Category: review

So, I haven’t seen many movies in theaters recently… Before “Marie Antoinette,” the last movie I’d seen was “Pirates of the Caribbean 2,” and that was months ago… I guess I just hadn’t really been excited to see anything that has come out, until now that is…

“Casino Royale” is, as you know, the latest movie in the James Bond film franchise, and features a “back to the beginning” story along with a new Bond, Daniel Craig. The idea is that our hero is given “Double ‘O'” status for the first time and is investigating an organization that is funding terrorism, centering largely on Bond’s duel with the main baddie in a high-stakes game of Texas Hold ‘Em at the Casino Royale. There’s a lot of action involved and Craig seems to be involved in more “active stunts” when compared with Pierce Brosnan… At least, I believed this guy was very believable in the role, and isn’t a guy you’d want to be in a bar fight with…

Overall, I thought the movie was quite strong. It isn’t simply a “good Bond movie;” it’s a good movie, in general. Daniel Craig brings a very refreshing feel to the character, still being suave and sophisticated, yet a bit rougher around the edges. Personally, I think he makes the “James Bond” character more believable. He isn’t relying on gadgets nearly as much, limiting the video effects and props a great deal, in the process serving to get rid of distractions from earlier movies. We get to delve into the character, not all the shenanigans that come along with it.

The story was pretty strong, but got a bit confusing at the end. Granted, it’s a 2.5 hour long movie, and there wasn’t much “wasted time,” but there were still lots of elements kinda thrown together at the end, tying up the loose ends, etc. Don’t get me wrong, the story was still very good…I just think the ending could have been wrapped up a bit more “cleanly.”

So yeah, go see it. You won’t be disappointed. Daniel Craig is a bad-ass and, as in the tradition of “Batman Begins,” this re-invention of the franchise is well worth your time.

Brooke was itching to see a movie at The Tivoli last night, and “Marie Antoinette” was showing, the new Sofia Coppola film starring Kirsten Dunst. It essentially recounts the rise (and fall) of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI, from her marriage to him in her late-teens to their deaths during the French Revolution. Supposedly, the movie has some amount of historical accuracy, but I really have no idea what was true and what wasn’t. It’s actually kinda interesting to watch it in terms of the all-powerful “celebrity,” in that Marie Antoinette is made out as a sort of Paris Hilton of her time…partying all the time and oblivious to everything going on around her (or outside her palace, at least).

While I can appreciate the craftsmanship of the film, I can’t say I was a big fan. Sure, there were plenty of gorgeous landscapes actually filmed on the grounds of Versailles (prounounced in French, not in Missourian…), and unbelievable costumes and decorative detail… The music was more modern (a la “A Knight’s Tale“), which was pretty interesting and not terribly detracting… Unfortunately, it’s a 2+ hour movie with maybe 1 hour of dialogue. It really just felt like an extended music video…mostly with music I’ve never heard (I think I recognized one song out of, like, twenty…).

So yeah, this is one of those movies I can “appreciate,” and by that I mean that it’s a well-done movie that is very beautiful to watch…but so’s Niagra Falls…and who can really sit in a chair and watch Niagra Falls for 2+ hours?

So, picture the end of “The Matrix Reloaded” and you’ve basically seen the whole of “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest“…well…not exactly…? (note: let me preface by saying that, unlike many, I thought “Reloaded” had many merits and was overall a decent movie, yet could have been executed a bit better.)

“Dead Man’s Chest” starts off a little while after the original flick and we find Elizabeth and Will Turner about to get married…until they’re both arrested for setting Capt. Jack free in the first movie.? Will, in exchange for Elizabeth’s and his own freedom, is charged with finding Jack and bringing “an item” (that I will not elaborate further upon) to the new baddie in town, Lord Cutler Beckett of the East India Trading Company (amongst others).? And then we get lots of sea battles, land battles, funny moments, and even a few sad ones…

…but, perhaps, what’s most key is that, in the end (without spoiling much), you’re set up for a third movie.? Sound familiar?? Where “The Matrix” could stand on its own, “Reloaded” and “Revolutions” must be viewed in tandem.? They were even filmed back-to-back, the same with “Dead Man’s Chest” (and the upcoming “At World’s End” next summer).

So, overall, I thought the movie was pretty good with top-notch effects and acting…even a decent (albeit long) plot.? Johnny Depp certainly fit into the role of Capt. Jack Sparrow like a glove fits on a hand, and was certainly a joy to watch, and the screen time was more evenly distributed between Depp, Knightly and Bloom this time around.? My only complaints, really, consist of the aforementioned “Matrix treatment” of the trilogy and the length.? The movie’s 2.5 hrs long.? Remember how long “Reloaded” seemed at points?? Same with this one.? There are plenty of scenes that could have been shortened to half their original length and still get the same effect…that, or cut out one or two digital effect shots to shave a minute or 15…

So yeah, if you liked the first one, you’ll probably need to see this one.? On the other hand, if you’re looking for a movie trilogy that has many of the same characteristics, but is already out on DVD, check out “The Matrix”…

So, picture the end of “The Matrix Reloaded” and you’ve basically seen the whole of “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest“…well…not exactly…? (note: let me preface by saying that, unlike many, I thought “Reloaded” had many merits and was overall a decent movie, yet could have been executed a bit better.)

“Dead Man’s Chest” starts off a little while after the original flick and we find Elizabeth and Will Turner about to get married…until they’re both arrested for setting Capt. Jack free in the first movie.? Will, in exchange for Elizabeth’s and his own freedom, is charged with finding Jack and bringing “an item” (that I will not elaborate further upon) to the new baddie in town, Lord Cutler Beckett of the East India Trading Company (amongst others).? And then we get lots of sea battles, land battles, funny moments, and even a few sad ones…

…but, perhaps, what’s most key is that, in the end (without spoiling much), you’re set up for a third movie.? Sound familiar?? Where “The Matrix” could stand on its own, “Reloaded” and “Revolutions” must be viewed in tandem.? They were even filmed back-to-back, the same with “Dead Man’s Chest” (and the upcoming “At World’s End” next summer).

So, overall, I thought the movie was pretty good with top-notch effects and acting…even a decent (albeit long) plot.? Johnny Depp certainly fit into the role of Capt. Jack Sparrow like a glove fits on a hand, and was certainly a joy to watch, and the screen time was more evenly distributed between Depp, Knightly and Bloom this time around.? My only complaints, really, consist of the aforementioned “Matrix treatment” of the trilogy and the length.? The movie’s 2.5 hrs long.? Remember how long “Reloaded” seemed at points?? Same with this one.? There are plenty of scenes that could have been shortened to half their original length and still get the same effect…that, or cut out one or two digital effect shots to shave a minute or 15…

So yeah, if you liked the first one, you’ll probably need to see this one.? On the other hand, if you’re looking for a movie trilogy that has many of the same characteristics, but is already out on DVD, check out “The Matrix”…

Brooke and I saw “Superman Returns” tonight and I’d place it up there with “Batman Begins” as a great way to rejuvinate a movie series.

The film gets started pretty quickly, apparently taking place after “Superman II,” and incorporating plot devices that end up supplanting the generally worse latter two movies (which I doubt many people will mind).? Essentially, Superman has been gone for 5 years and things have changed such that Superman needs to join the world again and get back to truth, justice and the American way…and as usual, Lex Luthor (in an excellent performance by Kevin Spacey) is around to screw it up with yet another dastardly scheme that threatens the well-being of Earth.

So, the movie overall was really good. The acting was awesome, the special effects were top-notch (as to be expected from a Bryan Singer movie), and the plot in general was strong. I really liked all the little plot points that Singer tossed in that pay homage to the original. The opening credits and ending sequences were very much the same as the original movie and even some lines were ripped from the original script. With that in mind, if you have access to the original film, I’d recommend you see it before watching this movie. You may want to watch the second also, but at least watch the first.

I only had two “complaints” about the movie, but they are pretty minor. First of all, the ending was kinda drawn out. Without giving anything away, the last 15-20 minutes were somewhat unnecessary and could have been resolved differently, in my opinion…but I can live with it… Secondly, the action scenes were good, but they weren’t up with “Spider-Man 2” and the like. Honestly, there isn’t much that could be done. While Spider-Man bounces around and swings all over the place, Superman just flies in straight lines and punches people. So, while watching a movie like “Spider-man” is very dynamic and engaging, the action scenes in “Superman Returns” are somewhat lacking. On the other hand, it is very badass to see him rescue a plane as it plummets toward Earth and land it in a baseball stadium…and to see him take a bullet in the eye and not flinch… I’m just saying that the action was good, but wasn’t particularly impressive as compared with “Spider-Man” (but I can’t see any way that could have been resolved without changing decades of history and lore).

That said, I think the movie was really good and well worth watching…so worth watching that I intend on seeing it again in IMAX 3D once Josh gets back from Virginia…and I’ll tell you about that after I see it…w00t!

So, Brooke and I wanted to see a movie this past weekend, but there wasn’t much out that we wanted to see (or hadn’t already seen), so Brooke looked through the movies playing at the Tivoli, which is a theater in town that plays independent or limited-release films. Anyway, one such movie caught our collective eye: “CSA – The Confederate States of America.”

The movie is told through the vantage point of a British documentary, recounting the alternate “history” of America where the Confederates won at Gettysburg, causing France and Britain to enter the war on their side and defeat the Union Army. The South burns the North and reconstructs it in their image, solidifying slavery’s grasp on the country. The “history” is recounted from that time up to present day, discussing how slavery continued here and how they took over South America, sided with the Nazis in WWII (i.e. they didn’t fight with them, but they also didn’t intervene against plans for “world purity”), and became the sworn enemies of Canada.

The neat thing about the movie was the “commercials” interwoven with the movie, taking place about every 15 or 20 minutes, coinciding with what you’d see if you were watching TV. These commercials included a high-tech shackle that contained a GPS unit so you could track your slave if they escaped…

Anyway, it was a pretty good movie. Since it was released in 2004, it’s unlikely that you’ll find it many places, but you may run across it in some video rental places “off the beaten path”… Either way, it’s worth looking for if you get a chance.? Certainly an interesting take on roads not taken…

…thankfully…

Josh and I went and saw “X3” today, and I must say, I was pleased.? I had read a few reviews before seeing it, saying such things like “lots of action, little ‘heart'”…or “not quite Bryan Singer, but still worth the popcorn”…? Personally, I thought it held its own very well with the other iterations.

The story mostly deals with a mutant that’s discovered that can “mute” the powers of other mutants, allowing for a cure for mutant-ism.? Some mutants are cool with this (mainly, Rogue…) while others (just about everyone else…) isn’t.? This theme allows for a large number of ethical issues to be brought up, and they were.? I thought there was a pretty good mix of “issues” and “action” thrown together in the movie; while the action in “X-Men” and “X2” were generally spread throughout, this one really concentrated the brunt of it at the end (I mean, there were action scenes in the movie, but they seemed relatively short except for the ending…).

My only real complaint was with the very beginning…? I read a few reviews mentioning the digital effects used to make Ian McKellan and Patrick Stewart look 20 years younger…and while Picard’s were done relatively well, I thought McKellan’s was a bit too obvious.? For the rest of the movie, the effects were pretty damned cool…especially the Jean Grey – to – Dark Phoenix transformations…? The action was well-choreographed and many favorites (Colossus and Storm) got much more “face time” than in previous movies.

I’ll make one thing perfectly clear, though: you must stay through the credits to watch the scene played at the end.? It is absolutely imperative.? Honestly, I thought the movie was “pretty good” when the credits started…and by the very end, I had to upgrade that analysis…’cause what was left hanging from earlier (threads that weren’t quite tied together…didn’t quite make sense as to why that scene was even in there…) was dealt with…and in spades…

Go see it in the theaters.? Don’t wait for the DVD release.? Buy it when it comes out, though…it’s a keeper…

Brooke and I saw “The Da Vinci Code” last night (for free, incidentally), and I must say that it was pretty good.? For some reason, I knew I’d like it in the end, despite what many reviewers were saying…but having read the book (Brooke read it twice, even…) and watched plenty of TV shows over the past year dealing with some of the issues brought up in the story, I was interested in seeing it on the big screen, putting a visual to the words in the book.

The movie, overall, was pretty well done, I thought.? I’d say it stuck with the book a good 90% of the time.? There were many times I thought that the words spoken on screen were taken directly from the book, as well as the transitions from scene to scene…but there were some other times where Ron Howard took a few “liberties,” especially in the specifics of the ending…but none of these changes were particularly distracting, unlike a movie I saw last Christmas…? I especially liked the way Howard added some digital effects so that we could see what was going through Langdon’s mind as he tried to crack the various codes…

Anyway, I thought it was a good movie.? From the perspective of someone who read the book and was interested in the subject matter, it was good.? If you haven’t read the book, or if you’re expecting some glorified action movie, then you may not…? It did have some suspenseful moments, but no truly crazy car chases or gun fights…although, there was a lot of running…

“The Da Vinci Code” is simply another good reason why you shouldn’t trust the critics in all matters…not that I do…ever…? 😛