Tag: review

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…)

For the record, I’m very much enjoying Brooke having the job at the movie theater…since that means we get free movies every week… 😛

Anyway, we saw “Wedding Crashers” last night and I think I’ll have to agree with Andy S.’s review on this one. For the most part, it’s a very funny and entertaining flick…but, at the same time, it’s just about the same thing as every other movie that these actors (Owen Wilson, Will Ferrell, Vince Vaughn, etc.) have ever been in…

Yet, again, it’s a funny movie and worth seeing. While most of the movie was completely predictable, there were definitely a few parts that I didn’t see coming… Brooke even pointed out that the movie had more of a plot to it than she expected… The whole “crashing weddings” gig really only lasted for a 5 minute music video of sorts toward the beginning until the two main characters, Vaughn and Wilson, made it to Christopher Walken’s daughter’s wedding. There were many “laugh out loud” moments throughout the movie, which was the reason we went to see it in the first place (well…why I went…Brooke wanted to see what the heck John McCain was doing in the movie…).

But at the same time, I already bought “Old School,” so I’m not sure I’m going to have to buy this one when it comes out…since it’s practically the same movie…

So Brooke and I got to see “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” last night, finally… Overall, I thought it was a pretty damned good movie.

First of all, I don’t remember ever reading the book… Secondly, I think I’ve only seen “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” once or twice…so I don’t remember it, either. Therefore, my opinion of this movie is almost solely based on whether it’s a good one or a bad one…not its comparison to the book or anything else…

So, in light of this fact, I liked the movie. It was definitely “odd” at many parts and Johnny Depp did a great Michael Jackson impersonation throughout, but it was a very entertaining, humorous, and touching story throughout. Tim Burton was very successful in depicting the plight of Charlie’s family, as compared to the well-off and misguided other families who won a trip through the infamous chocolate factory. I particularly like Burton’s films because they’re so visually attractive. You can’t help but get immersed in the scenes and environments being depicted, taking advantage of the differences in color (i.e. dreary and bland outside the factory, yet very colorful and vibrant inside).

So yeah, I liked it. I thought it was funny, entertaining, visually stimulating, and honest about the human condition…helping to convey Roald Dahl’s initial vision for the book (as I understand it)…and also that spoiled children are evil, yet innocent, poor children are really cool… 😛

So Brooke and I saw “March of the Penguins” on Saturday night and I think we both agree that it was a good movie. What can I say? Penguins are cute. It’s hard not to like watching them. And seriously, it’s incredible what these guys/girls do every year.

The movie begins with the trek from the edge of Antarctica and follows penguins travelling (i.e. “waddling”) toward a more centralized, safer location where they will breed. The males and females will mate and the male will sit there for months without eating…just standing there…with an egg on its feet under a flap of skin to keep it warm. The females will go back to the ocean and then return again with food for the young after they’ve hatched. This is a 70 mi trip each way, keep in mind. This is all happening during a winter in Antarctica which, needless to say, is only slightly worse than a winter in Kirksville.

Anyway, it’s 1.5 hours long and very easy and entertaining to watch. Morgan Freeman does an excellent job narrating, of course, and the penguins are interesting to learn about. If you can see it, I’d recommend doing it. If anything, rent it sometime and watch it, if anything, just to learn more about these incredible creatures. No wonder the penguin is the mascot of Linux… 😛