Tag: review

First of all, $9.25 is far too much to charge for a matinee showing, regardless of “Digital Projection” or what have you.

Secondly, “Zombieland” is one of those movies that I probably would have paid little attention to normally, but it’s been awhile since I’ve seen one in theaters and Brooke was (surprisingly) willing to go along and see it (likely in return for Wild Cherry Pepsi and Sno-caps).

Anyway, “Zombieland” is about a group of strangers that meet up randomly whilst traveling across the southwestern United States after a zombie outbreak has brought civilization to a screeching halt.  Unlike your typical George A. Romero zombie movie, this one takes a more humorous look (a la “Shaun of the Dead“).  The movie is surprisingly funny, with plenty of creative ways to kill zombies throughout.  And the humor is genuinely funny, rarely forced – even Brooke was laughing throughout (though, admittedly, not as much as me).  You actually kinda care for the characters throughout, which is more than I can say for most other zombie movies.  This is probably the best movie Woody Harrelson has been in that I can remember, and certainly the most amusing.

I mean, the climactic end takes place in an amusement park.  Just think about all the fun you could have with zombies at the carnival.  🙂

There’s not much more to say about it, really, without giving away the more surprising bits of the film.  It’s not a movie that I plan on buying, but I’m quite glad I saw it.  It was a great way to spend a Sunday afternoon: a fun, and entertaining ride.

I went a little crazy at Family Video and rented quite a few movies…and went further crazy this Labor Day weekend and watched most of them with Brooke. I’m kinda surprised my eyes didn’t melt out…

1). Gran Torino – A recent movie from Clint Eastwood, this one centers on an old guy whose wife just died, and then seems to be losing the world around him as gangs move into his neighborhood. He slowly connects with his neighbors and begins to re-evaluate how he has spent his life and how he has treated the people around him. The acting aside from Eastwood is unimpressive, but the story was compelling. Honestly, we both thought the movie would focus on the gang stuff more than it did: it certainly played an important role in the movie, but the purpose of the movie was really Eastwood getting past his prejudices and making his neighborhood better a better place. Personally, I thought it was really good and well worth your time.

2). Tropic Thunder – Wow. This movie. I almost fell asleep. It was shockingly unfunny and I’m very glad I didn’t spend $8 to see it in theaters. To be fair, Robert Downey, Jr. was really, really good, and the sheer number of cameos was very impressive (watch for Tom Cruise…wow…). But other than that, it was amongst the least funny Ben Stiller movies I’ve seen, which is saying a lot, because Ben Stiller is generally unfunny except in Dodgeball and Heavy Weights.

3). Adventureland – Now, for some odd reason, this movie caught our eye when it came out awhile back, but we figured that waiting until DVD would probably be fine. It had quite a few people in it, but mostly B-level SNL people and some no-name folks. Anyway, the movie ended up being much more “coming of age drama” and less “comedy” than I expected for having Bill Hader, Kristen Wiig and Ryan Reynolds in it. I kinda think the movie had a few too many “threads” going on and really just made for a convoluted story, making it difficult to even tell you what it’s about, besides a bunch of folks working at an amusement part for “one crazy summer,” yadda, yadda, yadda. Regardless, it was an interesting movie, but not one I’ll ever need to see again.

4). Doubt – We watched this one last night, after wanting to catch it in theaters…it was one of those that came out at a time when we were pretty busy, so we never made it. In either case, I was quite pleased with it. It centers around a Catholic parish where a few nuns suspect the Priest of “associating inappropriately” with a boy at the school. The movie is based on a play by the same name, and you can see its stage roots by the structure of the story, and the characters (the play only has four characters, and this one only increased that number by a few, and only with very minor roles). Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, Phillip Seymor Hoffman and Viola Davis were brilliant and deserved the Oscar nominations they were rewarded with – it’s rare when all four primary characters are nominated, two for the same role. Anyway, we both liked it quite a bit – I’d definitely recommend it!

The first trailer I saw for “G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra” worried me greatly. In no way did it resemble the popular 80s cartoon of my childhood, and contained largely B-level actors and special effects.

For the most part, my initial assessment was correct.

The movie centers on the origins of the characters we know from the show, including Duke and Ripcord. At this point, Cobra, as an organization, doesn’t exist yet, but its leader(s) (specifically, Destro) are just getting started. A few old favorites, including General Hawk, Scarlett, and my personal favorite, Snake-Eyes, make their respective appearances early on, as you would generally expect: the Joes come in and save Duke and Rip Cord from the Baroness and Storm Shadow, then take them into their organization and train them to be the elite fighters they should be (wait…isn’t that how it happened in “X-Men?” …yup…)

The effects in the trailer looked terrible and, generally, they didn’t improve at all in the full feature film. There were definitely some cool sequences and transitions put in there, but a few extra effects dollars would have gone a long way to make it the spectacle it was trying to be. While they were at it, they should have tried actually spending some money on actors. Dennis Quaid (General Hawk) was barely a player (and wasn’t particularly good), and Christopher Eccleston (Destro) was wasted. Sienna Miller (The Baroness) did the best job of them all, in my opinion, but the guy they chose to play Duke was pretty horrible…and he’s the focus of the whole movie… Joseph Gordon-Levitt also makes an appearance, as well as Brendan Fraser…randomly…

There weren’t as many terrible one-liners in it as I would have expected, thankfully. There were actually a few funny moments, especially with the addition of Marlon Wayans (Ripcord) providing a little levity. Your trademarked “knowing is half the battle” was definitely in there as well, delivered by Dennis Quaid…and no, he wasn’t talking about staying off drugs… For the most part, however, the script and plot, as a whole, was derivative and cliche. Then again, it’s a movie based on a 1980s cartoon put out to sell toys…much like another franchise I know (that did it better).

That all said, it wasn’t as bad as it could be. Again, some of those action sequences were actually pretty sweet, but some extra money to make them truly top notch would have been welcome. While the acting was very, very bad overall, I didn’t really expect it to be good in the first place, so whatever…not a big loss…

Anyway, certainly not the best movie I’ve seen this summer, but I thought it would be a lot worse. I probably won’t be picking up the DVD, but I’m glad I saw it.

If I could describe the new movie, “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” in one word, it would be: extraneous.

A sequel to 2007’s hit, “Transformers,” the sequel starts off two years later, now with the Autobots helping the U.S. military track down the remaining Decepticons. Over the course of the movie, we find out that the Transformers as a race are quite old and have visited Earth before. One guy, The Fallen, had tried to take over the planet, defying the other Transformers (essentially becoming the first Decepticon). He was exiled elsewhere…at least, until Megatron and his cronies decide to revive him in an effort to finish the job, and take down Optimus Prime and the Autobots once and for all.

Here’s my main problem with the movie: it was just too much. The flick was 150 minutes long. They could have cut 20-45 minutes out of it easily and still maintained the general story they were going for. Instead, there were plenty of extra scenes of Sam’s parents, or introduction of needless characters (specifically, Leo). The time taken to reintroduce all these old characters, let alone the new ones, could have been axed entirely without the overall story suffering (specifically, I would have tossed the entire “going off to college angle,” as it really didn’t do much. It could have been reworked to simplify the story). The actual plot involving The Fallen, the history of the Transformers, and the developing relationship between Sam and Mikaela would have been enough for the movie – all the extra fluff was pretty useless (read: extraneous).

And while the action scenes and special effects were still pretty badass, I must say that I was disappointed in that ending. I won’t go into further details, but I wanted more. The fight scenes in general were decent, but nothing on an epic scale like in the first movie. Also, all these close-up shots of the Transformers fighting each other make it really difficult to tell who is who…

So yeah, it was a fun movie that actually had some funny parts (but didn’t pull off all the jokes they tried…especially with “The Twins”…I hope bankruptcy keeps Chevy from releasing those ugly vehicles…), but it certainly wasn’t better than the first one, and kinda lost some of the magic that the first one did. I’ll still pick it up when it gets released, but the original remains the far better film.

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!