Category: review

One of the first movies to start the “super hero movie craze,” way back in 2000, was “X-Men” (followed shortly thereafter by “Spider-Man” in 2002, which really got it going). Arguably, the breakout star of “X-Men” was Hugh Jackman, who played the iconic role of Wolverine…and pretty damned well, by all accounts.

Well, after two more X-Men movies, they’d either killed off the most famous X-Men, or pissed off the stars enough that they weren’t going to return for another one…leaving the franchise-runners an interesting option: prequels. Thus begins a new series of movies under the “X-men Origins” heading, the first of which is “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” (“X-Men Origins: Magneto” is currently in early production). Hugh Jackman was happy to reprise the role, and since the comic book hero, Wolverine, doesn’t really “age” in a traditional way, it wasn’t too big a stretch to have him act in a prequel.

The movie itself is loosely based on the “Weapon X” mini-series of Marvel Comics that essentially sought to explain how Wolverine was given his adamantium skeleton and claws (as they aren’t really a part of his mutant powers – they were grafted onto him in a particularly painful procedure referred to in “X2: X-Men United.” By “loosely,” I mean that William Stryker (the main bad guy) was in the comics, but never as the leader of the Weapon X program. The mutants that appear in the movie (including Deadpool and Agent Zero) were indeed involved in Weapon X, but not to the same extent as in the comic. Oh yeah, and Gambit…not so much in those series…

All that plot shenanigans aside, how was the movie? Well…it was alright…

The story mostly made sense…the effects were generally cool…and the fight scenes were pretty sweet… Hugh Jackman was mostly born to play Wolverine, and I can’t imagine anyone else in the role. The other characters, on the other hand, just weren’t in the movie all that much. Like, Ryan Reynolds (Deadpool) was only in the movie for, like, 10 minutes. The actual history of Wolverine and his brother, Victor, was given during the credits rather than in a series of scenes. They compressed a relatively complex story into a two-hour time frame that probably should have been split into two movies, as they had to devote a lot of the time that could have been given to plot into fight scenes. Essentially, I just think the movie could have been a lot better (and garner higher reviews) if they developed the characters over a longer period of time. They just tried to do too much with a limited time-frame.

And while the effects were generally excellent, they really need to consider using actual claws on the close-up shots, ’cause those CGI claws only look good at a distance.

Anyway, even with all those qualms, I’m glad I saw it. It was a fun movie and I wasn’t expecting anything Oscar-worthy. If you liked the previous movies, you’ll probably like this (and I think this was better than “X-Men: The Last Stand,” if that means anything to you). I just hope they focus more on the story for the “Magneto” movie, as his story especially would be done a disservice to focus more on action sequences, rather than his life and friendship with Charles Xavier.

Don’t get me wrong…”The Fast and The Furious” was not what one would call a “good movie,” but there was something kinda stupid and fun about it. The movie largely propelled Vin Diesel to “action star” status overnight, and also kicked off the career of Michelle Rodriguez and Jordana Brewster…and Paul Walker, if you really call “Timeline” and “Joy Ride” a “career”…

Anyway, “The Fast and The Furious” was actually remake of a 1955 movie of the same name, but they really had very little in common with each other. It was relatively well-received by the fans (yet panned by the critics), and made enough money to warrant a string of sequels, including “2 Fast 2 Furious,” headlined by the aforementioned Paul Walker (and sans Diesel, Rodriguez and Brewster) and “The Fast and The Furious: Tokyo Drift (which only had a cameo by Diesel, and otherwise no-name actors).” “2 Fast…” was a terrible, terrible movie. “Tokyo Drift” I never saw, but from what I hear, wasn’t really a bad movie…just didn’t do well in theaters…at all… However, it exploded in DVD sales and warranted another flick.

Enter the most recent iteration, “Fast & Furious,” which brings back the original crew in an attempt to reboot the franchise. In most respect, it actually pulls it off rather well, providing even more car stunts and action than the first movie, and otherwise decent special effects (there are quite a few more digital effects this time around, though). Paul Walker is still amongst the worst actors in Hollywood, but at least this time, he isn’t headlining the movie and he has Vin Diesel to bring it up a notch (relatively speaking, of course).

Briefly, the story itself deals with Diesel’s character, Dom Toretto, seeking revenge against a Mexican drug czar…who Paul Walker (FBI Agent Brian O’Conner) is also after, for other reasons (read: heroin trafficking). You can probably fill in the blanks from there…not a terribly complicated story…

The cars this time around weren’t all that impressive to me, as compared with some of the other flicks. There were actually very few new tuner cars to be seen…most of them were late-90s or early-2000s models, with the exception of the new Subaru Impreza WRX STi. Otherwise, the vast majority of cars in the movie are “American Muscle,” including a new Mustang, a Gran Torino, a Chevelle SS and, of course, Dom’s Charger. I would have liked to see a few newer cars in the movie, but I’m sure I’ll live…

So yeah, I liked it. It’s a good popcorn flick to kick of a summer of excellent movies. If you liked the first one (or, heck, all of them…somehow…), then you’ll love this. If, on the other hand, you can’t live with Vin Diesel being the best actor in the movie, you’ll probably want to pass. Thus far, it’s grossed $200 million worldwide, so believe you me…there’s another one coming…

For the most part, when it comes to movies based on comics/graphic novels, I’m typically all over it. Certainly with Marvel or DC comics, I have a manageable grasp on the primary characters and a basis to follow when watching movies based on a given hero. Watchmen is something of an anomaly, however, as I’d heard of the graphic novel, published by DC Comics back in 1986-87, but certainly knew nothing about the story or what happened. So far as I understand, “Watchmen” actually adheres to the source material relatively well, but I couldn’t begin to tell you where the differences lie.

Essentially, here’s the idea… In an alternate past (mid-1980s), Nixon is a third-term President and we are under threat of nuclear annihilation from the U.S.S.R. Back in the 1920s/1930s, “masked vigilantes” took to the streets to help clean up crime, leading to a few generations of masked heroes that would go on to protect the citizens of the U.S. These people were a bit more grounded in “reality,” in that the kinds of people that were acting like heroes were generally benevolent, but sometimes sociopaths (i.e. just a bit crazy…). These heroes were inserted into historical events, including the Kennedy assassination, Vietnam, and a variety of different protests and riots. Very few heroes, with the exception of Dr. Manhattan, actually had any powers, so they were more like a Batman than a Superman…

As a result of the Keene Act, all masked vigilantes had to quit what they were doing, or risk going to jail. Most of these heroes went underground, and/or retired to private life. In the 1980s, however, two events spark their return: the threat of nuclear holocaust, and to a greater extent, the fact that some of their brethren are being knocked off one by one.

The movie switches between the past and the present, making these events even more confusing than they read above. For the most part, the story is rather interesting and engaging, making you wonder what’s really going on until the very end. Again, I can’t say how well this story is outlined as compared with the source material, but it does eventually make some sense. One of the complaints lodged against the film, however, is that it isn’t quite as “elegant” in switching back and forth in time, but I think the movie did as well at it as it could.

For a bunch of “no name” actors (save Billy Crudup), they all did an outstanding job. They were very believable in their roles, and made you feel for them (there’s a lot to feel for them as the movie progresses…). The effects were decent, but not the best I’ve seen. Honestly, there weren’t all that many special effects so far as the fight scenes go (besides some slow motion action, etc), but some of the bigger scenes depicting nuclear holocaust and Mars (the planet…) were acceptable, but not the best available. Dr. Manhattan especially, while impressive, didn’t seem to get the “mouth movements” quite right when speaking, as he was a digital character with Crudup’s face motion-captured on to him. The movie’s been in production for a long time, so maybe it’s just a few years late on that front.

Overall, I think it’s worth seeing if you want an interesting story, or if you like comics at all. The ending was rather shocking, in my opinion, but still has a decent resolution. It comes in at 2 hrs and 40 minutes, so make sure you get a soda and popcorn before it starts. Considering that the special effects weren’t that impressive, you could wait for the DVD, as seeing it on the big screen didn’t seem to add much to the experience. Still, considering mostly nothing else is out right now in theaters, it isn’t a bad choice!

If anything, it makes me want to pick up the graphic novel and actually read something. I can’t think of many movies that make me want to do that!

Wow, I haven’t seen a movie in nearly forever, but I did finally go see the new Bond movie, “Quantum of Solace,” over the weekend. This one picks up shortly after the end of “Casino Royale,” where Bond is out for vengeance against the people responsible for the death of Vesper Lynd. It’s a search that takes him all over the world, from Italy to London to Bolivia, with excellent (as expected) car chases, fight scenes and explosions. What else could one want from a Bond movie?!

Well…a little bit more than that… I have a few qualms with this movie, and while it was quite good, I don’t regard it as good as the previous outing. First of all, I appreciate the use of “shaky cam,” as it gives you the feeling that you’re chasing/being chased with the main character. This is the same problem I had with “The Bourne Identity,” where the “shaky cam” was used almost exclusively, leading to closer fight scenes where you couldn’t see the action from a very good view. The later iterations of the “Bourne” series pared that down a bit and got a good mix, but in all the fight scenes where I’d like to actually see some of the action, I think they could have zoomed out a bit with the camera.

Secondly, Bond movies aren’t exactly well-known for their stories, but I thought “Casino Royale” actually had a somewhat decent one (again…for a Bond movie…). This one really seems abstract to me, where the “villain” is a bad guy, but not really bent on “world domination” or “world destruction.” He wants to make some money off third-world countries. It just doesn’t seem like he and Bond really have any connection. Like he’s “just another guy.” You could make the same “just wants to make money” claim off Le Chiffre from “Casino Royale,” but in that case, at least the money was being used to fund terrorist organizations. I guess I just wanted a bit more of a connection between the guys than simply “he is bad and I should stop him.” It doesn’t seem like there’s any anxiousness to the situation, where Bond could take him down at any time: there is no countdown clock to the end of the world.

Finally, the general story that these two movies seem to follow. Old school Bond movies are good about having a single story arc taking place in a given movie, with very little tie-in to the previous movie (at least, of any significance). “Quantum of Solace” is a direct sequel to “Casino Royale,” so theoretically, it should significantly move the story forward from where it was, as opposed to being “stand-alone” as traditional Bond movies are. This one feels like it’s more “stand-alone” than “sequel” in the way the story is set up in that it takes the lead off the previous movie reminds us of some of the questions we had at the end…and then continues on to not answer those questions. At the end of “Quantum,” we actually get the opportunity to have them answered…only to have Bond walk off into the dark, cold night without telling us. Seriously? If anything, more questions are now put on the table alongside the existing ones. If you’re going to do a true sequel, you’d better wrap up the previous story line, or at least parts of it, before you go on adding more and more questions to the pile.

That said (and those are my three qualms…while relatively big, they aren’t all _that_ important in the grand scheme of things, I don’t think), the action sequences were still top-notch, Daniel Craig still gets the award for “most beat-up looking Bond of them all,” and the ladies are as lovely as ever. A “pass” can be given on the story, but again, since when is “story” the important part of a Bond movie?

In short, “Casino Royale” is a better movie overall, but this one is still a fun ride and likely the best action movie you’ll see this holiday season.

Let me get this out of the way right now: I wasn’t a huge fan of “No Country For Old Men,” let alone other Coen Brothers classics like “Fargo“… “Burn After Reading” is their recent effort, a movie that Brooke (of course) insisted on seeing (but since the Moolah serves beer and lets you sit in leather couches, I wasn’t going to argue much…) and contains many of the best actors of our time, including Clooney, Pitt, McDormand, and Malkovich.

The basic idea of the movie is that Malkovich works for the CIA, gets canned, and decides to write his memoir. The CD containing his draft(s) gets lost at a local workout studio, the workers (McDormand and Pitt) discover it and try to make some money by blackmailing Malkovich. All this time, Clooney and Malkovich’s wife are having an affair, but since Clooney is (apparently) addicted to sex, he also gets with McDormand…tying all these parties together… Get it?

Nope…you probably don’t…and this is typical of a Coen Bros. movie… Seriously…what the heck…

Regardless, as compared with “No Country,” this movie was actually pretty funny…and while it didn’t make much sense, the plot did actually come “full-circle” and make sense…there was a beginning, middle and end…and the end made some kind of (twisted) sense.

I can’t say this movie was the best I’ve seen all summer (yes…it’s still summer until Sept. 22nd), but it wasn’t bad, either. And seeing it with a beer in your hand is never a bad thing.

Arguably the most anticipated movie of 2008, “The Dark Knight” is the next installment in the Batman “re-boot” that started with 2005’s “Batman Begins.” After the last set of four movies descended into campy ridiculousness (Mr. Freeze, anyone?), “Begins” brought Batman back to his roots with an excellent origin story that brought some great actors, and a great story, back to the franchise.

This is a dark movie, much in the same vein as “Empire Strikes Back” or “Temple of Doom,” where we have the characters established, but the authors/producers feel like it’s time to hurt them a bit. Bruce Wayne is settling into his role at Wayne Enterprises, the criminals are on the run, due in part to efforts by Batman, but also because of Lieutenant Gordon and the new D.A. Harvey Dent. Wayne sees Dent as the “bright light” Gotham needs, as someone that can bring justice and order to the streets without resorting to vigilantism and the wearing of a mask. The entry of the Joker, however, changes things in that he seeks to bring as much chaos to this “new order” as possible. He views the Batman as his equal, as the only person that can fully compliment his destructive capabilities. The Joker even says “you complete me” to Batman during an exchange later on in the film.

I try not to use the word lightly, as it tends to be over-used in movie and video game reviews, but I would describe “The Dark Knight” as a “visceral” experience. I only say this because, unlike many other superhero movies out there, I think I felt the sheer terror of what the Joker represents, and the pain that the protagonist (and the other characters, for that matter) experienced as the movie goes on.

The movie is complete with its usual special effect goodness, is top-rate acting from its strong cast, and a very, very intricate plot-line that ties things up very nicely throughout. There are things that occur earlier in the film that lead on to surprises later on, allowing for a story that, while 155 min. long, keeps you engaged throughout as you want to see what finally happens in the end.

My analysis ends with “The Dark Knight’s” place in the annals of superhero movies. This year alone, another strong movie, “Iron Man,” came out and blew audiences and critics away. Certainly, there are two other franchises (“Spider-man” and “X-men“) where, by most accounts, the second movie in the franchise is where their respective trilogies peaked. I think, in my opinion, the jump in quality between “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight” exceeds that which we saw in “X-men” or “Spider-man.” Both of those two series had much stronger stories than their previous outings, and the characters were established allowing for much more expansive themes to hit upon, but “The Dark Knight” succeeds where those two series didn’t by the “visceral” experience you feel while watching it. You really get the sense of pain that the main characters experience through the investment you have in them. There is genuine surprise in the events that unfold throughout the film, making you want more and more.

It could very well be the greatest superhero movie of all time. Not just because it’s Batman, and certainly not just because Heath Ledger provided his last, great performance. But because it’s just a damned fine movie.

For our anniversary last week, Brooke and I did the “dinner and a movie” thing and went to see “Get Smart.” Let me preface by saying that Mom and Dad didn’t let Kristen and me watch sitcoms back in the mid-90s…as “Seinfeld” and “Married…With Children” weren’t deemed “appropriate.” Thus, we watched a lot of Nick at Nite, back in the golden age when the shows included “Bewitched,” “Dragnet,” “I Dream of Jeannie” and, of course, “Get Smart.” So yeah, I’ve kinda got a fond place in my heart for the characters in that show and was hoping this movie would be handled with the care it deserves, as opposed to other old TV franchise reboots (I’m talking to you, “Dukes of Hazzard” and “Starsky and Hutch“).

So, despite my worst fears, I must say that it was a really fun movie. It’s more of an “origin story,” so we’re learning how Maxwell Smart becomes Agent 86, meets up with Agent 99, etc. Essentially, Smart is an analyst for Control, a secret government organization doing Cold War-style battle with the evil KAOS. Somehow, KAOS gets ahold of the list of undercover Control agents and starts knocking them off, leaving Smart as one of the few agents that can be called into service, as his records are unknown. We then follow 86 and 99 as they traverse the world trying to stop KAOS from getting ahold of nuclear weapons that they can distribute to other terrorist organizations, thus saving the world.

The story itself is relatively predictable, and many of the gags are only truly “funny” if you are familiar with the original show (one with Bill Murray in a cameo as Agent 13, hiding in a tree…), but it still has plenty of hilarious moments for those that don’t remember the show so well. There aren’t that many special effects, but when they’re in there, it isn’t too obvious (i.e. no obvious green screen shots or CGI explosions…). The acting was pretty good, of course, and there were plenty of people I’ve actually heard of playing in the main roles.

Overall, I think it was a pretty good movie. The story was simple, yet entertaining. The gags did not completely rely on knowledge of the old show (yes, the shoephone makes an appearance…), and I was certainly laughing out loud for most of the movie. I think, so far at least, this is the best comedy I’ve seen in 2008 and will have wide appeal for most people this summer.

Now, I was one of many (or few?) that saw 2003’s “Hulk” in the theater…and I was rather disappointed. We were just getting started with the “super-hero/comic book” craze in films and there were high hopes for this movie, especially because it had a high-profile director in Ang Lee directing it. It was, of course, an origin story where we see Bruce Banner test gamma radiation on himself, leading to his transformation into a large, green monster…but that’s just about all we got. We saw him transform into the Hulk a few times, and he fought some monster dogs…and the military…and, well, I personally got bored. The movie just wasn’t interesting. It had a decent plot to it, but it didn’t have much “movement,” as many would expect in an action film.

Apparently some execs agreed and made this new movie, “The Incredible Hulk,” a reboot of the franchise, with different actors, a different director, and a different direction. This one takes place a few years following the previous outing, where Banner (played by Edward Norton this time) is hiding out in Brazil trying to find a cure for his…”problem.” The US military finally tracks him down and sends a team to apprehend him, only to find out that they’re of little match for the Hulk. One of the military team, played by Tim Roth, decides to work with General Ross to bring down the Hulk once and for all by volunteering himself to take part in “super-soldier serum” research, making him as powerful and nimble as the Hulk is. Of course, as one can imagine, he decides to go a bit too far, goes a bit nuts, and the movie ends as expected…

This movie does everything right that the previous one didn’t. It has many more action scenes, with the Hulk fighting the military in Brazil, on a college campus back in the US and in NYC for the finale. Also, this iteration of the Hulk, an all-CGI effect, is much more convincing than the previous one, likely because of the 5+ years further advancement in CGI technology that movie makers now have to work with. While you could very easily tell that the CGI Hulk in the first movie was computer generated, this one was much more fluid and interacted with the surroundings in a much more convincing way (i.e. it didn’t look like Liv Tyler was standing in front of a green screen having everything else filled in around her…). Finally, the movie seems to have a stronger focus. Where the previous one seemed to focus more on Banner himself and his inner conflicts, this iteration splits between Banner and the Hulk, allowing for that “split personality” to be on the forefront…which is the whole reason people read the Hulk comics for so many years in the first place.

So yeah, it’s a good movie. Is it better than “Iron Man?” Probably not…but this movie does justice to the characters where the previous movie really didn’t…that, and it’s really sweet to see the Hulk throw tanks at helicopters… 😉