, but you can definitely see the movie without seeing the show…and it may make you want to rent the DVDs so you can see where it all got started… The show, written and directed by Joss Whedon, of “Buffy” and “Angel” fame, took place 500 years in the future after Earth became over-populated, forcing the inhabitants to search for a new home. They found it in a solar system lightyears away and settled, terraforming many of the planets for their use. Well, some of the planets formed the “Alliance,” which sought to “civilize” the inhabitants on the other planets…those people obviously didn’t want to have their lives messed with and fought back…and lost… The Serenity is a ship that carries some of the people who fought in that war against the Alliance, now working for hire as transporters of legal or illegal goods, sometimes stealing to get what they need, sometimes helping others who need help more than they do.

Whedon also added a few more creative bits, making the “uncivilized” planets look very much like something out of a western film…and they don’t use laser guns or anything, but instead use revolvers…wear leather trench coats, etc…they even speak with the more western-style accent. The show was designed as a “western in space”…and it shows…

Anyway, it was a good story idea…pity the show didn’t last long (11 episodes, I think…now shown on Sci-Fi…). Regardless, Whedon said “screw you, FOX” and made a movie instead…and it worked wonders. The actors, having worked together, were very cohesive. The action scenes were awesome (think of some high-powered “Buffy” fight scenes…but better…) and the space fight sequences had better graphics than “Episode III”… Again, I only got bored a few times as they ranted about hating the Alliance and all they stand for…but it was worth it to see a bad-ass chick fight a bunch of guys, where after the battle, we get a great shot of her standing there with a sword in one hand and a battle axe in the other…with the men’s bodies strewn about her… 😉

So yeah, go see it. Then they’ll make sequels. This would be a good thing. 😛

So yeah, took in a “chick flick” with the wife last night…largely due to a). free tickets and b). John Cusack, who is likely one of my favorite actors. The premise of “Must Love Dogs” is rather simple: a woman and a man both went through recent divorces and their family/friends make them sign up at an online dating site, where they both meet each other. She and he both go through the motions of “men/women are all evil, why can’t I find someone perfect, why is the world so messed up,” etc.

Overall, the story is pretty derivative and not thoroughly inventive…as most romantic comedies are, anymore… On the other hand, I did find myself laughing at a few points throughout and I didn’t find myself guessing all of the twists (although, I did guess quite a few of them…). Also, again, John Cusack is the man. One of my favorite movies (and one of the few I identify with on a personal level…) is “High Fidelity,” in which he starred. Both “High Fidelity” and “Must Love Dogs” include his singular wit and humor, which is always fun for me to watch. If you remember, Cusack was in “Serendipity” a few years back with Kate Beckensale and I didn’t think they matched that well (that, and the story was quite unbelievable and didn’t have as much of Cusack’s wit, if I remember correctly)…but Diane Lane and Cusack seem to “mesh” quite a bit better. At the very least, the supporting cast in “Must Love Dogs” is stronger (Christopher Plummer, Stockard Channing, Dermot Mulroney, etc.) than in “Serendipity” (…which consisted of Jeremy Piven…and that’s about it…)

Therefore, if you liked “High Fidelity” and the style of humor that Cusack portrays so well, you’ll likely be able to sit through “Must Love Dogs” and almost enjoy it. If you like chick flicks, you’ll love it. If you don’t like chick flicks and hated “High Fidelity,” I think you ought to avoid it…’cause you won’t find anything of value.

So yeah, saw “Transporter 2” yesterday, not looking to be terribly impressed… I saw the first iteration in theaters when it came out and was quite dissappointed in it. For the most part, the first movie had some cool action scenes, but everything else was just boring. The movie only barely held my attention, only to be revitalized whenever a badass fight scene would pop up.

The second movie improves on the first one in that there is some form of plot that is somewhat entertaining to follow. The action scenes are even more badass than the first movie was and the storyline held my interest for the vast majority of the film.

Overall, I guess I liked it, but there have certainly been better movies… The acting was marginal at best; most of the effects were excellent, but some were a little cheap; and Jason Statham still could have been better used (it seemed to me that he spent more time fighting than he spent talking…perhaps if there was more intelligent dialogue to listen to, a good plot may have developed more clearly…oh well).

On the other hand, maybe “The Cave” would have been a better choice… 😛

(for those who don’t talk to me much, that was sarcasm…)