linsenbardt.net

‘Tis fitting, perhaps, that my 50th review on this so-called “blog” be for “Cloverfield,” a movie by J.J. Abrams, who is also doing the new “Star Trek” movie opening on Christmas Day, 2008….but more on that later…

The idea is that Abrams, on a visit to Japan with his kid, noticed that Godzilla is a major part of Japanese culture, but America doesn’t really have a “Godzilla”… “King Kong” was kinda close, but not the same… Abrams set out to make his own “Godzilla” movie, and certainly in his own way.

The film is set during a party for Rob, who’s leaving for Japan for his new job. Hud is charged with videotaping people’s “farewell” wishes for Rob. Suddenly, the party-goers feel what they think is an earthquake, but soon find out that “something” is attacking New York City, only a few blocks from where they stand.

The movie goes on from there, with a small group from that party setting out to get off the island and save their friends that are still trapped. The entire movie is told from the perspective of this group, and visualized through this “handicam”. It looks very much like “The Blair Witch Project,” except that this movie is a). better financed, and b). actually good. So, as such, those of you that get a little queesy with the “shaky cam” views during movies may have some difficulty, but the movie sure seemed to be a bit more steady than “Blair Witch” was.

I thought it was really good, and provided more suspense than I expected walking into it. Considering that the movie is told entirely from this small group’s perspective, you wouldn’t expect to get good views of this giant monster attacking the city (and initially you don’t!), but Abrams and his director (Matt Reeves) cleverly allow the audience to catch glimpses, and then a full-on view at the climax. The effects were quite good and, most surprisingly, the sound was awesome. Frequently in sci-fi movies, you’ll have surround sound, but not like this! Since you were seeing the movie through the eyes of this camera, that also means that you heard everything that the camera heard, meaning that you feel like you were the one holding the camera the whole time. Thus, if you hear something behind you, the camera has to turn around and look. Since you don’t have that 3rd person view (ever!), you (the viewer) are more likely to identify with Hud, the guy holding the camera.

The other neat part is that the story unfolds for this group wandering through Manhattan, so you never really know what the “creature” is, why it’s there, where it came from, etc…and honestly, you don’t care. You identify with the characters (completely unknown actors, all of which do a great job) and find things out as they do. Sure, there are questions at the end, but nothing that really must be answered. If you see it, however, pay attention at the very beginning to the text on the screen – there were some idiots in the theater that didn’t read it at the beginning and were surprised at the ending.

So yeah, the movie was good. If you don’t get queesy watching the “shaky cam” for 1.5 hours (and it isn’t all shaky!), then this is worth your time.

Edit: Apparently, in the very last shot of the movie (Rob and Beth on a ferris wheel), there’s something in the water behind them…likely kinda hard to see… If you see the movie, watch for that and tell me what it is! I didn’t know about this when I saw the movie, and thus wasn’t watching for it…grrr…

On a side-note, the teaser trailer for “Star Trek XI” precedes the movie…and believe you me, I won’t mind bypassing my presents on Xmas morning to make sure I’m in line for the first showing… The teaser is awesome and it’ll be up here as soon as a good copy of it is available (YouTube has a really crappy quality version right now…).

It’s a good year to be a geek 🙂

Brooke, with her occasionally odd taste in movies (“No Country For Old Men,” anyone?) decided she wanted to see Tim Burton‘s “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street,” starring Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter. In actuality, I think she wanted to see it mostly because it was featured prominently in Kevin Smith‘s “Jersey Girl,” which she enjoyed quite a bit.

In all honesty, I kinda wanted to see it, too. I very much liked “Sleepy Hollow” a few years back, also by Burton and starring Depp, and a). reviews were quite good for it, and b). who knew Depp could sing? Well, he can…and surprisingly well.

The movie centers upon one Benjamin Barker, a skilled barber, who is wrongfully imprisoned by a corrupt judge (Alan Rickman) that fancies Barker’s wife. Barker returns 15 years later to find his wife dead, his young daughter now grown up and being raised by the judge, and he wants revenge. He begins to cut hair (and throats) in the old building he used to work in, now owned by Carter’s character, Mrs. Lovett.

Now, this is not your typical musical. The score is beautiful, yet haunting. The characters sing to each other, but there are no dancing choruses in the background. Brooke tells me, from what she’s heard, the musical numbers were changed rather dramatically from the stage version, yet the this one has the blessing of its author, Steven Sondheim. (note: if you find that article, Brooke, post that for the folks…) So yeah, the singing is prominent, yet not as in other musicals. The singing is almost spoken, in some ways, but there’s definite melody to each song. Kinda hard to explain…you’ll just have to watch… 😛

I thought it was pretty good, in the end. It had a few twists and turns, and quite a few…”quirky”…moments (as per other Tim Burton films…), the acting was solid, and the cast did surprisingly well with their singing. It was kinda hard for me to understand the words in some of the earlier songs (with the thick olde English accents…), but once they got into their groove, it was very easy to follow.

I will warn you, however, that it was quite bloody. Not really “gore,” per se…more like fountains of red… I’m sure this aspect is similar to the stage version(s), but Tim Burton likes to be “over the top” with such things. It was also rather disturbing to listen to the woman sitting behind us laughing every time Johnny Depp killed someone and dropped their bodies down to the sewers…

It’s worth seeing, especially if you like Tim Burton/Johnny Depp movies… Otherwise, it’s a nice change-of-pace from your typical fare out this time of year. Depp will likely be nominated for Best Actor awards for this one…and it’s easy to see why…

We went ahead and saw “Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem” today, fully knowing it probably wouldn’t live up to its predecessor, “Alien vs Predator” (which is saying a lot, as the first one wasn’t all that good, anyway…). This one picks up where the previous left off, with a “Predalien” (Predator/Alien hybrid) taking over the ship, causing it to crash-land on Earth in Colorado. Then, as one could surmise…the Aliens and Predators fight it out and a lot of people die with lots of explosions…

The acting was better than to be expected, and the effects were decent. In all honesty, I would have preferred more elaborate fight scenes. Much like the previous iterations, the action took place in darkness, so any fighting was somewhat difficult to see.

Overall, the movie was decent, and about as good as the previous one. That, and the “Predalien” was pretty badass… 😉 If you liked the other one, this one’s likely worth your time. If you are expecting the thrills and chills of better fare, such as “Alien,” “Aliens” and “Predator,” you may want to rent the DVD(s).

We went and saw “National Treasure: Book of Secrets” in Columbia this weekend, as Brooke and I both wanted to see it, and so did the rest of the family.

This one picks up awhile after the previous movie, and after briefly explaining what essentially transpired between the two films, this one jumps into the idea that the ancestor of Ben Gates (played by Nicholas Cage), Thomas Gates, was a co-conspirator in the Lincoln assassination. As a result, Ben enlists his father (Jon Voigt), his friend, ex-girlfriend (or is she?) and mother (Helen Mirren) in tracking down the crucial evidence to return honor to the Gates family name.

Now, I thought the first one was surprisingly good, despite what reviewers had to say about it. The puzzles were pretty engaging, the chemistry between actors was convincing, and the story was surprisingly fun to follow. Personally, I don’t think this one was quite as good, but if you liked the first one, you’ll still like this one. The puzzles presented were a bit “too easy,” especially as compared with the previous one. While the original film seemed to focus a bit more on the search within our nation’s history for certain artifacts, with clues left in the craziest of places (i.e. the $1 bill, the Declaration of Independence, etc…), this one did the same…but with greater ease to allow for more interaction between the multitude of great actors (Ed Harris was the bad guy in this one, but Harvey Keitel was still around in a supporting role).

In short, the movie was good and worth seeing, especially if you liked the original. Personally, I would have liked to see more “history” (which, admittedly, is not quite accurate…) and a little less focus on the interaction between the main characters, but it was still fun with plenty of laugh-out-loud moments and suspenseful sequences. It had significantly less depth than the previous iteration, but then again, if you want a fun time at the movies in the holiday season…does it really matter how much “depth” is there?